Talk:Diamond/Archive 5

message: This really isn't my battle to defend but the difference in wording  is within the Weasel word wiki policy.  The policy was appropriately applied by naming who is causing the controversy instead of using a vague description of "some say". Supercoop 21:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reviewed Weasel word and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and believe that the current usage does not merit a description as such.  The sentence does not say "some say".  The sentence in question states unambiguously that there is controversy ("some" being a synonym for "moderate" -- neither fringe nor universal in awareness or acceptance; i.e. "some" quantifies the amount of controversy; it is not used to be vague about whether it exists or not) and states the reasons for controversy (#1, De Beers; #2, conflict diamonds).  The sentence accurately relates the facts as-known; De Beers definitely strictly controls supply, but price manipulation has only been alleged (i.e. they were accused of such in public media and in court), but not proven.  The replacement language is too heavy-handed in my opinion, and is a poorer depiction of the facts.  I'm not really sure if I've addressed the particulars you are concerned about, but thank you for replying on the talk page rather than reverting.  Hopefully we can work something out we will both be happy with.  - Bantman 21:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your explanation.  I agree that these things should be solved on the talk page, which is why I reverted in the first place -- I'm sure you didn't anticipate any disagreement making the change, but I wanted to talk about it first as it reads somewhat differently to me.  I see now that your edit improves the article, and appreciate your taking the time to show me why.  Thanks again. - Bantman 19:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel word 

message: I changed the spelling back to jewellery, because I am told by the New Oxford American Dictionary that the British spelling is jewellery and the American spelling is jewelry, and that neither place spells it jewelery.  If this is indeed how it is spelled somewhere, someone please let me know where.  In any case, we might as well be consistent with the jewellery article.
:Sorry about that; just a mistake. I was more annoyed about the improper localisation of the word—so annoyed I failed to correct it correctly. Thanks for catching it, in any case! For what it's worth, it looks like this article is written in American English, so it's more important to be self-consistent than consistent with Jewellery. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 06:12:31Z
::Oh, okay, that's reasonable.  I didn't even bother to check what the rest of the article was like.
I love how pollite everyone is here.  Its a plesant break from the rest of the internet.  Sorry for being off topic, i just wanted to say that. --12.217.69.199 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewelery/Jewellery 

message: * Tolkowsky, Marcel (1919). Diamond Design: A Study of the Reflection and Refraction of Light in a Diamond. London: E. & F.N. Spon, Ltd. (Web edition as edited by Jasper Paulsen, Seattle, 2001.)
I took the User: ref out.  Fplay 04:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation points to User: 

message: In case anyone wants to know, the diamonds from Copeton, New South Wales, Australia are the hardest. I could only find the following link online, though my professor did quote that the reason these diamonds were harder than other was their single-stage growth habit and not due to dislocations within the lattice. Either way, the 'gnaats certainly support my conception that these are the hardest stones within the known diamonds. That doesn't mean that you can't scratch other diamonds with less hard diamonds; i'm sure there is a continuum of hardness factors within the Moh's rating of '10'. And it doesn't mean that the softest diamond is a 9 and the copeton diamonds are a 10.5, or aanything silly like that. Cheers.
Trivia wise, the source of these diamonds has never been found (though a new diamond mine in Nimbin, NSW in marijuana country, has started, circa 2000. The Copeton diamonds are thought to have originated in an island chan offshore the Australian mainland which has been subsequently flooded or eroded.
 Rolinator 10:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardest diamonds

message: The market data for consumption, as well as production of diamonds appears to be wrong. Or at least the article is only quoting US numbers without stating that. I personally think that only stating US numbers is almost useless for an encyclopedic entry. The only important numbers would be world wide numbers. This can then be broken down to the biggest 5 producers and consumers to infer some kind of persepective. Producers could be broken down to gem quality<->industrial grit and artificial<->mined (so 4 groups) and consumption could be possibly broken down into various carat sizes, if that data is available. From http://www2.barchart.com/comfund/diamonds.asp it can be seen that mined production in 2001 was 68.5 million carat world wide, while industrial production was either 1.15 billion carat (  ) or 3 billion carat ( http://www.nsti.org/news/breaking.html?id=74 ). More input is needed to nail these numbers. --Dio1982 16:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without going back and checking, I think I recall the market data coming from De Beers-provided data and being confirmed by several other sources, referencing data for a more recent period than 2001 (which is the data provided in one of your sources).  I agree that more effort into these numbers would be helpful, but as you noticed it is not easy to nail down a number as much of the actual production / consumption numbers are considered "secret".  In any case, the article indicates about 130 million carats mined and 400 million carats of synthetic diamonds produced annually, which (for mined diamonds at least) is significantly higher than the figure you cite, so I don't understand why you infer that it is referring to the US market only.  The monetary value is placed in US$, but I believe the figures represent the world market value. - Bantman 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Data 

message: Dear reader,
I have a few comments and qwastens.  I was wondering if a dimon could  have any other structours besides a dimond structours, and if so what cind.  Do you think that there could have been more dimonds on the earth befor man cind than now.  How do dimons form? I know what the cimical make up is but I don't know how the gasses and qimicals come together to form such a butifull Mineral.  I also wanted to know why dimons floress under a floressent light?  Could it be that it's because all the different collors in a dimond come together and glow under a uv light.  In the artical I read about dimonds it said that the only place there has ben a discovery of dimonds was Africa,Canada,Russia,Brazil, and aulstrailia but in different bookes I have read it said that there have beenfindings elswere.
By, Thesook Sathananthan
:I agree with Johnathan, the sentence in the article does not read correctly.  
::(quote) Most natural diamonds originate from central and southern Africa, although significant sources of the mineral have been discovered in Canada, Russia, Brazil, and Australia.
:The sentence is misleading when it reads like Indian diamonds did not exist at all.   I guess it meant to say "recent discovery".  From all the books that I read about diamond, they always said the ancient diamonds come from India before the African mines were discovered.  The indian diamonds were mentioned near the bottom in the section titled sources.  However, the sentence near the top probably needs some clarification.
:Kowloonese 08:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Qwestions and a comment 

message: According to the article on 2061: Odyssey Three, "an article in Nature magazine in 1981 hypothesising that the core of Jupiter was in fact a diamond the size of Earth, caused by the compression of carbon." Is this still believed to be a possibility? Should it be mentioned in the diamond article? - Comment by Jon the Geek, 23:31, 10 April 2006
:Nobody really knows for sure, but these days the romantic "diamond core" is usually speculated with respect to white dwarfs exclusively. The carbon left over after a star dies is of much higher purity than that found in gas giants, leading people to think a diamond core is more likely to be found in dead stars. The popular press tends to give this speculation more attention than it perhaps deserves; I don't think it deserves any attention in this article, either. Galileo revealed Jupiter to contain unexpectedly low levels of water, and an enrichment of carbon. One new hypothesis regarding the formation and composition of Jupiter's core suggests it is a ball of tar laced with rocky bits, enveloped by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen. There may not be any solid material at all. -- Hadal 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jupiter Diamond? 

message: "DIAMOND" has been mentioned 561 times in the article.
- lol thats alot, i hope you didnt count them.
i saw an artical somewhere and every 3rd word was... well i cant remeber but it was strange 0_o
Gludatizblu 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount 

message: Could someone add information regarding the Crater of Diamonds State Park in Murfreesboro, Arkansas?
--Eddylyons 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crater of Diamonds 

message: Shouldn't there be some discussion at least of articles like http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/chap13.htm (about the cynical 1940s campaigns to entrench a link between diamonds and "romance") and http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/conflictdiamonds.htm (regarding the controversial way the diamond industry operates)?Mrlefty 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy about diamond market 

message: As I watch the History Channel's modern marvels story on diamonds, they mentioned that diamonds have grains like wood does.  I have added this to the cutting (shaping?) section of the article.--Ben414 00:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added something from History Channel Special

message: "Diamonds (especially those from secondary deposits) are commonly found coated in nyf, an opaque gum-like skin." - This really needs expanded on, or cited, as it sounds, literaly, incredible. If this nyf substance exsists, we need explanations (Whats it made of?) and photos if possible. There is no other direct confirmation of this on the www that I can find. --AudioPervert 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provided a citation from one of the most reputable texts on gemstones; although it does not go into any further detail than what I've related here, nyf is surely not a hoax. The term belongs to the argot of diamond miners and dealers, who don't seldom share their knowledge with outsiders—hence the obscurity. I regret that I can provide neither images nor elaboration. I could speculate about nyf's composition (diamond is strongly lipophilic, so perhaps it's some sort of naturally accumulated hydrocarbon) but that wouldn't be very encyclopedic. If I find any further information, I'll make a point of including it here. —Hadal 19:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nyf, either a hoax, or needs citation and explanation 

message: It does seem as though someone's made a booboo.
Where is the "shape" symbol article?
Hopiakuta 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ♦ ; [[%E2%99%A6]] ; [%E2%99%A6] ; ◊ ; [[%E2%97%8A]] ; [%E2%97%8A] : 

message: ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ .
Hopiakuta 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 

message: A FA on Diamond and the Kohinoor doesn't even get a passing reference. I could add it but I'm not an expert on this subject and I don't wish to plug it in somewhere just for the sake of it. But editors involved could atleast link it in the right place. --Idleguy 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kohinoor not mentioned 

message: Seems something here needs clarification:
:Nearly all diamonds fluoresce bluish-white, yellow, or green under shorter X-ray radiation. X-ray fluorescence is used extensively in mining to separate the diamond-bearing from the non-fluorescing waste rock.
X-ray fluorescence is an analytical technique - and this seems to imply large scale x-ray radiation to produce visible fluorescence of diamond bearing rock. Changed to X-ray screening, but need a citation or further clarification. Vsmith 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-ray fluorescence?