Talk:Iron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Protection

why is this page fully protected yet i can edit it?Gopal81 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC) and also, what's with the "create" section of this page?

You can edit it because you are registered. You added the "create" section. --Wizard191 (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Iron ore mining distribution

This is just about the map that shows the distribution of iron mining in the world. The map shows that six iron ore mines are in the south east of Australia. If I am not mistaken some of the biggest iron ore mines in the world are in the west of Australia with very few if any in the east of Australia. Perhaps the map should be replaced by something more accurate or just taken down

Please read the caption to the maps, and see the comments on all your other similar posts for the varuious metals... Turgan ^Talk 18:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron, nickel, meteorites and stellar nucleosynthesis?

The intro says: "Iron is the heaviest element produced by stellar nucleosynthesis; heavier elements require a red giant or supernova for their formation. Iron and nickel are therefore the most abundant metals in metallic meteorites and in the dense metal cores of planets such as Earth". Firstly, this doesn't make sense since nickel is heavier than iron. Secondly, the article on stellar nucleosis lists amongst most important reactions in stellar nucleosynthesis "production of elements heavier than iron" and states that stellar nucleosis. Can someone please clarify this? I came here looking for an explanation and have come away more confused than before. Thanks --Irrevenant [ talk ] 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is (I understand) the result of nuclear physics. Atomic weights are normally expressed as integers, but in fact they are not exactly such. Thus the fusion of two deuterium atoms to form helium involves a loss of mass, which is emerges as energy. This is the power source that drive the sun and stars. Energy continues to be released as fusion occurs to progressively larger atoms until iron. After iron, energy has to be put in to make larger atoms. Accordingly, iron is the most stable element. The release of energy by nuclear fusion can go no further. At least, that is what I was taught at school. The reference to nickel looks wrong, but I do not propose to alter the article on the basis of what my chemistry master explained nearly 40 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the answer to your question, but upon a little research there is an article called iron meteorite which states that metallic meteors are mostly comprised of iron and nickel. It sort of dead-ends there where the nickel comes from. Perhaps you might want to go to that talk page and post your question, because you'll probably get better results. I have changed the sentence slightly to link there and removed the connection to the nucleosynthesis. Wizard191 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Peterkingiron this might explain a bit more: Nickel has lower bonding energy per nucleon then iron but it is very close. iron has the highest bonding energy per nucleaon and therefore if you wanted to extract the largers amount of the nuclear enegry from nutrons and protons, you would fuse them into iron. the term 'stable' is a bit problematic IMHO since stability depends on the environemnt and under normal conditions most naturally occuring isotopes are 100% stable and will last forever if they are not subjected to radiation. instad of 'stable' i would say something like this "in instellar nucleosynthesis conditions, iron is the favored product since it will not release enegry in a nuclear recation. lighter elements then iron can release energy by fusing into heavier elements, while heavier elements will release energy by breaking down into lighter components" in reality, heavier elements are created but their creation consumes enegry rather then releases energy and and that is only possible because there is a lot of radiation and very high temperatures that can 'give' the required energy. so once you have a stellar body that is composed of heavy elements and is radioactive it will eventually produce elements closer and closer to iron until it can no longer release any more energy and will start getting less radio active and colder, eventually collapsing and then either transforming into a denser body (neutron star perhaps) or exploding (supernova?). i'm no expert in atronomy, but the physics is clear, in a situation where nuclear reaction are happening all th time and heavy elements are abundant, iron is the most favourable final product. source of info: ginacolli physics chapter 30 and 31 (i didn't copy anything form there but that's where i learned it from). After reading a bit more, it seems that nickel is quite abundant as the author explained; though it is heavier then iro it is very close to iron and is produced

Well, the above is not really correct. Sorry. See Nickel, Binding energy, Stellar nucleosynthesis, Isotopes of nickel, etc. The stable nuclide with the highest binding energy is actually nickel-62, followed by iron-58 and iron-56. The reason you see so much more iron-56 around than the other two, is not because of energy considerations. Rather, inside a type Ia supernova, there's an excess of energy but not enough neutrons, so what gets produced is the nuclide which is "pretty close to most tightly bound" and "pretty stable," with the constraint of using fewest neutrons (or at least equal numbers of neutrons and protons, since this is being done with helium). That's nickel-56, with a half-life of 6 days. It is Ni-56 (atomic number 28 of course) that gets made in quantity from helium (you see it's just 14 alpha particles), and blown into space. Especially see Silicon burning process, which I think I'll link back here. We've seen lightcurve decays of massive amounts of this Ni-56 decay to Co-56, then Fe-56, in new supernova clouds. All the Fe-56 you see around you is radiogenic-- it was originally radioactive nickel-56 when first blasted out into space, then quickly become iron-56. SBHarris 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AS I made clear my knowledge of the subject is about 40 years old. I am happy to leave this subject to experts. My response should be regarded as a "holding" response, to be ignored when better information was made available. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry-- I just had to look it up again myself. The basic problem is that people who understand this kind of thing don't explain in the simplest way. Elements from helium to iron are dominated in universal abundance (depending on the type of supernova they came from) by various sets of nuclides made of even numbers of alphas. The problem is that Ca-40 (10 alphas) is the last stable nuclide-- everything heavier with equal proton and neutron numbers, is radioactive. 56 nucleons from 14 alphas is near the most stable size, and not too unstable radioactively (6 day half life) and that's Ni-56. But 60 nucleons made from 15 alphas (Zn-60) has a half-life of only 2.4 minutes, so you can see it's energetically bad because of an increasingly wrong proton/neutron ratio. So He-fusion sticks at Ni-56, and all our iron-56 is from that. There's no "easy" way to make Ni-62, or any of the stable Ni isotopes, out of alpha particles. SBHarris 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you Sbharris for correcting me and clarifying this topic. i was totally unaware that nickel nickel 62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon and not iron 56. thankfully someone corrected me, and hopefully it will be corrected in the article itself by someone, as the information in the public article seems incorrect. iron 56 is *not* "the heaviest stable isotope produced by the alpha process in stellar nucleosynthesis". stellar nucleosynthesis seems quite a complex process, but IMHO, since this article is not about that but rather about iron, it does not have to go too deep into that. just simply state that iron one of the heaviest stable isotopes that are produced by stellar nucleosynthesis in red giants, and it is the most abundant metal since it is the most favorable product of that (stellar nucleosynthesis) process. (i hope i got it right this time). Hrneo (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Iron from red meat

Currently the section on dietary intake of iron states "heme/hemoglobin from red meat has effects which may increase the likelihood of colorectal cancer." I don't think this statement can be accurately concluded from the two articles provided as references. The first article was about rats fed a diet high in red meat hemoglobin, and it was found that the rats had higher level of cytotoxic materials in their fecal water. It was also found that the rats had lower levels of cytotoxic lipids and fatty acids. Fecal matter is removed from the body for a reason - its nature is cytotoxic, and also I don't think we can use this to conclusively link red meat hemoglobin to human incidence of colorectal cancer. The authors say that their previous studies show that cytotoxic compounds may lead to epithelial proliferation which is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. However as far as I can see in their previous work, cytotoxic fatty acids were what was shown to induce epithelial proliferation, but the results of this study were that that cytotoxic fatty acid compounds were reduced, not increased by red meat hemoglobin consumption. The second article showed that hemoglobin and hemin from red meat shows cytotoxic effects when placed in cultures of colonocytes (colon cells) and cancer cells in vitro. I just dont see how this data can be related to the in vivo condition for a number of reasons. First, its unlikely whole hemoglobin/hemin would make it through the stomach without being at least partially broken up. Secondly, the colon is not just colonocytes but also contains mucus membrane, epithelial cells, bacterial flora etc all of which contribute to the in vivo condition and may shield colonocytes from cytotoxic effects. Also, should we really be surprised when animal proteins placed in culture with human cells exhibit cytotoxicity? Is this anything more than a simple immune response? In fact the study showed that the hemoglobin was also cytotoxic to cancer cells... if I were to draw scientific conclusions as readily as some I might even say this effect reduces likelihood of colorectal cancer (lets not go that far). The second study also claims that previous studies have shown that although processed red meat and unprocessed red meat have similar quantities of hemoglobin, the processed red meat correlates more significantly to colorectal cancer than unprocessed red meat, which seems to indicate that factors other than red meat hemoglobin may be responsible for incidence of colorectal cancer. If there are further studies which conclusively link red meat hemoglobin to incidence of colorectal cancer in HUMANS, they should be properly cited as the source for these claims. If not, I think this should be removed from the article, because I don't think its a scientifically valid conclusion to draw from those cited studies. I'm going to continue researching the subject so maybe I'll see I'm completely wrong, but if thats the case hopefully I can provide a better source for the claim than what is currently provided.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.40.171 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 

Needed for B-Class

• The precaution section should be made. If iron is the most common toxicological causes of death in children under six we need a precautions section. The point that the article Iron poisoning is not linked to the article is quite strange. (done)
• The applications section and the compounds section needs a transformation to pros. (done)
• Without a chemistry section this article is not close to B but more likly a C-Class. (done)
• Banded iron formation as the largest source for iron ore and the history of change in earths atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing conditions might be a point to be mentioned somwhere.
• The difference between iron(III) and iron(II) in biology has to be added. The bio availibility of reduced iron is mentioned in one sentence, but this is the key point for the bioavailibility.
• The applications section only gives the metalic iron applications, but there should be others applications.(someone added too much compound info, removed most of it)--Stone (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All made more valid considering this is a Vital article. Changed to C class and I copied your points to the assessment comments subpage. --mav (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Preacautions" (sic)?

The "Preacautions" section seems rather unnecessary given it's empty and the content of the section right before it ("Regulations of uptake") covers the topic quite well. Plus it is misspelled. (I haven't edited enough pages yet to be allowed to edit the page myself.) LordEniac (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Nergaal is populating the article with sections that the article requires. I've fixed the spelling problem. Wizard191 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Iron provided by dietary supplements is often found as iron (II) fumarate, although iron sulfate is cheaper and is absorbed equally well."

This needs a citation, as does most of the article, but I can't seem to edit the page. AhsenM (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on Talk:History of ferrous metallurgy

I asked a question here but thought this page probably gets much more attention than that page, so thought I would note it here. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture of unit cell

Found a nice picture of the bcc unit cell on commons. The article is protected, maybe a registered user could add this image. 91.21.205.152 (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but we usually don't overload element articles with unit cell pictures as those are rather basic (fcc, bcc, hcp is almost the whole list). A link to the article works better in this case. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One Fourth?

Under the blast furnace section, China is quoted as producing one fourth of world production. One quarter is probably more commonplace language, especially to a layperson. 157.203.42.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC).

Agreed and changed. Materialscientist (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Catalysis

Iron is experiencing a surge of interest in the field of catalysis due to its high abundance and low cost. Specifically, iron analogues of existing ruthenium and osmium-based catalysts are being tested for activity due to iron being isoelectronic with the more expensive second- and third-row transition metals (and thereby exhibiting the same reactivity). Applications include Fisher-Tropsch and transfer-hydrogenation catalysis. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 3317 – 3321). I don't yet have editing privileges on semi-locked articles. Bondith (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Bondith

Added, in rephrased form. Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, except it's not iron nanoparticles that are being used in catalysis. They're coordination complexes. Bondith (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrected (I had no access to the article yesterday and assumed nanoparticles because of my background :). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, there are nanoparticles in my background too. I've been hanging out on Wikipedia for a long while now and finally decided to pitch in. What else does this article need to move it up a grade in the ratings? Bondith (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you accumulate 5 more edits anywhere, you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles directly. Speaking of improving the grade, the applications need to be rewritten from a bulleted list into a smooth prose, and history needs expansion. I don't ask you to do that, as this might be a dull task, but we would appreciate your help in any directions which might interest you. Other chapters of iron are not perfect too and there are thousands of chemical articles around :). Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Anyone got a better picture of some iron? The photo at the top of this article is very poor quality! -- CharlesC (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Iron is so ubiquitous that a picture could be taken of anyting. A girder, a nail, a car frame, labaratory grade iron, iron powder, steel rope, a screw, etc. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The image has been very much improved since september 2009 (this version). The current image in the infobox is not bad. Materialscientist (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I could see that picture is very nondescript. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron tetrafluoride

The only mentioning I could find of iron tetrafluoride was Mass spectrometric and FTIR spectroscopic identification of FeF4 molecules in gaseous phase doi:10.1016/S1387-7003(03)00070-4 which is only a primary source. Is there a secondary source for that?--Stone (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is cited in this section as ref. 193, but for MnF₄. Also cited by doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2008.07.014, which is a large review, but I can't read it. Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2008.07.014 says: The highest iron fluoride characterized experimentally beyond doubt thus far is FeF3 .--Stone (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

barium ferrate(IV) or strontium ferrate(IV) might be better examples.doi:10.1016/0022-4596(91)90263-H, and HoWi --Stone (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions about diet

The health and diet section reads, in part

+ Iron provided by dietary supplements is often found as iron(II) fumarate, although iron sulfate is cheaper and is absorbed equally well. Elemental iron, or reduced iron, despite being absorbed to a much smaller extent (stomach acid is sufficient to convert some of it to ferrous iron), is often added to foods such as breakfast cereals or enriched wheat flour. Iron is most available to the body when chelated to amino acids—iron in this form is 10 to 15 times more bioavailable than any other, and is also available for use as a common iron supplement.

A few things jump out at me. First, "(stomach acid is sufficient to convert some of it to ferrous iron)" looks like original research to me, and should probably not be included if it can't be referenced. Also, in the journal article cited, i can't find any claim like is made in the article of 10-15 times. They do write, "Apparent iron bioavailabilities were calculated at 26.7% for FeS04 and 90.9% for ferrous bis-glycinate chelate." But never write, "ten", "10", "fifteen", nor "15" in the abstract or body of the article. Am I missing something? 0¹⁸ (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems a trivial fact that elemental iron dissolves in a strong aqueous acid like HCl to give Fe²⁺ (aq).--Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that on a bench top, you should be able to oxidize iron this way, especially with a concentrated acid and heat. As for bioavailability, I'm don't see how this is obvious. First off, the pH isn't that low in the stomach, and there is a lot of other things in the mixture other than HCl and water. I'm not saying an iota won't be absorbed, but it is not obvious this is an important process. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may not be "obvious," but it's a question that can be settled by experiment. In humans with normal acid production, various preparations of fine elemental iron are absorbed from 36% to 65% as well as the iron in iron sulfate. [1] Is that "significant," or not? That depends on your point of view. SBHarris 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a source! Now we can put it in the article and update, "to a much smaller extent" to 36-65%. 0¹⁸ (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Black iron

What is the black iron mentioned in many Wikipedia articles?[2].

Is black iron some specific kind of wrought iron or some specific kind of cast iron, or is it a generic term for any kind of iron that happens to have firescale or mill scale, the black oxide typical when iron is heated in air? Is there a connection between the terms "black iron" and "blacksmith"? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic Saturation

irono magnetis to the table of physical properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic love monkey (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sentence structure

The last sentence under the section "Cast iron" within the sub-heading "History" may need revision. It reads, "Since iron was becoming cheaper and more plentiful, it also became a major structural material following the building of the innovative first first iron bridge in 1778."

The word "first" is used twice consecutively in the latter part of the sentence. Granted, "first iron bridge" is an internal-link. Apm963 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed "doubled first". The article is yet unshaped and thus the prose will hopefully be rewritten. Materialscientist (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Azurajalal, 24 February 2011

ok here goes... there is an entire chapter (the 57th chapter, 29 verses) in the Quran called al-Hadid: The Iron and I want to put this piece of info somewhere in the page.

Its bold, alright. And since there is a mention somewhere of a reference to the Book of Genesis, why not the Quran? Plus, this is the International Year of Chemistry 2011 :)

Cheers from Dunedin, NZ

Azurajalal (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The text already states that that iron is mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago, and the embedded pipelink for "Quran mentions" indeed goes to Al-Hadid. SBHarris 06:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This has been my third attempt in almost a year to add the British pronunciation. Please don't remove it once again! This is what it looks like now: (US /ˈaɪ.ərn/, US /ˈaɪrn/ and UK /ˈaɪən/). Two standard pronunciations in American English, one in British English. If you doubt me, consult Cambridge UP's Daniel Jones English Pronouncing Dictionary. --Akkolon (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been changed once again, at least in the infobox. Can someone please restore it to the /r/-less UK pronunciation? (I think the /r/ is pronounced in some dialects of Scottish English, but it's definitely a mispronunciation in RP). 46.115.1.226 (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK pronunciation hasn't been removed, but only one US pronunciation is given in the infobox. – anna 10:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Quibbles

1.a. Iron ores. Masabi Range in US. Mass precipitation of Hydrated Ferric Oxides by microorganisms after Oxygen release after photosynthesis began. Ferrous ion still being oxidized by microorganisms at "smoker" vents at undersea spreading centers.

1.b. Alluvial Magnetite concentrations. (China, Korea)

2. Edison Battery (Fe-KOH-NiO₂) reversibly plates out Iron on charging.

3. Primitive Man knew Native Copper and Native Silver and Gold metals probably also Meteoritic Iron.

4. "trace amounts of magnesium to alter the shape of graphite to spheroids," because flake graphite found in untreated iron propagates cracks along the flakes. And trace amounts is about 50PPM because Magnesium BOILS over 500 degrees C BELOW Iron's melting temperature. Cerium is also used (see ductile iron) at around 1000PPM in unrefined form Mischmetal.

5. The second paragraph about rust is inaccurate. Iron has a more heterogeneous surface than most metals; with Iron metal, Ferrites, and Carbon/Graphite having different surface potentials. Rust requires the formation of an electrolytic cell consisting of anodic pits with the surface mass acting as cathode. Due to current flow, soluble Ferrous ions travel out of the pits where they become oxidized to the more insoluble polymeric Ferric Oxide/Hydroxide which precipitates near the surface. This has NOTHING to do with the made up "iron oxides occupy more volume than iron metal". And not ALL iron oxides are Rust. Black Ferric Oxide created by strong oxidizer like Nitric Acid conforms to surface like Aluminum Oxide.

6. -40 degrees C winter temps in central US and Canada (even colder) and "Dry Ice" @ -78 C cause embrittlement of Iron alloys due to phase change. This is not noted.

Shjacks45 (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. If you have references for this stuff, go ahead and add it. WP:SOFIXIT. SBHarris 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

--Stone (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation (2)

/'ai.əɹn/? or, if accents are to be included:

US1: ['ai.əɹn] US2: ['ai.əɻn] US3: ['aiɚn] UK: [aiən]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starprizm (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All the versions in all Teutonic languages should be included. Even English dialects in, say, South Africa have been neglected.

Hardness

In the Miscellanea section you have put the Vickers and Brinell hardness in units of MPa. It is true that the hardness is derived from an indent caused by stress, but this is not the proper way to report hardness. Vickers for example has its own scale and is reported as x HV y or just x HV where x is the hardness number and y is the load used. The hardness number itself is just a relative value reported with the rating scale used. HB for Brinell scale and HV for Vickers scale.Galdar84 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fe redirect

Does really Fe have to redirect to Iron? Ca, Hg, or Pb do not redirect to Calcium, Mercury (element) or Lead, for example. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You have a point. Since there are two of us, I'll try to fix this unless we get massive objections from others. SBHarris 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss change in Fe at Talk:Fe. "Fe" might have a primary topic when "Hg" doesn't, for example. If the new consensus is that "Fe" no longer has a primary topic, Fe (disambiguation) will need to be moved to the base name, otherwise it's WP:MALPLACED. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion for people to discuss the problem on TALK:Fe. The problem is generic to two-letter wiki articles that happen to be the same two letters that stand for a chemical element if the first one is a capital and the second lower-case. Making iron (element) the "primary topic" for Fe also automaticaly makes it the primary topic for FE and fe, even though those are never used as symbols for the element iron. Thus, we have a WP:MALPLACED problem now. All two-letter-combos should have a dab as the primary topic. SBHarris 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Iron electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Iron electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 30, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-12-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 19:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Pure (99.97+%) iron chips, electrolytically refined, as well as a high purity 1 cm³ iron cube for comparison. Iron is the most common element (by mass) on Earth, forming much of the outer and inner core, as well as the fourth most common element in the Earth's crust.Photo: Alchemist-hp

Tempering

I am suprised that there is no reference to tempering or eutectic system to describe how iron may appear in different forms, in native lodes / ores or man-made (pig iron, grey iron, white iron, wrought iron, steel). Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Photon mass attenuation

In the figure of iron's photon mass attenuation, the X-axis should be MeV, not eV. The figure seems to be generated from a previous version with those units, and the photon attenuation processes only make sense if the scale is in MeV. I don't know how to fix this myself, otherwise I'd be doing that instead of writing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.25.232 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you (palm face - I should have noticed that when redrawing the original file). Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Graphic

There is a problem in File:Carbon basic phase diagram.png. I wont believe carbon has a liquid state, as in null tangent efforts 2get act as liquids!paul. please unblock my account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.54.245 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

China

When did Iron first arrive in China. The article mentions Anatolia, Greece, the Near East, etc. but I came looking for China. (please answer on my talk page) Tibetologist (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Organisms that do not require iron

Borrelia burgdorferi, the Lyme disease spirochete, is an example of a species that does not require iron to grow (PMID:10834845). Even so, Borrelia has a protein, BicA, capable of binding iron (PMID: 23061404), so the statement "Iron-proteins are found in all living organisms" may be technically true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel haft (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June, 2013

The 4th sentence under the section "biological role" requires revision. It reads: "As illustrated by hemoglobin, iron often is bound to cofactors, e.g. in hemes." The words "often" and "is" should be switched so that the sentence, instead, reads: "As illustrated by hemoglobin, iron is often bound to cofactors, e.g. in hemes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.216 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to splitting infinitives, but why here? The meaning would remain the same. Do you think it reads better that way? Rivertorch (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a split infinitive, and I agree that the proposed text reads more naturally, so I'm going to boldly change it . Feel free to revert me if I missed something, and apologies for the pointy pun - couldn't resist...Begoon ^talk 04:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite right: there is no infinitive there to split. [scratches head] I'm not sure what I thought I saw, but I guess I was hallucinating! :) Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

What the heck is this symbol: δ? Alien baby with an antennae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.12.61 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lower case Δ (delta), δ is often used to indicate change, but here it is the name of a specific allotrope indicating a transient crystal structure. Vsmith (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Electron config

4s is filled before 3d right? So I guess it should be [Ar]4s2 3d6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.91.197 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

you're right, that should be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.89.232.179 (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Electron configurations are written in the leaving order, not the filling order. 4s is ionized first, so it gets written second. (And 4s does not really fill before 3d. That's the sloppy aufbau, and it gives the right overall electron configuration for completely the wrong reasons.) Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Phase diagram

Excuse-me , at low-pressure diagram, it is written 10^-4, 10^-2,1,10(10^1),100(10^2) ? 81.66.73.190 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It may well be correct for the data, but in that case the diagram is not to scale. I'm not quite sure about this; can someone else look into this? (David A. Young's Phase diagrams of the elements (1975), showing the diagram up to 25 000 bar, makes me think that the given diagram's scale is correct, as otherwise the temperature boundaries would not be as nearly flat as they are in the picture in the article.) Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Magnetism

I like Wikipedia and I like this page but there is a GLARING omission, no mention of the special property of iron called magnetism, this is fundamental and deserves at least a paragraph with a bold heading I think. 67.210.40.116 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the "Phase diagram and allotropes" section? Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

with your prompting, yes, and, in my opinion, there is no question of the high standard of technical content and presentation here, the scope, detail and presentation of the iron page are exemplary except for the neglect of magnetism. The issue is one of priorities, the magnetic properties of iron have given us the electrical industrial revolution, still in progress. As presently arranged neither magnetism nor ferromagnetism has an entry in the contents for the iron page. There is no mention of magnetism in the introduction but many chemical appearances are mentioned. This is Wikipedia, not a chemistry reference book. The importance of electricity to our world requires the contribution of the element iron to electromagnetism to be recognized. In my opinion for appropriate balance the iron page needs a reference to magnetism in the introduction, a contents heading for magnetism, a paragraph that introduces the magnetic properties of iron, links in the text to other magnet topics in Wikipedia, links to electromagnetism in the "see also" section and an entry in the physical properties table on the right for relative permeability. I hope someone can improve this already excellent page along these lines. Ted 67.210.40.116 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't normally follow requests, as there is a huge backlog of important missing information and people prioritize what they want to spend their time on adding differently. If you want to add a subsection under the Applications section on the ferromagnetic properties of iron and a line about those properties in the lead then that would be appreciated.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Iron Filings in General Mills Cereal

General Mills "fortifies" their cereal with industrial iron filings. Kellogg's uses "reduced iron" to "fortify" their cereal. This should be mentioned in the Health section. 2602:306:C518:6C40:D4ED:EBE5:D5D7:86A5 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Many companies fortify their products with iron; to list what every company uses as an iron fortification method would take up unneeded room in an article intended to talk about iron. The article adequately explains the methods used by companies in general. If you want to make a separate article titled "List of iron fortification methods used in company's food products" go for it.Chhe (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that iron fillings are nutritionally inert.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

This section in history: "The Hittites appear to be the first to understand the production of iron from its ores and regard it highly in their society. They began to smelt iron between 1500 and 1200 BC and the practice spread to the rest of the Near East after their empire fell in 1180 BC.[37] The subsequent period is called the Iron Age"

is contradicted by this statement on the "ferrous metallurgy" page

"The development of iron smelting was traditionally attributed to the Hittites of Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age.[14] It was believed that they maintained a monopoly on ironworking, and that their empire had been based on that advantage. According to that theory, the ancient Sea Peoples, who invaded the Eastern Mediterranean and destroyed the Hittite empire at the end of the Late Bronze Age, were responsible for spreading the knowledge through that region. This theory is no longer held in the mainstream of scholarship,[14] since there is no archaeological evidence of the alleged Hittite monopoly. While there are some iron objects from Bronze Age Anatolia, the number is comparable to iron objects found in Egypt and other places of the same time period; and only a small number of these objects are weapons.[13] A more recent theory claims that the development of iron technology was driven by the disruption of the copper and tin trade routes, due to the collapse of the empires at the end of the Late Bronze Age.[14] These metals, especially tin, were not widely available and metal workers had to transport them over long distances, whereas iron ores were widely available. However, no known archaeological evidence suggests a shortage of bronze or tin in the Early Iron Age.[15] Bronze objects remained abundant, and these objects have the same percentage of tin as those from the Late Bronze Age."

The contradiction needs to be resolved. Keelyellenmarie (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thank you for bringing the discrepancy to the talk page. Any suggestions on how to resolve it would be appreciated, but there's no need to make a formal edit request unless you're actually going to propose specific changes. Rivertorch (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic saturation

I removed parameter |Magnetic saturation at r.t.=1707 T (not used, not shown in infobox element). -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic evidence

Words for iron in Indo-European and other languages would throw some light on pre-historic times. This will make the article very long, I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissouriOzark1947 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dietary sources

There reads: particularly rich sources of dietary iron include red meat, lentils, beans, poultry, fish, leaf vegetables, watercress, tofu, chickpeas, black-eyed peas, blackstrap molasses, fortified bread, and fortified breakfast cereals.
All of the articles do not have nutritional values for them, but watercress is most odd of those. It is said to have 0.2 mg iron / 100 g, while chicken (non-red meat) is said to have 1.16 mg/100 g, over 5 times more. Also liver and blood products are missing, they contain iron at least as much than red meat. 82.141.118.184 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Soft metal

In the intro, iron is described as a silvery soft metal. How soft is soft? Soft is a relative term, meaningless without reference to a standard - soft by comparison with what? I suggest removing the word if it cannot be defined. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I elaborated on the softness and added brinell values with references. --Wizard191 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the statement made that iron is softer then aluminum in its unalloyed state? The article plainly shows that it has a greater hardness then aluminum in its elemental form (Mohs hardness for iron 4, Mohs hardness for aluminum 2.75). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.151.202 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pure iron is certainly harder than pure aluminum.One may say iron is softer than the oxide coating of aluminum, which invariably forms on the surface of the metal,in the presence of oxygen. Thus the statement "pure iron is softer than aluminum" does not reach the standards of Wikipedia. Moreover, to conclude that iron cannot be obtained by smelting,due to the above questionable observation defies reason and lacks coherence.

Passingon (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

115.113.183.131 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Damascus Steel from China

The Steel section implies that Damascus Steel originated in China. However, the Damascus Steel entry does not even mention China. This should be reconciled -- did Damascus Steel originate in China or not? (I realize the name implies that it originated in Syria/Persia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.16.8 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I could not find any hint on a Chinese origin. --Stone (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In third paragraph, lower limit of carbon content in steel should be 0.12%, not "0.002%". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.211 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

History section

Iron is such an ubiquitous metal that an enormous amount can be said. This is why the history sections of a number of metallurgy articles were combined into a single one. The section here has just been tagged "Expand". What is thought to be missing? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of iron should be at least twice as long and it should contain inline references. --Stone (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

two Sentences on Hittite origins (""The Hittites appear to be the first to understand the production of iron from its ores and regard it highly in their society. They began to smelt iron between 1500 and 1200 BCE and the practice spread to the rest of the Near East after their empire fell in 1180 BCE"") out of sync with tone of the 'theories on the origin of iron smelting' section of the 'history of ferrous metallurgy' page (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous_metallurgy#Theories_on_the_origin_of_iron_smelting) which take a more inconclusive stance. Additionally, section comparing dates between Anatolian and Indian archaeology should be moved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B02F:B305:74A1:4263:AC0E:96F0 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong information about rusting Iron

"Unlike many other metals which form passivating oxide layers, iron oxides occupy more volume than the metal and thus flake off, exposing fresh surfaces for corrosion" is incorrect. 1.) Pure Iron can be passivated by strong oxidation to the Ferric Oxide (black oxide) surface. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivation_(chemistry) or Wikipedia black oxide article. 2.) Oxygen does not directly attack the Iron surface (which reduces Oxygen). Oxygen poor surface features (pits, cracks) release Ferrous ions which migrate from the Oxygen poor pit to the surface forming HYDRATED Ferric Oxide by reaction with air and having no hard attachment to the Iron surface. 3.) Graphite (Carbon in the Iron) creates a potential cell that accelerates corrosion. 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:2 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Barium Ferrate link

Link shows Iron in +6 state in that compound but the table in this article lists it as +4 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:3 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fe(VIII)

This paper thinks iron hasn't been oxidized further than Fe(VI). Quite recent (2009), a respected author in the field. http://144.206.159.178/ft/243/588116/14862785.pdf Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, there may be Ag(IV) too...how I wish Ir(IX) existed! (Mt(IX) probably could, though.) I'll let you decide on Fe(VII) and Fe(VIII). (It's a bit hard to believe how a first-row transition metal like Fe could go up to +8 with FeO₄.) Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of Pu(VIII) in PuO₄? It's reported by the same guys who reported FeO₄. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Ir(IX) is still possible, read http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~pyykko/pekka/PT.pdf (found the paper while looking for info for Uus) And even an oxidation state of +12 may exist for element 148 (not in our lifetime, though)

Can't say a word on PuO4. I can't carefully examine the report, just copying others' words. Haven't seen a paper criticizing the oxidation state (haven't looked for plutonium's oxidation states paper).

The PuO4 original paper Double sharp (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the Fe(VIII) - that paper states unambiguously that it doesn't exist. Chris (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Silly debate, but just for grins look up CrO5, its in the Chromium Wiki article.2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:4 (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

CrO₅ is a peroxide (having one oxo ligand and two peroxo ligands), so it only contains Cr(VI). Double sharp (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Iron in Religion

I have removed the link to iron in the Koran, unless the article should also have a link to iron in the Bible, the Vedas, the Avesta, Norse legends etc. It is partisan and illogical to have just one internal link about iron in religion. Aksel89 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

why remove it if it is a fact? the Koran "exists", and the verse about Iron in it "exists" .. therefore it is a "fact" that there is a refernce to Iron as a metal created by stellar nucleosynthesis in the Koran .. and that it is in line with the scientific references in the article .. please retain it, and if you can find other references to iron in other religious scriptures, pls add them too.. If other references to iron are missing/not available from other scriptures, that does not mean that the reference to it in the Koran is not true/doesnt exist .. actually, in essence, removing the link IS partisan .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATantawy (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unencyclopedic; lets keep it out. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Who gave you the right to remove it ? As ATantawy sated it's mentioned in the Qr'an and it's a fact !! Just because there are NO mentioning of the Iron in the other religions'books does not make it illogical !!! GET IT BACK !! 188.52.10.224 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a little comment: read "72 Bible Verses about Iron" (http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Iron) Seniorsag (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What is CCC in the phase diagram?

Isn't it should be BCC as for Body Center cube?Assafn (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably because the diagram was originally made in Italian, where the term is cubico a corpo centrato, and it wasn't translated completely. (CFC also needs to be FCC.) Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede and occurence

The GA review is sorta critical about the lede, which is way too long. I tried to improve that, which was reverted. I ask to keep both the etymology and the points about occurence and reduce inconprehensible tekkie talk in the lede. Polentarion Talk 00:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have no doubts that cultural and historical facts belong in the lede; although some are already there, I wouldn't mind more. (In fact, I do believe I should do some further research on this.) However, since the etymology goes into speculation pretty quickly, I would not want to go much further beyond ferrum and perhaps *isarnan. Regarding the "inconprehensible [sic] tekkie talk" – I think this article (along with the other ancient metals like Pb, Hg, Au, Sn, Ag, and Cu) belongs at the intersection of science and humanities topics. The chemistry of iron is extremely important as the element plays such an important biological role in our bodies and is so common in the Universe, and I feel it would be remiss to ignore that in the lede. Yet because we have known about iron for so long, it has a huge place in our shared culture and history, and it would also be remiss to ignore that. I realise that that would create an even longer lede, but maybe we need that. (I took a look at the other ancient-metal GAs – lead, mercury, and copper – and I think their ledes do an admirable job on the science, but are comparatively silent on culture and history.) Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As you say, it is not easy. The mercury lede is shorter and more readable but still a shame - it is the most magic element of all and nothing is being mentioned. 2016 Newton's receipee for the philospher's stone was refound, using magick mercury. Nothing. But the iron lede is way too long, and needs a hair cut. My strategy cutting ledes and keeping a overview is normally to write a separate section "Overview". But I am not aware wether that works with good articles ;) Polentarion Talk 08:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall in relatively good shape, with a few issues identified for correction.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is excessive per WP:LEAD, clocking in at 5 paragraphs.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Generally appropriate, with a few deficiencies identified below.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Cosmetically, [3] is bare linked, and there are a couple of citations that appear to have deprecated "chapter" parameters.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No extensive OR detected, just a few uncited statements.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's program twigged on [4], but to me that looks like just an aggressive mirror. More investigation needed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good, comprehensive discussion of iron.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some coatrack-ish material identified.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Nothing identified as extensively non-neutral, just a few things here and there that should be cleaned up with appropriate citation.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Looks stable to me, but is semi-protected. Need confirmation that this is vandalism-protection rather than stopping any edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Note that "File:Heme b.png" says it should be replaced with the .svg, but that's not a GA issue.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Really good mix.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass per improvements.

Yes, I think ironmap.com is probably a mirror, since it even includes the signature bracketed citation numbers of Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and the protection is indeed against otherwise persistent vandalism based on the log. Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

First text read through

• Despite the lead length, I think it reads rather well. I think the supernovae/creation bit can be dropped, that is by removing sentences 5 and 6 in the first paragraph. Remind me to revisit this later.

Characteristics

• Phase diagram and allotropes "at very high pressures, some controversial experimental evidence exists for a phase β stable at very high pressures and temperatures" Redundant.
• "Iron is of greatest importance when mixed with certain other metals and with carbon to form steels. There are many types of steel, all with different properties, and an understanding of the properties of the allotropes of iron is key to the manufacture of good quality steels.[14]" This seems out of place in this section. I expect we'll get to it later.
• Is it just me, or are there two descriptions in this section of cooling and then heating phase changes? Mind you, I've never taken particularly advanced chemistry coursework, but it strikes me that we've got two discussions, going opposite directions, and not terribly clearly labeled as such.
• isotopes I would have liked a wikilink to the two named meteorites.
  • Unfortunately, they don't appear to have articles. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• The binding energy of Nickel-62 is referenced twice in this section.
• Nucleosynthesis I swear I just saw Silicon Burning Process referenced and wikilinked in the previous section... I swear I just saw the decay from Nickel-56 to Cobalt-56 to Iron-56 discussed above, too...
• Planetary occurrence Silicon fusion? Sounds suspiciously like the Silicon burning process yet again...
• Stocks in use in society Does this really need a whole subsection for one factoid?

So far, it's looking like a lot of independent constituent articles have been summarized without a lot of harmonization and determining which is the best place for an individual topic, leading to repetition. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to address these comments. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry and compounds

• +2 and +3 are the most common oxidation states... twice.
• Coordination compounds Seems like a lot of detail on Prussian Blue, even though it is admittedly pretty cool.
• Organometallic compounds dppf seems like it should be entirely written out, to be consistent with the rest of the wikilinks in this section.
• This section is losing me a bit (again, never taken physical chemistry or the like) about why all these different things are important, and why some like Ferrocene get so much space. Not saying it's wrong, just that it's not obvious to a non-chemist why this is proportioned the way it is.
  • I have tried to add some context in an introductory paragraph regarding why these properties of iron are important. Now this is the section where I'm writing about something I know rather well, so please tell me if you think further links or explanations are necessary. I'd like it to benefit the average reader, but I may not be able to judge that well enough in this section. Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. Already there are places (e.g. geometry of iron coordination compounds, explanation and examples of the high- and low-spin complexes) where I could have gone into further detail, but decided not to, as I felt it would be overwhelming and not really right for such a popular article that could be said to be "claimed" by various fields, of which chemistry is just one. I can add more of this if you disagree, of course. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Should Eiland and/or Pepinsky be wikilinked? Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I wanted to do so, but they don't have articles yet. Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to address these comments. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

History

• Wrought Iron "due to the ease of corrosion of iron." due to the ease with which iron corrodes, maybe?
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Meteoric iron was highly regarded due to its origin in the heavens and was often used to forge weapons and tools or whole specimens placed in churches." The sentences before and after this both refer to (far) pre-Christian Egypt, so "churches" seems anachronistic in this context.
  • Changed to reference something less anachronistic (Tutankhamun's iron dagger). Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Wouldn't that be from 3000 to 2500 BCE? Not 100% familiar with the MOS on that, but I would expect older dates to come first, even when we're counting down.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Likewise, if you're going to use BCE, then AD should be replaced by CE.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• It's not entirely clear to me whether this section is intended to be regional or chronological, but what it ends up with is some odd combination that could probably stand to be ironed out (ha ha!)
  • I have tried to organise it chronologically. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• If you're discussing Iron in the Hebrew scriptures, you would be remiss to overlook Og's bed of Iron (Deuteronomy 3:11).
•  Done Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Cast iron this section just reads a bit disjointed.
  • I have tried to organise it chronologically. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Steel Steel#Ancient_steel, Steelmaking, and this section each have a different take on the first/most ancient steel and development from there.
• Foundations of modern chemistry I have to follow the Wikilink to learn that this is an 18th century development, but I still do not really understand why it is significant.
  • Better? Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

... And that's all for right now. More tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Production of metallic iron

• Industrial routes "The production of iron or steel is a process consisting of two main stages, unless the desired product is cast iron." The exception could be handled more gracefully. Might need a few more words, but the current bit leaves me unsure (without reading elsewhere) whether pig iron and cast iron are the same thing or not.
  • Since cast iron is also produced from pig iron, I think we can afford to simplify this in the beginning. Hence it now reads "The production of iron or steel is a process consisting of two main stages. In the first stage pig iron is produced in a blast furnace. Alternatively, it may be directly reduced. In the second stage, pig iron is converted to wrought iron, steel, or cast iron." Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Blast furnace processing "about 4 tons per ton of iron," Since when do we weigh air? Over what period of time is this massive blast of air added?
  • All at once, I imagine? That would justify the use of the word "blast", and would explain why neither of the sources actually give a specific amount of time. Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• On the upside, the chemical transitions in this section are well-documented and understandable to someone with only a basic college-level chemistry background.
  • Thank you so much! Although I didn't add them; they were already there in the article. I only added citations for them. Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Direct iron reduction The environmental advantage vs. blast furnace processing is stated, but neither described nor discussed. I'm guessing the natural gas is more efficient?
• Laboratory methods How does the second method differ from direct iron reduction? It sounds the same.
  • The difference is in scale. Added. Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, the prose in this section is pretty straightforward, but I still see a little redundancy and some other items are unclear to the layman (i.e., me). Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Applications

• Metallurgical The table, chart, and image all clustered near the top of the section make the first part look overly busy. Is there a better spacing for any of these?
  • Better? Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "The main disadvantage of iron and steel is that pure iron, and most of its alloys, suffer badly from rust if not protected in some way, a cost amounting to over 1% of the world's economy." per annum? Could use a citation for that fact.
  • I have a citation for this, but it doesn't say "per annum" (though this seems likely). It just says "The economic importance of rusting can scarcely be overestimated. Although precision is impossible, it is likely that the cost of corrosion is over 1% of the world's economy." Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Iron compounds "Although its metallurgical role is dominant in terms of amounts, iron compounds are pervasive in industry as well being used in many niche uses." I'm not sure I understand what this means.
  • Changed to "Although the dominant use of iron is in metallurgy, iron compounds are also pervasive in industry." Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "It can also be dissolved in alcohol to form tincture of iron." And what is that useful or why should a reader care? A wikilink would be appropriate.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "These are its main uses." Since we then switch to a different subtopic, that sentence seems redundant--I would expect minor uses to follow, not the uses of another material.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty consistent with previous sections' comments. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Biological role

• "the color of blood is due to the hemoglobin" due to hemoglobin or due to its hemoglobin sound more straightforward.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "As illustrated by hemoglobin, iron is often bound to cofactors, e.g. in hemes." Illustrated? What's a cofactor and why does the reader care? What does a cofactor contribute to iron in biology?
• "Influential theories of evolution have invoked a role for iron sulfides in the iron-sulfur world theory." Never heard of this before, but this isn't my field. Following the Wikilink takes me to an unassessed article. Is this really influential (and hence belongs here) or is this some fringe idea hanging this here as a coatrack?
  • Greenwood and Earnshaw don't mention this in their overview of the chemical and biological roles of iron (the source in the bibliography), while they mention everything else in the paragraph, so it is probably not so important. Removed. Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "a level that remains remarkably constant despite only about one milligram of iron being absorbed each day." That's because the human body recycles its hemoglobin (which I know because this now IS my field...) and might be something cool to point out and/or drop the discussion of the level stability.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Bioinorganic compounds The second paragraph here is fascinating to read, but almost entirely uncited.
  • That's because all of it comes from the single source [111]. Added a few more explicit citations to it. Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "This results in a movement of all the protein chains that results in..." two results? Lose one.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Thus, while hemoglobin is almost saturated with oxygen in the high partial pressures of oxygen found in the lungs, its affinity for oxygen is much longer than myoglobin in the low partial pressures of oxygen found in muscle tissue, resulting in oxygen transfer." I think "longer" should be "lower"?
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Carbon monoxide and phosphorus trifluoride are poisonous to humans because they bind to hemoglobin similarly to oxygen, " looks like a good spot to start a new paragraph to me, now that you're talking about pathophysiology of iron transport.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Health and diet "Iron is pervasive, but particularly rich sources of dietary iron include red meat, lentils, beans, poultry, fish, leaf vegetables, watercress, tofu, chickpeas, black-eyed peas, blackstrap molasses, fortified bread, and fortified breakfast cereals." I think the fortified grains should be separated, as they're not the same thing as foods naturally high in iron, and associating them so directly seems likely to falsely inflate the reader's impression of their relative nutritional value.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Ok, if that last sentence was paid for by the bread lobby, this one smacks of an entirely different sort of political agenda: "Although some studies suggest that heme/hemoglobin from red meat has effects which may increase the likelihood of colorectal cancer,[117][118] there is still some controversy[119] with a few studies suggesting that such claims are not supported by sufficient evidence.[120]" I'd like some assurance that someone without a pro- or anti-meat bias has actually looked at the studies and concluded that those statements accurately reflect the current scientific consensus.
• "iron sulfate is cheaper and is absorbed equally well." Needs a citation. Was this paid for by the dietary supplements lobby? :-)
  • Added. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• The discussion of fortification in the first half of the second paragraph here could be explained a bit better, specifically how differing forms of iron supplementation or fortification increase the bioavailability.
• "Blood donors and pregnant women are at special risk of low iron levels and are often advised to supplement their iron intake.[126]" And women with particularly heavy menses. I see far too much iron deficiency anemia in clinical practice in otherwise healthy young women who do not have sufficient iron intake to offset their menstrual loss.
• Uptake and storage We switch from talking about organisms in general, to discussing uptake in the presumably human duodenum. The entire section should clarify the applicability of its statements (humans, mammals, animalia, etc.) and proceed with them logically.
• This section discusses cytochrome, myoglobin, and a few other topics that we've already seen touched on previously. Should it? Or, rather, should each such iron-containing biologic stratum be discussed thoroughly once?
• Regulation of uptake "For this reason, people should not take iron supplements unless they suffer from iron deficiency and have consulted a doctor." Needs a citation.
• I'm not sure this section is appropriately named, as about half of it talks about iron overload disorders. Iron deficiency disorders don't seem to get any space, which is an odd and probably improper omission.
  • Indeed. Added a heading first, at least. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Bioremediation Interesting, but contextless. Feels out of place and I'm not sure why our readers would care.
  • Removed. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Permeable reactive barriers Why does this need its own section, and why is the targeted article unassessed? Feels like another possible coatrack for someone's commercial process, and should probably be integrated into a different section or eliminated entirely. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Removed. Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Toxicity

• Should the previous section's discussions of iron overload disorders be moved to here? Or perhaps this section be moved underneath it? Or maybe both?
• As a hazmat-certified fire offices, I can say conclusively that the NFPA 704 symbol adds nothing to the reader's understanding of iron, and it can be safely removed without losing anything, unless there's some convention that says each element should have such a diagram.
  • Removed. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

... and that's my first pass through the article. There's plenty of work here to do, but most of it should be straightforward and I see nothing that will prevent a timely GA pass if you and others want to put in the work. I will be placing the article ON HOLD, but with the caveat that for such a long and important article, I am willing to extend the hold nearly indefinitely as long as significant progress towards GA criteria continues to be made. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Second text read through

• In Chemistry and compounds the first paragraph, the post-colon clause of the first sentence and the second sentence both start with indeed.
  • Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• "Blacksmiths in Luristan in western Iran were making good steel by 1000 BCE." Despite this having a cite to a book... that book is ~50 years old. Is there something more modern? Wouldn't the area be known as Persia, rather than Iran, at this period?
  • You're right, it should be Persia (changed). But is the age such a problem? Discovery of the Elements is a very well-known source in this field. Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not necessary if that's still the best current scholarship, which is entirely reasonable in a rather static field. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• "This made steel much more economical, thereby leading to wrought iron no longer being produced." Nowhere, never? I suspect that it may have undercut the production and made wrought iron obsolete for most uses, but I doubt the process for making it vanished entirely.
  • You are right. I changed it to "...no longer being produced in large quantities". Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• "The source of its chemical symbol Fe is the Latin word ferrum, a loanword of uncertain origin," If it's of uncertain origin, how do we know it's a loan word?
  • Tried to make it clearer what we know (I can imagine how – if nothing that could have led to the word ferrum is known for earlier dates – but this does seem sketchy). Double sharp (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

... That's about all I have for now. More later. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Finishing Up

I think we're pretty much done. The one problem that remains is the one introduced above in the history section by eliminating all of the Weeks-cited material deriving from Hebrew scripture. Since I have an opinion on it, it's not appropriate for me to be both editing and reviewing, but I stand by my comments above that it either 1) must be at least mentioned per DUE, or 2) All the other Weeks-referenced material has to come out, if the article's editors don't think Weeks is a current/useful source. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked the entry and history of Weeks. I have the impression that the way you started to introduced that valuable work - will say by quoting various biblical entries, like primary sources - gave rise to the same problem that Weeks faced for a long time: "Chemistry faculties were inclined to place a premium on laboratory investigations, not on historical research, no matter how well done." We should write an article for all us, not just for chemistry geeks. She finally received a Dexter Award for her contributions to the history of chemistry. That said, her accolades definitely warrants to include her findings. But we should adapt them to actual conflicts and developments, like the problems faced by the israelites till Davidian time. UNder discussion currently, but not hindering GA status. And for the sake of political and overall correctness, we should not reduce the mythological aspects to judeochristian only. I introduced the role of Hesiod and Ovid's Ages of man, the Berlin iron jewellery / German iron cross and referred to further iron related topics like colors and pigments of great importance for cultural heritage, be it the surface of Mars, ochre colors or Bath stone or Iron sandstone. Polentarion Talk 10:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymology and lede

I think the lede could be shorter and provide more things interesting. At least I do not care much about the tekkie stuff. I doubt nickel-56 belongs in the entry but I am sure symbolic use, etymology and historical use does. Polentarion Talk 20:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've cut some of the aside on ⁵⁶Ni, which is only important here because ⁵⁶Fe is its granddaughter. Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thnx! Polentarion Talk 08:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

60Fe is an extinct radionuclide of long half-life (2.6 million years). It is not found on Earth

According to Phil Plait:

"... scientists studying ocean floor sediments examined a core taken out of the Atlantic Ocean seabed. They found a spike in an isotope of iron, called iron-60, dating to about 3 million years ago. Iron-60 is radioactive with a short half-life ...".

Sloppy "long/short" terminology.

Keith McClary (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's not particularly surprising for a relative term. 2.6 million years is long on a human scale (if ⁶⁰Fe got into the environment on a large scale, which it can't, we would have quite a problem). But it is short on a geological scale: any ⁶⁰Fe that was present at the Earth's formation has long since decayed to its stable granddaughter ⁶⁰Ni, and there is essentially none left. Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Occurence and use as pigment

I restored some smaller changes in the Occurence section. Its a pity that we refer to the color of the mars (without telling anything about the symbolic content of the red planet) but do not show the importance of the color of thousands of important historical buildings. The Roussillon ochre path is a must, given the widespread colors or the different iron compounds and their broad impact. Polentarion Talk 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Biblical" history

In the History/Wrought iron section, one paragraph discusses mentions of iron in the Bible ("The Book of Genesis ... Antioch").

I don't think this is of particular in a history section, except perhaps to say that "iron is mentioned throughout the Bible". Even that would be pushing it - it simply is not a history book. Contrast this with mentioning date ranges for actual artifacts in other paragraphs.

I am quite tempted to be bold and remove it, but perhaps there is a reason for its inclusion? Huw Powell (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the Bible is the Gospel truth. Look at the History of Israel articles. Keith McClary (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The text in question lists a number of iron items and usages in the world's most common and well known book dealing with the Ancient Near East. It doesn't have to be cited as history to demonstrate a contemporary cultural awareness of iron. It's cited in the Weeks source, which cites several of the other historical tidbits. Removing it entirely is not according it the WP:DUE weight appropriate to that source. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Weeks source is not RS (it's a 1932 magazine article). In any case, any mention of the Bible at all is irrelevant to the history of iron - so the Bible mentions iron, so what is that meant to demonstrate? It should be dropped.PiCo (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are RS time limited? It's not like specific instances of ancient historical witness have been invalidated in the last few decades. If we're not discussing ancient occurrences of Iron, then yes, it should be dropped. If we are discussing other such instances, then eliminating biblical/OT/Hebrew scripture references is anti-religious bias. Including it simply places it on equal footing with other ancient witnesses. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it is meant to demonstrate that the ancient Hebrews knew of the metal. Even if one disbelieves in the actual veracity of the text (as I do), it certainly shows that iron was known since it was referred to in a text of the period. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The significance pivots on two words: "the period". The earliest Biblical manuscripts date from little more than two before Common Era. The Septuagint, though it survives only in copies, is of the same age. The Silver scrolls (though they do not contain any of the cited "iron" text) date from 650 BC. That the tribes of that day in the Middle East had iron is not news -- the Hittites were smelting iron between 1500 and 1200 BCE, before their empire fell in 1180 BCE. A reference that can be dated no earlier than 300 BC contributes very little. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You're confusing the date of the oldest manuscript copies with the date of the original authorship. What contemporaneous texts describe the Hittite ironworking? How old are their oldest extant manuscripts? Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps my statement was not clear, or not understood. I believe the history of iron working is established by artifacts, not manuscripts. Please see second paragraph of the history secton for references. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually ask for a source to say that the Bible mentions iron, I'd be happy to accept that as part of common knowledge. My point is that this fact is irrelevant to the history of iron. What's it meant to demonstrate?

Just by-the-bye, Genesis dates from around 450 BC, Job from about the same period - if they mention iron it only means that someone in Persian Yehud was aware that iron existed, which is hardly an important point.PiCo (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(I see that the bit of Genesis quoted in the article is from Genesis 4 - Genesis 1-11 was one of the very last piesces of the Bible to be written, in the early part of the 2nd century BC. The Abraham-Isaac-Jacob part was first, soon after the return from the Exile, then the Joseph novella was written to join Genesis to Exodus, and finally the Primeval History was added; there was a final revision about the middle of the 2nd century when the chronology was written in. See the article Dating the Bible).PiCo (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since the Hittites' knowledge of iron is already in the article, I have no objections to removing the Biblical content. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the conclusions of those who "date the Bible" are not fully accepted by the mainstream historians. Textual criticism just does not have the same standing as carbon dating, etc. They may be polite about it, but if there were ever a contradiction between the conclusions by various methods, I cannot imagine textual criticism would come out on top. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; later proposed dating for Biblical texts often has an implicit presupposition that the text cannot be what it purports to be. No other ancient texts are treated in a similar skeptical fashion. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

When the Book of Genesis mentions the Persians (in the Table of Nations, Genesis 10), it's pretty hard to escape the conclusion that it was written after the Persians appeared. PiCo (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but how is the Hittites' knowledge of Iron covered? Why exclude the single most common and well known text that addresses Iron during the era in question? This isn't a matter of belief or contested doctrine, merely using the text as a witness to the prevalence of the material. Introducing religious studies arguments (who thinks what was written when) simply muddies the relatively simple waters: Iron is attested in the Biblical text, and that attestation was noted by an independent RS covering how ancient peoples knew about iron. Taking it out is a WP:DUE violation. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That the Hittites knew about iron is proven by the discovery of iron in their archaeological sites. Use appropriate sources and you'll be ok.PiCo (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The problems with Biblical dating of technology are multiple. (1) In a number of places, Bible history is directly contradicted by other methods, as with the age of the Persians. (2) The agendas of scholars on all sides tend to color their conclusions, so that no agreement is possible. (3) None of the key documents are contemporaneous with the events described. (4) None of the surviving (key) documents are originals, though the accuracy of some fragments suggest that accuracy of text has been reasonably preserved for some texts. (4) Many of the statements in the Bible are widely held to be non-factual, or poetic rather than literal. These issues are compounded by the Wiki policies for RS, primary and secondary sources, etc. Some would dispute that the inclusion of Biblical text as a source would be seen as an attempt to strengthen the credibility of Biblical text, rather than historicity of the statements in the article. Such is the level of controversy. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

...except that an RS referenced the OT passages when talking about iron, which makes pretty much all of that moot. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's bring this back to basics:

• One source, Weeks 1968, from which a bunch of the historical materials are drawn, specifically mentions Biblical accounts. That was in the text deleted without discussion, which had previously been in the article. WP:DUE, requires us to represent such RS'es accurately and proportionately in our articles. The above discussion about the reliability of the Biblical text, or lack thereof, is entirely beside the point: discussion of iron in any other ancient document, regardless of whether it presented itself as historical or was widely regarded as myth or fiction, would merit inclusion if mentioned in RS'es. So we have a few options:
  • Remove/redo the entire section and all such ancient textual references, basing a replacement section on, instead, the sources in Ancient iron production or similar, and only using later archaeological observation rather than contemporaneous (or at least pre-modern) historical documents.
  • Put the Biblical mention back in, either in the previous consensus version or in some sort of modified version that answers the objections above without dragging the article in inappropriate directions.

But what we have in the current transitional state isn't appropriate. So am I missing an option, or which of the two would we prefer to adopt? Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for indicating the full context. But there are more than the two choices. This is a matter of editorial discretion. It is not unusual for an RS to be reliable on one subject and not-so-reliable on another. If you read WP:RSN, you will find this issue frequently. That is the first prong to consider. The second is this: Officially or unofficially, the Wikipedia is effectively atheist. Wikipedia parrots Positivist statements without question, and always puts protective disclaimers around religious statements. Such it is. When a historian RS makes statements about accepted historical sources, we use those things. When the historian wanders into unreliability, such as Biblical interpretation, we part company. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 02:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a religious text talks about iron isn't a religious statement, says nothing about the religion in question, and is in fact entirely beside whatever religious value (or lack thereof) the text may have. That is the problem I have with the desire to excise that content without excising similar content cited by the same RS: it's at the very least WP:UNDUE, no matter how you slice it, and at worst an anti-religious bias. Wikipedia is not supposed to be anything except for NPOV, and when an RS cites a religious work as example that iron was well known, there's not much particularly less religious one can do with the text. How do you propose to fix the article, sfarney? Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this particular religious text tells us nothing useful. It mentions the mythical Tubal-Cain, the fictional Job, and various others, all without context - what's it doing in this article?PiCo (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, its getting hilarious now. Iron-in-the-bible has various entries in different bible encyclopedias, will say scholarly works for university theologians and anyone with a serious interest in the topic. The symbolic and poltical role in the biblical narratives is confirmed by third party sources. PiCo could have referred to the overly high number of direct citations, which I reduced, but the idea that central myths are "not useful" or not worth mentioning is something Harry Frankfurt wrote a book about. Polentarion Talk 08:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

[5] The last revert was far from being constructive, the biblical role is clearly of importance for Iron as a topic, the sources in question are important encyclopedies. I ask PiCo to revert his changes. Polentarion Talk 11:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've taken your proposal and further refined it, trimming out the NT and Og references, leaving the Tubal-Cain reference as the only specific text mentioned. Your addition of the reported deficiency in ironworking is far better way to discuss it. I'm afraid some editors won't be satisfied at all, but you've added reliable secondary sources substantiating and improving the coverage: that's how Wikipedia disputes are supposed to be conducted, so thank you. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Polentarion still hasn't explained why the Bible is relevant at all. Just to give this some context, the Old Testament is a collection of texts from the ANE Iron Age, dating from roughly the 8th to 2nd centuries BC. So the field of reference is limited geographically (ANE) and historically) all written long after iron came into use in that area.) Polentarion has given no cogent reasons for including this beyond telling us that a lot of Bibles have been printed. PiCo (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who, having never participated in this article before, came through and removed an RS'ed section, and has been resisting others' efforts to apply your critiques and better focus the page. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

.... I explained it. I quoted secondary sources (will say lengthy encyclopedies) which cover Iron as a biblical topic. If you have problems with Christendom, your private issue. But denying the cultural impact of the most famous, most translated and most printed book from the very start of the Gutenberg age as you try here is hilarious. The very modern idea of an Iron age is partially inspired (compare Michele Mercati) by the biblical record. The knowledge about the hettites was till around 1880 nothing but (especially biblical) philology, major driver for the digs of the likes of Hugo Winckler. The field of reference is not limited at all, since the cultural impact is global and ongoing for ages. There is broad use of the biblical myths and stories in various histories of metallurgy. Polentarion Talk 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to take this to dispute resolution, fine, but I suggest you don't call people "honey", it doesn't sound very adult. As for RS, yes, sources should RS, but that's not enough, information needs to be relevant, and this isn't.PiCo (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is unnecessary, as long as you're willing to develop consensus and avoid edit warring like you've been doing. Dialogue involves finding wording acceptable to all parties, not just disputing past consensus and repeatedly reverting without convincing people that your preferred wording is better. Assuming that your fundamental objection remains unsupported by consensus, how WOULD you like a mention of the Biblical record regarding Iron to read? Do you even have any opinion on how it could be best presented? Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I cut on my cheesiness. Attached see a structured discussion section. Provide your alternative and think as well about other "symbolic aspects" of iron worth mentioning in the article. Polentarion Talk 09:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

To make it simple, the topic is being covered broadly in The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism and Tradition in Ancient Society. Together with the encyclopedic entries and the fact that Tubal is a patron of iron workers and foundry people I see no valid reason to delete that content. If no one objects, I will restore it.Polentarion Talk 21:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a separate article for "Iron in mythology" -- but otherwise, iron in the "traditions" and mythology of Israel is no more interesting or relevant or historical or factual that iron in Greek or any other mythology. Why the WP:UNDUE for Israel? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The biblical impact is way beyond Israel. Polentarion Talk 08:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Section about biblical content

This is a trial for a structured discussion of disputed sections. Format is similar to ArbCom, so anyone contributing has just one section, with an abstract in brackets (max 10 words). There is a length maximum of 250 words, but you are free to adapt the content of your personal statement during the discussion. The table provides a downsized short version of the previous version and a field for suggested alternative text versions. If you do not want to participate in the format, "Off topic" is the section of choice. You may edit as well in the one proposal that you favour.  

Alternative I	Alternative II	Alternative III
Tubal in the 1360 Darmstadt speculum Biblical Iron is mentioned throughout the Hebrew scriptures, where the metal plays an important political role. Iron and the processes of ironworking functioned as important cultural symbols. The account of conquest portrays the Israelites at a disadvantage in iron working which ends with the Davidic monarchy. The Book of Genesis, fourth chapter, verse 22 contains the first mention of iron in the Old Testament; "Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron."		Iron is mentioned throughout the Hebrew scriptures. The Book of Genesis, fourth chapter, verse 22 contains the first mention of iron in the Old Testament of the Bible; "Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." Other verses allude to iron mining (Job 28:2), iron used as a stylus (Job 19:24), furnace (Deuteronomy 4:20), chariots (Joshua 17:16), nails (I Chron. 22:3), saws and axes (II Sam. 12:31), and cooking utensils (Ezekiel 4:3). The giant Og is said in Deuteronomy 3:11 to have had a "bedstead of iron ... nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." The metal is also mentioned in the New Testament, for example in Acts chapter 12 verse 10, "[Peter passed through] the iron gate that leadeth unto the city" of Antioch.

sources

• Polentarion [pro I]

Off topic

Sorry, but this data is not on the topic of Iron. This is no the topic of Israel, or Bible, or Jewish religion, or something. An encyclopedic article on Iron is not the place to missionize on Biblical doctrine and mythology. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And that is exactly the point. If Polentarion wants to start a new article on Iron i the ile he's welcome, but it doesn't belong here.PiCo (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The term I was seeking is WP:COATRACK. Since the Bible adds nothing to recognized history, perhaps the addition will add recognition to the Bible. But that is not a proper purpose for an article on Iron. And since the giant "Og" never existed, is Wikipedia a vehicle for missionizing fictional history? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 01:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

An entry about Iron has to cover its role in culture and society. That includes religion, mythology and language. Compare the family relations with Nickel 56 isotopy: No interest for the majority of mankind. Polentarion Talk 08:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• In the first place, the Bible is neither culture nor society--perhaps it was 200 years ago, but not now. Very few Christians know or care about Tubal Whose-it, Og the Giant, and other Biblical monstrosities.
• In the second place, ancient cultural significance of iron is covered in Iron age.
• In the third place, if you need to cover the Bible here, we will have to mention that the Little Folk of Ireland could not touch Iron;[6] that Hinduism includes four ages in every Yuga (gold, silver, copper, and iron) and that iron is the age of deception and deceit;[7] that Islam believes Iron was sent down from Heaven;[8] that iron had a key role in Taoist alchemy, mythology, and poetry[9] (see Li_Tieguai for example); that iron was known in Pre-Columbian America; and so forth ans so on. Mention only of the Jewish scriptures without the others is WP:UNDUE, and culturally lop-sided. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• The Classical mythology of iron is covered somewhat in the Ages of Man, which is not linked on this page. Why not? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Tubal Cain in Edinburgh

Hi there. Meeting of minds with regard to the classical mythology. I just entered a small entry and linked to the Hesiod issue. Please be aware that my proposal here does away with quoting lots of bible verses (the previous version). I quote encyclopedic and scholarly works on the sorta important role of iron in the old testament per se and its use till and during the European industrialization. And I don't have to care much about nowadays christians interests - the historical role as being described in scholalry works makes a difference. Polentarion Talk 21:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

While sfarney may not think this is on topic, fact is, it remained part of the version of the article until it was unceremoniously removed and then slow-motion edit-warred out by Pico. The same source that talks about other ancient witnesses to Iron's use also refers to Biblical accounts of Iron. It's not a COATRACK to include what was already in the article, but it is WP:UNDUE to delete part of what an RS says about the topic without explanation. If you want to move most of what's said about Iron in Biblical studies into a subtopic and summarize it briefly per WP:SS, that would be fine. Taking it out entirely is not, for the number of reasons I've outlined in this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, there really is an article called Salt in the Bible. So creating Iron in the Bible isn't so far-fetched after all.PiCo (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That is not very amazing, giving the proverbial role of that content. The entry Salt contains some sections about the role in religions and mythology overall. All in all, the entry salt is a good point against your deletions here. Polentarion Talk 10:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

PS.: According Mary Elvira Weeks of all the ancient allusions to this metal, the Biblical ones are the most interesting. I would say that is of more importance than the biblical quotations per se and warrants a short link and statement. We currently mention the iron pillar of Delhi as an example of early iron working, but leave out its mythological importance. We mention the archeological evidence of the Hettites - the very name is based on the biblical record. All those excavations of the Hettite iron empire have been driven by Ataturks longing for a national myth and a helping hand by (German) biblical philology and archeologists. To leave that out is like writing an article about Hisarlik but leaving out Troy, Homer and Schliemann. Polentarion Talk 11:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Source for history of iron

This book seems quite useful: Encyclopediac Dictionary of Archaeology, page 258.PiCo (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

PLease be more specific. That book confirms the role of the middle east but is not very detailed. Polentarion Talk 10:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Sorry Pico, but your revert [10] ist not warranted - the statement is backed by various sources given. WP:I don't like it doesn't help. Polentarion Talk 13:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The history section is not very good, is it? I can rewrite it for you if you like :)PiCo (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you actually start reading the sources, why not? So far you haven't shown that. Polentarion Talk 10:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hittes and "crucial in the biblical record of their relationship with the Israelites"

As I said in my edit summary, the meaning of the word Hittites doesn't belong in an article about iron. The statement that iron is "crucial in the biblical record of their relationship" appears to be at best original research. Where do the sources actually say that? For instance the source Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1995-02-01). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, entry Iron mentions the Hittites, but only says "by the middle of the 3rd millennium. Iron technology was greatly advanced by the Hittites in the 2nd millennium." Doug Weller talk 18:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. The two Bible dictionary sources were there a while ago[11] but it appears that the new material has been added to them. Perhaps we should use that version's discussion of this aspect of the topic. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The iron use of the biblical Hittites is among the reasons for the actual use of the name for the tribe identified with them by excavations starting in the 19 century. I see no reason for the revert. The OR claim is far fetched. Take Paula McNutt and Eerdman and Weeks. Polentarion Talk 11:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you to show how they support that sentence. The sources used didn't support it. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It would have been up to you to start reading the sources that have been used for this article in general, e.g. Weeks. We don't need separate sourcing for trivia. It's a rather annoying behavior. Polentarion Talk 00:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not the way sourcing is meant to work here. You've got to be more specific. And Weeks isn't a reliable source for biblical Hittites, not her field. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it went like that: Week provides a large amount of biblical references in her Iron article. I actually read it btw. The quotes have been introduced by User:Jclemens, I discussed necessary changes with him on User_talk:Jclemens#Iron. One of the obvious suspects saw "bible" and deleted all of it - due anything Christian is not scientific. I just provided added sourcing and version that gave a better insight in the difference and parallels between biblical archeologocal hittites (their iron work playing a major role in the identification) and did some work on the wording. I happeen to have some background in that field.It seems to be a waste of time to use it here. Good riddance. Polentarion Talk 06:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My point about sources still stands. Even experts in a field need to provide reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Which we did. We had some dedicated authors like Clemens and me, that actually cared about the stuff, read sources and write articles. And we have some drive by shooting and revert anything not fitting personal POV. I am not interested in fighting windmills. I just feel disgusted. Polentarion Talk 17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

"The Hittites established an empire north-central Anatolia around 1600 BCE." I suggest the sentence be changed to: "The Hittites established an empire in north-central Anatolia around 1600 BCE." Durple3F (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the correction! Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iron. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://machinedesign.com/article/hsla-steel-1115
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314000722/http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf to http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iron. 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/20100527235247/https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-09-03.html to https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-09-03.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/MetalStocks/tabid/56054/Default.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/7/294/0.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iron. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/yearbook-archive.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060808184739/http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthissues/irondeficiency/ to http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthissues/irondeficiency/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Limonite

Limonite is not a mineral, as suggested by this article. Also, bridgmanite, (Mg,Fe)SiO3 - which is suggested to be the most common mineral in the Earth as a whole - is likely an important sink of Fe; there is no such mineral as "iron pyrite", but just pyrite. An important Fe mineral in the mantle is very likely wüstite-periclase solid solution; many igneous rocks also contain pyrrhotite as an important Fe carrier, the second one is pentlandite. Eudialytos (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added some text to attempt to address these problems. Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Limonite has been a historically important mineral but is not longer classified as such. It has been described with hydrous Fe oxide ores (e.g. Minette (ore)) which are crucial for the history of steel making and iron mining (and for German French relationships). Imho no reason to delete it completely. but the wording has to be adapted. Polentarion Talk 17:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Limonite is NOT a mineral. This is a rock.Eudialytos (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iron. 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/20100610095913/http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~dauphas/OLwebsite/PDFfiles/Dauphas_Rouxel_MSR06.pdf to http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~dauphas/OLwebsite/PDFfiles/Dauphas_Rouxel_MSR06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602031459/http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/h-carnegie-steel.htm to http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/h-carnegie-steel.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Iron

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)