User talk:ProteusX

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Almandine has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop! Read the references. Almandine and spessartine are the accepted spellings and the article titles. If you continue edit warring you will be subject to a block. Vsmith (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did read the references - which is why I'm trying to correct the erroneous pages. I'm a GIA graduate gemologist, and I have the reference book in question (GIA Gem Reference Guide, 1995.) The book refers to them as Almandite and Spessartite, noting Almandine and Spessartine as other acceptable names. Both Almandite and Spessartite are currently the preferred names in the trade, and Almandine and Spessartine as generally regarded as older synonyms. The current statement that the terms of "Spessartite" and "Almandite" are somehow incorrect is false. You may continue to fervently protect the erroneous pages if you wish, I was only attempting to improve the article. I suggest you check the reference book yourself and consider making the correction. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProteusX (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 June 2009


 * The statements that Almandite and Spessartite are incorrect is valid. Both Almandine and Spessartine are considered valid mineral species, and the names are officially regulated by the international body the International Mineralogical Association.  The GIA does not actually have international regulatory power and does not have the authority to change mineral names.  Both names were the result of an old IMA policy to change all mineral names to -ite endings,  this policy however was abandoned in the 1980s and both garnet species were returned to there original spellings. --Kevmin (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I see the GIA book is the reference given - and I don't have that book. Seems the references need to be updated to include mineral sources. As Kevmin notes, the IMA is the source for mineral names and is followed by Webmineral, Mindat and other mineral databses. Vsmith (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kevmin, you are mistaken for several reasons. First of all, the important concept in question is Wikipedia's standards, such as all articles should be written with a neutral, unbiased point of view. It doesn't really matter what any group of authorities says about anything, if the rest of the populace goes by other standards or terms. Quite frankly, I don't believe that the IMA has any more (or less) "power" than GIA (or anyone else for that matter), as no one controls language. In terms of linguistics, the most commonly used variant of a word is technically "correct", or at least acceptable as an alternative. Interestingly, if you do a Google search for "Spessartite garnet", the results will outnumber those for a search of "Spessartine garnet" by a ratio of approximately 5 to 1. Almandine, however, outnumbers Almandite by about 4 to 1, but Almandite is still a significantly common word to be considered acceptable. In fact, both webmineral and mindat list the "ite" and "ine" versions of both as synonyms. Synonym means an acceptable alternative, NOT an incorrect word. These references support my argument, not yours. Stating that "Spessartine" and "Almandine" are correct and that "Spessartite" and "Almandite" are incorrect is a biased statement. On grounds of neutrality, the article should state that both variants are acceptable. Again, the stated references support this. They do not say that "ite" versions are specifically wrong. On a side note, all the other garnets end in "ite", i.e. andradite, grossularite, uvarovite. Spessartite and Almandite are very much alive as words (Spessartite even more so than Spessartine), regardless of what any particular organizations think, and the articles should reflect this in order to be unbiased and neutral in regards to the world as a whole. ProteusX (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarifiaction-Language may not be controlled, however scientific names are all controlled, See the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry and the International Mineralogical Association. President for preference of one name over another is already established in wikipedia, see the pages and discussions relating to Sulfer and Aluminium. In both cases wikipedia uses the IUPAC names over the variants Sulphur and Aluminum.  Stating that the -ite endings are incorrect is not biased it is scientifically factual, please see Synonym (taxonomy) as the definitions and examples are much closer to the definition of synonym as used in Mineralogy then the common place use of the word.  Also note the definition given to Synonym on the Mindat.org manual "Synonyms - these are mineral names in foreign languages, minerals which have had several names over their lifetimes and the synonym is now an obsolete name for the mineral - ie. sphene & titanite, and miner's terms for ore minerals - ie. fluorspar & fluorite."  This very clearly shows that synonyms are NOT considered acceptable substitute names.  In regards to the google test, I noticed that every link on the first page of the search for "Spessartite" was in regards to the sale of gems, while all the scientific pages regarding the mineral were brought up on the search for "Spessartine".  Just because a name is "alive" does not mean the name is a scientifically valid name.--Kevmin (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You have entirely missed my point; you seem to be responding to an argument I didn't make. It is true that scientific names are all controlled, but I must point out the very obvious fact that these scientific terms are also language, and as you have just conceded, language cannot be controlled. What the IMA says doesn't change the fact of reality: 80% of the people don't follow their view. I am familiar with the ICZN and the ICBN, both their function and shortcomings. I don't see how Aluminum relates to this discussion, other than it is a good example as to why this garnet article is so very lacking. The garnet article is biased and non-neutral, focused only on stating the name of the mineral and nothing else, it does not represent the world at large. You may continue to hide behind the fact that the IMA says it is officially spessartine and "I'm right and everybody else is wrong", but it is a short-sighted notion. 8 out of 10 people still call it spessartite, and probably think the wiki article is incorrect when they read it (as wiki articles often are.) The wiki article is paltry and uninformative, stating little other than the mineral is called spessartine and used to be called spessartite. No background information is given (such as in the Aluminum article) as to the history of the naming. In order to be neutral, the article should reflect that the official mineral name may be spessartine, but the stone is still largely recognized under the name spessartite, particularly by the gem trade. The article should probably also have separate sections for it as both a mineral and as a gem. The scientific validity of the names are really very inconsequential. As you stated, the names were officially reverted more than 20 years ago, and yet the official name is still largely in minority. The page is biased because it represents a minority view, and does not explain matters from a neutral, unbiased point of view (i.e. how the names are used in reality.) You have noted on your page that you are a large contributor to Mindat.org, so I feel your point of view is biased. The wiki article on "Synonym" says "synonyms are different scientific names used for a single taxon" which doesn't seem to support your views; I don't think you understand what "synonym" means. Keep hiding behind the IMA all you wish (or the website in which you contribute to), but it will not improve the wiki article. It's really not a matter of who's right or wrong, it's that the article is not comprehensive enough nor neutral enough to represent the subject. Either make a neutral contribution to the article (it may even aid your own point of view) or stop talking. I'm through wasting my time. Good day. ProteusX (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)