Talk:Coltan

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)

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

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)

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)

Concerning the "1% of the world's tantalum" statement, I thoroughly checked the citation and couldn't come up with any similar claim. SteveJpwns (talk) 1:17, 3 MAY 2008 (ET)

In response to Eifn, the T.I.C.'s own statistics (available on request) agree with the global tantalum market figure of ~5 Mlb Ta for 2000 (4.9 Mlb); this dropped to 3.4 Mlb Ta in 2001. While the price during 2001-2009 hovered around the 35-50 $/lb Ta2O5 level, we should acknowledge that during the spike year of 2000 the price was reported to be as high as 250 $/lb. As you rightly point out, this could not give rise to major earnings for anyone in 2007-2008, but for the sake of exercise we can look at the year 2000 as the extreme maximum by way of comparison. So for 2000 the 4.9 Mlb of Ta equal 6.0 Mlb Ta2O5, multiplied by 250 $/lb Ta2O5 equals 1.5 G$. If we suppose the DRC accounted for not 1% but conservatively ten times more, 10%, that would be worth 150 M$ - to an international trader (the 250 $/lb would be the value on the international market, not to the exporters in the producing country). The exporters in the DRC would be paid an order of magnitude less, so 15 M$ a year. We quickly see then that even in the boom year of 2000, even if the DRC accounted for 10% of the market, that would only be worth 15 M$ a year, a figure which would be further divided among the various conflicting parties in the DRC - government, rebels, occupying forces et c. Furthermore, those 15 M$ are the turnover sales value, not the profit!

Why then have fantastic figures been published by various sources, including sometimes reputable journalists? Because it takes a little time to understand how to calculate the figures correctly and not to mix up pounds, kilos and tonnes, to account for the value based on % Ta2O5 content and not simply to multiply by total ore quantity, and sometimes not to mix up figures expressed in Ta or Ta2O5 as figures expressed as Ta oxide are 22.1% greater than those expressed as elemental Ta. It is easy to get confused and sometimes a wrong figure, once published, acquires a life of its own as it is difficult to cross-check how that figure was obtained or calculated.

Regarding the many tabulated figures, these should not be on the 'coltan' page at all, but on the tantalum page as they refer to tantalum production. Readers should not have to refer to two separate articles to learn about the production of tantalum alone. Tanbtech (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

this discussion is old but in case anyone else is wondering about this -- I have been updating this article (in the face of some vandalism may I add) and have seen multiple references to that price spike, in sources I consider reputable. I don't remember the specifics, or whether the reputable sources mentioned the PS2 in particular, although I do remember seeing that also, just not where. I will keep an eye out for this point as I go through sources and add/improve references if this seems called for. But there are other points that are not covered in the above discussion -- almost all of the coltan in the global supply is in the DRC, and most of *that* is specifically in the eastern provinces of the DRC, which at that time was in the middle of a genocidal civil war that had spilled over from Rwanda. Several mines in that area closed because of attacks on the mining operations. So the drop in production is extremely plausible and if the supply was that restricted then of course the price would go up. As I said, having seen this I will try to address this question as I update. Anyone else who feels so moved should do this also, since we now again (March 3 2018) AGAIN have massive fighting in the eastern provinces, with more a local causation this time, and just as people were realizing that the switch to electric vehicles is going to create immense demand for this mineral. So I anticipate a lot of lookups shortly. I just updated Ituri conflict -- I have been working on various Congo pages off and on for a while, although I am not from anywhere around there. I wound up here because of the Panama Papers and the local kleptocracies, and since the pages were in bad shape and a lot of the sources are in French, it was a good project for me since I speak it quite well. But I am totally capable of error, especially in chemistry and/or local politics, though I am doing my best. Please feel free to ask me about any thing I do and I'll be happy to either collaborate on revising it if it is wrong or to explain it to you if it is not ;) Elinruby (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

This statement appears illogical, it puts the cart before the horse. The only way to drive a price down is to boycott a source, thus limiting where it can be sold and forcing a discount. When you boycott a source you automatically reduce supply, thus driving up the price elsewhere in the market. Rising prices per se in one area do not cause a price drop elsewhere.

The question then becomes, why is material boycotted? Ethical grounds are part of the reason, bearing in mind that for companies those ethical grounds come bundled with consumer boycott and bad press - which has economic implications. For regulatory authorities, ethical grounds are just that, with no direct economic consideration; this can result in implementing regulations which have unforeseen consequences and might unwittingly force companies to boycott a source. So our answer is a combination of companies' bottom line masquerading as ethical grounds, a pinch of genuine ethical sentiment and varying degrees of regulatory pressure which might force companies into boycotts that were not intended. Tanbtech (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"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)

It has indeed helped finance, we must not forget it is one of several sources of income. An April 2009 report by Enough estimates the armed group funding split between gold and the '3Ts' as 60% tin, 29% gold, 6.6% tantalum and 4.2% tungsten (total 99.8% due to rounding), calculated from the total figures in Appendix 2.

It is not an easy source of income, it is physically arduous and in some cases dangerous; and that's just because of the mining conditions, before even taking into account the hazards posed by armed groups, the conditions in mining communities et c. It has become the ONLY source of income for many people, as the politically and tribally motivated wars destroyed agricultural and what little industrial employment there was, both of which require long term stability and peaceful conditions to thrive.

It IS labour intensive in terms of the number of people required, this can be considered a blessing for the local communities as it means more people can obtain an income from that activity. Ultimately the congolese have to be able to work and feed themselves; wars of any kind take away the stability required for self-sustaining communities, leaving the people little choice of employment and taking whatever they can find, including arduous mining. This is not the fault of mining, it is simply all that is available. Tanbtech (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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. --83.72.7.63 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Such a statistical discussion does not belong on this page, coltan is a regional term used in central Africa in the context of artisanal mining; in other words, it is a slang term, a colloquialism, and as such does not merit technical discussions. It is a politically loaded term and this page can (and clearly does) incorporate all the politically loaded views of one side or another, obviously with a preference for backing up by relevant data. By relevant data I mean the selection of figures which substantiate an argument, not multiple tables of irrelevant figures.

All aspects of mineralogy, occurrence, trade, statistics, technical data et c. should be on the tantalum page, as that encompasses all tantalum raw materials, including the sub-species which happens to be called coltan for short in central Africa. Duplicating or, even worse, having some data on the tantalum page and some data on the coltan page, only leads to confusion and also the possibility of errors and contradiction. Tanbtech (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

As stated earlier, this is not the appropriate place for any technical discussion, this should be on the tantalum page. Coltan is regional slang which has become politically loaded, this page's introduction should reflect this and refer all readers interested in technical aspects to the tantalum page. This coltan page is the place for describing the history and context of how this slang term came about, how it became an easy 'poster-child' for advocacy groups in the noughties, and the history of all the activities that have and are taking place to resolve the issue of conflict minerals, including cross-reference to gold, tin and tungsten. This page needs a much more focused scope and a broader overview of the context in which "coltan" is placed. Tanbtech (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Readers who want the "Graham Crackers" (whatever that is) view on niobium and tantalum should refer to those pages. The "coltan" page should focus on its African context, as that is where the term originated, together with an overview of the work that has gone on related to conflict minerals - there is a lot to be written in that context and there should also be a link to this page from the Second_Congo_War page, and perhaps a separate article on the ongoing work to create transparent and traceable supply chains by industry organisations, the UN GoE, the ICGLR and the OECD, as well as the more recent US DFA legislation and the impending SEC rules. Tanbtech (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

They closed Wodgina, 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)

All information on occurrences and sources should be on the tantalum page only and deleted from the coltan page, therefore this is a moot point. Tanbtech (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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 moot 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)

In response to Philosopher2king and following up the later comments, the USGS document does show Congo as <1% of global production. 10 mt (Congo Kinshasa) in 1390 mt (Total) is <1%, it's simple maths. Removing the quote just because it was not understood is indefensible, it should be reinstated. Tanbtech (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

I strongly agree with the coments above. When I arrived at this page I wanted to learn about the mineral. Ultimately there should be a seperate article for the politics and ethics of the extraction of the mineral in third world countries. There should be a template relating to lack of specific technical information in this article. Would the neutrality template be acceptable? Ryan.brownell (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the worst of wikipedia, it certainly isn't the best; the "Ethics" section in particular is a random collection of information by perhaps well-intentioned but often misinformed people. Nevertheless I disagree that there should be any technical information in this section, because "coltan" is not a technically correct mineral in the first place, it is a slang term from central Africa. Those who wish to read about the minerals containing tantalum should be linked to the Category Tantalum_minerals page (it exists, but I can't make the link work - try searching). Those who wish to read about tantalum specifically should be linked to that page. This "coltan" page should be all about the African context, its connection with the other conflict minerals gold, tin and tungsten and the ongoing work to create transparent supply chains. The politics should also be described as that completes the picture around "coltan", to the extent of reporting the above mentioned work by all parties: civil societies, industry associations, governments and UN/other international organisations. If not here, where else are people to read about a factual summary of the issues involved? This page could potentially be an excellent resource to put the many facts into context, provide a balanced view and debunk many of the internet myths that keep being regurgitated without checking the primary sources - e.g. the myth of the DRC having 80% of world reserves, which is debunked in the book "Coltan" by Michael Nest, page 17 - currently viewable in google books. Tanbtech (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Why not list the number of people that have died in Austalia due to miners spreading syphalis while were at it? There is a great deal of spurious "information" in this article. What does coltan have to do with the price of tea in China or the number of war deaths in the Congo? The inferrence is speculative at best. 158.145.224.34 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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).

Tantalum capacitors have their own page, therefore there should only be links to that page from the tantalum and coltan pages. There should be no details about the pros and cons of tantalum capacitors on the coltan page. Tanbtech (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)