|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|Turquoise is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 29, 2004.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class)|
|This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).|
- 1 Hypogene hypothesis??
- 2 Ambiguity of references
- 3 Is the hardness value given in the article correct?
- 4 Uncertain Origin?
- 5 On hue
- 6 Featured Article Review
- 7 "Drusy"???
- 8 Treatments Section
- 9 For School
- 10 unwarrented move
- 11 imitation
- 12 dead link
- 13 Globe?
- 14 Someone please fix vandalism
- 15 Ceramic tiles in the gallery?
- 16 Gunpowder on the Sinai
The turquoise article is looking great. One problem with the last edit. That hypogene hypothesis looks to me to be in error or perhaps an archaic idea. Everything I've seen is consistent with a truly supergene or secondary origin. Do you have a reference for that? -Vsmith 06:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I got it primarily from this abstract which seems fairly current (this month, in fact) and another which I can't seem to find again [Edit: Here's another abstract, for what it's worth]. Turquoise's formation is a debatable subject, it would seem, but all I've tried to do is include all rational views. The abstract is actually proposing a third hypothesis specific to US deposits, but I didn't include it here. If you know the hypogene hypothesis isn't actually a valid one or think I misunderstood something in my digestion of the source(s) (I'm not a geologist! I trust your judgment), feel free to edit it out. -- Hadal 06:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ambiguity of references
When combined with further reading it is impossible to know which sources were actually consulted for material and or fact checking in the article and those that are just available for more information for the interested reader. Can the editors that used the sources please split those two? Thank you - Taxman 03:36, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I added and used the following:
- Dietrich, R. V. (2004). Turquoise. Retrieved November 20, 2004 from www.cst.cmich.edu/users/dietr1rv/turquoise.htm
- Hurlbut, Cornelius S.; Klein, Cornelis, 1985, Manual of Mineralogy, 20th ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York ISBN 0471805807
- King, R. J. (2002) Turquoise. Geology Today 18 (3), pp. 110-114. Retrived November 24, 2004, from: www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2451.2002.00345.x/full/
- I also used but didn't add:
- USGS (2002). Turquoise. An overview of production of specific U.S. gemstones. U.S. Bureau of Mines Special Publication 14-19. Retrieved November 15, 2004 from http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gemstones/sp14-95/turquoise.html
- I would say that Hadal added the others and probably used them. He did the bulk of the rewrite. As I think they were all used as references, there's nothing to split. Maybe we should just delete the further reading part. -Vsmith 05:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I also used all the references I added to some degree, including Dietrich (after Vsmith helpfully added it). Vsmith's suggestion of removing the "further reading" bit seems to be the best way to quell any ambiguity, so I'll do just that. -- Hadal 14:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the clarification. - Taxman 19:29, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
"Turquoise", in french, doesn't mean "Turkish", it's a color, looks like cyan.
- That's the word's literal meaning today, yes. The article is relating the word's etymology, which for many words, is not congruent with its literal meaning. - Hadal 14:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Logically; in Corel Draw it is CMYK: 60, 0, 20, 0 ; so 66.6 Cyan and 33.3 Yellow is the color's definition. As far as I know; the word derived from the architectures (Such as the interior design of the Blue Mosque) and turkish ceramics (mainly the ones that are made in Iznik (it was Nicaea previously). Actually a while ago; in English the word "Turkish Blue" was also used. Due to the relation between Ottoman Empire and France with capitulations ; the Ottoman culture was introduced to Europe thru French culture. However, it shouldn't be the 14th century; but the 16th or 17th. During the 14th century everybody in Europe was dying out of Black Plague and survival was much more important than communications of the cultures. In the 15th century Europe still didn't had any "stable" communication with Ottoman Empire; (except hating them for conquering Constantinopolis). It was in the 16th century when Ottoman Empire had enlarged until Austria conquering almost all of Eastern Europe. The culture started to blend in between each other during this period. Mozart has composed his Turkish March while Europeans had sympathy for Turks. (Actually things such as "Parfum" (Cologne) and high-quality clothes were also introduced by Ottomans; before them Europeans literally smelled like s... due to lack of canalization system. For further information, please study Renaissance. (Which was an important period in human history) --Nerval 19:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is the hardness value given in the article correct?
The article mentions that turquoise "reach[es] a maximum hardness of just under 56, or slightly less than a solid diamond". The link for the word "hardness" takes you to an explanation of the Mohs scale, which is a scale from 1 to 10. That page also makes reference to a value called "absolute hardness," which lists diamond as a 1500. If turquoise is slightly less hard than a diamond, 56 doesn't really make sense on either scale.
I also thought, perhaps, the article meant to say "5-6," as is listed in the sidebar. This would make the wording awkward, however, as the sentence would read "...a maximum hardness of just under 5-6...."
- Turquoise is nowhere near diamond in hardness; the article was vandalised before you read it. I wasn't around to catch it, unfortunately. It should be okay now. -- Hadal
Why exactly does the article say the word is of "uncertain origin" and then go on to explain the origin? I've changed it a bit.
To people who just hate my edits for their accuracy, blue is what the standard links look like. It looks nothing like turquoise. Unless anyone can produce for me a blue turquoise, stop claiming that it is blue. Try lapis lazuli or the sea instead. lysdexia 12:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Blue" does not refer to one hue alone, it is a large category encompassing many shades of blue. There is no problem calling turquoise "blue", as it often is. Besides, it's not "cyan" colored, its "turquoise" colored... but it's a bit silly to define the color of turqouise as turquoise colored. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Featured Article Review
At first glance, there are no inline citations, which is why i nominated this article for review. The opening paragraph contains the etymology of the word Turquoise, but this should probably be put in its own section, and (like the rest of the article) should have ample inline citations. What's currently written seems to contradict the etymology given in one of the references. Mlm42 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What does that mean? I tried looking it up on Wictionary and got nothing.--Marhawkman 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Usually refers to a surface or cavity covered or encrusted with many small well formed crystals. Vsmith 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Although, looking at the use in this article, it seems a bit out of place as turquoise almost never occurs as well formed crystals which is implied by drusy - rather it forms coatings or nodular masses on fractures and in open veins. Will remove the word. Vsmith 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I just rephrased and rewrote this section a bit. All of the original information is intact. There was a bit of liberal use of dashes and semi-colons. I've left the dashes in the two places that perhaps should really stand out. There were also a couple of misspellings and some sentence spacing issues. I also made more politically correct the use of the word 'Indian' by making it a reference to Native Americans, and made the link to the website into an inline cited reference for consistency with the rest of the article.
This article is really impressive by the way! I just came by to dispute that assertation of a colleague that all pre-B.C. turquoise came from Egypt. The information here is marvelous. --Daydreamer302000 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing, somebody (possibly me) needs to decide what spellings are going to be standard for the article. I have changed gemmologist to 'gemologist'. The word 'color' is used in several places, but 'colour' is used throughout the article. Aluminum/Aluminium? I'll probably get around to making this consistent a bit later, so if anyone has an opinion on this, now would be the time. --Daydreamer30200013:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed a citation that was to an under construction and seemingly strictly commercial site, replaced w/ citation needed. We need reliable sources not advertizing sites. Vsmith 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree. I've been researching this topic a bit now. I do think the statement is correct as worded in the article (notice the recent change), however most of the sites I've found that agree with the sentiment, and in fact agree with the entire Valuation section afterwords, are commercial sites. There was one website that based its information of non-commercial literature. But this would mean someone is going to have to do some footwork. Any volunteers? --Daydreamer302000 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, for school we have to look @ stuff about our birthstones and mine's turquoise (December), so yeah :P Have fun on whatever you are doing :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why was this article moved from turquoise to Turquenite (an artificial imitation to outright fraudulent material). There was no discussion about it at all and the too are not the same.--Kevmin (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- New user confusion? or just vandalism - same user just tried to remove this section. Anyway moved it back and redirected turquenite to howlite w/ ref at howlite. Vsmith (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
ACCIDENT!!!! I didn't mean to move it i tried to fix a spelling error I'm just ten years old (We stuff up). But I don't know what your on with the erasing of this section, That I didn't do.--DJackD (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The last two sentences of this section are grossly misleading. "Imitation turquoise is so prevalent that it likely outnumbers real turquoise by a wide margin. Even material used in authentic Native American and Tibetan jewellery (sic) is often fake or, at best, heavily treated"
"Often" is judgmental and needs citation. The conjunction of the two sentences is also judgmental and can't really be verified. It does not take into account any date ranges (which is exceedingly important to make this statement remotely true) or other specificity. It would do better to be placed in the treated section rather than the imitation section.
The footnoted link to a Geology Today story is dead. Assuming that that story did indeed say, "This may have arisen from a misconception: turquoise does not occur in Turkey but was traded at Turkish bazaars to Venetian merchants who brought it to Europe," I would suggest that the author may know his geology but not his history. In the 14th century, when the term originated, the labels "turquois" and "turkish" were applied indiscriminately by Europeans to the entire Muslim world, not specifically to the region which now makes the nation of Turkey. (The Turks themselves didn't use the term at all, and didn't begin to refer to themselves as such until the late 18th century (see, eg, Bernard Lewis).) It would have been perfectly natural for French importers to refer to the stones as "turquoise" while knowing full well they came from Persia. There's no need to assume any misconception nor imagine any "Turkish bazaars". Iglew (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone please fix vandalism
"Patrick Star eats krabby patties during 2am" is below the intro paragraph, but it seems to be invisible in the edit page. Someone who is a higher level wiki wizard than myself should go look at it. Thanks :) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You were seeing a cached vandalized version. In the future, just add ?action=purge at the end of the address line and press enter. Materialscientist (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Ceramic tiles in the gallery?
I wonder why the gallery features architecture decorated with glazed tiles - granted turquoise color - rather than pictures featuring turquoise, the stone? --Ellenois (not signed in at the moment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you read the section, "History of its use" in this article, you will see that buildings such as mosques were decorated with turquoise "inside and out". That's real turquoise. See also Nishapur#Turquoise masonry. CorinneSD (talk)
- I'm not at all convinced. That article and section is (mostly) uncited, and (for example) this article on the restoration of the Tilla Kari Mosque specifically mentions ceramic tiles. Turquoise is rare and very expensive, and large pieces for lapidary even rarer. I don't think there's enough turquoise in the world to cover those big domes. I think we need to remove the gallery as misleading, unless cites to large-scale use of turquoise in masonry can be found. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC), who used to work at the largest turquoise mine in Arizona
Gunpowder on the Sinai
"Large-scale turquoise mining is not profitable today, but the deposits are sporadically quarried by Bedouin peoples using homemade gunpowder." - from gunpowder turquoise collapse (destroyed). Vyacheslav84 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)