Talk:Chlorine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contradiction on use of chlorine trifluoride in the Second World War

The section Chlorine#Chlorine fluorides directly contradicts the article Chlorine trifluoride on the use of ClF₃ in war. Chlorine#Chlorine fluorides states that "it was used in bomb attacks during the Second World War by the Nazis"; this statement appears to be uncited (unless it falls in the scope of one of the nearby citations). Chlorine trifluoride states that "N-Stoff was never used in war", N-Stoff being the German code name for ClF₃; this statement is referenced to [1], which in turn references a German book on the topic.

Does anyone know who is right?

—Syrenka V (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Syrenka V: Greenwood and Earnshaw (the source, footnote 43) asserts that it was used: "ClF₃ is one of the most reactive chemical compounds known⁽⁷³⁾ and reacts violently with many substances generally thought of as inert. Thus it spontaneously ignites asbestos, wood, and other building materials and was used in incendiary bomb attacks on UK cities during the Second World War." However, it is a chemistry-focused source and does not cite any history-focused source for this last statement. Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: The best source I've been able to find so far (without access to any subscription-only sources either in history or in chemistry) is the following freely available book review in Nature:

Müller, Benno (24 November 2005). "A poisonous present". Nature. Review of: Kampfstoff-Forschung im Nationalsozialismus: Zur Kooperation von Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten, Militär und Industrie [Weapons Research in National Socialism] by Florian Schmaltz (Wallstein, 2005, 676 pages). 438: 427. doi:10.1038/438427a.

This review makes the following statement, presumably sourced to the book being reviewed:

In 1935, Peter Adolf Thiessen, a physical chemist, became the institute's director. The research focused on an explosive known as N-Stoff (chlorine trifluoride), which Thiessen hoped would prove more destructive than nitroglycerol. Despite being produced in large amounts, it was never successfully used.

I read the qualifier "successfully" as meaning merely that attempts were made to weaponize N-Stoff, but it was never actually deployed as a weapon—rather than that it was used but somehow failed to accomplish its (unstated) goals. Note that the book reviewed here is different from the one cited in the source linked above ([2]), to which the statement of non-use from the article Chlorine trifluoride is attributed.

Does Greenwood and Earnshaw in turn cite any source for its statement of use?

—Syrenka V (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment:

• • the section on chlorine fluorides, and several other classes of Cl compounds, are possibly examples of WP:UNDUE. The oxides and interhalogens are often unimportant, even obscure (context = chlor-alkali, organoCl). It is fun to talk about compounds that ignite asbestos, but so what?
  • There are few big industries and no biochemistry associated with these compounds, many of which are weirdos that we discuss in class and in class alone. Aside Cl_- as an electrolyte, there is little biochemistry except secondary metabolites in marine organisms.
  • Ullmann's Encylopedia, in giving an overview of the use of chlorine, presents the "chlorine tree" with seven branches showing the big apps, only one of which is inorganic Cl compounds (TiCl4, SiCl4, AlCl3, SxCl2, PClx, NaOCl). The rest is organic chem (PVC, dry cleaning solvents).
  • IMHO, the WWII remarks on ClF3 should be struck. It was obviously not a big app since experienced editors are having difficulty finding a hint of evidence. Within Wikipedia, there is nearly an obsession about WWII, and any chemical application associated with it. IMHO.

--Smokefoot (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the WWII remarks, as it is proving quite hard to find firm statements about it. (Greenwood & Earnshaw do not cite any source for their statement.) Nonetheless, the sections on Cl compounds are mostly focused on the chemistry of chlorine the element, rather than on the uses of such compounds, and as such I think such an organisation is more justifiable there (well, I'm biased, given the fact that I based it on how Greenwood & Earnshaw write their chapter on the halogens ^_^). There are separate sections on applications and biochemistry, which correctly do not mention much about those fun asbestos-igniting interhalogens. The "applications" section correctly notes "Quantitatively, of all elemental chlorine produced, about 63% is used in the manufacture of organic compounds, and 18% in the manufacture of inorganic chlorine compounds." It mostly focuses on Cl₂ itself and mostly neglects the compounds, though. It's true that the compounds are so important that they have their own articles where their uses are mentioned, but probably some of the major ones should be brought out of Ullmann. The short biochemistry section indeed is all about Cl⁻ as an electrolyte. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Although I am a radical inclusionist, I agree that the WW2 material does not belong in the general Chlorine article; its interest is too specific to ClF₃, and it says very little about chlorine as an element (especially since fluorine, not chlorine, is the real engine driving its awesome destructiveness). Instead, I've added the Müller reference to the Chlorine trifluoride article. One of the advantages of having a proliferation of articles is that the ones on broader topics can be shortened by moving material into the more specific ones, so that the comprehensive articles remain conveniently surveyable.

OTOH, as a general principle to be applied in other cases going forward, I don't think "fun", or even flat-out sensationalism and notoriety, should be dismissed in judging "due weight"—especially when, for example, the ability to ignite sand is a major portion of why chlorine trifluoride is of general interest. Due weight in an article about a chemical topic in a general-interest encyclopedia cannot be estimated in the same way as for an article on the same topic in a specialist encyclopedia (or textbook) of chemistry. And even in specialist literature, it's not all about industry and biology. The most vivid account I ever saw of the horrifying effects of phosgene was in an introductory college textbook on organic chemistry.

—Syrenka V (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My concerns about DUE weight were about the relative space devoted to things that are unimportant in everyday life, biochemistry, industry (vs the fatishism about WWII and enumerating interhalogens). There are measures to judge weight in chemistry - tonnage, disease, natural occurrence.. things like that.

Otherwise, your opinions are just feelings and personal recollections. They imply that you are somehow in touch with "general interests". And who cares if you or I is an inclusionists or not? Distracting personal remarks. The topic is what to include. Put more poetically: should we editors be serving word food that inexperienced editors and readers find delectable or should we be serving up a balanced but slightly blander diet of the way the world works?

In any case, these arguments have been wrestled with often and are not going to be settled here. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Deciding what is of general interest may be a matter of judgment and "recollections", but that does not make it purely subjective; it isn't even controversial in every case (for example, it is not controversial that WW2 is a matter of wide general interest). Of necessity, we make decisions every day based on unsystematic observations of this kind.

On the other hand, deciding on the basis of our own preferences, rather than general interest, what kind of "diet" should be served up to Wikipedia's readers is a purely subjective value judgment—even when the diet in question itself consists of matters of objective fact.

Referencing my radical inclusionism was merely shorthand for stating the principles underlying that inclusionism, and noting that they didn't prevent me from agreeing that the WW2 material should be removed from the Chlorine article. It was neither distracting nor purely personal.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Abundance of Chlorine

is it twentieth or twenty-first most abundant element? Clementb0 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It probably depends on who you ask, as there is quite a bit of variation in the lists at Abundance of elements in Earth's crust. The rank there gives 21 for Cl, so I've standardised it to that. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Chlroine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chlroine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Kloreen" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kloreen. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Chlor" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chlor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Chlorine in World War I

Chlorine was not the first gaseous chemical agent used in World War I. That would be ethyl bromoacetate. KommandantKarl44 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Hi my son and I are doing a research project and found the word 'crustal' in the text - shouldn't it be 'crystal' 71.198.112.127 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The word "crustal" in the third paragraph of the lead means "of the crust", and is therefore correct. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"Cl" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 17#Cl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC

I was about to review this at FAC so I will post my observations here:

• "History" section too long, needs subsections
  • Done. Keresluna (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• File:A G Barraque.jpg needs a more specific source, publication date, PD-US rationale
• File:Chlorine liquid in an ampoule.jpg would be a better header image of the article

(t · c) buidhe 18:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Rocket fuel

" Its reaction with hydrazine to form hydrogen fluoride, nitrogen, and chlorine gases was used in experimental rocket motors, but has problems largely stemming from its extreme hypergolicity resulting in ignition without any measurable delay." ... and we're just glossing over the fact that the exhaust includes chlorine gas and HF? :D Captain Pedant (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

New Lead Image

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I think that the lead image of this page (Chlorine) should be changed. This is because of:

1: The image shows a liquid form of chlorine, but at room temperature chlorine is a gas. I feel it would be better to have the more common form of the element shown. 2: The actual chlorine in the picture is very small compared to the box. You pretty much just see the box with little chlorine shown.

I propose that the image at https://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Images/Chlorine_gas.jpg (as an unregistered user I can't post pictures) be used instead, as it shows a gas form in a large amount of space.

Thank you for your time.

2601:600:9000:3080:7195:2120:35BD:B747 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot use that image since it is copyrighted. However, the image was changed without discussion in April 2021 and with a flimsy explanation, so I have reverted it. I think File:Chlorine in bottle.jpg could be an even better image, since the image is taller and similar in quality. I considered File:Chlorinegas.jpg as well, but that sample looks too similar to a bottle of urine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Current image (top) and proposed replacement (bottom).

I agree with Chlorine in Bottle.jpg being used as a new image, as it shows it much better and still as a gas. 2601:600:9080:A4B0:F9ED:1720:16BF:F650 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong nationality

when its nature as a separate gaseous substance was recognised by the Flemish chemist and physician Jan Baptist van Helmont. This person was born in Brussels, which would make him a citizen of Brabant, not Flanders. Flanders was only a state after 1830,This is common mistake for a lot of articles, which refer people from Brabant as Flemish, please correct it. ErickKKKK073 (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@ErickKKKK073:  Done ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

ok this is correct idk what is going n 2405:201:8025:580C:800A:2710:E9FA:E659 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You aren't proposing a specific change. Please be specific what text X you want to change into text Y. --Mvqr (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)