Talk:Iznik pottery

message: Hi Marshall 46, a few comments are questions:
1. How can the % formualtion before firng be known after around 400 years? Written documents?
2. Is the % formulation for body and glaze and before or after firing? If the former see question above
3. The component 'soda' needs to be expanded as this can refer to a number of different materials
Thanx, Theriac 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The analysis was done with a Cambridge microscan 9 electron-microprobe.  See Atasaoy and Raby, p65.  
Marshall46 12:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Marshall46. X-ray microanalysis gives the elements present. Converting elemental results to an oxide content is possible, so the glaze analysis looks sensible. But the quoted body composition does not make sense as the list (silica, frit and clay) are unfired materials. Converting elemental results on fired material to the unfired material takes some huge assumptions. Do the authors describe how this stage was done?ThanxTheriac 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is beyond me.  I have relied on the standard work.  Marshall46 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Marshall46. I was not disputing the validity of the citation in respect to Wikipedia standards (though I question it being the "standard" work). But from the quote it does appear to be potentially flawed. Even with information on the raw materials it is exceptionally difficult, and without this impossible, to state the percentage formulation based on fired analysis. With the stated aim of Wikipedia being verificable sources rather than the truth there is little that can be done to flag this in the article. This does show one limitation with the Wikipedia philosophy of "as long as it has been published then it can be referenced." At best it would be a fudge but I suggest a small addition "According to Carswell From the late 15th century, red .. etc" ThanxTheriac 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No probs, when I have the text in front of me again I'll add "according to ..."  (not Carswell, one of Atasoy and Raby's contributors).  I'd be interested to know of a better work - in English, there may be several in Turkish.  Marshall46 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Composition

message: I've tided Gryffindor's contribution.  It's not clear how the production of tiles for the Sultan Ahmed mosque "exhausted" the potters or how this exhaustion led to the decline of the potteries. The addition of information about inflation and fixed prices is new to me.  Where does it come from?  - Marshall46 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline 

message: I have just tagged the incorrect information of "lead and soda." The reason is these materials are not used in pottery:-
*There is no material called soda.
*Lead is a metal. It is not used in frits, glazes or bodies.
I would imagine the author, who obviously has never formulated frits, glazes or bodies, means some forms of sodium or lead compounds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.191 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raby states in the place cited that lead was introduced through dross of lead, which was used in Kütahya until the 1940s, and that soda was introduced from a substance known locally as bora, which is a potassium sodium carbonate with some chlorine and sulphate.  In my view such details are too technical for the body of the article, but what is stated is now adequately sourced and sufficiently explained here. Marshall46 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Marshall. That makes more sense. The confusion is the article mis quotes the reference: I will modify accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.151 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  It would be helpful to other editors if you  signed your contributions. Marshall46 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: 
:Since the article has a photo now, I have disabled the  tag. If there are additional/better images needed, feel free to undo my actions. Avicennasis @ 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disabled reqphoto tag

message: The article states that after the 1514 capture of the city of Tabriz by the Ottoman Sultan in the Battle of Chaldiran: "The ceramic artisans of Tabriz were forcibly relocated to Iznik to practice their techniques." and provides a link to an article by Arthur Stanley in "Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: a historical encyclopedia". One can preview the article on google books. Stanley doesn't cite any source.
If this is correct then I'm very surprised that it isn't mentioned by other authors. Carswell doesn't mention the relocation of craftsmen to Iznik although he does mention (p56) that the court designer, Şahkula, was brought from Tabriz to Istanbul and that some pottery was manufactured in Istanbul. Also on p58 Carswell mentions that the royal ceramic workshop was founded by Habib, a potter from Tabriz.
Raby has a section in Atasoy & Raby on the 'Masters of Tabriz' (pp 83, 88-89). Here again, there is no statement that craftsmen moved in 1514 from Tabriz to Iznik – although on p89 Raby mentions that a sherd that was illegally excavated in Iznik is in the style of the 'Masters of Tabriz'. But Raby also explains the frit used by the 'Masters of Tabriz' was technically very different from that used in the later Iznik pottery. Similarly, on p87 Julian Henderson writes "the technology used by the 'Masters of Tabriz' differed substantially from the typical Iznik body. If the two traditions were connected, there was a major modification made."
I think perhaps we should trust the more specialised sources ie Raby and Carswell – and ignore the unsourced statement in the "historical encyclopedia". I don't think we need to say "some scholars think .. while others think ..." Your views? Aa77zz (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I would also rely on Atasoy and Raby, the standard work in English.  Carswell also has a good art-historical and curatorial background.  Marshall46 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forcible relocated of craftsmen from Tabriz to Iznik 

message: :: right: 1650–1710
:: wrong: 1650-1710
:: right: pp. 230–8
:: wrong: pp. 230-8
Ranges of pages or dates or other numbers require an en-dash, not a hyphen. See WP:MOS. Some of the punctuation errors in this article were instantaneously conspicuous because they were in section headings. There were dozens of them.  I fixed them in this edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that.  But it's kind of pointless, and a little obnoxious, to berate editors who don't notice, don't care about, or don't bother fixing such things; even to try to educate them is nearly pointless, my experience here tells me.  Be a gnome, but let others not be. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  punctuation 

message: — Assignment last updated by Eng215 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Arts of the Islamic World