Active discussions
Oxygen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 14, 2008, and on September 5, 2017.
On this day... Article milestones
December 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 28, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 6, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 1, 2004, August 1, 2005, August 1, 2006, August 1, 2007, August 1, 2008, August 1, 2009, August 1, 2010, August 1, 2012, and August 1, 2014.
Current status: Featured article

This bit could be improved/correctedEdit

This sentence in 2nd paragraph:

"Oxygen is continuously replenished in Earth's atmosphere by photosynthesis, which uses the energy of sunlight to produce oxygen from water and carbon dioxide. Oxygen is too chemically reactive to remain a free element in air without being continuously replenished by the photosynthetic action of living organisms."

Should be modified to be something like:

The Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide balance in the atmosphere and oceans (and to a greater extent the entire earth's crust) is fundamentally important to all life on earth. The processes of photosynthesis and respiration continually convert CO2 to O2 and O2 to CO2 respectively. In addition, natural processes can impact or add to the balance of these gases in both steady state or sudden event type interactions.

At very high concentrations oxygen becomes very reactive and would tend to be depleted from the atmosphere through oxidation reactions. This however is prevented naturally through the presence of nitrogen, which makes up approximately 78% of the earth's atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RfullE (talkcontribs) 00:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above suggestion contains much that is wrong, overly vague, or misleading. There's no reason to complicate the issue by mentioning respiration, for example. Respiration is simply another (type of) chemical reaction which removes O2 from the atmosphere. The idea presented here that nitrogen prevents (LOL!!) oxygen from reacting is nonsense. Assuming a false premise, that the O2 concentration suddenly becomes "very high" is magical thinking. It is not a real possibility, it is unfalsifiable. First year chemistry teaches that a chemical reaction RATE is generally an increasing function of concentration; dilution will slow a reaction BUT. does. not. prevent. it. The "balance" of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the Earth's crust is irrelevant to this discussion. The amount of molecular oxygen and molecular carbon dioxide in the crust isn't well known, but also isn't believed (afaik) to be significant, especially not to "all life one Earth". The author perhaps confuses carbonates (which may be discussed as CO2 equivalents) and other geological oxygen reservoirs (oxides, silicates, water, hydrates, etc.). The geological carbon cycle is an important process, we believe, for the existence of life on Earth, but the balance between geological CO2 and O2? Not so much. (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • +***

The first paragraph should state and explain what oxygen is, not the history that nobody is quite sure about. The history should be in the history section, not half in the first paragraph and half in the history section. There seems to be some assumption that someone wants to know the history and the people behind an element's discovery when really, I doubt anyone looks up Oxygen because they want to know who Wikipedia thought discovered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:296:150:0:0:1:5D (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The New WikipediaEdit

I am a chemist. I know few if any chemists who call O2 "dioxygen" except when differentiating it from other forms (atomic, ozone, etc.). Most people and most chemists would refer to O2 as either oxygen or molecular oxygen (even though ozone is also technically molecular oxygen). I see this NOWHERE in the article. WHY NOT?? This FACT needs to be prominently mentioned...and WHY is this article protected??? (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles are usually protected to limit vandalism. If you have something you would like to include in a protected article, propose it here on the talk page, provide reliable references, ad if someone agrees with your motivation it will be added to the page. Alternatively, create an account for yourself and as this article is only semi-protected, you will soon be able to edit it for yourself. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written by volunteers, some of them are more expert than others, some are more interested in particular topics than others, and some have the time to spare. If you fall into the group who would like to fix the article and have the time and skill to do so, please consider creating an account (free and quick) and helping to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I too have been researching this, there used to be a clear named distinguishment between the atomic form and the molecular form. I seemed to have remembered that the former name for O1 was Oxium, however I have now found an old article which proves me wrong, instead it's Octium. reference: right at the top. Now notice that the reference on this page is a broken link equivalent to a 404 "Unavailable service" "service unavailable" and the contents of the site claim to be about environmental protection. The Atomic form does have a clear name, it was made to distinguish the atom from the gas, as the atom is toxic and the gas is not, and the atom does not exist in the same state as the gas and behaves differently. I remember reading an article (that I can't find now) which proposed that the "ium" ending to the word was breaking the atomic naming standards as it implied it was a metal then went on to claim it was a gas because it was as light as air. However because it is a single atom there is no space between it and other composing atoms, thus it is in fact a solid. thus the "ium" ending was appropriate. So O1 = Octium, O2 = Oxygen, O3= Ozone. There should be a reference to this. I will return to discuss this if need be. (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Peter, this is a very 'poor' article and poorly written, so it is fairly arrogant to assume anyone else could not do better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:296:150:0:0:1:5D (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add information about DiatomsEdit

Diatoms contribute to 20% of all oxygen supply on the planet (other sources on the internet say up to 50%); seems important to mention them on a page about oxygen. There is already a page about the information may just need to be linked. Can someone help me do it? Every time I try to edit WIKI, I fail. THANKS! PharmDelicious (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the situation is more complex than presented above. Diatoms contribute up to (but probably less than) 40% of marine primary production. Which produces oxygen. The oceans as a whole are responsible for around one half of primary production, with the land responsible for the other half. However, the oxygen produced through primary production by diatoms is also consumed by respiration (by the diatoms themselves, but more so by other organisms). And thinking just about oxygen production, the oceans overall are close to balance on this point, or possibly even net consumers of oxygen. In part, this is because the oceans receive organic matter from the land which is then consumed by respiration (and consumes oxygen) within the ocean. So the headline statements above around oxygen and the role of the diatoms are a little over-simplified. And just because you can find them made "on the internet" does not make them either true or reliable.
When you say you "FAIL" on Wikipedia, are you being reverted? If so, it might be because you're not adding sources in support of such statements. As I mentioned above, you should only add material that is reliably sourced. Follow the link there to get some idea of what's considered reliable on Wikipedia. But do keep trying to edit - the encyclopedia needs volunteers like yourself. Cheers, —PLUMBAGO 10:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We need a name to distinguish between the atomic form and the gas, what should it be?Edit

It really is breaking the naming convention rules for "Oxygen" to refer to both the Atom (O1 or O) and the molecule (O2), especially given that the atom is toxic and the molecule is not, and the atom behaves differently from the molecule. A long long time ago, I remembered reading that O1 (O) had a unique name which differed from the gas' name. I incorrectly remembered it as Oxium, where after very hard research to find any reference to it apparently it is "Octium". So O is not Oxygen, O is Octium, O2 is Oxygen, and O3 is Ozone. Even if this is not the correct name, or even if this name has been refuted by naming sources for any reason, the fact still stands; we need a name to distinguish the atom from the molecule without forcing people to sub-specify such as with "oxygen-atom" and "oxygen-molecule". From what I remember the name Oxium/Octium was refuted only recently in the past 10 years by some researcher claiming the "ium" ending to the word was inappropriate as it implied it was a metal when they deemed it a gas (no reference, I may be mis-remembering) If that were the case should we not replace it with "Octigen"? Where the latin root is satisfied "Oct" being the 8th (it's #8) and "Gen" being geinomai (engender) (same as with Oxygen). this is important, because as it stands right now we are lacking a specific singular word to adequately describe the difference between O1 and O2, I realize it would mean dramatic changes to this article and to other articles on the same subject but for the sake of linguistic accuracy it is improper and dangerous to say O1 and O2 are both Oxygen, it's exactly the same as saying CO2 and CO1 are both Carbon and Oxygen. Atomic Elements must have a differing name from their molecular forms, so that CO2 and CO1 are (CO2)Carbon and Oxygen, and (CO1)Carbon and Octigen/Octium/Oxium respectively. if you have a better name please discuss, I am in no way trying to take credit for coining a term, just pointing out the need for someone to coin a term for it and giving my own suggestions. Thanks. Joshex (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Bluish red? or purple?Edit

Very minor point. Is "bluish red" really a color? Or is "purple" the word for this in English. Note that it is not a good answer to say that medical texts use it, if they do, because that might just be useless jargon, not a genuine medical term that has a precise meaning. But I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeur24 (talkcontribs) 01:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Oxygen" page.