Jump to content

Talk:Koh-i-Noor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.244.124.248 (talk) at 20:14, 3 October 2022 (Distortion of history: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]