Talk:Arsenic

Too specific source

@LittleHow: The primary source A deep-sea hydrothermal vent worm detoxifies arsenic and sulfur by intracellular biomineralization of orpiment (As2S3) that was published a few weeks ago was removed from this article by Smokefoot. If it is at all useful to use on Wikipedia I would recommend it on Paralvinella hessleri if such an article is created as its scope is far too narrow for the page about Arsenic. -- Reconrabbit 20:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern about scope and the preference for secondary sources on Arsenic. A few points for consideration:

• Secondary coverage: While the original study is a primary source, it has already received expert commentary in Nature and Science. That makes it more than a routine “new finding” (per WP:NOTNEWS) and gives us high-quality secondary coverage to rely on.
• Notability for Arsenic: The result is not trivial. Paralvinella hessleri was found to tolerate arsenic at >1% of its body mass (10,189 ± 2231.1 μg/g, n = 3, fresh weight), which according to their review is "about one magnitude higher than most known arsenic hyperaccumulators." That scale of bioaccumulation is extreme and seems worth a concise mention in an overview article on arsenic, not just in a species page.
• Editorial prominence: The article was selected as the cover feature for PLOS Biology. That's a strong signal that the journal's editors regarded it as particularly noteworthy.
• Appropriate use of primary sources: WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit citing primary articles; it cautions against relying on them for interpretation or contentious claims. Here, the numerical result is an unambiguous factual statement. Combined with Nature and Science coverage, it can be included with appropriate weight.
• Images: There is currently no illustration in Arsenic of its biological effects. However, Commons now hosts a freely licensed figure from the PLOS Biology paper: File:Paralvinella hessleri.png. This could provide a valuable visual anchor for readers and highlight the biological interaction in a way the text alone does not.
• Emerging coverage in other Wikipedias: A draft article on Paralvinella hessleri has already appeared on the Spanish Wikipedia es:Usuario:Sanador2.0/Paralvinella hessleri. This indicates international editorial interest in the species and suggests that a dedicated English article is a realistic next step. In the meantime, a concise mention in Arsenic seems justified, given the scale of the reported accumulation and its coverage in Nature and Science.
• On edit summaries: I’d also note that earlier use of terms like “spam/spammer” in edit summaries was unhelpful. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, neutral phrasing such as “reverted good-faith edit per WP:SECONDARY/WEIGHT” keeps the focus on content and policy rather than intent.-- LittleHow (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. If it is covered in secondary sources, then citing those secondary sources would allow for a lower-level discussion of the use of arsenic in this organism and imply greater importance than just citing the original paper. For a topic like "Arsenic" which appeals to a broad audience, for instance per WP:TECHNICAL it wouldn't do to expect "epithelium" or "orpiment" to be immediately understood without gloss or explanation. -- Reconrabbit 13:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Inconsistent temperature values

"Arsenic sublimes upon heating at atmospheric pressure, converting directly to a gaseous form without an intervening liquid state at 887 K (614 °C). However, at 817 °C and 28 atm, arsenic melts.[28] The triple point is at 3.63 MPa and 1,090 K (820 °C)"

the temperatures don't match up right here "1,090 K (820 °C)"" but 1,090 K ≈ 817 °C

also the formatting is odd at one point you only use Celsius while in the others you use Kelvin first and then put Celsius in parentheses

I would change that but I don't have the time to access the direct sources so I will kindly ask someone else to do it Omegagod3 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The temperatures didn't match because it was rounding up to 2 significant figures. I made all of the units in that section match the order of "kelvin (celcius)" using {{convert}}. -- Reconrabbit 15:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

on wording of 'arsenic containing'

Though, I'd say that the wording can introduce confusion in the sense that it can be taken to mean that "arsenic compounds are always toxic"; and being part of the lede, I'm not sure readers get that the sentence is limiting its scope to early modern era only. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 04:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Could the wording be changed to "inorganic arsenic compounds have been..." since research into organic arsenic compounds is relatively recent? Unstirredshading23 (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The reverter's argument is that people at the time had no idea of what pure arsenic is, so I guess they'll also comment that concept of "inorganic" doesn't exist back then.

Anyways, pinging @Hu741f4. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 05:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

remove "since ancient times" Hu741f4 (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

or make two separate sentences. Hu741f4 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Arsenic containing compounds [removed] are poisonous to humans is repeating the first paragraph: "Arsenic is notoriously toxic." The sentence is specifically addressing that what we now know as arsenic compounds to be known as toxic, even if back then they're not calling them that. Arsenic is still arsenic in 500BCE, just like how gravity is still gravity during that time. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 06:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If we remove "since ancient times", I think that might remove the summary of arsenic's history and could potentially be repetitive. I do, however, think that it could be removed by mentioning in the first paragraph that "arsenic and many of its compounds are notoriously toxic" and replacing the third paragraph with something similar to "Despite the toxicity of arsenic, a few species of [...]", though the issue of providing the summary of its history may still remain.

Could you please clarify your proposal to split the original sentence into two? Thanks. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't support the claim "Arsenic has been known since ancient times to be poisonous to humans". This statement is also factually incorrect, because arsenic as an element (in its pure form) wasn't known back then. Hu741f4 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hu741f4 So we remove the sentence? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

From source: "Dioscorides [...] described arsenic as a poison in the first century." The source did not mention "compounds"; additionally, not all As. comp. are toxic. Current text implies otherwise. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

arsenic was neither isolated nor identified back then, so how can it be true https://academic.oup.com/book/40262/chapter-abstract/346699589?redirectedFrom=fulltext Hu741f4 (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying the current cited source is unreliable and we should change it. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

note: i've reverted you after 48 hours of no response.

we say what the sources say. between a source stating explicitly, "humans know As since ancient" and another source stating "As was first isolated in [year]", one echo the former. trying to infer that the former description is wrong from the latter sentence would be WP:SYNTHESIS.

regards. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No, its a bad (or non-technical, popular science) source. The source says "[Arsenic] is highly toxic in its inorganic form". There is no such thing as an organic allotrope of arsenic. They are talking about compounds of arsenic. Christian75 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you :) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)