Talk:Golconda diamonds

Some other non reliable sources


Up to 100.00 people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.79.85 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Omer123hussain (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1a : related to Shantidas Jhaveri and Khushalchand, no I deliberately kept it, as khushalchad donnot have separate WP page, and if we keep the name without WL, then we will have to add some intro about Khushalchand, which will lengthened this article. And thanks for your c/e. :)

Legends
Legends? What legends? It looks like someone put in legends which were then deleted and title remains? Ptilinopus (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What goes on in Hyderabad . ..
you made [this] change. There is already a bunch of WP:UNSOURCED assertions in this article. More are not needed. I do not see how it is known where the diamonds were prepared for market. Also words like "cut", "polished" and "evaluated" are common words that do not need to be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. And the link for polish goes to Brilliant (diamond cut) and evaluated goes to Diamonds_as_an_investment. These are WP:EASTEREGG links and do not improve the article. Lastly Diamantaire is WP:JARGON for a diamond cutter, the more common name and should not be used. I am sorry to seem hypercritical, but what are you trying to achieve with this edit? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You reverted without discussion. Anyway i linked those for more clarity to the readers about diamond market, for instance "evaluated" it is not commonly know how diamonds are evaluated. Thus readers will get basic idea thru links about what exactly was the market based in Hyderabad. Same goes with cut and polishing.--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Links like that could go in the See also section. Diamonds as an investment does not address pricing in 16th century Hyderabad. Diamond mining in India has more historic information, but also belongs in the See also section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Much OR, we need scholarly sources
I share the concerns of Richard-of-Earth. Further, we need WP:HISTRS sources here. Diamonds have attracted much scholarship, and peer reviewed scholarship should be summarized here for history, rather than questionable newspapers, blogs, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

List of travellers

 * Morcopolo


 * Nicole De conti


 * Asthanasius Nikitin, Russia 1468-72


 * Lewes Uertomannus, Italy


 * Gorcia da orta, spain/Portugal 1534-65


 * Fernao Nuniz, Portugal 1535-37


 * Jan huyghen linschoten Holland 1588-89


 * Jacques de coutre Holland 1611-18


 * William Method Britain 1618-22


 * Jean Baptiste Tavernier France 1665-69


 * Henry Howard Britain 1677


 * Bernier France

list of imp images

 * [File:Collier's new encyclopedia - a loose-leaf and self-revising reference work with 515 illustrations and ninety-six maps (1921) (14777426782).jpg Collier's new encyclopedia] Omer123hussain (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

GA removed
, I have removed GA status from this article, as it was far from the required level. I'll list some issues, other ones have already been raised at the DYK nomination by others.

" In the 1940s and 1950s, the De Beers advertising campaign "Diamonds are a girl's best friend", coupled with the accessorising of diamonds by elite society and celebrities, popularised Golconda diamonds (and diamonds generally) among society (standardising their use in engagement rings) and the fashion industry, which helped to boost the economic value of the diamond industry. "

Total nonsense. "Diamond's are a girl's best friend" was not the De Beers slogan ("A diamond is forever" was), and De Beers didn't promote the exhausted Indian Golconda diamonds, why would they? De Beers popularized diamonds, of course, but mainly their own, not a group of 100+ years old diamonds they had no financial interest in.
 * It was added by | some random editor, anyway restored to my previous version but do not abuse our hard work.
 * It's a marketing strategy, which will ultimately benefit to increase the auction price of Golconda diamonds. Anyway, I also don't like to name any company, you might notice it in my edits. In fact it was added by other users.

"During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers and treasured as gemstones—believed to be a gift from God for mankind, and owning them was a sign of supremacy." Source? That diamonds were "treasured as gemstones" is superfluous of course, but the remainder needs a good source.
 * Will be added soon, to make it light and simple I was avoiding bulk sources. Nothing is superfluous because it was during ancient times when there was no Wikipedia, so people used to think this all.

"Some diamonds are considered to have supernatural powers and were worn as amulet or talisman" Well, the source indicates that Indians in the 19th century thought that all jewellery and gemstones had these characteristics, not just "some diamonds". rephrased the purpose of this sentence is to add the story of "Shah Jahan diamond".
 * Will be added soon.

"Golconda diamonds were popularized in the Middle East and the Western world by some of the 15th and 16th-century travelers and traders such as Niccolò de' Conti, Muhammad al-Idrisi, Marco Polo, and Jean-Baptiste Tavernier." Muhammad al-Idrisi is 12th century, Marco Polo is 13th century, and Tavernier is 17th century: only Conti is 15th, and none of them are 16th century...
 * This is something good error you detected. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds" is sourced to a 1817 source, perhaps we need something slightly more recent to make such claims?

"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds, and count less than two percent of the world’s natural diamonds." Nope, the source claims Golconda diamonds are often type IIa, and type IIa diamonds account for less than 2% of all diamonds. How many of the IIa actually come from Golconda is unclear. Almost all any way rephrased and

"making the legendary name "Golconda diamond" synonymous with Golconda itself"? Not clear what is meant here.

"In the 15th century Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India and 16th century Golconda Sultanate's new port at Machilipatnam had unfolded the region along with the Golconda diamond market for the European traders, it serves in the favor of both the trader's and the miner's economical values and ultimately affects the increase of Golconda diamond production." Long-winded, unclear sentence, things like "it serves in the favor of" and so on really don't belong in a GA.

" In the early 1900s private companies such as Cartier, De Beers and Van Cleef & Arpels created monopolies in their expertise in the jewellery trade-(particularly diamond), post World War II and post-Indian Independence, most of the cash-strapped governments and princely rulers came to an end—making them sell their jewels (that also consist of Golconda diamonds) which were later auctioned, and due to royal lineage, its mystical tales and advertising campaigns by these companies, the Golconda diamonds become the status reference globally making it exorbitant worth treasuring" Not really, no. This again references the De Beers ads, which had nothing to do with Golconda, and the sources also reference the "De Beers" diamond in the Patiala Necklace, which is not a Golconda diamond at all.

"According to Folklore some diamonds are alleged to be cursed, impart good luck to their owners, and possess Mystical powers while some diamonds can be worn as Talisman." Capitalization!

These are just some obvious issues, I haven't checked all text or all sources to find more issues. The article needs a thorough rewrite and doublecheck before a new GA review can be started. Fram (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume it's not a professional act of yours, without coming to a consensus you remove the GA tag, I am restoring it and coming to a consensus first on the talk page, and your concerns will be answered meanwhile. Furthermore, the article is under peer review so definitely it will expand and some errors may occur that is the purpose we need a GOCE review, but it doesn't mean it is a bad article. It takes a lot of effort for every article, you can't simply keep removing and deleting our hard work, in fact now I feel like you had taken something personally and tried to bully my work. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A brand new GA should not need GOCE review, obviously. It also isn't the purpose that some errors may occur, where did you get that idea? I didn't say it is a bad article, but not being a "Good Article" in Wikipedia speak doesn't make it a bad article. No hard work has been removed, the article isn't any worse without the GA tag. Fram (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if you corrected and sourced things slowly, instead of making things worse by rushing. For example, you completely manged the "De Beers" sentence in the lead by removing just that part, it isn't really a sentence any longer now. And you tried sourcing "During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers" to this, which says "The most beautiful stones discovered in Golconda were always reserved for kings and rulers ". This is not the same claim, and seems to match a mistake made throughout the article. While some of the Golconda diamonds are among the best, biggest, ... diamonds ever found, the article makes it sound as if all Golconda diamonds are these exceptional big whoppers, while most of them were small, typical, good but unexceptional diamonds used in jewellery by all kinds of people with some money: these diamonds were not "reserved for the Emperors and rulers" at all. Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks and appreciate your concerns, this all will be filtered during GOCE, and FA process, I urge you kindly discuss this on the talk page, before making any major changes to the article structure. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not made any "major changes to the article structure", no idea what you are talking about. This article needs GOCE and much more, you shouldn't be thinking about FA yet when it isn't at GA level. Please, you are not a neutral editor here and shouldn't restore the GA tag or remove the other tags as you aren't objective or neutral. Fram (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

An edit like this makes the article less factual, not better. Again, please slow down and make sure that what you edit is better, is sourced, is factual. You don't need to rush these things, but please try to get it right. Fram (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As informed above, it was from some random editor, you may | see here the text what he/she had removed is my work- so after correcting in the main body I don't what to change it to the previous version. Even though I don't want to make this article a fairytale, on the other side these all are recorded in regional languages. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are trying to say here ("on the other side these all are recorded in regional languages."?), but in the edit I show, you readd the claim that De Beers (well, some ad campaign they did) popularized Golconda diamonds, without any evidence for this, as if the Golconda diamonds, of which no new supply was available then for 100+ years, somehow became fashionable and typically used in engagement rings after this. In reality, De Beers, the major supplier of new diamonds, made diamonds again more popular after WW2, increasing demand for their supply. Independently, Marilyn Monroe, wearing a Golconda diamond, also made diamonds in general more popular. But somehow the article makes from this that De Beers made Golconda diamonds more popular. This is not stated or even implied in the sources given. Fram (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed the GA template again, and closed the DYK. Omer, you need to take the concerns we have expressed here seriously. I found factual inaccuracies and sourcing issues at DYK, and after you said you had fixed them Fram found a lot more. You need to check all the content in this article, whether or not you added it yourself, before considering GA status. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the article content during DYK and now, it has changed and expanded enormously? so obviously there will be errors and I am working on them to improve. Tell me one simple thing do you remove GA tag from any article which does have similar issues as this article? I can point you to a list of GA/FA articles that have more senseless errors but still exist. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, I've been responsible for revoking FA or GA status from a number of articles. Also, errors existing elsewhere does not excuse them here, and most fundamentally, "obviously there will be errors" is really not a good attitude to have when writing content. There is no reason why content you added recently should have any errors in; certainly not errors as egregious as we have found here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously there will be errors, in today's feature article background section; BBC, not specified which division and used abbreviation in first instance. Any way my purpose is to take this article to FA, what all I want to say is rather than stripping tags and posting templates, guide and assist us to improve the article. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're frustrated by criticism of your work, but that comment about the TFA is really far off the mark. There is a world of difference between a formatting error, and a factual error. This is particularly true when the errors in question are instances of serious original research. I'm going to assume you do understand that difference, and don't genuinely believe that untruths are as excusable as typos. It isn't enough for you to check the errors Fram pointed out; you need to check all the content, especially the material you didn't add yourself, and make sure it complies with WP:V and WP:NOR. I'm not going to review the article further until you have done so. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article had been thru GOCE review, I believe GA template can be included now. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very first thing I checked, in the lead no less: "After decades of disuse, the term "Golconda diamond" was repopularised in the 1950s in De Beers' advertising campaigns, for which Marilyn Monroe posed at a promotional event wearing the Moon of Baroda (which is not a Golconda diamond)." if this is representative of the care taken with this article after all the above, then we are still far from GA. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Errrrr! how did i missed it, any way it was some vandal edit, now cleared and cited with recent publication. It will be of great help if you can use your expertise to find and correct or point out Grammar part. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your correction doesn't help one bit, it now says "After decades of disuse, the term "Golconda diamond" was repopularised in the 1950s in De Beers' advertising campaigns, for which Marilyn Monroe posed at a promotional event wearing the Moon of Baroda." Is there any serious evidence that South African company De Beers ever used the term "Golconda diamonds" in their advertising at all? In the body, you source a vaguely similar claim (De Beers used a picture of Marylin Monroe wearing a Golconda diamond) but even this is actually not supported by the source you added, which just says that De Beers popularized diamonds by method X, and Monroe by method Y, in a source not even mentioning Golconda anyway. So at best the claims in the lead and body are unsourced, at worst they are incorrect WP:SYNTH from combining loose, unrelated facts into one claim. Fram (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * you may take lebirty to correct it, I don't understand what is stopping you to improve the article. Omer123hussain (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hoped that there would be some source you knew about it or some fact I missed, you seemed rather clear that this was a good article about a topic you knew a lot about, but apparently this was a misunderstanding on my part. Fram (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its okay to remove that information, let me know what else is pending to justify the article as GA. Omer123hussain (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could not find references in English to justify that part-there are plenty of printed Urdu news.
 * The reason why I wanted to keep/add it because I felt the article need a mention about a source/reason of Golconda diamonds popularity among masses particularly since late 19th century. Any way I will try to find some supporting sources in later stages during FA process. Omer123hussain (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, what are we waiting for, its clean now, GOCE had finished there work and merlin and Debeers part is also cleared now. Omer123hussain (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One example has been corrected (well, removed by me), the article is still filled with dubious claims, non sequiturs, exaggerations, ... What is for example "and the most-common currency was Golconda Pagoda (also called Hun)— equivalent to five-and-a-half Mughal Rupee, and eight French livres,[34][35][36] though the contemporary gold coins with slight variation in weight such as the Hun, Rial, and Dinar were also used". It's the currency of the region, the Golconda kingdom, what does its value compared to other coins have to do with diamonds? I know that the Times of India states "Hyderabadi Hun was more precious than even the French currency", but that is a rather meaningless claim, as it depends on the size and purity of the coin, not on the diamonds. "Due to their royal lineage, mystical tales and advertising campaigns by these companies, Golconda diamonds became the global status reference." Err, what? I presume the "advertising campaigns" still is a reference to De Beers, but even without this it is a highly exaggerated or imprecise claim. "Most of the impoverished governments and princely rulers came to an end, forcing them sell their jewels—including Golconda diamonds—which were later auctioned." Where does the "which were later auctioned" from? Some where, some weren't, just like with every valuable item. It's a meaningless addition. All this from just a look at a few lines. So, what are we waiting for? A complete check of the article by someone knowledgeable, I suppose. Fram (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I hope the article is now most eligible to be a GA. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * can you restore the GA status now. Omer123hussain (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Article needs a new full GA review, which I won't be doing. I have wasted enough time trying to get even the most simple errors acnowledged and corrected, who knows what else needs done to get this factually correct? Fram (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I had completed expanding this article and waiting for GOCE review meanwhile if i/any senior editor find an error/mistakes definitely it will be corrected, this article is currently better than many of the GA (Apology for that but it's true). Not at all frustrated (this is my passion to work on WP) but irritated because what I realize is that to become an "Administrator" some users keep hunting to find errors but are not bothered to support correcting them. Criticism- that I am facing since I am on WP, sometimes due to my mistakes, boldness, resisting my work etc... :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Geology
There isn't any coverage of the geology of the diamonds: is it a kimberlite pipe, when did the eruption happen, did it have any special features that made it easier to mine than kimberlite pipes elsewhere which would explain why it was the one place mined in antiquity, etc. I don't know enough about this to write it but it would be good if someone did. David Bofinger (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this issue, will update very soon. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * done, not going in to details given some basic information. hope it serves the purpose. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)