Talk:Mercury(II) chloride

Diagram

Need molecular diagram. Badagnani (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical question

Was this compound historically known as "oxymuriate of mercury"? That name appears in quite a few nineteenth-century medical texts, and I was wondering if it refers to HgCl2 or another compound. The "oxy" might suggest otherwise, but HgClO doesn't appear to be a medically-significant compound (we don't have an article on it). Tevildo (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like no-one has responded to your question since it was posted, so please allow me to do so. The answer is yes, it was known as the oxymuriate. I thoroughly recommend browsing really old chemistry textbooks :). RaynesParkGuy (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

New paper on Mercury(II) chloride used for preservation

http://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-015-0068-8

©Geni (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercury(II) chloride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425193836/http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/53.html to http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/53.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mercury(II) chloride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050503113212/http://www.cfr.msstate.edu/forestp/preservation.pdf to http://www.cfr.msstate.edu/forestp/preservation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718095129/http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~%20oaks/Articles/History.pdf to http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~%20oaks/Articles/History.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430223201/http://wisdomtools.com/poynter/syphilis.html to http://wisdomtools.com/poynter/syphilis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing "OR"?

"Mercuric chloride is obtained by the action of chlorine on mercury or mercury(I) chloride, __OR__ by the addition of hydrochloric acid to a hot, concentrated solution of mercury(I) compounds such as the nitrate:[2]"

In the section on Production, should the conjunction "or" be placed in the sentence, where I have placed "__OR__" above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.12.145 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"🜑" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 🜑 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#🜑 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"🜒" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 🜒 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#🜒 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Attribution of De aluminibus et salibus to al-Razi

@Dorsetonian: what do you mean with your edit summary here ("WP:NPOV")? Did you read the sources I cited? Let met quote you from Ferrario 2009, pp. 42:

The traditional attribution of the Arabic De aluminibus et salibus to Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakarīya’ al-Razī is based on a note, probably by Gerard of Cremona, found in a Latin manuscript of the book preserved in Paris. [...] A strong and yet to be refuted critique of this traditional attribution was proposed by Ruska in his monograph on the book published in 1935:24 (1) none of the pro-Razī positions is based on a real knowledge of al-Razī’s work; (2) in the Sirr al-asrar (Secret of Secrets), an authentic work by al-Razī, sal ammoniac is listed among spirits, while here it is classified as a salt; (3) in the De aluminibus et salibus, there are many references to al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) as a source of useful alchemical substances; and (4) Egyptian sal ammoniac, which is described in a couple of passages in the work, was produced only after 1100: thus, al-Razī could not have known it. In the present state of knowledge, Ruska’s assumption seems to be the most reliable, even if it does not succeed in identifying the author of this treatise: it should be attributed — Ruska assumed — to an anonymous alchemist who lived and worked in eleventh- to twelfth-century al-Andalus.

Ferrario is the foremost expert on the De aluminibus et salibus today (cf. Moureau 2020 p. 107 "Gabriele Ferrario is currently preparing a new critical edition of the Arabic fragments and of the Hebrew translation of the text"). The statement by Moureau I summarized also confirms that this is the current view among scholars. Moureau 2020, p. 117:

Bubacar’s (Rāzı̄) Liber secretorum. Although many alchemical Latin texts are attributed to Rāzı̄, only one is, in the current state of research, known to be a translation of the famous physician and alchemist. The Liber secretorum Bubacaris is the partial Latin translation [...], or more precisely a paraphrase, of the Kitāb al-asrār (Book of Secrets) of Rāzı̄ (Abū Bakr Muhammad b. Zakariyā’ al-Rāzı̄), a very influential Arabic text which is still extant.

It may help to know that the great, great majority of alchemical texts are pseudepigrapha, this is nothing unusual. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the change [the] text is anonymous in most manuscripts, though ... a few attribute it to Abu Bakr al-Razi to [the] text is anonymous in most manuscripts, though ... a few falsely attribute it to Abu Bakr al-Razi.(footnote)On the false attribution to al-Razi, see (document) and the sources cited there. Moureau 2020, p. 117 stresses that the only Latin work which in the current state of research is known to be a translation of an authentic Arabic work by al-Razi is the Liber secretorum Bubacaris, an interpolated paraphrase...

I did this on the basis of the textual change and did not spot that "attribute" was already linked to "Pseudepigrapha" (i.e. "falsely attribute"). So the change appeared take a balanced text saying (paraphrasing) "a few people attribute the manuscript to..." (which implies a not widely held view) to a rather less balanced "some people make this attribution but they are mistaken". On the basis that it already essentially said that I will revert my change. However, it appears that @Hu741f4: already contends the use of the word "falsely" and had removed it (albeit without amending the link to Pseudepigrapha), so this does appear to be a contentious section in the article. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I originally wrote the text about the different attributions in the manuscripts, and Hu741f4 just removed [1] the word "falsely", even leaving in the link to Pseudepigrapha. This is because previously only Moureau pp. 106–107 was cited, where he does not explicitly say that the attribution to al-Razi is false. On p. 117, however, he clear says (quote above) that there is only one Latin text attributed to al-Razi which is known to be authentic, and Ferrario 2009 (quote above) also says that the attribution to al-Razi is untenable, tracing the arguments for this back to Ruska 1935. Hu741f4's concerns should be answered by the citation of these sources in the edit you reverted. Thanks for restoring it, this was the right course of action. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding "falsely" before the attribution of a text to Hermes Trismegistus

adding that the text is "Falsely" attributed to Hermes doesn't change the overall context or meaning of the sentence. If you disagree then we should take it to board and ask for third opinion Hu741f4 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, to say that a text is falsely attributed to a legendary figure like Hermes Trismegistus is just awkward. Hermes did not exist, so of course he did not write that text. It's impossible for any attribution of a text to a non-existing figure like Hermes to not be false: there are no other texts which he did write. To get rid of the awkwardness I replaced "falsely" with an explicit mention of "the legendary figure" before Hermes' name, which would also convey that it's not really Hermes who wrote it, but without suggesting that there are texts which are falsely attributed to Hermes and other texts which actually were written by him (as, e.g., al-Razi did write authentic texts).

Now by adding "falsely" over and above "the legendary figure" you have made it even worse: now it has become an explicit tautology. In general, when an editor makes a wp:bold edit and it gets reverted, during discussion the bold edit should not be reinstated, but the article should be reverted to the status quo revision. I just did that, so let's discuss.

Why do you even want to add the word "falsely" here? Anyone who either knows the subject or clicks on the Hermes link will know that all attributions of texts to Hermes must by definition be false. Why, moreover, is an explicit mention that Hermes is a legendary figure (as I added here) not sufficient? Now the reader doesn't even have to know the subject or click the link to know that the attribution is false (at least if they can be trusted to logically infer that a legendary figure cannot write texts).

Yes, if you really want to change this you should get wp:consensus by WP:3O or some other dispute resolution process, but I strongly advise against wasting other editors' time with this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)