Talk:Tanzanite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Tanzanite 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. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage. | ||
|
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:
|
|||
Hi wikipedians. I'd just like to set up a talk page for the Tanzanite entry, as I feel it could perhaps be more informative than it currently is.
The entry is missing key information about, and key events in the history of the gemstone - such as:
1) The rarity of Tanzanite (found only in a 5sq mile patch in merelani, tanzania; 1000 times rarer than diamond; expected to run out within the next few decades).
2) The extreme fluctuations in the value of Tanzanite over recent years due to erratic supply and demand. caused by:
- The deaths of more than 100 Tanzanite miners in flash floods in 1998, and the resulting devastation.
- The Wall Street Journal's claim in 2002 that Al Qaeda traded in Tanzanite to fund terrorism - sparking a boycott of Tanzanite by many US dealers.
3) The emergence of a strong monopoly in the industry (TanzaniteOne) with control over supply - and demand as well, to an extent.
4) The recent creation of The Tanzanite Foundation by a cartel of major Tanzanite industry players, with the goal of building awareness and spreading positive publicity about the gemstone.
Please comment if you would like any of the above to be added or if you would object to any of it being added. Thanks. --Rarther 08:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, adding information is good. You'd need to make sure you stick to our Neutrality policy, and to provide sources, particularly for controversial claims (see the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy). — Matt Crypto 08:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've actually been planning to expand the article into an FA contender, time permitting. I can tackle the history (at least, the bits I can solidly reference) and al-Qaeda allegations, but I haven't had an opportunity to research much about the new syndicate. Some info added by recent editors (namely, the claims about Maasai traditions) should be verified, since they sound romantically contrived. I'll also add a section on imitations, which are becoming more common as prices rise. We've got enough photos for a featured article (barely), though a euhedral crystal would be a helpful illustration. I don't have access to one right now, unfortunately. If there's a specific topic you'd like to focus on first, either solo or in collaboration, do let me know. :) -- Hadal 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- How did you determine that tanzanite is 1000 times rarer than diamond? Since there is no source given for this information, I am removing that sentence from the article for now. Bad ideas 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What does this sentence mean?
This ban was phased in over the next two years, until which time only stones over 0.5 grams were affected.--Filll 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Information
I wish to add information to this article regarding the current rise in prices (verifiable) for Tanzanite and also suggest a link to the www.tanzaniteauthority.com who are a source of info on Tanzanite in the same way as the other links are on this site. This is not a link to a commercial sales site.
I am a an English gemmologist working in Bangkok and with the large rise in people buying Tanzanite for investment purposes I feel it is information that serves the public well. It is also important that a note is made about the differences between normal jewellery quality Tanzanite and what is considered investment grade. All such information can of course be cited. Gemdealer 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
..and are the wholesale prices quoted for cut or uncut gems ? It's not clear.160.83.32.14 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Media Claims
Is there an objective source showing that the media claims were indeed false? Even in this article, it says that there WAS an Al-Qaeda conncetion at one point in time. Investigations by the U.S. revealed there was not a connection in 2001. It may be fair to say the 2001 article was misleading if it said there was an on-going connection. But please come up with an objective source saying the articles were proved false. If there is a statement in the article directly contradicting the U.S. investigation, please quote that. Saying a media claim is objectively "false" is a strong statement and, to remain encyclopedic, must be backed up. Judicata (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the article was suggesting that the 2001 claims were false. What it does say is that they were true at that time and that the Tanzanian government has put measures into place to limit or eliminate that problem. Neither of these statements claims the 2001 statements were false, and both of these assertions are given references in the article. Perhaps the wording could be improved for NPOV. Some of the 'if you buy tanzanite you are supporting terrorism' comments I deleted are NPOV and unencyclopedic even if they are true and can be referenced. The section needs to stick to the accusations made and the rebuttals and not pass judgment either way. aremisasling (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Further research shows immediate issues with some claims made in this section. The state department investigations mentioned clearly take a far different stance from the accusatory language of the article. The State Department official suggested that El-Hage smuggled only small amounts and further analysis showed WSJ's math to be way off. It would be akin to saying most silk is smuggled because there is far more money made on silk shirts than on silk thread. They are two distinctly different products. I have provided the appropriate sources to back it up. In the future this article needs to avoid 'False' and 'Proven' as neither were accurately the case here. There were links, but they were very small and very short-lived. Any further claims of current or past involvement, or further denouncement of claims need to be fact-checked. At the very least someone needs to read the articles referenced. That alone would have avoided the problem. Half of the assertions in the article were based on a few choice words taken completely out of context from the articles. aremisasling (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
