Talk:Selenium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSelenium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
June 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Article change[edit]

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers, Maveric149 and Malcolm Farmer. Elementbox converted 13:54, 1 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:42, 18 June 2005).

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Selenium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Selenium Statistics and Information, USGS Periodic Table - Selenium, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Is it a semiconductor when liquid[edit]

metalloid says "Selenium has the electronic band structure of a semiconductor[452] and retains its semiconducting properties in liquid form.[452]" but this is not mentioned here. What can we say about the electrical properties of molten selenium ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge, without predjudice to subsequently splitting if the section develops, Klbrain (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I propose to merge Selenium pollution into Selenium. The Selenium pollution page is based on only 1 source, and there is already a section on toxicity/pollution in this page. Moreover, there aren't separate pages for the pollution of other metals (e.g. mercury). Allopathie (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Weak Oppose merging to a new section in Selenium. The topic is notable in Canada and the US 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, with sufficient sourcing to make a start-class article. There is some potential for a global focus: 7. However if no editors are available to improve this to a start-class article, I don't have a strong objection to the merge proposal. Any attention would be an improvement. -- Paleorthid (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose unless references are added. Only the part which is references should be added to this GA article. You could probably find a lot of sources about Pb and Hg polution and create articles Christian75 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree Right now the pollution article is a stub. I prefer to see articles grow and split off, because it gives more editors opportunity to see the article and contribute as this is the higher trafficked page. I've seen good articles emerge from either direction (either as separate stubs that grew and merged, or subtopics of the main article that grew and split off) and it seems that article development tends to evolve a little more quickly in the antegrade direction. Still, I appreciate the points of the above editors, and could leave it as is. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I like having information consolidated. If there is information on the pollution not included here, then I see no reason not to merge that article into this one. A person looking for selenium pollution should be able to find that information in the article on selenium, and I think this is much more important than allowing new editors to have a chance to create spin-off articles on related subjects. A loose necktie (talk)
I also agree with the proposed merger. In the past 2 decades selenium pollution has been widely recognized and there is substantial information to write a stand-alone article but, as it is, the page doesn't have much. It will be better to include it as a section under toxicity on the main page Selenium, and then editors can expand from there until it is lengthy and well sourced to warrant a separate page. Harold Rollskie (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  ☑Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Seleniun" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seleniun. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible benefits for infertility[edit]

There are two sources claiming benefits for impotence or infertility. [1] [2] which seem credible sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiratoral (talk • contribs) 05:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC) this commercial article also cites many academic sources for the claim https://www.hollandandbarrett.com/the-health-hub/conditions/mens-health/mens-sexual-health/selenium-male-fertility/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiratoral (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Spiratoral: (edit conflict)The journal article looks plausible (secondary source, review article, and the publisher is reputable), but "integrative medicine" is nonsense – it's an attempt to rebrand alternative medicine by coating it in a thin veneer of science. I would consider it to be fringe science, and hence not reliable. The other source is a web page giving advice on homeopathic treatment, which certainly does not meet WP:MEDRS. I think that if we are to add a mention of selenium being used as a treatment for impotence it should be supported by references to publications in mainstream medical research. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the Holland and Barrett page, I wouldn't use it as a reference itself, but the articles that it cites might be OK. I'd advise critically assessing them given the requirements of WP:MEDRS, and also keeping in mind that they have a vested interest in selling you their products, so might not be providing an unbiased survey of the literature. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking more closely, the Selenium in biology article states that Abnormally high or low levels of dietary selenium can have an adverse effect on sperm quality, with a consequent lowering of fertility. with a reference to this review article. I suggest reading that review, which looks like the most reliable of those that we've seen so far, and summarising its conclusions in this article is probably the way to go, assuming that you can get access to the journal. A quick search of pubmed turned up this Lancet review which might also be a good place to start. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Selenium&oldid=958333376"