Talk:Alabaster

Clarification

Can someone clarify the last paragraph "Alabaster may be stained by digesting it, after being heated in various pigmentary solutions." Wht does 'digesting' mean in this context please?

Name origin

I removed this line "and it has been suggested that it may have had an Arabic origin" from the account of the origin of the name. If you look here on the Perseus Project you'll see Herodotus uses the word in the 5th century BC, before the Arabic language evolved from Ancient North Arabian or whatever proto-language Arabic evolved from. The claim wasn't sourced anyway. Maybe the original source for the claim was that it had an origin in the "Arabic region" rather than one from the Arabic language as it stood in the article. This is very exciting to all who read this, I'm sure. --76.68.128.227 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone re-added it and I agree with the above user, its clearly not an arabic language origin since even the greek usage vastly predates arabic as a language. As arabic is predominantly used today to refer to language, the quotation (and make no mistake, that's a quotation, not just a citation, even though it isn't marked as such) is very much being presented out of context. Probably better just to delete it and find a more current citation than the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, if anyone is seriously proposing an arabian peninsular origin for the term recently. I am so doing, and if someone cares to re-add it, please discuss it here first.

Which brings us to a new issue:see plagiarism below

--68.255.105.48 (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Safe way to clean alabaster?

Is there a safe way to clean alabaster without loosing its polish, colour and lustre? Wsmss (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Plagiarism Issues

Vast amounts of this article are plagiarized directly from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I suppose this explains the excess weight given to British alabaster production and uses. I know said encyclopaedia is out of copyright, but its still not good form to copy it wholesale without quotation or acknowledgement that such an act is being perpetrated. About half the article is effectively quoting from that encyclopaedia, and the brief footnote in reference is insufficient for this appalling level of borrowing. There's almost too much copied text to use in-line citation, and regardless, its an encyclopaedia being copied from, so its not as if it makes sense to treat it as someone's opinion that is being presented directly. I think it would be better to rework the offending text and eliminate excess detail where appropriate, but such sweeping changes should probably get some more input before being done. (If consensus emerges, don't wait for me, I just stumbled on this page randomly). --68.255.105.48 (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not plagiarism - the material is credited by a special template at the bottom. Originally the whole article would have been EB, as unfortunately many still are. Feel free to improve it with more recent sources. Actually I think some of the material on British production has been added since. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Something like 5 paragraphs of exact text, used without quotation and only a footnote, is in fact plagiarism. The information didn't just come from the EB, it is the exact text as well. Use of quotation marks at the very least is in order. Being out of copyright doesn't remove the normal requirements for attribution, see WP:Plag which requires not only said template at the bottom, but also annotating exactly which text is taken from the copied work. --68.255.105.48 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Distinctions made between Gypsum and Calcite are contradictory.

At the top of the article the following is stated: "Alabaster is a name applied to varieties of two distinct minerals, when used as a material: gypsum (a hydrous sulfate of calcium) and calcite (a carbonate of calcium). The latter is the alabaster of the present day; generally, the former is the alabaster of the ancients

So at this point, gypsum = ancients, calcite = present day

However, the following sections, describing both types, specifically state they were used in ancient times, etc.

Calcite alabaster = previously defined as present day states: "This substance, the "alabaster" of the Ancient Egyptians and Bible, often is termed Oriental alabaster ..."

Gypsum alabaster = previously defined as ancient states: "When the term "alabaster" is used without any qualification, it invariably means a fine-grained variety of gypsum. Alabaster was very widely used for small sculpture for indoor use in the ancient world, especially in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia."

Seems like there is a problem with calcite = present day

I don't know anything about alabaster, so could someone determine if the leading paragraph is incorrect, or the information in the "Types" section? I am feeling that the distinction made in the leading paragraph should be removed, since both "types" are described as being used though history. If no one else with more knowledge responds, I'll try to clean it up later. --Bobsd (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't actually know, I'd wait for someone who does. I suspect "present day" means 1911, of EB fame. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Piggybacking on this, the section on gypsum alabaster states that the term "alabaster" with no qualifications invariably means a fine-grained variety of gypsum. The caption on the photo of a perfume jar from Tutankhamun's tomb describes the object simply as "alabaster." This would lead people to believe that the jar is gypsum, but it is actually calcite. 96.234.145.212 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)