Talk:Syamantaka
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
_name_of_the_God_as_per_the_Vedas.svg){kind=small}
Koh-i-Noor claim
[edit]First off, the fact that someone thought it was okay to add this passage without citing any sources, much less reputable or encyclopedic ones, is concerning. There's a reason why this claim doesn't appear on the actual Koh-i-Noor wiki page: it's a more popular page and thus is scrutinized more closely.
Secondly, the scriptures clearly describe Syamantaka as ruby not a white diamond, so the claim contradicts classical/scriptural sources and is clearly a modern urban legend.
Finally, there are no good sources for the Koh-i-Noor claim that I could find. What I did find was a whole load of obvious AI slop articles mixed with human-written blogs which themselves don't cite any sources for this claim. There's also a BBC article which fails to cite any sources either on top of also making a number of claims which contradict experts on the topic. The BBC article also seems to be biased against claims to the gem by countries other than the UK, which also calls into question its reliability. Because of the sloppiness with which this claim was added to this Wikipedia article, there's also no way to tell if these blogs were influenced by this wiki, so citing them could result in a circular reference, wherein someone publishes an idea they made out of whole cloth on Wikipedia (meaning the wiki editor is the sole primary source), which is then repeated without citation by many others who then are cited as sources for the claim.
This claim also doesn't belong under the "In popular culture" subheading. That's a section to mention popular media that has dealt with or been influenced by the subject of the article. The article on the goddess Kali has an "In popular media" section and all of it pertains to modern popular media references to Kali and is well-sourced and cited.
Considering all these glaring deficiencies, I'm deleting the passage entirely. If you find a way around these deficiencies – for instance a scholarly source for the claim or a mention of it in popular media – feel free to reply to this talk section with your reasoning and reinstate it.
– Xerces1492 (talk) Xerces1492 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)