Talk:Cullinan Diamond

Ownership

The diamond is not actually owned by Queen Elizabeth. It is owned by the British State.

There is an important distinction to be made between property which is owned by Queen Elizabeth as her private property (such at the Balmoral Estate) and property which is owned by 'The Crown' which is a corporaion sole representing the Executive Arm of the British Government.

See Wikipedia article The Crown for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.1.21.12 (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To say The Crown is an arm of the Government is false – it is the other way around: HM Government are the elected administrators of The Crown. Elizabeth II owns Cullinans I and II as head of state and III–IX plus the 96 smaller diamonds and the offcuts as a private individual. All the Crown Jewels are inalienable. If the UK ever became a republic then ownership of Crown property would NOT automatically transfer to the Government; they would have to take it from the monarch by force via an Act of Parliament. Firebrace (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Top image - original or copy?

Image 1: The original diamond

Image 2: The resin copy

From 2013 until this year, the top image of this article was a photograph taken in 1905 of the uncut Cullinan diamond (image 1). On 21 January 2016, User:Firebrace replaced this with a photo of a resin cast of the diamond and a tape measure (image 2) (originally without changing the caption). Yesterday, I restored the actual diamond to the lead and moved the copy lower in the article; which Firebrace reverted with the edit comment "For an encyclopedia, scale is more important than authenticity. We're not a photo album."

Wikipedia's Image Use policy says "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." (my emphasis).

To me it seems obvious that a photo of the actual subject of the article has the highest encyclopedic value. It shows what the subject of the article actually looked like, including the shape, opacity, and imperfections. The resin copy shows scale but that's it - it doesn't actually look very much like the diamond, because of the dissimilarity between the materials and lack of the imperfections. It also has potential WP:V issues - there is no indication on the image where the copy comes from, or how we know that it is an identical copy of the diamond; whereas the original photo comes from a reliable source.

I'd suggest that the actual photograph is clearly most suited to be top image, but would be interested to hear the views of other editors. TSP (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What makes the rough diamond WP:NOTABLE? Not the shape, opacity or imperfections. It has a Wikipedia article because it was big. Of course the lead image should give the reader a clue about its size. The top photo was originally printed at 'actual size' in a book hence nothing for scale was required in the photo. However, it is not 'actual size' when reproduced here as a 220 x 248 px jpeg. Firebrace (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, two points. Firstly, its colour and transparency are a huge part of why it is notable - Sergio (carbonado) is actually the largest rough 'diamond' ever found; Cullinan was the largest gem quality rough diamond ever found, which is a subjective judgement based on colour and clarity.

It is also notable because it was cut down into nine smaller gems which are now individually notable; a cutting that was necessary because of its imperfections. Its appearance is extremely relevant to its notability.

(I came specifically to this article to see what the uncut diamond looked like; I was disappointed to find that no photos of the original seemed to exist - then very surprised to find that exactly the photograph I was looking for does exist, was on Wikipedia, but was no longer on the article.)

Secondly, I don't think images are primarily there to demonstrate claims of notability. David Cameron is notable because he is the Prime Minister of the UK, not because of what he looks like; but nevertheless a photograph of his business card is not a better top image for his article than a photograph of him, even though it expresses far more about his notability. The text of the article already explains the diamond's size better than a rather hard-to-read tape measure (though I agree the image should be in the article - just lower down); but an image is far better at expressing what the object looked like - if the image actually looks like the object.

In any case, the Image Use Policy seems pretty clear to me - images should usually be direct depictions of the thing described. TSP (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. it looks like I accidentally reverted some changes when adding the image to the article body - sorry about that.

OK, but the book does not say if the 'diamond' is a replica or the real thing. It simply reads "The great Cullinan diamond, in the rough (actual size)". [1] It could be a replica. This model, produced c. 1905, also shows the angular 'back' of the diamond (the one on the right is our top photo rotated 90 degrees clockwise on its base), and here is one from c. 1915 showing the smooth 'front', which is identical in form to the one in our bottom photo... Firebrace (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The book is an acceptable reliable source, and the caption reads, as you say, "The great Cullinan diamond, in the rough (actual size)". I don't see any reason to suggest without a contrary source that is not a photograph of exactly what it says. If it were showing a copy, I would expect the caption to read "A copy of..." or "A reproduction of...". How would you expect it to say any more clearly that the thing in the photograph is the thing the caption refers to?

(Incidentally, while looking at the source, I stumbled across [2], which has various nice photos, including one of the diamond being cut and a nice photo of all the cut diamonds together which is probably better than the current one of glass copies.) TSP (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good find, I'll upload them later and we can use those... Firebrace (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Bold titles

Can we stop messing about with the lead; the names of the two most notable diamonds redirect here and their names have been emboldened in the lead since 5 November 2005. [3] They are significant alternative titles of the article per WP:BOLDSYN. Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

They are not significant alternative titles. If you are referring to Cullinan I, you are talking about something different to the original Cullinan, aren't you? And very obviously you're talking about something different to Cullinan II. They are certainly related to the subject of article; they are not synonyms for it. 82.132.240.228 (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)