Talk:Oxygen#Michał Sędziwój

I've been doing some basic research into the etymology behind Oxygen, and found that Lavoisier's contribution states that:

::This and other experiments on combustion were documented in his book Sur la combustion en général, which was published in 1777. In that work, he proved that air is a mixture of two gases; 'vital air', which is essential to combustion and respiration, and azote (Gk. ἄζωτον "lifeless"), which did not support either.

However when actually reading "Sur la combustion en général", neither "vital air" nor "azote" are ever mentioned:

[https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf]https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf

The closest he came to defining either (as far as I could find) is the line:

::Ainsi, pour résumer, l’air est composé, suivant moi, de la matière du feu comme dissolvant, combinée avec une substance qui lui sert de base et en quelque façon qui la neutralise

In English:

::Thus, to summarize, air is composed, according to me, of the matter of fire as a solvent, combined with a substance which serves as its base and in some way which neutralizes it.

The wikipedia text that claims he called these "vital air" and "azote" stems from reference [18]: "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements." [https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up]https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up

::In 1777 he published his work on combustion under the title "Sur la combustion en general." Lavoisier showed that air is essentially a mixture of two gases, which he called "vital air" and "azote."

I don't disbelieve that Lavoisier started calling the two components of air "vital air" and "azote" at some point after his discovery, and the etymology of Oxygen aligns well with him mentioning that a lot of combustions produce acid later in the paper.

...But I'm not sure where Clifford A. Hampel, from "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements," found the terms "vital air" and "azote". From what I can gather, it can't be found in "Sur la combustion en général".

Now this is all hyper-nitpicky for sure, and maybe I've overlooked a very important line in Lavoisier's paper and I'm all wrong here, but when I came upon this discrepancy I figured it might be worth pointing out. :-) Fiets38 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/22/dark-oxygen-in-depths-of-pacific-ocean-could-force-rethink-about-origins-of-life] “ Charged metallic lumps found to produce oxygen in total darkness in process akin to how plants use photosynthesis” Doug Weller talk 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does the image keep changing from gaseous to liquid O2 2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

H, C and O, if referring to hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen; should be pluralized as H's, C's, and O's (with apostrophes); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = hassium, Cs = cesium, and Os = osmium. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a PDF, did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The article has are several single sentences, unsourced statements, and more coverage needs to be added. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:The article is already pretty long, what kind of coverage are you suggesting? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Oops, sorry for the late reply. Added bunch of tags. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I will try to get to these tags and issues within a month, but I am very busy right now. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Just take your time, no rush. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Boneless Pizza!}} All cn tags have been taken care of. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It seems like the common issue have been resolved already (nice job), though I'm not sure if this one still needs more eyes since I'm not expert at this subject. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Should the lead have a long paragraph about respiration mechanisms of animals? The topic is not covered in the article AFAICT. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:The History / Discovery section has some issues. The paragraph on Sendivogius relies on one Polish source with possible bias. The Maples source seems to have been written by a Mason (Freemasonry) and it does not anyway verify the content

:* {{tq|This discovery of Sendivogius was however frequently denied by the generations of scientists and chemists which succeeded him.}}

:In other sources it's clear that later scientists did not understand the consequences of Sendivogius' work anymore than he did. That's quite a lot different than "denied".

:A much better source for the entire section would be

:* Severinghaus, J. W. (2016). Eight sages over five centuries share oxygen's discovery. Advances in physiology education, 40(3), 370-376.

:In particular the early studies did not "discover" oxygen as a molecule or element but rather noted some properties and found steps towards purification. (The whole concept of "discovery" of these early elements makes no sense.) Johnjbarton (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|LTA infestation}}

There is the consensus template above for British English. Oxygen is international. 2600:6C5A:557F:D058:FC51:A35B:329D:9634 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can you link to the discussion that established that consensus? ZergTwo (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::A discussion between 1101 & Zefr, Zefr accepted 96.33.107.226 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

I would like a consensus to use BrE. 96.33.107.226 (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think the consensus should be here. Zefr (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I believe there shouldn't be without a good reason. ZergTwo (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Here's the reason: This article is transcluden in other articles using British English. Theonepoppa6 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's not really a reason, or if it were we'd have to throw out one guideline or the other. If one cares about that {{tlx|engvar}} can be made flexible. Remsense ‥ 论 20:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I struck some socks/evasion-IPs. DMacks (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The table "Ten most common elements" has bar graph but is labeled "not to scale". The entire point of a bar graph is to provide visual comparisons: it must be to scale to be useful. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Scaled. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)