Talk:Organic semiconductor

Untitled 1

From the end of the first paragraph of this page:

Typical examples for semiconducting oligomers are: pentacene, anthracene and rubrene. Some semiconducting polymers are: poly(3-hexylthiophene), poly(p-phenylene vinylene), F8BT, as well as polyaectylene and its derivatives.

Is "polyaectylene" a typo? Should it be polyacetylene?

Untitled 2

The link "www.organicsemiconductors.com" at the end of this page is no longer working.

Melanins and coincidences?

It is interesting to see that User:Drjem3 is also admirer of PProctor's work on melanins, which is now mentioned three times in the article. Mlanins nor the work of Weiss et al, nor Proctor et al are usually not even mentioned in discussions of organic semiconductors, e.g Naarmann's "Electrically Conducting Polymers" in Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. doi:10.1002/14356007.a21_429. All authors want to be recognized, but we must bear in mind the readership - we dont want readings concluding that melanins are anything more than a historical footnote.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

:No concidence. I asked drjem3 for his input. He has previously refrained from editing this area. But arguably knows more about it than anyone, including myself.

As for whether "melanins" are of interest in this field, I refer you to the homepage of the National Museum of American History's "Smithsonian chips" page [1].

This states: "The Chip Collection is a continuing collection work-in-progress concerning a small part of the permanent collection of the Division of Information Technology & Society's Electricity Collections."

This includes items like the original SCSI interface, germanium and silicon crystals from TI in 1950, etc. About half way down is the gadget in question. There is not a single other organic polymer-based device in this rather select assortment. Go argue with them whether it is significant or not.Pproctor (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to "Smithsonian Chips"

This is more specific than "smithsonian" and gives some history of the device. I may start a wikipage named smithsonian chips. But for now please leave it (or not).Pproctor (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over on talk:polyacetylene

We are having an interesting discussion over on talk:polyacetylene, if anyone is interested. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for input

Anybody with knowledge of the field is invited to contribute to the discussion at Peter Proctor. Nucleophilic (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Discovery" part of Nobel is contested, not the Nobel.

"Discovery" of conductive polymers part of Nobel is contested, not the Nobel. These are two separate matters which should not be confuted. This has been considered in detail elsewhere. I will post quotes, etc. Nucleophilic (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Inzelt (2012) says:

It should be mentioned that the "discovery of conducting polymers" in connection with polyacetylene is an exaggeration not only because of the example of polyaniline described above since polypyrrole was prepared even earlier... [mentions Weiss et al] ... Very deep is the well of the past.

This is not exactly "contesting" the Nobel citation, is it? "Contested" makes it sound like Inzelt is mounting a campaign to overturn the decision or similar. The reality is, he says the phrase "discovery of conducting polymers" is an exaggeration but the work is still very important. --Ben (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you over-interpret. Inzelt carefully makes it quite clear that he is not contesting the Nobel. Once more, he disputes the discovery, part of the Nobel citation ("for the discovery and development"), not the Nobel itself. Again, Inzelt points out the obvious. Namely, that because of the prior reports of essentially the same thing from Szent-Gyorgyi and Isenberg, the Australians, etc., the "discovery" part of the Nobel is an "exaggeration", as Inzelt rather politely puts it.

At the same time, he says that the modern field dates from the Nobelist's discovery, which generated considerable interest in the area, which the previous (if equivalent) discoveries had not done. While not completely clear, he seems to feel that they they deserve the Nobel for this alone, whether the citation is right or not. But he also clearly makes the point that this discovery was merely a one episode in the series. Seems clear enough.

BTW, until reading Inzelt's new chapter, I did not realize that conductive iodine-doped polymers (al la Shirikawa et al) actually date back to Szent-Gyorgyi and Isenberg in 1960. Part of my efforts have been to follow this discovery back as far as possible. This runs it back three more years. Nucleophilic (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

== Check out discussion on talk:Nobel prize controversies ==

Check out discussion on talk:Nobel Prize controversies Nucleophilic (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Organic semiconductor#Merger proposal

Background: articles associated with this topic have been "owned" by a collection of sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive). These include the prolific editor User:Nucleophilic whose comments are lined-out above. Now for the first time we can consider what we want to do with these various articles to best serve our readers. There are four overlapping articles: Organic electronics, Organic semiconductor (this one), Molecular electronics, and Conductive polymer. The proposal is to blend the first two. Even the third, molecular electronics seems another likely candidate, but one merge is enough for now and then we can reassess. Suggestions? --Smokefoot (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the opening of this discussion reflects why I and other well-informed, practicing colleagues—the 4 in 5 referenced below—have generally decided not to give much time and effort to chemistry articles at Wikipedia—the politicization of process. Even if the contentions here made could be fully substantiated, the denigration of other contributing editors and self-elevation of ones own perspective are rarely justified. My views, in short (and to the contrary of this editor, as represented here and at her/his User page): [1] General reader utility (provided by readability, best consistent formatting, etc) is an esteemed goal worthy of our time and effort, but it is secondary to an article's having scope proper to the field, thoroughness of content reflecting actual expert thinking, and factual accuracy, these latter being the foundations of a useful, readable article (as content with proper scope and accuracy can be made readable, while inaccurate, misguided content is always just that, even if eminently readable); [2] All editing animals are not created equal, where I and seemingly nearly all informed, well-educated individuals (chemists or no) would rather the creative tension of a group of experts to suggest proper content direction (evidence success of TED and other expert venues), rather than the guesses of those whose knowledge comes solely from interpretive reading of other encyclopedias (versus other appropriate—though occasionally User-denigrated—secondary sources such as Accts Chem Res, Chem Revs, Chem Soc Revs, etc); and [3] Any argument for not citing "friends" is, prima facie, flawed and unnecessarily anti-elitist in a way that flies in the face of how modern chemical knowledge is acquired, since any article with contributions from well-informed chemical professionals will cite other well-informed professionals within their sphere of relationships (given the very "small world" of leading discovery professionals). Bottom line, mate: Guard this venue carefully. You'd not want the Corey's, Baldwin's, Nicolaou's, Seebach's (et al) of our profession, or their lieutenants, contributing here; they might tend to dominate discussions, and cite one another. Better that all have equal voice, regardless of true expertise. Be damned that opening this process to the best would, in the (new) process, elevate the chemistry to the first class some (laughably) propose it already to be. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• oppose Organic electronics is broader than just semiconductors. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Next time, why not inquire before you revert? This merger proposal has lingered here for months. Now that I invested some work, you revert me! Why not discuss before lowering the axe?

Of course I know that organic electronics is broader than organic semiconductors, but the topics overlap so strongly and the contents are very similar. There are a few true organic metals, but very few. And some are even superconducting, but most revert to semiconducting state near RT.

In February or so, a breakthrough was made that revealed that a large stable of sock-puppets were protecting these otherwise very similar articles in order to promote their work and to argue their grudge against the Shirakawa Nobel Prize. You were not part of that investigation but a number of old hands where where. A small part of the drama is indicated here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Proctor. I could write a long history on this but time is short.

Looking forward to your response so can I proceed with what I was doing. Suggestions: (1) call in some other chemist to advise? or (2) do you recommend that we merge the other direction? --Smokefoot (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being addressed as a sockpuppet. If you really think so, then follow WP:SPI. If not, then don't use attacks on other editors as an excuse for merges where you already admit that, "Of course I know that organic electronics is broader than organic semiconductors,". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is accusing anyone of anything, aside from my accusing you of operating in an impolite and impractical manner to a colleague. With thousands of edits to my record, I leave notice of a plans to renovate, today I start the challenging work of merging two articles that have been complicated by a sockpuppetry, and then bingo! my good faith edits are all reverted without any warning. Not the usual way to treat a colleague.

I made two suggestions and commented on some technicalities about this class of materials, what do you think of those comments and suggestions? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Without any reference to sockpuppets or to your consensus of one, can you please explain why it is appropriate to blank the non-semiconductor conductive polymers in favour of merging everything to organic semiconductors? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

When two articles are merged, one title is blanked, inevitably. But the non-redundant content is rescued and interwoven into the enhanced merged product. My sense and my experience is that the two topics Organic electronics and Organic semiconductor are so close that having separate articles is a disservice to readers interested in learning about the use of hydrocarbons to conduct electrical current. The materials are very similar as indicated by the very similar history and reference sections - mainly polyacetylene-, thiophene-, pyrrole-, aniline-based materials. All are semiconductors in the states that are examined in the bulk of the papers and all of the technology. Polythiazyl and certain CT salts (e.g. derived from tetrathiafulvalene) are metals under certain conditions but these materials were not part of these two articles.

Your input is certainly welcome, especially if you have specific technical suggestions. I hope that you will allow me to proceed with the merger work and judge the product (hopefully on talk pages!) after I am further along. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've raised this at AfD, to achieve a wider audience for it.

Today I happen to be working with some (very simple) electronics, and in particular a number of simple and very cheap mechanical sensors, based on conductive polymers. These are about as crude as electronics get - just simple force-sensitive resistors. They are organic, they are polymers and (AFAIK, I didn't make these) they have no semiconductor materials within them and they certainly aren't displaying semiconductor properties.

There are a large range of organic polymer electronics out there that are likewise too crude and simple to be regarded as semiconductor devices. This stuff isn't rocket science, that's for certain. Yet they fall outside the scope of organic semiconductors and they exist and are notable, thus warrant coverage. I still fail to see your argument for blanking coverage of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of organic electronics was incorporated into organic semiconductor, so characterizing the merge as blanking of content is not appropriate. If there are objections to the merge, then discuss it here. I'll notify the relevant WikiProjects. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to say which is more inappropriate: blanking organic electronics, or merging non-semiconductors into organic semiconductor. If there exists a topic for notable non-semiconductor organic electronics, then neither of these are an appropriate change. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merger I am afraid that I don't understand the reasoning behind the proposed merger of organic electronics and organic semiconductor; they are completely different subjects. Organic semiconductors are a class of organic materials. Organic electronics is about the application of organic insulators, semiconductors, metals and structural components to the field of electronics. While organic semiconductors are used in organic electronics, they are not all of organic electronics. While organic electronics is one application of organic semiconductors, there are plenty of non-electronic aspects of these materials that are notable. For instance, doped polyacetylene is one model system for the study of charge density waves and in general, there has been much study of the physical and chemical properties of organic semiconductors that have little or nothing to do with electronic applications. Both organic electronics and organic semiconductor are independently notable topics, so a merge from notability concerns is also not warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Opposed. As above V8rik (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. For the reasons detailed. Don't want to seem uncivil. However, from the above, the real rational seems to be grave dancing and not improving the site. However, as an alternative would suggest merging this page and other pages with conductive polymers. Jordan951 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This article overlaps conductive polymers and also organic semiconductors. However the scope is still different. Why is there any need to remove this article? Overlap just isn't a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see things differently. I hope some of the above act to improve these artices, as I tried. Lots to do around here and thanks for the input.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Opening a merge proposal with a long description of past sockpuppetry seems to me to be a meaningless distraction. It really does not matter who has been involved in these articles in the past and what their motives were. A merge proposal needs to explain why the articles should be merged based on the material in the articles, not who wrote it. This proposal does not do that, but there are plenty of rationale reasons given why both articles should be kept. SpinningSpark 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, until editors can focus on the merits of the proposed merge, let's not do the merge. ~KvnG 16:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Despite some overlapping content there are clear differences that our readers will appreciate. The aim here is to increase the coverage, not to reduce it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. But would consider further proposals to merge with conductive polymers. Personal note: I have been following this page and this matter for some time. And yes, Smokefoot does have a pattern of incivility. "Lay" misstreatment of expert editors is a major reason why editor retention is so dismal (only one in five makes it thru a year). Many academic departments and universities use the same IP number for everybody. Thus, you could probably prove "sockpuppetry" with most pages where several experts contribute from the same institution. Simply-stated: Anybody intent on real sockpuppetry would use different IP numbers. Fizicist (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fizicist's statements regarding response to expert input is consistent with this editor's experience, and resulting curtailment of participation. Cheers. LeProf

Various tags added calling attention to dearth of citations

In particular, I have called attention to the use of the article's opening to cover material that is not covered in greater depth in the body of the article, where citations should appear with the factual information. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please explain...

I am an academic faculty member that does periodic article commenting, checking and editing. I am unclear on why some of the talk appears with "strike through". Could someone please explain why this is the case? Thank you. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Strikethrough is used for a few different purposes. If an editor wants to change a vote or retract a statement, they may strike it rather than outright delete it. If sockpuppuets are discovered, then their contributions may be struck, as an indication that the contributions were made under false pretenses. --Mark viking (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. Then this is fallout of the conclusion that since an array of individuals all contributed to the articles contending that Procter's biophysical work on melanin should have been given greater historical consideration, they all must be the same individual, or be in close cahoots. I find this to be utter Wiki-prizewinning nonsense. Though I'd never heard of the man before today, if I'd believed firmly in the matter of Procter's due consideration, I'd have argued forcefully and consistently for it at the time (maneuvering and pitched argument being a standard part of the prize run-up and decompression). But I believe the Wiki-matter could be settled simply on its merits—whether the reference to the earlier report of the conducting bio-polymeric system is accurate and relevant, whether there is literature discussing it in relation to the prize-winning work, etc. Perhaps Procter's work merited a line. I simply cannot fathom that it merited removal as editor of an academic faculty scientist with tens of peer-reviewed publications and two advanced degrees harder to come by then, than now (this from a 5 min web look into his background). Rein in editors where the facts warrant, but don't expect well trained scientists to be without opinions, or personal flaws. And, by the by, as much as I might disagree with some of this editor's posted content, I simply do not believe, based on edits that I inspected, and the broader activities of N's of which I am aware, that Nucleophilic is one of a "procterian" array of multiple personalities. Thus, one might argue that at least this one of the implicated was implicated unjustly. Bottom line, one can agree with an academic argument, and pipe in on the matter in a timely way—we all have our pet issues—without being self-same or co-conspirator. And if one's net can be shown in a case to be catching something other than fish, the aim and/or ability of the fisherman has to be questioned (think real-world sustainability issues). Cheers. Far too much on this, tonight. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, sockpuppetry investigations involve more than noticing similarity of content; uninvolved admins are called in to investigate IP addresses of editor contributions to determine if the puppets are geographically close or using the same IP address. Sockpuppetry is considered a serious matter because of the anonymity of editors and the consensus based process here--consensus only works if we are convinced that the editors that are agreeing are indeed independent. Agreed that deciding based on the merits of the content and sources is best, but that only works if everyone involved is reasonable. Personally, I have never experienced any anti-expert bias at WP. If someone challenges an assertion I make, I back it up with a reliable source. Problem solved. --Mark viking (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was mocked, early in my work in wikipedia, for being a Professor, after expressing surprise that I had to persuade a trio of ensconced, and apparently purely amateur editors to stop reverting a factual matter, for not having first gotten their permission to edit. Taken to task were my misunderstanding the technical editorial functions of wikipedia ("doing it wrong"), and not following proper, prior (!) consensus-seeking procedures ("doing it wrong", pt. deux). In a "he should know better" fit, one individual even searched out my University, and presented personal information on me in a talk page. Hence my low view of the wiki process, and of the supervision and "quality control" it exercises over its editors. (And, the reason that I rarely log in.)

More important are matters of process as it relates to retaining expert subject area writing participants. If an authority in the field cannot simply go online in an article in his area of expertise (or more generally, and more broadly, raise issues of scholarly presentation and evaluation of sources), therein politely make simple factual/scholarly edits—wikipedia will simply not improve as a source of scientific information. No academic worth her or his salt has time to learn all nuances of tech and process—that I know how to use a few tags is near miraculous. Nor will their trainees (graduate students and post-docs) have time for such nonsense. As I expressed above, with some angst: remove the top notch of these potential contributors part and parcel from the roles of wikipedia editors, and wikipedia will surely never become a reputable source for scientific information. As it is, essentially no colleague that I have spoken with will attempt to surmount these barriers to active participation. There simply is not time, when career demands and personal life are held in balance. (Is it the institutional goal at wikipedia to maintain, longterm, its factual content, via undergraduate and hobbyist writers, through barriers placed to career professionals that force choice between tenure-making work, family presence, and sustained wiki editorial dialog over science content errors? I know, I have heard, all are equally busy. But the demographics that describe wikipedia editors should be food for thought in wiki upper echelons.)

Returning to the current science (and broader) situation: Already, there are many hundreds of tags, and calls for expert involvement in review, that have remained years after placement, while initial content generation continues strongly. In essence, we are a pulp mill of—may I say it—generated information that is, on average, mediocre, because it largely goes without expert subsequent fact checking and correction. And this morass is clearly deepening month by month.

General "bottom line": Life is too short for nonsense. Cut the nonsense, or lose best contributors. Personal "bottom line": I am seeking/building better alternatives with deeper respect career-earned authoritative voices. Changing this grendelian behemoth's intent and appetites is apparently without hope. Finally, I know this case-making can do no good in this venue, but I wanted you, viking, to know why I went on above, about wiki process, and why I defend academicians right to present, even engender creative tensions in articles.

If there is a better term than "utter Wiki-prizewinning nonsense" to describe this effort to blot out an entire area of information from wikipedia, I look forward to knowing what it is. My edits from earlier today were reverted owing to the Pproctor "sockpuppet." How can anything related to his collaborator John McGinness be circumspect as well? Wiping out the link to the Smithsonian chips page too? The switch exists. Apparently, acknowledging its existence is too much for some people. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)