Talk:Allotropes of boron

Chemistry Stub‑class Low‑importance

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

Gamma in 1965

Page 3 last sentence of first paragraph in Zarechnaya 2008 [1] reads "Thus, we confirm the existence of the pure boron phase first reported by Wentorf [11]." This reads to me as a definite confirmation of the gamma form in 1965. I have repeatedly tried to make this edit on the content at the currently exisiting Gamma boron discovery controversy. While an editor may disagree because of their scientific knowledge or POV, wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. Am I interpreting the quoted text wrong? -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zarechnaya 2008 is a peculiar article. You correctly quote a phrase from the middle of the paper (which is read by only few). Now look at what the abstract says (and this is what goes in all literature databases and read by many):

::"The densest boron phase (2.52 g cm−3) was produced as a result of the synthesis under pressures above 9 GPa and temperatures up to �1800 �C. The x-ray powder diffraction pattern and the Raman spectra of the new material do not correspond to those of any known boron phases. A new high-pressure high-temperature boron phase was defined to have an orthorhombic symmetry (Pnnm (No. 58)) and 28 atoms per unit cell."::If you look at history of the Boron page, you will see that on 29 January 2009 (one day after this paper was published!) NIMSOffice wrote that Zarechnaya discovered a new phase of boron (NIMSOffice did not mention Wentorf, whom he now defends so feverishly). I find all this very strange.

Artem R. Oganov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.210.52 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]