Talk:Diamond/Archive 4

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.

consensus was reached, but the article remains in the state opposed to the consensus opinion--Walter Görlitz 17:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• 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 [1]. 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?" 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)

Largest Diamond?

How about a sentence on the largest diamond ever found the Cullinan Diamond? I think it would be interesting as well as providing a size range eg diamonds range from x to X Carats. Ravedave 06:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I added such a section. I think it gives the most important information without turning into a list, but feel free to tweak it of course. —Keenan Pepper 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Diamond is electronegative?

The article here says that diamond is highly electronegative. Could someone confirm and then add it to the article? It would be useful to go into why diamond being electronegative would be a useful property.--ShaunMacPherson 02:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The question is one year old but I will try to clarify it anyway. I think what is referred to in the article is that diamond surfaces (or nanodiamond which mainly consists of surfaces) exhibits very low electron affinity. Hydrogenated diamond surfaces, i.e. diamond with a single layer of hydrogen atoms on the surface, are expected to show even negative electron affinity making them highly efficient electron emitters. These could be used for several devices based on electron beams. Laslandes 09:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)