Talk:Koh-i-Noor

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)

@Richard-of-Earth: I understand your point about WP:V, but I don't understand your second point. If you're saying that Hindi was alternative way of referring to the Urdu language, which I agree with, then shouldn't that mean it is the Urdu language then? Anyways, at the moment, I'm not asking for Urdu to be appended to the text, at the moment (since I'm still looking for a reliable source, and finding it quite difficult to do so since an Urdu newspaper called "Koh-i-noor" seems to also exist) but what I am suggesting is that only the Persian citation should be kept. As I say, the Hindi text mentioned in the note is itself incorrect. نعم البدل (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I meant to imply that early citations will say "Hindi" when referring to what we now call "Urdu" and later citations will just repeat earlier citations. I am fine with it saying Persian and removing the Hindi citation. We might run in to people who will want it to say Hindi simply because they think that will give India a better claim to the diamond. So this point might come to needing an RFC discussion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:48, 16 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)

Possession of the diamond

The crown jewels belong to the crown, technically now belong to the King, but in practice they are not considered part of his wealth. There are lots of rumors and speculation about who will wear it next, but until something official happens, we should not include anything in the article. Apparently #Kohinoor is now trending on twitter with new calls for returning it, It is not likely to be significant enough to warrant mention. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Distortion of history

Safavid is wrongly given as a Persian dynasty. I would kindly ask you to make a deeper search in history and correct this mistake. 77.244.124.248 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Safavid dynasty ruled what was and what still is Persia aka Iran. How are they not a Persian dynasty? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The Safavids adopted the Persian language. Would that not make them Persian?

History: sources

The following may have useful information:

The REAL history of the Koh-i-Noor Diamond bySyed. Sher Shah, as narrated by his father Syed. Zaman Shah https://sardhana.tripod.com/kohinoor.htm

Koh-i-Noor Diamond – Its History: appendix to Maharaja Duleep Singh, the king in exile by Gurmukh Singh Sandhu https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10153989073476675.pdf

Glorious History of Koh-I-Noor Diamond (The Brightest Jewel in the British Crown) by N.B. Sen https://indianculture.gov.in/ebooks/glorious-history-koh-i-noor-diamond-brightest-jewel-british-crown

Mcljlm (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Kollur mine

The article says it was mined there before 1350, but according to our article, the mine was not established until after 1500. Safer to say it is a Golconda diamond from the wider area. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Popular Culture

It appears in Doctor Who Season 2 Episode 2 Tooth and Claw - held by Queen Victoria. The cutting by Albert is discussed. Airplane42 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed once before showing some support for its inclusion, but also opposition. Per WP:CULTURALREFS we need a citations that shows this use of the Koh-I-Noor in the show is culturally significant. Also see WP:POPCULTURE. Just because it is mention somewhere, does not mean such mentions are notable enough to include in the article. So what we need is a WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY source talking about this use outside of a plot summary. We cannot use a WP:BLOG or some other self-published source, but a published book or article. By the by, Tooth and Claw (Doctor Who) only mentions the diamond in passing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Two adjacent sentences directly contradictory

As of the date and time of this post, this Wikipedia article contains this howler: "Although some thought it should have been presented as a gift to Queen Victoria by the East India Company, it is clear that Dalhousie believed the stone was a spoil of war, and treated it accordingly, ensuring that it was officially surrendered to her by Duleep Singh, the youngest son of Ranjit Singh.[44] The presentation of the Koh-i-Noor by the East India Company to the queen was the latest in a long history of transfers of the diamond as a coveted spoil of war.[45]". The first sentence implies underlying tacit assumptions that it was NOT presented to Victoria by the East India Company. Furthermore, the first sentence states overtly, nothing tacit, that it was given to Victoria by Ranjit Singh, NOT the Company. But the immediately succeeding sentence says there was a presentation of the diamond by the East India Company to the Queen. That is so absolutely directly contradictory. Does Wikipedia, or does it not, have staff who have no knowledge of the subject-matter who proofread an article checking not for factual accuracy (which a person with no knowledge of the subject-matter can't do), but, rather, seeking incoherence, bad logic, and nonsense? Or are the readers such as myself who complain constantly about almost EVERY ARTICLE WE READ the proofreaders? I have to say, I report stuff like this less than half of the time that I find it, because usually I just don't have the time.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

Under history of the stone, it states that the queen mother died in 2002. Queen Elizabeth II died in 2022. 71.247.209.236 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The Queen Mother is in reference to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, who died in 2002, and not Queen Elizabeth II. Callmemirela 🍁 19:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Queen Mother was Elizabeth II's mother. Firebrace (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

The koh-I-nor is no longer in Queen Marys crown. It has been removed for the crowning of Camilla, queen consort, due to controversy surrounding it. MsAdler25 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see next section 73.93.5.246 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 (2)

Change the sentence ‘The diamond is currently set in the Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.’ This is no longer true. The diamond was removed from the crown for the coronation of camilla, queen consort due to the controversy surrounding its ownership. MsAdler25 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The diamond is still in it. Camilla is wearing a different crown (Crown of Queen Mary) 73.93.5.246 (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

Physical and Geological Characteristics The Koh-i-Noor diamond, whose name translates to "Mountain of Light" in Persian, is renowned not only for its size but also for its profound historical and cultural significance, particularly within the British imperial narrative. While not the largest or most flawless diamond, its fame is deeply rooted in its storied past as a symbol of conquest and imperial power, especially in relation to British colonization in India.

Originally weighing 186 old carats (approximately 38.6 modern carats or 7.7 g), the Koh-i-Noor was recut in 1852 to its current size of 105.6 carats. This recutting was undertaken after the diamond, seized from the Sikh Empire following the British annexation of Punjab, failed to meet the aesthetic expectations of the British public at the Great Exhibition of 1851. The recut was not merely an aesthetic enhancement but also a symbolic act, representing the British civilizing mission. It was a demonstration of British science and technology applied to enhance the diamond's structure and brilliance, reinforcing the narrative of British superiority.

The Koh-i-Noor's geological characteristics are as fascinating as its history. Originating from the Kollur Mine in the Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh, India, the diamond is a type IIa, the most chemically pure type of diamond with minimal nitrogen impurities. Type IIa diamonds are known for their high optical transparency. The Koh-i-Noor's lack of fluorescence and exceptional limpidity have contributed to its legendary status among the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom.

The diamond's journey from India to Britain, following the British East India Company's annexation of Punjab, was more than a mere transfer of a precious stone. It symbolized the subjugation of the Sikh Empire to British rule, representing a transfer of sovereignty. The Koh-i-Noor's transfer to Queen Victoria under the terms of the Treaty of Lahore was a clear demonstration of the British Empire's might and dominion over the Indian subcontinent.

The mid-nineteenth-century appropriation and display of the Koh-i-Noor within British imperial culture were multifaceted. While it symbolized British conquest, it also became a subject of critique, particularly regarding imperial acquisition and the gendered consumption of diamonds. The recutting of the Koh-i-Noor was an effort to align the stone with Victorian ideals of beauty and propriety, showcasing British technological advancement and cultural sophistication.

Furthermore, the Victorian era's fascination with exotic treasures from the colonies, with the Koh-i-Noor being a prime example, extended beyond aesthetic or monetary value. This interest symbolized the British Empire's global supremacy. The diamond's recutting and exhibition were as much about displaying British cultural and technological advancement as about the gemstone itself.

The broader cultural and philosophical implications of the Koh-i-Noor's fame were significant. The diamond's story reflected a 19th-century trend where such treasures sparked global discussions about imperialism, materialism, and the allure of beauty and power. These discussions extended into literature, philosophy, and the arts, indicating the diamond's far-reaching influence on various aspects of society and culture.

In the modern context, the Koh-i-Noor has been central to discussions about cultural heritage and repatriation. The debates around its rightful ownership and the ethics of its acquisition by the British Empire highlight ongoing conversations about colonial history and the restitution of cultural artifacts. These discussions are not just about the diamond itself but also about acknowledging and addressing historical injustices.

In conclusion, the Koh-i-Noor's physical and geological characteristics are deeply intertwined with its historical trajectory. The diamond's story is emblematic of the broader narratives of British imperialism, material culture, and the complex historical narratives surrounding such imperial objects. Currently housed in the Tower of London, the Koh-i-Noor is not just a testament to geological processes but also to the historical processes of conquest, colonization, and cultural appropriation that have shaped its legacy.

Works Cited

Dalrymple, William, and Anita Anand. Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World's Most Infamous Diamond. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. Kinsey, Danielle C. "Koh-i-Noor: Empire, Diamonds, and the Performance of British Material Culture." Journal of British Studies 48, no. 2 (April 2009): 391-419. Munich, Adrienne. Empire of Diamonds: Victorian Gems in Imperial Settings. University of Virginia Press, 2020. "Thoreau and 'The Celebrated Koh-i-noor Diamond'." The Thoreau Society Bulletin , no. 242 (Winter 2003): 6-7. "The Koh-i-Noor Diamond." Royal Collection Trust. Accessed November 7, 2023. [1](https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/trails/the-koh-i-noor-diamond). Lizaaa.02 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is much shorter than the current article, and I don't see it as an improvement. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Indian government's stance on the Koh-i-noor

The article twice states that the Indian government is of the opinion that the Koh-i-noor was not stolen. However, this is not an official statement from the government, and was only part of a statement made during court proceedings by the solicitor general. Relevant parts of the article:

> In 2018, at the Supreme Court of India the Archeological Survey of India clarified that the diamond was surrendered to the British and "it (the diamond) was neither stolen nor forcibly taken away".

and

> The then solicitor general of India, Ranjit Kumar said, "It was given voluntarily by Ranjit Singh to the British as compensation for help in the Sikh Wars. The Koh-i-Noor is not a stolen object."

Here is another newspaper article showing the government reverted its stand. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kohinoor-our-property-govt-tells-supreme-court/story-j1jqu8qSukJcyHBvDFLt0N.html

Specifically:

> Now the government has taken a stand that the gem belongs to India but, added, it cannot proceed legally against Britain.

Here is another source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36088749

> But a statement by India's ministry of culture on Tuesday said the government "further reiterates its resolve to make all possible efforts to bring back the Koh-i-Noor diamond in an amicable manner".

> Mr Kumar's comments, which elicited surprise in India, did not represent the views of the government, the statement said. The official submission to the court has yet to be made, it added.

Request to update the article to:

> The Indian government has reiterated its resolve to make all possible efforts to bring back the Koh-i-Noor diamond in an amicable manner

with the BBC source above. Silent Nemesis2710 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please learn to format comments properly. Doesn't Pakistan have at least as good a claim? Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)