Talk:Pearl of Kuwait

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pearl of Kuwait article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep and clean-up.

Gemology and Jewelry

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Pearl of Kuwait be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

The pearl in question is purported to have been the one worn by Mary Tudor while queen of England and Spain..
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.
There are two different pearls that were supposedly worn by Mary. (See the famous painting, [1])
This article goes to great length to make the claim that it is the correct one.
The "new pearl" was first brought to public attention by an auction house... in 2004... with an extremely vague and unconvincing provenance.
This article's premise is not based on third party sources, but is a WP:synthesis of the author's claims.
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.

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.
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).
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"!!
I believe that this is all clever marketing or fraud to create an article for the purpose of selling or promoting a pearl.
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.
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)[reply]

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. Medievhistories (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Peregrina pearl

The Wikipedia page on the Peregrina pearl was edited this morning with the accurate information. The ones that were already there in the 'Elizabeth Taylor' auction catalogue in 2011. The Peregrina pearl never belonged to Mary Tudor as the pearl reached Europe in 1579, long after Mary Tudor had died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelsandthegang (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl#History says: "La Peregrina pearl, was offered to Philip II of Spain and then gifted to his wife Mary I of England". I verified that the cited source made this claim, but feel free to remove it if you don't believe it to be a reliable claim. It strikes me that in the telling of this history that somehow Philip II's wife got confused or mixed up with his daughter. But then I noticed that you also removed sources claiming that the pearl was actually discovered earlier – early enough that it could have been gifted to the wife. I can't totally discount these, but I trust your judgement on source reliability enough to believe you are probably correct. wbm1058 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]