Talk:Diamond/Archive 1

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.

1. Added bit on nyf, additional common forms
2. Added step-like to fracture description and elaborated on conchoidal
3. Added info on Australian blues coloured by hydrogen, qualifying instances of "natural blue" with "most"
4. Elaborated on Type IIa diamonds
5. Changed "play of color" to "fire." The term play of color correctly refers to opal, not diamond.
6. 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.

---

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?
    • There is a sense that the Kimberly process is ineffectual because it does not include an adequate monitoring system or otherwise have eficacious safeguards against the introduction of blood diamonds into mainstream trade. Therefore, the Kimberly Process and associated legislation only pay lip-service to the elimination of blood diamonds from markets. Amnesty International and other groups portray the Kimberly Process as a good, but incomplete, first step.

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.
  • 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" 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

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)

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], as well as the text of the Kimberley Process itself [2], 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)

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)

Perhaps it should be made a little more noticeable? I missed it too, and was about to ask for it to be added.Eoseth 02:50, 8 April 2006 (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 [3]. The amnh pic does show red garnet which is more common, but not as diagnostic. Vsmith 13:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Look:

• http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/diamonds/kirkland/kimberlite_e.php
• http://brysonburke.com/transport_indicator_minerals.html
• http://www.ashton.ca/exploration_indicator_mineral.html
• http://www.dunsmuirventures.com/s/Nanuq_Project.asp

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 [4] 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 [5]. And it's this series, of chromium garnets, which is indicators in peridotites. Uvarovite is usually only found in altered ultrabasic rocks [6], 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 [7]. 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 - [8] 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 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. --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 [9] and [10]. 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)

This section has been addressed in the article.

Diamond history inconsistency

I am wondering, should the history paragraph remain as it is currently is, considering what this BBC article asserts. [11] 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 as sufficient precedent to keep the BC convention. As you'll see from this edit of mine 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)