Talk:Discovery of chemical elements

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discovery of chemical elements article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Elements High‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: History High‑importance

	Physics portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 15, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Discovery of the nonmetals was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 January 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Discovery of chemical elements. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Question about As, Sb, Zn, Bi

They seem to have been discovered after classical times (or else why wouldn't they be "planetary metals"?) but before phosphorus. Since the discovery of phosphorus is famous as the first one recorded I would imagine arsenic, antimony, zinc, and bismuth as "unrecorded medieval discoveries" but I can't find a source that really makes sense of that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:71BA:CFD0:BDF2:8137 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to define what a discovery is before the the modern conception of a chemical element was in force. Zinc, antimony, and bismuth were known for a long time but were not recognised as distinct metals until later. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's murky, yeah. I hope I have done justice to the antimony and arsenic entries. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. even Co was called a semi-metal upon discovery. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen and Sendivogius

How can we have Scheele first observing O in 1771 and Sendivogius isolating it in 1604. How did Sendivogius manage to isolate it without observing it? The column heading says "widely known". Neither Scheele nor Priestley seem to have been aware of Sendivogius' work (or any other important scientists) so I don't see how that can be claimed to be widely known. This book backs up that idea (of not being widely known). Inserted in this edit by user:Double sharp. SpinningSpark 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I somehow managed to edit this article for many years without noticing the phrase "widely known"! (Probably because I concentrated more on the lower entries.) Yeah, I guess Sendivogius does not qualify under that qualifier. :) I think I added him because of that misunderstanding, which was hopefully understandable as the Paracelsus entry for hydrogen was already there.

The weird dates do tie in to a problem with these early discoveries: at that point the nature of an element was still being sorted out. Scheele and Priestley both had oxygen but only Lavoisier a few years later had the correct idea about what it was. I think this is what I was thinking the Paracelsus date meant and influenced me to put in Sendivogius for oxygen. Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to amend that edit? SpinningSpark 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Paracelsus has the same problem. He was not originally listed as the first isolator but was in the notes as "had been isolated originally by Paracelsus around 1500 by reacting strong acids with metals, but did not recognise it as a new element." SpinningSpark 17:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to Cavendish and Scheele to match the discoverers, since they definitely did isolate these elemental gases too. Double sharp (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Double births"

Five trace radioactives actually have two significant discovery years: the year they were first made in a lab, and the year they were first found to be natural after all. (A sixth and seventh might be possible if live ²⁴⁷Cm is ever found.) These are already in the article, but maybe they could be clarified a bit more.

Element	Synthesis	Discovery in nature
Technetium (43)	1937, Perrier and Segrè	1962, Kenna and Kuroda
Promethium (61)	1945, Coryell, Marinsky, and Glendenin	1965, Erämetsä
Astatine (85)	1940, Corson, MacKenzie, and Segrè	1943, Karlik and Bernert
Neptunium (93)	1940, McMillan and Abelson	1952, Peppard, Mason, Gray, and Mech
Plutonium (94)	1940-1, Seaborg, Wahl, Kennedy, and McMillan	1941-2, Seaborg and Perlman

Double sharp (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

@Plantsurfer: The SD you have added is pointless. The page title is already sufficiently explanatory so WP:SDNONE applies. The only additional information is that there are 118 elements which, beside being superfluous and open to change, causes the SD to exceed the recommended 40 characters. SpinningSpark 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change some discovery dates?

Who was the first person to recognize that yttria is a metal oxide, and when? Should that person be given credit for the discovery of Y?

Does it make sense for Be, Al, Si, and Zr to be listed as discovered by Davy in 1808? I know that he failed to isolate them, but this work certainly proved that glucine, alumine, silex, and zircone are metal oxides. The thing is, I've already been told elsewhere that this is incorrect, but it doesn't seem to be...

The reason I'm asking is because, to me at least, it would make the most sense to regard the discovery of an element as when the literature began to treat it as known. Squee3 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being known is not equivalent to known to be an element. Neither is known to be a metallic compound equivalent to known to be a compound of a metallic element. I have no view on whether your specific examples should be changed, but your premise is incorrect. SpinningSpark 16:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no criteria that will work consistently over all 118 elements, because people's understanding of what an element is changed. So we go mostly by consensus of reliable sources. If we accepted the logic the OP gives, then I suppose the discoverer of Na and K would have to be Marggraf, because he was the first who distinguished soda and potash. I don't think anyone says this. Double sharp (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holden (writing for IUPAC in 2019) considered Scheele to have discovered Ba, and Vauquelin to have discovered Be. But he also says that Al was "known in prehistoric times", which can only refer to alum rather than the metal (obviously), and I doubt that this idea is standard. (BTW, Holden also gives 1952 for Fm rather than 1953, but the latter seems to be correct based on my limited research: the experimental work spanned over the New Year, and while 99 was secure in 1952, 100 only was in 1953. Similarly, Gd was discovered in 1880, not 1886 as Holden has it; the latter date represents the naming.)

Though I have to agree that if Scheele is listed as the discoverer of Cl, then it makes sense to follow Holden's line and give him credit for Ba (and Vauquelin for Be). After all, Scheele did not even have a correct idea of what chlorine was. But then maybe Scheele should get credit for fluorine as Holden gives him? Holden also wrongly thinks that Janssen discovered helium (and has the wrong history for holmium; Holmberg did not name it after himself, he merely isolated it in pure form, and it was Cleve who actually named it), so I'll have to think about this. For lawrencium it is very difficult, because even the TWG could only say that confidence was built up over a decade; maybe the best approach is to say that the 1961 experiment was the first important step rather than the full discovery.

I think I'm willing to push Ba, Be, Cl, F, Mg earlier. Probably even Nd. And giving joint credit for Ir. This is about as far as I got (need to go somewhere IRL); I'll look at the rest later. Double sharp (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sr also makes sense, as do Y and Zr. Well, time to make some edits. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I even pushed Na, K, and Ca earlier, since it is in RS that the earths were distinguished earlier, and otherwise we are treating Mg and Ca inconsistently. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, per reviews like this (noting the untangling of earths from metals), Lavoisier (or maybe Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau? basically in the 1787 textbook Méthode de nomenclature chimique) should be credited for B and Si. Similar problem occurs for Al. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, based on the above 2022 review of the elements discovered up to the XVIII century. (Other parts for more recent discoveries should be forthcoming.) Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Timeline of chemical element discoveries

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of chemical element discoveries's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CRC":

From Bismuth: Hammond, C. R. (2004). The Elements, in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). Boca Raton (FL, US): CRC press. pp. 4–1. ISBN 978-0-8493-0485-9.
From Didymium: Haynes, William M., ed. (2016). "Elements: Neodymium". CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (97th ed.). CRC Press. p. 4.23. ISBN 9781498754293.
From Lithium: Hammond, C. R. (2000). The Elements, in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. ISBN 978-0-8493-0481-1.^{[page needed]}
From Platinum: CRC contributors (2007–2008). "Platinum". In Lide, David R. (ed.). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Vol. 4. New York: CRC Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-8493-0488-0.
From Synthetic element: Hammond, C. R. (2004). "The Elements". Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. ISBN 978-0-8493-0485-9.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1669 discoveries

@Apaugasma: I agree that my wording wasn't ideal, but I am uncertain about calling c.1500 (bismuth) "medieval". Do you have another suggestion? Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Double sharp! If we follow the roughest common division of ages as ancient (pre-500), medieval (500-1500) and modern (1500-now), c. 1500 will be a difficult edge case. We could just as well move that entry to the 'Modern discoveries' section (by most standards 1500 actually falls within the bounds of 'early modern', even though it also counts as 'late medieval').

Another, perhaps more pertinent solution is to create three sections, 'Ancient and medieval discoveries' (covering everything up till c. 1400), 'Renaissance and early modern discoveries' (covering c. 1400 to 1789, up until the discoveries of Lavoisier and Klaproth), and 'Modern discoveries' (the rest). This would be a common division of ages in the history of science, effectively reflecting three different paradigms and three different rates of discovery. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: I like this division, but got stymied by Bi presenting a problem to move to the modern discoveries: it doesn't really have a known discoverer and was getting recognised by European and Inca civilisation at about the same time – per 10.1126/science.223.4636.585 the Inca bismuth bronze is from 1476–1534. However, I thought of and implemented another solution: moving phosphorus to the earlier table and making the distinction alchemy vs modern chemistry, matching Miskowiec's 2022 review. Then c.1700 isn't really a bad date for this transition especially since we have so much leeway between 1669 (phosphorus) and 1735 (cobalt).

As for 1789, I get the reasoning behind it, but I don't like it since titanium follows on from that so quickly (1791). Miskowiec just goes for the calendar mark of 1800, but this is also not that great because vanadium (1801) follows immediately afterwards. My general opinion (informed by this popularised Russian treatment) is that the important breaks once you get to the modern age are c.1700 (alchemy gets supplanted by modern chemistry), c.1850 (when all the common elements had been found, and further progress was impossible without the spectroscope) and c.1900 (when almost all the stable elements had been found – only Lu, Hf, Re were missing – and to go further, it was necessary to delve into radioactivity and learn how to transmute elements ourselves). Unfortunately the last requires absurd precision because of how late the noble gases were discovered: in order to cut according to this line, one needs to cut the timeline between Xe (12 July 1898) and Po (13 July 1898), and when the difference is literally one day, perhaps periodisation has become silly. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Circa 1700 is certainly the most relevant paradigm break in the history of chemistry specifically, due to the rise of the royal academies. But we should be wary about the alchemy vs chemistry distinction, which increasingly gets rejected by the leading specialists in early modern chemistry (see Newman & Principe 1998; Newman 2011; Principe 2011). Let's just use standard period names instead: 'Pre-modern and early modern discoveries' vs 'Modern discoveries'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Newman, William R.; Principe, Lawrence M. (1998). "Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake". Early Science and Medicine. 3 (1): 32–65. doi:10.1163/157338298X00022. ISSN 1383-7427. JSTOR 4130048. PMID 11620328.

Newman, William R. (2011). "What Have We Learned from the Recent Historiography of Alchemy?". Isis. 102 (2): 313–321. doi:10.1086/660140.

Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Alchemy Restored". Isis. 102 (2): 305–312. doi:10.1086/660139. PMID 21874690. S2CID 23581980.

@Apaugasma: That seems even better to me. So I guess we've worked out a good division! Double sharp (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split list of modern discoveries?

Should we split the list of modern discoveries? I feel it's a bit unwieldy, since it has roughly 100 rows.

We could simply split it by century: 1700s (ca. 25 entries), 1800s (ca. 40 entries), 1900 until present (ca. 35 entries).

(A less arbitrary / more scientific criterion would be nice, but the only one I can think of is the switch from discovery to synthesis, around 1940. Were there simliar fundamental changes in earlier times?)

The downside of separate lists would be that one cannot sort the whole table (e.g. by atomic number), but since we've already split the pre-modern elements from the rest, I guess that's OK.

— Chrisahn (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly natural gap between Ru (1844) and Cs (1860) when all the common elements were found and it was impossible to go further without spectroscopy. Unfortunately, the noble gases were discovered extremely late, so what would've been another natural gap is only one day between Xe (12 July 1898) and Po (13 July 1898). Double sharp (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antimony

From the Wikipedia article Antimony:

An artifact, said to be part of a vase, made of antimony dating to about 3000 BC was found at Telloh, Chaldea (part of present-day Iraq), and a copper object plated with antimony dating between 2500 BC and 2200 BC has been found in Egypt. Austen, at a lecture by Herbert Gladstone in 1892, commented that "we only know of antimony at the present day as a highly brittle and crystalline metal, which could hardly be fashioned into a useful vase, and therefore this remarkable 'find' (artifact mentioned above) must represent the lost art of rendering antimony malleable."

The British archaeologist Roger Moorey was unconvinced the artifact was indeed a vase, mentioning that Selimkhanov, after his analysis of the Tello object (published in 1975), "attempted to relate the metal to Transcaucasian natural antimony" (i.e. native metal) and that "the antimony objects from Transcaucasia are all small personal ornaments." This weakens the evidence for a lost art "of rendering antimony malleable."

The Roman scholar Pliny the Elder described several ways of preparing antimony sulfide for medical purposes in his treatise Natural History, around 77 AD. Pliny the Elder also made a distinction between "male" and "female" forms of antimony; the male form is probably the sulfide, while the female form, which is superior, heavier, and less friable, has been suspected to be native metallic antimony.

The Greek naturalist Pedanius Dioscorides mentioned that antimony sulfide could be roasted by heating by a current of air. It is thought that this produced metallic antimony. Burzuchius (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Zosimos then have to be credited for As? Double sharp (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, made the changes. As well as putting carbon as first, from ancient charcoal paintings. Yes, I was inspired by the Sodium Lamp blog, but Miśkowiec essentially also makes this point, and somehow it feels right for the king of organic chemistry to be the first discovered by life. :D There's also a difficulty with noble Cu, Ag, and Au (and arguably Fe from meteorites) whose discovery really belongs to prehistory. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That blog also makes me realise that our claim for Hg is not very well backed up by sources. Burzuchius? Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've addressed the Hg entry. Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium and potassium

From the Wikipedia article Potassium:

It was first suggested in 1702 that they were distinct elements that combine with the same anions to make similar salts...

Georg Ernst Stahl obtained experimental evidence that led him to suggest the fundamental difference of sodium and potassium salts in 1702...

The Russian book Популярная библиотека химических элементов presented the following sequence of discoveries:

... 15. Phosphorus (H. Brand, 1669) 16. Hydrogen (R. Boyle, 1670) 17 & 18. Potassium & sodium (it is not said who, but probably G. E. Stahl, 1702 is meant?) 19. Calcium 20. Silicon 21. Cobalt (G. Brandt, 1735) ...

Burzuchius (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full sequence given by that book is: C, S, Au, Ag, Cu, Fe, Pb, Sn, Hg, Zn, As, Sb, Bi, Pt, P, H, K, Na, Ca, Si, Co, Ni, Al, Mg, N, O, Mn, Cl, Mo, Ba, W, F, Sr, Te, B, U, Ti, Zr, Y, Cr, Be, V, Nb, Ta, Ce, Pd, Rh, Os, Ir, I, Li, Cd, Se, Br, La, Th, Er, Tb, Ru, Cs, Rb, Tl, In, He, Ga, Yb, Sc, Ho, Tm, Sm, Gd, Pr, Nd, Dy, Ge, Ar, Kr, Ne, Xe, Po, Ra, Ac, Rn, Eu, Lu, Pa, Hf, Re, Tc, Fr, At, Np, Pu, Cm, Am, Pm, Bk, Cf, Es, Fm, Md, No, Rf, Lr, Db, Sg, Bh.

I moved Na and K to 1702. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. personally I think that if we're going to credit anybody before Davy for Cl, then Paracelsus or at least Boyle deserve recognition for H, and Sendivogius for O. Of course, consistency is difficult to achieve in a time when the idea of what an element is was still being worked out. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to Discovery of chemical elements

Per this AfD discussion—looking at this article, I don't necessarily see why it needs to be a "timeline" article. There's certainly enough connective tissue to write a full prose article, and many of the entries are prose anyway. A question is whether this article should be kept and trimmed, or whether it should just be moved and reworked into a proper prose article. Thoughts? Remsense留 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sizeable amount of prose is definitely necessary to make the entries clear. For example, what is meant by the discovery of Na and K? Finding compounds of them? In that case soda and potash were known since ancient times. Or is it necessary to distinguish them first? In that case Georg Ernst Stahl probably deserves credit for realising that there are two different kinds of alkali, but even decades later Lavoisier was still not sure enough to include Na and K as elements. Or is it necessary to actually isolate the metals? Then we have to wait for Humphry Davy to use electrolysis. So I think reworking into a prose article is the best possible solution. Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of chemical element discoveries → Discovery of chemical elements – This is almost a prose article already, and I think there's enough connective material historically to simply make it one. See above. Remsense留 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject History of Science has been notified of this discussion. Remsense留 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Chemistry has been notified of this discussion. Remsense留 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elements.vanderkrogt.net

There are more than a third of citations in this article linked to this website. It looks like an unreliable self-published source, but I am not sure about that. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]