![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Aluminium | Sulfur | Caesium |
---|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
According to the article, the QCA decreed several years ago that "sulfur" should be the spelling used in British schools. Has the QCA stuck to this judgement? This looks doubtful. Searching google for sulphur site:qca.org.uk there are 42 results, and a further 17 for sulphuric, whereas searching for sulfur site:qca.org.uk there are 0 results, and 0 for sulfuric. And the article's notion that "sulfur" is already becoming the dominant spelling in Britain looks to be far-fetched. sulphur site:.uk has 655,000 results; sulfur site:.uk has 133,000 (though I'll admit I find that surprisingly high). Sulphur has more than 2,000 occurrences on the news.bbc.co.uk website, sulfur 18. On thetimes.co.uk it's 17:1 in favour of sulphur; guardian.co.uk about 10:1; independent.co.uk more than 100:1. 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)~~
"Sulfur" of course is there solely as a result of Noah Webster's ignorance and obsession with spelling simplification. Usage in Britain is certainly "sulphur", as is shown not just by the storm of outrage following the bizarre QCA announcement, which was condemned by elected representatives of all political parties, but by the revealing QCA remark at the time, "British English spelling should not be penalised". It is dismaying that the RSC and the QCA should have taken such Uncle Tom-ish attitudes to US cultural imperialism, but I suppose there is now a long tradition in the UK of servile obsequiousness to US pressure, so one can hardly be surprised. Deipnosophista (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, sulphur is etymologically wrong (the word is not from Greek), and so is aluminium (the oxide is alumina, not *aluminia). So much for "ignorance and obsession with spelling simplification", which in these two cases are completely untrue. I'm generally for British English spellings as etymologically more correct (in fact, I used to usually use the OED spellings with -ize generally; the problem is that to anybody who doesn't know about that, it looks like a mistaken mixing of spellings), but in this particular case, I think it would be wiser to fight only for caesium. Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I read on one of these talk pages that when the IUPAC recommended "sulfur", the English were fairly quick to start using "sulfur". However, when the IUPAC recommended "aluminium" and "caesium", the Americans were nowhere near as quick to start using them. Since the American chemists have shown no desire to compromise, I think UK chemists should go back to the standard English spelling "sulphur". When the USA are willing to compromise on their end, I'm sure the UK will be willing to use "sulfur" again. Avengah (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
People in Britain (such as me) still use Sulphur, I have never seen it be anything other than ph in the UK except in American books or papers, no matter what the education authority might say. I work in a lab and the bottles are still labelled Sulphuric acid or Sulphate. People in the rest of the world may use Sulfur instead. Both are 'correct' and acceptable, neither is particularly more right than the other. But as the page can only have one title it makes sense that it is the one generally preferred by the relevant international organisation, in this case IUPAC. Philman132 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)