![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This is a paper published by an American, in English, in a Connecticut journal. It was first noted by Ostwald, but that really ssems an inadequate reason to quote it in German. (If you are having trouble locating the English text, write me, and I'll see what I can do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a weird section title if you ask me (perhaps an excess in the attempt to avoid redundancy in the titles?). But what bugs me is the content. It seems to imply that the paper is valuable because it is an expensive collector item, and puts this measure of value on a level parallel to producing four Nobel Prizes. I can think of collector items that are more expensive but would otherwise be considered worthless except for their rarity (e.g., some famous defective stamps). I can also imagine scientific contributions that were very valuable to the history of science but did not become expensive collector items (perhaps because they were published more widely). In any case, the selling price of the original paper is a piece of trivia that should not be conflated with the more general value of the work. -- Itub 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference in this section as it was broken, although I must say that I was tempted to delete the whole subsection. However, the 'art-works' argument convinced me otherwise. I wonder how much someone would pay for the
PDF copy I have?... ;-) --
Spud Gun (
talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I am not now so convinced by the 'art-works argument'. I have looked at several Wikipedia pages concerning works of art by Picasso (as good a choice as any...) and many make no mention as to their value. Given the nature of this 'work of art', unless there is a verifiable sale at auction for a substantial sum (rather than some somewhat arbitrary cost value), I suggest that this section be deleted, as its sale value is far from germane to the true vale of the work. -- Spud Gun ( talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The paper is available online from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) here, as is the French translation by Le Chatelier here. Cheaper than $1000 for just the abstract! Physchim62 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This is a paper published by an American, in English, in a Connecticut journal. It was first noted by Ostwald, but that really ssems an inadequate reason to quote it in German. (If you are having trouble locating the English text, write me, and I'll see what I can do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a weird section title if you ask me (perhaps an excess in the attempt to avoid redundancy in the titles?). But what bugs me is the content. It seems to imply that the paper is valuable because it is an expensive collector item, and puts this measure of value on a level parallel to producing four Nobel Prizes. I can think of collector items that are more expensive but would otherwise be considered worthless except for their rarity (e.g., some famous defective stamps). I can also imagine scientific contributions that were very valuable to the history of science but did not become expensive collector items (perhaps because they were published more widely). In any case, the selling price of the original paper is a piece of trivia that should not be conflated with the more general value of the work. -- Itub 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference in this section as it was broken, although I must say that I was tempted to delete the whole subsection. However, the 'art-works' argument convinced me otherwise. I wonder how much someone would pay for the
PDF copy I have?... ;-) --
Spud Gun (
talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I am not now so convinced by the 'art-works argument'. I have looked at several Wikipedia pages concerning works of art by Picasso (as good a choice as any...) and many make no mention as to their value. Given the nature of this 'work of art', unless there is a verifiable sale at auction for a substantial sum (rather than some somewhat arbitrary cost value), I suggest that this section be deleted, as its sale value is far from germane to the true vale of the work. -- Spud Gun ( talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The paper is available online from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) here, as is the French translation by Le Chatelier here. Cheaper than $1000 for just the abstract! Physchim62 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)