Talk:Diamond/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal to change BC/AD to BCE/CE (CONT)

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

First user is a factor. It isn't determinative. First user changing his mind is also a factor. That is even less determinative. As you correctly pointed out, there is a long history to this article; many editors have accepted that established BC usage as proper, as it is according to the Manual of Style, with nary a peep on the talk page until now.

Since it is a matter of style, the general, most common usage is also a factor, and like the others, not determinative. Changing it, if you can achieve consensus here on the talk page, is fine with me. But note that since you pushed it, you now have an opposing vote standing in the way of that consensus.

This is not "primarily a science-oriented" article by any stretch of the imagination. It deals primarily with commercial and industrial use, with mining, with the craft of diamond-cutting, with the symbolism of the diamond jewelry. What little pure science there is in this article deals mostly with the properties which make diamonds valuable for those purposes. And no, I do not buy the claim that "most (recent) scientific work has adopted the BCE convention." A few particular publications, some specific fields of science, sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To recap:

• 1.You reverted the changes two months ago, and because you were the only one willing to edit war over the issue, the result was put up for an RFC. Two months pass, and nobody else opposes the change.
• 2. I propose to change it again, now that it seems there is tacit support (no comments in two months). I outline my reasons, and wait for a response.
• 3. You arrive and declare that you will revert the change if it is made without "discussion", without offering any discussion of your own.
• 4. I attempt to allay your fears of what you perceive to be a unilateral change by explaining in detail why it will not get anyone's panties in a bunch.
• 5. You oscillate between acknowledging my points and dismissing them wholesale, and pepper your discourse with ad hominem attacks.
• 6. I submit that I do not believe honest discussion can occur while you're still poisoning the atmosphere with your inexcusable vulgarity.
• 7. You again accuse me of "going by [my] prejudices against [you]" and misinterpreting your position. You again make the disingenuous claim that you are only opposed to the change now, because you hadn't made up your mind yet. You continue your pointless Googlefight complete with a colourful little table. I don't even know why you're doing this since you've already dismissed the article's science as "little".

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

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

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

Let me help you out to get the ball rolling:

Science: sociology. Article: Jewelry cleaning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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