Talk:Lustreware

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tuj25134. Peer reviewers: Bfrempong1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20th century?

The article might give the impression that luster/lustre ware came to an end around 1900! In fact it was extremely popular in the 20th century. In England alone we might mention Ruskin Ware, Pilkington's Royal Lancastrian, Carlton, Crown Devon, Wedgwood (Fairyland and other lines), and Maling, all of whom produced large amounts of luster ware (among other products). Even Royal Worcester dabbled in luster. I think the prevalence of luster was partly due to technical developments which made the processes more reliable. But I am no expert, I'm just an occasional pottery collector, and checked out the article hoping for information on the techniques. I hope someone more qualified can expand the coverage into the 20th century.86.148.132.159 (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lusterware. 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/20160303184012/http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=401&lang=en to http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=401&lang=en

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) 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additions made (premodern)

I changed some information and added more specifics about lusterware and it's production. The location where the discovery of lusterware took place was incorrect, it was discovered in Iraq not Fustat, so I changed this fact. I also added a bunch more details about trading in the Middle East during the Abbasid period (when lusterware was very popular). I talked about the process of actually producing ceramic lusterware which I think will add to the appreciation of this precious art form. The innovation behind lusterware is also represented by the decoration section I have added. I dive into specifics about the ornamentation featured of these ceramics and the reasoning behind it. There is a lot to learn about why these variables of decorating were used or not used in any case. I also included another image of lusterware from the Wikipedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuj25134 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change ENGVAR

Though this article was certainly begun using American English, and still does so predominantly, it has had both styles since at least 2007. At present, the final section on Modern lustreware in the article has about a screenful - 6 paras - on English lustreware, and an unreferenced 1 1/2 lines on American wares. I don't think this is especially disproportionate - it was always more a British than American thing. Of course most of the article is on non-English-speaking countries & technical stuff. think that the "strong national ties" (MOS:TIES) part of WP:ENGVAR applies, and would therefore propose that the article switches to British English. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A similar rationale might be applied to Molding (decorative). GPinkerton (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do this now. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

The subsection "precedents in glass" of section-"Islamic Lusterware" was messy. I replaced assertion that wasn't supported by the cited source with one that is supported by the cited source. I have a added a link to the source for verification. I also replaced a piece of information with more neutral content. I also added information regarding earliest mention of lusterware. If you have any concern then please discuss here. Thank you! Hu741f4 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are problems! Firstly, you are using American English. Then you have changed dates while leaving the references unchanged. When is this earliest "recipe"? Then you've removed more recent references for Egyptian, adding older ones as coconuts to knock down. I'll let you have another go, but it can't stay as is. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Firstly, you are using American English" What is the problem with that? "Then you have changed dates while leaving the references unchanged." Yes! because the dates that were previously mentioned in this article weren't mentioned in the source. There is no need to remove source because of the error or typo in assertion. "When is this earliest "recipe"?" This recipe was given by jabir ibn hayyan in 8th century. It is there in the cited source. You can verify this. "Then you've removed more recent references for Egyptian, adding older ones as coconuts to knock down" If you mean coptic Egypt then you should know there was no Refrence for that claim. I just addressed that controversy by stating name of authors and what others think. "I'll let you have another go, but it can't stay as is." Alright sir! But please explain where am i wrong and what should I correct? Hu741f4 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A)See WP:ENGVAR and the section above.

B)"although true lustre technology probably began sometime between the 4th and 8th centuries AD. ref>Caiger-Smith, 24; Pradell, T., Molera, J., Smith, A.D., Tite, M.S. 2008. The Invention of Lustre: Iraq 9th and 10th centuries AD. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1201-1215, p. 1201." - you changed the dates to "between the 8th and 9th centuries AD" and repeated the same ref - but have you seen Caiger-Smith?

C) You should have added the date in the text or it is just a meaningless name.

D) No I don't know that.

Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)"[reply]

Yes sir I have checked the source. They didn't mention "4th and 8th century" . You can verify it. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222343599_The_invention_of_lustre_Iraq_9th_and_10th_centuries_AD Hu741f4 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't seen Caiger-Smith. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where it is mentioned in caiger smith? [1] Hu741f4 (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AT the page in the reference! p. 24 Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your paper cites, but misinterprets, Caiger-Smith & I expect Carboni, which I have seen but haven't revisited. Together with the other issues above, it is best to just revert your edits. If you still think changes should be made, please suggest them here first. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't simply remove sourced contents without proper reason. You failed to prove how I am wrong. If you have problem with any part then remove or modify it. Hu741f4 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what you did initially, and have now done again. You remove perfectly good highly specialized sources by leading glass experts, and replace them with a paper by non-specialist chemists. Between them and you, you have wrongly taken against the previous text. Just because one source doesn't say something, it doesn't mean that others do not. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You give me one reliable source that says

true lustre technology probably began sometime between the 4th and 8th centuries AD

You explain why this content should be removed

The earliest recipe for luster production appeared in "Kitab al-Durra al-Maknuzna" by Jabir ibn Hayyan.

Explain how am I wrong by replacing the unsourced text

most place the origins of lustre decoration in Roman and Coptic Egypt during the centuries preceding the rise of Islam

with more neutral and sourced one

These are the only changes that I made. Hu741f4 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A) Caiger-Smith, 24 ("a slightly lustrous sheen") - a still haven't rechecked Carboni.
B) I just said you should date it - he's a very obscure guy. I already said above "C) You should have added the date in the text or it is just a meaningless name". You seem to have difficulty understanding replies to you, which makes dialogue difficult. Also you should use the CORRECT WP:ENGVAR!!

Why are Caiger-Smith and Carboni not "neutral"? They are exactly the sources your chemists cite, but their passing reference greatly over-simplifies.

more later. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A) Caiger-Smith p24. It doesn't say true lustre technology began between 4th and 8th AD. It says Egyptians used to paint glass with silver and copper from at least 4th or 5th century AD. This information is already there in this article in the same sub section but with slightly different date (3rd century AD)

B) I'll add the date

C) Caiger-Smith and Carboni, both have cited Lamm (1941). It is not their own research

Hu741f4 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that is the case entirely. But in any case your preferred chemists rely on them, so where does that leave us? Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No! it is the other way round. They are these authors like Caiger Smith Carboni who rely on work of chemists and refrence them. Throughout the discussion you have only misinterpreted and misunderstood my points Hu741f4 (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact both rely on archaeologists, who provide the dates. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Arts of the Islamic World

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dressytea (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emoakes, Emily.850, Jcwagner6, Glimmerpossu, Dylanaunon, Ptcoyle17.

— Assignment last updated by ProfTern (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]