Talk:Cinnebar

Under Uses, Paragraph 2 has nothing to do with Paragraph 1. Interesting but should be deleted.

Extremely dubious
This article is very dubious and I'm inclined to propose deletion. It's notability as a subject distinct from lacquer is entirely based on one source which makes assertions I find no evidence of anywhere else. Also, one of the images is copied directly from that source and I doubt it is licensed properly.

The article asserts that there is a soft "cinnebar" wood which is stamped rather than carved, followed by application of lacquer to produce jewelry items. As far as I can tell, "cinnabar" jewelery was formerly created by coloring lacquer with cinnabar (mercury sulfide) and carving an object out of layers of lacquer. Perhaps there was some wood from a particular tree at the base of lacquer, but I find nothing that discusses this. Modern "cinnabar" jewelery does not use mercury sulfide to achieve a red color, and the lacquer may perhaps be synthetically derived (not from the lacquer tree). Is there a soft wood that forms the core of lacquer coated jewelry items? Plantdrew (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I too can find no supporting evidence for the claims of jewelex that there is a cinnnebar tree (Spelt with an e) which is distinct from the cinnabar laquer (Spelt with an a), or trees named after the ore's red colour and also spelt with an a. There is a cinnabar tree (Spelt with an a), native to an island off Yemen, which had a red sap which was traided for mystical purposes as dragons blood, but there is no evidence of the use of this in the creation of cinnabar laquerwere. I did find a reference to a cinnabar tree (With an a), though no latin name, in an jewerly making encyclopedia. That also stated that that tree is not involved in the production of cinnabar laquerware and that where a wood based was used with laquerware, that wood was in general bamboo or white pine.

My impression at the moment is that the story of cinnebar spelt with an e, is mistaken nonsense. --Obrun (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge or redirect?
Yes, this page is clearly based on a typo for cinnabar and the first reference. Should it be merged or deleted and redirected? Keahapana (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Boldly made it a redirect to cinnabar. The first ref was a commercial sales page - non-WP:RS and second seemed to be dead. If anyone objects ... speak up :) Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)