Editing Rutherfordium (section)

===Naming controversy===
{{Main|Transfermium Wars}}
[[File:Ernest Rutherford2.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Element 104 was eventually named after [[Ernest Rutherford]]]]
[[File:Igor Kurchatov 001.png|thumb|left|upright|Igor Kurchatov]]
As a consequence of the initial competing claims of discovery, an [[element naming controversy]] arose. Since the Soviets claimed to have first detected the new element they suggested the name ''kurchatovium'' (Ku) in honor of [[Igor Kurchatov]] (1903–1960), former head of [[Soviet nuclear research]]. This name had been used in books of the [[Soviet Bloc]] as the official name of the element. The Americans, however, proposed ''rutherfordium'' (Rf) for the new element to honor [[New Zealand]] physicist [[Ernest Rutherford]], who is known as the "father" of [[nuclear physics]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Transcripts/Rutherfordium.asp |title=Rutherfordium |publisher=Rsc.org |access-date=2010-09-04 |archive-date=2011-04-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110408194724/http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Transcripts/Rutherfordium.asp |url-status=live }}</ref> In 1992, the [[International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry|IUPAC]]/[[International Union of Pure and Applied Physics|IUPAP]] Transfermium Working Group (TWG) assessed the claims of discovery and concluded that both teams provided contemporaneous evidence to the synthesis of element 104 in 1969, and that credit should be shared between the two groups. In particular, this involved the TWG performing a new retrospective reanalysis of the Russian work in the face of the later-discovered fact that there is no 0.3-second isotope of element 104: they reinterpreted the Dubna results as having been caused by a spontaneous fission branch of <sup>259</sup>104.<ref name="93TWG" />

The American group wrote a scathing response to the findings of the TWG, stating that they had given too much emphasis on the results from the Dubna group. In particular they pointed out that the Russian group had altered the details of their claims several times over a period of 20 years, a fact that the Russian team does not deny. They also stressed that the TWG had given too much credence to the chemistry experiments performed by the Russians, considered the TWG's retrospective treatment of the Russian work based on unpublished documents to have been "highly irregular", noted that there was no proof that <sup>259</sup>104 had a spontaneous fission branch at all<ref name=responses/> (as of 2021 there still is not),{{NUBASE2020|ref}} and accused the TWG of not having appropriately qualified personnel on the committee. The TWG responded by saying that this was not the case and having assessed each point raised by the American group said that they found no reason to alter their conclusion regarding priority of discovery.<ref name=responses>{{cite journal |doi =10.1351/pac199365081815|title =Responses on 'Discovery of the transfermium elements' by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; and Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt followed by reply to responses by the Transfermium Working Group |year =1993|last1= Ghiorso|first1=A. |last2=Seaborg |first2=G. T.|last3=Organessian |first3=Yu. Ts.|last4=Zvara |first4=I.|last5=Armbruster |first5=P.|last6=Hessberger |first6=F. P.|last7=Hofmann |first7=S.|last8=Leino |first8=M.|last9=Munzenberg |first9=G.|last10=Reisdorf |first10=W.|last11=Schmidt |first11=K.-H.|journal =Pure and Applied Chemistry|volume =65|issue = 8|pages =1815–1824|doi-access=free}}</ref>

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry ([[IUPAC]]) adopted ''unnilquadium'' (Unq) as a temporary, [[systematic element name]], derived from the Latin names for digits 1, 0, and 4. In 1994, IUPAC suggested a set of names for elements 104 through 109, in which ''dubnium'' (Db) became element 104 and ''rutherfordium'' became element 106.<ref name="1994 IUPAC">{{Cite journal|year=1994|title=Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC Recommendations 1994)|url=https://www.iupac.org/publications/pac-2007/1994/pdf/6612x2419.pdf|journal=Pure and Applied Chemistry|volume=66|issue=12|pages=2419–2421|doi=10.1351/pac199466122419|access-date=September 7, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170922194905/https://www.iupac.org/publications/pac-2007/1994/pdf/6612x2419.pdf|archive-date=September 22, 2017}}</ref> This recommendation was criticized by the American scientists for several reasons. Firstly, their suggestions were scrambled: the names ''rutherfordium'' and ''hahnium'', originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were respectively reassigned to elements 106 and 108. Secondly, elements 104 and 105 were given names favored by JINR, despite earlier recognition of LBL as an equal co-discoverer for both of them. Thirdly and most importantly, IUPAC rejected the name ''[[seaborgium]]'' for element 106, having just approved a rule that an element could not be named after a living person, even though the IUPAC had given the LBNL team the sole credit for its discovery.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/seaborgium-dispute.html|title=Naming of element 106 disputed by international committee|last=Yarris|first=L.|year=1994|access-date=September 7, 2016|archive-date=July 1, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160701203756/http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/seaborgium-dispute.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1997, IUPAC renamed elements 104 to 109, and gave elements 104 and 106 the Berkeley proposals ''rutherfordium'' and ''seaborgium''. The name ''[[dubnium]]'' was given to element 105 at the same time. The 1997 names were accepted by researchers and became the standard.<ref name="97IUPAC">{{cite journal |doi =10.1351/pac199769122471 |title =Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC Recommendations 1997) |date =1997 |journal =Pure and Applied Chemistry |volume =69 |issue = 12 |pages =2471–2474|doi-access =free }}</ref>
{{clear}}