Talk:Lamé (fabric): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:18, 1 December 2016

	Clothing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile 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.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Basic definition is vague

The first sentence, which serves as the key definition of the term to which this page is devoteds, is vague at best.

"Lamé is a type of fabric woven or knit[1] with thin ribbons of metallic yarns, as opposed to guipé, where the ribbons are wrapped around a fibre yarn."

So guipé is also made of metallic ribbons, but in this case wrapped around a fibre yarn, and Lamé metallic ribbons are not wrapped around anything?

If that's not the case, I have no idea how guipé and Lamé compare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ephod

In January of 2016, MShabazz added an "unreliable source" tag to the list of references regarding the Ephod, which was a Jewish priestly garment, saying "The Bible is not a reliable source for facts about history." Without getting into that specifically, I would say the Bible is probably a reliable source for the descriptions of religious practices and priestly garments. I went ahead and linked to another translation on Wikisource, and a reference from the Jewish Encyclopedia which talks about this garment in further detail as well as interpretations of the cited passage. I'm posting this here on the talk page in case further discussion is desired. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me, Rifter0x0000. I don't think Wikisource, made up as it is of user-generated content, can be cited as a reliable source. Some other source of the KJV would be necessary.

The bigger problem, though, is that Exodus doesn't support the statement (that lamé was used in the making of the ephod) because lamé isn't mentioned in the Bible. It's not mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article about ephod, either.

With neither a biblical source nor a secondary source saying that the ephod was made using lamé, it's original research to say so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the Bible was written there was no term "lamé" because French did not even exist. Those sources do describe the method of construction of the Ephod which at least to me seems the same as that described in the article. I added Wikisource because it's actually meant to be used as a source for quotations within Wikipedia. It's not user-generated content in the sense WP:RS is talking about since it is a transcription of sources. I don't have a problem using a different source for the quotation. The original editor who added the sources did link a different place. Both that link and the Jewish Encyclopedia quote the same passage. The Jewish Encyclopedia goes into some more detail on what the Ephod was. In any case, the actual citation is the Bible and the links are just there for convenient reading.

As far as the actual claim goes, I couldn't really say. Your argument for original research probably has merit since, as you say, the actual term is not used. I'm not sure if you're right since, as I said, the term did not exist but the method apparently did. I'd think someone more expert on fabrics could weigh in here. Really all I was doing was correcting the citation tag. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :With neither a biblical source nor a secondary source saying that the ephod was made using lamé, it's [[WP:NOR|original research]] to say so. —&nbsp;[[User:MShabazz|MShabazz]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MShabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 23:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
+::When the Bible was written there was no term "lamé" because French did not even exist.  Those sources do describe the method of construction of the Ephod which at least to me seems the same as that described in the article.  I added Wikisource because it's actually meant to be used as a [[WP:Wikisource#Citing_Wikisource_in_Wikipedia|source for quotations within Wikipedia]].  It's not user-generated content in the sense [[WP:RS]] is talking about since it is a transcription of sources.  I don't have a problem using a different source for the quotation. The original editor who added the sources did link a different place.  Both that link and the Jewish Encyclopedia quote the same passage.  The Jewish Encyclopedia goes into some more detail on what the Ephod was.  In any case, the actual citation is the Bible and the links are just there for convenient reading.
+::As far as the actual claim goes, I couldn't really say. Your argument for original research probably has merit since, as you say, the actual term is not used.  I'm not sure if you're right since, as I said, the term did not exist but the method apparently did.  I'd think someone more expert on fabrics could weigh in here.  Really all I was doing was correcting the citation tag.  [[User:Rifter0x0000|Rifter0x0000]] ([[User talk:Rifter0x0000|talk]]) 19:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)