Talk:List of biochemists

Comments

I believe it should and I do not understand why it hasn't already.

-because biochemistry and genetics are not the same. If anything the biochemists and geneticist list should be taken down/spit up.

Yes, some biochemists are geneticists but not all (and vice versa). I'd like to see two separate lists, with some people listed on both.Lisamh 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed--there are a very few who can't be classfied, and they can perfectly well go in both pages. If there is agrement, how do we get the merge notice removed? DGG 04:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's consensus against the move on both talk pages, anyone can remove the notices after around five days. It's important to remove the notice on both pages. Espresso Addict 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

non notable biochemists

I question whether people should be listed here whose notability is in an entirely different field, but happen to have gotten a degree in biochemistry along the way. I'd suggest that someone who could be listed in either of two fields be listed only in the major one, unless truly notable, like Pauling or Pasteur.

In addition to the two I just removed, I question:

• Peter Coveney, who seems to belong in Biophysics,
• Sergi Durmishidze; any evidence?
• Revaz Dogonadze,, the article on him lists him as the discoverer of quantum mechanic electrochistry & does not mention enzyme catalysis.
• El-Halfawi, M. H., not mentioned in WP.
• Gish is an odd choice, because he's best known otherwise, but ...
• Varlam Gvaladze not mentioned in WP , any data?
• Kauffman is a biophysicist
• McGrath is a theologian
• Olsen's fame is not in biochemistry
• D M Vasudevan

DGG 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Entry for Linus Pauling

An editor changed "structure" to "struct)ure" in the entry for Linus Pauling. On seeing it I thought it must be a typo of some kind, so I reverted it. However, the editor in question has reverted it back to his version (without explanation). I don't believe in edit warring, so I've left it as it is for the moment, but I wonder what others think. Athel cb (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on the Talk page of the editor who made the original edit has resolved the issue. It was indeed a typo, so no more discussion is needed. Athel cb (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)