Talk:Anatolian rug

message: The external links list seems overly long and extremely redundant with each other and the article. The relevant policies/guidelines are WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent trimming seems to be a good start . I'm still not clear on the value of some of them. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

text: WP:OWN? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Despite whatever expertise you may claim, your "your substantial contribution based on your expertise" still need to follow the conventions of the site you which you contributed it. It doesn't matter really who added what or how good the intentions were--there's a dispute and you're not currently managing to get much support for your position. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means you're hanging your whole existence on the possible fact that nobody has removed the links from "the other article". Seems like an expert would be able to make a self-sufficient argument on its own merits for the links. Remember, you have to overcome the strong recommendations that Ronz and others have mentioned. Note that you will shortly be blocked for exponentially longer times if you persist in commenting on others' motivations. DMacks (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

text: There are currently 9 links. If a couple are removed that seems a reasonable collection for a huge topic. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lokks useful to me. Why redundant? Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Decent maps. Keep, just. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: No great loss. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much use to the average reader. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Keep - the most useful of the lot, imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Nothing much to say - remove. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Here are the links. Please explain why they belong. As I see it, there's a large amount of redundancy and straying too from the topic of the article. Please note that per WP:ELBURDEN, links under dispute should remain out of the article until there's consensus to return them. --Ronz (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently 9 links. If a couple are removed that seems a reasonable collection for a huge topic. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lokks useful to me. Why redundant? Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Decent maps. Keep, just. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: No great loss. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much use to the average reader. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Keep - the most useful of the lot, imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Nothing much to say - remove. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The links

message: These two links have been removed from the version that multiple editors favor: --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Links removed

message: As per WP:SEEALSO, I had removed the links that were duplicates of ones included in the article body. In every case, they were linked in sections that discussed the ideas. The style-guide is quite clear that the See also section is not just a collection of links that are related to the topic, but ones that in general would eventually be integrated into the article. Or at least shouldn't include ones that already are integrated there. This was promptly undone by User:Cllane4 with an inappropriate edit-summary that fails to address why he/she is going against the style-guide that I noted I was using. Seems there's a definite WP:OWN problem here. We now learn that any attempt to edit the article is blindly reverted as attempts by "junior editors" to "sabotage" the article. I assume we're about to see this editor indef-blocked--shame he/she chooses to behave in this way and we lose whatever expertise he/she may have. DMacks (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I have removed the excessive image gallery. Cllane4, please consolidate your images in one category on Commons (where you uploaded them - ask help whenever needed) and link that category as . This is a wikipedia policy. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Cllane4, you absolutely to not own the article. When you clicked submit, you explicitly and irreversibly released it to be edited by the community. See WP:OWN. I agree with Materialscientist that a commons category would be a better way to have a collection of so many images, rather than a gallery here in the page. DMacks (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it all was clearly excessive, though it was too large and under-captioned. This is a highly visual subject. Materialscientist, it is NOT wikipedia policy to remove all galleries - that was 2005, since when the policy has been changed. See WP:IG. I will revert your change, and put it in the correct place. But as I say it needs better captions explaining the many styles, and links in them.  It might be split up into min-galleries perhaps.  Some of the images in the text might be replaced by ones from the gallery perhaps.  Commons galleries are frankly a complete nuisance, and should not be encouraged imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I have added the commons category link, but few of the images used here seem to be in it; Commons is in a typical mess here and should be sorted. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: It would serve the article topic and the general public most, if the edit warring over small inane issues were abandoned. Please do NOT add material unless it improves the article and you have some degree of expertise in the subject.Cllane4 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you will continue, as heaven knows all our articles in this area are weak. But you need to work collaboratively, and avoid attacking other editors. The article is certainly greatly improved since before your first edit Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Try to understand that all editors who confronted you are experienced wikipedians who are willing to help, but hardly to those who start with bold reverts and personal attacks instead of polite conversation. Some wikipedia policies appear unusual to outsiders, but they all have good reasons, and it is important to try to understand (and ask whenever needed) rather than think 'I know better'. It does not matter who we are, it matters what we can write. You mentioned books - use reliable sources, rather than unsourced websites and blogs. Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we focus on improving this article?

message: I've started a careful revision of this text; contributions are always welcome. I think, basically, the language might benefit from adopting a more neutral, "encyclopedic" style. Sometimes one is easily carried away by the beauty and cultural heritage these artifacts provide.
HajjiBaba (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff - this area tends to get over-run with marketing & nationalism. It would be really nice to have Persian knot, Turkish knot, Senneh knot and any others improved & tidied if you have time. Oriental rug is very short too. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again - couldn't agree more. Will continue working on the area.HajjiBaba (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I vaguely remember seeing talk of carpet-making in Byzantine, if not Roman, Anatolia, but I forget where. no survivals I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brüggemann (2007) describes the carpet on van Eycks Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele. He is the co-author of one of the most detailed books on Anatolian carpets (Brüggemann/Boehmer, 1982), so he knows first-hand what he's writing about. He traces the van Eyck carpet pattern back to Byzantine floor mosaics, and Byzantine and early Islamic architectural ornaments. Judging from the mosaics, the Byzantine floor covers (or carpet designs?) must have been quite elaborate. Some fragments from Afghanistan, now in the Dar al-Athar al-Islamyya, Kuwait, were carbon dated to the second century AD and later (see Oriental rug#The first rugs, or Spuhler's books on the Kuwait collection), contemporary to the Roman and Sasanian Empire. They seem to have been made by nomads, perhaps not exactly what one expects to see in front of a Roman Emperor's throne. Pliny mentions "carpets" 150 years earlier, but he writes that they were "invented in Alexandria". I think it is highly likely that pile carpets were made in the regions of Byzance, Anatolia, and Sasanian Persia (i.e., the "core" of the rug belt) before 200 AD, or even much earlier. Maybe, like so many other achievements of civilization and culture, it all started in Mesopotamia/Southern Anatolia. But I am not aware of any existing carpets/fragments which are clearly attributable to Anatolia before the Konya findings. If only Mellaart's information had been correct... Thanks for keeping an eye on these articles - I appreciate it. HajjiBaba (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 2015 edit

message: The information added to the "teaser" image provides valuable information with regard to both the history of Islamic art, and the history of museum collections. As such, it is much appreciated, and should remain in the article. The history of carpet collecting is a history of errors made even by art historians and master collectors. However, the image intends to give an example of a carpet woven in the geographic region of Asia minor, and as such, serves its purpose within the context of the article. Therefore, I have moved the additional text to a footnote. Whilst nowhere in the text any reference is made to this specific rug as being a masterpiece, a proper reference might be helpful with regard to the current view of the rug in its art-historical context. --HajjiBaba (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaser image 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ccreadingtime (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Art 353 Art of the Islamic World