Jump to content

Talk:Linus Pauling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The Father from Linus Pauling was born 11. April 1877 in Germany Nordhorn

He was a child from Wilhelm Diedrich Heinrich Pauling born 17 April 1833 in Gilten. He was the cousin from my Grandfather. 2 March 2008 Georg Pauling email georg_pauling@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georg Pauling (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the age. I will note that the end note: "Hager, p. 22." is ambiguous because there are at least two Hager books listed.70.113.69.97 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

i found this quote on a web site

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

there doesnt seem to be anything on the page about him being critical of cancer research can somone look in to if this quote is true?

it was from this web sight its on the first page at the bottom http://healingdaily.com/ NEMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo.shark (talk • contribs) 11:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Leftist politics?

It really isn't fair to say that Pauling got the peace prize for misguided leftist politics. Above ground nuclear testing causes fallout, which in turn causes cancer. One doesn't have to be a leftist to agree with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.36.74 (talk • contribs) .

The article doesn't say that--it says that those who opposed his campaign, did so for stated reasons. (If everyone in the world had opposed aboveground testing, it wouldn't have been done in the first place.) Vicki Rosenzweig
The article doesn't include Pauling's refusal to join the Manhattan Project. Ancheta Wis 09:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
That was no big deal. It was classified back then and few had any idea how big the yield would be. Linus pointed out there was more than enough war work around the country; he did his part. No one faults Rabi for working radar when he could have been working on the bomb. 198.123.50.176 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please explain this to me:

His political activism prompted the U.S. State Department to deny him a visa in 1952 when he was invited to speak at a scientific conference in London,...

Pauling was a US citizen, resident in the US at the time. Visas are issued by the destination country, to permit you to enter. And a citizen is always allowed to return, visa or not. Surely what is meant here is that the UK government denied him a visa? Or perhaps that he did not yet have a passport, and the US State Department refused to issue one? (At which point it would be the discretion of the UK government to allow him in or not.) Either way, as stated it cannot be right. Securiger 05:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Also

Later in life, he became an advocate for alternative medicine, specifically regular consumption of massive doses of vitamin C."

makes it sound like he supported alternative medicine in general, which he certainly did not. (In Vitamin C and the Common Cold he is scathing about "organic food", for example). I've changed it. Securiger 08:53, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


Pauling's U.S. passport was not renewed in 1952 because, as a State Department employee explained, " ...your proposed travel would not be in the best interests of the United States." See: Thomas Hager, Force of Nature: The Life of Linus Pauling. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995, pp. 400-401.

Correction

A correction: Pauling is one of three two-time Nobel Prize winners. John Bardeen is the only Nobel Prize winner to win it twice in the same field - Physics. He shared his first in 1956 with William Shockley and William Brattain for the invention of the transistor. His second came in 1972 for BCS theory in superconductivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helen B (talk • contribs) .

To correct your correction...Pauling is the only individual to win two prizes unshared. You will see that each one of the above scholars shared at least one of their prizes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.255.239 (talk • contribs) .
To correct the correction correction. I think the first author is disputing that there were 4 double-prize winners, 2 single field and 2 multiple field and suggesting instead that there was 1 single field and 2 multi-field winners for a total of three. I don't see her saying there was another unshared winner.70.113.69.97 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is from 2006 as the following comment attests. As the article now states, there were a total of 4 double Nobellists - Linus Pauling, Marie Curie, John Bardeen and Frederick Sanger. Bardeen and Sanger are listed in footnote 3 of this article, and each was a single-field winner: Bardeen in physics and Sanger in chemistry.Dirac66 (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The article didn't reflect these corrections adequately, so I updated it based on this info and that in the Marie Curie page. I assumed the information above was correct. Fauxvegan 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Emphasis added by me:

Interestingly, the Caltech Chemistry Department, wary of his political views, did not even formally congratulate him. However, the Biology Department did throw him a small party, and one cannot help but think that they were more appreciative and sympathetic toward his work on mutations caused by radiation.

Is this NPOV?--Fangz 22:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's NPOV or not. But the words you put in bold aren't necessary and should be removed (indeed, everything after the word 'party' should be removed). This is assuming that what is left is true, of course. jguk 22:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Caltech Chem Dept. redeemed itself and renamed 22 Gates Hall as the Linus Pauling Lecture Hall. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Modifications

In the introductory paragraph, I put in: "a pioneer in the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry" instead of "one of the first quantum chemists" because I think it better describes his essential contribution in a single statement. I also put in the parts about molecular biology and proteins because they were also very significant contributions that he made.--Ashujo 14.00 10 Feb, 2005.

Comment

Exactly where how does the author come to the conclusion that many scientists consider Pauling's later work as outright quackery? I hope it isn't from quackwatch.org which is headed up by an anti-nutritionist extremist married to pharmaceuticals. Even while Pauling was alive, he was against the work of the Institute that carries his name. They pretend to "carry on" his work and get funding thanks to his name, but it is very clear in his books that the institute does not carry on the work of Pauling because they recommend only moderate doses of vitamin C. Also, the largest studies around show vitamin C in > 1.5 grams/day has the strongest postive benefit to the heart of all known compounds, so I would like to see the author's reference to the published peer-reviewed literature that contradicts the abstract i have in front of me. And if the author doesn't know of that abstract, then he has no business writing about Pauling's later work. Also, there are many studies investigating vitamin C and cancer, most of which are positive or neutral, another gross error in the author's "research" that seems to have referred to only one "quack" website and "most" scientists. Can you reference the poll that was taken? I am sure it isn't a poll of nutritionists. - Scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.214.99.108 (talk • contribs) .

Vitamin C controversy

Extremely POV. The whole section seems *very* biased towards alternative medicine. I changed 'bitterly assailed by a number of critics associated with conventional 20th century medicine.' to the more neutral 'criticized by conventional medical professionals'. (213.17.42.122 12:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Dispite a cogent dissection of the second Mayo cancer trial, the carefully crafted tidal wave of adverse publicity effectively undercut Pauling's credibility and his vitamin C work for a generation.

Should read: "Despite two lengthy and expensive studies by the Mayo Institute, the effectiveness of Vitamin C as a cancer preventing agent remains entirely unproven." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.180.104 (talk • contribs) .

Very POV, and "needs a lot more background education, homework and information" about the Mayo-Moertel attack on LP. See [1] but the author still doesn't quite grasp some of the Mayo-Moertel test problems and tricks. Vitamin C's anticancer performance is, as yet, demonstrated at a level of certainty less than a conventional govt agency or pharmaceutical trial for an "authoritative proof" with a full scale double blind RCT for large amounts of vitamin C (Pauling originally wanted 50gm/day, closer to Klenner, and later Riordan, but Cameron had resource and administrative limitations). One investigator's work (Riordan) that carried on privately after the Mayo fiasco: [2], [3] "Entirely" is quite (conventionally) misinformed. It really has taken a generation to begin to recover from the Mayo PR assualt with careful technical and clinical studies, privately funded. --69.178.31.177 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Robinson devised some mouse experiments to test this amazing theory. By the summer of 1978, he was getting "highly embarrassing" results. At the mouse-equivalent of 10 grams of Vitamin C a day—Pauling's recommended dose for humans-the mice were getting more cancer, not less. Pauling responded to the unwelcome news by entering Robinson's office one day and announcing that he had in his breast pocket some damaging personal information. He would overlook it, however, if Robinson were to resign all his positions and turn over his research. When Robinson refused, Pauling locked him out and kept the filing cabinets and computer tapes containing nine years' worth of research. They were never recovered. Pauling also told lab assistants to kill the 400 mice used for the experiments. Pauling's later sworn testimony showed that the story about the damaging information was invented, while experiments by the Mayo Clinic conclusively proved that the theory about cancer and Vitamin C was wrong. [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.180.104 (talk • contribs) .

Mayo-Moertel proved nothing except perhaps incompetence or malice, see previous note and refs. They acted and completely failed to replicate the Pauling + Cameron protocols in ways that are easy to construe in the negative. --69.178.31.177 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This section of the article needs a lot of work. It's not at all clear to me what "despite a cogent dissection of the second Mayo cancer trial, the carefully crafted tidal wave of adverse publicity effectively undercut Pauling's credibility and his vitamin C work for a generation" means! Who carefully crafted publicity? -- pde 00:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It talks about the 'Mayo study' but never describes what it is. More worrying is that it alludes to some sort of conspiracy to shut Pauling out of funding without being explicit or citing any sources. This needs to be fixed soon. Ashmoo 04:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Moertel, a prominent oncologist at Mayo Clinic "nailed" Pauling with classics in dispargement in his "vitamin C RCT" articles prominently run in NEJM, 1979 & 1986. (Creagan FT, Moertel CG, O'FalIon JR et al. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to benefit patients with advanced cancer: a controlled trial. N Eng J Med 1979; 301:687-690. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Creagan FT et al. High-dose vitamin C versus placebo in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer who have had no prior chemotherapy. N Eng J Med 1985; 312:137-141.). The first trial was so poor, a second major test and a third minor one in between were run. Pauling hammered Moertel / Mayo (in non medical fields one might use words like error, misconduct, bias and/or incompetence for profound multiple & repeated failures to replicate as well as not compellingly demonstrate) and dug up a lot of hidden, damning details in the next 5 years (1986-91) but was unable to ever complete the tests' information recovery (natural defensive obstruction, often called stonewalling).
Of course, prominent Mayo researchers could never innocently f--- -- 2-3 times in a row, so it must be that LP was a senile old windbag (exactly how it was insinuated in the TV news of the time, and I was as guilty as most giving any credence to it). So the story has played for 20+ years, nice tale except it is documented as untrue even though Moertel probably took half the dirtiest details to the grave. "Conspiracy" no, more like normal competitive corporate backbiting, information warfare and hardball politics in specialty chemical sales where generics are dangerous orphans and fair game. Especially works well with non-technical & less blooded technical audiences. A previous attempt to review this situation [5]. You'll need to track down this book to get better details Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (1991) by Evelleen Richards, an intro to it Dr. Golem How to Think about Medicine (2005) by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch. I am not arguing LP was infallible and I am taking a generalized SPOV.--69.178.41.55 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is another scientific term for "multiple & repreated failures to replicate" the results of an experiment -- it's called proving the experiment's hypothesis wrong, and calling this incompetence betrays a total misunderstanding of science that throws everything else you've posted here on this issue into suspicion.--67.70.36.87 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Pauling, among other problems, pointed out the initial failure to use intravenous administration (see the NIH and NSA papers), actual differences in oral composition & administration, the brief and abrupt termination of vitamin C adminstration (vs to end of life), the need to use ascorbate blood levels for monitoring rather than urine which Cameron tried hard to communicate, the failure to control or even remotely adequately monitor ascorbate usage in Moertel's "controls". That Pauling used rather low amounts of vitamin C in the cancer treatments appears to be mostly an artifact of several influences and circumstances, most other orthomolecular researchers have used much more aggressive C & supplement regimens. Moertel-Mayo further worsened and/or lowered several parameters each time despite several chances and a decade to get it even close to right (never mind improve). Pauling used the word "fraud", the recent NAS/NIH papers do not contradict him and in fact provide some support for that view. Not understanding multiple serious experimental protocol failures in multiple tries "betrays a total misunderstanding of science", perhaps yours, certainly not mine.--TheNautilus 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Vitamin C does anything valuable, it is hard to dispute the fact that Linus Pauling lived to the ripe and productive old age of 93. The vitamin is a reasonable thing to take and recommend. Thank you for my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.120.208.101 (talk • contribs) .

That said, there's a lot of people who smoke and still live to the age of 93. That doesn't mean doing so will increase your life expectancy (which is what you'll get from looking at just those people). You can't look at case study of 1 and use it to justify a way of life. 203.5.70.1 11:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello--please don't delete my comments in the Vitamin C section about the Pauling-Moertel cancer research studies. Someone deleted a more balanced presentation of the controversy, and I don't think that's fair. Also, I reinstituted the discussion on the recent cancer studies that I think is much more accurate and detailed (and better-cited) than the original text. I added four new citations to the article, and I think they should be allowed to stay. Please don't delete these comments. Also, I renamed the section "Medical research", not "Work in Alternative Medicine", which understates the value of Pauling's contributions.--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are there other references for this quote: "Pauling himself was diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 59 and died from it at age 93. He attributed this long life to high vitamin C intake as well as the intake of other nutrients." http://www.biomedresearch.net/linuspauling.htm. Was he diagnosed at 59 first? Another question: Does any site mention which type of prostate cancer, or which stage he was diagnosed with? Bib (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the sources for the information in the career section?--Blakestern (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AIDS opinion from his radio show

Right before his death, on his radio show (whoch should be mentioned), I could have sworn I heard him advocating treating or curing AIDS by depressing the immune system. Can anyone confirm that this was a treatment being used back then by some radicals? I was close editing a sentence to read: "Later in life, he became an advocate for regular consumption of massive doses of Vitamin C, which is still regarded as medically unorthodox today, and for treating AIDS by depressing the immune system, which is no longer advocated." -Barry- 11:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ive actually thought of this myself about hiv, if it only effects the immune cells then if you could temporarly suppress all of those cells the virus has no where to hide, then discontinue suppression treatment and infuse a cocktail of antiviral inhibitors and drugs known kill hiv and it may work? because if it has no cells to infect then it cant replicate and change form which is why most scientists say a vaccine wont work. nemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo.shark (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pauling co-authored a PNAS paper in 1990 (Suppression of human immunodeficiency virus replication by ascorbate in chronically and acutely infected cells [Harakeh S, Jariwalla RJ , and Pauling L. PNAS 87:7245-7249]), reporting that vitamin C strongly inhibited viral replication, as assessed by reverse transcriptase and p24 antigen assays. The authors suggested that a combination of high-dose vitamin C to prevent viral replication and AZT, which prevents the de novo infection of uninfected cells, may be a good therapeutic strategy. I don't think that Pauling suggested that ascorbate depresses immune function. On the contrary, he speculated that immune enhancement may be one of vitamin C's great attributes, especially in fighting viral infections like the common cold.

"quantum chemist and biochemist"

It seems to me that he should also be called a physicist.

Pauling, in a public lecture at Cal Tech, around 1960, stated proudly that his appointment there was in physics as well as in chemistry, or at least that was what they had told him before he came. Later, in Santa Barbara, he published on nuclear physics, though I do not know how much he accomplished there. It has been suggested that a major journal bypassed its usual editorial policy to be able to publish a paper by a double Nobel laureate.

But little known and unimportant details aside, covalent bonds, though they may be chemistry now, were clearly also physics when he worked on them. David R. Ingham 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin peer review

Please read the Rosalind Franklin article and contribute to the peer review. Your comments would be much appreciated. Alun 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion categories

Although the article does not seem to mention Pauling's religion, as often happens, zealous Wikipedians seem to have added him to their favourite religions. So he's currently a Unitarian-Lutheran humanist. As far as I know, his parents were Lutheran and religion wasn't really his cup of tea... but any categorization of Pauling's relgious views should be backed up by statements in the main article and those should have references. TheGrappler 22:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I think it was Paul Dirac who theoretically re-discovered purling, not Pauling: http://www.dirac.ch/PaulDirac.html --Ewen

"Cogent"

Pauling was greatly mocked after the Mayo episodes. Even though Pauling's scientific criticisms are simple and powerful (Moertel completely failed to *replicate* the work and fundamentally approached the test design in a high handed and biased manner, as shown in prior stmts, subsequent correspondence & actions), Pauling was simply brushed aside in the media as a doddering old fool that one still treats somewhat respectfully. LP's writing and interviews after that show that he was still mentally acute. His cancer work with vitamin C is undergoing a quiet scientific rehabilitation within the last two years in mainstream publications (NAS, NIH), some of them linked in the section. "Dissection" alone is easy to interpret as an unmeritorious backlash. "Cogent" is hard to properly replace.--69.178.41.55 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that everything you say here is highly POV. I'm sure Mayo, Moertel & 'the media' would say that his criticisms weren't 'cogent' or 'powerful'. This is obviously controversial, so we can't take sides when we describe the controversy. Ashmoo 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It may seem so, this is the usual situation when politics hit hard up against SPOV. Moertel's situation *is* surrounded by adverse facts, many not well known or understood in context. I don't think the article should *belabor* Moertel, just directionally note it and move on, rather than rub their nose in the article (Whole sentences or paragraphs). There is a huge information lag and preconception problem here, afflicts a lot of people (doctors & researchers - did you research / trawl for your info an hr, a day, a yr or a decade? most do an instant scan). This is also why Richards sociological documentation and Pauling's dogged dig for details were important. This very vitamin C protocol issue: quantity, IV vs various oral types, duration, & controls issue (max bloodstream concentration) is one of the major, hidden tectonic fault lines in the wars over orthomed, *entirely unaddressed* publicly in conventional medicine until these past 2 years (showing up to a scientific fist fight with ZERO data is usually considered a loser unless you own the umpire, hmmm...). It will take a while for most people to become fact based on this shift in the conventionally recognized medical facts. However, unlike Cromwell, I don't expect them to go dig up and shorten anybody.
Only recently has it become possible for outside technical people to pop up a significant fraction of the details on the Mayo-Moertel fiasco with small investment. If one has insight into dirty science conflicts, to see this kind of detail is very sobering, and annoyingly scandalous. Moertel's behavior would be unacceptable by current publication standards (failing to archive pertinent data and to fully answer qualified reviewers). He also obviously ignored documentation or background from any source of actual clinical experience with high dose vitamin C (never mind Pauling & Cameron, whither Klenner (MS-MD), McCormick (MD), Kalerkinos (MD), or Stone (biochemist) ) that any *careful* researcher would have considered at length in a sensible test design. He blew through so many opportunities to correct the test design and complete the record afterwards, it is hard to avoid imputing negatives to his handling of the whole affair, never mind his handling of Pauling. If you look carefully at the NIH paper, they are admitting error in the Mayo-Moertel trials (no initial IV ascorbate segment, 10g/d x 10d, no real test, no foundation whatsoever). There are great problems with the Mayo-Moertel trials and now that we are beginning to bypass the edifice complex, some people/institutions may be chagrined. I am not the one saying this - the recent NAS, NIH, CMAJ articles are, sotto voce.
Now, I also want to be clear that I am *not* saying that 10g/d vitamin C is "the answer" or even an answer, even IV vitamin C or that "Pauling was absolutely right about vit C". I also once found a comment that Pauling had wanted to test 50g / day but Cameron simply couldn't overcome his own local politics. Klenner, *the* original high dose IV vitamin C clinician apparently had unpublished high dose experiences that may have been (surely?) passed on to Pauling. Klenner advocated 90g IV vit C /d in an unpublished paper (summarized posthumously). A fair statement is that Moertel had ZERO relevant data to castigate vitamin C or LP here (non representative tests) and played politics heavily, grossly (over)generalizing his peculiar (relative to documented IV vit C usages) tests' results.
Lest you think I am an uncritical LP groupie, consider this: coming from a much different US region, when I was younger, Pauling's interviews on camera always rubbed me the wrong way. With Cameron, Pauling was overcautious, he settled for dangerously too little, when he needed to be testing the 30g-100g/day IVC region of Klenner. One may respect LP writings, even though there are things that time has improved upon since. If it helps, 20 years ago I pretty much felt the way you do when I first heard the Mayo-Moertel tale. I have learned a few important things since then.--69.178.41.55 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but it is still your opinion (however informed). We need to provide NPOV and sourced summaries of the controversy. 'Cogent' is totally POV. If you can quote someone who used the word, do that, otherwise there in no need for it. Better to use sources that document the affair and let the reader decide whether it is 'cogent' or not. Ashmoo 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Spheron, structure of the atomic nucleus references

I think that this section is all an interesting work that should probably be a separate, expanded article with such detailed references perhaps there. Pauling had a lot of notable and quotable work, the main article is getting close to unwieldy and needs to leave the mindspace for high priority summary writings. I would suggest that 1-2 hot links be added to the "External links" section, only one refernce be added to the references list, the rest of the hot links go in line in the "Spheron, etc..." section. I will ask, that long term, these references be removed from Talk and be put in another, more specialized LP article or on a subpage - archive.--69.178.41.55 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

cut & pasted unaltered here, some improvements on the references remaining inline: Publications by Linus Pauling on the Spheron Nucleon Cluster Structure of the Atomic Nucleus

Pauling, Linus, "Structural Basis of Neutron and Proton Magic Numbers in Atomic Nuclei", Nature, Letters to the Editor, Vol. 208, Oct. 9, 1965, p. 174

Pauling, Linus, "Structural significance of the principal quantum number of nucleonic orbital wave functions", Phys. Rev. Lett, 15, Sept., 1965 pp. 499

Pauling, Linus, "The Close-Packed_Spheron Model of Atomic Nuclei and its Relation to the Shell Model", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 54, No. 4, Oct. 15 1965, p. 989 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-012.html

Pauling, Linus, "The Close-Packed-Spheron Theory and Nuclear Fission", Science, Vol. 150, No. 3694, Oct. 15 1965, p. 297 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-026.html

Pauling, Linus, "Structural Basis of the Onset of Nuclear Deformation at Neutron Number 90", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 15, No. 22, Nov. 29 1965, p. 868

Pauling, Linus, "The close-packed-spheron theory of nuclear structure and the neutron excess for stable nuclei (Dedicated to the seventieth anniversary of Professor Horia Hulubei" Revue Roumain de Physique 11 no. 9,10. July, 1966, pp:825-833 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-048.html

Pauling, Linus, "Magnetic-Moment Evidence For The Polyspheron Structure of the Lighter Atomic Nuclei", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 58, p 2175, 1967 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-068.html

Pauling, Linus, "Baryon resonances as rotational states", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA Vol. 56, 1966, pp:1676-1677

Pauling, Linus, "Geometric factors in nuclear structure", in Maria Sklodowska-Curie: Centenary Lectures. Vienna:International Atomic Energy Agency, 1968, pp. 83-88

Pauling, Linus, "Orbiting Clusters in Atomic Nuclei", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA Vol. 64, No. 3, November 15, 1969, p. 807 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-075.html

Pauling, Linus, and Blethen, John, "Resonance Between a Prolate and a Superprolate Structure of the 162Er Nucleus", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 71, No. 7, July 1974, pp. 2905-2907

Pauling, Linus, "Structure of the Excited Band in 24Mg", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 35, No. 21, Nov. 24, 1975, p. 1480

Pauling, Linus, and A.B.Robinson. "Rotating Clusters In Nuclei", Can. J. Phys., Vol. 53, 1975, p. 1953-1964 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-084.html

Pauling, Linus, "Structure of the Excited Rotational Band in 40Ca", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 36, No. 3, January 19 1976, p. 162

Pauling, Linus, "Superprolate Shape of the Spontaneous-Fission Isomer 240Am^m", Physical Review C, Vol. 22, No. 4, Oct. 1980, p. 1585

Pauling, Linus, "Changes in the Structure of Nuclei Between the Magic Neutron Numbers 50 and 82 as Indicated by a Rotating-Cluster analysis of the Energy Values of the First 2+ Excited States of Isotopes of Cadmium, Tin, and Tellurium", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 78, No. 9, Sept. 1981, pp. 5296-5298

Pauling, Linus, "Comment on the Test for Tetrahedral Symmetry in the 16O Nucleus and its Ralation to the Shell Model", Physical Review Letters, Vol. 49, No. 15, Oct. 11 1982

Pauling, Linus, "Prediction of the Shapes of Deformed Nuclei by the Polyspheron Theory", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 79, April 1982, pp. 2740-2742

Pauling, Linus, "Rules Governing the Composition of Revolving Clusters in Quasiband and Prolate-Deformation States of Atomic Nuclei", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 79, Nov. 1982, pp. 7073-7075

Pauling, Linus, "Discussion of the coexisting O+ band in the doubly closed subshell 96Zr on the basis of the polyspheron model", Phys Rev C 35, 1987, pp:1162-1163

Pauling, Linus, "Regularities in the Sequences of the Number of Nucleons in the Revolving Clusters for the Ground-State Energy Bands of the Even-Even Nuclei with Neutron Number Equal to or Greater than 126". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 87, June 1990, pp. 4435-4438

Pauling, Linus, "Transition from one revolving cluster to two revolving clusters in the ground-state rotational bands of nuclei in the lanthanon region"., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol 88, 1991, pp:820-823 http://osulibrary.orst.edu/specialcollections/rnb/26/26-125.html

Pauling, Linus, "Analysis of the energy of the first four excited states of the ground-state rotational bands of the even-even lanthannon nuclei (58Ce to 70Yb) with the model of a single cluster of nucleons revolving about a sphere", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol 88, 1991, pp:4401-4403

Pauling, Linus, “Puzzling questions about excited superdeformed rotational bands of atomic nuclei are answered by the two-revolving-cluster-model”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA Vol. 89, 1992, pp. 8963-8965

Pauling, Linus, “Analysis of a hyperdeformed band of 66Dy86 on the basis of a structure with two revolving clusters, each with a previously unrecognized two-tiered structure”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA Vol. 91. 1994, pp.897-899

==

As the person that provided these references, I find no problem with the removal of these papers from the main article, as long as the important topic (e.g., that Pauling invented a very interesting cluster model of the atomic nucleus) is maintained on the article page.

Suppression of outright error

The Cassileth statement pushes a factual error, sourced or not, and asserts a dubious, unreferenced majority as current professional opinion (that they of course have lots of doubts maybe, or extremists' stmts such as QW continuing to try to influence opinion, but such bumpkin catcalls by 50+% as an individual's professional stmt seem unlikely in the face of current science and trends on vitamin C). Btw, the "professional" societies in this aspect might be better identified as an anticompetitive, financial POV that is often sustained by a number of antiscientiic dodges including misrepresentations of irrelevant tests including likely scientific frauds (repeated, 2-3 strikes in test designs in multiyear efforts is hard to swallow as mere oversight or incompetence), ad hom, persecution and decades long resource denial (failure to test or approve testing). I removed the bigoted, blatantly erroneous stmt by Cassileth (...no benefit), after citing an unrefuted, simple demonstration by counterexample of an absolute stmt in the edit summary; more are available at Orthomolecular Medicine talk, some real doctor examples included. Your assertion that a majority of MD doctors would be so dismissive to an objective public or an encyclopedia is highly dubious and has no current reference, eg. "51+% of US doctors denounce Pauling's vitamin C work and dance on his grave" the way you do (pharma paid, alcohol influenced, herd or revival-like personal behaviors aside, this assertion of a dogmatic majority seems hardly encyclopedic and unlikely at a professional level). Your QW refs are wholly inadequate to support a statement on the current state of affairs in medical opinion. Few, if any, doctors that I have actually talked with would make such an naked stmt, they tend to say something along the lines of "we never discussed Pauling's vitamin C theories in med school", "I didn't have much training in nutrition" or "oh" - you need a really good reference here. I kept the refs as an example of sentiment but think it will be better handled at OM alone. You are eager to bash a notable person with your "Brother Stephen" anti-OM denunciation campaign, that has been repeatedly shot down & sustained at the "list of ps" and your (several of you) highly advertised references often have multiple flaws such as the BCCA page (I previously stopped at about 4[6] problems, have another half dozen that I would rather not work up) and Cassileth's absolute (wrong) stmt. Controversial yes, and the historical "quackery" charge adequately addresses the issue. The " ps" pejorative and Cassileth's "no benefit" misstatement have been addressed repeatedly now, and will be addressed as QW advertising (where you apparently are involved with the site) & trolling henceforth.--TheNautilus 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fsylee, you persistently ignore any facts, counterexamples and reasoning on this subject, as above and previously[7][8][9]. [10] Mere citation, is not sufficient in the face of broader, longer known undisputed facts. Linas' examples could have been "more orthomolecular" but he is basically on target. Another example of undisputed orthomolecular treatment benefits would be megadose niacin for dyslipidemias since 1956 (Dr. Wm Parson, then at the Mayo Clinic[11]), in amounts up to 9 grams per day (vs RDA of 14-18 mg)! The large scale Coronary Drug Project and Canner Study[12] showed a substantial gain in life expectancy with only 6 years use at only 2 to 3 grams of niacin per day. Some even more striking were published case histories that included up to 75%+ cholesterol reduction in the 1950s (cholesterol starting at 750), a generation before the statins. No drug matches pure niacin's performance in improving HDL2 as well as greatly improving triglycerides, fibrinogen, LDL and Lp(a). Even some pharmas have begun to test or market niacin, alone[13] or in combination[14][15]. Since B3- niacin therapy originated with Abram Hoffer[16] you can't get much more orthomolecular. With this fact alone, Cassileth had no excuse for making that counterfactual, bigoted statement then or now, and it destroys her statement's credibility as a reliable or expert source. You have not cited any basis for asserting her stmt as a current "majority" medical view (it will be interesting to see who else wants to demonstrate themselves as cargo cultists :-> ). You nakedly reverted in the face of the facts and logic w/o discussion presumably because you assert an unfair, unscientific, childish version of WP:RS policy or that orthomolecular treatments accepted by conventional medicine are no longer orthomolecular medicine, confuting alternative medicine as synonymous with orthomed with respect to acceptance by the "mainstream" destroying alt med status. Orthomed is both mainstream and alt med as Dr Harris explored at length earlier in orthomed Talk[17][18][19][20].
Let me set forth a few respective problem's of Cassileth's stmt with WP:RS and your part of that sentence[21] under WP:RS: (1) the Cassileth quote part fails basic fact checking with megadose niacin for dyslipidemias much less others[22]; (2) Cassileth is an anti-alt med partisan of long duration -[23]- this compromises RS:Issues to look out for"... agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report..."; (3) you provide no citation for current medical opinion (such as surveys), post 2005 Vioxx, Celebrex, Baycol, Tequin etc. as well as the PNAS & NIH about-face on the Mayo-Moetel tests[24] with respect to vitamin C pharmokinetics[25] (openly or tacitly agreeing on different points by Pauling) or the 2006 Finnish restudy[26] on vitamin C test analyses for respiratory problems that show clear error in previous "mainstream" medical analyses & their error laden negative pronouncements on vitamin C; (4) you (& your "mainstream" moonbeam friends) quote no relevant tests/data or studies on actual recommended orthomolecular megadose treatments, rather the "mainstream" fake or strawmen tests, as Dr Harris discussed in orthomed talk[27], also exemplified by meager "mainstream" respiratory test examples of 0.2 to 3 gram/day vitamin C orally oid vs orthomed's 30-200 grams/day AA orally to bowel tolerance, divided does every 0.1-2 hr, for respiratory treatment. Time to put Cassileth's cherished misstatement aside.--TheNautilus 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Linus Pauling

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction of dates needed

The article states both 1970 and 1972 as the date for LP getting the Lenin Peace Prize

Student: Edgar Bright Wilson

(147.241.58.2 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC))The reference to Edgar bright Wilson as a student is commented out probably because there is no article on Wilson. Wilson was a famous chemist in his own right and also advisor to Nobel Laureate Dudley Herschbach. I don't have the wherewithal to give him a page, but he deserves one.

The year Pauling was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

The "Activism" section of this article says:

Public pressure subsequently led to a moratorium on above-ground nuclear weapons testing, followed by the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. On the day that the treaty went into force, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Pauling the Nobel Peace Prize [...]

Is this really correct? Pauling was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962, but this passage sounds like Pauling was awarded the prize right after the treaty became effective by their signing in 1963. Was he really awarded the prize on the day that the treaty went into force? Or could a treaty be effective before being signed? --Occhanikov 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the reference indicated, it looks undoubtable that Pauling was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the day that the treaty became effective. But, as explained on numerous websites, it is also true that he was awarded as the 1962 laureate. Does it imply that the Nobel Peace Prize for 1962 was on hold and waited for the treaty to be signed? Is anyone here familiar with this problem?--Occhanikov (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is Linus Pauling buried?

This Wikipedia article notes that Linus Pauling was buried in the Oswego Pioneer Cemetery. That is true as far as it goes. There are Paulings buried there (based on personal observation of gravestones, summer, 2007). But Linus Pauling is no longer buried there. Lake Oswegans know that the family moved the burial some months after the original internment, but the destination is not known. Does anyone know where Linus Pauling is presently buried? Etnelav 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)etnelav

He is there, see the gravestone here. Aboutmovies 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Not according to this from the Oswego Heritage Council: http://www.oswegoheritage.org/history/mythsmuddles.html (see item 8). --Esprqii 18:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Reading the old news clippings, there is no mention of burial. A memorial service was held at Stanford and he had family in the Bay Area. So I would just guess either (1) he's buried in Calif.; or (2) he was cremated and left only the marker, but no body, in LO. But that's speculation. Maybe someone else can find out for sure. --Esprqii 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Development of the electric car

After talking with archivists at the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers and with Tom Hager, Pauling's biographer, I think that this section should be verified with references or deleted. Pauling clearly talked with colleagues in the chemistry division and other academic departments at Caltech, but I have found no evidence that he actively worked on the development of an electric car. Without such substantiation, this Wikipedia section is unwarranted. Any objections or comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.21.87 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. From all I have read on Pauling, I haven't come across a discussion of his contributions to an electric car. I would surely like to see some reference on that- Ashujo November 4, 2007, 13.02 —Preceding comment was added at 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

COTW and Back to FA Notes

I went through the limited notes from the A class review, FA review, and latest FAC and here is what's left to work on:

  • Clean up the lead
  • Cite all the unsourced items (most of the article)

I removed the trivia and genealogical sections, and re-named the "Marriage" section, which seems to have been most of the complaints. So if we can start sourcing the info, re-do the lead (break into about four smaller paragraphs), and then just copy edit it should be ready for at least GA. Aboutmovies 07:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can take a crack at the lead, there does appear to be some information that could be pruned or included elsewhere in the article, not to offend anyone but the lead should give the most notable aspects of Pauling, adding things like crystallography, molecular physics and medical research while true don't necessarily belong in the opening. The crystallography article does not include Pauling amongst its list of notable scientists, nor is he listed as a "founder" of molecular biology even though his work would certainly be considered important in that field. Awotter (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be great. Note that the problem with the lead is for an article this size it should be a bit longer. But it is far too scientific accomplishment oriented. It needs to be a summary of the article that would include some personal info (like places lived), and probably a few less wikilinks. I would cut out the info on others (no need to list those who did discover the double-helix or other two time Nobel winners in the lead) and move it elsewhere if not mentioned elsewhere. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that I did a pretty big reversion, I tried to use the guidelines you posted and the lead paragraph from the time it was a FA to make it a more accessible lead in to the article and emphasized all of the major areas he was accomplished in as well as the purely scientific ones. I know a big concern for some might be putting "scientist" in the opening sentence rather than the more specific ones in the info box. The reason I did this and referred to him as a chemist and then the specific fields he was in is because they progress from those two and I think that is clearer to non-academic readers. From what I gather he was down to earth and had a sense of humor so I tried to reflect that a bit as well.Awotter (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll (and I'm sure others) will take a look and see about other items to address before we nominate for GA. Note, disregard anything from the previous FA version. The reason it was de-listed was not because the article had changed, but the standards have changed and become much more strict. The reviewed version for FA would not even pass GA today. My next task will be to try and reduce the ELs by incorporating them as references where possible. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN quick-failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article at this time for the following reasons. The article is currently undersourced, with several sections within the article completely lacking inline citations (the article does a good job sourcing most of the article though). I'd recommend going through the articles and adding sources for all statements that may be questioned over the verifiability by the reader. There are also several "citation needed" tags that all need to be addressed before renominating. Image:Pauling Vit C Book Cover.jpg also needs a detailed fair use rationale to allow the image to be included on the article. A simple fix that is needed, is that the inline citations need to go directly after the punctuation with no spaces in between (this occurs several times throughout the article). Once you have corrected these issues, have an outside editor look it over for a copyedit and check the rest of the GA criteria. When this is completed, please consider nominating the article again at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good work so far, but keep working at it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quasicrystal blunder

During the '80s Linus Pauling was one of the most vocal opponents of quasicrystals. Today it appears that he was most certainly wrong but at the time his authority allowed him to publish his less and less convincing papers. As spin doctor put it: his criticism incited researchers to improve their data. Refs on this topic are easy to find and perhaps it should be mentioned in the article.195.96.229.104 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Linus Pauling's birthplace

There is strong reason to believe that Irwin Abrams is incorrect in suggesting that Pauling was born in Oswego, Oregon. (as currently suggested on the Pauling article and cited in footnote 4) In his biography "Force of Nature: The Life of Linus Pauling," author Thomas Hager notes that Pauling was born "in a cheap apartment house on the edge of Portland's Chinatown." (pp. 22-23) Pauling himself confirms this in the transcript of an oral history interview conducted in May 1980 by Ilona Fry ("The Pauling Catalogue," Oregon State University, Vol. IV, ref: bio5.028.1): "I was born in Portland, Oregon, the 28th of February, 1901." A certified copy of Pauling's birth certificate has been digitized and posted on Oregon State University's PaulingBlog at http://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/featured-document-linus-paulings-birth-certificate/ Petersec (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oregon State University vs. Oregon Agricultural College

There can be no debate that when Linus Pauling graduated from college the name of the school he attended was Oregon Agricultural College. Unfortunately, readers do not easily connect this with the schools current name, Oregon State University. This is why it is best to refer to the college as Oregon State University throughout the article and at some later point mention its early name. Readers will better identify where and which university we are talking about by referring to it as its current name and not a now non-existent school name. By noting the early name later in the article we will have supplied the reader with sufficient information to understand what the name of the school was when he graduated. FYI: This is not my own formatting style, most American universities have dropped the use of their early names and only mention them in historical reference to eliminate confusion.AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What schools do does not matter on Wikipedia, we have our own Manual of Style. That said, we do not pipe links to the article of the same name i.e. not: [[Oregon State University|Oregon State University]] as this is a waste of space. Piping is for using a link, but changing how it appears to the readers. The fact remains he graduated from OAC, not OSU. To avoid confusion on the subject at Wikipedia we normally go with: [[Oregon State University|Oregon Agricultural College]] (now Oregon State University) ... or: Oregon Agricultural College (now Oregon State University)... But either way it needs to reflect the school name at the time of graduation. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a direct link to where this is stated in the Manual of Style. Thank youAgntOrange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The school was known as Oregon Agricultural College at the time he graduated. For accuracy's sake, we should stick with the original school name and mention in parentheses what the school's current name is. Also, you don't pipe links when the link and the piped text is identical. It just defeats the purpose of a piped link. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it is factually incorrect to state that Pauling graduated from an institution that did not exist at the time. -Pete (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to make accusations of factual incorrectness that's fine. We then should ferret out all of the bios on great alumni from all universities and make sure their bio states the actual name of the institution used when they graduated. Do you have any idea how many bios would need to be rewritten in Wikipedia to accommodate this rule? As just one of 100s of examples: Caltech was known as several names, including Throop College, until 1921. MIT was known as Boston Tech up until 1916. I could go on and on.
As one example of many you will note that this article uses the term "Caltech" to describe Throop College well before the name change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_of_Technology#History The standard has already been set. AgntOrange (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just for kicks here are a couple samples of this standard for MIT grads. Notice the bio utilizes the current name of the school first. This is repeated throughout Wikipedia more often than not:
I —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgntOrange (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
AgntOrange could you please read WP:TALK so you can properly format your posts (you can sign them to with ~~~~). Then see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists why we are not concerned about the other articles. In time they too can be corrected. So far WP:CONSENSUS says OAC. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the disruptive editing going on and the redundancy of giving your opinions again, could folks please weigh in on the informal straw poll I've created, in order to clearly show that there is consensus (or not) for the (at the moment) current version of the article? Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OSU or OAC?

The article should refer to the name of the school he attended, with ample clarification about the current name of the school, which could look like, but should not necessarily be limited to this version. Katr67 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch a RS for a claim of quackery

Quackwatch is essentially a self-published source. Self-published sources are only appropriate if the individual is noted in the field:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Stephen Barrett is not noted for his work in science, much less in biomedical research.Thus, his claim is not a RS for the claim that Pauling's work was regarded as quackery, and should not be used. Find a better source; it should not be difficult to do. Note that I left the sentence -- you can probably back this up with a RS. Please reply, Fangz, and revert yourself unless you can somehow show that Barrett is a RS. You claim that Barrett is a RS that "the claim was made". But we don't allow just anyone to make a claim on this encyclopedia. I could probably find some websites making some pretty crazy claims -- but that doesn't mean they should be added to Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is mainly not facts, but rather claims. ImpIn | (t - c) 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from it. Barrett is a highly notable (respected by the mainstream, and hated by the fringe) medical journalist and writer, and probably the world's foremost expert on the subject of quackery. (No one has proposed anyone who knows more, except possibly Jarvis, who is retired.) That's why he's an expert on that subject. His articles and many of the other articles at Quackwatch are written by experts in their fields, and his board of advisers make their input before articles are published. The articles are often updated when newer information comes to light. His opinions (which are always backed up by documentation and sources for further study) should be presented as skeptical opinions, and are thus an important part of such sections or POV in controversial articles. We document existing notable facts and opinions here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This particular article is on Pauling's vitamin C research, and it is by Barrett. Barrett may be the foremost expert "quackery", but he has no formal education in "quackery" or in biomedical chemistry, which is what Pauling's work was in. The fact that a psychiatrist is the world's foremost expert on quackery puts substantial doubt on its definition as a field -- it suggests that quackery is whatever he calls quackery. He created his website, making it essentially self-published, and wrote most of the articles . His opinions may be backed up by reliable sources, but they are still the opinions of a self-published non-expert. I could start a website and cite claims, but that wouldn't make my website a RS. Trace back to his sources and use them -- Quackwatch is not reliable enough to make such a strong and slanderous claim on a Nobel Laureate. If you'd prefer I take this to BLP/N, please say so, because I'm not yielding this point.
Note that I would be more sympathetic to using Quackwatch if we weren't dealing with the scientific work of a Nobel Laureate. For things which are more obviously psuedoscience, sure, I can see using Quackwatch. But this isn't. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You are forgetting that Barrett is a medical doctor (and the recipient of an honorary membership of the American Dietetic Association), while Pauling was out of his field. That's where he went wrong and Barrett is far from the only one who disagreed with him. Barrett actually discussed these matters with him and exchanged letters with him and thus got the evidence of dishonesty that makes Barrett's investigations a good contribution to the subject of why Pauling went wrong on this point. That should not detract from his greatness in other areas, no question about that. But this area was an unfortunate digression that greatly tarnished his reputation in the medical and dietary fields. BTW, use of Quackwatch has already been discussed at various noticeboards. This is not a BLP issue in any sense. -- Fyslee / talk 06:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee's wording is not accurate, even SJB said "less than", not "dishonest", in SJB's article whose basis is very selective, technically obsolete, and misleading (see 1-2 yrs referenced discussions in OMM:Talk on cancer & C). Also SJB's prime quote is from an individual that had (1) hooked Pauling's precious funds (years of effort) for a hard won vitamin C experimental lab program to some Christian fundamentalists' diet plan and generally PO'd many other LPI officers, staff & researchers when Pauling finally hit the ceiling, (2) tried to push Pauling out and completely takeover LPI, its grants & name, (3) who then filed lawsuits against LP and LPI totaling ~$62 million, (4) later acknowledged Pauling did publish the correct data, in its totality, showing the "negative data" to not be significant (that particular mouse datum also appears to contradict extensive previous govt *hominid data* that translates to 4000 mg C/day in human equivalents as closer to optimum), (5) whose retreat to rural Oregon included advocating/designing fundamentalist bombshelters, highlighting other polar personal-political differences, overcoming Pauling' charisma, that sadly vaporized their mutual interests & research. There seem to be a number of RS issues here on both source (QW) and source of sources (AR).--TheNautilus (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not a BLP, sure. But it's still an issue of building an classy encyclopedia, and not slandering the dead is part of that. I like your edit. It eliminated the possible slander from a weak source. I still think it would be better to reference a more professional source, and have found one (source); actually the first source in the references section. For you, as an opponent to vitamin C, I'm afraid I have bad and good news. The source uses the word quackery (333) in regard to Pauling's vitamin C claims. But then it turns around says that the connection between vitamin C and cancer "has become a respectable topic of discussion" (334) after some interesting papers. I have the edit window open right now, and the changes are about done. As far as out of Pauling's field, I don't see that at all. Pauling did work in molecular biology and founded molecular medicine. Biochemical nutrition is not far from that. I'm interested in seeing how you can possibly think that this research is out of his field -- please elaborate. The fact remains that in order to self-publish and be considered a RS, Barrett must have published in reliable sources in the field (see above). Barrett has not published except on his website, which makes him, technically, unreliable. I'm not averse to working to change the guideline, but it is policy. If you want to bring it up on the policy page, I'll put my input -- I think Barrett is citable in obvious pseudoscience. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Harri Hemila, one of the current conventional medical reviewers/authorities (PhD Biochem, MD, PhD PH, Cochrane Review author on vitamin C) most involved with vitamin C and respiratory disease, directly criticizes Barrett's statements on vitamin C (very germane to the QW attacks on Pauling & C) as "Barrett’s presentation of facts [on vitamin C & colds]... have been markedly biased", p.64 and "Barrett’s claim...appears grossly misleading"[28]. Hemila also cites med school profs Goodwin and Tangum on conventional medicine: " [G&T] (1998) provided several examples to support the conclusion that there has been systematic bias against the concept that vitamins might be beneficial in levels higher than the minimum required to avoid classic deficiency diseases"[29]--TheNautilus (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If we are discussing credentials we should not forget that Barrett has never been board certified in psychiatry. He failed his Board Exam and never tried to retake it. MaxPont (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Error in Barrett's article

Barrett's paper does not cite the "3 Mayo Clinic trials" correctly, and in fact seems to be confused. In fact there were only two Mayo Clinic trials (see Discussion and sources 8,9 on this paper, or 3,4 in this paper). One of them happened in 1979, the other one happened in 1985. This sort of error would not happen in peer review, and it is the reason we prefer to use peer reviewed, published sources. If I'm wrong, please point it out. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my revision, I removed reference to the article with the error as well as [the Pauling paper, as better sources provided the information. Barrett cites the exact same paper for Mayo Clinic #1 and #2 as separate citations (6,11). I've tried searching for citation [12] from Barrett's VC paper in PubMed with no luck. He completely neglects to cite the second Mayo paper, which happened in 1985. Very strange. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange reference (dead link) Dunitz in the text

On several places in the text there is a reference, for example (Dunitz 333) with the URL[30]. The link is dead. I guess it is a reference to: Dunitz, Jack D. (November 1996). "Linus Carl Pauling, 28 February 1901–19 August 1994". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 42: 316–338. Can anyone clarify that. MaxPont (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you check the edit history, you will see that it was a formatting mistake introduced here. It has now been fixed. Other than that, that's just the standard Harvard referencing being used in this article. Katr67 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "NLM" :
    • {{cite web| title=The Linus Pauling Papers: Biographical Information | | url=http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MM/Views/Exhibit/narrative/biographical.html| publisher=[[United States National Library of Medicine]]| accessdate = 2008-02-11 }}
    • {{cite web | title=The Linus Pauling Papers: Biographical Information | last= | first= | date=| url=http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MM/Views/Exhibit/narrative/biographical.html | publisher=[[United States National Library of Medicine]] | accessdate=2008-02-11 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unrelated fields"

The intro states that he is "the only [person] to win two [nobel prizes] in unrelated fields". What makes two fields unrelated? Marie Curie won prizes in both physics and chemistry. They're both scientific, but not the same subject. Are Pauling's Chemistry and peace more unrelated? "Unrelated fields" is not very specific. It should be changed or clarified.

Matthias Rath

Is the sentence

"Pauling's protegé, Dr. Mathias Rath, M.D., continued his early works into cellular medicine, expanding the volumes of data about natural substances related in disease prevention and alleviation."

necessary in this article? I'm not sure of its relevance.--TraceyR (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs a source, so I have tagged it. If it's true, then it could stay in one form or another, even though associating Rath with Pauling will only tarnish Pauling and give Rath undeserved glory. If it's an insignificant detail, then it could be considered promotion and internal linkspam. In that case it should be removed. Let's see a good source that is totally independent of Rath that places the matter in proper perspective. I'm sure the same could be said of many others, and we don't mention them, so your concerns about relevance are well-founded. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the Rath reference should be deleted. His relationship with Pauling was short, stormy, and ended badly; Pauling would not consider the statement as written an accurate representation of their relationship or Rath's position vis-a-vis Pauling's work. Pauling, during his long career, had a decisive influence on a number of careers, and his work was carried on more directly by any number of students, postdocs, assistants, and visiting faculty members. To include Rath and not include the others is to skew history unnecessarily. Tom Hager, Pauling biographer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relhager (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Influential" status needs a source and mention in body

I have restored a fact tag for a sentence:

  • "He was one of the most influential chemists in history and ranks among the most important scientists in any field of the 20th century. [citation needed]"

I would agree with that statement, and have no problem with the statement as such, but it's not sourced, and I don't see the subject directly mentioned or sourced in the article, so it fails on two counts. To be mentioned in the LEAD, it must be discussed in the body of the article, and that discussion must be sourced. Maybe I'm not seeing it. If it's there, please correct me. I hope I'm wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Molecular medicine and medical research

In the section titled "Molecular medicine and medical research", the paragraph that begins with the sentence, "As of 2007, new evidence was proposed by a Canadian group showing that intravenous vitamin..." has nothing to do with Pauling. Perhaps this content is more appropriate for another article such as Vitamin C and the common cold. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin C query

Section 1.2.4 of the article states, with regard to Pauling's reaction to research which found no anti-cancer effects for vitamin C: "Pauling denounced the conclusions of these studies and handling of the final study as "fraud and deliberate misrepresentation",[67][68] and criticized the studies for using oral, rather than intravenous vitamin C[69]". I have recently been discussing Pauling's views on vitamin C with a self-professed expert on Pauling, who is convinced Pauling's views are commonly misrepresented. He in particular denies that Pauling objected to such studies failing to use the intravenous route. Before directing him to [69], I felt it prudent to double-check it provided evidence Pauling expressed such a view. Having done so, I cannot find therein any clear evidence Pauling himself explicitly observed the import of which route these studies used (although the authors of [69] do themselves mention that Pauling's own earlier studies, whose conclusion was of course different, used an intravenous route whereas the later ones did not, and mention that this likely reduced vitamin C levels in the bloodstream of patients in the later studies). It is possible that [69] does somewhere show that Pauling himself raised such objections as these, but I found no evidence of that. I am sure the many people who have worked on this topic before will be in a much better position than me to see where, if at all, [69] shows this; if it does not, then presumably this citation must be removed. (As to whether an alternative source should be found, the claim should be left without one or the claim should be removed altogether, I've no views.) So, does anyone know? 90.218.21.224 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the atomic nucleus

In addition, some of the wording suggests that it is not the model that was wrong, but its reception by the scientific community, cf. for example the phrase: "Taken at face value, the conclusions of Norman Cook imply that the 1965 Pauling Spheron Model of the atomic nucleus has simply been ignored." This will confuse the reader: the model was not ignored, it was assessed by the community, and rejected (or forgotten) because it did not bring anything new, and did not lend itself to test experiments. In short, it did not qualify as science, but as pseudo-science. This confusion is enhanced by expressions like "...but more likely Pauling was taking a unique approach to understanding the relatively new discovery in the late 1940s..." It may have been a unique approach, but it was a dead-end. Again, the model is qualitative only, does not yield verifiable predictions and is anyway totally outdated today.

I have reformulated this paragraph to make these few points clearer: while Pauling was certainly a genius in chemistry, his late in life contributions in nuclear physics did not bring anything valuable to this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schunck (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am particularly concerned with the conclusion you added:

t was sometimes said at that time that this work received more attention than it would have if it had been done by a less famous person. In particular, critics could point out that the model does not discuss at all what interaction could bind the spherons together. It does not address either the origin of this clustering, e.g., in the context of the theory of the strong interaction. Lacking of any quantitative proposition as to how spherons interact, most of Pauling's papers on the subject (see references given above) are qualitative discussions on well-known experimental facts: they are therefore void of any predictive power and do not explain anything that could not be interpreted quantitatively in the context of the shell model. Pauling's model has therefore been quietly forgotten.

It is completely uncited and therefore it looks like original research WP:OR to me. If you supply citations to support your conclusions, fine. Otherwise at least that part of your edit has to be removed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dr.K that the conclusion needs sources. If none are provided in a week or so, this paragraph should just be deleted. Dirac66 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems like a reasonable deadline. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added several fact tags to this paragraph. The deadline proposed above has passed anyway, so perhaps it should be removed altogether. It is also inaccurate, in that the spheron model may no longer be held in high regard but it has not been "forgotten" as claimed - simply removing a recent reference to it (see above) doesn't help to make this case. --TraceyR (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it is now time to remove this paragraph which I will do. If someone wants to provide this sort of overview, it should be supported by sources. Perhaps in the form "X has described the impact of Pauling's nuclear theory as ...." with proper footnotes. Dirac66 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Fermat prize in Mathematics

Surely he didn't win the Pierre Fermat prize in Mathematics back in 1957, when in fact the prize was created in 1989. Is there a second Pierre Fermat prize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.35.175 (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The list of awards and honors had a broken link to a source document on the Chemical Heritage Foundation. I have succeeded in fixing this link, and it does indeed include the 1957 Pierre Fermat Medal (not prize) in Mathematics. Perhaps there was an earlier Fermat medal before the current Fermat prize? Dirac66 (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There are images of Pauling's Pierre Fermat Medal from the Pauling Catalog here, with the following description: Circular medal with portrait of Pierre Fermat on obverse. Reverse has inscription: Academie des Sciences Inscriptions et Belles Lettres de Toulouse, Au docteur Linus Pauling, Prix Nobel 1957. (Only the 6th time this medal has been awarded in the last three centuries.). This could be mentioned in the article. It doesn't mention when the medal was first introduced or how many awards have been made since. --

TraceyR (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I have added a note after this medal in the list, with the website you found as a source. Dirac66 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
And I have now added a request for more information at Talk:Fermat Prize. Dirac66 (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin C

The article currently claims that:

the view of the medical community at the time, Pauling's hypotheses about high dose vitamins went considerably beyond the evidence base available. More recent research has caused a re-evaluation of his work and the importance of vitamins to health.

Firstly, Linus Pauling's position was on the taking of high doses, not the importance of vitamins for health. Secondly, the position of taking very high doses of vitamins to fend off the cold does not seem to have the claimed support in recent papers [31]. It does not have support for taking high doses of vitamins to prevent cancer from what I can see e.g A high dose of beta-carotene and retinol actually increases the risk of lung cancer: [32]. The source [33] appears to be extremely vague about which studies and its conclusion that "Pauling's ideas about molecular balance and health are increasingly important to a health-conscious public, as well as to a growing number of health professionals." appear also to be vague. It seems at odds as to what actual studies say. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

Because of the refusal of User:67.168.251.241 to discuss, and their persistent efforts to edit over the objections of other editors, I have requested semi-protection. They should discuss their concerns here and convince other editors before repeatedly attempting to make their edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this request. Dirac66 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I have done so for 1 week. Let us see whether he forgets about by then. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The lack of communication is the biggest problem here. An editor who just plows ahead and refuses to discuss just creates problems. We need to discuss their concerns. Maybe this will get their attention. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Pauling Road in Monee, Illinois is another homage."

I'm sorry if I'm not following proper procedure, but I couldn't figure out how to do it! I wanted to add a "citation needed" to the "Pauling Road in Monee, Illinois is another homage." sentence, as I think it's untrue.


Rachelewhite (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Vibrational bends?

In the section about nuclear structure, Pauling is quoted as saying in an interview: "Now recently, I have been trying to determine detailed structures of atomic nuclei by analyzing the ground state and excited state vibrational bends"; this is a correct quotation from the cited source (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/pau0int-9) but surely "vibrational bonds" would make more sense. Has anyone access to a primary source for this statement to check this? --TraceyR (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

For molecular vibrations one type of vibrational motion is bending. For example in a water molecule, the H-O-H bond angle increases (opens) and decreases (closes). Perhaps Pauling envisaged a similar type of motion in nuclei. Dirac66 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linus_Pauling/Archive_1&oldid=1136909941"