Talk:Heavy metal element

Sources need verification

Some of the sources used do not support the statements in the text, and there are quite a few statements without sources. These need to be repaired. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Nonsensical text

I'm really trying to give this article the benefit of the doubt and make edits that will improve it. It's very frustrating when I come to text like this introduction to "List of heavy metals based on density" (I omitted the references since they only make the story worse):

• A density of more than 5 g/cm³ is sometimes mentioned as a common heavy metal defining factor and, in the absence of a unanimous definition, is used to populate this list and, unless otherwise stated, guide the remainder of the article. Metalloids meeting the applicable criteria–arsenic and antimony, for example—are sometimes counted as heavy metals, particularly in environmental chemistry, as is the case here. Selenium (density 4.8 g/cm³) is also included in the list, though it falls marginally short of the density criterion and is less commonly recognised as a metalloid but has a waterborne chemistry similar in some respects to that of arsenic and antimony.

So this is not a list of heavy metals based on density, but density and some other criteria unrelated to "heavy" or "metal"! Johnjbarton (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a very problematic article. There were far too many errors, and there may still be too many in the sources that we have not checked. In many cases obscure textbooks/sources are used which I cannot always find.

My thinking is to start by repairing/checking the specifics so we are at least somewhat confident that the text is backed up by the sources. I counted, and so far there are also 30 errors/misrepresentations found in my edits plus those of Johnjbarton and @Double sharp. Remove material which is not verified, Wikipedia:Be bold. If there is too much then it will be a case for Wikipedia:TNT, add a short section to Metal and convert this to a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

We have an article on Toxic heavy metals. I plan to focus this article on non-toxic heavy metal content. That will still leave a mess because the subject is inherently messy. Multiple references show that there is no agreed definition for the topic. More important, as far as I can tell, none of the definitions other than the the chemical one have any value. Thus I plan to document the mess and move on. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have moved content related to Selenium to Toxic heavy metal. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. I just spent another hour on this, finding more cases where the sources do not verify what is in the text and/or selected words have been extracted ignoring the general content. There is too much careless work here for a FAR, let alone a GA. I think we need to launch a GAR. Agreed? Ldm1954 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really up on all that stuff, but the article is not a gem to be sure. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

GAR needed?

I am opening this topic rather than jumping straight to a GAR nomination; I strongly suspect one is needed.

Over the last few weeks @Johnjbarton and I have been checking the sources in this article. I cannot say what they were like when this article went up for a FAR, only this version. Currently far, far too many of the sources fail to verify, and there are obvious errors; please see the edit history and inline tagging. These range from probably simple typos (promethium in batteries when not enough exists for more than a few) to the use of a source to validate a statement it does not make (quoting a source as "in biology" when it only discusses aqueous systems) or selective truncation of a quote (misrepresenting the TMS light metals division). While some of these may be just carelessness, there are too many and IMO we cannot accept a GA (let alone a FA) with so many. I have not been able to check everything since many of the sources are in obscure books that are not readily available on the web. Some of the material herein appears to be deliberate SYNTH and/or OR as the sources do not support what is in the text. For instance, several of the (highly reputable) sources used call "heavy metals" a horrible term that should never be used; that they discourage it's use was omitted. (I added it to the current version).

My question, for discussion, is whether to go to a GAR. An independent editor (or editors) (not just the FA nominator) who has access to some of the obscure sources would need to cross-check them, as we standardly do for a new GA nomination.

Pinging some of the prior editors who have made significant comments, with apologies for those I have missed: @Double sharp, Sandbh, Dustfreeworld, Graeme Bartlett, R8R, Johnbod, Edwininlondon, YBG, Smokefoot, and SchroCat: Ldm1954 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This post shows a marked unfamiliarity with the subject matter. The term “heavy metal/s” has never been defined by any authoritative body such as IUPAC. In this context, whoever edited the Definition section to add:

"The IUPAC, which standardizes nomenclature, says the term heavy metals is both meaningless and misleading"...

...after "There is no widely agreed criterion-based definition of a heavy metal."

was editing way out of their depth, and pointlessly.

Re several sources calling "heavy metals" a "horrible" term and thereby not supporting what's in the text, that's a question of WP:DUE. The article has always had a Criticism section, noting Duffus' 2002 review of the the definitions of "heavy metal" used over the previous 60 years and concluding they were so diverse as to effectively render the term meaningless. Equally, the Popularity section states:

"Despite its questionable meaning, the term heavy metal appears regularly in scientific literature. A 2010 study found that it had been increasingly used and seemed to have become part of the language of science.[55] It is said to be an acceptable term, given its convenience and familiarity, as long as it is accompanied by a strict definition.[24]"

The bottom line is that term has become so entrenched in the literature, and the popular consciousness, that sources which refer to it as "horrible" and that it shouldn't be used are effectively pissing in the wind, so to speak. By way of example, Google's Ngram shows the term "heavy metals" as being more popular than the terms, "Albert Einstein", "Sherlock Holmes", and "Frankenstein". As another example of the subject extent of unfamilarity with the literature, American Chemical Society journals record 27,593 hits for "heavy metals" v "15,934 for "alkali metals", with the latter being an IUPAC approved term. So much for the relevance of IUPAC.

Pinging the prior FAC 2 editors who were not pinged @Nergaal, Vanamonde93, and Jimfbleak: --- Sandbh (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry @Sandbh, but you are misquoting sources. For instance, you quote above [55] (‘Heavy metal’—time to move on from semantics to pragmatics? DOI:https://doi.org/10.1039%2FC0EM00056F) to imply that the term is commonly used when the abstract of that article is:

''Despite the repeated calls to stop, most notably in a technical publication of the International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the use of the term ‘heavy metal’ appears not to have declined in the scientific literature and there is little evidence that the IUPAC instructions and those of other publications have had any measurable impact on this widespread usage. Indeed, the use of the term is increasing rather than declining. Four options are presented to solve this dilemma.''

A NPOV statement has to include the fact that the article discourages use of the term, rather than only extracting part of the contents. As said above, similar to a new GA sources need to be independently checked, too many have already failed verification.

N.B., please remember the 4th pillar of Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, pro-forma, please note https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200274050793“ HEAVY METALS”—A MEANINGLESS TERM? (IUPAC Technical Report). The abstract includes the sentence Thus, the term “heavy metals” is both meaningless and misleading. This is not a "cherry-picked" quote, it is directly the theme of that article (which also has some other very critical comments). Please check your sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh Please refrain from uncivil comments like:

• "...editing way out of their depth, and pointlessly."

Wikipedia is based on verifiable references, not expertise. In this case the content was clearly sourced to a review.

I think the sentence you point needs better context as I have already added in Toxic heavy metal. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Basis for reorganization.

Numerous secondary references note issue with the definition of "heavy metals" and recommend clearly defining the particular meaning selected in a publication. We need to apply that recommendation to this article. As noted in the article and refs there are 4 main definition based in toxicity, density, atomic number, and chemistry. Therefore I propose that the article be organized into four sections based on these different definitions.

• Toxic metals. A summary section for main article Toxic heavy metal,
• Dense metals. The main focus of this article according to the lead.
• High Z metals. Primarily a summary of Transuranium element
• Transition and post transition metals. Based on chemical behaviors (Hawke/United States Pharmacopeia)

Unfortunately much of the current content has the logic of: define a list of elements, discuss the listed elements. So the bulk of the content is unrelated to the defining character used to create the list and thus unrelated to the article topic. Characteristics like "density" arise in a collection of elements for reasons related to atomic interactions. That is what makes the category "heavy metals" meaningful: given that we know an element is a heavy metal we can predict that has these kinds of interactions. But that's it. Absent specific references connecting density to say chemistry or mining, listing chemical properties or extraction for these elements is not relevant. On the other hand, I expect chemical behavior would have some role in for example extraction and we should find references to explain that connection. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Heavy metal (elements)

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Procedural close. @Ldm1954: this article needs a featured article review, not a good article reassessment. See WP:FAR for instructions. Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

During checking the sources a month ago, I found 14 that failed verification. This ranged from truncated quotes to inappropriate use of sources to support points that they don't make. At about the same time Johnjbarton (talk · contribs) also found a significant number of errors and irrelevant information; everything can be found in the edit history or in main page tags. As such it fails GA 2b, 3b, 4 and perhaps others. I posted on the talk page that I was considering a GAR, and the original FA nominator responded with comments that violate the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Until these major issues are resolved not only does it not merit FA status, it does not merit GA. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Courtesy Ping of GAR for prior editors@Double sharp, Sandbh, Dustfreeworld, Graeme Bartlett, R8R, Johnbod, Edwininlondon, YBG, Smokefoot, SchroCat, Nergaal, Vanamonde93, and Jimfbleak: