# Talk:Lithium

i like fortnite

First sentence should not be "Lithium is a silvery soft alkali metal."  it should be "lithium is a chemical element with the symbol li and atomic number 3 2603:8080:D03:89D4:D503:4989:CB26:4FAF (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ayup, fixed. Thanks for reporting it! DMacks (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
For reference, the consensus seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines. fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
That page "is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." (was marked 'historical' almost four years ago). The most recent consensus is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive_62#"a" chemical element or "the" chemical element. DMacks (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"Lithium itself is a non-renewable resource." just after this existing sentence: "It has been argued that lithium will be one of the main objects of geopolitical competition in a world running on renewable energy and dependent on batteries, but this perspective has also been criticised for underestimating the power of economic incentives for expanded production.[98]". Also add a link to geopolitical (geopolitics). Desalado (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand the point of adding that sentence. There are very few renewable resources: why would anyone expect lithium to be among them? I move the sentence, reworded it, and linked it as you suggested. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for answering, Johnjbarton. The point of the sentence is to make clear that while lithium is important for certain renewable energy technology, it is itself not renewable. I think it is a valid point to tell the reader this, since while it may seem obvious to some we should not expect the reader to be aware of this situation. Desalado (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If a helpful editor can add this under "Environmental issues":
Some animal species associated to salt lakes in the Lithium Triangle are particularly threatened by the damages of lithium production to the local ecosystem, including the Andean flamingo and Orestias parinacotensis, a small fish locally known as "karachi". 
Sincerely, Desalado (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The current section on Extraction ends with a mish-mash of maybe-technologies with primary and newsy sources. I think a review source like 

Abdullah Khalil, Shabin Mohammed, Raed Hashaikeh, Nidal Hilal, Lithium recovery from brine: Recent developments and challenges, Desalination,Volume 528, 2022,115611,ISSN 0011-9164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.115611.
would be a much better approach. Section 1 of the review document the changing research scene and section 2 lists various options being explored. The conclusion is that no new method has reached production potential.
I would write such a summary but it would mean removing some existing content. Comments? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to propose adding several citation sources to improve the verifiability and credibility of specific statements in the article. Below are the sentences, suggested locations, and reliable sources).
Sentence: “These uses consume more than three-quarters of lithium production.”
Suggested location: At the end of the sentence in the section discussing lithium applications.
Source: World Nuclear Association – https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/lithium
Reason: This source provides quantitative analysis on global lithium usage and matches the percentage claim precisely.
Sentence: “A deposit discovered in 2013 in Wyoming's Rock Springs Uplift is estimated to contain 228,000 tons.”
Suggested location: After the mention of the Rock Springs Uplift deposit.
Source: Mining.com – https://www.mining.com/web/new-wyoming-lithium-deposit-could-meet-all-u-s-demand
Reason: This industry report directly supports the estimated deposit volume and year of discovery.
Sentence: “Recovery of this type of lithium has been demonstrated in the field; the lithium is separated by simple filtration.”
Suggested location: In the section discussing lithium extraction methods from brine.
Source: Stanford Geothermal Workshop – https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/GeoConf/papers/SGW/2022/Aydin.pdf
Reason: A peer-reviewed conference paper describing field-proven filtration-based lithium recovery.
Sentence: “Reserves are more limited than those of brine reservoirs and hard rock.”
Suggested location: In the paragraph comparing different lithium sources.
Source: MIT Climate Portal – https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-lithium-mined
Reason: A reputable academic source that describes the limitations of certain lithium reserves compared to others.
Sentence: “Lithium and its compounds were historically isolated and extracted from hard rock. However, by the 1990s mineral springs, brine pools, and brine deposits had become the dominant source.”
Suggested location: After the historical overview of lithium sources.
Source: Stanford University publication – https://web.archive.org/web/20221101171008/https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph240/schwager1/docs/resources-07-00057.pdf
Reason: Academic paper detailing the transition in lithium extraction methods by decade.
Sentence: “One method of direct lithium extraction, as well as other valuable minerals, is to process geothermal brine water through an electrolytic cell, located within a membrane.”
Suggested location: In the section about advanced lithium extraction techniques.
Source: University of Virginia thesis – https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/2j62s648f
Reason: A scholarly .edu thesis documenting a membrane-based electrolytic lithium extraction process.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaroslav Radomír (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC) 

Sounds good, go for it. (In future please use the Add Topic button to autosign comments) Johnjbarton (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jaroslav Radomír Please note that the q= parameter is for direct quotation from the source only. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

A single 2025 study connects reduced cortical lithium with Alzheimers disease. Is it appropriate? This is a primary source, no review, odds are it will fail to be reproduced. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, per WP:MEDPRIMARY. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
There is an "expand section" orange banner at the top of "pricing": is this still valid?
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)