text:
Blank (cartridge)

A blank is a firearm cartridge that, when fired, does not shoot a projectile like a bullet or pellet, but generates a muzzle flash and an explosive sound (muzzle report) like a normal gunshot would. Firearms may need to be modified to allow a blank to cycle the action, and the shooter experiences less recoil with a blank than with a live round. Blanks are often used in prop guns for shooting simulations that have no need for ballistic results, but still demand light and sound effects, such as in historical reenactments, special effects for theatre, movie and television productions, combat training, for signaling (see starting pistol), and cowboy mounted shooting. Specialised blank cartridges are also used for their propellant force in fields as varied as construction, shooting sports, and fishing and general recreation.

While blanks are less dangerous than live ammunition, they can still be dangerous and can still cause fatal injuries. Beside the explosive gases, any objects in the cartridge (like wadding that may be keeping the propellant in place, or objects lodged in the barrel) will be propelled at high velocity and cause injury or death at close range.

Blank cartridges differ from the inert/fake ammunitions such as dummy cartridges and snap caps, which contain no primer or gunpowder to even produce flash and sound and are used for "cold" training or function-testing firearm actions. They are also different from the percussion caps used in cap guns, which also produce a sound of gunfire but only consist of the equivalent of the primer with no propellant, so they sound much quieter.

Applications
Blanks are commonly used when the sound and flash of gunfire is needed, but a projectile would not be safe, such as in military training manoeuvres or funeral honours, in movies or live theatre that require gunfights, in starter pistols to signal the beginning of races, and in the equestrian sport of cowboy mounted shooting.

Standard firearms that are self-loading require modification to their mechanism, or else a blank firing adapter to allow the action to cycle. This is because in the absence of a projectile to oppose the force of the gases, the lower pressures and lower recoil generated by a blank cartridge are insufficient to cycle the gun’s mechanism in the same way that a standard live round would.

For military applications, blanks are typically used with a special blank-firing adaptor in the firearm that constricts the barrel, keeping chamber pressures created by the blank high enough and for long enough to cycle the firearm's gas-operated action. In the case of non-crimped blanks, it also serves to pulverise the plug to prevent it leaving as a projectile.

Specially designed blank-firing prop firearms are sometimes used for movies, thereby avoiding gun control legislation and increasing the margin of safety because they cannot be loaded with live ammunition. 5-in-1 blanks are specifically made for theatrical use and are commonly used in real firearms for dramatic effect. 5-in-1 blanks can function in a variety of different calibres, hence the name.

Special blank cartridges are also used when the explosive power of a cartridge is needed, but a projectile is not. Blank cartridges were commonly used for launching a messenger line, tear-gas or rifle grenades, though some types of grenades are capable of trapping the bullet of a live round. Larger blanks are also used for line launching guns, such as the line launching kit for the Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Blank rimfire cartridges, commonly called power loads, are also used in some nail guns (powder-actuated tools), where the power is tapped to force a heavy piston into the nail, with enough force to bury its full length into steel or concrete.

Some forms of fast draw competitions use special blanks that are loaded with a layer of slow burning rifle powder on top of a thin layer of faster-burning pistol powder. The pistol powder ignites the slower burning rifle powder, and fires it out of the barrel much like a shotgun shell. The burning powder only travels a few yards before it completely combusts, but that is far enough to burst the balloon used as a target for those competitions. Wax bullets are also commonly used for competitions and training where a non-lethal projectile is required.

A blank cartridge was sometimes also issued to a randomly selected shooter in an execution by firing squad, on the theory that each of the shooters would take comfort in the fact that they may not have fired a live round. This tradition dates back to before cartridge arms, when a muzzle loading musket would be loaded without a ball.

Some abattoir captive bolt pistols are powered by blank cartridges.

Blank 12-gauge shotgun cartridges are also used in "alarm mines", devices that use a tripwire to produce an extremely loud report in order to alert people in the vicinity.

Blank rounds have been used to contain the propellant within an empty cartridge, or in some cases as a piston to unlock the bolt and operate the weapon. These types of rounds are rarely used and are mostly found on spotting rifles.

Safety
The appearance of a blank cartridge can give a false sense of safety. Although blank cartridges do not contain a bullet, precautions are still required because fatalities and severe injuries have resulted on occasions when blank cartridges have been fired at very close ranges.

Blank cartridges frequently contain a paper, wood or plastic plug called a wad that seals the powder in the case. This wad can cause severe penetrating wounds at close range and bruising at medium ranges. There is also "muzzle blast" – a jet of hot, expanding gas expelled at extremely high velocity from the muzzle of the firearm. This high-velocity gas can inflict severe injury at close ranges. In addition, if there is any small debris lodged inside the barrel, it will be expelled at a velocity similar to that of a bullet, with the ability to inflict a severe or lethal wound. Furthermore, the extremely loud noise of blanks being fired can damage the hearing of people in the immediate area.

Cartridges loaded with wadcutter target bullets can be mistaken for blanks because the bullet does not protrude past the mouth of the cartridge casing. Shotshell cartridges known as "snake shot" or "rat-shot" used in rifles or handguns for pest control often have the shot charge sealed with cardboard or plastic wads or the ends may be crimped or folded in a manner similar to that of blank cartridges.

Fatal accidents
Actors in particular are at serious risk of injury from blank cartridges used on movie sets. Several actors have been killed in such mishaps:
 * Brandon Lee was killed while filming a scene for the 1994 film The Crow by a .44-caliber S&W Model 629 revolver used as a prop that still contained a bullet from a squib load. A dummy round used during an earlier shoot was handloaded by someone other than a firearms expert, who removed the propellant powder, but unknowingly left a live primer in place, resulting in the bullet being separated from its casing with insufficient energy to exit the barrel. The gun was not properly checked for a retained bullet prior to the incident, and then subsequently fired with a blank cartridge. The blank charge propelled the lodged bullet out the barrel, fatally injuring Lee.
 * Jon-Erik Hexum accidentally killed himself on the set of the TV series Cover Up, after he placed a blank-loaded .44 Magnum revolver to his right temple and pulled the trigger as a joke — the powerful shockwave from the blank cartridge caused a depression fracture to the skull, sending bone fragments deep into his brain and causing severe intracranial hemorrhage. He died a few days after the accident.
 * Johann Ofner, a professional stunt double, was killed by a shotgun wad in 2017 while filming a scene for Bliss n Eso music video "Dopamine" in the Brooklyn Standard bar in Brisbane when an actor fired directly at him.
 * In 2015, a 17-year old was playing with a gun used in a St. George, Utah, high school theatre program to be used in a production of Oklahoma! and accidentally killed himself, thinking that "blank" cartridges were harmless.

title: Blank (cartridge)


text:
Blank expression

A blank expression, also known as a poker face, is a facial expression characterized by neutral positioning of the facial features, implying a lack of strong emotion. It may be caused by a lack of emotion, depression, boredom or slight confusion, such as when a listener does not understand what has been said.

Another possible cause for a blank expression is traumatic brain injury such as a concussion. If someone has just been hit on the head and retains a blank or dazed expression, this can warn of concussions early.

Psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, facial paralysis, and post-traumatic stress disorder, may also cause a blank expression.

Poker face
The term "poker face" is described as a deliberately induced blank expression meant to conceal one's emotions, referring to the common practice of maintaining one's composure when playing the card game poker. This term comes from the special language used in poker, and is not only about a person's facial expression but also other extraneous movements that could give insight into what they are feeling, such as clenching fists, bouncing a leg, or constant repositioning of their body and or cards.

The first recorded publication of the term "poker face" is from the 1875 book ''Cavendish. Round games at cards'', which reads "It follows that the possession of a good poker face is an advantage. No one who has any pretensions to good play will betray the value of his hand by gesture, change of countenance, or any other symptom."

The term "poker face" was used outside the game of poker by American sportswriters in the 1920s to describe a competitor who appeared unaffected by stressful situations (an important skill when playing poker for money, to avoid giving an opponent any tells about one's hand). It is similarly used with reference to marketers and salespeople during business negotiations.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Blank expression


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heron programming language/Disputed phase

Current tally (at time of re-listing) 5 keep (excluding suspected sockpuppets), 7 delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I dispute Graham's count of the number of deletes and keeps. I didn't count the first time contributors. I still strongly dispute the characterization of these people as sock puppets. It is rude and incorrect. This adds up to 7 deletes and 6 keeps as of July 17, is there contention here? Christopher Diggins 01:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * delete -> WileE
 * delete -> StevieTheMan
 * keep -> Cutler
 * delete -> Ambibalynsteria
 * keep -> Spectatrix
 * keep -> AndrewA
 * delete -> Jeeves
 * keep -> Jamesday
 * keep -> Jerzy
 * keep -> sjc
 * delete -> Geogre
 * delete -> Fastfission
 * delete -> Starx
 * Ok I missed one, 6 keep it is. Hardly surprising one was missed considering the mish mash of discussion above; besides I would encourage any sysop going to decide consensus next time to recount all of the votes anyway and decide for themselves whether the three in question are sockpuppets or not.  Incidentally the reason why these are suspected sockpuppets is because new users don't generally make a vote on this page their first edit here.  It's a possibility, which is why they're suspected sockpuppets. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 17:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Did Wile E not already make the point that Skrud and Kriggs were clearly not sock puppets? As he pointed out they are people who link to Heron from their personal web pages [] and []. They learned about Heron at a seminar at Concordia and started discussing Heron at Skrud's forum where I found them and started a new discussion group [], GedB is also a regular at Joel on Software forum who got interested in Heron as a result of a discussion at []. Nonetheless this is all moot because isn't the policy to not count first time contributors? The reason they came here was because of the following posts I made at [] Christopher Diggins 22:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Skrud and I are long time fans of wikipedia, and I for one have made contributions to wikipedia. The only way I could be called into question is if you linking me here gives an unfair leverage for the "Keep" side. Kriggs 05:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't think it is particularly notable but there are a lot of programming languages of similarly low notability with articles, I don't want to delete them all and I don't want to vote for a precedent that would justify deleting them all. —Stormie 02:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stormie brings up a good point. I would be completely justified and supported with historical precedent if I took follow-up actions upon a delete vote to challenge the rather large number of languages using the same arguments presented here. The debates surrounding Heron arose for several reasons: I mistakenly created a false user page, I ignorantly created a so-called vanity page, I expressed criticism of wikipedia, I was argumentative and protestive. My point in protesting, and being uncooperative was that an encyclopedia should be built upon a fair and consistent application of rules towards each entry, rather than an emotional reaction.Christopher Diggins 01:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I feel that a programming language needs a history and impact in the field in some way. Heron has neither. -- Solitude 02:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Christopher, Kriggs, Ged Byrne, and DrSkrud: if the Heron programming language is significant, others will come later and add it to the Wikipedia.  But this is not the right place to advertise your project.  It's not aggressive self-promotion that makes a language popular, but utility.  If your language has it, then it'll get an article here one day, written by some engineer who used your language to implement some mission-critical functionality and would be glad to tell the world why Heron was so cool.  Please stop doing this.  --Ardonik 04:00, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please stop doing what? I am contributing to a conversation. I made an entry, and I am allowed to dispute the arguments put forth towards its deletion. The mission-critical argument would invalidate the large majority of current entries in the list of programming languages. Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop doing what? Obviously, I'm asking you to stop the agressive self-promotion and Wikipedia-equivalent of carpetbagging that you've done here on the VfD, discussed extensively above.  My advice is to let this whole thing go; Heron will survive without a Wikipedia article.  --Ardonik 03:42, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is unfair to characterize me as a spammer and being "aggressively self-promotional". Contributing to this discussion does little to promote Heron. Christopher Diggins 18:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It doesn't seem unlikely that someone would hear about Heron in the "real world". Several sources referring to it have been noted. It is also reasonable to think that someone hearing about the language would come to Wikipedia to learn more about it, owing to our good coverage of programming languages (and tech topics in general). The article needs more editors apart from the creator, but that is true for many articles and does not warrant deletion. David Remahl 08:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. After a second review, I agree that the language is neither mature nor notable enough to warrant an article. David Remahl 12:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As of now the language is not established. When the language has been used for production, teaching, or research then somebody other than the author should and will probably make an entry. Thue | talk 14:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * production, teaching, research as requirements would invalidate a large number of previous articles. Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is not that selective, and has plenty of room. --Ezra Wax 04:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - clicking through various links, the blogs mentioned above, etc etc, I must commend the author of the language for writing it, and continuing to work on it. On the other hand, I don't see it as noteable (YET), and thereby I do not see it as deserving an article. And just to counter the already breathed arguement "but lots of non-noteable languages have articles". Bring them on. I'll vote to delete. Lyellin 10:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Frankly there is a lot more stuff worthy of deletion than this, over and above minority programming languages. I think we could probably, for example, remove any number of articles about Middle Earth and its confabulated ancillary bs as being less worthy of note than what looks to be an honest and serious endeavour to create a new programming language and to bring it to public attention. If, however, over time, the Heron programming language dead ends, then it will no longer require an article, and it will die a quiet death in any case. As a subject this probably isn't worth the amount of time and attention that is being paid to it. Live with the article in my view, and move on, maybe revisit the situation in a few months. Sjc 10:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sjc has already voted. Christopher Diggins 18:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Lol, so I have; that would be my wife (who is my reverse sock puppet, i.e. we frequently share my account). Mea culpa Sjc 04:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Reverse sock puppets are IMO a bad idea even for editing, and too confusing to consider in the case of voting. She should get her own acct, or vote anon. --Jerzy(t) 23:58, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
 * Comment: The following are some programming language listings that are also deserving of being included in the VfD according to the arguments presented here, which should in all fairness be put under the same scrutiny as Heron: A plus plus, BuildProfessional, ChucK, Escapade, Frink, F Sharp programming language, Godiva programming language, Groovy programming language, ICI Programming Language, Io programming language, Joy programming language, Joule programming language, Kogut programming language, Kvikkalkul programming language, LYaPAS programming language, Malbolge programming language, Mercury programming language, MOO programming language, Nice programming language, Nosica programming language, Nial programming language, Nemerle, Pike programming language, Pizza programming language, Processing (programming language)], [[Q programming language, Revolution programming language, Scala, SuperCollider programming language, Unlambda, Var'aq, Whitespace (programming language), XOTcl, Z programming language, ZZT-oop Christopher Diggins 18:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, several of these languages you mention are good examples of why yours shouldn't be included yet. ZZT was widely-known and distributed in its day, and its OO language was very interesting at the time. Pike has been used in a number of projects, including DreamSNES, the SNES emulator for the Sega Dreamcast. Thousands of people have seen the Pike logo from that project alone. MOO code has been around since 1990 and has had various successes and failures; LambdaMOO remains the major testament to its power. I have heard of Godiva in the context of Icon as well. Those are just off the top of my head. I haven't actually looked at any of those links. Jeeves 22:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. See No original research. You can nominate the other languages for deletion as well, if you like. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:17, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it original research, though? The information in the article is available in the official language documentation. David Remahl 21:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. --Gary D 23:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotional, vanity. Unless much better evidence is provided that the language is of encyclopedic importance--e.g. that the language is in actual use for significant non-experimental projects, or is currently being taught in academic courses, or has been the subject of papers in recognized journals. I've just been Googling and looking for hits that did not obviously refer back to the http://www.heron-language.com/ site. I finally thought I had hit paydirt with polymorphism without class inheritance beginning "I am presenting a talk at Concordia University in Montreal next week, on how the Heron programming language provides object polymorphism without class inheritance through the use of interfaces..." It turned out to be a talk by Christopher Diggins. The argument that we have other articles that may merit deletion does not seem to me to be a weighty reason for keeping this one. Wikipedia has no interest in being the first to publish something or in "scooping" other sources. When and if Heron catches on the article can always be resubmitted. Has Heron ever been discussed in Slashdot? (Click, click) Apparently not. If the author were to submit an article on Heron to Slashdot and it were to be published, I'd change my vote to "keep." Dpbsmith 23:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text: Category:Geography of Spain

title: Category:Geography of Spain


text:
Persian alphabet

The Persian alphabet, also known as the Perso-Arabic script, is the right-to-left alphabet used for the Persian language. It is a variation of the Arabic script with five additional letters: پ چ ژ گ (the sounds 'g', 'zh', 'ch', and 'p', respectively), in addition to the obsolete ڤ that was used for the sound. This letter is no longer used in Persian, as the -sound changed to, e.g. archaic زڤان > زبان  'language'.

It was the basis of many Arabic-based scripts used in Central and South Asia. It is used for the Iranian and Dari standard varieties of Persian; and is one of two official writing systems for the Persian language, alongside the Cyrillic-based Tajik alphabet.

The script is mostly but not exclusively right-to-left; mathematical expressions, numeric dates and numbers bearing units are embedded from left to right. The script is cursive, meaning most letters in a word connect to each other; when they are typed, contemporary word processors automatically join adjacent letter forms.

History
The Persian alphabet is directly derived and developed from the Arabic alphabet. The Arabic alphabet was introduced to the Persian-speaking world after the Muslim conquest of Persia and the fall of the Sasanian Empire in the 7th century. Following which, the Arabic language became the principal language of government and religious institutions in Persia, which led to the widespread usage of the Arabic script. Classical Persian literature and poetry were affected by this simultaneous usage of Arabic and Persian. A new influx of Arabic vocabulary soon entered the Persian language. In the 8th century, the Tahirid dynasty and Samanid dynasty officially adopted the Arabic script for writing Persian, followed by the Saffarid dynasty in the 9th century, gradually displacing the various Pahlavi scripts used for the Persian language prior. By the 9th-century, the Perso-Arabic alphabet became the dominant form of writing in Greater Khorasan.

Under the influence of various Persian Empires, many languages in Central and South Asia that adopted the Arabic script use the Persian Alphabet as the basis of their writing systems. Today, extended versions of the Persian alphabet are used to write a wide variety of Indo-Iranian languages, including Kurdish, Balochi, Pashto, Urdu (from Classical Hindostani), Saraiki, Panjabi, Sindhi and Kashmiri. In the past the use of the Persian alphabet was common amongst Turkic languages, but today is relegated to those spoken within Iran, such as Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Qashqai, Chaharmahali and Khalaj. The Uyghur language in western China is the most notable exception to this.

During the colonization of Central Asia, many languages in the Soviet Union, including Persian, were reformed by the government. This ultimately resulted in the Cyrillic-based alphabet used in Tajikistan today. See:.

Letters

Below are the 32 letters of the modern Persian alphabet. Since the script is cursive, the appearance of a letter changes depending on its position: isolated, initial (joined on the left), medial (joined on both sides) and final (joined on the right) of a word.

The names of the letters are mostly the ones used in Arabic except for the Persian pronunciation. The only ambiguous name is, which is used for both ح and ه. For clarification, they are often called (literally "-like " after, the name for the letter ج that uses the same base form) and  (literally "two-eyed ", after the contextual middle letterform ـهـ), respectively.

Overview table
Historically, in Early New Persian, there was a special letter for the sound. This letter is no longer used, as the -sound changed to, e.g. archaic زڤان /zaβān/ > زبان 'language'.

Letter construction
The i'jam diacritic characters are illustrative only; in most typesetting the combined characters in the middle of the table are used.

Persian yē has 2 dots below in the initial and middle positions only. The standard Arabic version ي يـ ـيـ ـي always has 2 dots below.

Letters that do not link to a following letter
Seven letters (و, ژ, ز, ر, ذ, د, ا) do not connect to the following letter, unlike the rest of the letters of the alphabet. The seven letters have the same form in isolated and initial position and a second form in medial and final position. For example, when the letter ا is at the beginning of a word such as اینجا  ("here"), the same form is used as in an isolated. In the case of امروز ("today"), the letter ر  takes the final form and the letter و  takes the isolated form, but they are in the middle of the word, and ز also has its isolated form, but it occurs at the end of the word.

Diacritics
Persian script has adopted a subset of Arabic diacritics: zabar ( in Arabic), zēr  ( in Arabic), and pēš  or  ( in Arabic, pronounced zamme in Western Persian), tanwīne nasb  and šaddah (gemination). Other Arabic diacritics may be seen in Arabic loanwords in Persian.

Short vowels
Of the four Arabic diacritics, the Persian language has adopted the following three for short vowels. The last one, sukūn, which indicates the lack of a vowel, has not been adopted.

There is no standard transliteration for Persian. The letters 'i' and 'u' are only ever used as short vowels when transliterating Dari or Tajik Persian. See Persian Phonology

Diacritics differ by dialect, due to Dari having 8 distinct vowels compared to the 6 vowels of Farsi. See Persian Phonology

In Farsi, none of these short vowels may be the initial or final grapheme in an isolated word, although they may appear in the final position as an inflection, when the word is part of a noun group. In a word that starts with a vowel, the first grapheme is a silent alef which carries the short vowel, e.g. اُمید (omid, meaning "hope"). In a word that ends with a vowel, letters ع, ه and و respectively become the proxy letters for zebar, zir and piš, e.g. نو (now, meaning "new") or بسته (bast-e, meaning "package").

Tanvin (nunation)
Nunation (, tanvin) is the addition of one of three vowel diacritics to a noun or adjective to indicate that the word ends in an alveolar nasal sound without the addition of the letter nun.

Other characters
The following are not actual letters but different orthographical shapes for letters, a ligature in the case of the. As to ﺀ (hamza), it has only one graphical form since it is never tied to a preceding or following letter. However, it is sometimes 'seated' on a vâv, ye or alef, and in that case, the seat behaves like an ordinary vâv, ye or alef respectively. Technically, hamza is not a letter but a diacritic.

Although at first glance, they may seem similar, there are many differences in the way the different languages use the alphabets. For example, similar words are written differently in Persian and Arabic, as they are used differently.

Unicode has accepted in the Miscellaneous Symbols range. In Unicode 1.0 this symbol was known as. It is a stylization of الله (Allah) used as the emblem of Iran. It also a part of the flag of Iran, which is the typical rendering of "🇮🇷", the regional indicator symbol for Iran.

The Unicode Standard has a compatibility character defined that can represent ریال, the Persian name of the currency of Iran.

Novel letters
The Persian alphabet has four extra letters that are not in the Arabic alphabet:, (ch in chair),  (s in measure),. An additional fifth letter ڤ was used for (v in Spanish huevo) but it is no longer used.

Deviations from the Arabic script
Persian uses the Eastern Arabic numerals, but the shapes of the digits 'four' (۴), 'five' (۵), and 'six' (۶) are different from the shapes used in Arabic. All the digits also have different codepoints in Unicode:

Word boundaries
Typically, words are separated from each other by a space. Certain morphemes (such as the plural ending '-hâ'), however, are written without a space. On a computer, they are separated from the word using the zero-width non-joiner.

Cyrillic Persian alphabet in Tajikistan
As part of the russification of Central Asia, the Cyrillic script was introduced in the late 1930s. The alphabet remained Cyrillic until the end of the 1980s with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In 1989, with the growth in Tajik nationalism, a law was enacted declaring Tajik the state language. In addition, the law officially equated Tajik with Persian, placing the word Farsi (the endonym for the Persian language) after Tajik. The law also called for a gradual reintroduction of the Perso-Arabic alphabet.

The Persian alphabet was introduced into education and public life, although the banning of the Islamic Renaissance Party in 1993 slowed adoption. In 1999, the word Farsi was removed from the state-language law, reverting the name to simply Tajik. the de facto standard in use is the Tajik Cyrillic alphabet, and only a very small part of the population can read the Persian alphabet.

title: Persian alphabet


text:
Always (1989 film)

Always is a 1989 American romantic fantasy film directed and produced by Steven Spielberg. It is a remake of the 1943 romantic drama A Guy Named Joe, which was set during World War II. The main departure from the 1943 film is the changing of the setting from wartime to a modern aerial firefighting operation. It, however, follows the same basic plot line: the spirit of a recently dead expert pilot mentors a newer pilot, while watching him fall in love with the girlfriend he left behind. The names of the four principal characters of the earlier film are all the same, except the Ted Randall character, who is called Ted Baker in the remake, and Pete's last name is Sandich instead of Sandidge. The film stars Richard Dreyfuss, Holly Hunter, John Goodman, Brad Johnson, and Audrey Hepburn in her final film role.

Always was released in the United States by Universal Pictures on December 22, 1989.

Plot
Pete Sandich is an aerial firefighter whose excessive risk-taking in the air deeply troubles his girlfriend, Dorinda Durston, a pilot who doubles as an air traffic controller for the firefighters. It also concerns Pete's best friend, Al Yackey, a fellow firefighter pilot.

After yet another risky and nearly fatal flight that Pete casually shrugs off, Al suggests he accept a safer job training firefighting pilot in Flat Rock, Colorado. He refuses until Dorinda tearfully confronts him, confessing her perpetual fear and anguish that he will be killed. Pete relents and tells her he will take the training job.

Pete flies one last mission, despite Dorinda's gloomy premonition. During the firebombing run, Al's engine catches fire and is about to explode. Pete makes a dangerously steep dive and skillfully douses Al's engine with a fire-retardant slurry, saving him. As Pete struggles to regain control from the dive, he flies directly through the forest fire, igniting his engine and causing the aircraft to explode.

Pete strolls through a burned-out forest. Coming to a small clearing, he meets Hap, who explains Pete died in the explosion and now has a new purpose: As spirits did for him during his lifetime, he will provide Spiritus ("the divine breath") to guide others who will interpret his words as their thoughts.

Although time is non-linear from Pete's perspective, six months have elapsed in the real world and Al wants a grieving Dorinda to move past Pete's death. He takes her with him to Colorado to work at the flight school where Pete is to lead pilots who will be training to fight fires, one of which is Ted Baker. More months pass and, to Pete's anguish, Ted falls in love with Dorinda as she begins emerging from her year-long mourning. Pete attempts to sabotage the budding romance, but Hap reminds him that his life ended; he was sent to inspire Ted but also to bid Dorinda farewell.

Ted, with Pete's inspiration, plans a dangerous rescue mission for trapped firefighters. Unable to bear another loss, Dorinda takes his aircraft to do the job herself. Pete, unseen by Dorinda, fails to dissuade her. However, with Pete's guidance, she can save the firefighters who are trapped on the ground. On the return flight, Pete tells Dorinda everything he wants to say in life.

Dorinda makes an emergency water landing in a lake. As the sinking plane's cockpit floods, she seems reluctant to escape. Pete appears before her and, offering his hand, leads her to the surface. As Dorinda wades ashore, Pete releases her from his heart for allowing Ted to be replaced. Dorinda walks back to the airbase where she accepts Ted and embraces him. Pete appreciates, smiles, and walks in the opposite direction to assume his place in the afterlife.

Cast
In addition, singer-songwriter J. D. Souther plays the pianist-singer at the dance near the start of the film.

Production
Steven Spielberg confided that while making Jaws in 1974, he and Richard Dreyfuss had traded quips from A Guy Named Joe, considered a "classic" war film, that they both wanted to remake. Originally intended to be an MGM project, the film underwent a protracted 10-year gestation, with Tom Cruise reputedly being considered for the Ted Baker role. Dustin Hoffman was offered a role but turned it down.

Dreyfuss had seen the 1943 melodrama "at least 35 times." For Spielberg, who recalled seeing it as a child late at night, "it was one of the films that inspired him to become a movie director," creating an emotional connection to the times that his father, a wartime air force veteran had lived through. The two friends quoted individual shots from the film to each other and when the opportunity arose, years later, were resolved to recreate the wartime fantasy.

Principal photography began on May 15, 1989; production took place in northwestern Montana in the Kootenai National Forest, with some scenes filmed in and around Libby. Some 500 of its residents were recruited for the film as extras to act as wildland firefighters. The scenes where the plane flies over the lake at the beginning and lands in the lake at the end of the movie were filmed at Bull Lake, south of Troy. The scenes set in "Flat Rock, Colorado," were filmed at and around the Ephrata airport in eastern Washington. The scene where Pete and Hap are walking through the wheat field was filmed at Sprague, southwest of Spokane, where they spent two weeks filming in June. Footage of Yellowstone National Park's 1988 fires was used for the fire sequences. Production wrapped in August 1989.

Audrey Hepburn appeared in Always in her last film role. Her cameo was an opportunity to raise money for her favorite cause; much of Hepburn's one million dollars plus salary was donated to UNICEF.

Aircraft used
Two Douglas A-26 Invader fire bombers (Douglas B-26C Invader No. 57] and Douglas TB-26C Invader No. 59 ) were prominently featured in Always. The flying for the film was performed by well-known film pilot Steve Hinton and Dennis Lynch, The owner of the A-26s. A combination of aerial photography, rear projection, and models was used to create the aerial sequences.

A number of other aircraft also appeared in Always: Aeronca 7AC Champion, Bellanca 8KCAB Super Decathlon, Beechcraft Model 18, Cessna 337 Super Skymaster, Cessna 340, Consolidated PBY-5A Catalina, de Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter, Douglas C-54 Skymaster, Fairchild C-119C Flying Boxcar, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and North American B-25J Mitchell. Two helicopters were also seen: Bell 206 JetRanger and Bell UH-1B Iroquois.

Box office
Always was released the same day as Tango & Cash and grossed $3.7 million in its opening weekend, finishing fifth behind Christmas Vacation, Tango & Cash, The War of the Roses, and Back to the Future Part II. It went on to gross $43.9 million in the U.S. and $30.3 million in foreign territories, for a worldwide total of $74.1 million.

Critical response
On Rotten Tomatoes the film holds an approval rating of 68% based on 28 reviews, with an average rating of 5.7/10. The website's critics consensus reads: "Its central romance takes occasional dives into excessive sentimentality, but Always otherwise flies high thanks to director Steven Spielberg's rousing feel for adventure." Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 50 out of 100 based on 15 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A−" on an A+ to F scale.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times considered it "dated" and more of a "curiosity," calling it Spielberg's "weakest film since his comedy 1941". Variety gave it a more generous review: "Always is a relatively small scale, engagingly casual, somewhat silly, but always entertaining fantasy."

Awards and nominations
Always was nominated in 1991 for the Saturn Award as Best Fantasy Film, while Jerry Belson was nominated for the Best Writing category of the award at the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films (USA). Several critics have now considered the film as the progenitor of a new crop of "ghost" genre films, including Ghost (1990).

Music

 * The character Pete Sandich, played by Richard Dreyfuss, whistles "Garryowen" and the theme to Leave It to Beaver.
 * "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes," performed live in the film by J. D. Souther and played later on tape by The Platters, is what romantic couple Sandich and Durston refer to as "our song".
 * The album was released in 1990 and featured tracks of the orchestral score of the film, composed and conducted by John Williams. An expanded edition of Williams' score was released on June 22, 2021, through La-La-Land Records, which includes unreleased and unheard musical content.
 * Also featured was Jimmy Buffett's "Boomerang Love".

title: Always (1989 film)


text:
Charlotte Burks

Charlotte Gentry Burks (born October 3, 1942) is a farmer and Democratic party politician in Tennessee who represented the 15th district as State Senator from 1998 until 2015.

Burks was born in 1942 in Gainesboro, Tennessee, and lives in Monterey, Tennessee. She was married to Tommy Burks, a Tennessee State Senator. They had three children together, one of whom is former Putnam County Executive Kim Blaylock. She also has 11 grandchildren.

Career
In 1998, after Burks' husband was assassinated during an election campaign by his Republican challenger Byron (Low-Tax) Looper, she became a write-in candidate for his seat. Although she did not campaign, family members and friends campaigned extensively on her behalf, and she defeated Looper by a landslide margin, receiving 95% of the vote and becoming the first write-in candidate to win a seat in the Tennessee State Senate. She began her Senate service with the 101st General Assembly.

Burks was reelected in 2002 and 2006 with no substantive opposition. In 2010, when Republicans picked up many seats in the General Assembly, Burks won re-election to a fourth four-year term by a margin of just 183 votes over her Republican opponent, Gary Steakley. Burks carried five of the six counties in the largely rural district, losing only in Cumberland County. An independent candidate placed third in the vote. Steakley challenged the results, claiming irregularities on election day, but a State Senate committee found that there was insufficient evidence to question the outcome.

In the Senate, Burks served as the secretary of the education committee; as a member of the joint study economic development; government operations; select on children and youth; and the environment, conservation, and tourism committees. On September 8, 2013 she announced that she would not run for reelection the following year. On Election Day, the Republican candidate won the seat.

title: Charlotte Burks


text: Category:Islands of Spain

title: Category:Islands of Spain


text:
Neptunalia

The Neptunalia was an obscure archaic two-day festival in honor of Neptune as god of waters, celebrated at Rome in the heat and drought of summer, probably 23 July (Varro, De lingua Latina vi.19). It was one of the dies comitiales, when committees of citizens could vote on civil or criminal matters. In the ancient calendar this day is marked as ''Nept. ludi et feriae, or Nept. ludi, from which Leonhard Schmitz (in Smith, see link) concluded that the festival was celebrated with games (ludi''). Respecting the ceremonies of this festival nothing is known, except that the people used to build huts of branches and foliage (umbrae, according to Festus, under " Umbrae"), in which they probably feasted, drank, and amused themselves (Horace Carmina iii.28.1, &c.; Tertullian De Spectaculis ("On Celebrations") 6).

In Tunisia
Neptunalia is still celebrated in the city of Sousse, Tunisia under the name Carnival of Awussu. The celebration transformed as time unfold and lost all religious connotations.

title: Neptunalia


text:
User:Prisonblues/Colleges/Corpus Christi College, Cambridge

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge


text:
1858 in art

Events from the year 1858 in art.

Events

 * January 3 – English writer and art critic John Ruskin meets 10-year-old Rose La Touche, a drawing pupil who becomes his muse, for the first time, at her family's London home.
 * May 13 – John Ruskin begins a tour of Europe which he considers a significant turning point in his life.
 * English-born photographer Robert Jefferson Bingham creates the first photographic catalogue raisonné, depicting the works of French painter Paul Delaroche (d. 1856) (Oeuvre de Paul Delaroche, reproduit en photographie par Bingham, accompagné d'une notice sur la vie et les oeuvres de Paul Delaroche), published by Goupil & Cie in Paris. Goupil also begins publication of mass editions of photographic reproductions of popular paintings.
 * Edward Lear visits the Holy Land.

Awards

 * Prix de Rome (for painting) – Jean-Jacques Henner

Works

 * Ivan Aivazovsky – The Battle of Bomarsund
 * Edward Armitage – Retribution
 * Jerry Barrett – The Mission of Mercy: Nightingale receiving the wounded at Scutari
 * Emma Brownlow – The Foundling Restored to its Mother
 * Philip Hermogenes Calderon – Ave Maria
 * 'Lewis Carroll' – Alice Liddell as a beggar child (photograph)
 * Augustus Egg – Past and Present (triptych)
 * William Henry Fisk – The Secret
 * William Powell Frith
 * The Derby Day
 * The Crossing Sweeper
 * The Signal
 * Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres – Self-Portrait at the Age of 78 (Uffizi Gallery, Florence)
 * Christian Albrecht Jensen – Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach
 * Édouard Manet – The Boy with Cherries (Museu Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon)
 * William Morris – La belle Iseult
 * Elisabet Ney – Jacob Grimm (sculpture)
 * Henry Nelson O'Neil – Eastward Ho!
 * John Quidor – The Headless Horseman Pursuing Ichabod Crane
 * David Roberts
 * Edinburgh from the Calton Hill
 * The interior of the Collegiate Church of St Paul at Antwerp
 * Rebecca Solomon – Behind the Curtain
 * Edward Washburn – The Arkansas Traveller
 * Albert Wolff – Löwenkämpfer (equestrian bronze, Berlin, Germany)

Births

 * January 6 – Albert Henry Munsell, American painter, teacher of art and inventor of the Munsell color system (died 1918)
 * January 10 – Heinrich Zille, German photographer and illustrator (died 1929)
 * March 13 – Maximilien Luce, French Neo-Impressionist painter (died 1941)
 * May 14 – Anthon van Rappard, Dutch painter (died 1892)
 * June 16 – John Russell, Australian Impressionist painter (died 1930)
 * June 21 – Medardo Rosso, Italian Post-Impressionist sculptor (died 1928)
 * September 12 – Fernand Khnopff, Belgian Symbolist painter (died 1921)
 * November 2 – Niels Skovgaard, Danish sculptor and painter (died 1938)
 * November 12 – Marie Bashkirtseff, Ukrainian-born painter (died 1884)
 * November 30 – Rosa Mayreder, Austrian freethinker, author, painter, musician and feminist (died 1938)

Deaths

 * January 10 – Hezekiah Augur, American sculptor and inventor (born 1791)
 * January 31 – Václav Mánes, Czech painter (born 1793)
 * April 9 – Joseph Stieler, German painter (born 1781)
 * May 18 – Carl Gustaf Löwenhielm, Swedish diplomat who made paintings of the countries in which he served (born 1790)
 * June 15 – Ary Scheffer, painter (born 1795)
 * July 15 – Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov, Russian painter who adhered to Neoclassicism (born 1806)
 * October 12 – Hiroshige, Japanese ukiyo-e artist (born 1797)
 * October 16 – Charles Norris, English topographical etcher and writer known for his landscape work of the Welsh countryside (born 1779)
 * date unknown
 * Guillaume Descamps, French painter and engraver (born 1779)
 * John Hogan, sculptor (born 1800)

title: 1858 in art


text:
Mizuage

lit. 'hoisting from water' (水揚げ) was a ceremony undergone by apprentice  and some  (apprentice geisha) as part of their coming of age ceremony and graduation.

For, who had often already lost their virginity, a patron would pay for the exclusive privilege of being a new 's first customer; for who underwent , it formed part of a number of ceremonies and occasions used to mark graduation into geishahood, including symbolic changes in hairstyle and official visits to benefactors. Before the outlawing of prostitution in Japan, who underwent  would see patrons and benefactors bid large sums of money for the privilege of taking their virginity, a sum of money the  (the geisha house an apprentice was affiliated to) would take entirely.

In the present day, a 's graduation is known as 'turning the collar [of a kimono]' (襟替え), and is entirely non-sexual, though some older sources – such as the autobiography of Mineko Iwasaki, the geisha that inspired the character Sayuri in the novel Memoirs of a Geisha by author Arthur Golden refer to the non-sexual graduation of to geishahood as. , and courtesans as an extension, exist in a wholly non-sexual capacity in modern-day Japan; re-enactment parades are performed by actors, and  perform their profession's traditional arts without the inclusion of sex work. In both capacities, the of both  (who are merely actors in a parade) and  (for whom the role is a profession) do not engage in sex work as part of a 'graduation' out of apprenticeship.

History
has been long connected with the loss of virginity of a, owing to the fact that some did undergo ceremonies to lose their virginity. for a would also include monetary sponsorship by the  patron, intended to support and promote the 's debut to geisha status. Through this sponsorship of the apprentice, a patron would essentially purchase the right to take the 's virginity. The patron would often have no further relations with the young woman in question.

In the modern day, is a contentious issue, both within the geisha communities of Japan and elsewhere. The practice was outlawed following the introduction of the Anti-Prostitution Law in 1956, categorised under the "traffic in human flesh". Many geisha who came of age before the passing of the law went through the experience of, and though most geisha had no choice in the patron who took their virginity, with some instances of geisha being sold more than once, the practice of formed an important initiation into womanhood and the role of an independent geisha; according to the research of anthropologist Liza Dalby, though this process was generally not pleasant, for many, it was perceived as a natural stage in growing up, with trainees in the same age cohort who had not graduated viewed by their peers as having been somewhat left behind.

Post-1956
Mineko Iwasaki, former high-ranking Gion geisha, detailed her experience of in her autobiography, Geisha, a Life. Describing her experience of graduation to geishahood with the term, Iwasaki described her experience as a round of formal visits to announce her graduation, including the presentation of gifts to related geisha houses and important patrons, and a cycle through five different hairstyles before graduating. This set of graduation experiences is generally referred to as in the modern day.

Dalby relays the change between pre- and post-1956 attitudes to within the geisha community through her first-hand accounts with the geisha mothers of Ponto-chō:

""What about now?" I asked, seeing this as a chance to find out more about sex in the geisha world[...] "It's all changed now," said the . "There's no ceremony any more[...] All the maiko have been through junior high school, so they aren't as ignorant as we were – right, Ichiume? They pretty much pick their own boyfriends and patrons when they're ready. That's not the same as .""

All modern and geisha have full control over their personal choices regarding sex, and most  begin training, attending banquets, and interacting with customers aged 18 – though they may start living at the  as a  (maids) for a few years before graduation to lit. 'learning by observation' and then  status.

Though customers attending geisha parties and banquets generally expect some level of convivial and low-key flirtation, a is likely to be considered off-limits as a younger and more vulnerable participant to such gatherings. are instead treated with generosity by guests cognisant of their relative inexperience at geisha parties.

In literature
Arthur Golden's novel Memoirs of a Geisha portrays as a financial arrangement in which a girl's virginity is sold to a " patron", generally someone who particularly enjoys sex with virgin girls, or merely enjoys the charms of an individual.

Former geisha Sayo Masuda describes in her 1957 autobiography Autobiography of a Geisha as sexual exploitation. Masuda describes being sold multiple times by her to men, ostensibly for the purposes of taking her virginity, under the pretence that she had not yet lost it. The transaction was explicitly a sexual arrangement, far removed from the ceremony of graduating into geishahood, netting the a large profit. Despite her personal experiences, Masuda argued against the outlawing of sex work in Japan, explaining that it provided a way for women to make an independent living when chosen as a profession, and through criminalisation, would merely be driven underground.

title: Mizuage


text:
Stayfree

Stayfree is an American brand of feminine hygiene products, including maxi pads, ultra thin pads, and female wipes. On July 31, 2013, Energizer bought Stayfree from Johnson & Johnson. The purchase was only for the brands in North America – Johnson & Johnson continues to own the brands in all other regions of the world. One notable exception of which is the Philippines where it is bought under the "Modess" name.

Products

 * Stayfree® Ultra Thin Regular
 * Stayfree® Ultra Thin Regular with Wings
 * Stayfree® Ultra Thin Super Long with Wings
 * Stayfree® Ultra Thin Overnight with Wings
 * Stayfree® Maxi Regular
 * Stayfree® Maxi Deodorant
 * Stayfree® Maxi Super
 * Stayfree® Maxi Super Long
 * Stayfree® Maxi Regular with Wings
 * Stayfree® Maxi Super Long with Wings
 * Stayfree® Maxi Overnight with Wings

title: Stayfree


text:
Talk:Armin Shimerman

Screen Actors Guild
Surprised no mention is made of his active role in the Screen Actors Guild - board member for several years, chair or co-chair of several committees, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:300:7520:B5DF:80C7:195:726A (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Armin Shimerman


text:
Rectilinear locomotion

Rectilinear locomotion or rectilinear progression is a mode of locomotion most often associated with snakes. In particular, it is associated with heavy-bodied species such as terrestrial African adders, pythons and boas; however, most snakes are capable of it. It is one of at least five forms of locomotion used by snakes, the others being lateral undulation, sidewinding, concertina movement, and slide-pushing. Unlike all other modes of snake locomotion, which include the snake bending its body, the snake flexes its body only when turning in rectilinear locomotion.

Biomechanics of rectilinear locomotion
Rectilinear locomotion relies upon two opposing muscles, the costocutaneous inferior and superior, which are present on every rib and connect the ribs to the skin. Although it was originally believed that the ribs moved in a "walking" pattern during rectilinear movement, studies have shown that the ribs themselves do not move, only the muscles and the skin move to produce forward motion. First, the costocutaneous superior lifts a section of the snake's belly from the ground and places it ahead of its former position. Then the costocutaneous inferior pulls backwards while the belly scales are on the ground, propelling the snake forwards. These sections of contact propagate posteriorly, which results in the ventral surface, or belly, moving in discrete sections akin to "steps" while the overall body of the snake moves continuously forward at a relatively constant speed.

Uses of rectilinear locomotion
This method of locomotion is extremely slow (between 0.01 –), but is also almost noiseless and very hard to detect, making it the mode of choice for many species when stalking prey. It is primarily used when the space being traversed is too constricting to allow for other forms of movement. When climbing, snakes will often use rectilinear locomotion in conjunction with concertina movements to exploit terrain features such as interstices in the surfaces they are climbing.

Rectilinear locomotion may also be useful after snakes eat. Snakes have more difficulty bending their spines after consuming large prey, and rectilinear movement requires less flexing of the spine than other locomotion types.

In robotics
The development of rectilinear movement in robotics is centered around the development of snakelike robots, which have significant advantages over robots with wheeled or bipedal locomotion. The primary advantage in the creation of a serpentine robot is that the robot is often capable of traversing rough, muddy, and complex terrain that is often prohibitive to wheeled robots. Secondly, due to the mechanisms responsible for rectilinear and other forms of serpentine locomotion, the robots tend to have repetitive motor elements, which makes the entire robot relatively robust to mechanical failure.

title: Rectilinear locomotion


text:
1859 in art

Events from the year 1859 in art.

Events

 * March 22 – Scottish National Gallery opens to the public in Edinburgh in neoclassical premises designed by W. H. Playfair.
 * April 26 – William Morris marries his model, Jane Burden. Edward Burne-Jones presents them with a self-painted wardrobe.
 * Frederic E. Church's The Heart of the Andes is exhibited in New York and draws 12,000 paying visitors.
 * While attending the free school, the Académie Suisse, in Paris, Pissarro becomes friends with a number of younger artists also choosing to paint in a more realistic style, including Monet, Guillaumin and Cézanne.
 * This year's Paris Salon admits photographs.
 * The Artists Rifles set up in London as a volunteer unit of the British Army.

Works

 * Peter Nicolai Arbo – Saint Olav at the Battle of Stiklestad
 * Thomas Jones Barker – The Relief of Lucknow
 * Albert Bierstadt – some dates approximate
 * Bernese Alps
 * Surveyor's Wagon in the Rockies
 * The Wolf River, Kansas
 * Philip Hermogenes Calderon – French Peasants Finding Their Stolen Child
 * Frederic E. Church – The Heart of the Andes
 * Peter Clodt von Jürgensburg – Monument to Nicholas I (Saint Petersburg), the world's largest equestrian statue supported only by the hind hooves of a rearing horse
 * Thomas Couture – Daydreams
 * Eugène Delacroix – Ovid among the Scythians (first version)
 * Robert S. Duncanson – Landscape with Rainbow
 * William Dyce – Beatrice (Lady with a Coronet of Jasmine)
 * William Maw Egley – Omnibus Life in London
 * Henri Fantin-Latour – Self-portrait
 * Francesco Hayez – The Kiss, an expression of Italian Romanticism
 * James Clarke Hook
 * The Brook
 * Luff, Boy!
 * Arthur Hughes – The Long Engagement
 * Charles-Auguste Lebourg – Gallic Victim (marble)
 * Édouard Manet – The Absinthe Drinker (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen)
 * John Everett Millais – The Vale of Rest
 * Jean-François Millet – The Angelus (completed version) (Musée d'Orsay, Paris)
 * Elisabet Ney – Arthur Schopenhauer (sculpture)
 * Henry Nelson O'Neil – Home Again
 * Dante Gabriel Rossetti – Bocca Baciata, the first of his portraits of single female figures (Fanny Cornforth)
 * John Roddam Spencer Stanhope – Thoughts of the Past
 * James McNeill Whistler – Brown and Silver: Old Battersea Bridge

Births

 * January 28 – Ambrosia Tønnesen, Norwegian sculptor (died 1948)
 * May 25 – William Logsdail, English landscape, portrait, and genre painter (died 1944)
 * June 16 – Paja Jovanović, one of the leading three Serbian Realist painters, with Đorđe Krstić and Uroš Predić (died 1957)
 * June 17 – Walter Osborne, Irish Impressionist painter (died 1903)
 * August 22 – John Henry Dearle, English textile designer (died 1932)
 * October 17 – Childe Hassam, American Impressionist painter (died 1935)
 * November 10 – Théophile Steinlen, Swiss/French painter (died 1923)
 * November 27 – William Bliss Baker, American landscape painter (died 1886)
 * December 2 – Georges-Pierre Seurat, French post-Impressionist painter (died 1891)
 * December 25 – Anna Palm de Rosa, Swedish-born painter (died 1924)
 * December 30 – Henrietta Rae, English painter (died 1928)

Deaths

 * February 8 – William Edward West, American portrait painter (born 1788)
 * March 3 – Cornelis Cels, Belgian painter of portraits and historical subjects (born 1778)
 * March 24 – James Stark, English painter (born 1794)
 * April 22 – Edward Villiers Rippingille, English painter (born c.1790)
 * May 5 – Charles Robert Leslie, English genre works painter (born 1794)
 * May 8 – José de Madrazo y Agudo, Spanish Neoclassicist painter (born 1781)
 * June 7 – David Cox, English landscape painter (born 1783)
 * June 20 – Hans Michelsen, Norwegian sculptor (born 1789)
 * August 3 – Alexey Tyranov, Russian painter (born 1801)
 * August 27 – Catharine Hermine Kølle, Norwegian adventurer and painter (born 1788)
 * October 21 – William Jennys, American naïve art portrait painter (born 1774)
 * November 13 - Ernesta Legnani Bisi, Italian painter and engraver (born 1788)
 * November 17 – James Ward, English animal painter and engraver (born 1769)
 * December 17 – Jan Feliks Piwarski, Polish painter and professor of art (born 1794)
 * date unknown – John Bacon, English sculptor (born 1777)

title: 1859 in art


text:
Talk:Synthetic diamond

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

 * Such a definition of export diamonds is given by the Alross company (Russian diamonds Exporter, via  ...)Colonel Kuznetsov (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured article?
This article no longer meets 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)
 * are you willing/able to restore this article to status, or should a Featured article review be initiated? Sandy Georgia  (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 talk 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

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Synthetic diamond → Man-made diamond – or or. 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[es] 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.) Wikipedia 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 ( d c̄ ) 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 "". — 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Wikipedia 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 [~56%] 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 Wikipedia 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 not substantially larger 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 [as natural diamonds] and are, in fact, diamonds." Both HRD Antwerp (as of March 2019) and the GIA (as of April 2019) have switched from "synthetic" to "laboratory grown" for the terminology of their grading reports. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only HRD Antwerp and GIA have switched from "synthetic" to "lab-grown" but basically all diamond certification institutions have: International Gemological Institute, Gemological Science International , Gem Certification & Assurance Lab , American Gem Society Quelvin3 (talk) 13:25, 27 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 Wikipedia 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 not substantially larger 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 [as natural diamonds] and are, in fact, diamonds." Both HRD Antwerp (as of March 2019) and the GIA (as of April 2019) have switched from "synthetic" to "laboratory grown" for the terminology of their grading reports. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only HRD Antwerp and GIA have switched from "synthetic" to "lab-grown" but basically all diamond certification institutions have: International Gemological Institute, Gemological Science International , Gem Certification & Assurance Lab , American Gem Society Quelvin3 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only HRD Antwerp and GIA have switched from "synthetic" to "lab-grown" but basically all diamond certification institutions have: International Gemological Institute, Gemological Science International , Gem Certification & Assurance Lab , American Gem Society Quelvin3 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scale
It occurs to me that "lab grown" would usually mean small scale, and "factory grown" larger scale. Lab means like research lab which isn't sized for production scale work. Gah4 (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is because people don't think of a "factory" as a place that "grows" things or a place that is capable of producing and controlling the highly specialized materials and extreme conditions necessary for diamond production. Whatever the reason, "factory grown" does not seem to be a term that is very commonly used for diamonds. The "laboratory grown" (often shortened to "lab grown") term seems much more common. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is hard to imagine the scale now. There is the story of penicillin after it was discovered, and enough made for testing in a lab. They needed a company that knew how to build large scale bioreactors. In 1919, with calcium citrate from Italy cut off, someone figured out how to make citric acid from sugar with a fungus, and especially on a large scale. (That is, for the soft drink industry.) So in the 1940's, when large scale bioreactors were needed for growing penicillin, they went to the company making citric acid, Pfizer, and got them to start making industrial scale penicillin. Yet, as you note, we still like to believe that things we buy are made on a small scale, one at a time, by someone working in a small lab. Gah4 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two (industrial v lab) are mutually exclusive. Companies mass-produce products within labs, so you can have both combined. Not something to think about too much in my opinion! Sruthijayanti (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is hard to imagine the scale now. There is the story of penicillin after it was discovered, and enough made for testing in a lab. They needed a company that knew how to build large scale bioreactors. In 1919, with calcium citrate from Italy cut off, someone figured out how to make citric acid from sugar with a fungus, and especially on a large scale. (That is, for the soft drink industry.) So in the 1940's, when large scale bioreactors were needed for growing penicillin, they went to the company making citric acid, Pfizer, and got them to start making industrial scale penicillin. Yet, as you note, we still like to believe that things we buy are made on a small scale, one at a time, by someone working in a small lab. Gah4 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two (industrial v lab) are mutually exclusive. Companies mass-produce products within labs, so you can have both combined. Not something to think about too much in my opinion! Sruthijayanti (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename page to Laboratory Grown Diamond
These diamonds are not "synthetic". They are completely chemically identical real diamonds. Ergzay (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 * We had a RM about that last summer (you can find it further up this talk page). It failed. I doubt anything has changed since then. MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"MOS devices"
Definition not given for "MOS devices" in "This makes it difficult to fabricate surface MOS devices". Mechashroom (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate name, should read “Laboratory Grown Diamonds”
I can see this topic has been raised before, but this needs to be reviewed and changed. I was taken aback when a casual search for lab grown diamonds flipped to l synthetic diamonds” on Wiki. This baffles.

There is nothing synthetic about lab grown diamonds. They share the same properties as mined diamonds and are now certified by the same agencies as mined diamonds. A synthetic diamond would not be certifiable as a diamond, end of discussion.

For those of us in the jewellery trade, it’s a huge disservice. It's almost like false advertising. We try to educate that lab grown diamonds are real diamonds (four Cs, certified, etc) then turnaround to find Wiki slams a big misleading “synthetic” label.

Help! Minimax7 (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 * We had a move request about this a couple years ago (you can find it further up this talk page). It failed. I doubt anything has changed since then. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Thnaks for reply.
 * Yes, but things have changed since then. LGDs have come a long way and the fact they are now recognised by the same agencies as mined diamonds should close the argument.
 * We sell both, mined and LGDs. What we don't sell are synthetics.
 * I quote from www.GIA.edu...
 * "synthetic gem material is one that is made in a laboratory, but which shares virtually all chemical, optical, and physical characteristics of its natural mineral counterpart, though in some cases, namely synthetic turquoise and synthetic opal, additional compounds can be present."
 * The "but" and "virtually" are important here. LGDs share THE same characteristics.
 * How can this be reviewed objectively? 31.153.24.26 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We're really not concerned with how the industry refers to these things in their marketing. We're concerned with the terminology used in independent sources, particularly scientific journals and the academic press. MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting...
 * Strange that all the literature we read says lab grown diamonds. It's not about marketing, it's about education and that's Wiki's job! 31.153.24.26 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's job is to reflect what is said in the best available sources, not to get beyond them. The literature you have happened to read isn't terribly convincing in the face of the usage statistics given in the last move discussion. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and patience.
 * Out of interest, how often is someone reading the latest literature? As a Wiki newbie (this side of things) curious to know is it annually or when someone raises a talk? I guess I'm asking how often a move discussion takes place.  If it's been 1-2 years then perhaps it's time.
 * Again, thanks for your time and I suppose it is just a question of time until there's a change :) 31.153.24.26 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't really have any deadlines or annual processes, since it is staffed by volunteers who contribute when they are able. MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If something is synthesised in a laboratory it is synthetic. The word does not imply that the substance is any different from a naturally occuring version. 92.1.113.8 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And if it is synthesized outside the lab, then what is it? As far as I know, fluorocarbons like Teflon(tm) never occur in nature, but can be synthesized in a lab or factory. (That is, small or large scale.) I can melt an ice cube, but haven't synthesized water. I an burn methane, and then maybe synthesize water, even though nature does it exactly the same way. Synthesize suggests something different, good or bad, from the way nature does it. I suspect that lab grown diamonds are more perfect than natural ones, so maybe that makes them worse. Gah4 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the best explanation I've found is from the IGI (International Gemological Institute) which is possibly the world's leading independent diamond appraisal institute.
 * "Lab grown diamonds are created through chemical synthesis, but the FTC considers that term confusing. So, while you may see the word synthetic in science journals and research papers the diamond industry widely uses the term lab-grown."
 * Rather frustrating for those in the industry as for many people the term synthetic = fake. 31.153.24.26 (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather frustrating for those in the industry as for many people the term synthetic = fake. 31.153.24.26 (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Lavoisier's contribution
The History section says, "In the early stages of diamond synthesis, the founding figure of modern chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier, played a significant role. His groundbreaking discovery that a diamond's crystal lattice is similar to carbon's crystal structure paved the way for initial attempts to produce diamonds." That doesn't make sense, because crystal structure is a property of a crystalline material, not an element. It is an accurate paraphrase of the cited article, which states, "He discovered that the crystal lattice of a diamond corresponds to the crystal structure of carbon." But I'm pretty sure that article is incorrect, because I have not found any indication that Lavoisier contributed anything beyond establishing that diamonds are composed of carbon. Steve Wise (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Synthetic diamond


text:
United Civic Party

The United Civic Party (UCP; Аб'яднаная грамадзянская партыя; АГП; Объединённая гражданская партия; ОГП) is a banned liberal-conservative and liberal political party in Belarus. The party opposes the government of Alexander Lukashenko and has participated in the country's elections on a few occasions, but it did not have a single member in the Belarusian parliament until one member was elected during the 2016 elections. It claims that its lack of seats is due to the unfairness of the election process.

Famous party members are former Prime Minister Michaił Čyhir, the mysteriously disappeared politicians Jury Zacharanka and Viktar Hančar, and Hienadź Karpienka, who died prematurely.

History
The party was established in 1995 as a result of a merger of two like-minded parties, the United Democratic Party (formed in 1990) and the Civil Party (formed in 1994). The party's chairman is Mikałaj Kazłoŭ; deputy chairmen are Alaksandar Dabravolski and Jarasłaŭ Ramančuk. At the legislative elections, 13–17 October 2004, the party was part of the People's Coalition 5 Plus, which did not secure any seats. According to the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission, these elections fell significantly short of OSCE commitments. Universal principles and constitutionally guaranteed rights of expression, association and assembly were seriously challenged, calling into question the Belarusian authorities’ willingness to respect the concept of political competition on a basis of equal treatment. According to this mission principles of an inclusive democratic process, whereby citizens have the right to seek political office without discrimination, candidates to present their views without obstruction, and voters to learn about them and discuss them freely, were largely ignored.

In the 2008 elections, the party ran on its own, finishing in third place with 2.33 percent of the official vote and no seats gained. As with most of the opposition parties, the UCP boycotted the 2012 election, urging its supporters to abstain from voting as to not give credence to the process.

For the 2016 elections, the party formed an alliance with the BPF Party, the Belarusian Christian Democracy, the Social Democratic Party (Assembly), the 'Za svabodu' movement, the Green Party, the BLPFP, the Trade Union of Electric Industry and independent candidates. Party candidate Hanna Kanapackaja won a seat in the 97th electoral district in the Kastryčnickaja district of Minsk, making her and one other independent candidate the first opposition MPs represented in parliament since 2004. The party didn't win any seats in the 2019 Belarusian parliamentary election, and with the loss of the other pro-opposition independent, left it and the opposition without any representation within the House of Representatives once again.

On 15 August 2023, the United Civic Party was banned by the Supreme Court of Belarus.

Structure
UCP has an organisation for women and a youth organisation in its structure.

In 1995-2000, the youth organisation of the UCP was "Civil Forum", which left UCP during parliamentary elections of 2000, when the UCP boycotted it against the wishes of Civil Forum. Uładzimier Navasiad, chairman of Civil Forum, ran and won a seat in Parliament.

In 2000, the youth organisation was "UCP Youth", created to replace Civil Forum, but was rather an artificial structure in the party.

From later that year until 2009, YCSU Young Democrats was officially a youth wing of UCP, but in February 2009 at the congress of YCSU Young Democrats, a decision to stop cooperating with the party was taken. Some members did not support the decision to restrain cooperation with United Civic Party and left, staying as UCP Youth.

title: United Civic Party


text:
Kotex

Kotex is an American brand of menstrual hygiene products, which includes the Kotex maxi, thin and ultra-thin pads, the Security tampons, and the Lightdays pantiliners. Most recently, the company has added U by Kotex to its menstrual hygiene product line. Kotex is owned and managed by Kimberly-Clark, a consumer products corporation active in more than 80 countries.

History
The modern, commercial, disposable pads started in the late nineteenth century with the Hartmann (company) company in Germany, and Johnson & Johnson in the United States. In the UK, the Birmingham firm of Southall Brothers & Barclay was advertising "sanitary towels" in The Family Doctor and Home Medical Adviser in the early 1890s.

In the United States, Kotex was launched in 1920 by Kimberly-Clark to make use of leftover cellucotton (wood pulp fiber) from World War One bandages. An employee noted that the pads had a "cotton-like texture" which was abbreviated to "cot-tex" and then made the product name with alternate spelling.

In the 1920s, Kimberly-Clark placed advertisements in the women's magazines Good Housekeeping and Ladies' Home Journal. Although some readers were offended by the ads, the product's success led to more advertisements. Kimberly-Clark also promoted Kotex in Good Housekeeping by using intimate advice columnist Mary Pauline Callender.

Originally sold in a hospital blue box at 12 for 60 cents, Victorian sexual prudishness caused slow acceptance until Montgomery Ward began advertising them in its 1926 catalog, reaching $11 million sales in 1927 in 57 countries. It became one of the first self-service items in American retailing history after it was strategically placed on countertops with a special payment box so that the woman didn't have to ask a clerk for it and touch hands. Tampax appeared in 1936. Belts were needed until the 1970 introduction of Stayfree by Personal Products Co. and New Freedom Pads by Kimberly-Clark.

New Freedom is a former brand in the Kotex family. New Freedom was one of the first beltless pads manufactured in the early 1970s.

Product line
In August 2009, Kotex launched a premium sub-brand called Kotex Luxe in Singapore. It launched U by Kotex Tween, products aimed at girls aged 8–12 in the US in 2011.

Recalls and defects
In September 2012, Kimberly-Clark issued a warning regarding a shipment of rejected Kotex tampons stolen and sold to the public. The company said the defective products posed only a minor health risk to consumers.

In December 2018, Kimberly-Clark issued a recall of U by Kotex Sleek tampons due to findings that the product would sometimes break apart during removal, leaving behind fragments in the body that could require medical attention for removal.

title: Kotex


text:
Perspectives. Freedom. Progress.

'''Perspectives. Freedom. Progress. (Perspektiven. Freiheit. Fortschritt., PFF''') is a regional liberal political party in the German-speaking Community of Belgium.

Until 2023, the party still retained the German version of the name of the all-Belgian liberal party in the sixties, the Party for Freedom and Progress (Partei für Freiheit und Fortschritt) before changing to its current name, and it is a constituent member of the Reformist Movement.

title: Perspectives. Freedom. Progress.


text: File:WorldSpace Afristar control room.jpg


text:
User:Prisonblues/Colleges/Darwin College, Cambridge

Darwin College, Cambridge