Talk:Weaving

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allychun27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

October Revolution?

@Smallchief: has suggested we need some discussion. I would suggest that we float a page where the American weaving traditions can be fully explained. I have no experience with this so others will have to lead. There are many other sections that we need add to obtain a comprehensive article on the Topic- Weaving while staying on focus. I will add

• section History Air-jet Water-jet technology
• section Weaves -- the patterns commonly used Satin, Sateen, Plain, Denim, decorative

I have removed all images that were off-topic in te section where they were placed and removed all 150px stuff, sticking to 'upright', as we must think of mobile phone users. ClemRutter (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

My main concern in the history section. It is unbalanced. A dozen lines of text are given to the pre-historic weaving traditions in the Near East -- and long sections concern China and other Old World cultures. The Americas get two lines -- yet weaving in the Andean civilizations may be as old, or even older, than in Old World civilizations. Also, I don't favor the Americas being almost entirely relegated to "other cultures" or future articles. But, to make myself clear, I don't want to see the history section become shorter. For example, it's perfectly all right with me to include info about the i8th century Huguenot influence on weaving in England -- if the textile article is balanced and gives due attention to the 11,000 year pre-Columbian weaving traditions in the Americas.Smallchief (talk 11:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have zapped the Huguenots- you were right. I do want to keep the history section crisp and give some form of causal continuity, up to the the industrial revolution where weaving and the need for power looms was the economic driver. The 11,000 year pre-Columbian weaving traditions was not a part in that thread. As I have said, it is not something I have studied so can't do the work to build up a strong American weaving traditions article. If you can work up one then I suggest that we include a section 2.4

2.4 American weaving traditions
{{main|American weaving traditions}}
[[File:Patricia Herna¦ündez Cha¦üvez working with her mother Cirila Cha¦üvez Herna¦ündez, Sto. Toma¦üs Jalietza.jpg|upright|Patricia Hernandez Chavez and mother work on backstrap looms in Oaxaca]]

The Andean and Amazonian cultures had an even longer tradition of weaving, but never introduced a [[power loom]], leaving the individual weaver to produce ... or whatever

This allows the topic to be presented seriously (and uninterrupted), and a synopsis to have a good weighting in the history section. But it keeps the section crisp.

(Real life is now intervening) ClemRutter (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you felt it necessary to delete the America's part of the History section. I'm going to begin reworking the history section.Smallchief (talk 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

OK- I am off to visit my Huguenot Weavers and prepare for an editathon. Do have a look at my suggestion at 2.4 I think it will be more successful in the long run. (All the other sections have a continuity and are referred to in a subsequent sections - there was cross fertilisation. The American section runs in parallel, and indeed had no influence on the colonial settlers weaving till the A&C movement recognised them as an inspirational art-form-hence trying to keep it out of the time line.) Do scrutinise the commented out text- there is stuff that may be of use. ClemRutter (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there are probably more people wearing Andes-woven textiles today than there are people wearing English wool, so New World textiles are something more than an art form. To relegate them to the sidelines is unfair -- and, dare I say it, baldly Eurocentric. I have no problem if you write a section on Huguenot weavers -- just don't diminish the influence and ingenuity of others.Smallchief (talk 00:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Easily-wool/worsted was a transition phase on the timeline. And the UK no longer has a serious textile industry- or anything worth exporting. Cotton was king- from the Carolinas before the Cotton Famine, but that moved to India. Commerercially it is all about artificial fibres and Northrops have been replaced by Picanols. To my knowledge South Americal communities haven't transitioned to the power loom and use putting out production methods. Have you any production figures on Andean weaving? I have looked at Textile manufacturing by pre-industrial methods and seen there is only a one line reference there to your area of interest- definite room for improvement there too. As I said these textile areticles are minefields- when I first wrote a little on a cotton mill- I wasn't predicting how it would spawn so many subsidary articles ClemRutter (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Tens of millions of people, mostly women, make and wear traditional dress on a daily basis in Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries. Most of the clothing and other woven articles is made at home and does not enter the commercial market -- and thus is not included in official statistics. It's about the same situation with my potatoes. I grow potatoes in my back yard. The value of my potatoes is not registered in trade statistics -- but they are important items in my diet. The same situation prevails with most traditionally produced textiles. They are important to people -- but apparently not to statisticians.Smallchief (talk 11:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Modern Handweaving in History Section?

I'd like to add a short paragraph about the modern handweaving revival (1930s to today) as a jumping off point for other Articles / Categories smIsle (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ClemRutter (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Uplands

The paragraph on Industrial revolution says: in the uplands weavers worked from home on a putting-out system. Where are the uplands? I think it should be linked. Does it refer to Southern Uplands? --Ettrig (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Card weaving?

I'd like to add a section about tablet weaving to the history section, but I'm not sure where to put it. It was pretty much all in Europe, but it started well before the medieval period. Should that header just be changed to Europe in general? Bufobuff (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Bufobuff (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Weeniedoglover13 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Weeniedoglover13 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Notable weavers list?

Would a section about notable weavers, especially women, be beneficial to the page? It might be good to begin a running list to prompt others to keep learning about weaving and the different practices in the world. We can make an intentional effort to include non-Western weavers. Weeniedoglover13 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism issue

As noted by @The Adventures of the Not So Venerable Mr. Siggs:, this article has been mentioned in a recently published article in Business I and picked up by the New York Times.

The allegation is that Neri Oxman plagiarized text from this Wikipedia article. (Those allegations have been added to edited in the article about Oxman by @Sj:, @Sashona:.

Those making allegations did look at the history of the article, and found the exact text in this version of the article, which is approximately the date of her dissertation I believe.

Yesterday, an editor @LutherBlissetts: Added an edit noting that the text could be found in a 2007 book (Lydon, Catherine Ginevra Fong (2007). The Warp of the Formal, the Weft of the Everyday.), change the text so that it's a block quote, and added a reference. (I left a note on that editors talk page but they've gone almost a month between edits so I don't know how quickly they will respond.)

So far so good, other than the obvious concern about how long it took for Wikipedia to correct an instance of plagiarism.

I look to see if I could find when the text was first added, and concluded it came with this edit in 2004. The text was added by an IP editor, so reaching out to the editor doesn't seem fruitful.

On the one hand, we know that Wikipedia was only three years old in 2004, and standards for sourcing were less involved at that time. Additionally, There were no in-line references in that version and there was a note at the bottom of the page identifying that it incorporates text in the public domain.

However, I am troubled by the observation that text from a 2007 book was added to a Wikipedia article in 2004. One obvious possibility is that the author of the book 1st use first used that text in an earlier paper which then was turned into a book. My very brief search didn't turn it up, and I'm hoping that editors more familiar with the field will have the interest in energy to track down the origins of the text. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Correction: I did not add those allegations, I was trying to remove them; that's the sort of NN negative transients we shouldn't add to BLPs. But also curious about the source; texts back then were often shared across multiple sites, and didn't originate with WP or had shared authors who wrote on multiple fora and also published their own work. – SJ + 19:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I'm not quite sure what happened; my original text mentioned Sashona and you (I apologize for not looking closely to see that you were removing I thought you were simply editing and I wanted to make sure you knew about this discussion. when I posted the text it only mentioned you) S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, LutherBlissetts, I have reverted to the 2004 2011 version for the time being. When the material was first added, the article didn't list any citations. It cited pg. 114 of the 2nd edition of Ann M. Collier's Handbook of Textiles printed in 1974. There were no complaints in almost 20 years that the 2004 WP text plagiarized any book, so unless we do find out that it did I don't see the need to change it. I think it's more likely that the book published in 2007 plagiarized the 2004 2005 Wikipedia text (or one of the three Handbook of Textiles editions:) than vice versa. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the citation in the 2004 version. I see it in recent versions, and I'm trying to find the verse version of the insertion but haven't yet succeeded. Do you know when that citation first appeared? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Hello. I added a blockquote to emphasise an existing reference to Lydon, which when followed, was word for word the same as the Wikipedia text. The reference was already there and I did not add that reference. I did change the reference url to hone in on the actual page being referenced. If you inspect the diff you can see this. I did not initially assume that reference could be plagiarised from wikipedia.

I agree the 2004 appearance of the text later cited as originating from Lydon in 2007, means that editors can infer that Lydon plagiarised from Wikipedia's Weaving article in her 2007 thesis: "The warp of the formal, the weft of the everyday | WorldCat.org

I note that the 2004 version, which was written anonymously, does not include a reference: Weaving: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a citogenesis warning to this talk page about the former reference to Lydon 2007. Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I took another look at the article history. This edit on August 15, 2005, tweaked the wording to the text used in the article ever since, and editor ClemRutter added the Collier cite on October 30, 2011. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I just ordered a used copy of the cited Handbook of Textiles from an Amazon marketplace seller in the UK, estimated delivery in two to three weeks (or never — fingers crossed, have had mixed post-pandemic experiences). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up on the WP text passage's alleged 2007 source, added by an IP address with a total of one edit: turns out that it's a 2007 M. Arch. thesis, not a text on weaving. (There seems to be a ton of literature on the "fabric of urban life".) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not “add any allegations”, I simply restored link to the original source from Business Insider that was added by other contributors. I have no contributions to the article. I see that you corrected your statement, thank you. Sashona (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I mischaracterized the nature of your edit I simply wanted to bring your attention to this page in the hopes that you might have some interest in tracking down the history of that text. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure still don’t know why I was picked up here, in this Weaving article, since there are so many contributors that edited and added to the plagiarism allegations in Oxman’s page. I simply restored the contributions that provided the original sources that were deleted by User:SJ. By the way, still don’t know why this allegations are not under Education since it concerns Oxman’s MIT dissertation. Sashona (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the allegations were in the Neri Oxman page and I looked quickly and saw a couple names. I thought it would be polite to to notify editors involved in that article as it might not be obvious that something was going on in this article. In terms of where the allegations are located in that article, that sounds like a discussion for that talk page. I'm currently interested in researching the history of the text allegedly plagiarized which is in progress but not yet settled. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary

External to Wikipedia

Allegations have been made that Neri Oxman plagiarized text from the Weaving article. This was originally reported in Business Insider with a related article in the NY Times, both published on 6 Jan 2024.

Wikipedia

• 21 November 2004 (Original insertion of text, unreferenced)

Both warp and weft can be visible in the final product. But by spacing the warp more closely, it can completely cover the weft that binds it, giving a warpfaced textile. Conversely by spreading the warp out, the weft can slide down and completely cover the warp, giving a weftfaced textile,, such as a tapestry or a kilim rug.

• August 15, 2005 (text edit, still unreferenced)

Both warp and weft can be visible in the final product. By spacing the warp more closely, it can completely cover the weft that binds it, giving a warpfaced textile such as rep weave. Conversely, if the warp is spread out, the weft can slide down and completely cover the warp, giving a weftfaced textile, such as a tapestry or a Kilim rug.

Added one bullet point Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• 26 April 2010 (approximate date of disertation

Both warp and weft can be visible in the final product. By spacing the warp more closely, it can completely cover the weft that binds it, giving a warpfaced textile such as rep weave. Conversely, if the warp is spread out, the weft can slide down and completely cover the warp, giving a weftfaced textile, such as a tapestry or a Kilim rug.

• 30 October 2011 (addition of Collier citation)
• 25 December 2023 (last version prior to 6 January )

Both warp and weft can be visible in the final product. By spacing the warp more closely, it can completely cover the weft that binds it, giving a warp faced textile such as repp weave.[8] Conversely, if the warp is spread out, the weft can slide down and completely cover the warp, giving a weft faced textile, such as a tapestry or a Kilim rug.

• 6 January 2024 Citation changed to a 2007 book by Catherine Ginevra Fong Lydon
• 8 January 2024 Citation changed back to Collier

Current status

• The conversion of the reference from Collier to Lydon (since removed) doesn't appear to be warranted. However we do not currently know whether the text is an author's acceptable paraphrase of the material in Collier, or a copy paste.Updated below after reviewing the book.
• One concern I had was whether the IP editor in 2004 copy and pasted the material from the source, in which case we would have the challenge of appropriately paraphrasing it. However, I have now seen the second edition of the book page 114 and can confirm that it is not a copy paste. In fact, I'm concerned about whether the statement in the article logically follows from the book. The word "weft" and "repp", and "weave" exist, But I don't see anything about spacing or covering the weft, or warpfaced textile or or tapestry or killim rug. I immediately concede to lack of knowledge of the subject matter but it isn't at all obvious to me that the source document supports this three sentence paragraph.

References