Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:21, 27 July 2021

	Synthetic diamond is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 20, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 7, 2009 Good article nominee Listed June 2, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 18, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted April 11, 2020 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

Gemology and Jewelry FA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry FA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Identification of synthetic diamond - automatic deletion of content through "lack of citation"

"Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."

Stating that growth lines are visible under magnification in CVD diamonds is not challenged, nor is it likely to be; it's a statement of fact, not opinion. Automatically deleting edits because of lack of citation would appear to demonstrate that the individual has not bothered to investigate the edit in any way shape or form. Where proprietary training material is the source of the information it cannot be cited - and it is significantly more important that an article be factually correct than adopt the head-in-sand approach of "it isn't cited so it can't be allowed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.207.92 (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not a fact, but an unsourced and likely incorrect claim, see your talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Diamond Melee"

You are using this term without defining it, as far as I can tell.

Definition:

The women of Beverly Hillbillies..

72.160.224.122 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Featured article?

This article no longer meets Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria. It has been tagged for clean-up for over 6 months for: containing potentially dated statements, lacking reliable references, containing original research, and needing factual verification. DrKay (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Materialscientist are you willing/able to restore this article to status, or should a Featured article review be initiated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

HCP

Just wondering, has anyone made, or tried to make, HCP diamond? That is, the wurtzite structure with all atoms carbon. I once heard that it was more natural conversion from graphite. Gah4 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Diamonds from the sky

In today's Guardian there is an article reporting Dale Vince claiming plans to create artificial diamonds "uses carbon dioxide captured directly from the atmosphere to form the diamonds – which are chemically identical to diamonds mined from the earth – using wind and solar electricity, with water collected from rainfall." is this worth a mention in the article?— Rod 10:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest not. It sounds like just a marketing gimmick. Diamond is a crystalline structure made of carbon, and you can get the carbon atoms from anywhere you want. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2021

It has been proposed in this section that Synthetic diamond be renamed and moved to Man-made diamond. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Synthetic diamond → Man-made diamond – or Manufactured diamond or Laboratory-created diamond. The word synthetic creates a "likelihood of consumer confusion", as it can create the false impression that a lab-grown diamond is merely a diamond simulant rather than an actual diamond. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission officially reached that conclusion three years ago. Current FTC guidance "do not include 'synthetic' among the examples of terms that marketers may non-deceptively use to qualify claims about man-made diamonds". (The quotes are from the FTC itself.) Misplaced Pages should strive to use WP:PRECISE, unambiguous, non-deceptive terminology for the titles of its articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Synthetic diamond is still overwhelmingly used by scientists — 3260 Google Scholar results since 2018 for "synthetic diamond" vs. 42 for "man-made diamond", regardless of what one goverment body that regulates marketing might say. The proposed title is also not gender-neutral. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point on the gender-neutral language and scientific uses, but I still suggest that the term is confusing to the general public. I think scientists may have a different understanding of the word "synthesis" / "synthetic" from that of the general public. I still believe "manufactured" / "lab-grown" / "laboratory-created" provide a more clear identification of the substance in question (and so does the U.S. government, apparently). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would lean towards "lab-grown diamond" -- it gets around 1.6 million google hits vs around 600 thousand for "synthetic diamond" (while an imprecise method, it does confirm that it is a commonly used name) while addressing the issues raised on both potential confusion with simulated diamond or on gendered terms.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I confirm your statistics, and so I support "Lab-grown diamond". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    • And just to make like easier for the closing admin and put in a more "official" !vote format: I support Lab-grown diamond (and I have no particular preference for with or without the dash, if there are thoughts from others there).--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Google web search result counts are virtually meaningless. Google scholar gives counts that accord with reality, and it shows that synthetic diamond is about 100 times as frequent as lab-grown diamond since 2017. Similar results for ngrams, where "lab-grown diamond" doesn't even register as a blip. Colin M (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I can see an argument for using a slightly less common name if the more common one is potentially misleading, but all evidence I've seen so far suggests that the current title is multiple orders of magnitude more common than any of the proposed alternatives. Colin M (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Reading the FTC article, it seems that it is mostly against cultured, which suggests a process similar to that used for pearls. It seems to be less against synthetic, though synthetic makes more sense in scientific terminology. People have gotten used to synthetic motor oils, which now explain on the bottle that they are synthesized from natural gas. Certainly we should have the redirects from the other names. Gah4 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, and after the discussion is closed, it can go to an archive page. Gah4 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The 2018 FTC guidance contains several elements. Eliminating the idea that only mined diamonds were considered real / genuine diamonds was one. Discouraging cultured was another. Concluding that synthetic is confusing and therefore discouraging it was a third. For our purposes, I don't think it's necessary to reach a conclusion about which parts of it were the most important. I think the Misplaced Pages article content doesn't conflict with its conclusions about real / genuine and cultured. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Synthetic is removed from the recommended list, but not specifically discouraged. Since WP is not selling diamonds (real or imaginary) there is no requirement to follow FTC rules. Other articles follow IUPAC rules, which does make some sense. Gah4 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My personal impression is that when the government committee in charge of fair trade practices says that a term creates a "likelihood of consumer confusion", that is discouragement. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My favorite FTC story related to audio amplifiers. It seems that many exaggerated the power output, so FTC made rules. Some related to how it was measured. But also some would give the total (sum of two channels) for a stereo amplifier. FTC has the rule (I believe not suggestion, but actual rule) that the model number can't be twice the power/channel. So, one company makes the model number 2*(power/channel)+1, just to get back at the FTC rule. Gah4 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Back to the subject. The actual quote is: It lacks a sufficient basis for doing so because the evidence does not establish that the term would be deceptive in every instance. If a marketer uses ‘synthetic’ to imply that a competitor’s lab-grown diamond is not an actual diamond, however, this would be deceptive So, it is not related to a marketer's own product, but comparing to others. Specifically, it isn't that synthetic makes it sound too real, but makes it sound too fake. (It seems that customers don't believe that they are actually diamonds.) And, as I noted before, WP is not selling them. Gah4 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that document. That is not the actual quote, since it does not contain the phrase I quoted ("likelihood of consumer confusion"), because it omits the preceding three sentences. That part is "The record indicates many consumers mistakenly believe 'synthetic' means an artificial product such as cubic zirconia, which lacks a diamond's optical, physical, and chemical properties. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion, the final Guides do not include 'synthetic' among the examples of terms that marketers may non-deceptively use to qualify claims about man-made diamonds, thus eliminating the contradiction. Despite another commenter's request, however, the Commission does not 'prohibit' marketers from ever using 'synthetic' to 'disparage' lab-grown diamonds. It lacks a sufficient basis for doing so ..."

As they have concluded that "many consumers mistakenly believe 'synthetic' means an artificial product such as cubic zirconia", then I think we should not use 'synthetic' for the title of the article about the topic on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is something that the average non-scientist consumer should be able to read without confusion or incorrect impressions.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There are ones like WP:NOTHOWTO, such that WP doesn't need to teach people how to do things, or more specifically, how to do them right. If people mistakenly believe that synthetic diamonds are not diamonds, it isn't for us to correct them. (That is the job of the FTC, though.) If maybe 10% of the people get it wrong, that might be enough for an FTC rule. Now, if 60% get it wrong, then we should probably agree, as that is where they will look. On the other hand, a redirect should fix that, and I presume there is one. Gah4 (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOTHOWTO applies at all. I am proposing to avoid using a title that confuses people, but not proposing to address them directly with instructions about how to do something. As for the comment that "if 60% get it wrong, then we should probably agree", I suggest to consider that the report says that "the Opinions survey showed that a majority of consumers (56%) thought a 'synthetic diamond' is an 'imitation' or 'fake'." I think we should not use a term that "many consumers mistakenly believe" has a different meaning. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not our job to fix that. Synthetic motor oil is made from natural gas by chemically converting methane molecules into oil molecules. Otherwise, it is refined from crude oil. Synthesis is the normal process of making one chemical when you have different ones. In many cases, though, synthetics are used in place of real materials. Synthetic nylon is used in place of natural cotton for cloth. Making synthetic cotton would be difficult and expensive. Synthetic motor oil is higher quality than conventional, as natural impurities are not there. (I will ignore that many people believe that natural products are better, when often they are not.) In any case, synthetic is the right word to describe the result of synthesis, creating something like a molecule. And it is pretty often used in describing these diamonds. Gah4 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of what synthesis means, I would like to point out that Wiktionary defines the word primarily as:

1. The formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things.

2. (chemistry) The reaction of elements or compounds to form more complex compounds.

Neither of those definitions apply to diamonds, since diamonds are not compounds and are not formed by combining things. They contain only a single element.

A chemical compound is something "composed of atoms from more than one element". A diamond is a single-element crystal, not a combination of different things.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that, then you should be happy with graphite rings. Elements can, and often do, form molecules. Molecular oxygen and ozone are very different, and you don't want to get them wrong. Even though it is all carbon, a diamond is complex. It is a specific crystalline structure for carbon, and one that it doesn't naturally form at STP. Maybe coherent is the important part, as the crystal structure itself is simple, but getting the carbon atoms in that form is not simple. Chemically, a diamond is like a very large molecule, covalent bonded. Gah4 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The definition doesn't refer to molecules; it refers to compounds – which are something formed from "atoms from more than one element". I don't think a crystal composed of a single element is within the spirit of "combining simpler things" or forming a "compound". This usage certainly falls within the field of chemistry, which would particularly lead to a focus on the second definition. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, I am pretty sure that whichever title we use, there will be a redirect from the other. And the article can explain early that the two terms are used for the same thing. So, by the time someone actually gets to the article, they won't be confused. There are, for example, many more entries in Synthetic than in Man-made (disambiguation). Now, maybe someone should poll WP users, as they might be better than average consumers. Gah4 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am also in strong support of changing the title to "Lab-grown diamonds" and find "sythetic diamonds" misleading in two ways: 1. That consumers believe it means simulant of a diamond (as already discussed above). I went through the list of synthetic products listed in Misplaced Pages and every single one descibes a man-made product which performs the same function or has the same effect as the natural counterpart (e.g. synthetic fibres/marijuana) but are not identical. Diamonds, however, are absolutely identical, both physically and chemically. Even the most prestigious certification lab GIA as dropped the word "synthetic" and are now calling them lab-grown diamonds . The reason why they are absolutely identical leads me to my second point: 2. Diamonds are carbon atoms in a face centered cubic Bravais lattice aka a special kind of crystal. Scientists rarely talk about synthesizing crystals (except for protein crystals) because they are not a product of a chemical reaction but they are grown. When googeling synthesizing crystal vs. growing crystal, you will find an order of magnitude more results for the latter (with and without ""). Lab-grown diamonds are made with the exact same recipe as the natural counterpart: heat, temperature and time, yielding the same result, but the only differnce is that it is grown in the lab instead of in nature, aka lab-grown. In Summary, the term lab-grown is not only unambiguous but scientifically correct, giving the reader immediate correct information. Therefore, I am strongly for the change to lab-grown diamonds. Quelvin3 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Proteins form molecular crystals, covalently bonded molecules that are not covalently bonded together. Diamond is a covalent crytal. The article indicates that they are spectroscopically different, so it seems that they are different. In the case of CVD, they are not formed with high temperature or high pressure. As I noted, motor oil is commonly sold as synthetic, though hydrocarbon molecules like the natural kind. The sizes of the molecules might be different, with different distributions of molecular sizes. Since the first sentence explains the different, there will only be confusion for a few seconds, unless someone doesn't read the article, but only the title. Crystallographic defects in diamond describes the impurities that can exist in a diamond, and the differences between natural and synthetic forms. Gah4 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The differences between natural and lab-grown diamond are smaller than the differences between different natural diamonds. The only reason that people have come up with fancy specialized equipment for detecting whether a diamond is lab-made or not is that natural diamonds sell for higher prices than lab-grown ones for the jewelry market. For any purpose where physical, optical and chemical function matters more than emotion, the lab-grown ones are equally good (or better due to having fewer imperfections). Even the jewelry industry has come to accept the fact that, as the above-cited National Jeweler article says, lab-grown diamonds "share the same chemical, optical and physical properties and are, in fact, diamonds." Both the GIA and HRD Antwerp are now using "Laboratory grown" for their grading reports. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE: FINAL REVISIONS TO THE JEWELRY GUIDES" (PDF). www.ftc.gov. FTC. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
2. https://www.nationaljeweler.com/articles/6057-how-gia-is-changing-its-reports-for-lab-grown-diamonds

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• FA-Class Gemology and Jewelry articles
• Mid-importance Gemology and Jewelry articles
• WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry articles
• FA-Class Chemistry articles
• Mid-importance Chemistry articles
• WikiProject Chemistry articles
• Requested moves