This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elements Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I added some elements/compunds from Image:Alchemy-Digby-RareSecrets.png, though I'm not sure if I put them in the right lists, any alchemy experts care to look over these? Thanks — Boffy b 10:27, 30 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add the symbols for the planets here? They're clearly related. — Ashley Y 02:56, 28 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these for the "7 Planetary Metals." — Fourthgeek 05:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

all of the symbols are consistent with the symbols i've found in the tree of life. include some sort of connection somewhere with the ten sphered map of the tree of life, it would be helpful in any future research they have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.4.92.243 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a page on astronomical symbols, a link to that page would be preferable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.55.81 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much changed everything about this article from when I started. I'm still working to add more symbols. Comments welcome. — Fourthgeek 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! It was very helpful for my research. I couldn't see the Magnesium symbol very well. There is a big list of alchemical symbols at the following GIF: www.tekedo.com/Company/scheele2d.gif — Roie (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what sources were used to categorize the symbols for the Alechmical processes/ Zodiac section, and if there were any alternate symbols for the processes out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.17.115.226 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I may be only 13 but I love alcheny. It is so cool and intertaining. Some people think it is either satanic or retarted. But it isn't. I love the element of it, and it just bets my adrenilin pumpin. It is a great science to study and get excited about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.215.199 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only thing that I see to be wrong in your paragraph is the simple fact that this isn't cool. Alchemy was meant to be serious because of the fact that it could become extremely harmful if the process wasn't in the correct order. This isn't FMA where you can come back with metal limbs and have special powers of some sort. So, please, don't attempt to do any experiments without someone who is licensed in this kind of area.

Well, it's actually a pseudo-science, or proto-science if you prefer. Not Satanic (whatever that means) of course. Most alchemists where Christians, Jews and Muslims in Europe and the Middle East and Buddhists, Taoists etc. in Asia. It was pretty stupid though--based upon a false understanding of the nature of matter. All that messing about with chemicals did lead to the eventual creation of the science known as chemistry (and black powder and Greek fire centuries before that), so alchemy wasn't a total waste of time. --McFarty 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)McFarty[reply]

I'm curious was the use of symbols during their studies (such as in their notes on how to perform experiments) so that no one else could understand them outside of those who already would have understand them and they could claim credit for whatever it was they were attempting to do, or was it due to persecution, or something entirely different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.158.143 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... Actually, Alchemy wasn't really all that "stupid". The term "proto-science" is a good description (first time I've seen the term used; I like it). We all know you can't turn Lead into Gold without a nuclear reaction, but only because we've been told. Both are very similar: soft, metallic, exists in an unoxidized form. Even the other proto-science of Astrology (from wich came Astronomy) started with basic observations, such as the seasons getting colder when the big glowing thing in the sky didn't move as far across the sky (or various stars were in certain positions at certain times of day meant the monsoon season was coming). Those two proto-sciences only became psuedo-sciences when people continued at them despite the science being shown as flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.155.39 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a symbol for carbon (or charcoal, etc)

Interesting there is one for Bismuth, which was not actually discovered until alchemy was mostly dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.238.59 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Some modern alchemists consider the symbols for these planets to represent the radioactive metals Uranium, Neptunium and Plutonium, respectively"

This (to me) raises the question: There are modern alchemists? like me Communisthamster (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I mean, yes, but not in the same sense as there used to be back then. Since chemistry is so succesful there is no need for Alchemists. There is a market for the philosophy of Alchemists, though every single alchemical text is pretty unreliable. They all contradict each other, which makes (again) chemistry more apealing. The only "Alchemists" that exist today are the ones triying to sell their knoledge in 3 easy payments of 99.99, or the ones writting pretty inacurate esoterical texts.--142.68.53.38 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many alchemical substances are missing that were represented by symbols, and nearly all variations of alchemic "products" represented by symbols are missing as well. Not to mention types of processes that are modified zodiac symbols, not the simple zodiac glyphs themselves. here are some process symbols. here too, more process symbols basic metals, some alternate metals, substances, (e.g. glass, substrate of copper), bismuth, magnesium, antimony, even platinum and here.. basic symbols. and those continued. also see here, some random more complex ones, even more. list of highly specific aspect symbology to more general alchemical concepts, and similar, small, difficult to make out, small example of symbols for processes, symbols meaning "at that time" or process resulting in 'red fire' etc, thumbnail of such, microcosm / macrocosm alchemic symbol. set of symbols, another set

Certainly, a work producing an exhaustive list exists on this subject that is likely better than what I have above from an internet search can be sourced. A book on the topic. This article has so much potential because so much more history is actually there than here currently displayed.

What we need are individuals to redraw and upload said images free of copyright violation from a comprehensive work on the subject. Nagelfar (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Character Map on Ubuntu says Unicode U+26A8 is ferrous iron sulfate (⚨), and unicode U+26A9 is Magnesium (⚩). This seems to differ slightly from what we've got up. 72.207.248.117 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode changed those identities after people objected that they were wrong, and they found they didn't have any RS's for them. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Unicode characters appear as rectangular boxes containing hexadecimal codes on my Firefox version 31 in Windows 8. On Opera they appear as blank boxes. The article page links to Help:Special characters but that does not help fix the problem, see Help talk:Special characters#Confusing and unhelpful. What is needed are clear working instructions that allow readers to display Unicode fonts on these pages. -84user (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does the table of miscellaneous symbols (underneath the table of Unicode alchemical symbols) serve? A few of them may be related to alchemy, but the majority of them aren't, so I don't understand why it's there. I just want to confirm if there's a reason before removing it. -- Joyful spherical creature (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to remove them. They aren't sourced anywhere, and I'm pretty certain the protoscientific alchemists knew didn't know of lithium or magnesium. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that the symbols for the seven planetary metals also had number and color meanings:

Saturn; Lead; Black; 1

Jupiter; Tin; Blue; Moon; Silver; White; 3

Mercury; Mercury; Violet; 4

Mars; Iron; Red; 5

Venus; Copper; Green; 6

Sun; Gold; Golden; 7

Is there any reliable source backing these connections up? I remember a connection to John Dee's The Hieroglyphic Monad (1564)--2606:A000:7D44:100:4577:8946:6B83:6C28 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have been several color associations, which don't all agree, but don't know the details. The ones you listed make sense, though: iron rusts to red, copper to green, and black fits with ponderousness. I don't know about Jupiter or Mercury, though. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dee's The Hieroglyphic Monad is available at Archive.org here. Nothing leaps off the page in a quick scan. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number associations for the planets/metals are all cabalistic: if you look at a Tree of Life, the Sefiroth are all numbered from 1 to 10, descending from the Fixed Stars and the Zodiac, down through the seven Classical planets.

Nuttyskin (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed ⚩ as a supposed symbol for magnesium because it was unsourced. The identity appeared in Unicode 5 but was retracted by Unicode 6. I contacted Unicode to ask why, and they said that they didn't have a good source, as in the proposal to add the symbol to Unicode it was only sourced to a popular general account of symbols, and they now believe that author got it wrong. They removed the claim, along with several others, after they received objections by experts in the field, likely from the Newton Chymistry Project. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retelling your personal off-WP conversation(s) is not WP:RS, it's WP:OR. One of the cites you removed, giving that very symbol, was in fact from "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" Project's webpages at Indiana University ( http://chymistry.org resolves to https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton ): https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/fonts/Alchemy%20Unicode%20Proposal---March%2031%202009.pdf

I had over four days earlier (05:03 15 April) asked you, at User talk:.Raven#Magnesium, "are you able to cite and link an RS of that retraction?" You never answered there. The above I take as your "No." – .Raven  ^.talk 02:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the current Unicode chart. No "magnesium". Look up that Newton Chymistry link. No "magnesium". If you don't like my personal anecdotes, then you can ask Unicode yourself, but meanwhile you don't have a single RS that this symbol means magnesium. And, given the hundreds of alchemical symbols out there, no reason to think this one would be notable even if it did.

And I still wonder about your second, apparently fake reference. Where in all that verbiage does it say that this symbol means 'magnesium'? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: "Proposal for Alchemical Symbols in Unicode" by William R. Newman, John A. Walsh, Stacy Kowalczyk, Wallace E. Hooper, Tamara Lopez. Indiana University, March 6, 2009: https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/fonts/Alchemy%20Unicode%20Proposal---March%2031%202009.pdf – page 11, character 26A9 (2nd from the bottom of the page): ⚩ — "= magnesium (alchemy and older chemistry)" — I had copied-and-pasted it from that PDF, and cited that PDF. You deleted it for "spurious sources". – .Raven  ^.talk 02:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out to you multiple times, that's a reference to Unicode 5: it's an item in Table 1, "Existing Coverage of Alchemical Symbols in Unicode." Well, it's not existing coverage any more. — kwami (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

⚩ still produces ⚩. That's what I just typed now to get it. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have adequate reason to include ⚩ as an alchemical symbol for 'magnesium'? There are two references. The first one is a reference to Unicode 5; by Unicode 6, the identity of ⚩ as 'magnesium' had been retracted. (I contacted Unicode about this: see previous thread.) And, of course, Unicode definitions are not a RS for alchemy, only for Unicode. The second ref appears to be a smoke-screen, with no mention of the symbol. At best, it appears to be a tenuous OR chain trying to equate magnesium with magnesia. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, kwami had also deleted another ref:

Cf. item 8, "Magnesia" in this chart from Reutter de Rosemont, Louis (1931). Histoire de la pharmacie a travers les ages [History of pharmacy through the ages] (in French). Paris: J. Peyronnet.

The "this chart" was, as it happens, the same chart kwami had added to the article. See that eighth item down. If it's not an RS, why did kwami add it?

Where, oh where, is kwami's RS for that claimed "retraction"? – .Raven  ^{.tal :k} 02:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That symbol might be a variant of <⚩>, I can't tell. But even if so, it's for "magnesia", not "magnesium". Those are two different things, as you know full well. As for the retraction, try here. (I expected you to be able to look up a Unicode character by yourself.) Come on, cut the BS. Where is there a single RS that <⚩> is the alchemical symbol for "magnesium"? — kwami (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you know full well, the pure metal magnesium was not isolated until 1808.

What alchemists had available to them was the salt, called "magnesia alba" – and you also removed those refs:

• Multhauf, Robert P. (1975-12-09). "A history of magnesia alba". Annals of Science. 33 (1976). Milton Park: Taylor & Francis: 197–200. doi:10.1080/00033797600200231. Retrieved 2023-04-14. By the time of Pliny (first century A.D.) 'magnesian earth' came in several varieties. He mentions five, one of them, called 'magnet', clearly being the celebrated lodestone; the others varied in color from black to white.... As for the material to which the name 'magnesia alba' ultimately became attached, it was a neglected residue of the process conventional in Europe from the 14th century for the production of saltpetre.

[RS; Leonardo da Vinci medal-winner, previously cited multiple times on en-WP.]

• Helmenstine, Anne Marie (2022-03-01). "Saltpeter or Potassium Nitrate Facts". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2023-04-14. In 1270, Syrian chemist Hasan al-Rammah described a purification process for obtaining purified potassium nitrate from saltpeter. First, the saltpeter is boiled in a small amount of water and then reacted with potassium carbonate from wood ashes. This removes calcium and magnesium salts as precipitates, leaving a potassium nitrate solution. Evaporating the liquid yielded the chemical, which was used to make gunpowder.

[RS; this author has previously been cited over 60 times on en-WP.]

But these and Reutter de Rosemont (whose chart you posted ) are what you deleted as "spurious sources". – .Raven  ^.talk 03:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not claiming that ⚩ is magnesia alba, you're claiming it's magnesium. And even if you were to change that to magnesia alba, you haven't provided a source for that either that I can see, just that a symbol which looks rather similar is reported to be "magnesia", which might be any of the five substances mentioned by Pliny for all we know. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't follow the magnesia alba link, did you? First sentence: "Magnesium oxide (MgO), or magnesia, is a white hygroscopic solid mineral that occurs naturally as periclase and is a source of magnesium (see also oxide)."

Cf. Magnesia#Chemistry: • Magnesium oxide / [indented] • Periclase or magnesia, a natural mineral of magnesium oxide

If you had tried what Pliny would have called magnesia nigra, you'd have read: "In the 16th century, manganese dioxide was called manganesum (note the two Ns instead of one) by glassmakers, possibly as a corruption and concatenation of two words, since alchemists and glassmakers eventually had to differentiate a magnesia nigra (the black ore) from magnesia alba (a white ore, also from Magnesia, also useful in glassmaking). Michele Mercati called magnesia nigra manganesa, and finally the metal isolated from it became known as manganese (German: Mangan). The name magnesia eventually was then used to refer only to the white magnesia alba (magnesium oxide), which provided the name magnesium for the free element when it was isolated much later."

... Oh, but Wikipedia itself is not RS, so see the sources, like the one footnoted at the end of that last paragraph: Calvert, J. B. (24 January 2003). "Chromium and Manganese". Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 10 December 2022. — the relevant paragraph being the third one under the heading "The Metals and Their Properties".

More?

• Magnesia n. "(alchem.) ingredient of the philosophers' stone," s.v. Magnesia OED.

— Glossary at Harvard's Geoffrey Chaucer Website, Last modified: Nov 20, 2008 Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

• mag·ne·sia / noun ᴄʜᴇᴍɪsᴛʀʏ / noun: magnesia / magnesium oxide. / • hydrated magnesium carbonate used as an antacid and laxative. / late Middle English (referring to a mineral said to be an ingredient of the philosopher's stone): via medieval Latin from Greek Magnēsia, denoting a mineral from Magnesia in Asia Minor.

— Oxford Dictionaries [provided by Google; try googling define magnesia]

• magnesia in American English / (mægˈniʒə ; mægniʃə ) / noun / 1. magnesium oxide, MgO, a white, tasteless powder, used as a mild laxative and antacid, and as an insulating substance, in firebrick, etc. / 2. hydrated magnesium carbonate, also used as a laxative / ModL magnesia (alba), lit., (white) magnesia....

— Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

• Magnesium, mag-nē′shi-um, or -si-um, n. a metal of a bright, silver-white colour, which while burning gives a dazzling white light, and forms magnesia.—n. Magnē′sia, a light white powder, got by burning magnesium, used as a medicine.

— Chambers's Twentieth-Century Dictionary (1908), Part 2 of 4, E–M

At a certain point, it becomes disingenuous to deny the term's referent. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, changing the entry to:
"Magnesia (alba), source of later magnesium" – .Raven  ^.talk 05:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still have no source for your claim. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read the Magnesium article, either: "The metal itself was first isolated by Sir Humphry Davy in England in 1808. He used electrolysis on a mixture of magnesia and mercuric oxide." *

 * Davy, H. (1808). "Electro-chemical researches on the decomposition of the earths; with observations on the metals obtained from the alkaline earths, and on the amalgam procured from ammonia". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 98: 333–370. Bibcode:1808RSPT...98..333D. doi:10.1098/rstl.1808.0023. JSTOR 107302.

(Specifically, pp. 109-116, in the Collected Works version linked above, cover the extraction of the metal he calls "magnium" from – and its subsequent oxidation into – the white powdery material he calls "magnesia": [p. 115] "It sank rapidly in water, though surrounded by globules of gas, producing magnesia, and quickly changed in air, becoming covered with a white crust, and falling into a fine powder, which proved to be magnesia.")

Oxidized "magnium" (now "magnesium") is what material? (Bonus question: what gas were those "globules"?)

For modern industrial processes to extract magnesium from magnesium oxide (MgO), see Magnesium#Pidgeon process and Magnesium#YSZ process. – .Raven  ^.talk 08:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all sources inline? Why not use footnoting ref? DePiep (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article, & I was commenting on the cited book. – .Raven  ^.talk 00:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC could use a recap. Also, stop useing "as you wrote" and "as you know" constructs. Wikipedia is nor a RS, nor are such personal references. IOW, keep the argumerntation clean, don't leave it to others to destill sense. DePiep (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the asker had previously seen (and deleted) text including the metal-isolated-in-1808 detail, which was linked to Magnesium#History – the same section from which I quoted at the top of the paragraph you're replying to. – .Raven  ^.talk 00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You haven't read" is not a relevant contribution, .Raven. DePiep (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That the asker had not read the links they deleted as "fv spurious sources" (they later marked them "failed verification" and "citation needed" – marks still in the present version) brings up an epistemological question: how did they know the sources were "spurious" or had "failed verification" without having read them? IOW, those marks are utterly unfounded. – .Raven  ^.talk 00:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time's passed.
Q. Oxidized "magnium" (now "magnesium") is what material?
A. Magnesium oxide (MgO), a.k.a. magnesia.
[Bonus] Q. What gas were those "globules"?
A. Hydrogen, what's left of water (H₂O) when the oxygen has been taken away to oxidize magnesium.
This, by the way, is why you can't put a magnesium fire out with water (nor with a CO₂ extinguisher!), it will just keep oxidizing=burning, and the released hydrogen can then also burn when it hits fresh oxygen in the air; you need to smother it with sand or a Class D "dry" extinguisher to deprive it of oxygen. [1] – [more sources available if required or requested] – .Raven  ^.talk 17:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The de Rosemont symbol for magnesia can be seen here, plate 4 after page 261. I didn't know at first if the difference between the de Rosemont symbol and Liungman's ⚩ might just be just an extraneous blot of ink or a Xerox artefact, but from this cleaner image it's clear that it's not ⚩. (It's possible that Liungman's ⚩ is a misreading of the de Rosemont symbol -- they don't provide a source -- but that's idle speculation at this point.)

So, (a) we don't know if the de Rosemont symbol is for magnesium alba, magnesium nigra or both, and (b) it looks like it's not our symbol anyway. So, yeah, fails verification. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "(a) we don't know if the de Rosemont symbol is for magnesium alba, magnesium nigra or both" – A few errors there. Just above you'd insisted on the difference between "magnesium" and "magnesia", but here you use the wrong word twice. Louis Ruetter de Rosemont calls it "Magnesia", the same word Davy uses for magnesium oxide (which is white, hence the "alba"). "Magnesia nigra" is the mineral from which manganese is derived. As above-linked Magnesia nigra has already been quoted to tell you, by the time the word "magnesia" was used without a color-adjective, it referred to the "alba" variety, magnesium oxide, because the "nigra" variety was already being called by a different name, "manganesum". So, yes, we do know to which material LRdR's symbol referred.

> "(b) it looks like it's not our symbol anyway." – Because the tiny upper 'barb' of the arrowhead is missing? That's the big difference? Scribal carelessness or printing error (perhaps even just on this copy) could easily account for that. We see greater differences between renditions of other symbols, for instance the 45-degree rotation of 🝋 for Pulvis even within LRdR's chart, and note how many cross-strokes are on the stem in the Unicode symbol (2) vs. LRdR's (3). Is Unicode "wrong" or is LRdR, or are those accepted variants? – .Raven  ^.talk 01:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in OR. Nowhere do we see it's specifically magnesia alba. By 1932 that was probably the case, but Rosemont doesn't say what era the symbol comes from, so we can't know it was recent enough. Anyway, it's contradicted by your original source, which claimed it was magnesium. Perhaps you can scour Rosemont's text and find a more specific description, but a simple table doesn't provide enough info to draw such conclusions. Doing so would be OR.

If we had a RS that ⚩ was magnesia, then it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that Rosemont's symbol was the same. But we don't. And it's not just a missing barb due to a printer's error: there's an additional element, perhaps something like Mercury's cup, at the top of the cross bar. Such small details are sometimes all that separates symbols with different meanings. For example, 🜉 means 'alcohol'. Rotate it, and it means 'gold'. Add an extra ring, and it means 'horse manure'. That's why the Newton Chymistry Project is so careful with their identification of variant glyphs. If the symbol ⚩ were in any way notable, we should be able to find RS's for it. And if it's not notable, there's no reason to include it here: we don't bother including thousands of other non-notable alchemical symbols. What makes this one so special that it has to be included, despite us not knowing what it represents or what it's supposed to look like? — kwami (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither rotated nor has such a major difference as an added ring. As I pointed out above, Pulvis 🝋 differs between Unicode and LRdR in the number of cross-strokes on the stem (2 vs. 3), and LRdR even shows it twice with a 45° rotation difference – representing the same thing every time. So acceptable variants do exist.

> "That's why the Newton Chymistry Project is so careful with their identification of variant glyphs. If the symbol ⚩ were in any way notable, we should be able to find RS's for it." – You cite the Newton Chymistry Project yourself; clearly you regard it as RS. But you deleted that PDF from the Newton Chymistry Project (which included that symbol as 26A9, 2nd from the bottom on p.11) as a "spurious source". Would you please make up your mind? – .Raven  ^.talk 03:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "... it's contradicted by your original source, which claimed it was magnesium." – Magnesium oxide IS magnesium, oxidated: "burnt magnesium" it's sometimes called. It's not manganese. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not paying attention. You repeatedly debunk things that were never claimed. Would you please read what you respond to, so that your responses bear some relevance to the discussion? — kwami (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read the sources you delete as "fv (spurious sources)" or mark as ^{[failed verification ][citation needed ]}? You can't have tried to "verify" something you didn't read.

And would you please try to be consistent? You've repeatedly claimed to base your argument on something stated by the Newton Chymistry Project – though you've never linked an RS of that statement, only alleged off-WP conversations – but you've also repeatedly deleted an actual linked cite of a PDF actually at the Newton Chymistry Project's website (one of those sources you called "spurious"). Is it an RS or not? – .Raven  ^.talk 15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "You're engaging in OR." - I'm citing the published results of other people's research, from as far back as 1808. You've thumped private offline conversation(s) you claim to have had but never given a verifiable RS for the statements you allege were made in them, despite my repeated requests; and that's WP:OR, if anything is – "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Example: citing "I contacted Unicode to ask why, and they said ..." – amounts to hearsay, since no-one else can verify your off-WP conversations. – .Raven  ^.talk 15:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have deleted as "false claims" Sir Humphry Davy's 1808 report of isolating "magnium" (magnesium) from "magnesia" (magnesium oxide) – also previously cited without dispute in Magnesium#History – clearly not "false claims" in any sane interpretation. If you want that source removed, justify its deletion in discussion, rather than edit-warring with such blatantly false edit-comments. – .Raven  ^.talk 03:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, another  "de Rosemont symbol for magnesia" can be seen here, plate 3 after page 261, i.e. the plate just before  the plate you said held the  "de Rosemont symbol for magnesia". Fifth item in the middle column, M-shaped, with a small circle at the base of the left stem. Again we see more than one symbol for the same concept. – .Raven  ^.talk 00:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I call broken process. this signals editwarring, before RfC closure or even sight of resolvence. Already, I have asked for proper talkflow (eg source ref usage, no personal bf addressing). This needs uninvolved guidance. Without changes, admin ruling comes in sight. Incidentally: the discussion is not to follow let alone contributed to by third epersons. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "* Manganese (in Bergman)"
to "* Manganesa/-um (magnesia nigra), source of later manganese (in Bergman)"
... because (as stated in Manganese#History) the pure metal "manganese" was not isolated until 1774; before that, alchemists knew the less pure, compound, forms under the older names. – .Raven  ^.talk 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted you because once again you're engaging in OR rather than following the sources. Bergman workeh after that date, and this is specifically manganese metal. Possibly it doesn't belong in this article, as it's arguably early chemistry rather than alchemy. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How odd: you yourself, when creating that image file, stated:

alchemical symbol for manganese or possibly magnesia in Bergman 1775 [emphasis added]

... but now you say

... this is specifically manganese metal.

Which time should we believe you, since you didn't link your source either time?

Undoing the above edit, which made a citationless claim, i.e. WP:OR; going by the original file, which at least named a source. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note page 102 of Bergman's 1775 Dissertation: "The calx of manganeſe, known alſo by the name of magneſia nigra, furniſhes an admirable proof..." — yet on the image file, your description continued: "(together with 'calx', this symbol indicates metallic manganese)" — no, Bergman said the 'calx' [look it up, that means a metal's oxide] was also known as "magnesia nigra", precisely what you've just denied. You're contradicting your own source! – .Raven  ^.talk 22:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you cite me as a RS for one of you edits?

Okay, to spell it out: Bergman shows the 'calx' symbol ♆ next to and labels it "manganese", under the heading of "metallic calces", just as he does with the other metals. If ♆☉ is calx of gold, and ♆☾ is calx of silver, then ♆ is calx of manganese, which as you note is magnesia nigra. Do you have a RS that on its own is magnesia nigra? And no, some comment I made on Commons does not count as a RS. — kwami (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then were you not accurately representing an RS (Bergman, that is, not yourself!) when you cited it as "alchemical symbol for manganese or possibly magnesia in Bergman 1775" on the Commons file? Tsk.

Bergman... labels it "manganese", under the heading of "metallic calces"...

That's right: a metal's 'calx' is its oxide – as in the case of manganese's calx (♆) what's been called 'magnesia nigra' or later 'manganesum' or 'manganesa', actually a group of several oxides – just as 'magnesia alba' or later simply 'magnesia' refers to oxidated ('burnt') magnesium, MgO, found as the mineral periclase or even in the magnesite MgCO₃ from which MgO can be extracted by heating with charcoal... and as, more familiarly to most people, 'rust' refers to iron oxide, Fe₂O₃. We just don't usually call 'rust' a 'metal', precisely because of that oxidation, but the metallic element is in there, and it can be isolated. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "Do you have a RS that on its own is magnesia nigra?" – Do you have a RS that on its own is the pure metal manganese? Or did you WP:OR deduce that from its calx's symbol?

Where does the symbol appear in isolation, to refer to the isolated metal?

Read the second paragraph of 'Calx': "According to the obsolete phlogiston theory, the calx was the true elemental substance that was left after phlogiston was driven out of it in the process of combustion." – Or definition 1 in Wiktionary's 'calx', "... once seen as being the essential substance left after the expulsion of phlogiston..." – i.e. the metal was the "phlogisticated" form, the combination of calx (the "true" or "essential" substance) plus phlogiston – and Bergman held to the phlogiston theory, as you can read in that same book (you've even SVG'd his symbol for phlogiston, ; note that, as befits the "principle of fire", it contains the fire symbol 🜂). Thus which was he calling the true elemental substance "manganese" – the metal, or its calx? – .Raven  ^.talk 12:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any direct evidence? Not your chain of OR, using WP as a source, but anything in Berger where he identifies what the symbols mean? Because if the symbol without the calx symbol means the calx, and the symbol with the calx symbol means the metal, then per Berger's table the Sun alone is calx of gold and the Moon alone is calx of silver. I've never seen that anywhere. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of the metal as the true element, and the calx as the combined (oxidized) form — which is exactly how modern chemistry regards them. But to phlogiston believers, the calx was the true element, and the metal was the combined (phlogisticated) form. So to Bergman [not "Berger"], his symbols ♆ conveyed "true" or "essential" manganese. Since you don't read article footnotes before marking them "fv", here:
• Daintith, John, ed. (2008). "Phlogiston theory". A Dictionary of Chemistry (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199204632.001.0001. ISBN 9780191726569 – via Oxford Reference. In the early 18th century Georg Stahl renamed the substance phlogiston (from the Greek for 'burned') and extended the theory to include the calcination (and corrosion) of metals. Thus, metals were thought to be composed of calx (a powdery residue) and phlogiston; when a metal was heated, phlogiston was set free and the calx remained. The process could be reversed by heating the metal over charcoal (a substance believed to be rich in phlogiston, because combustion almost totally consumed it). The calx would absorb the phlogiston released by the burning charcoal and become metallic again. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're still engaged in OR, your personal interpretation of what the sources mean. But your opinion is not a RS. Do you or do you not have a RS that actually states that ☾ is not silver, ☿ is not mercury, ♀ is not copper, ☉ is not gold, ♂ is not iron, ♃ is not tin and ♄ is not lead, but rather the calces of those metals? And if you're right, why do we not correct those entries along with manganese? — kwami (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My "opinion" has nothing to do with it, nor does your (pretense of?) incomprehension. Did you bother to read that direct quote from A Dictionary of Chemistry, or not?

If that's not enough for you, try the Royal Society of Chemistry's "The Logic of Phlogiston", or Chem Europe's "Phlogiston Theory" ("Once burned, the 'dephlogisticated' substance was held to be in its 'true' form, the calx.") Likewise Purdue Chemistry and U.Penn. – .Raven  ^.talk 07:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But none of that tells us what the symbols mean. That's where you're engaged in OR: you assume that the meanings of the symbols are how you would use them, given your understanding, without evidence that's how they were actually used. Really, this is not difficult: do you or do you not have a RS that means magnesia nigra, or for that matter that ⚩ means either magnesium or magnesia alba? If we have to interpret the source, it doesn't count -- especially when your deduction contradicts all other sources. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "You assume that the meanings of the symbols are how you would use them, given your understanding..." – No, my understanding is that a 'calx' is the oxide of a metal, because I learned modern chemistry. Bergman, however, did not, hence phlogiston was mentioned throughout his book. To phlogiston theorists, a metal was the combination of a calx plus phlogiston.

> "... when your deduction contradicts all other sources." – What "other" sources? I keep asking you for RSs supporting your claims, and when you do (rarely) answer those requests, it's WP:OR like "I contacted Unicode to ask why, and they said...", which no-one can look up to verify, or "(together with 'calx', this symbol indicates metallic manganese)" – when 'calx' (as you have been given multiple cites) explicitly is not the metal but its oxide... which phlogiston theorists (of whom Bergman was one) regarded as the "true form" of the substance.

But if, as you just said there, the symbol indicates the metal "together with" the calx, then why are you fighting over naming them both in the symbol entry? – .Raven  ^.talk 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen ♆ for 'calx'; check out (as at the bottom of Reutter de Rosemont plate 6, column 1), among several recorded symbols for 'regulus', 'The metallic component refined from an ore.'

You've seen that on p. 385 Bergman wrote "manganese" next to the calx, ♆.

Where did he do so for the metal,  ? – .Raven  ^.talk 23:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he wrote "gold" next to calx of gold, "platina" next to calx of platinum, and "silver" next to calx of silver -- because they're in a table of "Metallic Calces", as it says at the top of the column.

Similarly, in the column to the left, of "Acids", those are all acids. That is, "+C" is not a lemon, but acid of lemon (citric acid). "+🜿" is not tartar, but acid of tartar (tartaric acid), and "+f" is not his symbol for "ants", but of "acid of ants" (formic acid). Note that he didn't write the "+" next to 🜋 for "acetous (acid)", because vinegar is already an acid.

That's the common-sense reading of the table. If you want to argue that "+f" is the alchemical symbol for ants and "+C" is the alchemical symbol for a lemon, then I'm afraid you'll need a supporting RS for that reading. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "If you want to argue that "+f" is the alchemical symbol for ants and "+C" is the alchemical symbol for a lemon" – What a remarkable capacity for projection: you imagine things, and pretend they're mine. No-one's claimed that *acids* (like calces) were the "true state" of substances according to phlogiston theory, let alone that ants and whole lemons themselves were used to dissolve anything. Again, if by "manganese" Bergman meant the metal rather than the calx, why did he then symbolize the calx rather than the metal? – .Raven  ^.talk 00:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You read the table as it's written, not as how you think it should be written based on your OR.

I don't know, Ravin, you're literate, what do you think? Why did he write "gold" instead of "calx of gold"? Do you think perhaps he omitted "calx of" from each item to save space and because it was patently obvious from the heading "metallic calces", just as he left off "acid of" from each item in the adjacent column of "acids"?

Just a thought. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't omit the 'calx' symbol, ♆, from any of those lines, which he could easily have done. He also could easily have made that column a list of metals and their symbols, simply by replacing the 'calx' symbol with the 'regulus' symbol – but didn't. Why not?

Again, Bergman wrote about phlogiston as a real thing (I won't repeat that link this time); and in phlogiston theory the calx is the "true" or "essential" substance (see above for multiple links and a couple of quotes).

Just a thought. – .Raven  ^.talk 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you appear to be playing stupid. I'm done enabling your bad-faith argumentation. This is all quite simple: You need a RS for your claims, or per WP policy they will be deleted. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you RSs here in this discussion; and I've added RS footnotes to the attached article (among others) – which you've then either reverted or marked ^{[failed verification]/[citation needed]}, after which it became clear in conversation you hadn't read the linked sources (were unaware of their content), i.e., you hadn't tried to "verify" them.

You in turn almost never cite an RS, despite repeated requests ("Bergman 1775" being one exception), merely repeat unsourced edits if reverted. So once again your lecturing is misplaced. Try living by the rules you thump. – .Raven  ^.talk 06:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand what a RS is, and you don't understand what OR is. As for me supplying RS's: you're the one making the unsupported claims, so it's up to you to support them. You got angry with me for "templating" your talk page, but if you're this ignorant of how WP works, then you need to be templated.

Anyway, you have demonstrated a complete inability to learn, so I've concluded that discussing things with you is a waste of time. No more discussion: supply RS's or not, it's up to you -- but without RS's, all of your claims will be reverted. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison and contrast. Citing in detail, and linking, "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" Project's symbols proposal online at Indiana University is WP:RS and not WP:OR – but you deleted that citation, later marking it and other citations in the same pair of footnotes ^{[failed verification][citation needed]}, never specifying whether this applied to one, some, or all of the sources, nor what claim "failed verification", nor how. In conversation you proved unaware of the linked contents, meaning your 'fv' tag was unfounded: without reading them, you can't have tried to "verify" them.

Claiming "I contacted Unicode to ask why, and they said..." is WP:OR and not WP:RS – but despite my repeatedly asking you for an RS of the "retraction" you asserted, you have provided nothing that verifiably supports your assertion, merely repeated it.

What a difference. – .Raven  ^.talk 07:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Bergman. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Corrected to RdR. Also see the Basil Valentine plate, same symbol. – .Raven  ^.talk 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone reading through this, I found the following definition of "magnesia" in The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton (2003, CUP). There were several, actually, but this one was from the fn on p. 180:

"Magnesia" possesses a wide range of meanings in alchemy, from one of the ingredients of the philosopher's stone (OED), to marcasite or a mixture of silver and mercury (Lexicon), to "the active, vitalistic alchemical agent Mercurius," or the quintessence itself (DAI 121). Sendivogius's context [17th century] indicates that it is a life-giving natural force with attractive, possibly magnetic powers.

— kwami (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would go all the way back to the classical period when (as footnote 8's Multhauf 1975, "A history of magnesia alba", cited Pliny from the 1st century) there were five types of "magnesia" or "magnesian earths" (called such from the region Magnesia) — one of them actually being "magnetic", the lodestone which was called "magnet". That your source covers so far back is indicated by the title: look up Hermes Trismegistus. As for the OED, I quoted/linked that definition myself, above.

But I linked texts that were specific about the time periods that names were used, including the well-sourced Magnesium#History and Manganese#History — to quote the latter: "In the 16th century, manganese dioxide was called manganesum (note the two Ns instead of one) by glassmakers, possibly as a corruption and concatenation of two words, since alchemists and glassmakers eventually had to differentiate a magnesia nigra (the black ore) from magnesia alba (a white ore, also from Magnesia, also useful in glassmaking). Michele Mercati called magnesia nigra manganesa, and finally the metal isolated from it became known as manganese (German: Mangan). The name magnesia eventually was then used to refer only to the white magnesia alba (magnesium oxide), which provided the name magnesium for the free element when it was isolated much later."

(I cited that text's source, Calvert 2003, "Chromium and Manganese", in footnote 8.)

Torbern Bergman was 18th century, and Isaac Newton's alchemical studies were late 17th – early 18th century. The term "phlogiston" is itself a date giveaway, since (as quoted in footnote 9 from A Dictionary of Chemistry): "In the early 18th century Georg Stahl renamed the substance phlogiston (from the Greek for 'burned') and extended the theory to include the calcination (and corrosion) of metals."

So when we're discussing phlogiston theory and a 'calx' named magnesia, there's no ambiguity left, as by then magnesia referred only to what had previously been magnesia alba: magnesium oxide. Clear now? No more anachronisms from you? – .Raven  ^.talk 17:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored full citation including publisher, location, link, and correct original publication year, inexplicably among the details removed as "false claims". Perhaps previous editor saw the date "1932" on 2nd-printing's title page, and ignored or missed turning to the original publication date "1931" on the original title page just 6 pages (3 sheets) later in that book. Also, FYI, the cite-book 'at' parm is used when there's more than numeric 'page/pages' info, as is the case here; that way the abbreviation "p." is not put in front of the text "4 plates...", making it incorrectly look like "p. 4" is the reference followed by "plates...". – .Raven  ^.talk 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🜛 [silver] appears in that same proposal from the Newton Chymistry Project, p.13, 2nd from bottom. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]