Talk:Sulfur/Spelling

Sulphur and the QCA
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)
 * I always knew it as Sulphur and I only left school a few years ago. Sulfur seems really wrong.--Kurtle (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as the British Commonwealth of Nations the spelling -ph- of Sulphur is used. The Wikipedia article quoted the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (i.e., IUPAC) circa 1990 recommendation that the prefered spelling of Element S is Sulfur, and not Sulphur.  Note, the IUPAC gave a recommendation for a prefered spelling.  I got my B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. in Chemistry from 1987-2001 in the Dominion of Canada and we all spelt it Sulphur.  In other words EVERY chemist I knew spelt it with the -ph-, not the -f-.  IUPAC did not outlaw the Sulphur spelling ... as this Wikipedia article would have you believe.


 * As per the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency in Great Britain,
 * http://www.qcda.gov.uk/
 * they don't really seem that relevant. They just recommended that that the prefered spelling in British Schools ought to be Sulfur.  I would bet you 20 Pounds Sterling that everybody in the British Classrooms still spells it Sulphur (not the American English spelling of Sulfur).  This Wikipedia article is a blatant example of POV pushing (i.e., the only spelling is Sulfur).


 * ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sulfur is now the usual spelling in chemical contexts. See, for example, the first question in this GCSE exam:
 * http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-CHY1AP-W-QP-MAR10.PDF.
 * Also see the usage notes here:
 * http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0828080#m_en_gb0828080
 * I'll email you the address for the £20. Cheers! 93.97.113.174 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * QCDA no longer exists and Sulphur was used in UK government national curriculum documentation in 2014.
 * The Royal society recommended following IUPAC, but since 2010, the situation is unclear in the UK with the Nationalistic government it has had since then. Lkingscott (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2023 (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)
 * Wikipedia uses IUPAC spelling. IUPAC supports the British spelling of aluminium, so it's hardly one-way traffic. 93.97.113.174 (talk) 19:32, 18 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)

Something intriguing about these IUPAC conventions...
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)
 * First of all: compromise isn't going to happen (people spell it however they like, why would they change their spelling ways?). Second of all: does anyone really care outside of Wikipedia? (As in the millions/billions of people around the world). Seriously, people should "get a life" and move on. Arguing over spellings is not "relevant". - M0rphzone (talk) 02:08, 14 December 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)