Jump to content

Talk:Tatting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Berkeleysappho (talk | contribs) at 10:36, 10 April 2008 (→‎Needle Tatting: post~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTextile Arts Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

=Dumpster Diving=Pedisambiguation page made available.

The external links should be similarly adjusted.

203.97.107.139 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just took care of this pcrtalk 02:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needle Tatting

This section is biased. The biased part was put in by an anonymous IP address. I'm taking it out.Berkeleysappho 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needle tatting is NOT a simulation of shuttle tatting despite opinion. The great Riego needle tatted! Let's ditch the shuttle snobbery and stick to the facts.Berkeleysappho (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know where the nonsense about "real" and "simulated" tatting came from! It is from a badly sourced, heavily biased article by the Tatman. (Also where the misinformation about needle tatting being 20th. century came from.) http://www.tribbler.com/tatman/needle-tatting.html Dan, the Tatman, believes Riego only used the netting needle or sewing needle for joining the rings. Clearly, he didn't look at the pictures which accompany her instructions, which show needle tatting without use of a tatting shuttle. Whoever edited this section didn't even cite the article, but used Dan's references. Sloppy, sloppy!Berkeleysappho (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]