Talk:Coltan

No misleading innuendo, please!

One of the most important reasons that Wikipedia should end its policy of permitting anonymity is the certainty that PR consultants are busy at work making entries that are misleading or false.

The perhaps unfortunate characterization of David Barouski as an "expert" (in fact he may very well be) by a fellow-probably-not-expert journalist John Lasker in the Toward Freedom article does not warrant the misstatement that Barouski is the only person cited in making/substantiating the claim that Sony and others use(s)/use(d) Congolese coltan. Both Oona King, said to be a former member of British Parliament, and Tricia Feeney, said to be executive director of Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID), are quoted either to corroborate or express compelling suspicion. Neither mining company nor Sony representatives actually denied mining/using Congolese coltan -- just that they would be "shocked, shocked" (my Casablancan paraphase and quotes) if they found out that they had. One of Feeney's quotes in the article:

Not long after the report from the UN Panel of Experts went public, the UN exonerated all US companies. RAID says diplomatic pressure from the US and other governments made the UN cave. "The US government was one of the most determined to quash the UN Panel's reports but this is also true of Canada, the UK and Belgium," says Tricia Feeney, executive director of RAID. "All (US companies) were exonerated. The UN Panel said the cases had been resolved."

Feeney says just because the UN laid down, doesn’t mean the companies are innocent. "Essentially the UN was forced to drop the case but as they explained (in their reports), 'resolved' didn't mean that the initial allegations were unsubstantiated," she says. "The (US) companies have tried to hide behind the technicality of 'resolved' but the UN itself made clear that this classification didn't mean that the companies had not behaved in the way described in the UN reports."

Given Feeney's responsibility/expertise, Oona's corroboration, and the companies' non-denials, there is NO justification for this sentence,

Mr Barouski is the only "expert" cited by Toward Freedom that connects Sony to coltan mined in the Congo, raising questions about their claims.

and so I have removed it. Here is the article: http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1352/1.

If the editor wishes to criticize the Toward Freedom article, the responsible methodology is to add refuting/balancing quotations from other sources, preferably with statistical data, as this Wikipedia article does (25 percent of tantalum said to come from the DRC). It is, however, clear that Toward Freedom is an advocacy site; nevertheless, the three sources quoted, and the conversations Mr. Lasker had with Sony and mining representatives seem to demonstrate responsible journalism. And, at the bottom line, you'd have to be dumb as a rock (or a PR flack) to deny that these companies did/do exactly what has been alleged.

Dstlascaux (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

global report related article

http://www.theglobalreport.org/?section=news&news_section=7&#HowwefuelAfricasbloodiestwar

No weasels, please

Please follow WP:WEASEL when editing Wikipedia articles. -- 201.51.252.63 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"In any case" ... "After all" seem out of place, as though someone was trying to emotionally load the text, but just confused me instead ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Figure inaccuracy

In reading the article, I found that some of the total market numbers do not add up properly, and one statement was prima facie inaccurate. Not sure which market numbers are right & wrong, so here are some observations:

- Per "An analysis of the Tantalum market" for the directorate: mineral economics, Republic of South Africa (http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/minerals/r37_2002.pdf), the global tantalum market in 2000 was ~ 5M pounds, while the typical (except for the price spike in 2000-2001) tantalite (tantalum precursor) is < $50 USD per pound, for a total of $0.25B/year. It is stated in this Wikipedia article that "The Rwandan Army has made an estimated $500m in the last 18 months (as of October 2008) derived from Congolese coltan." and that "the Democratic Republic of the Congo produces a little less than 1% of the world's tantalum." Together these imply a global yearly Coltan market of ~$33B... about 132 times the figure derived from the South African report. I am unaware of a significant (> $1B) world market for Niobium, the other component derived from coltan, though there may be one. I am not sure where the truth lies here- I expect somewhere in between the high $33B and low $0.25B numbers, with ramifications for the amount Rwanda could have made off coltan.

- The article says that "Toward Freedom states that the 2000 launch of the Sony PS2 required a large increase in production of electric capacitors, which are primarily made with tantalum, which greatly increased the world price of the powder from $49/pound to a $275/pound". Despite it's huge success, it is not believable that the PS2 by itself caused a ~ 5X+ change in the price of a material used in capacitors in practically all electronic equipment ("all" being a much larger market than the PS2 alone, by orders of magnitude). It is suggested elsewhere in the article that the 2000/2001 price spike was due more to "dot com speculation and multiple ordering", as well as the rapid growth of the global electronics markets. This strike me as much more likely, especially if one includes the contemporaneous telecoms boom (and subsequent bust), which was likely also significant in terms of electronics demand forecasts & hence pricing.

I would suggest editing the article based on my second comment, to remove the citation of "Toward Freedom" for an unlikely claim and to modify the statement to include my subsequent points (supported by the rest of the article). I did not want to do this myself since I'm new and want to respect the main authors.

I also suggest having someone more knowledgeable recheck the global market numbers & % production from the Congo and replace the values with ones known to be more robust; failing that, I suggest flagging that data to indicate uncertainty re: accuracy.

Eifn (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a few related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=177 concerning the conflict surrounding coltan, Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of this article is plagiarized from an article in The Industry Standard, which can be found at the following URL: http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,26784,00.html?body_page=2

("After all, the trading companies sell coltan to processing companies, which in turn sell to tantalum capacitor manufacturers - whose clients are none other than high-tech companies such as Ericsson, Intel and Nokia.

These companies deny any knowledge that tantalum originating in the Congo is used in their products. That's not surprising, considering how murky the supply chain out of the Congo is and how complicated the global trade in tantalum gets. The reality is that there's little way to prove that the tantalum used in our cell phones and laptops is or is not from the Congo.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.19.205 (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ethical Grounds"

That story with not buying Congolese Coltan on ethical grounds sounds like a cover up story to me. I have reason to believe that they are just trying to push the price for coltan outside Congo up, while they are pulling it down inside Congo that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.206.21 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

"The exportation of coltan helped fuel the war in the Congo..." Haven't there been multiple wars in the Congo? Which one is this article referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC) The exportation of coltan has helped finance ALL the wars in the Congo for over ten years.It is an easy source of income but its mining is labor intensive.Oldpanther (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Roskilde Festival Humanitarian focus

Perhaps this year's humanitarian focus of Roskilde Festival, dubbed "Fair Phone – Fair Futur", should be noted in the article? Sorry for the bad english. Read more here[1]. --83.72.7.63 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo Games, Coltan, and Towards Freedom

Someone who is more experienced than I needs to rollback the changes to this article to the ' 04:49, 25 July 2008 MrDolomite' edit, as that is the last somewhat neutral view on the subject. Since then, there has been a massive addition due to the release of a questionable yahoo article (Joystiq, for example, has weighed in on this) based on an even more questionable *Activist* website's article that fails to cite any sources. Blaming the war on the PS2 is biased to begin with, especially when many other devices use this technology. Wikipedia can not contain content along the lines of "Activist Group stated: (instert statement)" unless it is on the article for that group, as elsewhere it will not be grounded in fact, and its use is most definately loaded. Thanks! 98.132.222.96 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. You shouldn't make updates based on an article that was a reproduction of an activist group's sensationalist press release. If Toward Freedom has actual evidence that PlayStations caused Tantalum usage to go up, that would be a good reference. The idea that this *one* product caused it is ridiculous on its face. (That isn't to say that there isn't a blackmarket for Tantalum, but the forces mining it are also doing it for Cobalt, Gold, and any other natural resources in the region which PlayStation's didn't use.) 74.129.123.20 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Recycling

Where are the facts and figures about mining, production, and trading quantities? Where is the discussion of tantalum recovery/reuse/recycling? -69.87.204.58 (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I came across this page http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Coltan, and the text is almost verbatim as the Wikipedia entry. The question is whether nation master has plagiarized it (it does provide a link at the bottom) or the nation master article has been plagiarized. Khawaga (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

-- Wikipedia is GFDL. As long as you make the derivitive work GFDL , and accredit the work (in fact accrediting it might not even be necesary), you are allowed to plagarize wikipedia. Look up the GFDL links on the bottom of the pages 121.221.133.158 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been brought to my attention. I just didn't read the Nation Master entry properly, it clearly states that it comes from Wikipedia. Doh! Khawaga (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Physical, chemical and electrical properties of coltan

The article contains no information about the specific physical, chemical or electrical properties of coltan that make it so sought-after. It is not entirely clear whether it is the mineral itself or its constituent metals that are principally used in electronic equipment.

Also, there is no description of how exactly coltan is mined and processed, or whether there are any known health hazards associated with processing, handling or being otherwise exposed to this material.

68.102.53.29 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Strike the Socio-Economic Garble

I suggest completely removing the portions regarding how coltan exports "fuel wars in Africa." Reading an article about coltan should be just like reading an article about Graham Crackers -- they should stay on subject. The section on wars in Africa is longer than the section talking about coltan!

Not to say that the information in unimportant, but if you feel that coltan exports have significantly aided the wars in Africa, that information should be relegated to the specific articles written about those specific wars. The excessively long diatribe here makes this entry look like it was written for a political activists' blog as opposed to an encyclopedic article.

I say that we strike that portion but will wait for a consensus before doing so. MrDestructo (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The socio-economic effects of Coltan are a large portion of it's notability, and the lengths of the respective sections reflect this.Mishlai (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if you completely ignore the fact that Niobium and Tantalum are not primarily mined from anywhere in Africa. This whole article is a mess of misinformation and doesn't even maintain internal consistency. At least half of it is a tangential barrage of advocacy POV writing. 209.161.167.180 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talison Closing

They closed Wodgina[2], thereby invalidating the previous statement about Talison at Wodgina being the biggest producer. I'm uncertain of whether Talison's other AU operations are still the largest, and I've just listed Australia as one of the origins with no special language pending a reference stating one way or the other. Mishlai (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

US Geological Survey

I erased the following quote and link. Since the article only mentions the Congo once and does not even provide a number for its production it is a mute point to state the Congo only produces "little less than 1% of the world's supply". Let's not even get into the discussion of how a commodity can be acquired below market price when it is not bought, not from a functioning state with leverage to bargain, but from guerrilla infested zones. That may be off the subject, then again, so is citing a source that does not provide the proper data. Philosopher2king (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<quote>The United States Geological Survey reports in its 2006 yearbook that the Democratic Republic of the Congo produces a little less than 1% of the world's tantalum.<ref name="USGS"> {{Citation | last = US Geological Survey | first = | author-link = USGS | title = Minerals Yearbook Nb & Ta | date = | year = 2006 | url = http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/#pubs}}</ref></quote>

Unless you can provide citations which show a significantly different production number for the DRoC I do not see the point of removing relevant data from the article.As the article has a large section (needed or not) on the DRoC and columbite-tantalite production the production % is valid to note.--Kevmin (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But if you look at the report being cited (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/myb1-2006-niobi.pdf) the table on the final page, called "TABLE 10: NIOBIUM AND TANTALUM: WORLD PRODUCTION OF MINERAL CONCENTRATES, BY COUNTRY1, 2", in the "Congo" row and the "2006" collum under the "tantalum content" group of collums, it just says "10". How is that "a little less than 1% of the world's tantalum"? What units is it saying 10 of? Web wonder (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The top of the chart specifies that numbers to be metric tons so 10 would be 10metric tons of tantalum in the 45 metric tons (gross weight) of ore produced. The chart does not cover %. --Kevmin (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Worst of Wikipedia

This article is among the worst I have ever seen on wikipedia. Wikipedia is suposed to be factual and on topic. Therefore, the article should be about coltan, and not about the politics of coltan mining. The political-economic situation of it deserves only a mention. I'd rather read more about the physical properties, uses, sources, and history. If these aren't available, then the article should be shorter. Well, I just realized I am not signed in so this is anonymous. I don't know a lot about coltan, but there's a few relevant facts I can add. I'll make sure I am logged in when I do this, AND THEN TAKE OUT THE POLITICAL BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.55.175 (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This article looks like the dumping ground of every type of social/environmental advocacy imaginable due to the fact that the Congo has coltan. Therefore every bad thing that has ever happened is because of an inert mineral? This article is littered with POV nonsense that isn't properly supported by unbiased citation. What does coltan have to do with genocide and the death of gorillas in the Congo? Based on the real numbers Australia and Brazil are the chief suppliers of columbium and tantalum and not the Congo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.167.180 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an Advocacy Article.

At the very least with all of the negative commentary on the semi-fictional mining of tantalum and niobium in the Eastern Congo. Comments regarding the small quantity of coltan mined in the Congo as a cause of genocide and destruction of wildlife are tangential at best and otherwise nonsensical. Charcoal production is likely a greater source of income for combatants than coltan. This article at the very least should be flagged as not neutral. 209.161.167.180 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Laptops & Mobiles using Tantalum

As an electronics designer, I would expect to see the use of Tantalum capacitors to become increasingly rare, as there are cheaper and superior replacements for any application I can think of. Tantalums are expensive, have high dielectric loss, are polarised and suffer from crystallisation at high currents. Nick R Hill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC).