Talk:Crown of Scotland

Comment

The photograph. Source? SuperChief 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Scotbadge tn.png

The image Image:Scotbadge tn.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What was abolished in 1975?

The article says,

From 1927 until its abolition in 1975, the crown, together with the sword and sceptre, appeared on the coat of arms of the Scottish county of Kincardineshire, where they were all kept hidden in the 17th century during the Civil War.

Here, the "it" in "its abolition" seems to refer to "the crown", but I gather the Crown of Scotland has never been abolished. I suspect it was the county of Kincardineshire that was abolished in 1975. In any case, the sentence needs to be rewritten by some knowledgeable editor to remove the incorrect suggestion that the crown was abolished in 1975 (and to add a citation to some reliable source). J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crown of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621013556/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0014.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0014.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060519085657/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-04/pa04-062.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-04/pa04-062.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The article says that the Crown's rim has four strawberry-leaves and that is not correct.

As of the date of this Talk-page post, the article says the Crown's rim is ornamented with four strawberry-leaves alternating with four fleur-de-lis. Anyone who looks at any photo of this Crown anywhere on the internet can see that that is blatantly wrong. Those aren't strawberry-leaves, which have three similar elements with a common center. (Look at Wikipedia's own assertion on what the Coronet of a Duke in the United Kingdom looks like to see strawberry-leaves.) Those are crosses, as they have FOUR similar elements from a common center, and WIKIPEDIA'S OWN ARTICLE on the Honours of Scotland says those are "crosses fleury". Also, you should be able to tell at a glance, without counting, that this rim can't possibly have only eight (four of each) ornaments on it. It takes some working out, but it probably has 20 ornaments, or 10 of each, on it. There's a way someone could miscount the ornaments and get, say, 12, or 10, but not eight. It indicates that someone simply didn't count them but pasted text without verifying it against any photo. (There is a progression of five ornaments from the footing of one half-arch to the footing of the next half-arch. That's 20, going all around. The front-to-back half-arch springs from, at both ends, a cross fleury, and the left-to-right half-arch springs from, at both ends, a fleur-de-lis. If the cross on top of the crown is not visible as a cross to someone looking at the Monarch's face, but, rather, rides in the plane of travel and so is visible as a cross only from the sides, then the reverse of what I said about the arches' terminals is true.)

The source of this error cannot possibly come from someone who has actually LOOKED at a photograph of this Crown. The error may come from

http://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2017/08/the-crown-of-scotland.html

which has a lot of photos of this Crown that ALSO show it to obviously lack strawberry-leaves, but contains text saying these are strawberry-leaves. But a falsehood, since it's been "published", is good enough to be a Wikipedia citation.

The greater concern here is not that Wikipedia is spreading highly incorrect information about what is almost certainly TEN crosses fleury and cannot POSSIBLY be FOUR strawberry-leaves on the rim of this Crown. The problem has to do with living in a post-truth post-fact authoritarian age. As a child I read about what "science" was like, in the days before it was scientific. People would cite various authorities as to how many teeth a horse had. Then one day, some person whose name I no longer remember decided that maybe the way to settle the question was to count the teeth on a horse. He counted the teeth on all of the living horses he owned. The stable staff were told to notify him of equine deaths, and he would get the skulls and count the teeth. He published his findings. In doing so, he impugned the integrity of a great many Learned Doctors, and was thus banned from the community of learned discourse.

And yet with Wikipedia we are still no further along than that. Any child can count the ornaments on the rim of this Crown and while it's hard to find a photo that enables you to count clearly you can tell AT ONCE that it can't be only eight. (Eight would simply be all the arch-footings and one other ornament in-between all the arch-footings. In an INSTANT, merely by GLANCING at this Crown, you can tell that the density of ornament-placement between arch-footings is a LOT GREATER than merely ONE "spacer" ornament in each quarter-arc interval.)

That someone would simply copy and paste text from another source, and that the mere EXISTENCE of this other source meets Wikipedia's standards for "truth", when the very text thus pasted cannot POSSIBLY be reconciled with what every photo shows is GLARINGLY true of this Crown, nor be reconciled with mentions of this Crown in other Wikipedia pages, and that such an editor doesn't promptly have their edits reverted and isn't promptly banned for life (as should be done for someone posting a photo of a horse's skull with xyz number of teeth simultaneous with text from "Learned Authorities" asserting (in a "reliable published source") that the number of teeth in a horse's skull is vastly smaller or vastly greater than xyz), this is why Wikipedia has the dismal reputation that it has. There are endless articles that are contradicted by other articles, and yet someone pointing out that two contradictory articles cannot be true just has their talk-comments erased with the admonishment "Wikipedia cannot be used as sources for Wikipedia". So, your position is that two contradictory things (two articles, or a paragraph of text contradicted by a photograph) CAN be true. How is that enhancing your reputation?2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson