Talk:Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Redacted edit
I made a fair, valid and rational point about this stone and it has been totally redacted. I think this very much proves that Wiki users have their own political and personal agendas and whilst anyone, even the insane, can edit it- it can be no fair rational and impartial encyclopaedia at all. My observation may have damaged the financial prospects of this stone and that's why it was redacted. Wiki is pathetically subserviant and scyophantic toward the rich and powerful at the great expense of the truth. Where political sensitivities take presidence over the truth you have propaganda and lies and NOT an encyclopaedia. This is what greatly discredits Wikipedia as a scholarly reference. I shall never edit it again. It is a total waste of time. No matter how expert you are you could get involved in edit wars with a child! Or in my case someone with a business to protect. The truth is the truth and it cannot pass through the subjective filter of those with vested interests in a particular opinion or financial position. AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.38.160 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Did you know edit
... that the former main jewel on the Bavarian crown, the Wittelsbach Diamond, was almost cut into several smaller diamonds?
 | A fact from Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,797 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Recutting controversy edit
What little the article mentions about the recutting is quite a bit timid compared to the scope of the criticism. Gabriel Tolkowsky sees the "end of culture", the head of the Deutsches Historisches Museum considers it turning the diamong into a piece of candy and equivalent to painting over a Rembrandt. Given Graff's renaming of the piece, a historical gem part of the Bavarian crown jewels, I wonder if this article would be written so timidly if Bill Gates would have acquired the declaration of independence, scratched off the ink and replaced it by a new digital print, claiming it was much easier to read now and declared it the "Gates declaration" now...[1] --84.46.7.98 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- If there was a parade and protest, add it to the article along with the reference to the news article. If you can find a reference, you can add anything to the article. BUT if you want to speculate and gossip, open a Twitter account and see if you can get people to follow you. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a chat line. Facts, stick to the facts. Clerks. (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The original Wittelsbach diamond has been destroyed and it NO longer exists. The Graff stone has been cut out of the form that was once the Wittelsbach diamond. It may only be a few thousanths of an inch all over but neverthless what existed in space as the volume of Wittelsbach has gone in dust. I think the first poster has a point albeit POV. My obsevation however is NOT POV. The original Wittelsbach is gone. The article needs split into two. One telling the history of the original stone from its beginnings to its destruction, and a second article about the Graff stone, because it is patently obvious they are no longer one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.103.4 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)