Talk:Antimony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Elements
Chemistry Portal
This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Antimony is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 15:35, 5 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 16:09, 15 June 2005).

Contents

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Antimony. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Antimony Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

[edit] Talk

please get rid of the donation ads wikipedia! i cancelled my account when i started seeing "you can help wikipedia change the world!" it really annoyed me! gat rid of the ads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.136.136 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I have something to comment about this article in history article it was said that

"or from the Arabian expression "Antos Ammon", which could be translated as "bloom of the god Ammon"."

Correct me if I'm wrong but (Antos Ammon) isn't arabic(no offence), because i speak arabic...

Thank you.

Is it possible this is really Arabic as it was a couple thousand years ago?

People, please log in to make these contributions. Response to previous response: no, because standard Arabic hasn't changed appreciably in that time -- although the regional vernaculars have diverged considerably from standard Arabic. Response to the Arabic speaker -- the author you have cited is writing nonsense, because the notion that "antimony" means "bloom" refers to Greek, not to Arabic. The claim was made by Edmund O. von Lippmann in a book he published in 1919. See my contribution to the article, "Etymology". Hurmata 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mony?

What would antimatter antimony be called? Antiantimony? Mony? ;) MrHumperdink 17:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

How about Promony? (12.10.127.58)
Not bad, either that or antiantimony, if there'll ever be a use for it. :) Probably not mony though, since one anti is Greek and one anti is of unknown origin (conjectured to be a corruption of some Arabic word), they wouldn't annihilate each other anyway. Femto 15:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toxic

I would like to know if Antimony bioaccumulates (like Lead or Mercury).

Yes, it does. Napoleon's hair was analyzed in recent years for antimony and is why poisoning is his suspected cause of death. --Photonical 15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was arsenic that was found in his hair. Damp conditions produced a mould that grew on his wallpaper, subsequently metabolising the aresenic-based green dye into a much more volatile form, that he took into his body. --FullMetalJacket 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, however, it does bioaccumulate though. No one is quite sure what killed Napoleon, arsenic is strongly suspected but antimony could also be a culperit, the two being in the same period on the periodic table they are difficult to tell apart. Many sources have been suggested from the one above, to the use of arsenic in repelling moths from clothing, (by direct application), even the use of both the elements in wigs and beds to repel lice, to outright poisoning.

[edit] Antimony thin film as a superlens

Antimony is used in superlensing applications as a thin film, allowing optical storage media to be more densely written. Could this be an appropriate note for a contemporary application? I may write it up if interest is shown. --Photonical 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The 'History' section says

The word Antimony is a Latin corruption of Arabic انتيمون ([al-]ithmīd), which is derived from Latin Stibium, which came from Greek στιβι [stibi] = a cosmetic powder (Sb2S3 was used for cosmetic purposes). The relationship between antimony's modern name and its symbol is complex; the Coptic name for the cosmetic powder antimony sulfide was borrowed by the Greeks, which was in turn borrowed by Latin, resulting in stibium.

I have three comments on this.

  1. The Arabic quoted says 'Antimun' not 'al-ithmid'. I can edit it, but I think there are bigger issues
  2. This derivation is given in the original Oxford English Dictionary as doubly speculative - both 'antimony' from 'al-uthmud' and 'ithmid' from Greek 'stimmid' are there hedged about with 'possibly' and 'suggestion'. Unless somebody has some more recent, authoritative support for the etymology, it should be shown as speculative.
  3. On the other hand, the well-known derivation of 'alcohol' from the Arabic name 'al-kohl' for the black pigment should be mentioned somewhere.

--ColinFine 00:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Colin. See my extensive addition, "Etymology of the Name", in which among other things I debunk this "Arabic loanword" claim in detail. The lesson of this OED etymology and others having to do with Arabic loanwords: don't trust OED etymologies. Hurmata 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While the OED is not perfect, I would rather give their etymology, which you misstate, than the guesses and prejudices of a Wikipedian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Anderson, you have carelessly worded your remark such that one has to reread it to see that "you" refers to ColinFine rather than to the immediate preceding poster (who is me). Now, on to the merits of your position. (1) *Affirmation* or *acceptance* by OED do not per se constitute *substantiation*. (2) An OED entry is received scholarship which is no more reliable than the weighing of sources by a Wikipedian. You are the prejudiced one for trusting a venerable reference work merely on the strength of its venerability. (3) You are the prejudiced one also because you do not accept that much of the body of received etymology in English lexicography is unreliable. I have had occasion to confirm this by trying to verify the etymologies of entries in the List of Arabic loanwords in English. It is also true of history generally that much received belief is propagations of false suppositions. Take all these DNA driven exonerations of prisoners in America. Men who spent 20 years for rape or murder turn out to have been innocent. Hurmata 08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The OED is a source; feel free to give others. Until I supplied this, there were none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The preceding statement is false. Before Septentrionalis/PMAnderson supplied OED, Al-Ghafiqi -- ca. 1100 AD -- had been cited as a source for the *al-ithmid* claim. Beyond that, three claimed etymologies in all had been described and sourced. Hurmata 07:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. In truth, Pmanderson believes that OED is more than just a source, since he insists on writing, "OED *accepts* that antimony could come from Arabic al-ithmid". Hurmata 08:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Since I referred to an etymology from the OED, and Hurmata did not, I agree that Septentrionalis must be referring to me; but I cannot see how I can be said to have 'misstated' it. The portions of the OED etymology to which I referred are: "... perhaps, as has been suggested, of the Arabic name إثمد, uthmud, othmod .. The earlier form of the Arab. is ithmid, in which Littré suggests an adaptation ... of Gk. στίμμιδ-α, variant of στίμμι".
I am quite content with Hurmata's contribution. --ColinFine 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The OED does not, as the former phrasing suggested, derive the syllable ant- from al-, but from uth-/oth-, with the inclusion of n and the change of th to t. Both are widely parallelled in Medieval Latin. The first is a routine scribal error, interchanging ãt (the shorthand for ant) with at; the second is close to regular; for example, hypotesis is quite common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So it was the 'al-' you were objecting to. You are right, that was my mistake. It would have been more helpful if you had said so, rather than simply saying 'misstate'. I agree that the derivation is possible (there is also the vocalisation and the final -n- against -d-, but these are not impossible. The OED quotes intermediate forms athimodium, atimodium, atimonium and antimonium, but I do not know whether they are recorded examples or hypothetical forms), but if even the OED says 'perhaps, as has been suggested' it can scarcely be regarded as authoritative. --ColinFine 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I read the OED 's phrasing as hypothetical; it does not use the asterisk convention so it's hard to tell. I do not mean to claim the derivation in Wikipedia's voice; that's one reason I attribute it to the OED, as one theory among several. Other theories could well be added in more detail. ("Misstate" was a parenthetical note; I regret any misunderstanding. Is the point clear with the OED open before you?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The following sentences are unsourced advocacy; the second is the more serious flaw, but if they had a source, at least the argument could be attributed to the secondary source from which it comes.

The latter claim is unsubstantiated and moreover it is highly dubious for two reasons. Firstly, as noted above, the term antimonium is said to have been used by Constantine the African (1020-1087 AD), and he was an Arabic speaker, a native of Carthage. Secondly, the etymology asserted by Al-Ghâfiqî the oculist would entail an extreme degree of phonetic corruption not manifested in dozens of other Arabic loanwords in Medieval Latin and Spanish.

By and large, Wikipedia should not make such arguments at all; as WP:NPOV says, describe the controversy, don't take part in it. If it does, it should say who says this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the preceding two new paragraphs from Pmanderson on 12 April 2007. You mention "secondary source" as if you were concerned to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. The truth is that you have considered the "acceptance" of a claim by the OED -- a secondary source -- as having great weight, while you have in two places here explicitly claimed not to have noticed the fresher sources I cited. I cited a scholar who made the *al-ithmid* claim ca. 1100. This may actually be a secondary source, but it's much fresher than the OED.

At last, you provide elaboration on what it is you object to. I disagree with your above stated opinion. I hold that is not a violation of the NPOV principle to evaluate to a limited extent what I am writing about. Good encyclopedia articles often contain some assessments on the writer's own part. In this case, these various etymological claims have been disseminated long and wide and have achieved uninformed acceptance on the part of some people. Hence the need for the article to announce the fact they are actually unproven, and moreover dubious. It is appropriate for me to point out the implausibility of *ithmid* becoming a-N-timo-N- + -ium. The vowel changes are plausible (although perhaps unlikely), but the two changes [t] > [nt] and [d] > [n] are not plausible, even singly, and the occurrence of both in a single word is especially implausible. The assertion of implausibility is neither so innovative nor so substantial that it constitutes "original research". Moreover, we contributors are not meant to be mere scribes. We are meant to make ourselves well informed on what we write about. For me to have found Al-Ghafiqi and to have read Lippmann and the others, and for me to allude to what typically happened when Arabic words were borrowed into European languages, *enhance* the article's depth and its reliability. In adding those admonitions of mine, I did not declare that them sufficient to disprove any of the three claims. As someone who is well informed about historical linguistics, I know that the OED of the 19th century (or even the mid 20th) is not to be regarded as an expert authority as to the etymology of academic loanwords from obscure languages 1,000 years ago. (The OED *is* expert when it comes to English words of Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, and Latin origin.)

What Hurmata proposes to do here is Original Research; that he proposes to phrase it as a polemic is also violation of Neutrality. Both are deprecated here. If he wishes to add to the literature on antimony, there are journals for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in an earlier paragraph, this claim of yours is mysterious:

The first is a routine scribal error, interchanging ãt (the shorthand for ant) with at

We supposedly start out with Arabic [iθmiːd] (using IPA spelling). Where does the [n] before [t] come from in the first place? When you say that the change [θ] > [t] was commonplace in "Medieval Latin", that is correct, yet somehow overlooks something: this sound change is typical of *any* stage of Latin since Latin never had [θ]. Back in 200 BC, that sound in Greek loanwords would become [t]. For English speakers to pronounce the 'th' in Catholic as [θ] is an example of what is known as "spelling pronunciation". Hurmata 08:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does Hurmata suppose any of this evolution is phonetic? Medieval alchemy is a written tradition, and the scribal errors of the Middle Ages are all too well known to any Latinist; he may wish to consult one. We start with some such form as athmidium representing [iθmiːd], or rather, the Arabic written form of it; from there the formation of antimonium is straightforward and almost predictable corruption in dealing with an unknown word with no recognizable roots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
From aTHmiDium to aNTimoNium is anything but "straightforward", including scribally. Your skills at mockery and insinuation (for which septentrional culture is renowned) rather exceed your skill at logical reasoning. 146.244.137.217 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The immediate preceding edit from 146.244.137.217 was done by me. Hurmata 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemical symbol

A google image search for the words "antimony" and "symbol" suggests that there is more than one symbol for antimony. Should the page have a representation of both symbols, or acknowledge that the symbol included on the page isn't the sole contender? Mang 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • If there *are* multiple symbols, both should be presented if one is being presented. Of course, perhaps neither should be presented because by now they are exceedingly trivial pieces of information. But at a practical level, it does no harm to let them take up the space they take up.

Of course, it is crucial that whoever would post such information first confirm it: rely only an authoritative sources. Also crucial to add a footnote or something documenting the fact of the multiplicity.

One source of a list of alchemical symbols the work I cited, Priesner and Figala. (In America, this sort of book is almost certainly to be found only in university or business enterprise libraries. Hurmata 20:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazon has two copies of the Spanish translation. I haven't checked ABEbooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

All the dictionaries I checked, as well as Web Elements, list the pronunciation as /'æntəməʊni/, not /anˈtɪməni/ as the article says. What is the correct pronunciation? --Schzmo 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leibnitz

no longer, I should think, the most authoritative source on the history of chemistry; methodology has improved. What does Lynn Thorndyke say? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Methods have improved"? Good, why don't you apply that insight to your advocacy of OED etymologies from 125 years ago? By the way, why don't you also create an article on Lynn Thorndyke, since you have tried to link to one.
Because time is the one limited WP resource; as for the etymology, it is reprinted, and so endorsed, in the second edition of 1989, from which I cite it; if it is revised in the current revision, our text can change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with your remark about Leibniz. If you find a good counterargument to Leibniz's verdict, why don't you add it to the article? Just don't delete the existing remark on Leibniz. Hurmata 08:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It is very likely that Leibnitz's view is now consensus; I certainly find the claim that Valentine is a pseudonym quite plausible. All it needs is a modern endorsement and I have no problem with it; the fact that Leibnitz researched this is itself notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PMAnderson accepts that . . .

"Oxford English Dictionary accepts that "antimony" is the corruption of some Arabic word, . . . ." So what? Priesner and Figala, Lippmann, and Kirk-Othmer don't accept it. PMAnderson faults me for "unsourced advocacy". This criticism is a doubly insincere one: PMA himself/herself is full of advocacy, *his* conclusions are unsourced, and *my* contributions are sourced. Note the advocacy in saying "accepts" rather than "claims" or "states". To arrive at an assessment on the etymology of an alchemical term whose origins involve Latin and possibly Arabic from nearly 1,000 years ago, PMA cites NO HISTORICAL SOURCES, just a dictionary of the English language. I have cited two histories of alchemy and an Arabist. Through these, I cite two Islamic sources from before 1200 AD. I conscientiously survey all major stories you'll find in between engineering encyclopedias, histories of alchemy, and Web sites, and I conscientiously cite historians and try to identify primary sources.

  • At last, names. Make these into proper citations and include them in the article by all means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The names and citations have been there all along. entries. For some reason, you suggest the opposite. The names and citations have been there as footnotes and as bibliographic entries. Hurmata 07:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Curious; when I removed the above paragraph, it had no citations at all. But Hurmata clearly has access to a world of private facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The weakness of PMA's approach is confirmed from elsewhere within the Antimony article itself. Just this week! For a century, it has been accepted that there had been a vase discovered that was made of elemental antimony and dated back to 3,000 AD. This week, a contributor to Wikipedia reported that archaeologists have long known that the find had to do with a fragment and that the fragment might not have been a vase. Minor point, but a superb demonstration of how a conclusion can be jumped to, or a detail misreported, and then the mistake propagated down centuries from one dictionary or encyclopedia to another.

PMA is naive about the Oxford English Dictionary and about historiography. PMA's OED 2nd 1989 is just an augmentation of OED 1st, with no systematic revision of existing content. The A-Ant section was published circa 1884, PMA! (See Oxford English Dictionary.) By contrast, Moorey, the work contradicting the vase claim, was published in 1994, and I cite a work from 1998.

Again, I cite an encyclopedia of engineering (not an authority on etymology, but just as reliable as OED) and two histories of alchemy (the name 'antimony' arose in the Middle Ages) and I enable readers to pursue further search and come to their own conclusions. Purpose of Wikipedia, which credulous, unsophisticated people ought not tamper with. Hurmata 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One purpose of Wikipedia is to install a certain humility in the arrogant and sophomoric; see WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. It doesn't seem to be working very well; but neither do any of our efforts to present all sides of an issue.
I trust that in the course of Humata's academic career he will outgrow the provincial attitude that a historian of engineering is the only, or even the best, guide to a linguistic question. But I have placed the offending text in the footnote, which I hope will calm this agitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PMAnderson's latest reply misrepresents the significance of something I said -- I will return to this. PMA also ignores refutations. PMA only stubbornly persists in imposing changes. Since he does not see the need to refute objections, this renders his contributions even more unworthy.
It is deceitful to have attributed to me the attitude that "a historian of engineering is the 'only', or even the best, guide to a linguistic question". This is another aspect of PMA's interventions: repeated bad faith. He never really defends his views; and when he criticizes mine, he introduces inaccuracies. To correct PMA's distortion: I explicitly discounted the notion advanced by the engineering encyclopedia. I wrote that no purported etymology has been substantiated. That would include the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia's "anti-monos" claim.
In my previous post, I explained why it is naive to suppose, as PMA supposes, that the Oxford English Dictionary must be a superior authority on any and all etymologies of English words; I explained that the etymology of 'antimony' is in fact *not purely a "linguistic issue"*.
I emphasize that PMA only snipes and "arrogantly" contributes flawed edits. PMA "arrogantly" disdains to engage with detailed, sophisticated explanations that he is misinformed on specifics and on theory. PMA disdains to acknowledge well informed, comprehensive edits that have alrady been made. Hurmata 06:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I regret infringing upon Hurmata's strong sense of ownership of this article. I have no views, except that the OED says what it actually does. I will leave him to the warm comforts of his self-praise; but I will continue to watch the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just deleted another reinsertion of the POV citation of an unreliable source. PManderson insists on writing "OED accepts" a certain etymology. The etymology in question is already part of the article and a source has been provided for it. For PManderson to insist on "OED *accepts*" and then just now claim "I have no views" is dishonest. PManderson refuses to defend the inclusion of the OED claim and to refute arguments against the inclusion. Arguments against stating "OED accepts" have been presented on this page under this subheading and "Etymology". In general, it has been like pulling teeth to get PManderson to discuss the *merits* of claims, his claims and other peoples'. He has preferred just to allege wrongdoing and to craft insulting replies. Hurmata 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Does Hurmata really claim that his aspersions are not insulting?
  • Besides these aspersions, and the ungrounded suggestion that the OED does not have an expert on Medieval Latin, Hurmata has done no discussion of sources at all.
  • The OED is a reliable source for what the OED asserts.
  • I suggest mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Septentrionalis has responded to specific arguments about the content of the section, Etymology of the Name. This seems to demonstrate readiness to engage in further discussion on this Talk page. I believe it is too soon in the dispute to call for mediation (which is a routinized procedure at Wikipedia, with several eligibility requirements). I hereby request that editors including PMAnderson examine the points of dispute. I hope that includes responding to the arguments that have already been made. If this discussion I am requesting does not take place or if it does not settle the disagreements, then I am willing to move up to the next recommended step in dispute resolution at Wikipedia: soliciting third party opinions, WP:RF30. Should that not prove effective, then I would be willing to move up to the next recommended step: making a Request for Comment (RfC), WP:RFC. (For a bigger perspective on Wikipedia dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, WP:DR) Hurmata 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data

  • Sarton derives from ithmid ("or athmoud")
    • Raphael Patai's Jewish Alchemists (Appendix) quotes a manuscript from Djerba which transcribes this word as atmad.
  • Kirk-Othmer is not a historical or linguistic text, and derives from Gk. anti+monos, to which they give the meaning "not found alone".
    • They attribute stibium to Pliny, which is in error; he transliterates stibi and stimi , and has two names not yet in the article. Pliny's female antimony is conjectured to be the native metal. (33, 33)
  • Priesner and Figala, citing Lippmann, derive from Gk. anthemonion.
    • Neither Greek word occurs in Liddell, Scott, and Jones. Of the two anthemonion is more plausible as a Greek form, in meaning, and in the required derivation within Latin.
    • None of these sources mentions Constantinus Afer.
  • I expect to see Lippmann in a few days.
    • He does have Constantine (p.642); he also cites "The Triumph of Antimony" as edited by Thoelde, p. 641). (Also a Byzantine use of antimonos, among several other Greek forms of antimonium from 1300.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, since P and F mention Constantine the African neither in the article on antimony or their index, this sentence

Reportedly, the first person to use it in a text<:ref>Priesner and Figala, entry "Antimon"<:/ref> (as antimonium) was Constantine the African, renowned for translating Arabic medical treatises into Latin.

requires a source. (Since stimmi is recorded from the fifth century BC, the meaning could also use work. Constantine may well have been the first to use antimonium, but that is a somewhat different claim.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omissions

I have rewritten, to express what the sources seem to me to say.

I have left out

An Arab-Spanish oculist, Muḥammad ibn Qassûm ibn Aslam Al-Ghâfiqî, writing some time between the 11th and 12th centuries, claimed that the names for antimony sulfide in Arabic, Latin, and Greek all derived from a Coptic word, mesdemet. He claimed as well that the term "antimony" was a fallacious rendering of the Arabic name, al-iθmid (where al- means "the")...Sarton, p. 541. Sarton's book review notes (p. 540) that the oculist Al-Ghâfiqî is not to be confused with the herbalist Abu Ja'far Ahmad ibn Muḥammad Al-Ghâfiqî. Sarton further warns that -- despite the work's subtitle -- we still cannot be sure of which century this Al-Ghâfiqî the oculist was writing in, whether 11th or 12th;

I do not see why any reader of this article would care whether Al-Ghâfiqî's book was written by himself or another man of the same name.

I have also left out the assertion that the th in ithmid is the fricative /θ/; most readers will assume this, the rest won't care. It is a difficulty in the origin of antimonium; but it is an equal objection to Lippmann's anthemonion; see theta, which has more on the Greek sound-shift. (Some would date it as late as the Roman empire, but that is still about the time of this alleged anthemonion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaching Source

The leaching source seems to be partially from this source: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/press/news/news06/2601antime.html although the URL does not mention the results that are currently in this article.

[edit] Discovery?

Could you please state who discovered this element? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.211.246 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is known as it is one of those elements known before recorded history. There is some discussion of this in the article, but is not conclusive. The references give a date of about 3000BC for an artifact made of it. Jokem (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)