Talk:Boron

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

James.aminian (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

this user "Viaros17" changed the "Persian alchemist" to "perso-arab" alchemist. there is no such a word in the dictionary as "perso-arab". so I think we should revert it back to the Persian alchemist. James.aminian (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Have removed, his article does not mention his ethnicity in the intro since There is a difference of opinion as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khorasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian Sabian origin and later lived in Persia and Iraq, so it's probably enough to just link to his article. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Boron is not such a "Boron" element

Boron smells like cheese, cheese is life, life=cheese,cheese=happy,boron=cheese,oron=happy,bron=hsppy life An0nym0u$ edit0r unk0wn (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

run-on sentence/phrasing/grammar

Please change "Borax, its mineral form then known as tincal, glazes were used in China from AD 300, and some crude borax reached the West, where the alchemist Jābir ibn Hayyān apparently mentioned it in AD 700." to "Borax (then known as tincal in its mineral form) first saw use as a glaze, beginning in China circa 300 AD. Some crude borax traveled westward, and was apparently mentioned by the alchemist Jābir ibn Hayyān around 700 AD."

 Done. Slightly changed the wording. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally: While the ethnicity of Jābir ibn Hayyān may be disputed/controversial, I think some sort of geographical datum is needed here beyond the vague and ethnocentric "The West". Also, mentioned in what, and why only "apparently"?

 Question: I'm not sure. Do you have a suggestion for how to change it? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Please change "In 1777, boric acid was recognized in the hot springs (soffioni) near Florence, Italy, and became known as sal sedativum, with primarily medical uses. The rare mineral is called sassolite, which is found at Sasso, Italy." to "In 1777, boric acid was recognized in the hot springs (soffioni) near Florence, Italy, at which point it became known as sal sedativum, with ostensible medical benefits. The (boric acid mineral?) was named sassolite, after Sasso, Italy."

 Done. Fixed a minor detail. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Any claim from the 18th century regarding the health benefits of X substance from Y hot spring should be treated with a grain of salt (no pun intended) and qualified appropriately. The second sentence here segues terribly from the preceding one, mostly due to, "'The rare mineral'? What rare mineral?" The last mineral mentioned was borax, a paragraph and 1400 years ago. But sassolite is not borax, it's boric acid? Are they the same thing? The current sentence also makes it sound like sassolite is, by definition, only found in Sasso, which does not seem to be the case.

173.72.124.221 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Question: What should these paragraphs be changed to? Deauthorized. ^(talk) 20:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

They did add that, (the sentences are separated by "to"), though it may be hard to see at first glance because the sentences are long. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Answered above. Agreed about the issues, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to offer solutions. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: Actually, this section originally was just copy and pasted from [1] by you way back in 2009. Do you have any suggestions on how to clean all this up? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

Boron causes very rare blue diamonds 2A02:C7F:EAE9:7200:1D3C:4DCB:7EE0:EC4A (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

edits today

Resolved

Today new, boron-only editor Roohitmhatre (talk · contribs) made three edits to boron: [2]. In these:

Ullmann's Encyclopedia was removed

Two references were added https://borates.today/ The site does not look like a peer-reviewed paper, more like an industry-promoting site.

Larger paragraphs on medical application were added (including bolded "Boron helps women:").

Edit summaries were not very precise (eg, removal of reference not mentioned)

In Electroless nickel-boron plating, also a source was removed & replaced with https://borates.today/[3]

I'd say, shouldn't we take an otherlook at these changes, and RS-quality of the new site? And doesn't this have too much smell of promoting? @Roohitmhatre: -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved, case closed. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Nomenclature for dates

In the History section, there are numerous references to dates using the "AD" suffix. As far as I am aware, "AD" has fallen out of use in favour of "CE" (particularly for scientific literature). Is this worth changing? I thought I'd run it past the good folks here before I made any edits. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Chemistry

Boron 41.223.119.33 (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

boron price mistake?

The article mentions that 4 million tons of boron are produced per year with the price being 5usd / gram. That means 20 trillion of boron is sold each year, something must be wrong with those numbers... Vlad tepes 999 (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)