Talk:Moldavite

Official Czech name

The Moldauthein has official Czech name Týn nad Vltavou and therefore should be noted as Týn nad Vltavou (Moldauthein) (the German name is not used in Czech Republic). It is made up gem that is now real— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 85.207.62.171 (talk • contribs) 17:22, November 18, 2006 (UTC)

Page is wrong

This page is so wrong about things, like why does a tektite look spikey on wikipedia and look ugly and round on the source website? i want spikey tektites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.70.120 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Composition and physical properties?

The article seems naked without this basic information... 79.168.9.101 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mohs hardness of moldavite

For many months the Mohs hardness of moldavite was given as 5.5 with a source reference of Gemdat.org. Since 22 October 2017, some editors have changed the hardness to 7.5, without changing the source reference. Therefore, the value of 7.5 is actually unsourced because it is not supported by the Gemdat.org web page. I have removed the unsourced value of 7.5 as per WP:UNSOURCED and restored the sourced value of 5.5, but other editors continue to change the hardness to the unsourced value of 7.5.

I did some web searches for the hardness of moldavite and I have listed my search results below. Most of the sources that I found support a hardness of 5.5. I did not find any source to support a hardness of 7.5.

If any editor changes the value to anything other than 5.5, please supply a source reference that supports such a change. Otherwise it is likely to be reverted back to 5.5 in accordance with WP:UNSOURCED.

mohs hardness of moldavite

Source	Mohs hardness	Reference	Comments
Gemdat.org	5.5
The Drilling Manual (5th edition) edited by Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee Limited, page 607	5.5
Gemmology by Peter G. Read, page 319	5.5
Gemstones of the World by Walter Schumann, page 246	5.5
Correlation of some physical and chemical properties of moldavites by V. Bouška and P. Povondra, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 28, 1964, pages 783-791	between 6.5 and 7		Academic study but a primary source
Tektites by Australian Museum	6-7		Hardness value is actually for tektites; moldavites are a type of tektite
Tektites and their origin by NASA	between 6 and 7
Tektites by University of Texas at Austin - Jackson School Museum of Earth History	6 - 7

GeoWriter (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that a possible solution could be to change the article to include the range of hardness values that I have found, with text such as "Mohs hardness ranging from 5.5 to 7". Any comments? GeoWriter (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here it is links to some relevant pages that confirm that the Moldavite hardness is actually higher that one of the ordinary glass. It cannot be, that the melting point is above 1300 celsius and the hardness the same as the one of natural glass which has much lower melting point. Also we did our own reaserches in cooperations with University of Ljubljana, Geology department and with cooperation with Museum of Natural History Ljubljana and made testing for different variety of Tektites. All of them proved the hardness at least of 6,5 to 7 on Mohs scale, but some larger round really clear pieces of Moldavite prove the hardness of 7,3 on Mohs scale. The mindat information is wrong and some private reasearchers who acctualy support this statement of hardness 5,5 have very little knowledge about Tektites and don't have any international reputation. Our reasearch papers are in Slovenian language but if necessary we will provide the english copy signed by the Geology head department of University of Ljubljana. Here are some links to pages that state the higher hardness. There has to be always taken in consideration the highest hardness measurred in each specific stone and our for now was 7,3 on Mohs scale but we will proof that there are Moldavites that have even higher hardness. Here is a NASA scientific research about Tektites and Moldavites: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750015372.pdf

Baker, 1959b is stating that all Tektites have even more than 7 hardness on Mohs scale and we are supporting his statement with a our own meassurments.

Also NASA has enginired the heat shields for space shuttles with the help of Tektites so the most reliable scientific studies come from them.

Here are links to some other pages but without scientific proof:

http://www.czechmoldavite.com/about-moldavite.html, https://www.timmersgems.com/en/moldavite-found-in-chlum-south-bohemia-czech-republic.html, http://www.ebay.com/gds/A-Guide-to-Moldavite-/10000000000786402/g.html, http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/npl/outreach/tektites/, http://www.moldavit.de/UK/info.htm

Also you cannot put Australian drilling industry as a source of information as the Moldavites are mined in Czech Republic, Also Gemdat.org is not a reliable source as well as Gemmology by Peter G. Read. Also Gemstones of the World by Walter Schumann id dated to 1977 and the author didn't do his own meassurments. The hardness for now has to be changed to 7 and soon we will provide proof from Faculty of Ljubljana to correct hardness measurments.

Also Geowriter you are specialised in Vulcanic Obsidian? So how many Moldavites did you have chance yet to study yourself? And please stop changing hardness to 5.5 because it has no logical basis.

Signed: Onohej Zlatove (co-founder of Moldavite Association)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.169.67 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

To Onohej Zlatove:

The NASA publication (Tektites and their Origin by John A. O'Keefe, written in the early 1970s) in your PDF link is a reliable secondary source. It states: "Suess (1900) reports measurements of moldavite hardness on the corundum scale by Rosiwal; the hardness was 29.5 and 31 on two specimens, compared to 18.2 and 19.8 on two commercial glasses and 34, 35.6 on two obsidians. On the more usual Moh scale (sic), the hardness is between 6 and 7 (Baker,1959b);"

This NASA source supports a hardness of 6 to 7, but not more than 7.

Your source czechmoldavite.com is a commercial company that sells moldavite. - not reliable.

Your source timmersgems.com is a commercial company that sells moldavite. - not reliable.

Your source ebay.com is a buying guide on a shopping website - not reliable.

Your source utexas.edu states: "Tektites possess a hardness of between 6 and 7 on the Mohs’ scale" - reliable secondary source.

Therefore, after looking at your sources, I can support a hardness of "6 to 7" or "6–7" or "between 6 and 7" or "7", supported by the NASA and University of Texas sources.

I cannot support a hardness of more than 7 because, currently, no reliable source (preferably a secondary source) has been provided. If any editor can give a reliable source that states that the hardness is more than 7, please provide it. Until any reliable source reference can be provided that supports a hardness of more than 7, the hardness stated in the article should not be more than 7.

Editor(s) Onohej Zlatove / 31.15.169.67, you appear to have started editing English Wikipedia very recently. You may benefit from reading some information of how editing of Wikipedia works. I recommend : policies (like rules) : Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Username policy. Content guideline: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Essay: Wikipedia:There is no credential policy.

To widen the discussion, I invite comments from Chris.urs-o, Mikenorton and Vsmith.

GeoWriter (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems the U Texas article says tectites hardness 6-7, not moldavites specifically. Vsmith (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the Texas source also states: "Individual tektite varieties are given distinctive names; derived from the region of their strewnfield occurrence, and/or the place or country in which they are found. Examples of regional nomenclature include “moldavites”...". I suppose this source only sets a minimum and maximum possible limit. I think this source should therefore be avoided in order to eliminate risk of novel synthesis. The same applies to the Australian Museum source. GeoWriter (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To User:Geowriter:

Like I stated before, I repeat again we did our own researches in cooperation with Geology department of University of Ljubljana and in cooperation with Museum of Natural History Ljubljana and did our own messurments with the help of Italian Geo Tech Institute. The conclusions are in SLOVENE language that is why It has no sence to provide you additional messurments in the language you don't understand. We will provide additional scientific mesurrements in english language when possible. And like I said you don't need to have scientific proof or to be a genius to logicaly connect the two facts - ordinary glass (Soda-lime-silica glass, window glass for making windows) has a hardness of 5.5 on mohs scale and a melting point 500 - 600 degree celsius. The Moldavite has a melting point of 1400 - 1600 celsius so the hardnes cannot be thon e same. The reason why we did additional messurments is simply because we drill and brush the Moldavites all the time and in the process of drilling Moldavites heat up to crazy temperatures, esspecialy very clear and round ones seems to be harder. From there we started our research and find out what I stated before. And I repeat again we will provide english version of messurment papers from University of Ljubljana soon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.169.67 9 December 2017 (UTC) 10:34, 9 December 2017 (talk • contribs)

We don't post our own research in Wikipedia articles - we use published sources - see WP:Reliable sources.

and we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own work. Vsmith (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To Onohej Zlatove:

Sources in English are preferred in English Wikipedia, but sources in Slovene may also be acceptable if they clearly include a phrase like "Trdnost moldavita je 7,3" (which is Google Translate's Slovene translation of the English phrase "The hardness of moldavite is 7.3") - see WP:NONENG. Who is the publisher of your Slovene sources? I ask this question because Wikipedia has rules about sources that are self-published - see WP:SELFPUBLISH. GeoWriter (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such user as Onohej Zlatove - please refer to the posting ip rather than a non-existing username. Vsmith (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my error - the user exists, however the posts here are from an ip address and not the users account - and should be noted as such. Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Break

To User:Vsmith:

Dear Vsmith, thank you for clearing that up but why are you deleting the pictures from the gallery and still changing the hardness to 5.5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.169.67 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is really wrong? Which primary scientific studies prove the hardness of Moldavite to be 5.5 that are the basis for your statements? And who are Walter Schumann and Peter G. Read? Are they a primary source to you? And what about The Drilling Manual (5th edition) edited by Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee Limited? Is this a reliable source to you? Also Ulrich Henn and Claudio C. Milisenda who are they? The only information I found about them is on gemdat.org promoting them and putting them as the most reliable souce of informations but this doesn't look like a reliable sources with Universities supporting the reaserches... Please give us some more informations... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onohej zlatove (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly - Wikipedia doesn't rely on primary sources. Review articles and\or secondary or ternary sources are preferred (see WP:Reliable sources). As to the gallery images: I removed what appeared to me to be rather redundant images and replaced with other "un-prepared" samples. Vsmith (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And: per your comment above "we did our own researches in cooperation with..." - who is the "we" in that statement? In Wikipedia editing reliable sources are required and "we" don't do our own research around here. So - again, who is the "we" in your above comment? Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok you rely on secundary sources, and NASA is a secondary source which is much more reliable than othere sources. But isn't this wrong, to ignoire primary source and rely on secondary sources - that doesn't make any sence at all... To anwser you question: "we" are Moldavite Association and it's member geologists from University of Ljubljana and gemologists from Museum of Natural History Ljubljana - but you made it clear that you will ignore our effords to get the accurate results for the wide public. We strive to be as accurate as possible. And please answer my questions about the sources you support and use... Dear Mr. Smith, pictures you put in the gallery are not the best quality or best representatives of Moldavites... the Moldavite is such a unique and beautiful crystal and there are so many better representable pictures out there... not speaking about my own but many more much better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.169.67 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems you changed the number, but kept the reference supporting a hardness of 5.5 - that was rather odd, please be more careful.

Regarding the: "we" are Moldavite Association and it's member geologists; please use your account rather than the ip address and be advised a user id is for one person only and not for "we".

Regarding the images: the images you used were good, but really not representative of "all" moldavites - plus the images are on commons for those interested. We don't "spam" or overload articles with our own images. Vsmith (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sincerely,thank you for all your help Vsmith and Geowritter. I will try to provide more representitive pictures with better quality and will add new references like you advised me. I'm new at wikipedia and don't know much about adding or changing the articles so somethimes when new at things acting like a donkey and please with all my Heart accept my appology for my behaviour.Onohej zlatove (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

All editors were new editors when they started on Wikipedia. Therefore, I understand and sympathise that editing Wikipedia is more complicated that it seems at first. There are lots of rules and processes and it can be frustrating and annoying, but the rules bring order and reduce chaos. GeoWriter (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In mineralogy, hardness implies maximum hardness (unless we are dealing with e.g. kyanite, a mineral that has different hardnesses in different directions; these multiple hardnesses are indeed listed in that mineral's Wikipedia article). For any mineral, lower values of hardness are usually less reliable than higher values. If a sample has hardness 5.5 and another sample has hardness 7, it is likely that the lower value has been caused by e.g. weathering, and the true hardness is the higher value. Therefore, I think that sources that have a moldavite hardness value of less than 6 are now unreliable. The NASA secondary source shows that samples of moldavite do have a hardness of 6 to 7. This is supported by the Bouška and P. Povondra primary source (but this primary source does not need to be cited in Wikipedia because the NASA secondary source alone is sufficient support for the claim). GeoWriter (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for vote

I hoped this Talk section would help editors improve the accuracy and reliability of the hardness of moldavite, with at least one suitable source that supports the agreed hardness. I hoped the article could be changed after we agreed the hardness and source. I think we seemed to be moving towards a consensus but this has been complicated by editors editing the article before agreement, even after being asked to wait. This suggests to me that discussion is not having a positive-enough effect and we are going round in circles, for example Onohej zlatove's edit (as 31.15.169.67) in the Wikipedia article on 9 December that changed the hardness to "6.5 - 7" without agreement and with source references that do not actually support a hardness of "6.5 - 7". (The cited sources support a hardness of 6-7 only).

I think we have reached the stage when voting on a specific version of text may be useful. Therefore, I suggest that we vote: do you agree or disagree that the hardness of moldavite should be changed in the article to the following text? :

in the Infobox: Hardness: 6–7

in the Properties section: Its properties are similar to that of other types of glass, and its Mohs hardness is 6–7.

_______

Only the NASA secondary source is needed to support the hardness 6–7. There is no need to use another source (e.g. University of Texas or Australian Museum) because these sources give the hardness of tektites, rather than moldavites, and although moldavites are tektites, they do not state where moldavite lies in the hardness range for tektites.

GeoWriter (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems I made an edit prior to seeing this ... anyway the revision I changed had changed the value in the infobox without changing the reference and that was obviously in error. Vsmith (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

... and I see no reason to discount the referenced 5.5 value. Vsmith (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

... all seems okidoki. Moldavite can not have hardness 5.5 as it is not common glass. Hardness 5.5 for moldavite is controversial. This is enough for now, no big deal. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Cultural role in alchemy

Surely there should be some section covering the importance of this material in alchemical texts and beliefs?

86.7.223.84 (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)