Talk:Pearl of Kuwait

(Untitled)

The issues mentioned are hard to understand. It says that the article has no links to other Wiki pages, but there are many. It is not an orphan article as it is relating to many others and more directly to one called The Peregrina Pearl. Please can you help me better understand how i can change this article to make it comply? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symbolic & Chase (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an WP:Orphan because no other articles link to it yet. A more pressing problem is that of WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. The article claims, for example, that the pearl has been historically confused with La Peregrina, and cites evidence to prove the assertion. But Wikipedia isn't meant to be a vehicle for research, and we need to cite WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources that make that conclusion already, rather than trying to prove it here. If we can't WP:Verify the claims from secondary sources, then the claims need to be removed. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever the exact history of the pearl, there has been plenty of interest in it and so we have ample sources to work from. The matter is therefore notable and any issues should be dealt with by ordinary editing, rather than outright deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Then delete the propaganda

Then if deleting the whole article is not to your liking, I propose we blank essentially the entire thing and start it from scratch. The original writer of the article was the current owner of the alleged pearl. The article is therefore a long string of garbage that just tries to prove it was worn by Mary Tudor. That may be the case, but as you know there is either an $11 million pretender of the same pearl, or the one mentioned in the article is a recent find that has the financial backing and marketing prowess of people who would take advantage of British sentiments. Look back at the history of the article, and it is obvious that this article.... on an encyclopedia... is an advertising medium. I like to saw logs! (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLANK, page blanking is not acceptable behaviour. I am interested in the topic and so plan to improve it per our editing policy. Please do not disrupt this activity. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Medievhistories (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)I don't understand what you mean by: "Also note that this person appears to be the publisher of the article that was "cited" as proof of the "new pearl" in everyone's favorite third party source for everything undisputed, "medievalhistories.com"!! medievhistories is my username for twitter - Karen Schousboe, and it says so on the webpage- www.medievalhistories.com. There is a short presentation there of my credentials and a link to CV. The reason I posted the reference was because I posted a - hopefully - exact review of the matter of provenience there, which I agree with you was both vague and unconvincing in the original WP-article; which the article at medieval histories.com strictly states. That was the reason why I added the note at Wikipedia. But not the long discussion - since that does not belong in WP, as you rightly states. Please, reconsider the tone of your argument… As to the rewriting , I agree the original article needs that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievhistories (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 February 2015

Dispute

This serves as a summary of my understanding of the disputed provenance of a pearl now (2015) in possession of a London jewelry company, Symbolic & Chase.

1. The pearl in question is purported to have been the one worn by Mary Tudor while queen of England and Spain..
2. The pearl normally associated with Bloody Mary was owned by Elizabeth Taylor, recently sold for $11 million, and is known as the La Peregrina pearl.
3. There are two different pearls that were supposedly worn by Mary. (See the famous painting, [1])
4. This article goes to great length to make the claim that it is the correct one.
5. The "new pearl" was first brought to public attention by an auction house... in 2004... with an extremely vague and unconvincing provenance.
6. This article's premise is not based on third party sources, but is a WP:synthesis of the author's claims.
7. The original author of this article was transparently named User:Symbolic & Chase, a user who has been blocked since 2013.

This list, in my opinion, serves as a reason to delete the entire article or wipe out most of it.

1. By continuing to edit this article in a "let's fix it" or "this is a great article" or "this is encyclopedic" manner would be a disservice to readers. It is worthless drivel to me in its present state.
2. This error has cropped up towards the end of the La Peregrina pearl article by User:Medievhistories, who made this edit in 2013: (See the Diff).
3. Also note that this person appears to be the publisher of the article that was "cited" as proof of the "new pearl" in everyone's favorite third party source for everything undisputed, "medievalhistories.com"!!
4. I believe that this is all clever marketing or fraud to create an article for the purpose of selling or promoting a pearl.
5. I believe that Wikipedia is being duped into shilling for the "new pearl" and taking sides on something that is normally left up to collectors, auctioneers, curators, and lawyers.
6. Show me the sources that claim that this is the Mary Tudor pearl.

At the very least, this article purports to describe a pearl known as Pearl of Kuwait but the article is titled "Mary Tudor pearl." It would be deceitful not to rename the article to reflect its given name, and let the proof be shown however the sources call it. I am going to disrupt the status quo here. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by: "Also note that this person appears to be the publisher of the article that was "cited" as proof of the "new pearl" in everyone's favorite third party source for everything undisputed, "medievalhistories.com"!! medievhistories is my username for twitter - Karen Schousboe, and it says so on the webpage- www.medievalhistories.com. There is a short presentation there of my credentials and a link to CV. The reason I posted the reference was because I posted a - hopefully - exact review of the matter of provenience there, which I agree with you was both vague and unconvincing; which the article, I referred to strictly states. That was the reason why I added the note at Wikipedia. But not the long discussion - since that does not belong in WP, as you rightly states. Please, reconsider the tone of your argument… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievhistories (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)