Jump to content

Talk:Gold/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Fake gold needs a paragraph in the article as crime is rising.

Faking of precious metals is sharply increasing due to the current high demand of gold, as people panic about th economic crisis and the emptiness of paper-printed money.

Gold-coated, tungsten cored, "good delivery" stamped fake gold bars are allegedly used by free world countries to defraud chinese buyers, while communist China tries to convert more and more of its increasingly value-less US dollar heaps into something truly tangible. The Youtube video, which showed such a bar after cutting, made a lot of scandal.

Polished copper rings are often sold by gipsy/tzigane fraudsters as street-find gold (hungarian penal law has a specific paragraph for this crime of "gagyizas").

Silver-plating on cuprum is often used to fake large, solid silver objects. Honest vendors stamp such objects with the word "comple" to signify composite metal nature. Dishonest people erase or fill over that. Imagine the buyer's losses with an 5kg "silver" dish.

Edge-trimming of real gold coins used to be a widespread crime before ribbing of the coin's circumference was invented (Aged Isaac Newton hanged a lot of people for trimming coinage)

Surgical steel is used to fake the currently fashionable but low-density, nickel alloyed 14K "white gold". Keep a magnet at hand! Sometimes acid test won't help.

Gold rings and earpieces are often bulbous and hollow on the inside, with a closed interior. Unscrupulous people fill that void with liquid or gypsum to increase the piece's weight for fraudulent sale. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Precious metal alloy densities in gramm per cubic centimeter:

pure gold a.k.a. 24K is 19.32, 22K is 17.5, 18K greenish tint 15.90, 18K golden tint 15.58, 18K white-gold 14.64, 18K reddish tint 15.18, 14K greenish tint 14.20, 14K golden tint 13.07, 14K white-gold 12.61, 14K reddish tint 13.26 and purest silver is 10.49. Quartz crystals that bear naturally grown gold are 2.60 to 2.65 gramm /cm3. Of course these are only valid for totally solid objects with no voids. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gold mining pollution

Why is there no mention of gold mining pollution? It's a serious issue. I can't believe no one wrote about it here yet. Were there quality issues or is this off topic in this article? Personally, I think there's enough gold in vaults etc. and that should be used before new gold is mined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darsie42 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

'kwdt2' added this section pollution on 4 January, 20012, but it is deleted totally within 30 minutes by 'Materialscientist' stating that a single sentence (rich Indians unknowingly fueling gold production) is objectionable material. He would have deleted this sentence which is objectionable. It is unfair to remove entire "pollution" section which is also as important as material 'Gold' If 'Materialscientist' is totally unaware of pollution issues in gold production, he would have asked authentic references from 'kwdt2' in his remarks. kwdt2 demands detailed constructive explaination from 'Materialscientist'here for his actions lest the deleted section would be restored after removing the sentence "rich Indians unknowingly fueling gold production ..." Kwdt2 (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The planned opening of new gold mines in Transylvania, which would work with the cheap and dirty cyanide-based method, is a big source of contention between Romania and Hungary. Hungary used to have Tr. and they are not happy about romanians polluting such a beautiful region with seas of toxic sludge. The canadian company that wants to finance the new mines only cares about profit as it's not their land that gets hurt. Production of gold is a crime against the natural habitat. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

'kwdt2' added sub section 'pollution' on 4 January, 20012, but it is deleted totally within 30 minutes by 'Materialscientist' stating that a single sentence (rich Indians unknowingly fueling gold production) is objectionable material. He would have deleted this sentence which is objectionable. It is unfair to remove entire "pollution" section which is also as important as material 'Gold'. In support of my statements, I want to refer the authetic document available in this link" http://www.scribd.com/doc/82418790/Gold-groduction-and-its-environmental-impact ". Is it acceptable to restore text added by me after deleting the words "rich Indians unknowingly fueling gold production" along with this additional reference. Please reply. Kwdt2 (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwdt2 (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the revert. This addition is unfit for several reasons: (i) lack of reliable sources (the scribd link does not qualify as one - furthermore, our firewall blocks this link because it launches something when clicking "download") (ii) WP:UNDUE and WP:OR - the whole passage is an exaggeration (nearly any chemical can kill a human at some dose, it all depends on the dose), with inappropriate mentioning of Chernobyl, "rich Indians", etc. (iii) Problems with style and logic; for example, arsenic and selenium are not heavy metals. Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Please find below point wise clarifications to your reply on 22 /2/ 2012.

Reliable sources: The document available / uploaded in Scribd virtual library, is the declaration statement of Peoples‘Gold summit, San Juan Ridge, California in June 1999. This summit declaration contains many sections explaining about the detrimental environmental effects of gold production and its futility. This document is contributed by eminent people in their fields. Since this public document was not available in web now, it was uploaded in Scribd virtual library for ready access. In no way the content of this document can be termed as unreliable. I am able to access / download the legible document without any problem.

Neutral point of view and No original research: Adding a sub section on ‘pollution’ is not violating neutral point of view. In fact deleting subsection ‘ pollution’ is violating neutral point of view. Branding content as “ones original research” should not be euphemism for rejecting content. The following links (of BBC, ABC, etc) have compared the Cyanide spill in to the river next to Chernobyl disaster.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s98890.htm “Cyanide spill second only to Chernobyl”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/810435/Cyanide-spill-compared-to-Chernobyls---N-disaster.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/642880.stm “Death of a river”

The proposed content by kwdt2 is not once own first hand creation/research. The content does not talk about human deaths by chemical contamination as quoted by you. It says about how minute quantities of heavy metals can make water unfit for consumption.

Problems with style and logic: Please refer to wikipedia stub “Heavy metal (chemistry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_(chemistry) which accepts arsenic and selenium being termed as heavy metalsThe same statement (including selenium and arsenic under heavy metals) is taken from Peoples‘ Gold summit document and not my own research.I am also not a metallurgist to correctly use the jargon of metallurgy. If style and logic are not up to mark, please refine and improve it but not the whole subsection deleted. I request you to add the content on “pollution” to make the topic more knowledgeable in line with Wikipedia motto. Please reply.Kwdt2 (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The {{edit semi-protected}} template can only be used to make changes which have an actual or presumed consensus. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would propose the following content under subsection 'Pollution" please peruse and upload content to the stub "Gold". Please record the objections if any.

==Pollution== Gold production is also associated with contribution to hazardous pollution <ref>" Summit declaration of Peoples‘ Gold summit, San Juan Ridge, California in June 1999” http://www.scribd.com/doc/82418790/Gold-groduction-and-its-environmental-impact </ref>. Some of this ore is mined from deepest mines of the world. The ore generally containing less than one part per million (ppm) gold metal, is ground and mixed with Sodium cyanide or mercury to react with gold in the ore for gold separation. Cyanide is highly poisonous chemical, which can kill living creatures when exposed in minute quantities. Many cyanide spills<ref name="deseretnews"> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/810435/Cyanide-spill-compared-to-Chernobyls---N-disaster.html </ref> from gold mines have taken place worldwide both in developed and poor countries which killed the marine life in long stretch of effected rivers. Environmentalists consider these pollution disasters as major environmental disasters<ref name="news"> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/642880.stm “Death of a river”</ref> next to nuclear power plant disaster<ref name="abc"> http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s98890.htm “Cyanide spill second only to Chernobyl” </ref>. When mercury is used in gold production, minute quantity of mercury compounds enter in to water bodies causing heavy metal contamination of water. Mercury enters in to food chain in the form of Methyl mercury through fish, etc. Mercury contamination in humans causes incurable severe retardation of brain functions.

Thirty tons of used ore is dumped as waste for producing one finger ring of gold. This ore dump is the source of many heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, Arsenic, Selenium and mercury. Water is unsuitable for human consumption if these Heavy metal (chemistry) are found in more than one ppm concentration. When sulphide bearing minerals in these ore dumps are exposed to air and water, the sulphide transforms in to sulphuric acid which in turn dissolves the heavy metals facilitating their passage in to surface water and ground water. This process is called Acid mine drainage. The ore dumps of gold contain substantial quantity of heavy metals, which are prone to Acid mine drainage pollution. The gold ore dumps are considered as long term man made hazardous waste next only to nuclear waste dumps. Billions of dollars need to be spent to mitigate the heavy metals pollution from worldwide gold ore dumps which are increasing every year.

Gold extraction is also highly energy intensive industry (25 kwh of electricity per one gram of gold production) to extract ore from deep mines and to grind the large quantity of ore for further chemical extraction. In present day world, underground mining is least preferred employment by workmen as the occupational environment is not suitable for humans. Global gold demand mainly as an accumulation of movable asset, is fueling gold production which is associated with damage to world environment, ecology and forcing workers to unhygienic conditions. India is importing <ref name="scribd">" Gold imports - Social evil" http://www.scribd.com/doc/58788144/Gold-Imports-A-Social-Evil </ref> nearly 1000 tons of gold annually which is one third of global gold production.

Kwdt2 (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Not done: Please don't activate the {{edit semi-protected}} template until you have reached a consensus. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Celestra, I think presumed consenses is reached since no body objected. Can I upload the proposed content. Kwdt2 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to discussing this topic in principle. However, the references are woefully inadequate. I've reproduced the text, adding {{cn}} tags where needed. I've also struck out sensationalist statements or other editorial-type comments which are inappropriate for this article. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Gold production is also associated with contribution to hazardous pollution <ref>" Summit declaration of Peoples‘ Gold summit, San Juan Ridge, California in June 1999” http://www.scribd.com/doc/82418790/Gold-groduction-and-its-environmental-impact need a better, more general and authoritative reference</ref>. irrelevant commentSome of this ore is mined from deepest mines of the world. The ore generally containing less than one part per million (ppm) gold metal,[citation needed] is ground and mixed with Sodium cyanide or mercury to react with gold in the ore for gold separation. Cyanide is highly poisonous chemical, which can kill living creatures when exposed in minute quantities. Many cyanide spills<ref name="deseretnews" /> from gold mines have taken place worldwide both in developed and poor countries which killed the marine life in long stretch of effected rivers. Environmentalists consider these pollution disasters as major environmental disasters<ref name="news" /> next to nuclear power plant disasters<ref name="abc" />. When mercury is used in gold production, minute quantity of mercury compounds enter in to water bodies causing heavy metal contamination of water. Mercury enters in to food chain in the form of Methyl mercury through fish, etc. Mercury contamination in humans causes incurable severe retardation of brain functions.needs rephrasing[citation needed]

Thirty tons of used ore is dumped as waste for producing one finger ring of gold.[citation needed] This ore dump is the source of many heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, Arsenic, Selenium and mercury.[citation needed] Water is unsuitable for human consumption if these Heavy metal (chemistry) are found in more than one ppm concentration.[citation needed] When sulphide bearing minerals in these ore dumps are exposed to air and water, the sulphide transforms in to sulphuric acid which in turn dissolves the heavy metals facilitating their passage in to surface water and ground water. This process is called Acid mine drainage. Specific to gold mining, or general? The ore dumps of gold contain substantial quantity of heavy metals, which are prone to Acid mine drainage pollution. The gold ore dumps are considered as long term man made hazardous waste next only to nuclear waste dumps. Billions of dollars need to be spent to mitigate the heavy metals pollution from worldwide gold ore dumps which are increasing every year.[citation needed]

Gold extraction is also highly energy intensive industry (25 kwh of electricity per one gram of gold production) to extract ore from deep mines and to grind the large quantity of ore for further chemical extraction. [citation needed] In present day world, underground mining is least preferred employment by workmen as the occupational environment is not suitable for humans. Global gold demand mainly as an accumulation of movable asset, is fueling gold production which is associated with damage to world environment, ecology and forcing workers to unhygienic conditions. India is importing <ref name="scribd" /> nearly 1000 tons of gold annually which is one third of global gold production. Not relevant

Regarding deactivating the template: At a minimum, materialscientist objected to the content, so there is no consensus. He said it has problems with poor sources, original research and undue weight (relative to the rest of the article). You need to reach a consensus with him and the other interested editors. Until you do so, please stop activating the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rifleman and Celestra, Please find my substantiations against each of the remark. I hope adequate time and citations were given to explain that the observations (poor sources, original research and undue weight (relative to the rest of the article) are not applicable. I request Celestra or rifleman to expedite solution to this issue.

Gold production is also associated with contribution to hazardous pollution [1]. irrelevant commentSome of this ore is mined from deepest mines of the world. The ore generally containing less than one part per million (ppm) gold metal,[citation needed] (Clarification: please refer to subtitle ‘Production’ in wikipedia article Gold which states 0.5 ppm ore is used for gold production economically and also the paper earlier cited with title " Summit declaration of Peoples‘ Gold summit” ) is ground and mixed with Sodium cyanide or mercury to react with gold in the ore for gold separation. Cyanide is highly poisonous chemical, which can kill living creatures when exposed in minute quantities. Many cyanide spills[2] from gold mines have taken place worldwide both in developed and poor countries which killed the marine life in long stretch of effected rivers. Environmentalists consider these pollution disasters as major environmental disasters[3] next to nuclear power plant disasters[4]. When mercury is used in gold production, minute quantity of mercury compounds enter in to water bodies causing heavy metal contamination of water. Mercury enters in to food chain in the form of Methyl mercury through fish, etc. Mercury contamination in humans causes incurable severe retardation of brain functions. needs rephrasing[citation needed] (Clarification: Please refer to wikipedia article Methyl mercury for substantiating this statement). Thirty tons of used ore is dumped as waste for producing one finger ring of gold.[citation needed] (Clarification: Please refer to news article ‘the cost of gold – 30 tons an ounce http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/international/24GOLD.html?pagewanted=all ).This ore dump is the source of many heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, Arsenic, Selenium and mercury.[citation needed] (Clarification: Please refer to the paper earlier cited with title " Summit declaration of Peoples‘ Gold summit”). Water is unsuitable for human consumption if these Heavy metal (chemistry) are found in more than one ppm concentration.[citation needed] ] (Clarification: Please refer to wikipedia article Drinking water quality standards for substantiating this statement). When sulphide bearing minerals in these ore dumps are exposed to air and water, the sulphide transforms in to sulphuric acid which in turn dissolves the heavy metals facilitating their passage in to surface water and ground water. This process is called Acid mine drainage. Specific to gold mining, or general? (Clarification: yes and refer to subtitle ‘Occurrence’ of wikipedia article Gold which states that Gold ore is often found together with Sulphide minerals such as Fool’s gold which is a pyrite).The ore dumps of gold contain substantial quantity of heavy metals, which are prone to Acid mine drainage pollution. The gold ore dumps are considered as long term man made hazardous waste next only to nuclear waste dumps. Billions of dollars need to be spent to mitigate the heavy metals pollution from worldwide gold ore dumps which are increasing every year.[citation needed] (Clarification: Please refer to news article ‘the cost of gold – 30 tons an ounce http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/international/24GOLD.html?pagewanted=all ).Gold extraction is also highly energy intensive industry (25 kwh of electricity per one gram of gold production) to extract ore from deep mines and to grind the large quantity of ore for further chemical extraction. [citation needed] (Clarification: Please refer to news paper ‘Using life cycle assessment to evaluate some environmental impacts of gold http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612000947 ).In present day world, underground mining is least preferred employment by workmen as the occupational environment is not suitable for humans. Global gold demand mainly as an accumulation of movable asset, is fueling gold production which is associated with damage to world environment, ecology and forcing workers to unhygienic conditions. India is importing [5] nearly 1000 tons of gold annually which is one third of global gold production. Not relevant Kwdt2 (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr. I'm not involved in this discussion. The {{edit semiprotected}} template is not a "I have another argument" flag. It is a mechanism for allowing non-autoconfirmed editors to make reasonable changes to semiprotected articles, using other editors as filters/proxies. Edits lacking consensus are not reasonable changes, but that is moot since you have been around long enough to be auto-confirmed. Please stop being disruptive and follow the usual conflict resolution paths. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Counter argument to gold mining pollution talk

Gold Production

1. The production of gold requires the use of cyanidation, but not all of the processed ore requires this treatment. Gold mills first process crushed ore through a shaking table, which recovers most of the freely milling gold through simple gravity. Gold is a heavy element and will sink to the bottom.

Leaching in vats is required for gold chlorates trapped in minuscule particles of ore not separable by gravity or other methods. But processing mills also use other methods, such as concentrators, carbon leaching, and electro-winning. Cyanidation is only required under certain circumstances and is only one step in the process.

2. While gold processing mills require electrical power to process ore, gold mining projects with electrical infrastructure not dependant on diesel fuels do not further pollute the environment.

3. Not all mines operate at exceptionally low grades, either. Some mines can produce gold processing only 1 - 4 tonnes of ore, rather than the often quoted 30 tonnes. Some processing mills process 50,000 tonnes of ore per day and do not provide a return for their shareholders, while some processing mills require no more than 1000tpd to produce a return.

4. Most of the product from mines is silicon dioxide. Sand. Rocks are made of silicon dioxide. The by product of greatest concern is actually the Arsenic in the pyrites that often accompany gold mining operations. But arsenic by products that result from gold mines are actually used in the production of printed circuits, but you never hear of negative environmental impact from the production of printed circuit boards. Low sulphidation ores do not have Mercury in the rock and do not produce mercury as a by product of mining. They do not produce appreciable quantities of cuprous or cadmium elements common to sulphide ores.

5. Cyanide breaks down with 400 hours of UV radiation. Essentially tailings impoundment with dissolved cyanide products in water will see the cyanide break down with natural sunlight.

6. A responsible way to treat tailings would be to use a naturally-occurring lake with berms constructed and controllable water levels by means of a spill way along with effluent monitoring so that the outflow has no appreciable pollution. Above ground tailings impoundment with earthen berms leak or break.

7. Banning gold production based on specious arguments that its industrial output destroys the environment will be impossible. In a country of laws where publicly traded gold mines owned by shareholders follow the laws to the letter and satisfy every last astringent legal and environmental requirement and have the public support of both the indigenous stakeholders and no public opposition will enter into production and produce gold as part of the economy. Thus gold mines are not necessarily marginalized in any way, either environmentally, or economically, or scientifically.

8. A standard weight of gold will move to become a benchmark in the monetary system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.243.211 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

History

Why is this sentence in the History section of this article: 'The Book of Revelation 21:21 describes the city of New Jerusalem as having streets "made of pure gold, clear as crystal".'? Not only is it not history, but it is regarding a prophecied event that hasn't happend yet (if it will happen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Randall (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" engraved on golden plates. According to Latter Day Saint belief, the golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th-century literature, the golden Bible) are the source from which Joseph Smith said he translated the Book of Mormon, a sacred text of the faith. Some witnesses described the plates as weighing from 30 to 60 pounds (14 to 27 kg), being golden in color, and being composed of thin metallic pages engraved on both sides and bound with three D-shaped rings.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

Green gold image removed

This dense green color is impossible for gold. Down to 100-200 nm of film thickness it keeps yellow color [1]. Bluish tints appears at lower thickness, maybe with some slight green, but then the color is very very weak. Gold has no particular absorption minimum in the green range [2]. There are several possible artifacts: (i) Flash and camera are optimized for green (eye sensitivity) and weakly sensitive to blue. (ii) Deposition problems like low vacuum, non-continuous deposition (gold nanoparticles have different color from film). (iii) The color is affected by interference in a multilayer. Materialscientist (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, there is not much on the web. Here are commercial slides [3]. 100 nm is yellow [4]. Unfortunately, they keep posting 100 nm image on other pages, but 50 nm [5] is also pretty yellow. Ah, this looks very familiar. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Stained glass?

Gold is used quite often in stained glass to create a red color. Could someone with more knowledge on this subject add such a section or sub-section --Commander v99 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

industry section
  • Gold produces a deep, intense red color when used as a coloring agent in cranberry glass.

This is already in the article. --Stone (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Sound Spelling

Do we really need a sound spelling for GOLD!!!? How insulting/demeaning! Gold is a word where there is NO doubt as to how it is pronounced.--67.84.73.254 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You may have no doubts, but that doesn't mean you can speak for others. Eeekster (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

India

India, having arguably the most important cultural history concerning gold, dating back to the the Indus Valley Civilization and before that and being the biggest consumer and importer of gold, is not even mentioned in the history section? Someone needs to sort that out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.230.142 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Material Parameters

Hi all. I have computed the complex permittivity and refractive index for gold and thought it might be useful to include it here. Any suggestions about how to incorporate such a thing?

The file:

Drnathanfurious (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The graph is a bit overloaded for this article and hard to read, and rather aims to show the differences among models. Also, keep in mind that most readers don't know what is n', n" and how to understand their spectra, i.e., figures for general readers need extra clarity of the graphics, labels and captions (cf. [6]). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Gold leaf eating?

In the 5th paragraph of the intro should this read 'gold leafing' instead of gold leaf eating? Pavman (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gold leaf is in fact eaten, and that's probably what the writer intended; however, the main use of gold leaf is gold leafing rather than gold leaf eating, so I edited the phrase accordingly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

6.6 trillion sounds like a whole lot to me...

I don't understand this sentence from the Production section:

The value of this is very limited; at $1200 per ounce, 165,000 tons of gold would have a value of only 6.6 trillion dollars

What is the context here? In what way is 6.6 trillion a "very limited" value? The gross domestic product of the entire planet in 2010 was around 62 trillion. How is a figure amounting to a little more than 10 percent of Earth's GDP a limited value? 184.77.159.253 (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gold, mined and accumulated for several milennia, is just 1/10th value of the world's YEARLY GDP. That is a minusclue amount, thus gold coinage based universal money cannot be realized. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That is the most erroneous argument ever. The entire World was on gold and silver standard because prices (proxy of value) can be set in grams, ounces etc. What you are referring to is price of gold in USD which in no way means that gold cannot be used as global money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.220 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A total of 165,000 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, as of 2009. from the same source can be update to 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfbar0 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Important Barrier?

"On December 2, 2009, Gold passed the important barrier of US$1200 per ounce to close at $1215"

Can anyone explain why $1200 is an "important" barrier, as opposed to, say, $1000 or $1500?

-Hatster301 (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The source says: $1,217.23 is a new high, so I changed it into that. Maybe not an all-time high? -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Consumption paragraph.

The paragraph on gold never being "consumed" has been controversial and repeatedly revised; I removed it entirely for a few reasons. First, all the cites were blogs from gold advocates (generally, people with a vested interest in promoting the wonders of gold.) While this doesn't make them totally unusable as sources, I think it makes them unreliable sources for the relevance of their claims. Second, more importantly, nothing in any of those sources actually implies that there's anything special about gold being reused when possible -- the same is equally true of any precious metal. Finally, perusing those sources, it seems like they're using that as a mostly handwaving chain of logic reply to arguments in a sort of back-and-forth blog war over gold -- which doesn't really make their speculations on the subject and its importance encyclopedic. Mostly, it seems like an irrelevant and disputed bit of trivia which a few blogs have tried to attach undue importance to, without any citations as to that significance. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

Figure of historic gold production is 171,300 (at end of 2011). Same source as before (reference 2). Reference 2 is an FAQ, and the figure is found on question 22.

Hence, I propose this re-write: At the end of 2011, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined totaled 171,300 tonnes.[2] This can be represented by a cube with an edge length of about 20.70 meters. At $1,600 per ounce, 171,300 metric tonnes of gold would have a value of $9.67 trillion. Tingdahl (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Tingdahl. Most of this content is already in the article. Adding the price of gold in US dollars is not useful, as not everyone uses US dollars and the price of gold changes daily. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 02:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Consumption table inconsistency

Table in Consumption section seems to be a mix of jewellery consumption (years 2009, 2010), and total consumption (2011, 2012). Data should be harmonized, or at least discepancy noted. Victordk13 (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove reference to "mankind"

Gender neutral language would be more appropriate here.

Virtually all of the gold that mankind has discovered is considered to have been deposited later by meteorites which contained the element.

I suggest a change to read: Virtually all of the gold that humans have discovered is considered to have been deposited later by meteorites which contained the element. But I couldn't quickly find a reference to preferred language in this area, if there is one.Linbot (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Human contains the word "man". Gender neutral must be huperson. And hupersonkind. SBHarris 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Huperson contains the word "son". Gender neutral must be huperprogeny. And huperprogenykind. (Wasn't that on BJAODN?) Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That's one small step for Grmphulkz, one giant leap for Grmphulkzkind. --Bridgecross (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - remove bibliography google webcache link with actual link

The Tom Mortier reference should be linked to the actual source in the institution's institutional repository: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/1979/254/2/thesis_finaal.pdf and not in the google webcache.

Bluyten (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Begoon talk 11:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - source doesn't say what it's claimed to

In the Pollution section it is stated "Thirty tonnes of used ore is dumped as waste for producing one finger ring of gold." The source says "for one ounce of gold" not for "one finger ring." Please make this correction, since there's quite a difference between 1 ounce of pure gold and the few grams used in most rings. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplicityx3 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reatlas (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

War Production Board (WPB) Limitation Order No. 208

that closed down almost all of the active gold mines in the United States. The emphasis during the war was on mining base metals and other strategic metals and minerals needed for the war effort. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155 (1958) United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co. No. 29 Argued January 7, 1958 Decided June 16, 1958 357 U.S. 155 Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. 134 Ct.Cl. 1, 130, 138 F.Supp. 281, 146 F.Supp. 476, reversed. Page 357 U. S. 156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.111.38 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice to read is Craig, James R; Rimstidt, J.Donald (1998). "Gold production history of the United States". Ore Geology Reviews. 13 (6): 407. doi:10.1016/S0169-1368(98)00009-2. it gives the time of mine closures. --Stone (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect density of osmium

The article states: "By comparison, the density of lead is 11,340 kg/m3, and that of the densest element, osmium, is 22,610 kg/m3."

Incorrect, osmium is 22,590kg/m^3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.250.82 (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Changed the value to 22.562 which is state of the art. . doi:10.1038/nchem.1479. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) --Stone (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It's actually 22.587g/cm^3. 22.562g/cm^3 is iridium. — Reatlas (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gold coinage section

I noticed that in the Investment section many mints of gold coin are mentioned in a paragraph where the first mentioned coin is stated as having 99.99% purity. The Krugerrand, mentioned in that paragraph, is not 99.99% gold, but rather a 22K gold-copper alloy. The wording of that paragraph makes it seem like all of the coins mentioned (including the Krugerrand) are 99.99% gold. Perhaps the paragraphs mentioning specific modern coins could be restructured to mention the order in which they were released in modern times (since 1933)? I can certainly understand, however, if this would make the section too lengthy. Crazyeirishman (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the Krugerand to the previous paragraph that talks about other 22k coins. Seems to make more sense now. - Hatster301 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's see how this goes.... This statement, "The first gold coins of the Grecian age were struck in Lydia around 700 BC," points to a salesy reference, not a scholarly reference. This statement is wrong on several fronts: 1) The first coins weren't made of gold but of electrum, a gold and silver alloy, and they're referred to in the literature as electrum coins, not as gold coins. 2) In the early 20th century, 100 years ago, it was widely believed that these coins were first struck around 700 BC. Most scholars now date them about a century later, around 600 BC, more or less. 3) The first pure gold coins were struck about a half century after that, around 550 BC. 4) All these coins had nothing to do with Greece, struck elsewhere and before the rise of Greece as a great civilization (before its golden age!), so including the term "Grecian age" in this statement is out of place. See http://oldestcoins.reidgold.com/article.html for many references on all this. In short, a more accurate statement would be, "The first coins containing gold were struck in Lydia, Asia Minor, around 600 BC." Should I make this change? Somebody else? Reidgold (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good to change it.--Stone (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems this article can't be edited -- at least I can't. The article sections don't include [edit] after them. And there a padlock symbol to the right of the article's title, and holding your mouse over it brings up, "This article is semi-protected until September 26, 2015." But I'm far from expert about Wikipedia editing. Reidgold (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of cited content

In this edit [7], relevant cited content was removed without explanation. I will put it back if no explanation shows up here. Lfstevens (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Cube dimensions

Not sure where to say this but in terms of the dimensions of this gold cube, "9261 m3, or a cube 21.0 m on a side," don't quite make sense. What are the units of measurements of the "m's"? meters? miles? if 9261 is meters then 21 is not a correct measure of miles. This is a very nice statistic, but maybe somebody good with a slide rule should review this carefully. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.71.146 (talk)

m is the standard symbol of the metre and is used internationally. See International system of units. CodeCat (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
. I don't see a problem. Double sharp (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you are trying to say. "9261 cubic meters". And yes, one can argue that 9661 m3 (superscript) is a technically correct answer. But to a lay reader, even the professional reader, it is unclear and can also be interpreted as 9261 meters cubed, which is what the notation also indicates, which is why the sentence presents confusion. By analogy, 1 cubic foot = 12 inches cubed (1 ft = 12 in3 (superscript)) or 1728 cubic inches. To say that 1 cubic foot = 1728 in3 (superscript) might be stylistically correct but easily misunderstood. Clarity needs to remain a goal, and I would recommend this trivial fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.120.225 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

m3 is the correct and internationally accepted symbol for the cubic metre, and 9261 m3 is not ambiguous at all. — Reatlas (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
To you or me it's not ambiguous, but to a lay person who's not used to seeing math or science formulas, I think it could be. I don't see any harm into changing it to say "cubic meters" instead of m³. Maybe rephrase the whole sentence. Something like,

"As of 2012, the total amount of gold mined in human history is 174,100 tonnes (5.6 billion troy ounces), according to GFMS. If that much gold were to be melted into a cube, the cube would be over 20 meters on each side, and have a volume of over 9,000 cubic meters"

— Hatster301 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead section etymology

For the sake of consistency with other element pages, shouldn't something like Latin: aurum be placed in the lead section after the Au? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunedubby (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


I support this as well. Jan2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.66.161 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Vredefort meteor impact and the Witwatersrand gold deposits

I have taken the liberty to correct the relationship between the Vredefort meteor impact 2020 million years ago, and the gold that was deposited in the Archaen Witwatersrand rocks laid down more than 700 million years earlier. There is a diagram in the Vredefort crater article which explains how the misunderstanding that the Vredefort meteor was the source of the wealth of gold in the surrounding Witwatersrand rocks probably came about. And what the relationship between the two really is.Oggmus (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Page errors

There's a distortion on the gold page with overlapping image idk how to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Vredefort crater cross section 2.png interferes with bottom of TOC. I have no time to research now. -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Gold demand clock by country

I recommend to include the following citation in 'Consumption' section to reflect the latest gold consumption data country wise.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/gold-demand-by-country.html "Gold demand by country" 49.207.253.23 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Error in pollution section

Didn't know exactly where to put this as I've never made a request for a change on wikipedia before, but this was bothering me. Under the "Pollution" section, it reads "Thirty tonnes of used ore is dumped as waste for producing one 1 ounce (28 g) of gold." The way this mixes Metric and US/Imperial was bothering me so I decided to check the source. First, the cited source (106) is no longer available at the provided link for some reason. I found the source article and it specifies tons and not tonnes. A difference of over ten percent seems like it's worth fixing. Also, is a New York Times article really an acceptable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veematoo (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Changed to tons per source. Replaced dead reflink with working NYT article link - although the date provided by the link doesn't coincide with the date embedded in the url(?). NYT should be a WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not error. Please refer the point 4 'Waste rock' in the last chapter 'Ten problems with gold mining' of citation 102 ( Summit declaration, Peoples' Gold summit, San Juan Ridge, California in June 1999) which says that the standard ratio of waste production in the United States gold mining industry is one to 3 million which means one gram of gold generates 3 tons of waste material which is prone to AMD. It should be corrected by replacing 'one ounce' with 'ten grams (originally it was one finger ring of gold)' to be precise. The NYT article says only used ore which does not include over burden waste material. The citation 102 is very valuable document of all the citations which is written by group of experts in the gold mining industry. It does not deserve to be deleted for an unbiased reader.49.207.253.23 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The current text is supported by the NYT source. NYT is a reliable source and more recent. I'm not as confident of the reliably of the "gold album" source. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

What's wrong with boiling point ? http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/au.html 176.74.95.43 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The value quoted on your link (2807.0 °C) is commonly quoted but most likely is not actually correct. The value 2970 °C which we use in the infobox is a corrected value from Zhang et al.. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EoRdE6 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercury & lead pollution in air from artisanal gold mining

The following content to be added to the "pollution" section which has reference to 'Blacksmith institute' report ( http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/FileUpload/files/WWPP_2012.pdf ) in 2012 about the air pollution caused by Mercury and lead emissions from the artisanal gold mining.

" 20 percent of the world’s gold is produced in artisanal gold mines. 3.4 million people are at risk of toxic pollutants from the air pollution caused by Mercury emissions from the artisanal gold mining which is the 7th most pollution causing industry. In addition to Mercury pollution, lead emissions from the artisanal gold mining is contributing nearly one million DALYS" 49.207.253.23 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2014 (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. EoRdE6 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Pollution section is terrible

The section on pollution is one of the most unbalanced items I've seen here on Wikipedia. It's like it was taken straight from a some anti-mining literature. It's not balanced in any way. Just for starters it makes no mention of efforts to reduce pollution by miners. In addition, it seems very judgemental and condeming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.117.65.137 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

<ref>Atul Vajpayee (2016-01-08). "Tips and Tricks for Gold Investment". National Bullion House. Retrieved 2015-01-08.</ref>


Atulvajpayee (talk) 05:05, 8 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. We're not just going to add a link to some sort of gold/silver market for no reason Cannolis (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
There might be a WP:COI. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, 20 Jan 2015 (grammar)

"Gold (usually as the metal) is perhaps the most anciently administered medicine (apparently by shamanic practitioners)[31] and known to Dioscorides,[32][33] apparent paradoxes of the actual toxicology of the substance nevertheless suggests the possibility still of serious gaps in understanding of action on physiology.[34]"

First, that's a run-on sentence. The comma after Dioscorides should be a semicolon, or divide it into two sentences, or use a conjunction such as "though".

Second, paradoxes ... suggests. Subject and verb fail to agree. 81.111.51.80 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Modified/reworded a bit. Shifted the second sentence & ref up as they aren't really restricted (relevant?) to the shamanic bit. Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Poor wording

It is a bright yellow dense, soft, malleable and ductile metal. The properties remain when exposed to air or water.

This reads a bit oddly. Why would exposure to air or water be expected to make the metal harder or less dense, for example? I suppose the second sentence was intended to refer to the metal's resistance to corrosion, but it doesn't come across properly. 86.152.163.55 (talk)

Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Resistivity value in question

The resistivity is claimed to be 22.14 nanoohm-meters. I don't know if 22.14 is correct on this other wikipedia page there is a cited value of 22.4 nanoohm-meters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity#cite_note-serway-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.226.141 (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015

Add a link to http://www.ancient.eu/gold/ a peer-reviewed article on gold in antiquity with a visible and reliable bibliography.

Wonk2010 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 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. Add it as a source to which claim(s)? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Occurrence section - opaque/questionable reference

I've updated the natural occurrence section to lower the prominence of the recent 'neutron star merger' paper, and removed the propaganda link associated with it. The propaganda article is vastly overblown for the result - supernova R-process has been studied and thought about for decades, and a single result barely two years old should not overwhelm that.

Given the odd bias of the earlier revision, I'm concerned that the quote "we have no spectroscopic evidence that [such] elements have truly been produced." from the Rosswog paper in the Occurrence section may either be quoted out of context, may be incorrect, or may be inappropriate. I've tried to get access to the paper, but it is paywalled and there's no way to verify it. Could someone with access take a look and clean it up, or possibly remove the reference/sentence outright?

On that note, what is the policy on paywalled papers as citations? IMHO they should only be allowed as an absolute last resort, or at a minimum quotes such as the above should be disallowed. Stellar spectroscopy is hundreds of years old, there should be at least some free papers available on the topic.

I've done quite a bit of searching, and I've found no direct references, or even mention, of spectroscopic gold in stellar observations. The Rosswog paper is probably correct, but it wouldn't hurt to verify. Flying hazard (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Australium

Why does this redirect from "Australium"? I've been doing some reading, and there was a "newly-discovered element" (also referred to as "Sydneium", or "terra australis") put forth by a notable member of the Royal Society in the 1770s century which, while it may or may not deserve its own article, isn't related to this page. This proposed element was a mixture of compounds in a type of sand and had nothing to do with gold - so why does Australium redirect here without even being mentioned? Xanthos IV (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I just gave it a brief look, it looks like it's a jokingly reference to some video game. Feel free to delete it or nominate it for deletion.--R8R (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"On the Analysis of a Mineral Substance from New South Wales. In a Letter from Josiah Wedgwood, Esq. F. R. S. and A. S. to Sir Joseph Banks, Bart. P. R. S.". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 80 pages = 306-320. 1790. doi:doi:10.1098/rstl.1790.0021. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Missing pipe in: |volume= (help)
I actually checked it one more time, there are secondary sources referring to how there could be "australium" (for example, this one). I stand corrected.--R8R (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually familiar with the game; it's a fictional element in "Team Fortress 2". There's a diagram of the nucleus of an "Australium" atom which has 79 protons (same as gold of course), but in the TF2 universe it's canonically a different element. So even if we're operating under the Team-Fortress-joke pretence, it would still be inaccurate. Xanthos IV (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is something that could be incorporated into List of misidentified chemical elements and australium and sydneium could be directed there. ChemNerd (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock

From your own entry on the Dome of the Rock: "In 1993, the golden dome covering was refurbished following a donation of $8.2 million by King Hussein of Jordan who sold one of his houses in London to fund the 80 kilograms of gold required." No reference cited.

Cultural history in the current entry:

"The Dome of the Rock on the Jerusalem temple site is covered with an ultra-thin golden glasure.[clarification needed] " Again, no reference. Incidentally I tried to change "glasure" - a term used in France and Germany to describe a glaze (and technically incorrect). Your page won't allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.94.21 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Chemistry section appears twice

The article currently has two sections entitled "Chemistry" - 3 and 15. Section 3 contains a brief overview along with subsections on colour and isotopes, which do not belong here I think. Suggest moving both subsections into "Characteristics" and merging the remaining summary text into section 15. Lexyboy (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Merged by Graeme Bartlett. --Leyo 02:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2016

Hi,

I would like to add a citation for 'a two-tiered pricing scheme was established whereby gold was still used to settle international accounts at the old $35.00 per troy ounce ($1.13/g) but the price of gold on the private market was allowed to fluctuate; this two-tiered pricing system was abandoned in 1975 when the price of gold was left to find its free-market level.'

The citation will link to an informative article about gold here: https://www.corespreads.com/commodities/tradegold/

Thanks. TickerTracker (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: WP:REFSPAM EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

World War I

The article states:

In preparation for World War I the warring nations moved to fractional gold standards, inflating their currencies to finance the war effort.

This is problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, it's unreferenced. Secondly, we can say "In the lead-up to" or even "In anticipation of", but it's wrong to say that nations were preparing for World War I. They may have anticipated a conflict, but I doubt that anyone was preparing for the scale of conflict which emerged. Thirdly, we can't say there were "warring nations" nor a "war effort" before the war actually started. Finally, the term "warring nations" is ambiguous at best. Which nations are meant? Did Siam, Hejaz, Montenegro, Darfur, and the Dervish State all move to fractional gold standards in preparation for a global conflict? Pburka (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

How to make the chemistry section not suck

See here. Unfortunately, even with this help the rest of the article will continue to suck for the time being. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Gold in seawater

I am confused. For the NOAA the gold present in the oceans accounts to 20 millions tons [[8]]. The current version of WP states 15,000 tons! How do we reconcile those two figures? Silvio1973 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gold. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the article, only green and blue light shines through. (Red and yellow light doesn't, so it can't be considered completely transparent.)

Replace transparent in Characteristics with semi-transparent or translucent. Also, add that gold's density is very similar to that of tungsten. 2601:2C1:C301:6350:B9F0:5958:B53B:AA3C (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done - I have added semi to two uses of transparent, but see little "added value" in the density comparison - Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that tungsten has a similar density to gold (and tungsten is much cheaper than gold (cheap enough to be used in lightbulb filament)) means that tungsten is often used in gold fakes. Maybe someone could put that in. It's considered noteworthy enough to be on the tungsten page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C301:6350:CC61:419B:83C6:CA6F (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Added a reference to W at 19.25 g/cm3 (Au is 19.3). Double sharp (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Two questions

I have two questions, is Deseretnews.com a reliable source? Has ORMUS been tested on people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante2326 (talk • contribs) Dr Aaij (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions. Dante2326 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Dante

I believe he emailed me links to the information that I asked about. Dante2326 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Dante

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

the ratio to which Nitric acid is added to Hydrochloric acid is a 1:3 ratio respectively. Kylesock161001 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

I have some very important changes to make because I am a gold miner and love gold lots, and think everybody should know about gold and how much it is worth Cool beans13 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

consumption table 

     change {{ Persian gulf ===> Arabian gulf }} Z7x1994 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, this entire article does not mention Mono-atomic (Monatomic) gold and it's uses

we need to expand on this.

What exactly is mono-atomic gold? CodeCat (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
its a fine white dust, with no semblance to gold. it can be applied on the body but usualy consumed, and is said to improve user bio-conductivity in the body, and thus heal, stregthen the auro, give psi power, help fight cancer etc.--Namaste@? 18:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Good grief, is it April Fool's Day already? Plantsurfer (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No no, I agree -- this article should mention mono-atomic gold. There is an entire under-world of hippies, conspiracy theorists, and even rich upper class folks who engage in eating the powder. I think the hardest part will be finding reliable sources. Overall, though, it should be added. Can anyone assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.178.91 (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It should probably be mentioned as a form of quackery, and as a definite hoax. The perpetrators of this hoax have been caught out by their ignorance of what the colour of gold is in a finely divided state; unlike many other substances, which get ever whiter/lighter in colour as the particle size is reduced, gold tends to get redder, and then tends towards violet (gold vapour is violet). Thus, in using a white powder as their "monatomic" gold, they expose their fraud. At least I try (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Monoatonomic gold is a huge subject in legitimate science and technology. Just look it up on Google Scholar. On the other hand, there seems to be an epidemic of nano-, mono-atomic, and colloidal gold, platinum, and other noble metals getting promoted as snake oil. The underlying idea is a) they naturally occur in the human body (true, but so do radon, radium, lead, and mercury), and b) they are widely reported as non-toxic (true in bulk metallic form). The problem is that these metals become very reactive in nano- size. In lab mice, gold nanoparticles form a wide range of compounds with molecules in the saliva. Then they get into th body and do mischief. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Today a friend who is deeply into everything woo mentioned the wonders of monatomic gold to me. Of course I looked it up on Wiki to get some insight to best dispute his pseudoscience claims, and all I got was a redirect to the Gold article - which does not even mention the concept (even to debunk it). Here is an example of the nonsence people DO get by googling this: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davidickemonoatomicgold.shtml

Does anyone watching this page have a problem with me adding a section providing this info - highlighting the skeptical viewpoint on it of course?? Or does someone else want to take a crack at it? RobP (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss the point? People search and find bad info on this topic all over the internet. Wiki seems like the place to clear it up. See Homeopathy as just one example! RobP (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I missed the point. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Then you disagree with me on the point that WP should be a resource to counter the spread of dangerous pseudoscience claims. Let's see if anyone else chimes in on the subject. At a minimum the pointer to this article from a WP search on "monatomic gold" should be removed if there is no content here on that subject! (The fact that there IS a pointer suggests to me that perhaps there used to be a section here on the subject.) RobP (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I would favor a brief mention of the topic (perhaps just a couple sentences) if there are any notable sources regarding the topic. Dustinlull (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I strongly agree with User:Rp2006 that monatomic gold merits a section, if not its own article, precisely because it is the subject of unscientific claims. When people Google monatomic gold, a hundred sites with strange claims will pop up. It would be beneficial if a Wikipedia article with a scientific perspective also popped up. That seems of more importance than a lot of Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. I did some research and came up with something I hope is acceptable. Now at least when someone searches within Wiki for "monatomic gold" (which redirects to this page) there will be SOME content on that subject. Also perhaps google searches will eventually present it as an option to counter all the pseudoscience claims for it being made on the web. RobP (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this. It looks good. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome! Just doing my tiny part to spread science and a bit of wisdom. LOL. RobP (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I think a dedicated section in this article gives undue prominence to this topic. Would anyone be opposed to moving the section to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and moving the redirect to that page? If "mono-atomic gold" is notable enough to be included on this article then the proper place for it would probably be the medicine section.DC94 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Your suggestion sounds good to me, but there should be a link to monatomic gold somewhere in this article, perhaps in the medicine section. Plazak (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
My above edit has been reverted by Plantsurfer ostensibly for the reason of "No credible, reliable source." My edit only moved the sources currently cited and ironically the reversion moved them to a position of greater prominence. If there are any concerns with moving the mention of "mono-atomic gold" to a different section then please raise them here. Also, if the only two sources cited in the current article do not meet the appropriate standards of credibility and reliability then is there a reason to keep the section at all? DC94 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Medicinal Property from the Alchemical Perspective (a.k.a What shaman sees?)

Gold is Alchemically associated with the Heart and Crown center. Also astrologically it symbolically corresponds with the Sun. As these elements when imagined can be of use for mental body and mental universe constructions for the imagination. Such imagination if there is an elemental balance and integrity of the soul, can help do Heart and Crown healing. Understanding the physical, psychic, mental, emotional, spiritual and divine functions of the element and occurences of gold, such as in talismans having the form and meaning for specific purposes associated with such subtle force. Such is not only limited to gold but all alchemical metals and all of the periodic table itself.

Thus meditation and productive imagination with Gold and other elements has psychological healing effects that operates out of the bounds of modern medicine and transcends the boundaries of mainstream psychiatry. In such cases the physical existence of the matter is not needed at all, but understanding the meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdurans (talk • contribs) 05:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreactive

Question answered - though this is not a forum, so no further discussion of this should occur here. If there are further questions, post at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If gold has a single electron in its outer shell, then why doesn't it explode in water like sodium? 32ieww (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 32ieww (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@32ieww: Because its 6s electron isn't its only valence electron. Up to four of gold's ten 5d electrons can also be valence electrons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As much as this isn't a forum, the fact that this isn't really explained does highlight a gap in our coverage. I would want to add that the 5d shell under the 6s electron of Au is not very effective at shielding that 6s electron from the nucleus, and is certainly not anywhere as good at doing that as the 5p shell in Cs. So the first ionisation energy of Au is much higher and its ionic radius is much smaller. But the 5d shell is also more easily disrupted than the 5p shell, so once you get past removing the first electron, the second and third ionisation energies of Au are then much lower than those of Cs, and so +3 is the main oxidation state for Au. Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(BTW, because of aurophilicity, the reactivity drops even further from what you would expect from that argument – which also holds for Cu and Ag – because to form bonds you also have to break the strong interactions between the Au atoms, which are pretty much as strong as hydrogen bonds. So not only the metal but also some of the compounds are not very keen to react!) Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Monatomic Gold section deleted

Per the discussion in the very first section above, the consensus was to have a separate section in this article on the pseudoscience material, Monatomic Gold. There is no other mention on Wiki of this item, and so those using Wiki to find valid info now find NOTHING. The entire section was removed by @Plantsurfer in Feb without discussion. I am re-instating it. Let's discuss again here prior to deleting it again! RobP (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh - another thing: a Wiki search for Monatonic Gold redirects to the section Health and medicine on the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience page. That article probably had a short description and a link to the Gold page, but now there is NOTHING here to link to so it has been deleted from that article as well. So I have just restored it to that article, pointing to the section I have now re-added to this article. RobP (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
TBH I'm not in favour of this section at all, since it seems to put undue weight on the thing. Another thing to consider is that gold nanoparticles are actually scientifically important outside the pseudoscientific nonsense and it would sit better with me to simply have a science section with a sentence or two at the end debunking the crap, which is not even limited to Au. Keeping it on the pseudoscience topics list is fine, but I think putting it here gives it too much weight. Also I find the sources there to be not reliable enough: RationalWiki for instance is a wiki and isn't a reliable source. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I obviously disagree about this not belonging here, but let me push back on the comment @Double sharp made about the reliability of the sources. Perhaps Rational Wiki is problematic, but the others are solid, especially Science-Based Medicine. It is one of the go-to sources to counter medical pseudoscience - even on WP. RobP (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
There needs to be more than blog posts on this topic for it to be notable (which there may be). If it has good coverage then it should have its own topic article. It should probably not be mentioned here, many things are said about gold, why are we singling out one? Please note: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is not a dumping ground for things not covered anywhere else in Wikipedia, it kinda comes off as WP:POVFORK. Adding at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is a bit more stringent re: you need to WP:WTAF and get past WP:LABEL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed as pseudoscience nonsense doesn't rate a spot here. If others can provide solid evidence and rationale for this to be here - ok. But it doesn't belong until that time. Vsmith (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Natural occurrence?

Would love a brief section in here on why and gold occurs naturally? extreme hydrothermal conditions form it? User:JCJC777

It occurs naturally because dying stars make it in the s-process and the r-process, and so some of it was in the cloud of dust from the primordial supernova that coalesced to form our Solar System. So some of it is on Earth, and a significant portion of it occurs as the pure element or alloyed with its lighter congener silver because it is so unreactive: most of the rest is in tellurides, also usually associated with silver. No need for any extreme hydrothermal conditions. Actually, most of this seems to already be in the article, if just not all in one place; this article has the typical "patchwork" problem of an undeveloped element article, which tends to occur when lots of passers-by add their own things and no one goes along to organise it. Double sharp (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gold. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gold/Archive_4&oldid=1136769893"