
The mineral diamond is a crystal form, or ''allotropy'', of carbon (other allotropes of carbon include graphite and fullerene). It is one of the most known and most useful of more than 3,000 known minerals. Diamonds are renowned for their superlative physical qualities, especially their hardness—the word "diamond" derives from the Greek language ''adamas'' (αδάμας; "impossible to tame")—and their high Dispersion (optics) of light. These properties and others make diamond valued for use in jewelry and a variety of industrial applications. Most diamonds are mined from volcanic pipes, where they have been deposited by deep-origin volcanoes drawing material from over 90 miles (150 km) deep within the Earth, where the pressure and temperature is suitable for diamond formation. Most diamonds are mined in central and southern Africa, although significant deposits have also been discovered in Canada, Russia, Brazil, and Australia. About 130 million Carat (mass) (26,000 kg) of diamonds are mined annually, with a total value of nearly $9 billion. In addition, nearly four times that mass is artificially produced as synthetic diamond. The Gemology appeal of diamonds lies in their hardness and optical properties. Diamonds used as gems are cut and polished into a number of faceted shapes in order to accentuate these attractive qualities. The hardness of diamonds allows them to hold a polish extremely well and resist scratching (only other diamonds can scratch a diamond), giving excellent ''luster''. The dispersion of white light into a rainbow of colors, known in the trade as ''fire'', is the other primary characteristic of gem diamonds, and has been highly prized throughout history. Gem diamonds are commonly judged by the four Cs: carat, clarity, color, and cut. Diamonds have been treasured as gems since at least 2,500 years ago, when they were used in religious icons in India. Popularity of diamonds as gemstones increased starting in the 19th century as new cutting designs that display diamonds' gem qualities better were developed. Industrial use of diamonds has historically been associated with their hardness; this property makes diamond the ideal material for cutting and grinding tools — common applications include the cutting surfaces of saw blades and drill bits, or use of diamond powder as an abrasive. Other specialized applications also exist or are being developed, including use as semiconductors: some blue diamonds are natural semiconductors, in contrast to most other diamonds, which are excellent resistors. Industrial-grade diamonds are either unsuitable for use as gems or synthetically produced, which lowers their price and makes their use economically feasible. Industrial applications, especially as drill bits and engraving tools, also date to ancient times. The production and distribution of diamonds is largely consolidated in the hands of a few key players, and concentrated in traditional diamond trading centers (the most important being Antwerp). The De Beers, based in Johannesburg, South Africa and London, England, has been the largest player in the diamond industry for over one hundred years; the company and its subsidiaries own mines that produce some 40 percent of annual world diamond production, and control distribution channels handling nearly two thirds of all gem diamonds. Some controversy over diamonds has been generated because of the monopoly practices historically employed by De Beers including strict control of supply and alleged price manipulation, as well as the practice by some African revolutionary groups of selling ''conflict diamond'' in order to fund their often violent activities. ==Material properties== [[Image:Diamond unit cell.PNG|thumb|The unit cell of the diamond crystal.]] Diamond is a transparency (optics) crystal of pure carbon consisting of tetrahedron bonded carbon atoms. Humans have been able to adapt diamonds for many uses because of the material's exceptional physical characteristics. Most notable among these properties are the extreme hardness of diamond and its high dispersion (optics) index. These two properties form the basis for most modern applications of diamond. ===Mechanical properties=== Crystal structure: Diamonds typically crystallize in the cubic crystal system and consist of tetrahedron bonded carbon atoms. Lonsdaleite is a polymorph of diamond (and a distinct mineral species) that crystallizes with hexagonal symmetry; it is rarely found in nature, but is characteristic of synthetic diamonds. A cryptocrystalline variety of diamond is called carbonado (diamond). A colorless, grey or black diamond with a tiny radial structure is a spherulite. The tetrahedral arrangement of atoms in a diamond crystal is the source of many of diamond's properties; graphite, another allotrope of carbon, has a rhombohedral crystal structure and as a result shows dramatically different physical characteristics — contrary to diamond, graphite is a very soft, dark grey opaque mineral. [[Image:Diamsm.gif|framed|The diamond crystal bond structure gives the gem its hardness and differentiates it from graphite.]] Hardness: Diamond is the hardness known naturally occurring material, scoring 10 on the relative Mohs scale of mineral hardness and having an absolute hardness value of between 167 and 231 gigapascals in various tests. Diamond's hardness has been known since antiquity, and is the source of its name. Broad industrial applications of diamond are based on the extraordinary hardness of diamond. As the hardest known naturally occurring material, diamond can be used to polish, cut, or wear away any material, including other diamonds. Common industrial adaptations of this ability include diamond-tipped drill bits and saws. The hardness of diamonds also contributes to its suitability as a gemstone. Because it can only be scratched by other diamonds, it maintains its polish extremely well, keeping its luster over long periods of time. Unlike many other gems, it is well-suited to daily wear due to its resistance to scratching — perhaps contributing to its popularity as the preferred gem in an engagement ring or wedding ring, which are often worn every day. Toughness: Unlike hardness, which only denotes resistance to scratching, diamond's toughness is only fair to good. Toughness relates to a material's ability to resist breakage from forceful impact. As with any material, the macroscopic geometry of a diamond contributes to its resistance to breakage. Diamonds cut into certain particular shapes are therefore more prone to breakage than others. Color: Diamonds occur in a variety of transparent hues — colorless, white, steel, blue, yellow, orange, red, green, pink, brown — or colored black. Diamonds with a detectable hue to them are known as ''colored diamonds''. Colored diamonds contain impurities or structural defects that cause the coloration, while pure or nearly-pure diamonds are transparent and colorless. Most diamond impurities replace a carbon atom in the crystal lattice. The most common impurity, nitrogen, causes a yellowish or brownish tinge. Thermodynamic stability: At surface air pressure (one atmosphere), diamonds are not as stable as graphite, and so the decay of diamond is thermodynamically favorable (δ''H'' = −2 kJ / mol). Diamonds will burn at approximately 800 degrees Celsius, providing that enough oxygen is available. This was shown in the late 18th century, and previously described during Ancient Rome times. So, despite the popular advertising slogan, diamonds are definitely not forever. However, owing to a very large kinetic energy barrier, diamonds are metastable; under Standard temperature and pressure, it would take an extreme long time (possibly more than the age of the Universe) to decay into graphite. ===Electromagnetic properties=== Optical properties: Diamonds exhibit a high dispersion (optics) of visible light. This strong ability to split white light into its component colors is an important aspect of diamond's attraction as a gemstone, giving it impressive prism (optics) action that results in so-called ''fire'' in a well-cut stone. The luster of a diamond, a characterization of how light interacts with the surface of a crystal, is brilliant and is described as ''adamantine'', which simply means diamond-like. Some diamonds exhibit fluorescence of various colors under long wave ultraviolet light, but generally show bluish-white, yellowish or greenish fluorescence under X-ray. Some diamonds show no fluorescence. Electrical properties: Except for most natural blue diamonds which are semiconductors, diamond is a good electrical insulator. Blue diamonds owe their semiconductive property to boron impurities, which act as a doping (semiconductors) and cause p-type semiconductor behavior. Natural blue diamonds which are not boron-doped, such as those recently recovered from the Argyle diamond mine in Australia that owe their color to an overabundance of hydrogen atoms, are not semiconductors. Thermal properties: Unlike most electrical insulators, diamond is a good conductor of heat because of the strong covalent bonding within the crystal. Most natural blue diamonds contain boron atoms which replace carbon atoms in the crystal matrix, and also have high thermal conductivity. Specially purified synthetic diamond has the highest thermal conductivity (2000–2500 W/(m·K), five times more than copper) of any known solid at room temperature. Because diamond has such high thermal conductance it is already used in semiconductor manufacture to prevent silicon and other semiconducting materials from overheating. ===Media=== ==Natural history== ===Formation=== Diamond is formed by prolonged exposure of carbon bearing materials to high pressure and temperature. On Earth, the formation of diamonds is possible because there are regions deep within the Earth that are at a high enough pressure and temperature that the formation of diamonds is thermodynamics favorable (see the diamond phase diagram and geotherms [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/formation.html here]). Under continental crust, diamonds form starting at depths of about 150 kilometers (90 miles), where pressure is roughly 5 pascals and the temperature is around 1200 degrees Celsius (2200 degrees Fahrenheit). Diamond formation under oceanic crust takes place at greater depths due to higher temperatures, which require higher pressure for diamond formation. Long periods of exposure to these high pressures and temperatures allow diamond crystals to grow larger. Through studies of carbon isotope ratios (similar to the methodology used in carbon dating) except using the stable isotopes C-12 and C-13, it has been shown that the carbon found in diamonds comes from both inorganic and organic sources. Some diamonds, known as ''Peridotite'', are formed from inorganic carbon originally found deep in the Earth's Mantle (geology). In contrast, ''eclogite'' diamonds contain organic carbon from organic detritus that has been pushed down from the surface of the Earth's crust (geology) through subduction (see plate tectonics) before transforming into diamond. These two different source carbons have measurably different 13C:12C ratios. Diamonds that have come to the Earth's surface are generally very old, ranging from under 1 billion to 3.3 billion years old. Diamonds occur most often as euhedral or rounded octahedron and Crystal twinning octahedra known as ''macles''. As diamond's crystal structure has a cubic arrangement of the atoms, they have many facets that belong to a Cube (geometry), octahedron, rhombicosidodecahedron, tetrakis hexahedron or disdyakis dodecahedron. The crystals can have rounded off and unexpressive edges and can be elongated. Sometimes they are found grown together or form double "twinned" crystals grown together at the surfaces of the octahedron. This is all due to conditions in which they form. Diamonds (especially those from secondary deposits) are commonly found coated in ''nyf'', an opaque gum-like skin. Diamonds can also form in other natural high-pressure high-temperature events. Very small diamonds, known as ''microdiamonds'' or ''nanodiamonds'', have been found in impact craters where meteors strike the Earth and create shock zones of high pressure and temperature where diamond formation can occur. Microdiamonds are now used as one indicator of ancient meteorite impact sites. Especially ancient meteorites may contain "star dust", the remnants of dead stars, some of which is composed of extremely tiny diamond crystals. === Surfacing === Diamond-bearing rock is forced close to the surface through deep-origin volcano eruptions. The magma for such a volcano must originate at a depth where diamonds can be formed, 90 miles (150 km) deep or more (three times or more the depth of source magma for most volcanoes); this is a relatively rare occurrence. Below these typically small surface volcanic craters are formations known as volcanic pipes, which contain material that was pushed toward the surface of the earth by volcanic action, but did not erupt before the volcanic activity ceased. Diamond-bearing volcanic pipes are most commonly found in the oldest regions of continental crust, which relates to the fact that these areas are the coolest portions of the earth's crust, and therefore diamonds can form at the shallowest depths. The magma in such volcanic pipes is usually one of two characteristic types, which cool into igneous rock known as either kimberlite or lamproite. The magma itself does not contain diamond; instead, it acts as an elevator that carries deep-formed rocks and material upward. These rocks are characteristically rich in magnesium bearing olivine, pyroxene, and amphibole minerals which are usually altered to serpentine under near surface conditions. Certain ''indicator minerals'' typically occur within diamondiferous kimberlites and are used as mineralogic tracers in the search for diamond deposits by prospectors. These minerals are rich in chromium (Cr) or titanium (Ti), elements which impart bright colors to the minerals. The most common indicator minerals are chromian garnets (usually bright red Cr-pyrope, and occasionally green ugrandite-series garnets), eclogitic garnets, orange Ti-pyrope, red high chromian spinels, dark chromite, bright green Cr-diopside, glassy green olivine, black ilmenite, and magnetite. Kimberlite deposits are known as ''blue ground'' for the deeper serpentinized part of the deposits, or as ''yellow ground'' for the near surface smectite clay and carbonate weathering and oxidation portion. Once diamonds have been forced to the surface by magma in a volcanic pipe, they may erosion out and be distributed over a large area. A volcanic pipe containing diamonds is known as a ''primary source'' of diamonds. ''Secondary sources'' of diamonds include all areas where a significant number of diamonds, eroded out of their kimberlite or lamproite matrix, accumulate due to water or weather action. These include alluvium deposits and deposits along existing and ancient shorelines, where loose diamonds tend to accumulate due to their approximate size and density. Diamonds have also rarely been found in deposits left behind by glaciers (notably in Wisconsin and Indiana); however, in contrast to alluvial deposits, glacial deposits are not known to be of significant concentration and are therefore not viable commercial sources of diamond. Diamonds can also be brought to the surface through certain processes which may occur when two continental plates collide forcefully, although this phenomenon is less understood and currently assumed to be uncommon. ==Gemological characteristics== The use of diamonds as gemstones of decorative value is the most familiar use to most people today, and is also the earliest use, with decorative use of diamonds stretching back into antiquity. Over time, especially since around 1900, experts in the field of gemology have developed methods of characterizing diamonds and other gemstones based on the characteristics most important to their value as a gem. Four characteristics, known informally as the four Cs, are now commonly used as the basic descriptors of diamonds: these are ''carat'', ''clarity'', ''color'', and ''cut''. Most gem diamonds are traded on the wholesale market based on single values for each of the four Cs; for example knowing that a diamond is rated as 1.5 carats, VS2 clarity, F color, excellent cut, is enough to reasonably establish an expected price range. More detailed information from within each characteristic can then be used to determine actual market value for individual stones. Consumers who purchase individual diamonds are often advised to use the four Cs to pick the diamond that is "right" for them; to these is sometimes added the "fifth C" of ''cost''. Other characteristics not described by the four Cs can and do influence the value or appearance of a gem diamond. These characteristics include physical characteristics such as the presence of fluorescence, as well as data on a diamond's history including its source and which gemological institute performed evaluation services on the diamond. ''Cleanliness'' also dramatically affects a diamond's beauty. === Carat === The carat (mass) weight measures the mass of a diamond. One carat is defined as exactly 200 milligrams (about 0.007 ounce). The point unit — equal to one one-hundredth of a carat (0.01 carat, or 2 mg) — is commonly used for diamonds of less than one carat. All else being equal, the value of a diamond increases exponentially in relation to carat weight, since larger diamonds are both rarer and more desirable for use as gemstones. A review of comparable diamonds available for purchase in March 2005 demonstrates this effect (approximate prices for round cut, G color, VS2 diamonds with "1A" cut grade, as listed on http://www.pricescope.com): {| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center" |- style="background-color: #cccccc;" !Carat size !Cost per carat (US$) !Total cost (US$) |- |0.5 carat (50 points) |align="right"|3,000 |align="right"|1,500 |- |1.0 carat |align="right"|5,000 |align="right"|5,000 |- |1.5 carats |align="right"|7,000 |align="right"|10,500 |- |2.0 carats |align="right"|10,000 |align="right"|20,000 |- |3.0 carats |align="right"|15,000 |align="right"|45,000 |- |5.0 carats |align="right"|20,000 |align="right"|100,000 |} The price per carat does not increase smoothly with increasing size. Instead, there are sharp jumps around milestone carat weights, as demand is much higher for diamonds weighing just more than a milestone than for those weighing just less. As an example, a 0.95 carat diamond has a significantly lower price per carat than a comparable 1.05 carat diamond, due to differences in demand. A weekly price list published by Rapaport of New York, of diamond prices per carat, for different diamond cuts, clarity and weights, is currently considered the de-facto retail price baseline. Jewelers often trade diamonds at negotiated discounts off the Rapaport price (e.g., "R -3%"). In the wholesale trade of gem diamonds, carat is often used in denominating lots of diamonds for sale. For example, a buyer may place an order for 100 carats of 0.5 carat, D–F, VS2-SI1, excellent cut diamonds, indicating he wishes to purchase 200 diamonds (100 carats total mass) of those approximate characteristics. Because of this, diamond prices (particularly among wholesalers and other industry professionals) are often quoted per carat, rather than per stone. ''Total carat weight'' (t.c.w.) is a phrase used to describe the total mass of diamonds or other gemstone in a piece of jewelry, when more than one gemstone is used. Diamond solitare earrings, for example, are usually quoted in t.c.w. when placed for sale, indicating the mass of the diamonds in both earrings and not each individual diamond. T.c.w. is also widely used for diamond necklaces, bracelets and other similar jewelry pieces. ===Clarity=== Clarity is a measure of internal defects of a diamond called ''inclusions''. Inclusions may be crystals of a foreign material or another diamond crystal, or structural imperfections such as tiny cracks that can appear whitish or cloudy. The number, size, color, relative location, orientation, and visibility of inclusions can all affect the relative clarity of a diamond. The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) and others have developed systems to grade clarity, which are generally based on those inclusions which are visible to a trained professional when a diamond is viewed from above under 10x magnification. Diamonds become increasingly rare when considering higher clarity gradings. Only about 20 percent of all diamonds mined have a clarity rating high enough for the diamond to be considered appropriate for use as a gemstone; the other 80 percent are relegated to industrial use. Of that top 20 percent, a significant portion contains an inclusion or inclusions that are visible to the naked eye upon close inspection. Those that do not have a visible inclusion are known as "eye-clean" and are preferred by most buyers, although visible inclusions can sometimes be hidden under the setting in a piece of jewelry. Most inclusions present in gem-quality diamonds do not affect the diamonds' performance or structural integrity. However, large clouds can affect a diamond's ability to transmit and scatter light. Large cracks close to or breaking the surface may reduce a diamond's resistance to fracture. ===Color=== A chemically pure and structurally perfect diamond is perfectly transparent with no hue, or color. However, in reality almost no gem-sized natural diamonds are absolutely perfect. The color of a diamond may be affected by chemical impurities and/or structural defects in the crystal lattice. Depending on the hue and intensity of a diamond's coloration, a diamond's color can either detract from or enhance its value. For example, most white diamonds are discounted in price as more yellow hue is detectable, while intense pink or blue diamonds (such as the Hope Diamond) can be dramatically more valuable. Most diamonds used as gemstones are basically transparent with little tint, or ''white diamonds''. The most common impurity, nitrogen, replaces a small proportion of carbon atoms in a diamond's structure and causes a yellowish to brownish tint. This effect is present in almost all white diamonds; in only the rarest diamonds is the coloration due to this effect undetectable. The GIA has developed a rating system for color in white diamonds, from "D" to "Z" (with D being "colorless" and Z having a clear light yellow or brown coloration), which has been widely adopted in the industry and is universally recognized. Diamonds with higher color grades are rarer, in higher demand, and therefore more expensive, than lower color grades. While the prices are higher for colorless diamonds, the exact color most valued by a consumer is a matter of personal preference, with some preferring the very transparent D–F range, while others prefer the "warmer" colors in the G–J range and still others prefer a clearly visible tint. In contrast to yellow or brown hues, diamonds of other colors are much rarer and more valuable. While even a pale pink or blue hue may increase the value of a diamond, more intense coloration is usually considered more desirable and commands the highest prices. A variety of impurities and structural imperfections cause different colors in diamonds, including yellow, pink, blue, red, green, brown, and other hues. Diamonds with unusual or intense coloration are sometimes labeled "fancy" by the diamond industry. Intense yellow coloration is considered one of the fancy colors, and is separate from the color grades of white diamonds. Gemologists have developed rating systems for fancy colored diamonds, but they are not in common use due to the relative rarity of colored diamonds. ===Cut=== The cut of a diamond describes the manner in which a diamond has been shaped and polished from its beginning form as a rough stone to its final gem proportions. The cut of a diamond describes both the shape a diamond is formed into, as well as the quality of workmanship. Diamond cutting is the art and science of creating a gem-quality diamond out of mined rough. ====Shape==== Diamonds do not show all of their beauty as rough stones; instead, they must be cut and polished to exhibit the characteristic fire and brilliance that diamond gemstones are known for. Diamonds are cut into a variety of shapes that are generally designed to accentuate these features. The techniques for shaping diamonds have been developed over hundreds of years, with perhaps the greatest achievements made in 1919 by mathematician and gem enthusiast Marcel Tolkowsky. He developed the round brilliant cut by calculating the ideal shape to return and scatter light when a diamond is viewed from above. The modern round brilliant has 57 facets (polished faces), counting 33 on the ''crown'' (the top half above the middle or ''girdle'' of the stone), and 24 on the ''pavilion'' (the lower half below the girdle). Diamonds which are not cut to the specifications of Tolkowsky's round brilliant shape (or subsequent variations) are known as "fancy cuts." Popular fancy cuts include the ''baguette'' (from the French, resembling a baguette), ''marquise'', ''princess'' (square outline), ''heart'', ''briolette'' (a form of the rose cut), and ''pear'' cuts. Generally speaking, these "fancy cuts" are not held to the same strict standards as Tolkowsky-derived round brilliants. Cuts are influenced heavily by fashion: the baguette cut — which accentuates a diamond's luster and downplays its fire — was all the rage during the Art Deco period, whereas the princess cut — which accentuates a diamond's fire rather than its luster — is currently gaining popularity. The princess cut is also popular amongst diamond cutters: of all the cuts, it wastes the least of the original crystal. The past decades have seen the development of new diamond cuts, often based on a modification of an existing cut. Some of these include extra facets. These newly developed cuts are viewed by many as more of an attempt at brand differentiation by diamond sellers, than actual improvements to the state of the art. ====Quality==== The quality of a diamond's cut is widely considered the most important of the four Cs in determining the beauty of a diamond; indeed, it is commonly acknowledged that a well-cut diamond can appear to be of greater carat weight, and have clarity and color appear to be of better grade than they actually are. The skill with which a diamond is cut determines its ability to reflect and refract light. In addition to carrying the most importance to a diamond's quality as a gemstone, the cut is also the most difficult to quantitatively judge. A number of factors, including proportion, symmetry, and the relative angles of various facets, are determined by the quality of the cut and can affect the performance of a diamond. A poorly cut diamond with facets cut only a few degrees out of alignment can result in a poorly performing stone. For a round brilliant cut, there is a balance between "brilliance" and "fire." When a diamond is cut for too much "fire," it looks like a cubic zirconia, which gives off much more "fire" than real diamond. A well executed round brilliant cut should reflect most light out from the tabletop and make the diamond appear white when viewed from the top. An inferior cut will produce a stone that appears dark at the center and in some extreme cases the ring settings may show through the top of the diamond as shadows. Several different theories on the "ideal" proportions of a diamond have been and continue to be advocated by professional gemologists. Recently, there has been a shift away from grading cut by the use of various angles and proportions toward measuring the performance of a cut stone. A number of specially modified viewers have been developed toward this end. One result of this trend is the rise of the phrase "hearts and arrows," describing a characteristic pattern observable on stones exhibiting high symmetry. Hearts and arrows diamonds trade at a 10 percent to 20 percent premium to otherwise comparable diamonds. ====The cutting process==== The process of shaping a rough diamond into a polished gemstone is both an art and a science. The choice of cut is often decided by the original shape of the rough stone, location of the inclusions and flaws to be eliminated, the preservation of the weight, popularity of certain shapes amongst consumers and many other considerations. The round brilliant cut is preferred when the crystal is an octahedron, as often two stones may be cut from one such crystal. Oddly shaped crystals such as macles are more likely to be cut in a ''fancy cut''—that is, a cut other than the round brilliant—which the particular crystal shape lends itself to. Even with modern techniques, the cutting and polishing of a diamond crystal always results in a dramatic loss of weight; rarely is it less than 50%. Sometimes the cutters compromise and accept lesser proportions and symmetry in order to avoid inclusions or to preserve the carat rating. Since the per-carat price of diamond shifts around key milestones (such as 1.00 carat), many one-carat diamonds are the result of compromising "Cut" for "Carat." Some jewelry experts advise consumers to buy a 0.99 carat diamond for its better price or buy a 1.10 carat diamond for its better cut, avoiding a 1.00 carat diamond which is more likely to be a poorly cut stone. ===Cleaning=== Although it is not one of the four Cs, cleanliness affects a diamond's beauty as much as any of the four Cs. A clean diamond is more brilliant and fiery than the same diamond when it is "dirty". Dirt or grease on the top of a diamond reduces its luster. Water, dirt, or grease on the bottom of a diamond interferes with the diamond's brilliance and fire. Even a thin film absorbs some light that could have been reflected to the person looking at the diamond. Colored dye or smudges can affect the perceived color of a diamond. Historically, some jewelers' stones were misgraded due to smudges on the girdle, or dye on the culet. Current practice is to thoroughly clean a diamond before grading its color. Maintaining a clean diamond can sometimes be difficult, as jewelry settings can obstruct cleaning efforts, and oils, grease, and other hydrophobic materials adhere well to a diamond's surface. Some jewelers provide their customers with ammonia-based cleaning kits; ultrasonic cleaners are also popular. Cleanliness does not affect the diamond's market value, as any competent jeweler will clean the diamond before offering it for sale. However, cleanliness might reflect a diamond's sentimental value: some jewelers have noted a correlation between ring cleanliness and marriage quality [http://www.diamondcuttersintl.com/diamond_education/articles/customers/getting_in_shape.html]. == History == 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 BCE), 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. In February 2005, a joint China-US team of archaeology reported the discovery of four corundum-rich stone ceremonial burial axes originating from China's Liangzhu and Sanxingcun cultures (4000 BCE–2500 BCE) which, due to the axes' specular surfaces, the scientists believe were polished using diamond powder. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4555235.stm] [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/18/content_417247.htm] Although there are diamond deposits now known to exist close to the burial sites, no direct evidence of coeval diamond mining has been found: the researchers came to their conclusion by polishing corundum using various lapidary abrasives and modern techniques, later comparing the results using an atomic force microscope. At that scale, the surface of the modern diamond-polished corundum most closely resembled that of the axes; however, the polishes of the latter were superior. Diamonds were traded to both the east and west of India, and were recognized by various cultures for their gemological and industrial uses. The Roman Empire writer Pliny the Elder noted diamond's ornamental uses, as well as its usefulness to engraving due to its hardness, in his work ''Naturalis Historia''. In China, diamonds seem to have been used primarily for engraving jade and drilling holes in beads. Archeological evidence from Yemen suggests that diamonds were used as drill tips as early as the 4th century BCE. In Europe, however, diamonds disappeared for almost 1,000 years following the rise of Christianity due to two effects: early Christians rejected diamonds due to their earlier use in amulets, and Arab traders restricted the flow of trade between Europe and India. Marcel_Tolkowsky_cut_(old_European).">Image:Diamond cut history.png|right|thumb|350px|Diagram of old diamond cuts showing the evolution from the most primitive (point cut) to the most advanced pre-Marcel Tolkowsky cut (old European). Until the late Middle Ages, diamonds were most prized in their natural octahedral state, perhaps with the crystal surfaces polished to increase luster and remove foreign material. Around 1300s, the flow of diamonds into Europe increased via Venice's trade network, with most flowing through the low Countries ports of Bruges, Antwerp, and Amsterdam. Also around this time, the taboo against cutting diamonds into gem shapes (established over 1,000 years earlier in the traditions of India) ended, allowing the development of diamond cutting technology to begin in earnest. By 1375, a guild of diamond polishers had been established at Nuremberg. Over the following centuries, various diamond cuts were introduced which increasingly demonstrated the fire and brilliance diamonds are treasured for today: the ''table cut'', the ''briolette'' (around 1476), the ''rose cut'' (mid 16th century), and by the mid 17th century, the ''Mazarin'', the first Brilliant (diamond cut) design. In 1919, Marcel Tolkowsky determined an ''ideal'' round brilliant cut, a design that continues to set the standard for comparison for modern gems. However, the evolution of diamond cuts continues on to this day. The rise in popularity of diamonds as gems seems to have paralleled increasing availability through European history. In the 13th century, King Louis IX of France established a law that only the king could own diamonds. However, within a century diamonds were popular gems among the moneyed aristocratic and merchant classes, and by at latest 1477 had begun to be used in wedding rings. Popularity continued to rise as new cuts were developed that enhanced the diamond's aesthetic appeal, and has largely continued unabated to this day; diamonds have proven popular with all classes in society as their cost becomes within reach. A number of large diamonds have become historically significant objects, as their inclusion in various sets of crown jewels and the purchase, sale, and sometimes theft of notable diamonds, have sometimes become politicized. :''See also: List of famous diamonds'' == The diamond industry == Brilliant_(diamond_cut)_diamond_set_in_a_ring.">Image:Diamond.jpg|framed|A round Brilliant (diamond cut) diamond set in a ring. The diamond industry can be broadly separated into two basically distinct categories: one dealing with gem-grade diamonds and another for industrial-grade diamonds. While a large trade in both types of diamonds exists, the two markets act in dramatically different ways. === Gem diamond industry === A large trade in gem-grade diamonds exists. Unlike precious metals such as gold or platinum, gem diamonds do not trade as a commodity: there is a substantial mark-up in the sale of diamonds, and there is not a very active market for resale of diamonds. One hallmark of the trade in gem-quality diamonds is its remarkable concentration: wholesale trade and diamond cutting is limited to a few locations (most importantly Antwerp (city), London, Tel Aviv, and increasingly Gujarat), and a single company — De Beers — controls over half of all trade in diamonds. The De Beers company holds a clearly dominant position in the industry, and has done so since soon after its founding in 1888. De Beers owns or controls a significant portion of the world's rough diamond production facilities (mining) and distribution channels for gem-quality diamonds. At one time it was thought over 80 percent of the world's rough diamonds passed through the Diamond Trading Company (DTC, a subsidiary of De Beers) in London, but presently the figure is estimated at around 60 percent. De Beers has used its monopoly position to establish strict price controls, and aggressively market diamonds directly to consumers in world markets. The De Beers#Marketing is acknowledged as one of the most successful and innovative ones in history. N.W. Ayer & Son, the advertising firm retained by De Beers in the mid-20th century, succeeded in reviving the American diamond market and opened up new markets, even in countries where no diamond tradition had existed before. N.W. Ayer's multifaceted marketing campaign included product placement, advertising the diamond itself rather than the De Beers brand, and building associations with celebrities and royalty. This coordinated campaign has lasted decades and continues today; it is perhaps best captured by the now-familiar slogan "a diamond is forever". === Industrial diamond industry === The market for industrial-grade diamonds operates much differently from its gem-grade counterpart. Industrial diamonds are valued mostly for their hardness and heat conductivity, making many of the gemological characteristics of diamond, including clarity and color, mostly irrelevant. This helps explain why 80% of mined diamonds (equal to about 100 million carats or 20,000 kg annually), unsuitable for use as gemstones and known as ''bort'', are destined for industrial use. In addition to mined diamonds, synthetic diamonds found industrial applications almost immediately after their invention in the 1950s; another 400 million carats (80,000 kg) of synthetic diamonds are produced annually for industrial use. The dominant industrial use of diamond is in cutting, drilling, grinding, and polishing. Most uses of diamonds in these technologies do not require large diamonds; in fact, most diamonds that are gem-quality except for their small size, can find an industrial use. Diamonds are embedded in drill tips or saw blades, or ground into a powder for use in grinding and polishing applications. Specialized applications include use in laboratories as containment for high pressure experiments (see diamond anvil), high-performance bearing (mechanical), and limited use in specialized windows. With the continuing advances being made in the production of synthetic diamond, future applications are beginning to become feasible. Garnering much excitement is the possible use of diamond as a semiconductor suitable to build microchips from, or the use of diamond as a heat sink in electronics. Significant research efforts in Japan, Europe, and the United States are under way to capitalize on the potential offered by diamond's unique material properties, combined with increased quality and quantity of supply starting to become available from synthetic diamond manufacturers. === Diamond supply chain === ''See also: List of diamond mines'' The diamond supply chain is controlled by a limited number of powerful businesses, and is also highly concentrated in a small number of locations around the world. In fact, the amount of power which De Beers has consolidated historically prevented it from direct trade with the United States, as its trade practices led to an indictment for violating Sherman Antitrust Act (the case was settled in 2004). The concentration of power only loosens at the retail level, where diamonds are sold by a limited number of distributors, known as sightholders, to jewelers around the world. [[Image:Childrenmining 300.jpg|thumb|Alluvial mining by traditional methods continues, as seen here in Sierra Leone.]] ==== Sources ==== Historically diamonds were known to be found only in alluvial deposits in southern India; India led the world in diamond production from the time of their discovery in approximately the 9th century BCE to the mid 18th century, but the commercial potential of these sources has been exhausted. The first non-Indian diamond source was found in Brazil in 1725. Today, most commercially viable diamond deposits are in Africa, notably in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, the Republic of the Congo, and Sierra Leone. There are also commercial deposits being actively mined in the Northwest Territories of Canada, Siberia (mostly in Sakha, for example Mir pipe and Udachnaya Pipe), Brazil, and in Northern and Western Australia. Diamond prospectors continue to search the globe for diamond-bearing kimberlite and lamproite pipes. In some of the more politically unstable central African and west African countries, revolutionary groups have taken control of diamond mines, using proceeds from diamond sales to finance their operations. Diamonds sold through this process are known as conflict diamonds or blood diamonds. In response to public concerns that their diamond purchases were contributing to war and human rights abuses in central Africa and west Africa, the diamond industry and diamond-trading nations introduced the Kimberley Process in 2002, which is aimed at ensuring that conflict diamonds do not become intermixed with the diamonds not controlled by such rebel groups. The Kimberley Process provides documentation and certification of diamond exports from producing countries to ensure that the proceeds of sale are not being used to fund criminal or revolutionary activities. Although the Kimberly Process has been somewhat successful in limiting the number of conflict diamonds entering the market, conflict diamonds smuggled to market continue to persist to some degree. Currently, gem production totals nearly 30 million carats (6,000 kg) of cut and polished stones annually, and over 100 million carats (20,000 kg) of diamonds are sold for industrial use each year. In 2003, this constituted total production of nearly $9 billion in value. ==== Distribution ==== The Diamond Trading Company, or DTC, is a subsidiary of De Beers and markets rough diamonds produced both by De Beers mines and other mines from which it purchases rough diamond production; in whole, about two thirds of all rough diamonds pass through the company. DTC performs sophisticated sorting of rough diamonds into over 16,000 categories, and then sells bulk lots of rough diamonds to a limited number of sightholders a few times a year. Once purchased by sightholders, diamonds are cut and polished in preparation for sale as gemstones. The cutting and polishing of rough diamonds is a specialized skill that is concentrated in a limited number of locations worldwide. Traditionally diamond cutting centers have been Antwerp, Gujarat, Tel Aviv, New York, New York, and Johannesburg. Recently, diamond cutting centers have been established in China and Thailand. Cutting centers with lower cost of labor, notably Gujarat in India, handle a larger number of smaller carat diamonds, while smaller quantities of larger or more valuable diamonds are more likely to be handled in Europe or North America. Demonstrating this, India produces 90% of all cut and polished diamonds by number, but only 55% by value. The recent expansion of this industry in India, employing low cost labor, has allowed smaller diamonds to be prepared as gems than was previously economically feasible. Diamonds which have been prepared as gemstones are sold on diamond exchanges called ''bourses''. There are 24 registered diamond bourses. This is the final tightly controlled step in the diamond supply chain; wholesalers and even retailers are able to buy relatively small lots of diamonds at the bourses, after which they are prepared for final sale to the consumer. Diamonds can be sold already set in jewelry, or as is increasingly popular, sold unset ("loose"). According to the Rio Tinto Group, in 2002 the diamonds produced and released to the market were valued at $9 billion as rough diamonds, $14 billion after being cut and polished, $28 billion in wholesale diamond jewelry, and retail sales of $57 billion. [http://www.riotintodiamonds.com/market/industry.asp] ===Synthetics, simulants, and enhancements=== The gemological and industrial uses of diamond have created a large demand for raw stones. A portion of this demand is now being met by synthetic diamonds, man-made diamonds which have similar properties to natural diamonds. This process has historically produced industrial-grade diamonds, but synthetic diamond producers have recently begun to penetrate the gem diamond market. Diamonds have been manufactured synthetically for over fifty years. A diamond's gem quality, which is not as dependent on material properties as industrial applications, has invited both imitation and the invention of procedures to enhance the gemological properties of natural diamonds. Materials which have similar gemological characteristics to diamond are known as ''diamond simulants''. The most familiar diamond simulant to most consumers is cubic zirconia (commonly abbreviated as CZ); recently moissanite has also gained cachet as a popular diamond simulant. Both CZ and moissanite are synthetically produced for use as a diamond simulant. Diamond enhancements are specific treatments, performed on natural diamonds (usually those already cut and polished into a gem), which are designed to better the gemological characteristics of the stone in one or more ways. These include laser drilling to remove inclusions, application of sealants to fill cracks, treatments to improve a white diamond's color grade, and treatments to give fancy color to a white diamond. Currently, trained gemologists with appropriate equipment are able to distinguish natural diamonds from all synthetic and simulant diamonds, and identify all enhanced natural diamonds. The established natural diamond industry has a vested interest in maintaining the distinction between natural diamonds and other diamonds, and has made significant investments toward that end. However, synthetic diamonds may one day be indistinguishable from natural diamonds, and new techniques for simulants (such as coating them with a very thin diamond-like layer of carbon) are making it harder to easily distinguish between simulants and real diamond. ==Symbolism== Because of their extraordinary physical properties, diamonds have been used symbolically since near the time of their first discovery. Perhaps the earliest symbolic use of diamonds was as the eyes of Hinduism devotional statues. The diamonds themselves were thought to be endowments from the gods and were therefore cherished. The point at which diamonds began to be associated with divinity is not known, but early texts indicate that it was recognized in India since at least 400 BCE. It is said the Ancient Greece believed diamonds were tears of the gods; the Ancient Rome believed they were splinters of fallen stars. Many long dead cultures have sought to explain diamond's superlative properties through divine or mystical affiliations. In western culture, diamonds are the traditional emblem of fearlessness and virtue, but have also often associated with power, wealth, crime and misfortune. Today, diamonds are used to symbolize eternity and love, being often seen adorning engagement rings and sometimes wedding rings as well. The popularity of this modern tradition can be traced directly to the marketing campaigns of De Beers, starting in 1938. The diamond engagement ring is, however, not an original invention of De Beers. It can be traced to the marriage of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (then Archduke of Austria) to Mary of Burgundy in 1477. Other early examples of betrothal jewels incorporating diamonds include the ''Bridal Crown of Blanche'' (ca. 1370-1380) and the ''Heftlein'' brooch of Vienna (ca. 1430-1440), a pictorial piece depicting a wedding couple. Inaccessibility of diamonds to the vast majority of the population limited the popularity of diamonds as betrothal jewels during this period. Diamonds were also a symbol of gay community in the 1950s. The Mattachine Society, one of the first and the foremost gay rights groups in the United States, used so-called ''harlequin diamonds'' (four smaller diamonds arranged in a pattern to form one larger diamond) as their emblem. The LifeGem company further taps modern symbolism by offering to synthetically convert the carbonized remains of people or pets into "memorial diamonds." However, many people feel very uncomfortable at the thought of wearing the carbonized remains of people as jewelry. The diamond is the birthstone for people born in the month of April, and is also used as the symbol of a sixty year anniversary, such as a Diamond Jubilee (see ''hierarchy of precious substances''). Diamonds are a common focus of fiction. Notable pieces of fiction include Ian Fleming's ''Diamonds Are Forever'' (1956) and Neal Stephenson's ''The Diamond Age'' (1995). In addition, diamonds are the subject of various myths and legends. ==External links== *[http://www.sciencetechnologies.com/wikimol/index.php/Diamond 3D Interactive Molecular Visualization of Diamond] at [http://www.sciencetechnologies.com/wikimol WikiMol] (requires Macromedia Flash) *[http://www.elementsmagazine.org/Elements_online/ELEM_V1n2.pdf Elements vol.1 no.2 (March 2005): Diamonds] (PDF) *[http://www.eglusa.com European Gemological Laboratory USA] *[http://www.gia.edu Gemological Institute of America] *[http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/people/sque/diamond/structure.html Interactive structure of bulk diamond] (Java applet). *[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/diamonds/index.html PBS Nature: Diamonds] *[http://www.cutstudy.com Russian Gemological Server] *[http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/si-gems Smithsonian's exhibit of fancy color diamonds] ==References== * American Museum of Natural History. [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/ "The Nature of Diamonds"]. Retrieved March 9, 2005. * The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2003). "Diamond". Retrieved March 9, 2005 at http://www.answers.com/topic/diamond. * Cuellar, Fred. [http://www.diamondcuttersintl.com/diamond_education/articles/customers/getting_in_shape.html "Diamonds - Getting Into Shape"]. Diamond Cutters International. Retrieved April 10, 2005. * David, Joshua (September 2003). [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html "The New Diamond Age"]. ''Wired'', issue 11.09. * De Beers Group. [http://www.debeersgroup.com/debeersweb "De Beers Group"]. Retrieved March 14, 2005. * Epstein, Edward Jay (February 1982). [http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.htm "Have You Ever Tried To Sell a Diamond?"] (subscription required). ''The Atlantic Monthly''. * Epstein, Edward Jay (1982). [http://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/prologue.htm "THE DIAMOND INVENTION"] (Complete book, includes "Chapter 20: Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?") * Eppler, W.F. ''Praktische Gemmologie''. Rühle-Diebner-Verlag, 1989 * Government of Gujarat (2004). [http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/sp-gems.html "Vibrant Gujarat: Sector Profiles"]. Retrieved March 14, 2005. * Kjarsgaard, B.A. and Levinson, A. A. (2002). Diamonds in Canada. ''Gems & Gemology'', Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 208–238. * Pagel - Theisen, Verena. ''Diamond Grading ABC: the Manual.'' Rubin & Son, Antwerp, Belgium, 2001. ISBN 3980043460 * Pricescope. [http://www.pricescope.com/Reports.asp?shp=8&cut=2 "Diamond price report"]. Retrieved March 4, 2005. * Sque, Steve (March 8, 2005). [http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/people/sque/diamond/ "Properties of Diamond"]. Retrieved March 10, 2005. * Tolkowsky, Marcel (1919). ''Diamond Design: A Study of the Reflection and Refraction of Light in a Diamond.'' London: E. & F.N. Spon, Ltd. ([http://www.folds.net/diamond/index.html Web edition] as edited by User:Jasper, Seattle, 2001.) * Tyson, Peter (November 2000). [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/diamond/sky.html "Diamonds in the Sky"]. Retrieved March 10, 2005. * United Nations Department of Public Information (March 21, 2001). [http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html "Conflict Diamonds"]. Retrieved March 10, 2005. * Weiner, K.L., Hochleitner, R., Weiss, S., Voelstadt H. ''Diamant'', Lapis, München, 1994. * Yarnell, Amanda (February 2, 2004). [http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8205//8205diamonds.html "The Many Facets of Man-Made Diamonds"]. ''Chemical & Engineering News'', vol. 82, no. 5, pp 26–31. Diamond Minerals Geology hi:हीरा
== 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. User:Vengeful Cynic 05:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) :VC, the United Nations report cited as a reference [http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html], as well as the text of the Kimberley Process itself [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. - User: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? User: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. - User: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. - User: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. User: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. --User:Dmerrill It was written by User: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. ''<>< User: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. User: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. --User:Mat-C 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 [http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=15524 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. -User:PierreAbbat 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 allotropy of the element carbon. I've deleted the flase category. Thanks for bringing this up. :User: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 [http://www.pricescope.com 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. User:Stan Shebs 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... User: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. User: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: [http://www.niceice.com/color.htm "Diamond Colour"] User: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. -- User: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"'' [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. -User: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. User:Psb777 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. --User:Aarchiba 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?) --User:Aarchiba 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. --User:Aarchiba 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''. -User:Vsmith 04:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Material properties of diamond. (Now I don't feel quite so foolish). --User:Aarchiba 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. User: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? User: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. - User: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! User: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. - User: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. User: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 [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. User: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. :User: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 [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 [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 [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 [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. --User: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. User:Vsmith 00:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :PS I moved the section to be in chronological order as is standard for talk pages. User: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. --User: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 - [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. --User:Jolyonralph 09:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC) : Your link dose not work couse registration.... User: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. - User:Bantman 18:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC) I probably should have said something earlier, but is this still an issue? Did my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=13656647&oldid=13650705 edit of 10:14, 13 May] resolve this issue? Is Stepanovas satisfied with the current wording? -- User: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. --User: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. User: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 [http://www.answers.com Answers.com]. --User: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. User:Rje 15:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Can you provide a source to include in the article to prevent similar doubts in the future? --User: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 [http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50002345?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=adamant&first=1&max_to_show=10] and [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]. User: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!!! User: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. User:Tempshill 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :See ultrahard fullerite. :) - User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :::I think the metastable article is wrong. User: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. User: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. [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.''" - User: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. :) -- User: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. -- User: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. :) - User: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 User: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. User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=11087127&oldid=11084425 used the Symbolism section] as sufficient precedent to keep the BC convention. As you'll see from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=2206921&oldid=2206791 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? -- User: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. User: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. -- User: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. User:Gene Nygaard 04:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [Resetting ident.] While I'm sure calling me "dense" is great fun, Wikipedia:No personal attacks 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. -- User: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. :User: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. -- User: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. User: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: :::{| border="1" cellspacing = "0" cellpadding = "2" ! bgcolor="#FFDEAD" | Google ! bgcolor="#FFDEAD" | hits |- | wheat cultivation BC | align="right"| 62,000 |- | wheat cultivation BCE | align="right"| 993 |- |} ::: User: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. -- User: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. User: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. User: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. - User: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. -- User:Hadal 18:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC) :::I vote BC/AD User: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. User: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. User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&diff=13506541&oldid=13506407 removed] 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.) -- User: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 User talk:Gene Nygaard. That discussion took place between two individuals. Neither of those individuals was you, User:Hadal. It was only me and User:Bantman. There was no consensus for change in that discussion. There was no link from Talk:Diamond to that page either. User: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. - User: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). -- User: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. User: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. - User: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. User: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. - User: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. User: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. -- User: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 Wikipedia:Three revert rule is a ''policy'' rather than a guideline, and breaking it carries consequences. -- User: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. User: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? -- User: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. -- User: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 [http://folds.net/diamond_design/index.html#historical Diamond Design] 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. -- User: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. -- User:Hadal 04:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC) :''Addendum'': A bit of searching led me to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=5834830&oldid=5834681 this September 2004 edit] 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. -- User: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. User: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">User:Brian0918™">User talk: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? -User: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. - User: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. -User: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. -- User: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. - User: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">User:Brian0918™">User talk: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"? -User: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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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">User:Brian0918™">User talk:Brian0918 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::Brian, while I see your protection was in good faith, I'm afraid it was technically against Wikipedia: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. -- User: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? - User: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. User: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. -User:CrucifiedChrist ::::Which makes it even sillier that you came in and restarted the edit war by reverting. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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.) User: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. -- User: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. -- User: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. --User: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. - User: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.--User: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. - User:Bantman 23:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) ::::::The change is regretable. It demeans the article --User: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? - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. User: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". - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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. User: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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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. -- User: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. User: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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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). -- User: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 [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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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. -- User:Hadal 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==lonsdaleite== lonsdaleite not a diamond form. That is anoather mineral and inother allotrop of carbon. User: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?) -- User: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 User: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. -- User: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. ::::User: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. User: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. -- User: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. [http://www.niceice.com/chipped.htm "Can Diamonds Be Chipped?"] User: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. -- User: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? -- User:Hadal 08:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This category lists diamond-related articles. Gemstones Native element minerals Superhard materials
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Diamond:
Diamond
Diamond
Diamond
Diamond,_IL
Diamond,_Illinois
Diamond,_Missouri
Diamond,_MO
Diamond-like_carbon
Diamond-Star
Diamond-water_paradox
Diamond1
Diamondback
Diamondbacks
Diamondback_(comics)
Diamondback_terrapin
DiamondDave
Diamonddavej
Diamonddavej
Diamondhead
Diamondhead,_Mississippi
Diamondhead,_MS
Diamondoid
Diamonds
Diamonds:_The_Best_of_Dio
Diamonds:_The_Best_of_Dio
Diamondsuit
Diamondsuit
Diamonds_&_Rust
Diamonds_And_Pearls
Diamonds_and_Pearls
Diamonds_Are_Forever
Diamonds_Are_Forever
Diamonds_are_Forever
Diamonds_are_Forever
Diamonds_on_the_Inside
Diamonds_on_the_Inside
Diamondtron
DiamondVertex
DiamondVertex
Diamondville
Diamondville,_WY
Diamondville,_Wyoming
Diamond_(disambiguation)
Diamond_(dog)
Diamond_(rocket)
Diamond_(shape)
Diamond_Age
Diamond_Age_of_Comic_Books
Diamond_album
Diamond_and_Schmitt_Architects
Diamond_animation.ogg
Diamond_anvil
Diamond_Anvil_Cell
Diamond_anvil_cell
Diamond_anvil_cell
Diamond_Bar
Diamond_Bar,_CA
Diamond_Bar,_California
Diamond_Beach,_New_Jersey
Diamond_Beach,_NJ
Diamond_Bessie
Diamond_Bessie
Diamond_Bluff
Diamond_Bluff,_WI
Diamond_Bluff,_Wisconsin
Diamond_City
Diamond_City,_AR
Diamond_City,_Arkansas
Diamond_City,_Arkansas
Diamond_clarity
Diamond_clarity
Diamond_color
Diamond_Comics
Diamond_Comic_Distributors
Diamond_Comic_Distributors_Inc.
Diamond_Creek
Diamond_Creek,_Victoria
Diamond_Creek_railway_station,_Melbourne
Diamond_Creek_Trail
Diamond_crossing
Diamond_cubic
Diamond_cut
Diamond_cut
Diamond_cutting
Diamond_cutting
Diamond_Dallas_Page
Diamond_Darrell
Diamond_Dave
Diamond_Diadem
Diamond_Disk
Diamond_district
Diamond_Dogs
Diamond_Dogs_(song)
Diamond_Dust
Diamond_dust
Diamond_dust
Diamond_enhancement
Diamond_enhancement
Diamond_Fairy
Diamond_Head
Diamond_Head,_Hawaii
Diamond_Head,_Hawaii
Diamond_Head,_HI
Diamond_Head_(film)
Diamond_Head_(group)
Diamond_Head_(group)
Diamond_Head_(Hawaii)
Diamond_Head_albums
Diamond_Hill_(MTR)
Diamond_hoax_of_1872
Diamond_imitation
Diamond_imitations
Diamond_industry
Diamond_interchange
Diamond_Jenness
Diamond_Jenness
Diamond_joe
Diamond_Joe_Quimby
Diamond_Jubilee
Diamond_knot
Diamond_Lake
Diamond_Lake,_Minneapolis
Diamond_Lake_Township,_Minnesota
Diamond_Lake_Township,_MN
Diamond_Light_Source
Diamond_Men
Diamond_Mine
Diamond_mine
Diamond_mines
Diamond_Mountain
Diamond_Multimedia
Diamond_Necklace_Affair
Diamond_of_Long_Cleeve
Diamond_planet
Diamond_principle_(set_theory)
Diamond_problem
Diamond_Ranch_High_School
Diamond_Realm
Diamond_Ridge,_AK
Diamond_Ridge,_Alaska
Diamond_Ridge,_Alaska
Diamond_ring
Diamond_Rio
Diamond_Shoals
Diamond_simulant
Diamond_simulant
Diamond_simulants
Diamond_simulants
Diamond_smugglers
Diamond_Springs
Diamond_Springs,_CA
Diamond_Springs,_California
Diamond_Springs,_California
Diamond_Star_Motors
Diamond_Star_Motors
Diamond_stereo_animation.ogg
Diamond_substitute
Diamond_Sutra
Diamond_Sutra
Diamond_sutra
Diamond_theory
Diamond_treatment
Diamond_treatments
Diamond_Turning
Diamond_turning
Diamond_v._Chakrabarty
Diamond_Valley_Lake
Diamond_vise
Diamond_Walnut_San_Francisco_Bowl
Diamond_water_paradox
Diamond_Willow
Diamond_willow
Diamond
The mineral diamond is a crystal form, or ''allotropy'', of carbon (other allotropes of carbon include graphite and fullerene). It is one of the most known and most useful of more than 3,000 known minerals. Diamonds are renowned for their superlative physical qualities, especially their hardness—the word "diamond" derives from the Greek language ''adamas'' (αδάμας; "impossible to tame")—and their high Dispersion (optics) of light. These properties and others make diamond valued for use in jewelry and a variety of industrial applications. Most diamonds are mined from volcanic pipes, where they have been deposited by deep-origin volcanoes drawing material from over 90 miles (150 km) deep within the Earth, where the pressure and temperature is suitable for diamond formation. Most diamonds are mined in central and southern Africa, although significant deposits have also been discovered in Canada, Russia, Brazil, and Australia. About 130 million Carat (mass) (26,000 kg) of diamonds are mined annually, with a total value of nearly $9 billion. In addition, nearly four times that mass is artificially produced as synthetic diamond. The Gemology appeal of diamonds lies in their hardness and optical properties. Diamonds used as gems are cut and polished into a number of faceted shapes in order to accentuate these attractive qualities. The hardness of diamonds allows them to hold a polish extremely well and resist scratching (only other diamonds can scratch a diamond), giving excellent ''luster''. The dispersion of white light into a rainbow of colors, known in the trade as ''fire'', is the other primary characteristic of gem diamonds, and has been highly prized throughout history. Gem diamonds are commonly judged by the four Cs: carat, clarity, color, and cut. Diamonds have been treasured as gems since at least 2,500 years ago, when they were used in religious icons in India. Popularity of diamonds as gemstones increased starting in the 19th century as new cutting designs that display diamonds' gem qualities better were developed. Industrial use of diamonds has historically been associated with their hardness; this property makes diamond the ideal material for cutting and grinding tools — common applications include the cutting surfaces of saw blades and drill bits, or use of diamond powder as an abrasive. Other specialized applications also exist or are being developed, including use as semiconductors: some blue diamonds are natural semiconductors, in contrast to most other diamonds, which are excellent resistors. Industrial-grade diamonds are either unsuitable for use as gems or synthetically produced, which lowers their price and makes their use economically feasible. Industrial applications, especially as drill bits and engraving tools, also date to ancient times. The production and distribution of diamonds is largely consolidated in the hands of a few key players, and concentrated in traditional diamond trading centers (the most important being Antwerp). The De Beers, based in Johannesburg, South Africa and London, England, has been the largest player in the diamond industry for over one hundred years; the company and its subsidiaries own mines that produce some 40 percent of annual world diamond production, and control distribution channels handling nearly two thirds of all gem diamonds. Some controversy over diamonds has been generated because of the monopoly practices historically employed by De Beers including strict control of supply and alleged price manipulation, as well as the practice by some African revolutionary groups of selling ''conflict diamond'' in order to fund their often violent activities. ==Material properties== [[Image:Diamond unit cell.PNG|thumb|The unit cell of the diamond crystal.]] Diamond is a transparency (optics) crystal of pure carbon consisting of tetrahedron bonded carbon atoms. Humans have been able to adapt diamonds for many uses because of the material's exceptional physical characteristics. Most notable among these properties are the extreme hardness of diamond and its high dispersion (optics) index. These two properties form the basis for most modern applications of diamond. ===Mechanical properties=== Crystal structure: Diamonds typically crystallize in the cubic crystal system and consist of tetrahedron bonded carbon atoms. Lonsdaleite is a polymorph of diamond (and a distinct mineral species) that crystallizes with hexagonal symmetry; it is rarely found in nature, but is characteristic of synthetic diamonds. A cryptocrystalline variety of diamond is called carbonado (diamond). A colorless, grey or black diamond with a tiny radial structure is a spherulite. The tetrahedral arrangement of atoms in a diamond crystal is the source of many of diamond's properties; graphite, another allotrope of carbon, has a rhombohedral crystal structure and as a result shows dramatically different physical characteristics — contrary to diamond, graphite is a very soft, dark grey opaque mineral. [[Image:Diamsm.gif|framed|The diamond crystal bond structure gives the gem its hardness and differentiates it from graphite.]] Hardness: Diamond is the hardness known naturally occurring material, scoring 10 on the relative Mohs scale of mineral hardness and having an absolute hardness value of between 167 and 231 gigapascals in various tests. Diamond's hardness has been known since antiquity, and is the source of its name. Broad industrial applications of diamond are based on the extraordinary hardness of diamond. As the hardest known naturally occurring material, diamond can be used to polish, cut, or wear away any material, including other diamonds. Common industrial adaptations of this ability include diamond-tipped drill bits and saws. The hardness of diamonds also contributes to its suitability as a gemstone. Because it can only be scratched by other diamonds, it maintains its polish extremely well, keeping its luster over long periods of time. Unlike many other gems, it is well-suited to daily wear due to its resistance to scratching — perhaps contributing to its popularity as the preferred gem in an engagement ring or wedding ring, which are often worn every day. Toughness: Unlike hardness, which only denotes resistance to scratching, diamond's toughness is only fair to good. Toughness relates to a material's ability to resist breakage from forceful impact. As with any material, the macroscopic geometry of a diamond contributes to its resistance to breakage. Diamonds cut into certain particular shapes are therefore more prone to breakage than others. Color: Diamonds occur in a variety of transparent hues — colorless, white, steel, blue, yellow, orange, red, green, pink, brown — or colored black. Diamonds with a detectable hue to them are known as ''colored diamonds''. Colored diamonds contain impurities or structural defects that cause the coloration, while pure or nearly-pure diamonds are transparent and colorless. Most diamond impurities replace a carbon atom in the crystal lattice. The most common impurity, nitrogen, causes a yellowish or brownish tinge. Thermodynamic stability: At surface air pressure (one atmosphere), diamonds are not as stable as graphite, and so the decay of diamond is thermodynamically favorable (δ''H'' = −2 kJ / mol). Diamonds will burn at approximately 800 degrees Celsius, providing that enough oxygen is available. This was shown in the late 18th century, and previously described during Ancient Rome times. So, despite the popular advertising slogan, diamonds are definitely not forever. However, owing to a very large kinetic energy barrier, diamonds are metastable; under Standard temperature and pressure, it would take an extreme long time (possibly more than the age of the Universe) to decay into graphite. ===Electromagnetic properties=== Optical properties: Diamonds exhibit a high dispersion (optics) of visible light. This strong ability to split white light into its component colors is an important aspect of diamond's attraction as a gemstone, giving it impressive prism (optics) action that results in so-called ''fire'' in a well-cut stone. The luster of a diamond, a characterization of how light interacts with the surface of a crystal, is brilliant and is described as ''adamantine'', which simply means diamond-like. Some diamonds exhibit fluorescence of various colors under long wave ultraviolet light, but generally show bluish-white, yellowish or greenish fluorescence under X-ray. Some diamonds show no fluorescence. Electrical properties: Except for most natural blue diamonds which are semiconductors, diamond is a good electrical insulator. Blue diamonds owe their semiconductive property to boron impurities, which act as a doping (semiconductors) and cause p-type semiconductor behavior. Natural blue diamonds which are not boron-doped, such as those recently recovered from the Argyle diamond mine in Australia that owe their color to an overabundance of hydrogen atoms, are not semiconductors. Thermal properties: Unlike most electrical insulators, diamond is a good conductor of heat because of the strong covalent bonding within the crystal. Most natural blue diamonds contain boron atoms which replace carbon atoms in the crystal matrix, and also have high thermal conductivity. Specially purified synthetic diamond has the highest thermal conductivity (2000–2500 W/(m·K), five times more than copper) of any known solid at room temperature. Because diamond has such high thermal conductance it is already used in semiconductor manufacture to prevent silicon and other semiconducting materials from overheating. ===Media=== ==Natural history== ===Formation=== Diamond is formed by prolonged exposure of carbon bearing materials to high pressure and temperature. On Earth, the formation of diamonds is possible because there are regions deep within the Earth that are at a high enough pressure and temperature that the formation of diamonds is thermodynamics favorable (see the diamond phase diagram and geotherms [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/formation.html here]). Under continental crust, diamonds form starting at depths of about 150 kilometers (90 miles), where pressure is roughly 5 pascals and the temperature is around 1200 degrees Celsius (2200 degrees Fahrenheit). Diamond formation under oceanic crust takes place at greater depths due to higher temperatures, which require higher pressure for diamond formation. Long periods of exposure to these high pressures and temperatures allow diamond crystals to grow larger. Through studies of carbon isotope ratios (similar to the methodology used in carbon dating) except using the stable isotopes C-12 and C-13, it has been shown that the carbon found in diamonds comes from both inorganic and organic sources. Some diamonds, known as ''Peridotite'', are formed from inorganic carbon originally found deep in the Earth's Mantle (geology). In contrast, ''eclogite'' diamonds contain organic carbon from organic detritus that has been pushed down from the surface of the Earth's crust (geology) through subduction (see plate tectonics) before transforming into diamond. These two different source carbons have measurably different 13C:12C ratios. Diamonds that have come to the Earth's surface are generally very old, ranging from under 1 billion to 3.3 billion years old. Diamonds occur most often as euhedral or rounded octahedron and Crystal twinning octahedra known as ''macles''. As diamond's crystal structure has a cubic arrangement of the atoms, they have many facets that belong to a Cube (geometry), octahedron, rhombicosidodecahedron, tetrakis hexahedron or disdyakis dodecahedron. The crystals can have rounded off and unexpressive edges and can be elongated. Sometimes they are found grown together or form double "twinned" crystals grown together at the surfaces of the octahedron. This is all due to conditions in which they form. Diamonds (especially those from secondary deposits) are commonly found coated in ''nyf'', an opaque gum-like skin. Diamonds can also form in other natural high-pressure high-temperature events. Very small diamonds, known as ''microdiamonds'' or ''nanodiamonds'', have been found in impact craters where meteors strike the Earth and create shock zones of high pressure and temperature where diamond formation can occur. Microdiamonds are now used as one indicator of ancient meteorite impact sites. Especially ancient meteorites may contain "star dust", the remnants of dead stars, some of which is composed of extremely tiny diamond crystals. === Surfacing === Diamond-bearing rock is forced close to the surface through deep-origin volcano eruptions. The magma for such a volcano must originate at a depth where diamonds can be formed, 90 miles (150 km) deep or more (three times or more the depth of source magma for most volcanoes); this is a relatively rare occurrence. Below these typically small surface volcanic craters are formations known as volcanic pipes, which contain material that was pushed toward the surface of the earth by volcanic action, but did not erupt before the volcanic activity ceased. Diamond-bearing volcanic pipes are most commonly found in the oldest regions of continental crust, which relates to the fact that these areas are the coolest portions of the earth's crust, and therefore diamonds can form at the shallowest depths. The magma in such volcanic pipes is usually one of two characteristic types, which cool into igneous rock known as either kimberlite or lamproite. The magma itself does not contain diamond; instead, it acts as an elevator that carries deep-formed rocks and material upward. These rocks are characteristically rich in magnesium bearing olivine, pyroxene, and amphibole minerals which are usually altered to serpentine under near surface conditions. Certain ''indicator minerals'' typically occur within diamondiferous kimberlites and are used as mineralogic tracers in the search for diamond deposits by prospectors. These minerals are rich in chromium (Cr) or titanium (Ti), elements which impart bright colors to the minerals. The most common indicator minerals are chromian garnets (usually bright red Cr-pyrope, and occasionally green ugrandite-series garnets), eclogitic garnets, orange Ti-pyrope, red high chromian spinels, dark chromite, bright green Cr-diopside, glassy green olivine, black ilmenite, and magnetite. Kimberlite deposits are known as ''blue ground'' for the deeper serpentinized part of the deposits, or as ''yellow ground'' for the near surface smectite clay and carbonate weathering and oxidation portion. Once diamonds have been forced to the surface by magma in a volcanic pipe, they may erosion out and be distributed over a large area. A volcanic pipe containing diamonds is known as a ''primary source'' of diamonds. ''Secondary sources'' of diamonds include all areas where a significant number of diamonds, eroded out of their kimberlite or lamproite matrix, accumulate due to water or weather action. These include alluvium deposits and deposits along existing and ancient shorelines, where loose diamonds tend to accumulate due to their approximate size and density. Diamonds have also rarely been found in deposits left behind by glaciers (notably in Wisconsin and Indiana); however, in contrast to alluvial deposits, glacial deposits are not known to be of significant concentration and are therefore not viable commercial sources of diamond. Diamonds can also be brought to the surface through certain processes which may occur when two continental plates collide forcefully, although this phenomenon is less understood and currently assumed to be uncommon. ==Gemological characteristics== The use of diamonds as gemstones of decorative value is the most familiar use to most people today, and is also the earliest use, with decorative use of diamonds stretching back into antiquity. Over time, especially since around 1900, experts in the field of gemology have developed methods of characterizing diamonds and other gemstones based on the characteristics most important to their value as a gem. Four characteristics, known informally as the four Cs, are now commonly used as the basic descriptors of diamonds: these are ''carat'', ''clarity'', ''color'', and ''cut''. Most gem diamonds are traded on the wholesale market based on single values for each of the four Cs; for example knowing that a diamond is rated as 1.5 carats, VS2 clarity, F color, excellent cut, is enough to reasonably establish an expected price range. More detailed information from within each characteristic can then be used to determine actual market value for individual stones. Consumers who purchase individual diamonds are often advised to use the four Cs to pick the diamond that is "right" for them; to these is sometimes added the "fifth C" of ''cost''. Other characteristics not described by the four Cs can and do influence the value or appearance of a gem diamond. These characteristics include physical characteristics such as the presence of fluorescence, as well as data on a diamond's history including its source and which gemological institute performed evaluation services on the diamond. ''Cleanliness'' also dramatically affects a diamond's beauty. === Carat === The carat (mass) weight measures the mass of a diamond. One carat is defined as exactly 200 milligrams (about 0.007 ounce). The point unit — equal to one one-hundredth of a carat (0.01 carat, or 2 mg) — is commonly used for diamonds of less than one carat. All else being equal, the value of a diamond increases exponentially in relation to carat weight, since larger diamonds are both rarer and more desirable for use as gemstones. A review of comparable diamonds available for purchase in March 2005 demonstrates this effect (approximate prices for round cut, G color, VS2 diamonds with "1A" cut grade, as listed on http://www.pricescope.com): {| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center" |- style="background-color: #cccccc;" !Carat size !Cost per carat (US$) !Total cost (US$) |- |0.5 carat (50 points) |align="right"|3,000 |align="right"|1,500 |- |1.0 carat |align="right"|5,000 |align="right"|5,000 |- |1.5 carats |align="right"|7,000 |align="right"|10,500 |- |2.0 carats |align="right"|10,000 |align="right"|20,000 |- |3.0 carats |align="right"|15,000 |align="right"|45,000 |- |5.0 carats |align="right"|20,000 |align="right"|100,000 |} The price per carat does not increase smoothly with increasing size. Instead, there are sharp jumps around milestone carat weights, as demand is much higher for diamonds weighing just more than a milestone than for those weighing just less. As an example, a 0.95 carat diamond has a significantly lower price per carat than a comparable 1.05 carat diamond, due to differences in demand. A weekly price list published by Rapaport of New York, of diamond prices per carat, for different diamond cuts, clarity and weights, is currently considered the de-facto retail price baseline. Jewelers often trade diamonds at negotiated discounts off the Rapaport price (e.g., "R -3%"). In the wholesale trade of gem diamonds, carat is often used in denominating lots of diamonds for sale. For example, a buyer may place an order for 100 carats of 0.5 carat, D–F, VS2-SI1, excellent cut diamonds, indicating he wishes to purchase 200 diamonds (100 carats total mass) of those approximate characteristics. Because of this, diamond prices (particularly among wholesalers and other industry professionals) are often quoted per carat, rather than per stone. ''Total carat weight'' (t.c.w.) is a phrase used to describe the total mass of diamonds or other gemstone in a piece of jewelry, when more than one gemstone is used. Diamond solitare earrings, for example, are usually quoted in t.c.w. when placed for sale, indicating the mass of the diamonds in both earrings and not each individual diamond. T.c.w. is also widely used for diamond necklaces, bracelets and other similar jewelry pieces. ===Clarity=== Clarity is a measure of internal defects of a diamond called ''inclusions''. Inclusions may be crystals of a foreign material or another diamond crystal, or structural imperfections such as tiny cracks that can appear whitish or cloudy. The number, size, color, relative location, orientation, and visibility of inclusions can all affect the relative clarity of a diamond. The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) and others have developed systems to grade clarity, which are generally based on those inclusions which are visible to a trained professional when a diamond is viewed from above under 10x magnification. Diamonds become increasingly rare when considering higher clarity gradings. Only about 20 percent of all diamonds mined have a clarity rating high enough for the diamond to be considered appropriate for use as a gemstone; the other 80 percent are relegated to industrial use. Of that top 20 percent, a significant portion contains an inclusion or inclusions that are visible to the naked eye upon close inspection. Those that do not have a visible inclusion are known as "eye-clean" and are preferred by most buyers, although visible inclusions can sometimes be hidden under the setting in a piece of jewelry. Most inclusions present in gem-quality diamonds do not affect the diamonds' performance or structural integrity. However, large clouds can affect a diamond's ability to transmit and scatter light. Large cracks close to or breaking the surface may reduce a diamond's resistance to fracture. ===Color=== A chemically pure and structurally perfect diamond is perfectly transparent with no hue, or color. However, in reality almost no gem-sized natural diamonds are absolutely perfect. The color of a diamond may be affected by chemical impurities and/or structural defects in the crystal lattice. Depending on the hue and intensity of a diamond's coloration, a diamond's color can either detract from or enhance its value. For example, most white diamonds are discounted in price as more yellow hue is detectable, while intense pink or blue diamonds (such as the Hope Diamond) can be dramatically more valuable. Most diamonds used as gemstones are basically transparent with little tint, or ''white diamonds''. The most common impurity, nitrogen, replaces a small proportion of carbon atoms in a diamond's structure and causes a yellowish to brownish tint. This effect is present in almost all white diamonds; in only the rarest diamonds is the coloration due to this effect undetectable. The GIA has developed a rating system for color in white diamonds, from "D" to "Z" (with D being "colorless" and Z having a clear light yellow or brown coloration), which has been widely adopted in the industry and is universally recognized. Diamonds with higher color grades are rarer, in higher demand, and therefore more expensive, than lower color grades. While the prices are higher for colorless diamonds, the exact color most valued by a consumer is a matter of personal preference, with some preferring the very transparent D–F range, while others prefer the "warmer" colors in the G–J range and still others prefer a clearly visible tint. In contrast to yellow or brown hues, diamonds of other colors are much rarer and more valuable. While even a pale pink or blue hue may increase the value of a diamond, more intense coloration is usually considered more desirable and commands the highest prices. A variety of impurities and structural imperfections cause different colors in diamonds, including yellow, pink, blue, red, green, brown, and other hues. Diamonds with unusual or intense coloration are sometimes labeled "fancy" by the diamond industry. Intense yellow coloration is considered one of the fancy colors, and is separate from the color grades of white diamonds. Gemologists have developed rating systems for fancy colored diamonds, but they are not in common use due to the relative rarity of colored diamonds. ===Cut=== The cut of a diamond describes the manner in which a diamond has been shaped and polished from its beginning form as a rough stone to its final gem proportions. The cut of a diamond describes both the shape a diamond is formed into, as well as the quality of workmanship. Diamond cutting is the art and science of creating a gem-quality diamond out of mined rough. ====Shape==== Diamonds do not show all of their beauty as rough stones; instead, they must be cut and polished to exhibit the characteristic fire and brilliance that diamond gemstones are known for. Diamonds are cut into a variety of shapes that are generally designed to accentuate these features. The techniques for shaping diamonds have been developed over hundreds of years, with perhaps the greatest achievements made in 1919 by mathematician and gem enthusiast Marcel Tolkowsky. He developed the round brilliant cut by calculating the ideal shape to return and scatter light when a diamond is viewed from above. The modern round brilliant has 57 facets (polished faces), counting 33 on the ''crown'' (the top half above the middle or ''girdle'' of the stone), and 24 on the ''pavilion'' (the lower half below the girdle). Diamonds which are not cut to the specifications of Tolkowsky's round brilliant shape (or subsequent variations) are known as "fancy cuts." Popular fancy cuts include the ''baguette'' (from the French, resembling a baguette), ''marquise'', ''princess'' (square outline), ''heart'', ''briolette'' (a form of the rose cut), and ''pear'' cuts. Generally speaking, these "fancy cuts" are not held to the same strict standards as Tolkowsky-derived round brilliants. Cuts are influenced heavily by fashion: the baguette cut — which accentuates a diamond's luster and downplays its fire — was all the rage during the Art Deco period, whereas the princess cut — which accentuates a diamond's fire rather than its luster — is currently gaining popularity. The princess cut is also popular amongst diamond cutters: of all the cuts, it wastes the least of the original crystal. The past decades have seen the development of new diamond cuts, often based on a modification of an existing cut. Some of these include extra facets. These newly developed cuts are viewed by many as more of an attempt at brand differentiation by diamond sellers, than actual improvements to the state of the art. ====Quality==== The quality of a diamond's cut is widely considered the most important of the four Cs in determining the beauty of a diamond; indeed, it is commonly acknowledged that a well-cut diamond can appear to be of greater carat weight, and have clarity and color appear to be of better grade than they actually are. The skill with which a diamond is cut determines its ability to reflect and refract light. In addition to carrying the most importance to a diamond's quality as a gemstone, the cut is also the most difficult to quantitatively judge. A number of factors, including proportion, symmetry, and the relative angles of various facets, are determined by the quality of the cut and can affect the performance of a diamond. A poorly cut diamond with facets cut only a few degrees out of alignment can result in a poorly performing stone. For a round brilliant cut, there is a balance between "brilliance" and "fire." When a diamond is cut for too much "fire," it looks like a cubic zirconia, which gives off much more "fire" than real diamond. A well executed round brilliant cut should reflect most light out from the tabletop and make the diamond appear white when viewed from the top. An inferior cut will produce a stone that appears dark at the center and in some extreme cases the ring settings may show through the top of the diamond as shadows. Several different theories on the "ideal" proportions of a diamond have been and continue to be advocated by professional gemologists. Recently, there has been a shift away from grading cut by the use of various angles and proportions toward measuring the performance of a cut stone. A number of specially modified viewers have been developed toward this end. One result of this trend is the rise of the phrase "hearts and arrows," describing a characteristic pattern observable on stones exhibiting high symmetry. Hearts and arrows diamonds trade at a 10 percent to 20 percent premium to otherwise comparable diamonds. ====The cutting process==== The process of shaping a rough diamond into a polished gemstone is both an art and a science. The choice of cut is often decided by the original shape of the rough stone, location of the inclusions and flaws to be eliminated, the preservation of the weight, popularity of certain shapes amongst consumers and many other considerations. The round brilliant cut is preferred when the crystal is an octahedron, as often two stones may be cut from one such crystal. Oddly shaped crystals such as macles are more likely to be cut in a ''fancy cut''—that is, a cut other than the round brilliant—which the particular crystal shape lends itself to. Even with modern techniques, the cutting and polishing of a diamond crystal always results in a dramatic loss of weight; rarely is it less than 50%. Sometimes the cutters compromise and accept lesser proportions and symmetry in order to avoid inclusions or to preserve the carat rating. Since the per-carat price of diamond shifts around key milestones (such as 1.00 carat), many one-carat diamonds are the result of compromising "Cut" for "Carat." Some jewelry experts advise consumers to buy a 0.99 carat diamond for its better price or buy a 1.10 carat diamond for its better cut, avoiding a 1.00 carat diamond which is more likely to be a poorly cut stone. ===Cleaning=== Although it is not one of the four Cs, cleanliness affects a diamond's beauty as much as any of the four Cs. A clean diamond is more brilliant and fiery than the same diamond when it is "dirty". Dirt or grease on the top of a diamond reduces its luster. Water, dirt, or grease on the bottom of a diamond interferes with the diamond's brilliance and fire. Even a thin film absorbs some light that could have been reflected to the person looking at the diamond. Colored dye or smudges can affect the perceived color of a diamond. Historically, some jewelers' stones were misgraded due to smudges on the girdle, or dye on the culet. Current practice is to thoroughly clean a diamond before grading its color. Maintaining a clean diamond can sometimes be difficult, as jewelry settings can obstruct cleaning efforts, and oils, grease, and other hydrophobic materials adhere well to a diamond's surface. Some jewelers provide their customers with ammonia-based cleaning kits; ultrasonic cleaners are also popular. Cleanliness does not affect the diamond's market value, as any competent jeweler will clean the diamond before offering it for sale. However, cleanliness might reflect a diamond's sentimental value: some jewelers have noted a correlation between ring cleanliness and marriage quality [http://www.diamondcuttersintl.com/diamond_education/articles/customers/getting_in_shape.html]. == History == 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 BCE), 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. In February 2005, a joint China-US team of archaeology reported the discovery of four corundum-rich stone ceremonial burial axes originating from China's Liangzhu and Sanxingcun cultures (4000 BCE–2500 BCE) which, due to the axes' specular surfaces, the scientists believe were polished using diamond powder. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4555235.stm] [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/18/content_417247.htm] Although there are diamond deposits now known to exist close to the burial sites, no direct evidence of coeval diamond mining has been found: the researchers came to their conclusion by polishing corundum using various lapidary abrasives and modern techniques, later comparing the results using an atomic force microscope. At that scale, the surface of the modern diamond-polished corundum most closely resembled that of the axes; however, the polishes of the latter were superior. Diamonds were traded to both the east and west of India, and were recognized by various cultures for their gemological and industrial uses. The Roman Empire writer Pliny the Elder noted diamond's ornamental uses, as well as its usefulness to engraving due to its hardness, in his work ''Naturalis Historia''. In China, diamonds seem to have been used primarily for engraving jade and drilling holes in beads. Archeological evidence from Yemen suggests that diamonds were used as drill tips as early as the 4th century BCE. In Europe, however, diamonds disappeared for almost 1,000 years following the rise of Christianity due to two effects: early Christians rejected diamonds due to their earlier use in amulets, and Arab traders restricted the flow of trade between Europe and India. Marcel_Tolkowsky_cut_(old_European).">Image:Diamond cut history.png|right|thumb|350px|Diagram of old diamond cuts showing the evolution from the most primitive (point cut) to the most advanced pre-Marcel Tolkowsky cut (old European). Until the late Middle Ages, diamonds were most prized in their natural octahedral state, perhaps with the crystal surfaces polished to increase luster and remove foreign material. Around 1300s, the flow of diamonds into Europe increased via Venice's trade network, with most flowing through the low Countries ports of Bruges, Antwerp, and Amsterdam. Also around this time, the taboo against cutting diamonds into gem shapes (established over 1,000 years earlier in the traditions of India) ended, allowing the development of diamond cutting technology to begin in earnest. By 1375, a guild of diamond polishers had been established at Nuremberg. Over the following centuries, various diamond cuts were introduced which increasingly demonstrated the fire and brilliance diamonds are treasured for today: the ''table cut'', the ''briolette'' (around 1476), the ''rose cut'' (mid 16th century), and by the mid 17th century, the ''Mazarin'', the first Brilliant (diamond cut) design. In 1919, Marcel Tolkowsky determined an ''ideal'' round brilliant cut, a design that continues to set the standard for comparison for modern gems. However, the evolution of diamond cuts continues on to this day. The rise in popularity of diamonds as gems seems to have paralleled increasing availability through European history. In the 13th century, King Louis IX of France established a law that only the king could own diamonds. However, within a century diamonds were popular gems among the moneyed aristocratic and merchant classes, and by at latest 1477 had begun to be used in wedding rings. Popularity continued to rise as new cuts were developed that enhanced the diamond's aesthetic appeal, and has largely continued unabated to this day; diamonds have proven popular with all classes in society as their cost becomes within reach. A number of large diamonds have become historically significant objects, as their inclusion in various sets of crown jewels and the purchase, sale, and sometimes theft of notable diamonds, have sometimes become politicized. :''See also: List of famous diamonds'' == The diamond industry == Brilliant_(diamond_cut)_diamond_set_in_a_ring.">Image:Diamond.jpg|framed|A round Brilliant (diamond cut) diamond set in a ring. The diamond industry can be broadly separated into two basically distinct categories: one dealing with gem-grade diamonds and another for industrial-grade diamonds. While a large trade in both types of diamonds exists, the two markets act in dramatically different ways. === Gem diamond industry === A large trade in gem-grade diamonds exists. Unlike precious metals such as gold or platinum, gem diamonds do not trade as a commodity: there is a substantial mark-up in the sale of diamonds, and there is not a very active market for resale of diamonds. One hallmark of the trade in gem-quality diamonds is its remarkable concentration: wholesale trade and diamond cutting is limited to a few locations (most importantly Antwerp (city), London, Tel Aviv, and increasingly Gujarat), and a single company — De Beers — controls over half of all trade in diamonds. The De Beers company holds a clearly dominant position in the industry, and has done so since soon after its founding in 1888. De Beers owns or controls a significant portion of the world's rough diamond production facilities (mining) and distribution channels for gem-quality diamonds. At one time it was thought over 80 percent of the world's rough diamonds passed through the Diamond Trading Company (DTC, a subsidiary of De Beers) in London, but presently the figure is estimated at around 60 percent. De Beers has used its monopoly position to establish strict price controls, and aggressively market diamonds directly to consumers in world markets. The De Beers#Marketing is acknowledged as one of the most successful and innovative ones in history. N.W. Ayer & Son, the advertising firm retained by De Beers in the mid-20th century, succeeded in reviving the American diamond market and opened up new markets, even in countries where no diamond tradition had existed before. N.W. Ayer's multifaceted marketing campaign included product placement, advertising the diamond itself rather than the De Beers brand, and building associations with celebrities and royalty. This coordinated campaign has lasted decades and continues today; it is perhaps best captured by the now-familiar slogan "a diamond is forever". === Industrial diamond industry === The market for industrial-grade diamonds operates much differently from its gem-grade counterpart. Industrial diamonds are valued mostly for their hardness and heat conductivity, making many of the gemological characteristics of diamond, including clarity and color, mostly irrelevant. This helps explain why 80% of mined diamonds (equal to about 100 million carats or 20,000 kg annually), unsuitable for use as gemstones and known as ''bort'', are destined for industrial use. In addition to mined diamonds, synthetic diamonds found industrial applications almost immediately after their invention in the 1950s; another 400 million carats (80,000 kg) of synthetic diamonds are produced annually for industrial use. The dominant industrial use of diamond is in cutting, drilling, grinding, and polishing. Most uses of diamonds in these technologies do not require large diamonds; in fact, most diamonds that are gem-quality except for their small size, can find an industrial use. Diamonds are embedded in drill tips or saw blades, or ground into a powder for use in grinding and polishing applications. Specialized applications include use in laboratories as containment for high pressure experiments (see diamond anvil), high-performance bearing (mechanical), and limited use in specialized windows. With the continuing advances being made in the production of synthetic diamond, future applications are beginning to become feasible. Garnering much excitement is the possible use of diamond as a semiconductor suitable to build microchips from, or the use of diamond as a heat sink in electronics. Significant research efforts in Japan, Europe, and the United States are under way to capitalize on the potential offered by diamond's unique material properties, combined with increased quality and quantity of supply starting to become available from synthetic diamond manufacturers. === Diamond supply chain === ''See also: List of diamond mines'' The diamond supply chain is controlled by a limited number of powerful businesses, and is also highly concentrated in a small number of locations around the world. In fact, the amount of power which De Beers has consolidated historically prevented it from direct trade with the United States, as its trade practices led to an indictment for violating Sherman Antitrust Act (the case was settled in 2004). The concentration of power only loosens at the retail level, where diamonds are sold by a limited number of distributors, known as sightholders, to jewelers around the world. [[Image:Childrenmining 300.jpg|thumb|Alluvial mining by traditional methods continues, as seen here in Sierra Leone.]] ==== Sources ==== Historically diamonds were known to be found only in alluvial deposits in southern India; India led the world in diamond production from the time of their discovery in approximately the 9th century BCE to the mid 18th century, but the commercial potential of these sources has been exhausted. The first non-Indian diamond source was found in Brazil in 1725. Today, most commercially viable diamond deposits are in Africa, notably in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, the Republic of the Congo, and Sierra Leone. There are also commercial deposits being actively mined in the Northwest Territories of Canada, Siberia (mostly in Sakha, for example Mir pipe and Udachnaya Pipe), Brazil, and in Northern and Western Australia. Diamond prospectors continue to search the globe for diamond-bearing kimberlite and lamproite pipes. In some of the more politically unstable central African and west African countries, revolutionary groups have taken control of diamond mines, using proceeds from diamond sales to finance their operations. Diamonds sold through this process are known as conflict diamonds or blood diamonds. In response to public concerns that their diamond purchases were contributing to war and human rights abuses in central Africa and west Africa, the diamond industry and diamond-trading nations introduced the Kimberley Process in 2002, which is aimed at ensuring that conflict diamonds do not become intermixed with the diamonds not controlled by such rebel groups. The Kimberley Process provides documentation and certification of diamond exports from producing countries to ensure that the proceeds of sale are not being used to fund criminal or revolutionary activities. Although the Kimberly Process has been somewhat successful in limiting the number of conflict diamonds entering the market, conflict diamonds smuggled to market continue to persist to some degree. Currently, gem production totals nearly 30 million carats (6,000 kg) of cut and polished stones annually, and over 100 million carats (20,000 kg) of diamonds are sold for industrial use each year. In 2003, this constituted total production of nearly $9 billion in value. ==== Distribution ==== The Diamond Trading Company, or DTC, is a subsidiary of De Beers and markets rough diamonds produced both by De Beers mines and other mines from which it purchases rough diamond production; in whole, about two thirds of all rough diamonds pass through the company. DTC performs sophisticated sorting of rough diamonds into over 16,000 categories, and then sells bulk lots of rough diamonds to a limited number of sightholders a few times a year. Once purchased by sightholders, diamonds are cut and polished in preparation for sale as gemstones. The cutting and polishing of rough diamonds is a specialized skill that is concentrated in a limited number of locations worldwide. Traditionally diamond cutting centers have been Antwerp, Gujarat, Tel Aviv, New York, New York, and Johannesburg. Recently, diamond cutting centers have been established in China and Thailand. Cutting centers with lower cost of labor, notably Gujarat in India, handle a larger number of smaller carat diamonds, while smaller quantities of larger or more valuable diamonds are more likely to be handled in Europe or North America. Demonstrating this, India produces 90% of all cut and polished diamonds by number, but only 55% by value. The recent expansion of this industry in India, employing low cost labor, has allowed smaller diamonds to be prepared as gems than was previously economically feasible. Diamonds which have been prepared as gemstones are sold on diamond exchanges called ''bourses''. There are 24 registered diamond bourses. This is the final tightly controlled step in the diamond supply chain; wholesalers and even retailers are able to buy relatively small lots of diamonds at the bourses, after which they are prepared for final sale to the consumer. Diamonds can be sold already set in jewelry, or as is increasingly popular, sold unset ("loose"). According to the Rio Tinto Group, in 2002 the diamonds produced and released to the market were valued at $9 billion as rough diamonds, $14 billion after being cut and polished, $28 billion in wholesale diamond jewelry, and retail sales of $57 billion. [http://www.riotintodiamonds.com/market/industry.asp] ===Synthetics, simulants, and enhancements=== The gemological and industrial uses of diamond have created a large demand for raw stones. A portion of this demand is now being met by synthetic diamonds, man-made diamonds which have similar properties to natural diamonds. This process has historically produced industrial-grade diamonds, but synthetic diamond producers have recently begun to penetrate the gem diamond market. Diamonds have been manufactured synthetically for over fifty years. A diamond's gem quality, which is not as dependent on material properties as industrial applications, has invited both imitation and the invention of procedures to enhance the gemological properties of natural diamonds. Materials which have similar gemological characteristics to diamond are known as ''diamond simulants''. The most familiar diamond simulant to most consumers is cubic zirconia (commonly abbreviated as CZ); recently moissanite has also gained cachet as a popular diamond simulant. Both CZ and moissanite are synthetically produced for use as a diamond simulant. Diamond enhancements are specific treatments, performed on natural diamonds (usually those already cut and polished into a gem), which are designed to better the gemological characteristics of the stone in one or more ways. These include laser drilling to remove inclusions, application of sealants to fill cracks, treatments to improve a white diamond's color grade, and treatments to give fancy color to a white diamond. Currently, trained gemologists with appropriate equipment are able to distinguish natural diamonds from all synthetic and simulant diamonds, and identify all enhanced natural diamonds. The established natural diamond industry has a vested interest in maintaining the distinction between natural diamonds and other diamonds, and has made significant investments toward that end. However, synthetic diamonds may one day be indistinguishable from natural diamonds, and new techniques for simulants (such as coating them with a very thin diamond-like layer of carbon) are making it harder to easily distinguish between simulants and real diamond. ==Symbolism== Because of their extraordinary physical properties, diamonds have been used symbolically since near the time of their first discovery. Perhaps the earliest symbolic use of diamonds was as the eyes of Hinduism devotional statues. The diamonds themselves were thought to be endowments from the gods and were therefore cherished. The point at which diamonds began to be associated with divinity is not known, but early texts indicate that it was recognized in India since at least 400 BCE. It is said the Ancient Greece believed diamonds were tears of the gods; the Ancient Rome believed they were splinters of fallen stars. Many long dead cultures have sought to explain diamond's superlative properties through divine or mystical affiliations. In western culture, diamonds are the traditional emblem of fearlessness and virtue, but have also often associated with power, wealth, crime and misfortune. Today, diamonds are used to symbolize eternity and love, being often seen adorning engagement rings and sometimes wedding rings as well. The popularity of this modern tradition can be traced directly to the marketing campaigns of De Beers, starting in 1938. The diamond engagement ring is, however, not an original invention of De Beers. It can be traced to the marriage of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (then Archduke of Austria) to Mary of Burgundy in 1477. Other early examples of betrothal jewels incorporating diamonds include the ''Bridal Crown of Blanche'' (ca. 1370-1380) and the ''Heftlein'' brooch of Vienna (ca. 1430-1440), a pictorial piece depicting a wedding couple. Inaccessibility of diamonds to the vast majority of the population limited the popularity of diamonds as betrothal jewels during this period. Diamonds were also a symbol of gay community in the 1950s. The Mattachine Society, one of the first and the foremost gay rights groups in the United States, used so-called ''harlequin diamonds'' (four smaller diamonds arranged in a pattern to form one larger diamond) as their emblem. The LifeGem company further taps modern symbolism by offering to synthetically convert the carbonized remains of people or pets into "memorial diamonds." However, many people feel very uncomfortable at the thought of wearing the carbonized remains of people as jewelry. The diamond is the birthstone for people born in the month of April, and is also used as the symbol of a sixty year anniversary, such as a Diamond Jubilee (see ''hierarchy of precious substances''). Diamonds are a common focus of fiction. Notable pieces of fiction include Ian Fleming's ''Diamonds Are Forever'' (1956) and Neal Stephenson's ''The Diamond Age'' (1995). In addition, diamonds are the subject of various myths and legends. ==External links== *[http://www.sciencetechnologies.com/wikimol/index.php/Diamond 3D Interactive Molecular Visualization of Diamond] at [http://www.sciencetechnologies.com/wikimol WikiMol] (requires Macromedia Flash) *[http://www.elementsmagazine.org/Elements_online/ELEM_V1n2.pdf Elements vol.1 no.2 (March 2005): Diamonds] (PDF) *[http://www.eglusa.com European Gemological Laboratory USA] *[http://www.gia.edu Gemological Institute of America] *[http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/people/sque/diamond/structure.html Interactive structure of bulk diamond] (Java applet). *[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/diamonds/index.html PBS Nature: Diamonds] *[http://www.cutstudy.com Russian Gemological Server] *[http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/si-gems Smithsonian's exhibit of fancy color diamonds] ==References== * American Museum of Natural History. [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/ "The Nature of Diamonds"]. Retrieved March 9, 2005. * The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2003). "Diamond". Retrieved March 9, 2005 at http://www.answers.com/topic/diamond. * Cuellar, Fred. [http://www.diamondcuttersintl.com/diamond_education/articles/customers/getting_in_shape.html "Diamonds - Getting Into Shape"]. Diamond Cutters International. Retrieved April 10, 2005. * David, Joshua (September 2003). [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html "The New Diamond Age"]. ''Wired'', issue 11.09. * De Beers Group. [http://www.debeersgroup.com/debeersweb "De Beers Group"]. Retrieved March 14, 2005. * Epstein, Edward Jay (February 1982). [http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.htm "Have You Ever Tried To Sell a Diamond?"] (subscription required). ''The Atlantic Monthly''. * Epstein, Edward Jay (1982). [http://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/prologue.htm "THE DIAMOND INVENTION"] (Complete book, includes "Chapter 20: Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?") * Eppler, W.F. ''Praktische Gemmologie''. Rühle-Diebner-Verlag, 1989 * Government of Gujarat (2004). [http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/sp-gems.html "Vibrant Gujarat: Sector Profiles"]. Retrieved March 14, 2005. * Kjarsgaard, B.A. and Levinson, A. A. (2002). Diamonds in Canada. ''Gems & Gemology'', Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 208–238. * Pagel - Theisen, Verena. ''Diamond Grading ABC: the Manual.'' Rubin & Son, Antwerp, Belgium, 2001. ISBN 3980043460 * Pricescope. [http://www.pricescope.com/Reports.asp?shp=8&cut=2 "Diamond price report"]. Retrieved March 4, 2005. * Sque, Steve (March 8, 2005). [http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/people/sque/diamond/ "Properties of Diamond"]. Retrieved March 10, 2005. * Tolkowsky, Marcel (1919). ''Diamond Design: A Study of the Reflection and Refraction of Light in a Diamond.'' London: E. & F.N. Spon, Ltd. ([http://www.folds.net/diamond/index.html Web edition] as edited by User:Jasper, Seattle, 2001.) * Tyson, Peter (November 2000). [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/diamond/sky.html "Diamonds in the Sky"]. Retrieved March 10, 2005. * United Nations Department of Public Information (March 21, 2001). [http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html "Conflict Diamonds"]. Retrieved March 10, 2005. * Weiner, K.L., Hochleitner, R., Weiss, S., Voelstadt H. ''Diamant'', Lapis, München, 1994. * Yarnell, Amanda (February 2, 2004). [http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8205//8205diamonds.html "The Many Facets of Man-Made Diamonds"]. ''Chemical & Engineering News'', vol. 82, no. 5, pp 26–31. Diamond Minerals Geology hi:हीरा
_to_the_most_advanced_pre-<a_href=\){kind=link}
Diamond
== 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. User:Vengeful Cynic 05:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) :VC, the United Nations report cited as a reference [http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html], as well as the text of the Kimberley Process itself [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. - User: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? User: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. - User: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. - User: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. User: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. --User:Dmerrill It was written by User: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. ''<>< User: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. User: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. --User:Mat-C 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 [http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=15524 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. -User:PierreAbbat 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 allotropy of the element carbon. I've deleted the flase category. Thanks for bringing this up. :User: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 [http://www.pricescope.com 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. User:Stan Shebs 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... User: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. User: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: [http://www.niceice.com/color.htm "Diamond Colour"] User: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. -- User: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"'' [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. -User: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. User:Psb777 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. --User:Aarchiba 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?) --User:Aarchiba 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. --User:Aarchiba 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''. -User:Vsmith 04:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Material properties of diamond. (Now I don't feel quite so foolish). --User:Aarchiba 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. User: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? User: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. - User: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! User: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. - User: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. User: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 [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. User: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. :User: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 [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 [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 [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 [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. --User: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. User:Vsmith 00:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :PS I moved the section to be in chronological order as is standard for talk pages. User: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. --User: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 - [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. --User:Jolyonralph 09:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC) : Your link dose not work couse registration.... User: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. - User:Bantman 18:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC) I probably should have said something earlier, but is this still an issue? Did my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=13656647&oldid=13650705 edit of 10:14, 13 May] resolve this issue? Is Stepanovas satisfied with the current wording? -- User: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. --User: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. User: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 [http://www.answers.com Answers.com]. --User: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. User:Rje 15:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Can you provide a source to include in the article to prevent similar doubts in the future? --User: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 [http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50002345?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=adamant&first=1&max_to_show=10] and [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]. User: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!!! User: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. User:Tempshill 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :See ultrahard fullerite. :) - User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :::I think the metastable article is wrong. User: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. User: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. [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.''" - User: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. :) -- User: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. -- User: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. :) - User: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 User: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. User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=11087127&oldid=11084425 used the Symbolism section] as sufficient precedent to keep the BC convention. As you'll see from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=2206921&oldid=2206791 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? -- User: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. User: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. -- User: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. User:Gene Nygaard 04:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [Resetting ident.] While I'm sure calling me "dense" is great fun, Wikipedia:No personal attacks 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. -- User: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. :User: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. -- User: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. User: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: :::{| border="1" cellspacing = "0" cellpadding = "2" ! bgcolor="#FFDEAD" | Google ! bgcolor="#FFDEAD" | hits |- | wheat cultivation BC | align="right"| 62,000 |- | wheat cultivation BCE | align="right"| 993 |- |} ::: User: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. -- User: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. User: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. User: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. - User: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. -- User:Hadal 18:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC) :::I vote BC/AD User: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. User: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. User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&diff=13506541&oldid=13506407 removed] 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.) -- User: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 User talk:Gene Nygaard. That discussion took place between two individuals. Neither of those individuals was you, User:Hadal. It was only me and User:Bantman. There was no consensus for change in that discussion. There was no link from Talk:Diamond to that page either. User: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. - User: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). -- User: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. User: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. - User: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. User: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. - User: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. User: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. -- User: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 Wikipedia:Three revert rule is a ''policy'' rather than a guideline, and breaking it carries consequences. -- User: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. User: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? -- User: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. -- User: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 [http://folds.net/diamond_design/index.html#historical Diamond Design] 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. -- User: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. -- User:Hadal 04:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC) :''Addendum'': A bit of searching led me to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&diff=5834830&oldid=5834681 this September 2004 edit] 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. -- User: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. User: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">User:Brian0918™">User talk: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? -User: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. - User: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. -User: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. -- User: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. - User: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">User:Brian0918™">User talk: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"? -User: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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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">User:Brian0918™">User talk:Brian0918 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::Brian, while I see your protection was in good faith, I'm afraid it was technically against Wikipedia: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. -- User: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? - User: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. User: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. -User:CrucifiedChrist ::::Which makes it even sillier that you came in and restarted the edit war by reverting. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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.) User: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. -- User: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. -- User: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. --User: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. - User: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.--User: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. - User:Bantman 23:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) ::::::The change is regretable. It demeans the article --User: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? - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. User: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". - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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. User: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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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. -- User: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. User: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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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). -- User: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 [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. - User:Taxman User talk:Taxman 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. - User: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. -- User:Hadal 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==lonsdaleite== lonsdaleite not a diamond form. That is anoather mineral and inother allotrop of carbon. User: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?) -- User: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 User: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. -- User: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. ::::User: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. User: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. -- User: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. [http://www.niceice.com/chipped.htm "Can Diamonds Be Chipped?"] User: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. -- User: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? -- User:Hadal 08:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Diamond
This category lists diamond-related articles. Gemstones Native element minerals Superhard materials
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Diamond:
Diamond
Diamond
Diamond
Diamond,_IL
Diamond,_Illinois
Diamond,_Missouri
Diamond,_MO
Diamond-like_carbon
Diamond-Star
Diamond-water_paradox
Diamond1
Diamondback
Diamondbacks
Diamondback_(comics)
Diamondback_terrapin
DiamondDave
Diamonddavej
Diamonddavej
Diamondhead
Diamondhead,_Mississippi
Diamondhead,_MS
Diamondoid
Diamonds
Diamonds:_The_Best_of_Dio
Diamonds:_The_Best_of_Dio
Diamondsuit
Diamondsuit
Diamonds_&_Rust
Diamonds_And_Pearls
Diamonds_and_Pearls
Diamonds_Are_Forever
Diamonds_Are_Forever
Diamonds_are_Forever
Diamonds_are_Forever
Diamonds_on_the_Inside
Diamonds_on_the_Inside
Diamondtron
DiamondVertex
DiamondVertex
Diamondville
Diamondville,_WY
Diamondville,_Wyoming
Diamond_(disambiguation)
Diamond_(dog)
Diamond_(rocket)
Diamond_(shape)
Diamond_Age
Diamond_Age_of_Comic_Books
Diamond_album
Diamond_and_Schmitt_Architects
Diamond_animation.ogg
Diamond_anvil
Diamond_Anvil_Cell
Diamond_anvil_cell
Diamond_anvil_cell
Diamond_Bar
Diamond_Bar,_CA
Diamond_Bar,_California
Diamond_Beach,_New_Jersey
Diamond_Beach,_NJ
Diamond_Bessie
Diamond_Bessie
Diamond_Bluff
Diamond_Bluff,_WI
Diamond_Bluff,_Wisconsin
Diamond_City
Diamond_City,_AR
Diamond_City,_Arkansas
Diamond_City,_Arkansas
Diamond_clarity
Diamond_clarity
Diamond_color
Diamond_Comics
Diamond_Comic_Distributors
Diamond_Comic_Distributors_Inc.
Diamond_Creek
Diamond_Creek,_Victoria
Diamond_Creek_railway_station,_Melbourne
Diamond_Creek_Trail
Diamond_crossing
Diamond_cubic
Diamond_cut
Diamond_cut
Diamond_cutting
Diamond_cutting
Diamond_Dallas_Page
Diamond_Darrell
Diamond_Dave
Diamond_Diadem
Diamond_Disk
Diamond_district
Diamond_Dogs
Diamond_Dogs_(song)
Diamond_Dust
Diamond_dust
Diamond_dust
Diamond_enhancement
Diamond_enhancement
Diamond_Fairy
Diamond_Head
Diamond_Head,_Hawaii
Diamond_Head,_Hawaii
Diamond_Head,_HI
Diamond_Head_(film)
Diamond_Head_(group)
Diamond_Head_(group)
Diamond_Head_(Hawaii)
Diamond_Head_albums
Diamond_Hill_(MTR)
Diamond_hoax_of_1872
Diamond_imitation
Diamond_imitations
Diamond_industry
Diamond_interchange
Diamond_Jenness
Diamond_Jenness
Diamond_joe
Diamond_Joe_Quimby
Diamond_Jubilee
Diamond_knot
Diamond_Lake
Diamond_Lake,_Minneapolis
Diamond_Lake_Township,_Minnesota
Diamond_Lake_Township,_MN
Diamond_Light_Source
Diamond_Men
Diamond_Mine
Diamond_mine
Diamond_mines
Diamond_Mountain
Diamond_Multimedia
Diamond_Necklace_Affair
Diamond_of_Long_Cleeve
Diamond_planet
Diamond_principle_(set_theory)
Diamond_problem
Diamond_Ranch_High_School
Diamond_Realm
Diamond_Ridge,_AK
Diamond_Ridge,_Alaska
Diamond_Ridge,_Alaska
Diamond_ring
Diamond_Rio
Diamond_Shoals
Diamond_simulant
Diamond_simulant
Diamond_simulants
Diamond_simulants
Diamond_smugglers
Diamond_Springs
Diamond_Springs,_CA
Diamond_Springs,_California
Diamond_Springs,_California
Diamond_Star_Motors
Diamond_Star_Motors
Diamond_stereo_animation.ogg
Diamond_substitute
Diamond_Sutra
Diamond_Sutra
Diamond_sutra
Diamond_theory
Diamond_treatment
Diamond_treatments
Diamond_Turning
Diamond_turning
Diamond_v._Chakrabarty
Diamond_Valley_Lake
Diamond_vise
Diamond_Walnut_San_Francisco_Bowl
Diamond_water_paradox
Diamond_Willow
Diamond_willow
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
