Talk:Pearl of Lao Tzu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Pearl of Lao Tzu is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) COPYVIO issues need addressing ASAP. Please help in copyediting.SauliH 05:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do: edit Template:Gemology and Jewelry opentask

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Appraisal

I removed the appraisal because it is likely a fraud. Commentary here: http://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14136&postcount=100 (UTC) 207.47.33.7 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

may 2008 A new sum of $2,200,000 is now stated as being the price Barbish et al actually paid. A citation is needed for this beacuse it contradicts every published source on the sale for years, which all state the price was $200,000. In fact, the Barbish interests have never contradicted that, and they have challenged many statements others try to put in this article. Quetlin (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Quetlin

[edit] Aaargh!

While the sources completely back up the claims made, unfortunately they also ARE said claims: The section starting with "This is where the history turns bloody." on down is a straight up copy and paste from the source it cites. 68.39.174.238 16:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied and Pasted part

I've looked at external sites and it does appear to be copied and pasted. I was wondering how one would be able to salvage such information to initiate it to the standards to where it was to be contained in the article? As in make it part of the article using various external sources. Thanks, Aeryck89 07:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence?

Is there any evidence that the Pearl of Allah is the Pearl of Lao Tzu? Eg, do the rubbings match, can the artificial core be detected, etc? Somegeek 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The location of the pearl is similar to the supposed hiding place of the pearl, and by the size and irregularity, it'll be that age. Until the current possessor of the pearl scans it in someway, the core of the pearl will never be known. I'd be willing to buy it myself, but I'm short of ~$100 million dollars. Chwers Dailly Rubbings 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Evidence

There is absolutely no evidence in this article or anywhere else, that this pearl is the pearl of Chinese legend or that there is such a Chinese legend. An appraisal of the object is given as the source of proof of the carbon dating. There is no reference to the lab where the carbon dating took place, not even at the foundation started with this pearl as its subject. How was the carbon dating carried out? What part of the pearl was tested?

The Li/Lee family seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, if indeed he was real and his story true. Is there a Li family with a pedigree back to Lao Tsu at all? I think this is an urban legend and should clearly be labeled as such.

A closer look at the article appears to have been written by someone privy to intimate, yet unreferenced, information about the Barbish family. Without so much as a published reference, I am inclined to believe that most of this article was written by Mr. Barbish mimself, or an unidentified someone in close contact with him, for self-serving reasons.

BTW that is a tridacna clam pearl it is not a pearlescent pearl, it is a non-nacreous pearl and has no intrinsic value except its size. The wrinkles are not a reliable indicator of telling how old it is. ``Quetlin``

[edit] How do I write 'CITATION NEEDED?"

In 1981 Mr. Hoffman entered into a bill of sale and released all rights and entitlement to Victor Barbish.

This sentence is not cited. Peter Hoffman still owns an interest in the pearl according to his webpage, pearlofpeace.com (Notice this is different than Barbish's pearlforpeace.org

In 1939, while The Pearl was on display in Robert Ripley's Museum in New York, an elderly Hong Kong merchant named Mr. Lee, requested permission to come to the museum to examine The Pearl.

^{citation needed}

This sentence is in the legend part. Is it fact or fancy? What is legend and what is fact?

As wars were fought over possession of this pearl

This is not consistent with an earlier paragraph. Surely if there were wars fought over this, they could be dated and named?

The legend is a mix of facts and fiction. It appears to be self serving to use a legend to blur the true facts. Quetlin 10:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)quetlin

[edit] 1933

the article claims that the pearl was found in 1933, yet has been carbon dated to 600bc. just wondering if that is acurate. was the pearl found inside the a clam, and if so, how old do clams live?

I've seen several articles saying that the pearl came from a giant clam. this article (link corrected Boracay Bill 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)) says "I was thrilled to see a realistic life size copy of the Pearl of Allah in Tokyo at a Pearl Exhibition in the fall of 2005 at the science museum in Ueno Park. It, along with the clam it was found in, was the first thing one saw when entering the exhibition. I immediately knew that it was this pearl--fantastic!"

This National Geographic web page says of giant clams, "Average lifespan in the wild: 100 years or more".

According to this recent Denver Post story, a lawyer who is involved in legal proceedings regarding the pearl intends to file a motion to have it examined and reappraised. -- Boracay Bill 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.pearlofpeace.com/ is exactly the address that was put in the article. The PEARL of LAO TZU aka The PEARL of ALLAH PETER HOFFMAN

    owner

Price $75 Million USD

Value PRICELESS

An irreplaceable museum quality artifact with historical and legendary significance

According to legend, the PEARL was cultivated in China by Lao Tzu using a small carved jade amulet with the faces of the ancient three friends, Buddha, Confuscious and himself around 600 BC. The Pearl became a symbol of world peace by demonstrating that the three sages with differing views can live peacefully side by side in this magnificent PEARL. For centuries it was known as the PEARL of LAO TZU.

A famous date in world history, the PEARL was rediscovered May 7, 1934 inside a tridacna clam by a muslim tribe in the Philippines. The tribal chief renamed it the pearl of god or the PEARL of ALLAH. This is documented with photos in Natural History, November 1939, the magazine of the American Museum of Natural History.

Certified as the World's Largest Pearl, replicas of the PEARL have been on display at major world museums. Contact Information Email : PeterHoffman@PearlOfPeace.com Phone : 310 226 2954 Address : 9461 Charlesville Blvd., Suite 184 Beverly Hills CA 90212 USA Powered by Yahoo! Web Hosting. Copyright Yahoo, Inc.

Above is content of webpage of pearlforpeace.com

[edit] My 3 June reversions (or reversion attempts)

I noticed today that User:Quetlin had made a number of edits to this page, none of which had edit summaries. on examination of those edits, i saw that they had done various sorts of damage to the page, trashing <Ref>s, turning what previously been superscripted links to References section items into plain-text square-bracketed numbers, modifying text supported by previous cites explaining the modifications or citing better sources, etc. From what I can see, the damage done didn't look malicious, but rather as if the editor was unfamiliar with how to edit wikipedia pages containing references to supporting sources. I have attempted to revert these edits and the reversion seems to have been done, but (as of this writing) it does not show up ion the page history. I'm guessing that there is currently some sort of lag or problem in updating the page histories, and that the page history for this page will show my reversion shortly. I'll try to contact User:Quetlin on his talk page. -- Boracay Bill 05:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question re: Article name - The Pearl of Allah, not The Pearl of Lao Tzu

It appears that the Pearl of Lao Tzu is the name given by the ancient philosopher Lao Tzu who had the amulet carved with the intention of having the pearl created. This is all legend that has not yet been proven. The pearl was discovered in 1934 and named by the Mohammadan tribal chief who took possession at that time. The name given to the pearl was "The Pearl of Allah". Granted, there is no real proof of this either. Yet the 1934 version is more recent and believable than the 600 BC version. Thus in conclusion, "Should the Pearl be referred to as The Pearl of Allah, aka The Pearl of Lao Tzu?"

Note the following guidance from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." A web page listed in the External links section, (History of The Pearl of Lao-Tse (Tzu), aka The Pearl of Allah. pearlforpeace.org. Retrieved on 2007-06-02.) seems to verifiably refer to the pearl by those three interchangeable names. The domain name of the web site where this document lives is registered to Victor Barbish. As I understand it, Victor Barbish owns the pearl, or at least a large share of it (details currently being litigated). I've seen other sources which refer to the pearl by all three of those names. -- Boracay Bill 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question assertion

The revision (02:54, June 8, 2007) by User:Quetlin made the assertion: "Peter Hoffman's website still claims ownership of the pearl ,<ref> pearlofpeace.org </ref>" I looked at http://www.pearlofpeace.org, and see that this website seems to have no connection whatever with the pearl of Allah. I suspect that the intended URL is http://www.pearlforpeace.org {"for", not "of"). I looked at http://www.pearlforpeace.org, which site does contain info about the pearl, and can find no mention on that site of anyone named Peter Hoffman and no claim on that site that pearlofpeace.org owns the pearl. I see that the registrant name for the domain www.pearlforpeace.org is Victor Barbish. -- Boracay Bill 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I live on Boracay island, which is a small island not located near Palawan. Boracay is pretty isolated information-wise, except for internet access. I'm sure that you have better research facilities available to you than I have available to me.

Getting back to the point of this section, I've removed "Peter Hoffman's website still claims ownership of the pearl ,<ref> pearlofpeace.org </ref>" from the article for reasons stated above.-- Boracay Bill 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ???http://www.pearlofpeace.com/ ????

Here is the entire webpage:

 The PEARL of LAO TZU aka The PEARL of ALLAH

PETER HOFFMAN

    owner

Price $75 Million USD

Value PRICELESS

An irreplaceable museum quality artifact with historical and legendary significance

Quetlin 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Quetlin

Edited to add that I didn't read the above sections bwefore I added the refenrence I catied.. I appear to have added the same reference as someone else It is pearlofpeace.com where Victor Hoffman claims ownership.

[edit] External Link

The link to "The Pearl of Allah: The Facts, the Fiction, and the Fraud" has been removed. It is an article based upon the personal viewpoint of two authors. The facts are not even remotely correct. One case in point being: The January 2007 appraisal by Michael A. Steenrod was NOT for $93 million as stated in the article, but was for $61.85 million. This appraisal was NOT authorized by Victor M. Barbish and thus is not recognized as the true and correct valuation of the pearl. Further attempts to add this link will be reported as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.pearl-guide.com/the-pearl-of-allah.shtml There is no reason the article should be removed simply because you do not agree with it.

Also, you are saying that you (I am assuming you are Barbish) did not approve of the appraisal, but the appraisal was done by the same appraiser you "approved" of just a few years prior. It makes no difference whether or not you approved of the appraisal. This does not affect the validity. You did approve of the previously fraudulent appraisals that stated false carbon dating and called the piece an artifact instead of stone. So yes, it appears to this reader as though all the appraisals are bogus. But from where I am standing, that is exactly what the article you so detest is saying. You are being called out. Just come clean and do away with that entire "Lao Tzu" story. You know it is false and "made up". 203.86.133.127 02:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No I am not Mr. Barbish. What appraisal are you speaking of? The 1982 San Francisco Gem Laboratory appraisal is the one that is recognized. Should you or anyone else have a problem with it, then I suggest you contact the San Franciso Gem Laboratory in California. What is your problem with stories? The Chinese heritage is full of legends. Your attitude sounds like you would like to clean the world of all legends!! comment added by FlaRiptide (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer to above paragraph: The problem with the SF Gem lab appraisal is that it claims the pearl is 600 years old. That in and of itself disproves the Lao Tzu myth. I have copies of this 3 page appraisal, made in 1982, taken off of Barbish's own website (from which it has since been removed)- The 2007 Steenrod unsigned appraisal was up on this wikipedia website. Someone who had access to it put it here. I copied it and still have it, too. Current owners of the SF gem lab disavow even knowing who Lee Sparrow was Quetlin (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Quetlin

[edit] Removed portion of "The Legend Examined"

The following is considered conjecture based upon one person's thoughts. The point is well made in the first paragraph that the Legend of the Pearl is ONLY a Legend. There is no proof otherwise of how or why the Legend came to be.:

{One problem with this legend is the way it salts "facts" into the fictions, such as the unproven visits from the Lee family. The purpose appears to be to convince people that the legend is factual, which it is not.

Another problem with the story is that the pearl began being cultivated in 600BC. That is 2,400 years ago yet the appraisal put up on Barbish's website says it is maybe 600 years old [15]. That alone makes the "legend" impossible, along with making the two factual visits from the two Mr. Lee's rather questionable. Why would either one of them make these claims? Unless it is proven otherwise, the two visits and their story should also be taken as myth, not fact.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this conjecture? You made a claim you knew to be bogus. The carbon dating never happened, yet Steenrod claiming in court (perjuring himself) that it did.

The problem is that people do not like to be lied to. Your pearl has such a grandiose lie attached to it that it really bothers some people. It also insults the intelligence of pearl professionals who know it is all a lie. 203.86.133.127 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you think you are talking to, but I never made any claim and the Pearl is not mine. There is no "lie" attached to the Pearl. It is a "Legend". There are many "Legends" of all sorts in this world. If "Legends" bother you so much, then stop reading them. Again, the 2007 Steenrod appraisal was NOT authorized by Vic Barbish and is NOT recognized by him as representing the true value of the Pearl. There are many facts surrounding the Pearl that you do not know and have no need to know. A Lie is not one of those facts, though that is exactly what the link to your article is trying to show (and without proof, only conjecture). There is no need to defame something that you know so little about. And, I shall repeat, the Legend is just that - a Legend - nothing more. Perhaps Mr. Cobb was the creator, I personally do not know and do not care. Legends are made and intelligent people recognize that they are ONLY legends. This point has already been well made in the Wikipedia article. Further attempts to defame the Pearl is utterly unnecessary. A MedCab (mediation) request has been made. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE FURTHER CHANGES TO THIS SITE! Allow the neutral Wikipedia volunteers to review this issue. Any unbiased comments from neutral parties are welcomed.

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.

comment added by FlaRiptide (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article violate that standard? Have you read the article yet? Maybe if you did you would not make the claims you have. It appears to be a well-researched article that is attacking the credibility of the story and the court case, not the pearl. Great mystery but I think the truth is bothering someone. As a Chinese national I am really glad to see this sort of thing. 59.120.69.50 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You say it is not attacking the Pearl, yet a paragraph heading within the article is "The Perjured Pearl". If it were only attacking the story and the court case, as you say, then for that reason alone it does not belong on the Wikipedia page of The Pearl. If you wish to attack the court case, then start a Wikipedia page about the Bonicelli case, etc..

Answer to the Perjured pearl paragraph: The article seems to me to be saying that the Steenrod appraisal was so innacurate as to be rightfully designated a perjury. Since the pearl is the subject of the appraisal, it becomes "The perjured pearl" Quetlin (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your facts within the article are wrong and they are conflicting. The 2007 Steenrod appraisal was for approx. $62 million, not 93 million. There is no court ordered $32.4 million interest in the Pearl. Jeremy Shepherd concluded that due to the legend being false, “This undoubtedly affects the value of the pearl drastically,” said Shepherd, “making it worth far less as a clam pearl found in 1934.” If this is the case, then how could the Court system assess a $32.4 million interest based on a $93 million appraisal? The two statements contradict each other. I doubt if any court system is going to order a judgement based upon a biased and controversial appraisal. The ONLY appraisal that Vic Barbish recognizes is the 1982 San Francisco Gem Lab's for $42 million. The January 2007 was NOT authorized by him. Why is Vic's name even mentioned in your article? He did not create the Legend of the Pearl. He has never used the Legend in any inappropriate manner. The Legend is attached to the Pearl of Lao-Tzu whether you or other people like it or not. That is the way of Legends, which China has many. To report about the Pearl, and not report about the legend would be incomplete. Your one paragraph regarding "The Legend Examined" is more than sufficient to notify readers that the Legend is not factual.

Answer to claim there is no court ordered 32.4 million: "In 2005, a jury awarded the adult children $32.4 million for the 1975 death of their mother, Eloise, who was shot by a suspected intruder in her West Arvada Street home". The preceding statement is from a news article found here: http://www.gazette.com/articles/bonicelli_21906___article.html/death_court.html I see there is what could be an editors slip in the 93,000,000 dollar figure- Corecting that figure is a minor detail; it does not redner the paragraph or the article wrong-it just shows the editing could have been better. Quetlin (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT to be used as a soapbox. Adding a link to the Wikipedia webpage is no different than inserting the words of the article directly into the page. Controversy belongs in the Discussion section and not in the actual page.comment added by FlaRiptide (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer to above paragraph: The writer above, who refers to Barbish as "Vic" must be very close to the Barbishes and has been trying to tone down the questions of believibility raised by even a cursory reading of the story. It makes it appear that flaripptde is posting for one reason alone, to defend the Barbish version of the story, which appears grossly and in detail to be biased FOR the Barbish version. Quetlin (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition: Victor Barbish claimed on his webpage that a member of the Li/Lee family visited him in Pasadena after he bought the pearl. This "fact" has become part of the legend because there is no proof that either Cobb or Barbish actually received a visit from this family. Since Barbish has been called out on the "facts" of his visitation from the Li/Lee family- it is up to him to prove he is not just adding to the myths and legends saturating publicity about this pearl. In fact, since the pearl is not 2,400 years old, it can't have been commissioned by Lao Tzu (if he actually lived) and the Li/Lee family. So the Li/Lee family can have no interest in the pearl and it calls the entire Li/Lee claims of the myth into question. .Quetlin (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Quetlin

[edit] Mediation

I have accepted this request for mediation filed by FlaRiptide at the Mediation Cabal. Before I get started here, I want to ask a few questions based on what I have read. First things first, there appear to be several anonymous IP's editing this article, as well as a newly created account, Pearl-lady. The mediation tag was removed from the claim most recently and some wording was changed.

[edit] Some notes

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes like so: ~~~~.
Please remember to sign in before you make edits. It's clear looking at the page history that this does not always happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Into The Fray (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for everyone

Q: If this process is to work, anyone actively interested in editing this article will need to participate. I can mediate the question of the section/text that FlaRiptide is disputing, but only if everyone agrees to talk about it first, which is basically what this process is. If you're interested and agree to discuss, please indicate so below this.

[edit] Questions for FlaRiptide

Q: In your request for mediation, the remedy you seek is an opinion on whether the disputed text is appropriate to the article or not. And, if it is not, you request that the the anonymous IP editor be blocked. Do you understand that the Mediation Cabal is an informal process and that blocking is unlikely to occur? Certainly, if someone violates a Wikipedia policy, it could result in a block, but that's not for me to determine, as I am not an administrator and this is not a formal process. No decisions reached here are considered binding, no sanctions can be leveled, etc. This is not mediation or arbitration. I want to be clear that you (and everyone else) understand this.

A: Understood

Q: Do you understand that your admitted friendship/relationship with Mr. Barbish could represent a conflict of interest?

A: Yes. My interest is to disallow the furthering of media inspired negativity surrounding the Pearl. There are many incorrect "facts" written in articles and available for view on the Internet. It suffices to say in Wikipedia that the Legend is not based upon fact, yet to say that it is fraudulent is only an opionion that is construed by those not understanding all the facts. The additional two paragraphs under "The Legend Examined" and the link to "The Pearl of Allah: The Facts the Fiction the Fraud" are overkill for the purpose. The first paragraph is sufficient and the article is written in the manner of a debate, with the authors using it as their soapbox. What credentials do the authors carry? Anyone can create an article and have it posted on a private website. An article written by a Phd. and submitted to a scientific magazine would carry weight. The article written by Williams & Hodson, in my opinion, carries no weight.

Q: Do you consent to this mediation process?

A: Yes FlaRiptide 17:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the Anonymous IP Editor

Q: Would it be possible for you to create an account? While not absolutely necessary, I believe it would be beneficial, at least for the purposes of this mediation. Particularly in light of the fact that nearly all of the recent edits have been completed by IP addresses, it may make or break whether or not I will consider taking this case up.

Q: Do you understand that your affiliation with Pearl-Guide (I am not sure what "non-posted member" means) is also a potential conflict of interest?

A: I have been watching this with interest. While I am not the anonymous IP editor, he or she mentioned being a non-posted member of Pearl-Guide. Pearl-Guide has a forum with thousands of members who are from the pearl industry or consumers with an interest in pearls. A non-posted member would be someone who only reads the articles and discussions, but has never taken part. Basically it would equate to someone who receives the daily newspaper. There could be no conflict of interest there. JPShepherd 10:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'm curious what the anonymous user means specifically by "non-posted member". Just curious, not accusing. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to reading responses. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of mediation case

Because editing continues with out participation by all involved parties, I am closing the mediation case; Mediation cannot occur without all parties interested and willing to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you, Into The Fray ^T/C 02:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mediation cannot occur without all parties interested and willing to participate." What? Appears that both sides were willing to participate. Both answered your questions and were waiting for your continuance. Nothing at all was touched regarding the issues that pertained to the disagreement till after the unforeseen closure. Oh, well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Portion of the Section of "The Legend Examined" has been removed

The following has been removed:

'One problem with this legend is the way it salts "facts" into the fictions, such as the unproven visits from the Lee family. The purpose appears to be to convince people that the legend is factual, which it is not.

The above two paragraphs were written in a manner to reflect a personal viewpoint and is not conducive of an encyclopedia article. Such as, "The purpose appears...", This is conjecture that is leading the reader to a conclusion based upon non-evidence. Another example is the asking a question of the reader, "Why would either of them make these claims". A reader should create their own questions based upon facts and not be presented with the author's perceived question. Also, who is meant by the author's words of "either of them"? The Legend has already been deemed nothing more than a legend in the first paragraph that has been left intact. It is well written and the stated claim is well supported. The additional two paragraphs add nothing new or necessary. 204.193.117.66 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

In keeping with the KISS principle, a disclaimer has been placed as a preface to the section titled, "Chinese legend of the pearl". This makes the need for the elongated section of "The Legend Examined", unnecessary. FlaRiptide 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Appraisal

Reference to the 2007 appraisal has been removed. This appraisal is suspect due to it's mentioning of carbon dating to 600BC. This may have been a gross error on part of the appraisal's typing. Nevertheless, the appraisal was not requested nor authorized by Victor Barbish and is not recognized by him as a proper appraisal. It may have been a court ordered appraisal, the true source is unknown by me. The 1982 appraisal has been inserted as the most recent 'authorized' by the Pearl's owner, with links to copies of same.FlaRiptide 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of the pearl

Barbish's appraisal says that the pearl is around 600 years old, but if the species of clam from which the pearl was taken cannot be grafted, does that mean that the clam is a potential contender for the longest living animal (at 600 years)? Recently in the news (even on Wikipedia), the record is the ocean quahog (also a mollusk) at around 400 years.

Either way:

1. The article needs to be cleared up if I misunderstood, or...

2. The factuality of this article's content needs to be disputed, or at least acknowledged from a neutral point of view (not supporting the legend, but not biased against it either).

124.189.96.56 07:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not mention anything about the age of the Pearl. The article also does not support the legend and displays a disclaimer in the first paragraph speaking of the legend. Thus both points made by User 124.189.96.56 are unfounded. If someone has a dispute with the stated age of the Pearl as mentioned in the 1982 appraisal, then that someone should contact the San Francisco Gem Laboratory for an explanation. Their credentials look good to me --http://www.sfgemlab.com.html --FlaRiptide 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer to the SF gem lab report. I would like to say the article NO LONGER has any references to the age of the pearl. The SF Gem Lab report is so old (25 years) that it is almost without value. The person contacted at the SF Gem Lab didn't even recognize the name of Lee Sparrow. I doubt they will continue to stand by this appraisal, based on its age alone. The appraisal was done based on previous paperwork which it cites, except for the report from an unknown lab establishing carbon dating age at +- 600 years. This anonymous carbon dating is extremely out of date, because experts now know that the top levels of the ocean test to 400 yers old as do the shells found in this strata. Simple subtraction makes the pearl a mere 200 years old when accounting for the age of the ocean's top levels. Dr Miner, as noted in the letter from him on Barbish's web page, said he did not know how old the pearl was. Indeed, it would take another carbon dating test to to establish the pearl's correct age. Since carbon dating is intrusive and would require a core sample, it would deface the pearl. This fact alone leads me to consider that there was no authentic carbon dating done on the pearl., Quetlin (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another pearl very much like the PoA was found in 1977 off Palawan.

It is now named Elias' Pearl and the story can be found on Kari's pearls webpage. Although still attached to the shell, it may be even larger than the PoA and it does bear a startling resemblance to the first PoA. Since there never was any iota of a legend that there were TWO such pearls found off PalaWan, it becomes another nail in the coffin of the age of the first PoA. Quetlin (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New claims in pearl ownership

WD Cobb's ownership of the pearl has been disputed by the Paglima Pisi family. They say Cobb was to sell the pearl and give them some money. They claim they gave it to him on consignment. LINK http://palawanreport.com/2007/10/13/palawan-and-the-pearl-of-allah/#more-97 Quetlin (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited Paragraph

The following paragraph can't be proven as fact and no citation was ever given, though I put the "citation needed" in there back in June. I propose that the entire paragraph be removed, as Barbish's claque has not corrected or cited what appears to be a flat-out lie to enhance the glamour/value? of the pearl.

"In 1983 a descendant of the Lee Family contacted Mr. Barbish's partner, a former CIA agent by the name of Lewis Maxwell, to meet with Mr. Barbish. Mr. Barbish was introduced to Mr. Lee in Pasadena, California. They talked over dinner for nearly six hours about the Pearl of Lao-Tse. The following day Mr. Lee viewed the pearl at Security Pacific Bank.[citation needed] Mr. Lee was in awe of finally being able to see The Pearl of Lao-Tse that was the fathomless legend foretold throughout his families' history. He offered to purchase the Pearl of Lao Tzu. Mr. Barbish initially rejected the offer. Mr. Lee expressed his sincere gratitude for the opportunity to view the pearl. Mr. Lee returned to China, and Mr. Barbish never heard from him again." Quetlin (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote of FlaRipTide: "There are many incorrect "facts" written in articles and available for view on the Internet" See Bold sentence below:

Notes by Quetlin. I found this Wikipedia story last May/June after reading about the Colorado court settlement. I have not been back for 6 months and all the developments in the last 6 months happend without my input. I had no bias one way or the other. However, I found so many unprovable assertions I became very suspicious and looked up every reference given and every news story I could find. My bias remains a quest to find out the true facts about this pearl. I have no personal interest in this pearl or in the facts, however they may fall. So far, muuch of the hyperbole can't be verified, Cobb and Barbish seem to have interjected a lot of fancies into their story of the pearl. Barbish appears to be capitalizing on the false stories of the pearl to get members and donations for his foundation.

I could find nothing to support any part of the Barbish version of the story except that Cobb brought the pearl to NYC in 1939 and after his death Hoffman and Barbish bought it for $200,000. All the "facts" cited in news stories were provided by Victor Barbish. I couldn't find any independent articles that did not quote Barbish as the primary source! He had many more unprovable stories in those news articles than have found their way to this article. The nature of these stories made me want to see proof of anything Barbish claimed before I can accept it. Even the apraisals were unreliable. I also came to believe that Barbish himself or his agent put up the confabulated version of the story on this site. I believe that doing that is not allowed over here. Correct me if I am wrong. Quetlin (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Pearl of Lao Tzu is said to have influenced China's history." This is another uncited statement I think should be removed. There is no legend of any pearl influencing China's history that can be independently verified. The only reference to this statement is from WD Cobb, but it can't be proven to be true, or supported by any other source.

[edit] The Credibility of W. D. Cobb

Wilburn Cobb and his stories about the pearls are beginning to come under scutiny from various sources. He is the source of the Li/Lee legend and the first personal visit from a member of the Li/Lee family. The story fist aappeared in a Mensa article in 1969, where he was trying to sell the pearl to a Mensa member or get a Mensa member to find a buyer. Cobb is obviously NOT the source of the Barbish claim to have had a visit from the family, with a further endorsement of the Lao Tzu legend. Barbish seems to be the author of that fancy. To uncover the true facts of the origins of this pearl may require some fact checking of Cobb's stories.

[edit] Protected

I've protected the article for one week to prevent further edit warring by User:Batgirlreturns and User:Penquin3. Work it out here, people. howcheng {chat} 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)