Talk:Diamond

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

Diamond is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Template:Spoken Wikipedia request Template:Onlinesource Template:Onlinesource2004 Template:Iwc1-nom

Blood Diamonds

While I'm sure that some would assert that the proper NPOV vernacular is probably conflict diamond, I've always seen the term blood diamond used in a variety of news sources including Reuters and the BBC. Unless someone objects, I'm going to change the wording. Vengeful Cynic 05:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VC, the United Nations report cited as a reference [1] (http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html), as well as the text of the Kimberley Process itself [2] (http://www.diamonds.net/kp/kp_WDCtext.asp), both refer to these diamonds as "conflict diamonds." The wikipedia article on the subject is also conflict diamond, not blood diamond (a redirect is located there). I also think that "conflict diamond" is a more neutral term than "blood diamond". The article also gives the alternate term as blood diamond in the section that discusses the issue diamond#Diamond supply chain, although not in the lead section. I think the text is appropriate as written. - Bantman 06:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see your argument, I guess the counter would be that while "conflict diamond" might be more connotatively neutral, "blood diamond" seems to be a phrase more often used in common parliance and certainly in major news outlets. What about an edit something to the effect of "conflict diamonds (also commonly referred to as 'blood diamonds')" or something like that? Vengeful Cynic 21:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to act like I'm not open to change, but this point seems to be relatively minor and not worth adding into what is already an overly-long lead section. Regarding your assertion that the phrase "blood diamond" is more often used in common parliance, the google test shows 5,920 instances of "conflict diamond" and just 892 for "blood diamond". Again, I don't wish to be intransigent, but it seems that all evidence points to "conflict diamond" as the preferred term. Of course, "blood diamond" is a term in use and is actually preferred by some; this is why it is given as an alternate term in the section of the article in which these diamonds are discussed. Mentioning conflict diamonds in the lead section at all is already something of a compromise; there are other parts of this article which are of much more substantial length that don't get a mention, but confict diamonds must because of their controversial nature. - Bryan is Bantman 22:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would have to second that. Balancing what gets covered in a good lead section is hard, and Bryan is weighing all the correct factors. As a side note, talk pages are chronological by convention, so new comments should go at the bottom. - Taxman 22:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Looking things over, I definitely see the validity of your argument. Sorry about putting the discussion at the wrong end of the page. And I can see why we don't want to bloat the article with something that can be easily covered elsewhere. Case closed. Vengeful Cynic 20:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Folklore

If the folklore section is not corroborated by some kind of reference I or someone else can check, I'm removing it in a few days. I am not an expert at the occult, but I do know a bit, and it doesn't jive with this stuff. It may be the belief of some group somewhere, but it's not general occultist belief, so it needs context or I'm erasing it. --Dmerrill

It was written by Corvus13. When asked, he said it came from notes he's collected over the years. He appears to come from a tradition of crystallomancy. See his home page at http://members.tripod.com/Corvus13/ — maybe that will give some insight into his POV. <>< tbc

thanks for the help!!!!

I logged onto this site to search Diamond realated industries in & around South India, I must say that I had a very good SouthIndian tour. Very informative as to the culture,music,regions etc. Well, I was totally lost in going through the very minute detail. Can somebody help me in providing the details of the Diamond related industries/research institutes.

Thanks & Regards

Keshava

hi im ashley a 15 year old freshman high school. i had to pick an meneral for a science project and i chose diamonds. ure site was very imformative. thanks for ure help!!!!! i got almost everything i needed for my 3 page report!

thanks again!
                                           ~oooohhhhhhbaby@aol.com

Mostly minor corrections, additions and copyediting.

Added bit on nyf, additional common forms
Added step-like to fracture description and elaborated on conchoidal
Added info on Australian blues coloured by hydrogen, qualifying instances of "natural blue" with "most"
Elaborated on Type IIa diamonds
Changed "play of color" to "fire." The term play of color correctly refers to opal, not diamond.
Added to Symbolism subsection with a bit on LifeGem (I think it's interesting enough to mention).

This article could be expanded tremendously, but I'm ignorant as to exactly how extensive an article Wikipedians desire. Hadal 12:43, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What would you add? I'm no expert, but how about giving a list of suggestions here on the discussion page? Also, you could include extra details on different pages and link the main article to them. If it is generally felt they deserve to be in the main article someone will paste them across. --/Mat 03:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is clarity grading done using a standard distance from eye-to-stone?

This section has been moved to Talk:Diamond_clarity.

The current debate about cut-grading standards involves explicit assumptions about lighting and the distance at which a diamond is viewed. The choice of 10 inches versus 14 inches explains some significant differences between two proposed grading standards, according to this PriceScope thread (http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=15524).

To anyone who cares to sort such things out:

The Diamond article seems to have three sections on color:

Optical properties
Composition and color
Color (in Diamond industry)

Is "nyf" a word or an acronym? "gg:nyf mineral" turns up lots of mentions of NYF (niobium-yttrium-fluorine) pegmatite. -phma 05:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is diamond a Chemical element?

This article is recently added to the catagory of Chemical Elements. Carbon is an element, but are Diamond, Fullerene, Graphite elements???

Diamond, fullerine, graphite etc. are not chemical elements. They are allotropic forms of the element carbon. I've deleted the flase category. Thanks for bringing this up.

Acegikmo1 01:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

various facts - insurance specific?

I'd add more, but the article being broken up into chunks and the slowness of my connection, in addition to wikipedia slowness makes this an issue.

Carat

Needs: points (.01) as subsets of carats - plus add in a differentiation between karets and carats - plus carob bean reference.

Carat weight,

Clarity

Statements where reasonable people may disagree

Clarity (IF,VVS1,VVS2,VS1,VS2,SI1,SI2,[SI3 - doesn't exist],I1,I2,I3)
- As mentioned in the article, the SI3 grade is used by EGL-USA. Although it is not used by all laboratories, it is used enough in the diamond industry to appear on Rappaport price lists.

statements that should have citations

Color (graded on D-Z, but composed of: Hue (31 gemstone grades), Saturation (9 grades), Tone (9 grades))

Kimberley process

Statements where reasonable people may disagree

The Kimberley process has no independent verification, and is currently just a fig-leaf to cover the industry.
- What is this "fig-leaf" trying to cover?

Marketing

Most jewelry has a manufacturer/style number, since they are non-unique.

Or to assure in writing that the stone is untreated.

Many of these reports and serial numbers can or will be inscribed on the girdle, and some trademarks are making it to girdles (like the polar bear (under legal dispute) and the maple leaf).

"Appraisal Reports" and "Identification Reports" offered by retail outlets are sales tools, and don't accurately reflect value, especially if they're selling you the item at significantly less than the appraised price.

New FTC regs on treatments and disclosure to buyers

Investment 'gems' and 'discounted' jewelry scams

Jewelry is routinely over-priced and then listed for 'discount', and it is buyer and insurer beware. Often the buyer pays for over-insurance, and the insurer is only obligated to pay for the replacement value - thus generating ill-will in all directions.

Jewelers are anyone who sells jewelry. A jeweler can become a gemologist via a correspondence course. A graduate gemologist (GG) must take 6 months training, and includes hands on practical experience in a gem lab. Not all GGs know how to write an apprasial useful to insurance.

Statements that should have citations

An ACORD (a non-profit organization for the insurance industry) 78/79 form certifies that the appraiser is a graduate gemologist of the Gemological Institute of America, has completed formal insurance appraisal training, examined the piece in a lab, all the qualities are as stated, there are no non-normal handling treatments of the stone, and that the appraiser is a professional who takes legal liability and responsibility for the apprasial, giving the insurer first party legal rights in the event of an error.
- Does ACORD have a website?
GIA reports are about $100 for a 1 carat diamond (minimum .23? carats)
- The price information is subject to change without notice. Does it belong in the encyclopedia article?
- If the GIA only grades stones above a minimum size, that might be worth including in the article.
- Many vendors do not certify most of their small stones, especially under 0.50 carats.

Statements where reasonable people may disagree

Branding is not considered worth insuring, and you can typically pay over 20% more for a conflict-free diamond. Insurers will not insure this extra value paid. The Insurer is responsible for repair or replacement of the actual stone, not the stone the customer may have thought he bought.
- This depends on the insurance company, legal jurisdiction, appraisal, and the fine print of the policy.
- Although most jewelry insurance policies are replacement policies, some insurance companies offer declared-value policies.
- A few brands of diamond have special-enough cuts that some insurers have been convinced that a "like kind and quality" replacement should be made on a brand-name basis. In these cases, it was important that the brand-name information (or cut parameters) was disclosed to the insurance company in the appraisal. This has been discussed on PriceScope (http://www.pricescope.com).
- The price premium for conflict-free diamonds is questionable. Part of the question is, "Which diamonds are really conflict-free?"
Even judgements by the courts and the BBB have found it unfair to single out one retailer when deceptive practices are so widespread in the industry (JC Penny vs. NC)
- A link to the ruling would be nice. Also, this depends on the jurisdiction.

~ender 2004-09-04 MST 19:22

Ender, the "statements that should have citations" are statements I found interesting; I would like to see references to learn more about them. -- User:Jasper Jasper

Some discussions moved to related Talk: articles

Talk:Diamond_simulants
Talk:Synthetic_diamond
Talk:Diamond_cut
Talk:Diamond_enhancement
- Clarity enhancement
- Color enhancement / worsening

Old Mine cut

Moved to Talk:diamond_cut

Length

This article has gotten to be kind of an indigestible monster. I'm inclined to think that the "diamond industry" part would make a useful cutting point, or perhaps moving the fine points of quality to a sub-article. Stan 13:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Purchasing a diamond

I'd like to add a "Purchasing a diamond" section, to debunk some myths about diamonds and to help people into making a wise decision when shopping for a diamond. Do you think it should be part of this article, or a separate one? Anyone willing to pitch in? Reply here... MDesigner 23:17, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. I added the orignal "4C's" material and that should be moved to your new article/section. Samw 04:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. Like the fact that a diamond's colour is impossible to accurately determine after it has been mounted: "Diamond Colour" (http://www.niceice.com/color.htm) 61.229.142.233 08:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not impossible, but it's certainly trickier if the mounting is yellow gold. That said, a good diamond grading firm should be able to give you a reliable estimation, regardless of setting. -- Hadal 03:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hardest Naturally Occurring Mineral?

Moved to Talk:Material_properties_of_diamond

HOAX

Will the page administrator do something about the following hoax, or shall I?

BPM 37093, a degenerate star in the constellation Centaurus, which contains the largest known diamond in the universe: 1×1034 carats (2&1033 grams) and 4,000 km in diameter.

Don't think there is such a beast as page administrator :-) but I took it out. "A teaspoon-sized, white dwarf diamond, will weigh five tonnes" [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3492919.stm) - with a density that high it can't be diamond - superman done squeezed that lump of coal way too hard. It was interesting - astronomers like to have fun too. -Vsmith 21:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Great article, congrats to its authors. I have nominated it as a candidate for Featured Arrticle status. Please follow links at top of this discussion page to comment on this proposal. Paul Beardsell 21:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prism image

The prism image is cute, but it would be better to have an image which accurately represented diamond's dispersion. This should not be very hard to do with a refractive index table and a bit of code. --Andrew 03:34, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Density

It would be nice to mention the density of diamonds in their physical properties section, but it seems awful hard to write a paragraph about it. Perhaps a table of key physical properties (akin to the elements infobox; is there a minerals infobox, or a gems infobox?) --Andrew 03:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I feel foolish. I was looking for that one piece of information and missed the main article. Never mind. --Andrew 03:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... where is the density hiding? I do think a mineral infobox Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals is in order to organize and summarize all the trivial properties. -Vsmith 04:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Material properties of diamond. (Now I don't feel quite so foolish). --Andrew 04:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well ... duh! That link is easy to miss. At least I made you feel better - foolishness loves company :-) - or maybe that's a clue for me to go to bed. Thanks. Vsmith 04:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

De Beers

I'm no expert on the diamond market, but my impression was that de Beers had 40% of precious diamonds only (i.e. excluding industrial diamonds sold for making tool blades etc.). Am I correct? David.Monniaux 05:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The article states that de Beers and its subsidiaries produce 40% of natural mined diamonds; I believe this is correct according to the article's sources. They may sell them off earlier, and not control their distribution in the same way, I'm not sure about that off the top of my head. As all diamond mines produce both industrial and gem-grade diamonds, this seems reasonable. - Bryan is Bantman 06:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Errors in diamond geochemistry

sameone delited my edit but:

Daimonds can originate only in mantle but not in crust!
Uvarovite is rare in kimberlites. Perope is a garnet, typically occurs in kimberlites. It cantains knoringit component, but not uvarovite.

that is big mistakes! Stepanovas 06:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Stepanovas, the article does not state that diamonds originate in the crust; it states that diamond formation is more likely under the oldest, coolest sections of crust. Sources for this article and the uvaroite article both indicate it is an indicator mineral for diamond; if you believe this is incorrect and would like to change it, please provide a reference. Thank you. - Bryan is Bantman 07:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

2. See it:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/indicator.html

Uvarovit green, but indicator mineral for diamond is red pyrop.

The article about Uvarovit wrong too. Stepanovas 09:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Uvarovite is the chromian garnet that is used as an indicator of kimberlite which originates as peridotite and is chromium rich, see for example [4] (http://gac.esd.mun.ca/gac_2003/search_abs/sub_program.asp?sess=98&form=10&abs_no=253). The amnh pic does show red garnet which is more common, but not as diagnostic. Vsmith 13:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Look:

Enough?

I Just made google search for "kimberlite indicator minerals".

Uvarovit garnets are rare in kimberlites. I saw it.

Stepanovas 13:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Uvarovite is much rarer than pyrope in peridotites, as the basic chemistry of the minerals should tell you what the right answer is. Uvarovite (green) is a Calcium Chromium garnet, and Pyrope (red, and common in peridotites) is a Magnesium Aluminium garnet. There is very little calcium in kimberlites, there's a lot of magnesium. What also happens is that Pyrope can have a significant amount of Chromium substituting for the Aluminium. Knorringite [5] (http://www.mindat.org/min-2229.html) is a Magnesium Chromium Garnet. A complete series exists between the two. With less than 50% Chromium compared to Aluminium it's classed as Pyrope, with greater than 50% it's classed as Knorringite. The whole is classed as the Knorringite-Pyrope series [6] (http://www.mindat.org/min-8676.html). And it's this series, of chromium garnets, which is indicators in peridotites. Uvarovite is usually only found in altered ultrabasic rocks [7] (http://webmineral.com/data/Uvarovite.shtml), where there is some method for calcium to enter. I'm sure that some altered peridotites may contain uvarovite, but it's the exception rather than the rule. It's quite common for any green garnets to be misidentified as 'uvarovite', and the misuse of this term to cover any chromium-rich garnet has caused a lot of confusion in the past [8] (http://www.mindat.org/min-4125.html). I suggest this entry is changed, uvarovite removed and the phrase 'chromian garnets' put in its place. I won't edit it now because it's a featured article. --Jolyonralph 23:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue of the calcium in uvarovite did seem a possible problem, and after a bit of searching I feel that the green "tracer" garnets are quite likely high Cr pyrope or knorringite although both Mg and Ca chromian varieties are reported together in some occurences. Vsmith 00:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

PS I moved the section to be in chronological order as is standard for talk pages. Vsmith 00:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've no doubt there Uvarovite may be present in *some* kimberlites, presumably Ca mobilised from the subduction of calcium-rich rocks into the mantle could provide a ready source, but I still think it's misleading to use the word 'uvarovite' on the main article when 'chromian garnets' would be a better definition. --Jolyonralph 07:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Following on from my previous comments, some kimberlites do certainly appear to have higher calcium levels than would be expected and contain uvarovite - [9] (http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=21b8fa63a91c4e0faacae8691b767746&referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,10;journal,283,440;linkingpublicationresults,1:400406,1) So it's possible I'm wrong and that uvarovite *is* a diamond indicator mineral. I am going to have to get to the bottom of this one, I shall speak to my contacts and get back to you all. Leave 'Uvarovite' there for the moment while I get an answer from those who know more than I do. --Jolyonralph 09:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Your link dose not work couse registration.... Stepanovas 12:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see some real experts looking into this; I look forward to hearing back from those of you doing further research. I'm confident that we can find a good wording once we know the facts, that will appropriately treat the point. - Bryan is Bantman 18:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have said something earlier, but is this still an issue? Did my edit of 10:14, 13 May (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=13656647&oldid=13650705) resolve this issue? Is Stepanovas satisfied with the current wording? -- Hadal 05:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

History

I have added the information reported in the February issue of archaeometry that diamonds were supposedly in use already in 6000 BC, but surely no later than 500 BC. Link added (although only to a secondary source). Someone should verify and expand this. --Eleassar777 11:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

The statement that "the word "diamond" derives from the Greek adamas (αδάμας; "impossible to tame")" looks *extremely* fishy to me. I reckon it's much more likely to be from the Greek diamone (διαμονη), meaning "permanence". I'm changing this, but if anyone has evidence (as opposed to jewellery-salesman-speak) to the contrary, feel free to revert it with an appropriate note here. Phlogistomania 13:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not an etymologist and would not dare to correct you, however the dictionary of the Houghton Mifflin Company says that the word Diamant derives from "[Middle English diamaunt, from Old French diamant, from Medieval Latin diamās-, diamant-, alteration of Latin adamās. See adamant.]". I found the info using Answers.com (http://www.answers.com). --Eleassar777 14:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is correct, the word "diamond" does indeed derive originally from the ancient Greek word. The Greeks applied the word "adamas" to a number of very hard substances, and by the time the word was adopted by the Romans it was used to describe both diamonds and loadstone. In order to distinguish between the two "adamant" was used to refer solely to loadstone, whilst the popular techinical prefix "dia-" replaced the prefix "ad-" to create the word "diamant", which became "diamond" in modern English. "Adamant" has passed out of usage in English in its original sense. Rje 15:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a source to include in the article to prevent similar doubts in the future? --Eleassar777 15:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This information is in the Oxford English Dictionary's entries for "Adamant" and "Diamond". The dictionary is available online but a password is needed to gain access to it. See [10] (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50002345?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=adamant&first=1&max_to_show=10) and [11] (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063191?query_type=word&queryword=diamond&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=hcT6-P7sCx6-5426&hilite=50063191). Rje 15:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, this has to be one of the strangest etymologies ever - the things you learn on Wikipedia! Thanks all round!!! Phlogistomania 01:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

So what's the hardest unnatural substance?

The article says a couple of times, that diamond is the "hardest known naturally occurring material". For the love of Hermes, god of all alchemy, can someone explain what's even harder? (and include numeric values on the hardness scales that are mentioned.) Thanks. I'm dying to know. Tempshill 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

See ultrahard fullerite. :) - Bryan is Bantman 22:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Decaying to graphite

However, owing to a very large kinetic energy barrier, diamonds are metastable; they will not decay into graphite under normal conditions.

The first part is right, but the second part is wrong. Diamonds will decay into graphite under normal conditions (i.e. normal temperature and pressure), only that it would take millions of years. I think that part should be rephrased. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. Diamond never will decay into graphite under normal conditions. some diamond has age of 4.5 billions years. Stepanovas 12:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The metastable article says:

For example at room temperature diamonds are metastable because the phase transformation to the stable graphite form is extremely slow

So, this is an extremely slow process, so, given enough time, it would decay to graphite. That's why I disagree with the will never decay part. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the metastable article is wrong. Stepanovas 12:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If every atom of the diamond remained at STP and every bond had the average energy that's implied by a given temperature, then diamond would never decay to graphite. However, some parts of the molecule might decay if those parts were on the extreme high end of the RMS energy that adds up to a temperature. Given enough time, a few atoms will gain that much energy, so EVENTUALLY it will decay to graphite. It's just very, very, very slow (probably slower than the age of the universe). BTW, even the thermodynamic difference between diamond and graphite is very small (I can't remember the numbers right now, but something like 1 kcal/mol); so, not only is it slow, but equilibrium would lie pretty close to even amounts of graphite and diamond. Jon the Geek 15:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Diamond history inconsistency

I am wondering, should the history paragraph remain as it is currently is, considering what this BBC article asserts. [12] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4555235.stm) Wikipedia article say India had knowledge of diamond before everyone else (See the paragraph below, while the BBC article says Chinese had knowledge of diamond before everyone else. Both can't be true, so do we just include both stories or which version is going to be purged? "Diamonds were first recognized and mined in India, where significant alluvial deposits of the stone could then be found. The earliest written reference can be found in the Sanskrit text Arthasastra (completed around 296 BC), which describes diamond's hardness, luster, and dispersion. Diamonds quickly became associated with divinity, being used to decorate religious icons, and were believed to bring good fortune to those who carried them. Ownership was restricted among various castes by color, with only kings allowed to own all colors of diamond."

The problem is that there is no known modern or historical source of diamonds in China, meaning that even if they were beng used in China 2500 BCE, they were probably coming from India anyhow. I would suggest adding a phrase to the above noted paragraph going something along th elines of "The earliest written reference can be found... ...which describes diamond's hardness, luster and dispersion; however recent archeological evidence suggests the use of diamond as a polishing agent in China around 2000 years earlier." - Bryan is Bantman 22:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I added a new paragraph to address Lu's research, which I think resolves any perceived inconsistency. (I'll also note that the passage quoted above had already said "The earliest written reference...") I'm not at all convinced by the evidence at hand, but it's best to present all rational points of view. :) -- Hadal 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to change BC/AD to BCE/CE

I concur. As an aside, I think we should substitute BC/AD for BCE/CE. I know there was an argument over this when you (Bryan) first tried to make the switch, but I didn't want to get into it at the time (and I'm bringing it up here because I can't find the original debate). I'm the one guilty of absent-mindedly introducing the BC/AD convention when I wrote the beginnings of the Symbolism section so many months ago: from what I remember of the argument, it was this precedent that was used to resist the switch to BCE. Since I established the precedent and agree with the change, I don't see a reason not to make it. -- Hadal 05:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There are powerful forces and "defenders of the faith" for BC/AD; while I certainly support such a move, I have given up fighting for it. Go ahead and make it if you're up for the battle; I suspect User:Gene Nygaard is ready to revert. :) - Bryan is Bantman 05:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be jumping to conclusions, and don't be speaking for me. I have no problem with the current policy which allows either, so go ahead and discuss it.

With Hadal likely not the only one who has added dates here, and that admittedly long history behind it in this article, an undiscussed change is indeed very likely to be reverted by me, or by someone else. Gene Nygaard 08:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else is likely to revert it, honestly. What more need be said? You used the Symbolism section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=11087127&oldid=11084425) as sufficient precedent to keep the BC convention. As you'll see from this edit of mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=2206921&oldid=2206791) from January 2004, you were correct: the section did establish the precdent. (If you look far back enough, you'll note that prior to my arrival the earliest date quoted in this article was 1900. There's a bit fewer than 1,000 total edits in the history, and I went all the way back.) Since I was the one to set the precdent, and I agree with the change to BCE/CE, why do you continue to oppose it? The only other editor I've witnessed introducing BCE dates was Bantman. To my knowledge, you have never done so.

So, just to step back for a moment: We have here two primary authors of this article (myself and Bantman), both of whom have contributed the disputed dates, and both of whom wish to make the switch from BC to BCE. I realise you (Gene) don't regard BC/BCE as a neutrality issue, so I won't bother arguing that point. But would you agree that most (recent) scientific work has adopted the BCE convention? This article is primarily a science-oriented one, so it's all the more reason to make the switch. I introduced the BC date way back when, and I now feel this was an error on my part. I would now like to fix that error. Were there any other points you wanted to discuss, or can I now make the change without the threat of reversion? -- Hadal 03:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Pay attention to what I said, not your prejudices about what you thought I'd say.

Then I'll deal with your specific issues. Gene Nygaard 04:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Where did I "pay attention to [my] prejudices"? You said the article has a long history so the change needs to be discussed first, and that you doubted I was the only one (of course not, but I presume you meant first one, as that seems to be the thrust of your argument) to add BCE dates. I provided you with diffs which show that despite the article's long history, the BCE dates were added relatively recently—and that Bantman and I were the instigators. I'm getting an unfriendly vibe from you here; while that could just be my impression—it's hard to judge tone in text, after all—I fear I'm having trouble understanding your problem with the change. I really do want to know what you'd like to discuss that hasn't been addressed before. -- Hadal 04:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you really that dense? So far, I have not supported or opposed your proposal to change the dates. I suggested you go ahead and discuss it here. But since you don't pay any attention to what I say, and insist on making silly arguments instead, I will now weigh in on the issue: Strongly Oppose.

First user is a factor. It isn't determinative.

First user changing his mind is also a factor. That is even less determinative. As you correctly pointed out, there is a long history to this article; many editors have accepted that established BC usage as proper, as it is according to the Manual of Style, with nary a peep on the talk page until now.

Since it is a matter of style, the general, most common usage is also a factor, and like the others, not determinative.

Changing it, if you can achieve consensus here on the talk page, is fine with me. But note that since you pushed it, you now have an opposing vote standing in the way of that consensus.

This is not "primarily a science-oriented" article by any stretch of the imagination. It deals primarily with commercial and industrial use, with mining, with the craft of diamond-cutting, with the symbolism of the diamond jewelry. What little pure science there is in this article deals mostly with the properties which make diamonds valuable for those purposes.

And no, I do not buy the claim that "most (recent) scientific work has adopted the BCE convention." A few particular publications, some specific fields of science, sure.

So, like I said, build your consensus before you can feel safe in changing it without a reversion. And deal with the fact that it is largely your own failure to consider what I actually said which means that you now have opposition to your consensus, so it clearly isn't here now. Gene Nygaard 04:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[Resetting ident.] While I'm sure calling me "dense" is great fun, it isn't very helpful! I find your claim to never have opposed the change until now to be disingenuous. Your multiple reversions of the change and subsequent arguing against it two months ago had already established you as an opposing force. To claim the mantle now and declare it my own fault is amusing, but illogical. "[Building] my consensus" is exactly what I'm trying to do now; did I not first propose the change here on the talk page rather than simply do it? The BC/BCE issue as it relates to this article has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment since March [On preview: it seems to have been bumped off the list, but it was there about a week ago], and nobody (to my knowledge, save you) has yet come by to register their disapproval. You are and have always been the only opposition.

I know you think you're protecting this article from what you see as a unilateral change. I've attempted to allay your fears by demonstrating that the changes are unlikely to be challenged (again, presuming you don't challenge it yourself), and furthermore that what is being changed was first introduced by the very people who want to make the change.

You acknowledge my points as factors, but then dismiss them with an appeal to tradition. Do you really think "many editors have accepted that established BC usage as proper [in this article]" is a defensible position? Just because something has existed for so long doesn't mean it should continue to exist. As for your unconvincing dismissal of the science in this article, I can only assume you haven't yet read the subarticles (which are relevant when making such a judgment). I really don't know what to say, other than I hope you tone down the invective. If we can't discuss this civilly, I may have to start another RFC. -- Hadal 05:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I specifically asked you to go back and read what I had written. You obviously either did not do so, or did not understand what you read. I was merely commenting on that fact, not making a personal attack on you.

I reverted undiscussed changes a couple of months ago, and would do it again. But now it wasn't undiscussed, and I hadn't opposed it here until you started making silly arguments.

The subarticles deal less with science than the main article. Even with them, saying that this Diamond and all the other articles cross-referenced from it are primarily "science-oriented" is like saying that the article on Chevrolet Corvette is primarily science-oriented because it includes many measurements of power (physics) and torque.

Speaking of science, here is some "recent" scientific work for you:

http://res2.agr.gc.ca/publications/marquis/page02_e.htm

traces of wheat were also found in the Northern Caucasus and Kazakhstan in the second century, as well as the upper Volga Valley at the end of the first century A.D. Ukrainian wheat thus may have spread to both neighbouring and distant countries. According toYakubintser both soft and hard wheat have been grown in the area since antiquity. He reports finds of hard wheat samples dating from the fourth century B.C. in Ukraine, others from the third century B.C. in the Transcaucasus (in Azerbaijan) and the tenth to twelfth centuries A.D. near the Don River in Bila Vezha. Samples of the hard wheat Triticum spelta excavated in Ukraine date from the fourth century B.C. (6, p. 18)

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/572.html

Evidence suggests that by 5000 BC, wheat was being used for bread in Egypt, and by 4000 BC, wheat cultivation had spread to Europe.

http://www.museums.org.za/bio/plants/poaceae/triticum.htm

c 17000 BC People were collecting and eating wild Emmer Wheat in the Near East (as well as barley). Evidence for this comes from the finding of wild Emmer Wheat seeds in an archaeological site on the shores of the Sea of Galilee in Israel.

http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/5/55.html

Hero of Alexandria was a celebrated mathematician, physicist and engineer who lived in the 1st century BC.

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/02.html

About 100 BC a Greek inventor known as Hero of Alexandria came up with a new invention that depended more on the mechanical interaction of heat and water. He invented a rocket-like device called an aeolipile.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_pre20th_cent.html

Apparently, the first rockets owe their origin to the invention of gunpowder in China around the 10th Century AD. The earliest historical records testify that in 1232 AD, during the siege of Beijing (according to another source (102): town of Kai-fung-fu) by the Mongols, the city's defenders fired missiles.

Gene Nygaard 06:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling me "dense" was "merely commenting on [the] fact" that I didn't understand your opposition (after addressing the concerns you had raised)? In trying to weasel out of a personal attack (if you were even trying), you again insult my intelligence. Masterful! If apologizing is not something you're prepared to do, just say so. It's worth pointing out that you broke an established policy (no personal attacks) while "defending" what you interpret as policy but what is in fact a guideline (MoS).

First you acknowledge my points as factors, then dismiss them with a logical fallacy, and finally label them as "silly". You follow this up with a meaingless list of BC/AD examples you selectively culled from a five minute Google search. You make the befuddling statement, "the subarticles deal with science less than the main article", just after accusing me of not reading your words. You do not appear to be receptive to arguments with which you disagree, nor do you appear to respect your fellow debater. I do not see honest discussion to be forthcoming until you re-evalute your motives in light of your statements above. -- Hadal 07:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

"[My] opposition"? I hadn't opposed it at the time. That's what you still didn't understand even after I asked you to go by what I said and not by your prejudices against me, and that's what you still don't understand even now. In the meantime, I have made up my mind: I do oppose it now. Gene Nygaard 07:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you could selectively cull some examples of CE/BCE in science, too. But your claim was a general usage of CE/BCE in science in general. Maybe this will help:

Google	hits
wheat cultivation BC	62,000
wheat cultivation BCE	993

Gene Nygaard 07:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Around here, reverting a change and vociferously arguing against it is generally considered to be opposition, as is declaring your intent to revert. You said you would likely revert the change if it were undiscussed, without elaborating as to what needed to be discussed, and also ignoring the fact that I had already outlined my reasons for doing so. This issue was on RFC for two months without anyone other than you expressing their disapproval for the change. How long does a proposal need to be open to discussion before you're satisfied that nobody except you disagrees?

To recap:

1. You reverted the changes two months ago, and because you were the only one willing to edit war over the issue, the result was put up for an RFC. Two months pass, and nobody else opposes the change.

2. I propose to change it again, now that it seems there is tacit support (no comments in two months). I outline my reasons, and wait for a response.

3. You arrive and declare that you will revert the change if it is made without "discussion", without offering any discussion of your own.

4. I attempt to allay your fears of what you perceive to be a unilateral change by explaining in detail why it will not get anyone's panties in a bunch.

5. You oscillate between acknowledging my points and dismissing them wholesale, and pepper your discourse with ad hominem attacks.

6. I submit that I do not believe honest discussion can occur while you're still poisoning the atmosphere with your inexcusable vulgarity.

7. You again accuse me of "going by [my] prejudices against [you]" and misinterpreting your position. You again make the disingenuous claim that you are only opposed to the change now, because you hadn't made up your mind yet. You continue your pointless Googlefight complete with a colourful little table. I don't even know why you're doing this since you've already dismissed the article's science as "little".

I say again: Unless we can discuss this honestly, there's really no point in playing ping pong with counterpoints. -- Hadal 07:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's going nowhere, largely because you insist on overstating your case, rather than discussing it honestly.

Could you please specify exactly which sciences you see as being involved here, on which specific article pages, and a rough percentage of that article which deals with that particular science? As a ball-park figure, I'd suggest that the weighting of the results should give about double or triple the weight to the article Diamond itself, as compared to any cross-referenced articles. Gene Nygaard 13:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me help you out to get the ball rolling:

Science: sociology. Article: Jewelry cleaning

"However, cleanliness might reflect the jewelry's sentimental value: some jewellers have noted a correlation between ring cleanliness and marriage quality."
One sentence out of 17, plus see also lists and references. Roughly 5%.
This is the only science-orientation of this article. Gene Nygaard 13:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This has (unfortunately, and predictably) devolved away from the real issue at hand. Hadal, even if you were to convince Gene that this is a "science article", he would still not accept that as reasonable basis to change BC/AD to BCE/CE. Gene, if you wish to have a real vote, I'd invite you to retract your "oppose" vote which I think we can see is retaliatory in nature. However, this fight is a large one that is not going to be settled on the Talk:diamond page. For now, what is relevant is that the two main authors of this article wish to use the BCE/CE system -- I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) Gene's position is that original author's intent should be maintained. I would suggest that Hadal and I are the original authors, given the massive overhaul we have the article a couple months ago. Given those simple facts, it seems that we should all agree that as the main authors of the article, Hadal's and my stylistic preferences should be given precedence. We have stated our preference is BCE/CE. This seems to me should be the end of it here at diamond. - Bryan is Bantman 17:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is my understanding that Gene's case revolved around prior usage and the original author's intent. As I have demonstrated, Bantman and I are the original authors of the disputed passages, and it is our intent to change BC to BCE. Other than that, the only other argument Gene has raised is "lack of consensus". In response I have pointed out that concerned editors had two months to oppose the change but none have. I agree with you, Bryan: this should be enough. We can forget the science issue altogether. -- Hadal 18:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I vote BC/AD Doovinator 20:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Two months? It's been under discussion for two days.

It's number 3 in your list in the comment farther above the last one that went right over your head. Yes, I said that I would have reverted undiscussed change again, and that it was proper for it to be under discussion, and that I have no quarrel with the policy that allows either, without allowing willy-nilly changes once one of them is established. But it is the fact that I did so without commenting either way on the merits of your change that went right over your head. You two had made your points, and if nobody else jumped in in the next few days, you would have had your consensus.

What prior usage leads to is a need to discuss it before changing it—and it doesn't matter if the ones who originally put that usage here have changed their minds or not, it needs to be discussed and that is one of the factors which may well help get the change approved.

Note that you are now quite far from consensus, with two in favor of the change and two against it. Gene Nygaard 05:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Bantman, you are right that even if it were established that this is primarily a science-oriented article (something unlikely to happen), Hadal would still have the burden of establishing his other point, the claim that CE/BCE is prevalent in the sciences involved here. Gene Nygaard 05:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this issue was under discussion for two months: it was the subject of an RFC for two months. Anyone who cared had the opportunity to oppose. It was only removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&diff=13506541&oldid=13506407) on May 10th. Nobody else jumped in, so it's reasonable to conclude that there was consensus (since, as you claim, you did not oppose the change at that time). That's the way this usually works: someone proposes a change and waits for responses. Nobody responds, so you make the change. (I suppose it was my own mistake for not making the change right away.) Calling the change "willy-nilly" now, long after our reasons for the change were explained, isn't helpful.

If this is a simple matter of style, I don't know why it must be "approved" at all. MoS is a guideline no user is required to follow; indeed, there is neither a policy nor guideline which supports your unwavering deferral to prior usage (which, I'll emphasize again, was my prior usage). It should be no different than changing 22 May to May 22. Your original argument hinged on the original author's intent: "stuff you didn't write". You're saying that no longer matters. If that's true, you should not have said it did in the first place. I submit that I am the original author and it is my intent to change it. You didn't write the text; I did. If I change the text I wrote, there is no burden to consider. I want a very good argument for not making the change; simply saying "I vote" for one or the other isn't going to cut it, and neither will references to nonexistent policies. I'd also like to hear from people who have made major contributions to this article, other than very minor fixes accompanied by snarky edit summaries. Make your case; I've made mine. I'll give you "a few days". (By the way, I vote for world peace.) -- Hadal 20:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#How to use RFC requires posting a notice of the listing on RFD on this talk page. Virtually all discussion of any issues in content disputes takes place on the article's talk page. That was never done, so it was never properly under discussion there (a discussion that would have taken place here). Anyone who followed the link from RFC to the talk page may well have guessed the discussion was already over, rather than never begun. It was delisted before the first mention of it here on the Diamond talk page.

I'm sure that you noticed that before delisting, the RFC listing said that all discussion was then contained on my talk page. That discussion took place between two individuals. Neither of those individuals was you, Hadal. It was only me and Bryan is Bantman. There was no consensus for change in that discussion. There was no link from Talk:Diamond to that page either. Gene Nygaard 21:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[Indent reset] Gene, I am disappointed by your tactics. I know you and I disagree on this topic, and I think we have to respect each other's positions. Respecting each other's positions means leaving well-intentioned edits alone, even when we disagree with them, when both alternatives are acceptable (as you have stated they are). Your insistence on maintaining the original style is not policy -- preservationism is not a positive Wikipedia ethic or value. As Hadal and I are the main authors of this article, you should respect our stylistic preferences. Your tactics smack of partisan politics, and are contrary to the spirit of cooperation and respect we strive for at Wikipedia -- I suspect you fight this fight whenever someone changes BC/AD to BCE/CE, but choose to overlook it when it happens the other way around. This is unfortunate, and I ask you to please let us edit the article to reflect how we, the main authors, stylistically choose. In short, please leave us alone. - Bryan is Bantman 21:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

With the hope that digressive policy wonking is now behind us—and in the absence of a compelling, cogent argument to do otherwise—I will implement our intended changes early tomorrow morning (UTC). -- Hadal 06:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Two for the change and two against the change is hardly a consensus for change, so reversions will be in order. The absence of a compelling, cogent argument for change is quite evident. It is change which requires that, not the status quo. Gene Nygaard 08:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverts are not helpful. Back up your words: "I have no problem with the current policy which allows either". The author of the material wants to change it. Are you saying they can't just because of your POV? Yes I know it is ironic I just reverted your change, but you have reverted three times against two different editors. Your position is the indefensible one. In case of a lack of clear consensus on whether it should be BCE or BC, either is acceptable as you have mentioned. Therefore reverting a change is not helpful. Just leave it alone, it's not worth it. - Taxman 12:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's just like American English and British English. Both are acceptable in Wikipedia, but once one is established, reversions are in order if it is changed to the other. Then the burden of showing justification for the change is placed on those who want to change it. In the case of clear consensus, the original should remain. Gene Nygaard 12:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, except here the editor that wrote the BC wants to change to BCE. So leave it alone. Do you actually think you are helping anything? Just think of all the time (yours and others) you have wasted in this argument, and nothing is better off. There are way too many things in Wikipedia that can stand to be fixed to waste time on this. Spend time discussing it at the primary discussion on the topic and try to build consensus there if you like, otherwise stop. I for one won't write another word about this here. - Taxman 14:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You refused to address the issues raised about your "science-oriented" syllogism, with both a faulty major premise and a faulty minor premise. You can't build a "compelling, cogent argument" on a foundation like that.

The lack of comments after a request for comment argues for maintenance of the status quo, not for change. The entire dicusssion under that RFC was between me and Bantman, and there was certainly no consensus for change in that discussion. Gene Nygaard 09:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be disregarding large blocks of text addressed to you. The science argument was abandoned days ago; it is irrelevant in the face of the original authors' intent. (I admit that I should not have offered it in the first place, but your irrational opposition led me to consider possible reasons for it.) Please stop your attempts to deflect this core issue. You did not write the text we intend to change. We wrote the text, therefore there is no consensus needed beyond that reached between the original authors. If you revert me, you will be defying the original author's intention; furthermore, you will be defying your own premise. The onus is on you to support your baseless reversion, should you choose to do so. Please don't give me this "status quo" nonsense. You're making up policy on the fly, and I'm not putting up with that.

I asked you to submit a very good argument for not making the change. You have failed to do so. Your own opposition is in bad faith by your own admission; without a good reason for opposing the original authors' intent, you are simply trolling. You have made no major contributions to this article; neither has the "I vote" fellow, a user who hasn't even bothered to produce an argument. This is not a vote. Either supply a very good reason for defying the original author's intent, or leave us alone. You have until tomorrow morning. -- Hadal 14:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made the change as planned, both because bad faith opposition is not worth consideration, and because no good argument to defy the two primary authors' consensus and intent has been offered. I'll note as a general reminder to anyone concerned that the three revert rule is a policy rather than a guideline, and breaking it carries consequences. -- Hadal 02:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It isn't bad faith opposition. You've already admitted that I had a valid objection, by withdrawing your reason for change. Now you are the one left with no real reason for change, other than your "ownership" arguments. After it has been up for a year and a half, it is the original usage which is more important than original user. Nobody "owns" these articles.

Note that the reason I noticed this change was because I was already following this article, because I had in fact contributed to it before. Even so, that is a factor of minor weight, since we are all Wikipedia editors, free to contribute to all the articles. Gene Nygaard 11:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You yourself framed your opposition as retaliatory and have yet to provide a good faith reason to oppose. I admitted nothing by withdrawing the science argument, other than the complete pointlessness of arguing anything with you, as you're clearly beyond compromise. This is not about ownership; it's about the users who have put the most time and effort into an article agreeing amongst themselves to make a minor stylistic change. I'm not about to belittle your minor yet positive contributions, but you're not helping by reverting us. I made the change based on your own premise, the concept of not changing "stuff you didn't write" without a reason to. Therefore it's up to you to come up with a reason to revert me, because it's stuff you didn't write. If you were watching this article, you would also be aware of the massive work Bryan has recently put into this article. Why begrudge him a minor stylistic change? -- Hadal 04:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I prefer AD / BC . And I usually omit the AD, if it is obvious from context. But I am not about to engage in an edit war over this detail. -- Jasper 03:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you are talking about "primary authors" of the articles, a significant amount of historical text by Marcel Tolkowsky was incorporated verbatim into the articles. (I did not do most of this.) Tolkowsky's Diamond Design (http://folds.net/diamond_design/index.html#historical) consistently uses B.C. for, well, BC dates, and no suffix for AD dates. He was following the conventions of 1919. I have no idea if he would do it differently today. We cannot ask him, because he is dead now. -- Jasper 03:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I regret that this has led to a revert war (which I hope is now over), but as a professional gemmologist I believe BCE/CE to be most appropriate for the topic at hand. It's no coincidence that the first gem/mineral article to gain FA status (turquoise) uses BCE—thus I regard my original use of BC in this article to be a mistake.

Not that I disbelieve you, but could you point out which passages are verbatim copies of Tolkowsky? His prose is quite far removed from that used in the articles, so I'm surprised to hear of this. I don't remember there being any such verbatim copying done, nor can I identify any. I wrote a good portion of the historical background text of the various sections (as did Bryan), and I did not use any of Tolkowsky's text. But if we can establish that this is indeed the case, there should be some sort of indication in the article; that is, if the verbatim passages do indeed constitute a significant amount, a note should be made in a manner similar to the NASA-derived articles.

If on the other hand none of the text has survived revision intact, it can be regarded as a reference and nothing need be done. I sincerely hope that we've seen the end to the reverts (at least those pertaining to this particular issue), and that we can get back to building. -- Hadal 04:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: A bit of searching led me to this September 2004 edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=5834830&oldid=5834681) by you (Jasper), but I can't find anything from anyone else. While the content added in that edit was mostly verbatim, it wasn't (IMO) enough to warrant the NASA-style notice I suggested. Furthermore, the text has mostly been moved to diamond cut, and only two of the sentences therein could now be called verbatim. I don't want to go off on a tangent with this, but I do want to make sure we're crediting sources properly if we're using large portions of verbatim text (even if it is in the public domain). But if it's all been edited heavily since, I think we're okay. -- Hadal 06:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I do believe this debate is well into being silly now. I prefer BC/AD as well, simply because it is an established norm, and I don't feel any religious connotations to it. I do agree that BCE/CE is probably the most objective, but it isn't nearly as widespread as its proponents would like to argue. Maybe later. Dewet 07:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather use BCE/CE than BC/AD (BC/AD seems archaic), however, since Wikipedia is about common usage, BC/AD should be used here because it is the more common usage among the entire English-speaking population. End of argument. :) brian0918 ™ 18:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read most of the above. It is unfortunate that so much emotion entered the discussion. Wikipedia itself is neutral on which standard to use, is it not? -CrucifiedChrist

Who protected this page? Notably, the wrong version??? Given Wikipedia's neutrality on the issue as demonstrated by the recent huge discussion / vote on the topic that failed to come up with an alternative, each individual article has to be decided individually. Fine. I propose that each contributor to an article gets a vote, weighted by the amount he or she has contributed to the article in question. I vote for BCE/CE. So does Hadal. Under any sort of rational voting system based on weighted contributions, that is enough to establish a majority opinion on this article. If we instead allow simple majority votes by all Wikipedians on all articles, we will get roving partisans fighting this fight thousands of times on thousands of articles, and get roughly split votes every time. That would be a huge waste. - Bryan is Bantman 19:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

The page was protected by Brian0918, and I believe that (as is policy) he selected the version that existed prior to the controvery beginning. Perhaps we could clarify the current state of the debate by summarizing the pros/cons to each phrasing? Debating which users should have greater authority has only inflamed passions. -CrucifiedChrist

Yes; I reviewed CrucifiedChrist's edits to this article, and his diamond ring image is the only major contribution among them. All textual edits were minor copyedits. Jasper has already stated that he won't be reverting the change, so there was already an agreement between the primary authors of this article to make and keep the change. Wikipedia is not "about common usage", and there is neither a policy nor guideline to support the continued use of BC/AD in the face of the original authors' intent. Please stop changing the text Bryan and I wrote without a reason to. Both date conventions are acceptable by policy/guideline, but BCE is preferred by the people who wrote this article. There shouldn't be an edit war over a minor stylistic changed that is agreed upon by an article's authors. Denying us is not constructive; if you want to create policy, this is not the place to do it. -- Hadal 19:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it seems it was protected in compliance with relevant policy, and I am glad that it was not protected by a participant in the current argument (I should have been clever enough to check the edit history - heh). CC, the issue here really is which users should have greater authority -- both alternatives are acceptable, there is approximately equal support for both alternatives, and the argument has been made exhaustively on both sides elsewhere -- how else can we decide? The argument here has developed essentially into one of history -- who wrote what, how long it went unchanged, and the authors' intent. This is an issue of editors, not the relative merits of the two positions, which are - I think we can all agree here - irreconcilable at the current time. - Bryan is Bantman 19:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why does the original author matter? If an article starts as vandalism and turns into a featured article, should it be reverted to its original nonsense because it's what is wanted by the original author? You don't have a copyright on the content, so although you do have a say in what the outcome is, your opinion doesn't have a higher status than others. It remains my opinion that because it is Wikipedia's policy to provide the most common usage in cases like this, BC/AD should be used, even though I don't like BC/AD. --brian0918 ™ 20:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

May I ask, respectfully, if this is then purely a matter of stylistic opinion, or is there some reason that those who wish to change it perceive it will make the article "better"? -CrucifiedChrist

Sorry, but you threw all your respect out the window by restarting the edit war. You shot first before discussing. It's the reverts that are bad, not the change. Now you come in and ask what people think will make the article better, when you didn't help a thing? Strange. And Brian, protecting your preferred version and entering in the debate on that side is against the protection policy. Unclean hands. I would suggest you unprotect it and make a request for someone uninvolved to protect if need be. Fact is the author of the material does in fact have copyright on it, they simply license it under the GFDL for everybody else. So yes, they should be allowed to change it if they like. FWIW, I think BC should be used because it is the most common usage, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no consensus either way, which means reverting to your preferred version is decidedly unhelpful. Man it's hard to stay out of these things, but this latest restarting of the edit war is ridiculous. - Taxman ^{Talk 20:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)}

I protected the version that existed before the edit war, which is exactly what the policy says. I haven't made an edit to the article related to this, so haven't broken any policy. And as for protecting my "preferred version", since when do I prefer BC/AD? I prefer BCE/CE. In any case, the protection template clearly states that protection doesn't endorse the current version. --brian0918 ™ 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Brian, while I see your protection was in good faith, I'm afraid it was technically against protection policy. To quote the relevant passage: "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." Emphasis mine. You wanted to cool down the edit war, and while I'll note that the war was actually over until CrucifiedChrist's arrival, your intent was admirable. But after doing so you jumped into the debate to declare BC/AD to be the the best option based on your own opinion and declared the argument to be over (facetiously or not, it's not helpful). I'm not about to raise a stink over this relatively minor infraction, but I think it would be best if you could either lift the protection or withdraw yourself from the debate. FWIW I think you're a good admin, so please don't take this personally. -- Hadal 04:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Review of debate

[Taking a step back.] I think we can agree on the following items; please post if you do not:

Current Wikipedia Policy allows both BC/AD and BCE/CE usage, with no preference or prejudice (this was recently confirmed by the extensive discussion and inconclusive vote at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate).
The discussion between the two styles has been carried on extensively, both at the above noted debate page and elsewhere, and no conclusion has been reached.
Furthermore, those holding opposing points of view are unlikely to be swayed by further argument, considering the volume of discussion that has already taken place.
Given the stalemate on related policy pages, no particular article should become a new place to carry on the same discussion.
Specifically, diamond should not be used as a "test case" when it is clear that no consensus has been reached.
We should not re-hash the generalized debate here in the specific context of a single article.

Given these facts, the question becomes, how do we decide what style to use in this (or in fact any particular) article? I believe that Gene Nygaard (again, please correct me if I misinterpret) suggests that first usage and length of use should prevail. I and Hadal have countered with proof that we are the original authors of the sections in question, and our intent is to use BCE/CE. Gene has rejected this as adequate due to the length of use. I have suggested that ceteris paribus, editors' votes should be weighted based on contritubion to the article, so as to avoid having this fight over and over again at various articles. No other editors have yet expressed support for this option. Hadal has suggested that another article, turquoise, could be used as the template article for the as-yet pre-nascent gemstones project; that article was featured before diamond and uses BCE/CE. This seems to fall along a similar line of Gene's "first use" argument, with different pieces of evidence. I am not aware that any other methodologies for deciding this case have been put forward, as most other comments seem to be directed to the overall stylistic debate, not the specific use for this article.

It seems to me then, that the most constructive way to move forward on this article is to decide what the appropriate basis should be for making this stylistic selection, weigh the evidence in light of that basis, and reach consensus on what that evidence shows. What do you all think? - Bryan is Bantman 21:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The obvious way to deal with this, until such time as there is a consensus on a site-wide policy, is to use the same method that we use for Standard English vs US English - i.e., unless there is a clear case for using a particular variant of the language on content-related grounds (US English in Baseball for example), first use in a particular article determines subsequent use. Clearly, there is no such "special circumstances" case to be made here. I haven't checked the edit history here to make sure, but I suspect that this will mean BCE/CE. (As it happens, I personally prefer BC/AD, but having my non-preffered style used is a mile better than having an article that needs real work protected because of an edit war over a complete irrelevancy. Tannin 22:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Tannin. Normal Wikipedia convention would be to leave the current style alone unless there was a case-specific reason to change it. In the case of this article, I believe it has historically been BC/AD and this has never been an issue until recently. My perception is that two users want to change it because they would simply prefer it be different, but I don't see any reason that it should be changed other than bowing to their will. I would prefer we respect wikipedia convention, and each other, and leave the current usage alone unless there was a better reason for the change.

That said - this is a silly and trivial thing to have people so fired up over. I don't understand why this issue has led to people attacking and insulting each other so easily. -CrucifiedChrist

Which makes it even sillier that you came in and restarted the edit war by reverting. - Taxman ^{Talk 12:32, May 28, 2005 (UTC)}

A couple of thoughts. First, there is a question of first use -- does actual first use (BC/AD) count, or does the author's intent (BCE/CE) count? The original author in this case has stated that his first use was an oversight, and he would have rather used the BCE/CE. Second, is stylistic precedence "reset" by a complete rewrite? I would suggest yes; the article as it is now is an essentially new article dating to March 2005, and the author who rewrote it (me) tried at that time to use BCE/CE as a stylistic choice but was overcome by a vigorous defense of BC/AD as a holdover from the previous versions of the article. When a complete rewrite is done that substantially improves the article and almost completely replaces what was there before, it doesn't make sense to me that any stylistic choices used in the previous version should necessarily be held over into the new version, as it is essentially a new article replacing the old, not making small edits / additions / modifications to it. - Bryan is Bantman 00:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is very good to see calm and reasoned discussion returning, with a series of sensible, practical posts. I have not reviewed the page history, but have no reason to doubt Bryan's accounting of the relevant facts. I am about half persuaded by his "author's intent" argument, and maybe two-thirds persuaded by the "complete rewrite" argument. I'm not sure that either one of them would sway me on its own, but taken together they make a very good case indeed. (BTW, I am at heart a BC/AD person and BCE strikes me as an affectation, but I accept that we have to have give and take here on the 'pedia. Hey - I have, of my own free will, sometimes written "color" and "airplane" in articles instead of "colour" and "aeroplane". I can assure you that it wasn't easy, but once the initial fear and loathing passed I got over it quite quickly.) Tannin 01:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully concur with Bryan, and I'm glad to see things have cooled down (even if the article itself is still protected). I think it is imperative that the original and primary authors' opinions be strongly favoured; to do otherwise would invite agenda-driven edit warriors who have shown little to no interest in the development of this (and other) article(s) in the past. I do not see why I, as the initiator of the BC style in this article and in the absence of majority opposition from primary authors, cannot be allowed to make a minor stylistic change (which I regard as the mending of my own error) to text I wrote myself. To further touch upon Tannin's apt spellings analogy, I am always careful to respect the original author's intended spellings.

To use another gem FA as an example, in the process of refactoring and significantly expanding ammolite, I took great care to preserve DanielCD's American spellings. Personally, I believe that respecting the original author's intended spellings to be a common courtesy. This is supported by Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, which outlines a "certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia", which includes the advice, "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." Since this article (apparently) grew mostly via accretion in the first few years of its existence and since no BCE dates were quoted prior to the arrival of Bryan and me (and because the very early history was lost in a database conversion), I think it's reasonable to append the line to read ".. first major contributor to introduce a particular style", in order to make it applicable to this case. While it is true that no such wording currently exists in the Eras section of the MoS, I think it is reasonable to consider its merits given the two issues' similarities. I also agree with the complete rewrite argument, for the record. -- Hadal 04:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that a full week has passed without any challenge to the rationale presented by Bryan, Tannin, and me (as outlined above), I think it's safe to close (for lack of a better term) the argument. Just to be safe, I'll wait until tomorrow to reinstate my edit. -- Hadal 05:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The most frequently seen use of CE is the mark seen on almost all products to indicate that they conform to European Law. There is no advantage to using it to describe a date. It seems that this system was invented by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They use it to emphasise their point of view. It has been claimed that AD assets the Christian deity. This is like saying that Thursday asserts the deity of Thor or that July asserts the deity of Julius Caesar. CE is unusual and requires explanation. That conclusion is bias, a bias on a totally unrelated issue. If you insist on inserting your BCE then there will be no need for ‘neutrality disputed’ templates. It will not matter how neutral articles actually are, in the eyes of many readers CE is louder than any such template. I hope that you will reconsider. --ClemMcGann 11:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clem, your argument is based on the general merits of BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. That is not what we are discussing here. If you wish to discuss the issue generally, I suggest you find the relevant policy pages and place your arguments there. What is at issue here is what factors should be considered in this case in deciding between (what are at the present equally acceptable in the eyes of WP) two acceptable alternatives. If you wish to contribute to this discussion, please review the lengthy discussion that has already taken place here, and you are welcome to offer your opinions on the issue at hand. At this point, on this page, for this article, bringing the discussion back to "what's better? BC/AD or BCE/CE?" is counterproductive. - Bryan is Bantman 16:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, as you say my argument is based on the ‘general’ merits of the traditional or conventional BC/AD. I wonder how there could be specific issues ‘in this case’. I realise that current Wikipedia Policy allows both BC/AD and BCE/CE usage. And that there is a current on-going debate on this issue. I would hope that there would not be a pre-emptive revision here, or anywhere else, while that debate remains unresolved. I have yet to be persuaded that CE has any merit, save to indicate that a product conforms to European regulations. I do not claim any expertise on diamonds remotely approaching yours. Nor, therefore, do I intend to ever edit the page. I am just indicating my reaction as a reader.--ClemMcGann 19:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that even a cursory review of the discussion above would inform you as to the specific issues in this case; it involves proper implmentation more than anything else. Nonetheless, thank you for your input. - Bryan is Bantman 23:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The change is regretable. It demeans the article --ClemMcGann 08:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

featured article?

I'm restoring the coment, because, for one, it is against policy to edit other people's comments out unless they are personal attacks, and for another, his question is spot on. You come to an article that was unanimously supported for FA and ask a question like that, full of insults, what did you think was going to happen? Read up a bit on Wikipedia:Summary style and think about the fact that different levels of detail for articles requires some repetition. This article itself, and not the related article is the FA. Also interesting is your claim that it makes a mockery of FA's when you have had little to no participation in the FAC process. Please point us to the FA's you have written that are so much better. It appears you are aware you are ornery on Fridays, so why not hold your tongue then? - Taxman ^{Talk 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)}

Quote: when you have had little to no participation in the FAC process How the *** would you know? Look at my edit history before you spout groundless abuse around. Finally, try looking at a calendar: it is not Friday. Friday was yesterday.

How would I know? Well I've participated in or followed almost every FAC discussion since March 2004, and by recollection you have edited there very little. My recollection was correct because in fact you have made about 8 edits to any FAC discussion in over a year. More to the point your comments make it very clear you have no idea how FA judging works. An article is not judged on the quality or lack thereof of any articles it links to. So you have noticed that the subpages are not perfect, or perhaps even very good yet, but coming in here and saying this article shouldn't be featured (along with repeated insults) when you don't understand how featuring an article works just makes your insults all the more misplaced. Finally, just for completeness, even your comment above was made with a Friday UTC timestamp, so in more than half the world, when you ask me to check a calendar, it was still Friday. I can't help it if you're in Australia or East Asia. - Taxman ^{Talk 18:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)}

Now, returning to the article and its shortcomings, I had the misfortune to read it and its associated pages a week or two ago. It was a most frustrating experience. There is a wealth of excellent information here, but the article and the sub-articles repeats itself/themselves over and over. There are great slabs of text that reappear in one place, then another, then yet another again. For the first-time reader (as I was when I came to this article) it is very frustrating to read a section summary that describes something briefly, think "this sounds interesting", then read on to the section itself, and get an exact, word-for-word repeat of the original summary, often with no extra detail added. This could be a truly excellent article. Indeed, I suspect that it probably was one at one time, but grew too long and was in consequence hacked about into subsections and edited by committee. It shows. Really shows. It needs to be removed from FA status until such time as the scars of subdivision have been papered over and it reads decently. Tannin 21:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

All you've said (repeatedly, ironically enough), is that the sub articles repeat material a lot. What about this article? This is the FA, so what parts of it are poorly organized or repetitious? You haven't mentioned anything about this article with enough specifics for anyone to fix anything. If you want this article to be improved, please provide those specifics. As to the sub articles, if you found whole blocks of repeated text then dig in and help reduce the repetition. And by the way, if it wasn't Friday in your location, are you saying you're just this rude every day? The same point could have been made with much greater effectiveness by saying something like "the subarticles of this article repeated vast chunks of text in this article, I think that makes this article not of featured article quality". That removes the emotions and insults you have repeatedly added. If you want specifics how about you comments of this article: "mish-mash", "mockery", "scars of subdivision". - Taxman ^{Talk 18:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)}

As you may or may not be aware, featured articles are judged on their own merits, not based on sub-articles, related articles, or links. This article passed through FAC and was voted as an FA by participants, fairly recently. - Bryan is Bantman 22:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I am aware, of course, that the article passed through FAC. I find it dfficult to credit that it did so, but understand that no such process can ever be perfect and that mistakes do slip through from time to time. This was one of them.

I am not calling for the FA status to be removed. At least not yet, as there is a much better way to deal with the problem - which is, of course, to improve the article so that it does deserve FA status. I don't think it should be too difficult a task - all the fundamentals are here, they just need to be better organised and have the repetition cleaned out. If we can do that, then the problem has gone away. Tannin 23:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, just less than two hours before that comment you said "It needs to be removed from FA status until such time...", and you started this discussion off with "It should be removed from the FA list immediately...". Inconsistency much? I don't think you'll find anyone in agreement with you though on this article not being of featured quality. - Taxman ^{Talk 18:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)}

Regarding the article, I believe that the sub-articles do need significant work, particularly in avoiding the specific problems of repetition you mentioned. I would love to see those problems addressed. However, I believe the main article is organized very well, reads smoothly, and is deserving of its FA status, when considered on its own merits. None of the problems you pointed out apply to the main article on its own, as I interpret things. However, nothing is perfect, so if you think it can be improved then go for it. That said, because it is an FA, I think that large changes should probably be discussed here on the talk page first. - Bryan is Bantman 23:32, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a great deal of needless repetition. This article and its subarticles use a summary-style lead section, or at least the subarticles I've expanded do—material properties of diamond, diamond simulant, diamond enhancement, and diamond cut to be specific. (My offline work of synthetic diamond isn't quite finished.) I thought it best to model any spinoff articles on the main article itself. So it's true that a subarticle's opening paragraph will contain much the same info as is presented in the corresponding main page section (which is meant to be a summary as well), but this is because of (a) their great length, and (b) becase they are meant to stand alone, so that interested readers can get the whole story even if they don't read the main diamond article (or in the case of possible mirrors, don't have access to it).

I have taken great care to avoid needless repetition, but nonetheless some data is repeated under different topics. This is because the topics are all closely related, and omitting the data would lead to a significant loss of clarity or completeness. If there are specific passages in any of these articles you take issue with, please let me know. If on the other hand your (Tannin) criticism is not directed at the abovementioned articles, you can ignore my ramblings. -- Hadal 04:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I am disgusted at the low and personal way in which User:Taxman has responded to this matter. I made a point about the article, and Taxman starts mouthing off about "repeated insults" (which don't exist) as if abusing me could substitute for dealing with the problems this article has. Tannin 19:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I've even quoted your insults that you've made in a number of separate edits. As said before, if you don't think "mish-mash", "mockery", "scars of subdivision", "hacked about" etc. are insults, I'm not sure what I can help you with. It's only gotten personal if at all because you've repeated the insults, and apparently don't care to recognize that they are that. If you're referring to being called rude, then don't be rude, as I think most anyone would characterize those quotes as. By the way, nice misdirection, calling my comments, "low and personal". If you think my comments are bad, don't you think the authors of this page, who have put inumerable hours into it, might take your above quoted comments personally? For someone like you that puts that much venom into their own writing, this is an amazingly low ability to put up with being called out for it. You've still failed to give anything specific or concrete that this article can do to improve. So lets get back to our regularly scheduled programming and try to improve this article if possible. - Taxman ^{Talk 20:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)}

While it is true that regrettable words have been said, I am (as I believe Bryan is) quite ready to put that behind us for the sake of progress. To Tannin and Taxman, I have come to admire both of you gentlemen as two of Wikipedia's most fair and lucid voices of reason. I'm hardly in a position to demand you two reconcile, but I'd nonetheless (and perhaps selfishly) rather you not fight. May I suggest a truce, so that we can try to resolve this issue? (The thornier remarks could even be removed entirely, if both of you agree to it.) I'm more than willing to address specific concerns WRT the article(s). -- Hadal 05:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, well sorry. You guys are the major contributors to the article, so sorry if I've contributed to extending an off topic argument. I would prefer however, that the conversation be left intact, otherwise it would make it look like I was coming out of left field, with no basis for my remarks. Perhaps I'm delusional, but even after re-reading the affair, I don't think I wrote anything even nearly on the scale of as offensive as the other party [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diamond&diff=14326877&oldid=14326788). But I suppose defending you guys is mis-placed because you can do that fine on your own, and if you don't find his remarks offensive, so be it. I'd recommend archiving the entire section in one piece, then if specific suggestions for this article are brought later, then great, but so far there are none. - Taxman ^{Talk 11:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)}

Taxman - I, for one, am very thankful for your defense of the article (and its authors!). I myself am a rather non-confrontational, and choose not to fight most things that probably should be fought, just because I personally find it so uncomfortable to do. So I always appreciate it when someone like you thinks it is worthwhile to bear the torch, so to speak. Thanks for your support. - Bryan is Bantman 16:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

What Bryan said. :) I didn't mean to place blame or imply your defense was misplaced—far from it, and you've been quite helpful!—but rather that I think we'd all be better off on the same page (so to speak). I think it's safe to say we're all interested in improving the article, so we shouldn't lose sight of that commonality. Your recommendation (archiving) is a good one, and I support it. -- Hadal 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lonsdaleite

lonsdaleite not a diamond form. That is anoather mineral and inother allotrop of carbon. Stepanovas 11:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While lonsdaleite is indeed IMA-approved as a distinct species, AFAIK it isn't entirely incorrect to call it a form of diamond. It's my understanding that lonsdaleite is a polymorph of diamond rather than a proper allotrope in itself, as unlike graphite and fullerene, there are no differences in the chemical bonding between diamond and lonsdaleite (rather, the differences relate to physical arrangement only). Then again, I could be wrong; furthermore, from what I've read, the exact definition of allotrope vs. polymorph isn't quite settled yet. Would it help if "form" were changed to "polymorph" for greater clarity? (By the way, did my edits to the Surfacing section resolve your concerns with respect to indicator minerals present in diamondiferous kimberlites?) -- Hadal 02:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By definition structure is a main characteristic of mineral and substances with different structures can not be the same mineral. Surfacing section became mach better, but there are still a lot of mistakes Stepanovas 13:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there may be a language barrier here. Nobody has suggested lonsdaleite and diamond are the same mineral; rather, that they are polymorphs of each other. In other words, they are two forms of the same carbon allotrope. To prevent the possibility of someone confusing "form" to mean "variety" (as seems to be the case here), I've gone ahead and rewrote the paragraph to make lonsdaleite's relationship with diamond clearer. As for the Surfacing section, what precisely are these mistakes? You're not the first geologist to read the article, but if there's something you think we've missed, I encourage you to elaborate. Simply saying, "... there are still a lot of mistakes" isn't very helpful. (If you're not comfortable editing the article yourself, the only way to address your concerns is for you to explain them in detail.) Note that some of the geophysical concepts may be simplified to make them more accessible to the general public; this does not, however, mean the text is wrong. -- Hadal 02:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - - - I also think there may be a language barrier here. But I deal exactly with diamonds, and read a lot of literature in English about diamonds. The article is very well, but contains a lot of inaccuracies. It is intresting to my to discuss same detailes :)
      - in a certain sense allotrope is a polymorphs of elements and lonsdaleite is allotrope of carbon as a diamond, graphite, fullerenes et. al. lonsdaleite structure is similar to diamond structure, but lonsdaleite is allotrope(polymorph ?) of a carbon, but not diamond.
      - Lamproite and Lamprophyre are different rocks.
      - These materials are characteristically rich in certain minerals (usually rich in magnesium), most notably serpentine. - serpentine is a secondary mineral but not mantle.
      - These minerals are rich in chromium (Cr) or titanium (Ti) Ti? reference??
      - dark red Cr-spinel is it a Chromite?
      - eclogitic garnets, orange Ti-pyrope, eclogitic garnets have orange color. eclogitic garnets have not high Ti.

Stepanovas 07:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stepanovas is right, there are some glitches and wording ambiguities in the surfacing section. I had this on my to do fix it list, but like a lot of things simply haven't got 'round to it yet :-) I am no diamond expert. I wondered about the lamproite link, but didn't know much until I began searching today. Have added a bit to that page as a result. I will (sometime) get around to his other points if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Vsmith 00:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everything I've read (save for Wikipedia's own contradictions) describes lonsdaleite as a polymorph of diamond's allotrope rather than a different allotrope; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think the wording should stay the way it is. (I do appreciate the murky ground we're treading here, but as Wikipedia is meant to report rather than dictate, we should be careful not to contradict our references.) As for lamproite/lamprophyre, I am in complete agreement (I didn't write that part and didn't notice the piped link). I didn't write the serpentine bit either, but if you know what to replace it with, by all means do so. As for the Ti issue, my reference for that is the one I supplied in the same edit (Kjarsgaard and Levinson 2002). The article is primarily on Canadian diamond prospecting, but its background information is generalized. "Cr-spinel" and "Ti-pyrope" are both specifically mentioned; as is picroilmenite (another titanium compound), hence "or titanium". Both transition elements, both resulting in strong colours. The referenced article clearly distinguishes eclogitic garnets from the "Ti-pyrope" (as does this article), so although both are orange, that does not mean both lack Ti. -- Hadal 02:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't be scratched?

These diamond dealers have photos of chipped diamonds to prove that diamonds are more easily damaged than you might think. Also they claim that a diamond can be scratched with metal. "Can Diamonds Be Chipped?" (http://www.niceice.com/chipped.htm) 61.229.142.233 08:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chips are one thing; the "Mechanical properties" section—and its corresponding subarticle material properties of diamond—make it clear that diamond is fragile and that fracture/cleavage is a real danger. As for the claim that diamond can be scratched by "a pop-top from a soda can", that's certainly false. If diamond could be abraded by aluminium, steel, or even corundum, it wouldn't have taken hundreds of years to develop diamond cutting methods. If any marks are left on a diamond by metal, they could be either (a) residue of the metal itself, or (b) very fine hairline cleavages, known as "bearding" when they occur along the girdle. The site you link to illustrates quite well that you shouldn't believe everything your dealer tells you. -- Hadal 03:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additional section?

I came to this page looking for links to some famous diamonds - e.g. the Hope diamond, and I noticed that there isn't anything like that on the page. It's out of my depth for me to attempt anything like that, but I was wondering if anyone else thought that sort of thing would be appropriate for the page. I know I'd like to see it here. - MrCheshire

Actually, there is already a link to list of famous diamonds indented at the bottom of the ==History== section. The list was calved off into its own article in order to keep the main article's size down. I do see how the link could be easy to miss; it was repeated again under ==See also==, but I believe it was removed some time ago as being "redundant". Although it might be possible to summarize (rather than list) the many famous diamonds to create a ==Famous diamonds== section, I think this would be better accomplished by turning the list article into a "famous diamonds" article, simply because the main article is large enough as it is. Does that make sense? -- Hadal 08:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Diamond"

Categories: Wikipedia featured articles

Talk:Diamond

Blood Diamonds

Folklore

thanks for the help!!!!

Is clarity grading done using a standard distance from eye-to-stone?

Is diamond a Chemical element?

various facts - insurance specific?

Carat

Clarity

Kimberley process

Marketing

Some discussions moved to related Talk: articles

Old Mine cut

Length

Purchasing a diamond

Hardest Naturally Occurring Mineral?

HOAX

Featured Article Candidate

Prism image

Density

De Beers

Errors in diamond geochemistry

History

Etymology

So what's the hardest unnatural substance?

Decaying to graphite

Diamond history inconsistency

Proposal to change BC/AD to BCE/CE

Review of debate

featured article?

lonsdaleite

Can't be scratched?

Additional section?

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools