Talk:Carbonado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Carbonado is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:

There is also a small town called Carbonado in Washington State.

[edit] Not sure how to add this in...

New research says that the diamonds actually are from space. See http://www.physorg.com/news87577799.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrewHenson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] consensus

Science isn't made of press releases... always be skeptical of scientists who say they have disproved all other theories simply by having evidence of their own. And might as well let things sit for a few days before bringing the revolution to Wikipedia :v) .

Easy does it. Mind the POV. Potatoswatter 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the article had been thrown into disorder and screwed up, I attempted a small restructuring. If the new theory really is a POV issue, and remains unproven, someone will need to rewrite some of the statements made. I have no clue on the subject matter, and am merely copyediting what I could make out from the article content. SauliH 06:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False information

My co-workers and I at the Canadian institute for research and development of crystalines have categorized this information as false, for it is not viable. We propose that immediate action is taken or we will take action ourselves. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.116.200.53 (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

A more recent study - Kagi et al. 2007, American Mineralogist 92 217-224, shows no evidence of an extra-terrestrial formation.

Most review articles on the subject, e.g. Heaney, P.J., Vicenzi, E.P., & De, S. 2005, Elements, 1, 85, place a low confidence in the extra-terrestrial hypothesis.

Also, the last two paragraphs on FTIR evidence for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis suggest that two different studies were done, but both paragraphs are summations of the same Garai et al. 2006 paper.

You might want to give the scientific literature 18-24 months to react to the Garai et al. 2006 study before presenting it as encyclopedic truth. Cwmagee 11:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just re-organized a bit to reduce the redundancy and remove some superlatives. Please add further sourced info from the the American Mineralogist and Elements references - I currently don't have access to them. Vsmith 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)