trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Lanthanum and actinium belong to the d-block rather than the f-block of the periodic table
the verdict
CONTESTED
contested - the weight sits with the supporting side
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against

Reference material notes that while some periodic table layouts place lanthanum and actinium in the d-block, the placement of these elements is a matter of ongoing scientific debate with alternative conventions placing them elsewhere.

Evidence for · 3
1982 · cited by 86
The debate as to whether lanthanum and actinium or lutetium and lawrencium should be placed in group IIIB of the periodic table along with scandium and yttrium has along but poorly publicized history.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+2p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency | v55:coherence_repaired:what=verdict

More for · 2
2018 · cited by 5
The question of precisely which elements should be placed in group 3 of the periodic table has been debated from time to time with apparently no resolution. This question has also received a recent impetus from several science news articles following an article in Nature Magazine in which the measurement of the ionization energy of the element lawrencium was reported for the first time. We believe that this question is of considerable importance for chemists and physicists as well as students of these subjects. It is our experience that students are typically puzzled by the fact that published periodic tables show variation in the way that group 3 is displayed. Instructors typically cannot answer questions that students may have on this matter. The aim of this chapter is to make a clear-cut recommendation regarding the membership of group 3, which we believe should consist of the elements scandium, yttrium, lutetium, and lawrencium. Although the arguments in favor of replacing lanthanum and actinium by lutetium and lawrencium are rather persuasive there is a popular and mistaken belief that IUPAC supports the traditional periodic table with lanthanum and actinium in group 3. This view has been disputed by Jeffrey Leigh in an interesting article in which he made it clear that IUPAC has not traditionally taken a view as to the correctness of any version of the periodic table and that there is no such thing as an officially approved IUPAC periodic table. We will briefly review the previous arguments that have been provided in favor of moving lutetium and lawrencium into group 3 of the periodic table in place of lanthanum and actinium. We will then reiterate what we take to be a categorical argument in favor of this placement and will discuss any remaining issues. When added to other arguments made over more than 50 years it becomes clear that the time may have arrived for IUPAC to make a ruling on this question.
cited by 0
depiction of Group 3 In many periodic tables, the f-block is shifted one element to the right, so that lanthanum and actinium become d-block elements in The periodic table, also known as the periodic table of the elements, is an ordered arrangement of the chemical elements into rows ("periods") and columns ("groups"). An icon of chemistry, the periodic table is widely used in physics and other sciences. It is a depiction of the periodic law, which states that when the elements are arranged in order of their atomic numbers an approximate recurrence Th… The…
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Periodic tablereferenceno side taken
  2. What Elements Belong in Group 3 of the Periodic Table?peer-reviewedno side taken
  3. The positions of lanthanum (actinium) and lutetium (lawrencium) in the periodic tablereferenceno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt