This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Linus Pauling is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 15, 2004.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Linus Pauling is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofOregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics articles
I was wondering if there should be something about his opposition towards Dan Shechtman's findings about quasicrystals. Any thoughts? NeutralWikipedia 15:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be mentioned near the end of a section on his crystallography work. Except that the article now seems to have no section with all his contributions to crystallography. Some are mentioned briefly in sections on the chemical bond and biological molecules. Others such as Pauling's rules for ionic crystal structures are absent from this article.
So I would propose that we include a section on crystallography putting all his work on crystals together. This would then be a natural place to could include a mention of his ideas on (or against) quasicrystals. We will of course need sources for this. Dirac66 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; his behavior with regard to quasicrystals was most unbecoming. He started out by claiming that a simple twin would produce the same results. He ended up by suggesting that thousands of twins would explain them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might want to work on this, more on the quasicrystals story is available in a four-post series published on the Pauling Blog. Petersec (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - this page is not balanced - His great success went to his head. His conflict with Robinson ended up with research data destroyed (part of the data didn't support vitamin C claims) - the story has been ghosted - destroying research data is a crime against humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pauling was undoubtedly a very important scientist, however he did make some pretty bad mistakes too that due to his fame hindered science. Three such events come to mind, there might be others:
The wrong structure proposed for the DNA (triple helix with phosphates pointing inwards)
The unwillingness to accept existence of quasi-crystals
The wrong structure proposed for phosphomolybdic acid, what is now called the Keggin structure. This is important as it was the first polyoxometalate to be identified as well as the first one to have its structure solved.
In light of this, shouldn't there be a criticism section in this article?
185.46.77.38 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin C therapy being used with connection to the current virus. It seems to me that Pauling deserves at least some nod, since he promoted Vitamin C as antiviral support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google gives the accidental and quite incorrect impression that Pauling's Chemistry Nobel involved Vitamin C. Pauling became a vitamin C crank toward the end of his life, but his Nobel in chemistry has nothing to do with this rather sad fact. He studied at Goettingen in the 1930s, made the rather obvious observation that the quantum mechanics well known there would have an impact on chemistry, and then exploited the apercu with great intelligence and energy once he returned to the United States. That's what his Nobel is all about.
His Peace Prize may be thought of as related: his warning of the dangers of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was based on his scientific appreciation of the damage done by radioactive pollution at the cellular level.
My friend the late Albert Szent-Györgyi won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1937 and this is commonly said to be "for vitamin C." That's largely true, and anybody interested can start with the perfectly sound Wiki entry on him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Szent-Gy%C3%B6rgyi.
The entry states "he is credited with," and he was the first to say, at least in private, that this "credited with" is not unanimous. On the other hand, I don't think anyone doubts the Nobel-quality of his overall work.
In any subsequent work on this Pauling entry, I wonder if the author or editors might make a modest reference to the errors of public opinion around vitamin C and the people responsible for its identification, isolation, and genuine value to health?
The single brief paragraph on Pauling's later days as a crank is elegant and restrained, and I think it can stand as it is. In his later years he promoted nuclear disarmament, as well as orthomolecular medicine, megavitamin therapy,[11] and dietary supplements. None of the latter have gained much acceptance in the mainstream scientific community.[5][12] My Grammarly now tells me it wants a comma after "years," which anybody who agrees with Grammarly is welcome to insert.
Added the comma, thanks for noticing. You could have done that yourself, I think the page is not protected.
I could not find any other suggestions for improving the article (which is this page's sole purpose, BTW). --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
