Talk:Koh-i-Noor/Archive 1

Archive 1

True heirs

The rightful heirs of the Kohinoor diamond are the people of Andhra Pradesh, a province/state in south India. The diamond was found on the Krishna river bank in Guntur district. It became part of the treasury of Kakatiya empire. Subsequent to the deafeat of king Pratapa Rudra Tughlaq's army plundered Warangal and the diamond was taken to Delhi. It changed hands with changes in the fortumes of many a king and many an empire. The object should belong to the place where it was originally found i.e., the state of Andhra Pradesh.

It seems to me that to suggest that the stone ‘belonged to India’, and is unlawfully or wrongfully in the possession of the British Government is at best debatable. Granted the East India Company did take the stone as a prize in war – of course so did Ranjit Sing Maharajah of Lahore (‘king of the Sikhs’, ‘Lion of the Punjab’) Ranjit Sing took it as a spoil of war from the Emir of Afghanistan, so perhaps Afghanistan too has a claim to the diamond? The Emir in turn seems to have got the stone from the Shah of Persia – so does Iran have a claim? To further complicate the issue the dominions of the Sikh Raj (whose claim to ownership of the diamond, I must assume has somehow been transferred to that of the modern Republic of India by the author of this article) fall ambiguously between both India and Pakistan – so perhaps the Islamic Republic too has a legitimate claim? It seems to me that the British Government should keep the Koh-i-Noor, well at least until they loose it as a spoil of war, as the tradition goes. But I could be wrong….

What claim does Iran have? They just had it for a few years and for the same reasons the UK has it, because it was stolen. Iran has plenty of diamonds of its own without laching on to diamonds of other countries that they obtained for a few measly years by war and plunder.

I thought I would, for the sake of argument, continue the debate over the ownership of the Koh-i-noor. And if the author of the rebuttal who called me a moron wants to reopen his or her case, I would be delighted. You argue – with much justification I concede – that the diamond was firstly found in India, and was located there for much of its post-discovery existence. However ‘India’ as a concept in this context is rather problematical, as I mentioned above Pakistan is as much a part of the geographical conceptualisation of India, as the Republic of India is. Moreover India as a concept is really rather modern – being widely accepted only during the 18th and 19th century. Prior to this South Asia was a collection of several different polities, Marattas, Sikhs, Bengalis, etc – none of whom identified as Indians. India, as a single unified political entity really only came through the British conquest. Hence the diamond could not have been stolen from India as you claim, because India did not yet exist. Your argument for the Koh-i-noor having been traditionally Indian is therefore an anachronism. It is really also just a furthering of a western imperialist cultural and geographical ideas. Your argument too for the geographical origin of the diamond being Indian as the rational for returning it to India too is problematic. For centuries objects have been moved from country to country, such is the reality of history. To return every cultural artefact to its country of origin is so ridiculous to be farcical. Would you have the lamp that hangs over the tombs of Shah Jehan and Mumtaz Mahal in the Taj Mahal retuned to Egypt, where it was made? I doubt it. When it comes down to it, your argument seems to be based on some sort of perceived cultural or racial conviction that the diamond belongs to India. I think to counter the past evils of British imperialism with racism in the present is rather counter productive.

I agree with the "moron" as you call him above and would like to add the following opinion. India is a new and failing nation. After gaining independence from Britain we swiftly lost half our country (what was to become Pakistan) and most of the population now lives in poverty. It seems that our claims are an attempt to catch hold of a national identity that really isn't ours, but was lost along with Pakistan. I am Indian and living in England and think it is absolutely rediculuos that the Indian government expects the queen of Britian to tear a diamond (that now bears no resemblence to the original Koh-i-noor) out of her crown and simply hand it back to India. What would they do with it? Put it in a museum? Give it to the president? Hide it away? What use would it be to the people to know that the government has managed to get a pretty diamond back from another country but has made no progress to combat poverty. If you want to give back things that Britian stole, what about Thugee? or burning widows with their husbands?

If the British have any self respect (which i doubt they do) they would return the diamond to India or pay up $13 Billion to India and keep the diamond legitimately. As far as the comment about being a failed state from the Indian in Britain... looks like all the discrimination you face in the UK has made you think that its your duty to diss your own countrymen and suck up to the Brits. Shame on you.21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)65.92.157.195 mita

Come on guys, its a stupid diamond. Lots of stuff were stolen from what is now India and Pakistan. The Darya-i-Noor is a precious Indian/Pakistani jewel that is now part of the Iranian crown jewels. We Pakistanis and Indians alike arent clamoring our good diplomatic friend Iran for that? Why should we clamor for this? We have more important problems. I mean, really. Afghan Historian 00:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh willed the diamond to Jagannath temple in Puri, Orissa on his death bed in 1839 but the british made his 9 year old heir hand it over to them, so it belongs to the temple to which it was willed. The british are so spiteful that they will hand over the diamond to Pakistan a country they created 100 years later just becuase Lahore is now on the Pakistani side, never mind the fact that Ranjit singh's(the last owner of the diamond) clan and community was ruthlessly uprooted from Lahore, Gujaranwala etc. in 1947 with the active connivance of British administrators, during the British egineered partition of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.81.86 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be returned to Golconda in Andhra near Hyderabad where it was mined.

Origins

In Hyderabad they claim the Koh-i-Noor was mined there, in the Golconda mines.

Several articles on the Internet seem to agree with that: 'Up until the 18th century, India’s Golconda mines were the only location in the world where the gems were mined' (http://nc.essortment.com/kohinoordiamond_rlps.htm)

It's possible, but tenuous I'd say. Naturenet | Talk 28 June 2005 11:25 (UTC)

Actually in india it's regarded that the Kakatiya dynasty was the one to unearth the kohinoor but no sooner was it unearthed by the last king of this dynasty than he was killed in a battle a few years later. and it was carried to new delhi. the very site golconda was known for its diamond mining until it stopped giving any more diamonds. Idleguy 07:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The diamond was not mined. A villager found it on the bank of river Krishna in Kollur village of [ [Guntur]] district of Andhra Pradesh. The diamond was given to Pratapa Rudra the Kakatiya king ruling Warangal. He was defeated by the army of Tughlaq in 1323 A.D and the diamond was taken away to Delhi along with enormous amount of the booty.

Golconda being the only diamond mine in India at the time, and its proximity to Warangal and Guntur makes it logical that it would be given to the king of Warangal.

Fixed Persian spelling

Dieresis 09:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC) I changed كوحِ to کوہ .کوۂ is the word for mountain. I don't know if the use of ہمزہ for اضافت on the letter ہ is standard in Persian, but it is in Urdu, which is more germane to the Indian context.

Dieresis 09:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) My understanding of how to indicate اضافت for this case was incorrect. Because ہ functions here as a consonant, the correct way to write it would be كوہِ نور, but the اضافت is usually not written for this and many other common phrases and compounds. So just كوہ نور is left.

105 carats

I changed the number of carats based on the 1992 re-appraisal as give in this site. http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/koh-i-noordiamond.html

hdstubbs

Dr. Who reference

I saw that Dr. Who episode and looked up the Koh-i-noor on wikipedia - and was surprised to see a reference back to Dr. Who in the article. Is everything that happens in Dr. Who worthy of mention in an encyclopedia? Or is this the TV trivia edition? If no-one objects I will remove this. Birkett 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I object, think about it for second... the very reason you are here is because of Dr Who, surely that indicates to you the relevance of it. Mathmo ^Talk 03:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mathmo here - the only reason this article is on my watchlist is because of that reference. -- Chuq 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How did you not notice it had been gone for ages then? Hand hint, maybe time to prune down your watchlist! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Mathmo ^Talk 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that the stone shown in "Tooth and Claw" is a Brilliant or similar cut. Pity that the episode didn't explain that part of it was vaporised, resulting in the Koh's present irregular shape! —Tamfang (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Queen of England

Is that a direct quote from the Treaty of Lahore that uses the term "Queen of England"? I know that this term was very frequently used in diplomatic dispatches and such, but I'd have thought that a formal treaty would have used the more formal "Queen of the United Kingdom" or "Her Britannic Majesty" or some such. john k 12:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a direct quote. Ref[1] Naturenet | Talk 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this unusual as well but discovered it is authentic. See "Terms granted to, and accepted by, Maharajah Dulleep Sing - 1849," A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, ed. C.U. Aitchison. Vol. 9. (Calcutta: Office of the Superintendant of Government Printing, 1892), p. 49. Accessible via Google Books.

NZ herald article

A long article about it was in the NZ herald today, makes for quite a good read. [2] Mathmo ^Talk 03:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pencils

In 1890, the Austrian L. & C. Hardtmuth Company named its brand of pencils after the diamond, see here. I don't know where this may be linked to from this article, but it's interesting trivia nevertheless.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how, but I think there should be a "also see" section with a link to the List of famous diamonds

Trivial Talk

The matter of returning Kohinoor to India or any other country is untenable. History cannot be reversed. If one goes by the logic of returning looted wealth, then India should get enormous amounts of gold, diamonds, precious stones, jewellery etc from Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey etc., from where scores of sultans originated, raided and plundered India for 900 years. These countries will become paupers overnight if such a thing can be enforced.Kumarrao 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference in TV

Wasn't this the subject of the TV show Chuck - Season 1, Episode 4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.96.7 (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Currency rate

From the "Crown Jewels" section: "Albert .. spent some £8,000 (£40,000 present)". That conversion rate is seriously out of date, I guess it was copied from some old reference work. I have deleted it. Maproom (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please, everybody, refrain from personal attacks. They will be removed anyway and you could be blocked. Read WP:Attack for wikipedias policy on personal attacks. --Cameron* 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Will Was Ignored

The Honorable East India company had Ignored the will of Late Maharaja Ranjit Singh's before handing the diamond to his heir, possibly to then confiscate the diamond later from him making the episode look ethical (principled). Which they did. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the following [3] BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Righteous refused to take the Stone

I've updated [4]. Here it says the monarchy run by Kṛṣṇa in the past refused to take the stone in order to preserve the Right. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk

I've also updated necessary citations from http://srimadbhagavatam.com/sb/10/56/en BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 01:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Syamantaka

Syamantaka assocaition is a WP:OR, the BBC as well as ISKCON reference says nothing about its explicit association with Kohinoor. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is so then it is better to delete that section. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

British Crown Jewels

I don't think the point about the Koh-in-Noor being reset in the Imperial State Crown is correct. It was still in the Queen Mother's crown when I went to the Tower a couple of weeks ago.

Anyone got a reference for it?

Raelth42 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Lahore

The full text of the Treaty of Lahore is reproduced in the Wikipedia article of that title, and the sentence quoted in this article does not appear there. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 1846 at the end of the First Anglo-Sikh War, but the chronology presented in this article appears more consistent with the events of the Second Anglo-Sikh War two years later. The history in this article needs to be reviewed, supported by reliable sources, and made consistent with the relevant related articles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just found the same problem. This article quotes "The gem called the Koh-i-Noor which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk by Maharajah Ranjit Singh shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England." but the Treaty of Lahore article, which reproduces that document, does not contain that text. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@R'n'B and Bluerasberry: Thanks for pointing this out; I have looked into it and there are two treaties of Lahore: the Treaty of Lahore signed in 1846, and the Last Treaty of Lahore signed in 1849, the full text of which is reproduced at Treaty of Lahore#Text of the 1849 Last Treaty of Lahore. The Koh-i-Noor was ceded to Queen Victoria under Article III of this treaty. Firebrace (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Just propaganda article

The tone of the article is that of propaganda and anti-British ideas. The writer seems to think that the British were like the current day Indian politicians and bureaucrats. As to the Diamond, there are plenty of stealing done by the Indian officialdom. If Indian officials are trying to make the public forget the official misdemeanors, by claiming for the diamond, then in no time Pakistan (another equally corrupt to the core-officialdom nation) will also stake similar claims. The diamond is safe in the hands of the British Crown. If it comes to India, who knows who will steal it next? --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Koh-i-Noor

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Koh-i-Noor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From Kakatiya dynasty: Social and Economic Conditions in Eastern Deccan from $A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1250 By A. Vaidehi Krishnamoorthy [5]
• From Hope Diamond: Farges et al., Revue de Gemmologie, Revue de Gemmologie 165, 17-24.
• From India–Iran relations: ‘Iran and India: Age old Friendship’ by Abdul Amir Jorfi, India Quarterly, October–December 1994
• From Mughal Empire: History Modern India – S. N. Sen – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 2012-07-06.
• From Odisha: P. 63 Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey, Volume 4 By Willem Adriaan Veenhoven
• From Ranjit Singh: The Real Ranjit Singh; by Fakir Syed Waheeduddin, published by Punjabi University, ISBN 81-7380-778-7, 1 Jan 2001, 2nd ed.
• From British Empire: Lloyd, p. 335.
• From East India: The Heroic Dance Ghumura, Edited by Sanjay Kumar, Mahabir Sanskrutika, 2002
• From Lodi dynasty: D.R. SarDesai. India The Definitive History. (Colorado: Westview Press, 2008), 146.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

what?!

This article needs to be deleted!!! It's clearly written and mostly contributed to by British-hating Indians. Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. This article does not do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.85.130 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV - "Stolen"

I've made some changes to the beginning of the article. The main one of these was to improve the English, but the second was to change the sentence which stated the diamond was stolen by the British from the Indian Empire, which is clearly not a neutral point of view. I think this reflects a wider problem with lots of the article which editors with more knowledge than me will probably need to tackle - there seems to be an inherent bias in a few sections, and a number of sources seem to be pretty suspect. I also think there may be a case for some protection on this article, as there seems to be a history of reverting changes which make it more neutral. 194.66.198.40 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The history section article says "This diamond is stolen by the Britishers when they were ruling India." Seems like a reversion again.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple vandalism and easily repaired. Any other objections based on WP:NPOV? Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Picture

The picture on this page is broken. Someone should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.30.111 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

POV edits by Barthateslisa

Barthateslisa, Why are you removing sourced material? There is a debate. You should not try and portray disputed content as fact. Xtremedood (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of Koh-i-Noor

There have been attempts in the past to change ownership and discussions on similar lines. The diamond was was ceded to Britain under a treaty in 1849 and is part of the Crown Jewels (check this). Unless both countries resolve this, the ownership resides with Britain / related organizations. If there are some new facts, then that should be placed here before attempting to change the ownership of the diamond. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Shameless brits will naturally try to keep it. Its in every drop of their blood and DNA to take away what belongs to others. Obviously nothing is found in that dirty land of britain except f*ecal matter. Problem in the WIKI articles related to this is that there seems to be no allusion to that India has/had rights and at least in theory can claim it back. There is a movement by some nations in the UN - including Greece and India - to bring back stolen (british typical of their hypocritical creed would want to use a more "proper" term) stuff. It is expected to materialize next year. See http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Return-Kohinoor-to-India-UK-MP-Keith-Vaz-says/articleshow/48253777.cms. They also have Ranjit Singh's throne. The sight of "crown jewels" in the infobox is just too much. At least it could be shown as disputed? IVC sites went to pakistan or they would have taken those too if they were movable; Mauritius lost Chagos; british culture at its best. I will not change again. But expect you edit such that the "undisputed-ness" of the ownership is at least challenged at the least. Something to show that India's ownership is possible/likely in the near future. 117.194.230.120 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

117.194.230.120, there is absolutely no confusions about the origin and initial ownership of the diamond. It is also clearly mentioned in the article that in mid 19th century, the diamond was appropriated to British. Wikipedia is not means of claiming ownership and / or disputing facts. Wikipedia only reports facts that are available in public domain and are reliable. I don't see a reason as to why the ownership of the diamond should be changed / altered. Britain owns it; that's a fact and lets live with it till the situation changes. If you have any facts that have been missed by all editors of this page till now, then please post them here. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the bits cuts off from the Koh-i-Noor?

Is there any information on what happened to the bits cut off from the Koh-i-Noor (when it was re-cut in 1852). Presumably these 'off-cuts' were made into smaller stones. Where did these stones end up? This information would make an interesting addition to this page. 81.140.93.169 (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It was polished into a new cut using a grinding wheel. There are no off-cuts. Firebrace (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

KOh-i-Noor "myths": BBC claims oft-repeated "bazaar gossip...even sits unchallenged on Wikipedia today"

The BBC website reports today on a book based on new research: 'William Dalrymple and Anita Anand have written a book titled Kohinoor: The Story Of The World's Most Infamous Diamond, published by Juggernaut. Here the authors write about the main myths surrounding the priceless gem', then details six "myths" and the proposed actuality. [6]. Is it worth noting some of these as alternative viewpoints? Enginear (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

How can you blame the EIC for not executing his will in 1839? EIC had no control until after the 1st Sikh War in 1845-6.

"However, after his death in 1839, the East India Company did not execute his will."

Sorry, but this seems strange to me. It would have been up to his successor - and there were 3 who either died or were removed from power between 1839 and 1843 when the 4th successor, Duleep Singh, with his mother Jind Kaur as regent, became Maharaja.

The EIC had no control until after the 1st Sikh War ended in 1846, and no total control until annexation after the 2nd war in 1849.

So how can you blame the EIC? 4 different maharajas could have executed the will had they wished between his death and the First Sikh War.

So can someone explain how the EIC didn't execute his will in 1839 as I think this is factually inaccurate. They were not there, had no power, and therefore could not do so.

Yes, they forced Duleep to give it Victoria as a gift after annexation, but his mother had had 3 years when she could have given it to Puri, and the three previous successors as Maharaja had 4 years before that.

Seems a case of trying to blame the EIC for one of the few things they weren't guilty of.

Ganpati23 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The EIC was not mentioned in the cited source, so I have modified the statement. Elizium23 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Can the edit warring over Qutub Shahi / Kakatiya please stop. I have a copy of the book Koh-i-Noor by Anita Anand and William Dalrymple and will settle the matter when I have a chance to read it properly. Article will be locked if edit warring continues. Thank you. Firebrace (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 book by William Dalrymple and Anita Anand

I filled out the article on the September 2017 book Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World's Most Infamous Diamond by William Dalrymple and Anita Anand. I am not familiar with other literature on the Koh-i-noor, but this book strikes me as being a neutral narrative which anyone interested in the topic would like to read.

I summarized the chapters of the book in that article so that in developing the article here, anyone could see how they told the story for comparison. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Book is unreliable

I'm afraid this book is somewhat unreliable. Dalrymple and Anand say on page 41 that Kollur Mine is in the state of Karnataka, when every other book and journal gives the location as a meander on the River Krishna in Andra Pradesh. They say on page 160 that the Koh-i-Noor was cut down from 190.3 metric carats to 93 metric carats in 1852. Again, not true – the diamond was cut down to 105.6 metric carats, per every other reliable source, including Claude Blair's 1998 opus on the Crown Jewels. I have no idea what those two amateurs were playing at when they wrote this book. And they had the front to criticise Wikipedia on page 10... Firebrace (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Bad luck

"There follows a long history of murder, brothers blinding brothers and unbelievable cruelty which gave the Koh-i-Noor the reputation of bringing bad luck to a male owner." – Ronald Allison, Sarah Riddell, The Royal Encyclopedia (1991), p. 306

"Since its arrival in England the Koh-i-nûr has only been worn by Queens regnant and consort due to a legend which states that it will bring bad luck if worn by a man." – Royal Collection Trust: The Koh-i-nûr armlet

"The most enduring legend associated with the Koh-i-nur is the belief that is brings bad luck if worn by a man, and since its arrival in England it has only been worn by Queens regnant and consort." – Jonathan Marsden, Victoria & Albert: Art & Love (2010), p. 313

"Others thought that the stone brought bad luck to its male possessors, and this encouraged a belief that it never brought ill-fortune to women. Be this as it may, since the Kohinur's arrival in England in 1850 the stone has been worn only by queens-regnant and consort". – Tessa Rose, The Coronation Ceremony and the Crown Jewels (1992), p. 32

"As the history of the Koh-i-Noor involves much violence and cruelty between men it gained the reputation of bringing bad luck to a male owner. Since its arrival in England it has only ever been worn by queens regnant and consort". – Kenneth J. Mears, Simon Thurley, Claire Murphy, The Crown Jewels (1994), p. 27

"Given its tempestuous history, the Koh-i-Nur was thought to mean bad luck if worn by a man. On Queen Victoria's death, the stone was therefore set into Queen Alexandra's Crown … Following the convention that each queen consort was made a new crown for her coronation, the stone successively adorned the crown of Queen Mary, 1911, and that of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, 1937, where it remains today". – Sally Dixon-Smith, Sebastian Edwards, Sarah Kilby, Clare Murphy, David Souden, Jane Spooner, Lucy Worsley, The Crown Jewels: Souvenir Guidebook (2010), p. 50

"Since the Koh-i-Noor's acquisition by the British, only female members of the royal family have worn it. This may be because the diamond is said to carry a curse that brings its male possessors great misfortune". – Scott D. Sucher, Dale P. Carriere, The Use of Laser and X-ray Scanning to Create a Model of the Historic Koh-i-Noor Diamond (2008), p. 126–127

Firebrace (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! We are keeping that in the article for sure! Thanks for compiling this. And you are right about this, it is not the same book. It is an earlier version from 1986. I should have spotted that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I just want to throw in ... Indu Sundaresan has written a contemporary work of historical fiction about one period in the history and ownership of this diamond ... "The Mountain of Light" ... previous to the diamond falling into the hands of the brits ...my copy is out on loan and my memory is sketchy, but it was a delightful read ... Sundaresan is quite clear about the curse, it was known for centuries before it ever came into the clutches of the Anglo Saxons ....2601:142:8200:7804:F40E:94BC:3791:AB55 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC) John L. Tucker 4/8/2019

Thank you but works of fiction are not reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Someone has cited an article in the International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) that itself has only three references, and includes this paragraph:

The effect of Koh-i-noor makes females or queens more possessive, self centered and self-seeking, forcing them to lose some territory, reputation and brings unhappiness at home, breaks home and ultimately may end the monarchy as per some occult reading of this Gem.

It seems the IJSR will publish any old nonsense. I am deleting this reference from Koh-i-Noor. Firebrace (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

OK by me. Since that leaves the factoid "The diamond was originally owned by the Kakatiya dynasty." unsupported and that factoid is in conflict with the Origin section, I will remove it. The paragraph seems fine without it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

2006 Doctor Who episode 'Tooth and Claw'

I have removed this entry from "In popular culture". It is WP:UNSOURCED. We need some citation to establish it is a cultural element and not just a convenient plot element nobody cares about. Otherwise it is just WP:FANCRUFT. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

^^^^^^ WTF does this mean - "a cultural element and not just a convenient plot element nobody cares about"?? This is stupid and arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:D503:B400:C893:5580:3FD9:5FEB (talk)

See policy MOS:POPCULT, WP:SOURCELIST and essays WP:POPCULTURE, WP:Overlistification. Basically, we do not list every mention of this diamond in popular culture, just the ones that get noticed in reviews. This item did not have a citation at all. I did not mean to say nobody cares about this use, I am saying we should not list it if it is not noticed outside Doctor Who fandom. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ranjit singh's will

The reference given of Mr Rastogi's book does not elaborate on Ranjit Singh's will. A mere line saying he willed to Puri Jaggannath is there. Can anyone show Ranjit Singh's will? Else this line that he willed it to Puri temple should be removed. Serjatt4 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found the mountain of light : across India on the trail of the Koh-i-Noor Diamond page 253 mentions the same sort of thing. He wanted to leave it to a temple and the minsters said it was property of the state. See also Kohinoor: The Story of the World's Most Infamous Diamond page 92. I do not find it unlikely. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Duleep Singh's Age

Under the diamond's history, it is written that Duleep Singh was 11 years old at the time of the treaty, but a lot of external sources say that he was actually 10. Could anyone confirm either?Bitterhag (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-Indic script usage needed

I prefer that non-Indic usage for Koh-i-Noor, but in Persian (کوه نور) and in Urdu, (کوہ_نور) but seems to be fine. --Frontman830 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Languages

@CodeTalker and Richard-of-Earth: Why are the sources being taken so strongly here? [Source 1 - (an encyclopedia) says it's from Hindi, while Source 2 states it's from Persian, yet no one can seem to figure out or take into account that Urdu is also a language that has quite a historical significance, especially in the Indian subcontinent. I can understand if the debate was Persian vs Urdu, but I don't understand why it could possibly be Hindi. A quick breakdown of the term, and one can realise that it definitely isn't Hindi. The Hindi language doesn't have the Izafat construction (the i in Koh-i-Noor), which is found in Persian (and subsequently Urdu). Plus, the Hindi lemmas (of which there are many) are transliterations of the Persian and Urdu forms. कूह-ए-नूर (kūh-e-nūr) as it was stated in the note - is incorrect as it should be कोह-ए-नूर (koh-e-nūr) - a transliteration of کوہِ نور (koh-i nūr) (since the Izafat is pronounced as 'e' in both Persian and Urdu but indicated with a diacritic that represents a shortened 'i'), whereas कोहिनूर (kohinūr) - is (likely?) influenced by English, and the fact that it's known as Koh-e-nur and not kuh-e-nūr (since in Persian - it's kuh), it's likely to be Urdu . There might not be a citation to state that it's from Urdu, but the citation that states that it's from Hindi, is definitely incorrect. It's more likely to be Persian or, in my opinion, Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. See WP:V and WP:OR. If what you say is so, then perhaps you can find a scholar who has written about this. Until you do, it should not be put in the article. I should point out that the diamond is said to be named by Nader Shah in 1740s and per Urdu#History: The name Urdu was first introduced by the poet Ghulam Hamadani Mushafi around 1780. Before that From the 13th century until the end of the 18th century the language now known as Urdu was called Hindi,[30] Hindavi, Hindustani,[33] Dehlavi,[63] Lahori,[63] and Lashkari.[64] The diamond is said to be named by Nader Shah in 1740s. Since Nader Shah was the Shah of Iran, it is more likely a Persian name, but if it was this early Urdu, they might of just referred to it a Hindi. But all of that is original research. Without citations showing an expert opinion on the matter, we just go with what the existing citations say. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@نعم البدل I reiterate what Richard-of-Earth says regarding WP:V. Verifiability is probably Wikipedia's most important policy. Everything written on Wikipedia must (at least in principle) be derived from a published reliable source. Sources are "taken so strongly" because that is the principle that underlies everything on this encyclopedia. Information cannot be added simply because one editor believes it to be more accurate than what reliable sources say (even if the editor is correct!). The solution is for you to find reliable sources that support what you want to change, and add a reference to such sources when you make your changes. If your source actually contradicts the existing sources it's a bit more complicated; in that case we should present all views and attribute the statements to each source. CodeTalker (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not related to languages, the diamond now has A brand new owner LissajousCurve (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)