# Talk:Nassak Diamond

"the diamond was sold for about 3,000 pounds (modernly £172,912.00)"
"In 1831... for about 7,200 pounds (modernly £519,116.00)."
Converting approximate values (and why are they approximate - are the actual values not known?) that are given to 2 significant figures into 8 significan figure modern values is ridiculous.  I was going to change it, but it turns out these values are automatically generated using a "Formatprice" function.  Does anyone know how to make this display the values to a more reasonable precision (e.g. £170,000 and £520,000)? Wardog (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

precision reduced by 2 digits... --HJKeats (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate/neutral to say it was transliterated as "nassak" instead of it being an incorrect spelling? It's a transliteration, and I could see how you could see Nassak and say this (what I assume is) properly. Kind of like how Beijing was once spelled "Peking" in the western world. Neither is really a "correct" spelling, since "correctly" it's "北京". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The source material that I found didn't address the spelling. -- Suntag ☼ 04:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people have been putting POV words like "stolen" into this article presumably as a result of its being linked from the main page.  Someone please edit it back to sanity when the attention has gone away. Man with two legs (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The POV was not supported by the references and was removed. The U.S. Court case had detailed information on the diamond's history and did not use anything like "stolen". The U.S. Court case is highly valued and the most reliable source in area, so it trumps other sources in characterizing the diamond's transfer. -- Suntag ☼ 05:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Nassak Diamond/GA1, "Thank you to Suntag for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) Also, I would suggest to respond to the POV issues that a user has left." --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to why there is one lone source in the References section while all the others have been left in the Notes section. Why isn't it integrated into the Notes like the rest of the references? Also, the link of that one source just takes me to a Google books search result. The formatting of the citation ("Retrieved on 14 November 2008") would lead readers to believe that the information cited in the article is available online, but judging from the actual link, it does not look like this is the case. If only the book was consulted, then the "Retrieved on 14 November 2008" should be removed, as it is misleading. Otherwise, please provide the correct link. Note also that it seems as if the wrong parameters are used in the cite book template. "Mayers, Osterwald & Muhlfeld v. Bendler" seems to be the chapter of the book titled Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports, which is written by United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and published by the U.S. Government Printing Office. BuddingJournalist 01:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nassak Diamond. 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/20081119102534/http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/crowningshield_article.pdf to http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/crowningshield_article.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609213231/http://www.gia.edu/loupeonline/29962/25709/2561/current_issue_detail.cfm to http://www.gia.edu/loupeonline/29962/25709/2561/current_issue_detail.cfm
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)