Talk:Anatolian rug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External links[edit]

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)

The recent trimming seems to be a good start [1]. I'm still not clear on the value of some of them. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All the links have been added and edited by myself. An expert on this topic. I have also written this page. My contributions are neutral and strictly made available to the general public for educational purposes only. The external links list is NOT redundant, nor is it overly long (see any number of other articles), nor is it innapropriate in any way. My belief is that these continued persistent edits are useless and destructive/disruptive attempts, that can only be motivated for reasons of intimidating, bullying and vandalising, to engage in an edit war. Ronz and cohorts engaging in a ridiculous and redundant edit war. Cllane4 (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Again, I am an expert in this field, I am an article writing, education oriented contribitor, not a nit-picking "so called" editor whose aims appear to be strictly to engage in disruptive behaviour and exercise their ability to play junior editor. The list is not too long. (see any number of other articles), nor is it innapropriate. If you want high quality educators and experts in their perspective fields to contribute, I highly suggest quelling the ability of lay people to edit well researched articles. Cllane4 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Cllane4 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are highly mistaken and faulty in judgement if you believe the "games" of edit wars by lay peoples are more important and/or outweigh the actual article material.

You will no doubt continue to lose educators and writers at this rate. Wikipedia is a silly game. I've been warned. Wikipedia has indeed earned its very poor reputaion among educators, experts, and now, the general public. A pack of silly pseudo intellectual college geeks amounts to absolutley nothing in the real world.

Keep wanking off boys. Silly, small unimportant, frightened petty boys....or "junior editors"

C'est la vie and Au revoir losers..

Meet me in the octagon.

Cllane4 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The links[edit]

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)

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)
Lokks useful to me. Why redundant? Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Decent maps. Keep, just. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No great loss. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The DOBAG Project
    One of the two where there appears to be consensus to keep. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why it's here though. It's just a summary of The DOBAG Project. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Not much use to the average reader. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep - the most useful of the lot, imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing much to say - remove. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Links removed[edit]

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

See also[edit]

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)


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 {{Commonscat|Categoryname}}. This is a wikipedia policy. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Can we focus on improving this article?[edit]

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)

Furthermore, any threats made to block individuals adding and or editing well researched information, would directly negate the sole intention of Wikipedia itself.Cllane4 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem from me regarding adding the portal to its current location. Portal is indeed important. Cllane4 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Thank you. My sole purpose was to educate the public. I wrote in a style that I teach and attempt to focus on the the summary of key issues that helped me learn when I was starting out, which continues to be most effective information to those I work with and educate. Of course, I openly cited from other sources. I want the article to be tight and to let other curious peoples research to their hearts desire. I too am a hardcore researcher.

This is my first, and probably my last, article for Wikipedia considering the negative experiences I've had with this article.

I never expected the editing wars nor the bullying.

No offense to you, in fact thank you for your civil remark. Cllane4 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI and PS: I've had stacks of books sitting by my computer for weeks now. Was just getting ready to write more for the article and cite the book references. That's when the edit wars started. Trial by fire.

Just wanted those who have been working within Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time to know.

A negative experience like this can certainly disuade a person.Cllane4 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

2015 edit[edit]

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)HajjiBaba

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)
Thanks again - couldn't agree more. Will continue working on the area.HajjiBaba (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)HajjiBaba

Think it's appropriate to remove the "Multiple issues" tag by now. HajjiBaba (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)HajjiBaba

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision 13:18, 13 July 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (58,614 bytes) (+189)‎ . . (→‎History): Thanks, unknown user, your modifications are quite correct, and make much sense. However, I'd be very interested to learn more about the change of the Pazyryk's dating and why it is "erroneously believed" to be the oldest knotted pile rug. Could the unknown user please provide verified references to substantiate his/her statements?HajjiBaba (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)HajjiBaba

Revision as of 13:31, 13 July 2015 (edit) (talk): "Although there is strong evidence suggesting that the knotted pile carpet was made in Turkey prior to the arrival of 'Turkish' tribes in the 11th century." - I'm right curious to see the reference/verified source for this rather bold statement, because so far, I have been unable to find such "strong evidence" myself. Could the unknown user please provide the evidence for what s/he has written?HajjiBaba (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)HajjiBaba

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)
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)

Appropriation of Armenian carpets and overall nationalistic mantra[edit]

Many of the carpets and history of such in this articles have widely been taken from Armenian carpets and this article uses pseudo-history to justify its narrative. The Turks did not invade until the 11th century, so any history prior to that needs to be removed. Mentioning the writings of Homer is comically stupid when there were no Turks before or long after. This article largely assumes that everything called "Oriental" or "Anatolian" (a favorite word among Turkish politicians to replace "Armenian" with) is automatically Turkish and has been built entirely around that. I can't think of a single known historian who attributed the Pazyryk carpet to being Turkish, and there isn't even any source claiming such. Carpet historian Stanley Reed states in his 1972 book All Color Book of Oriental Carpets and Rugs that "early rugs and carpets which found their way into Europe labelled 'Turkish' were made either in Armenia or by Armenian weavers in Turkey." Overall most of this article is revisionism mixed with cherry-picking weasel-words from sources at face value and misinterpreting them (WP:POVPUSH, WP:UNDUE), and thus needs to be removed. --Steverci (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The article begins with what I would call a very standard definition: "A Turkish carpet is a hand woven floor or wall covering which is produced mainly in Anatolia...". All artuicles in this area are beset with various nationalist agendas. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point on this articles weasel word problem. Anatolia isn't synonymous with Turkey, historically it has only referred to about the east most quarter and has never been associated with Armenia. The word means "East" in Greek. "Eastern Anatolia" (literally translates to "Eastern East") is a made up political word to replace Western Armenia after the Armenian Genocide. --Steverci (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as the English language goes the word has a clear and well-established meaning. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If there are cultural issues as Steverci suggests (I'm not doubting them, I just haven't looked), we can consider getting the under ArbCom enforcement or something similar.
Problems like this are best resolved by finding and giving greatest weight to the highest quality of sources: scholarly sources rather than news and cultural popularizations in this case. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I could not verify Steverci's quotation from my copy of Reed's 1972 book. In fact, the book does not mention Armenian weavers at all, but refers to "Turkish" carpets on p. 8–10 and 43–55. Reed also uses the term "Turkey" synonymously with "Asia minor" (p. 43). Reed does not cite any reference in his book.[1]

There is no point in discussing made-up, fake references. However, as User:Steverci has referred to his comments on this talk page to suggest rejection of Draft:Early_Anatolian_Animal_carpets, I consider the user's behaviour in this case as plainly disruptive. I'd like to find out more about the Armenian carpet weavers in "the geographical region of Asia minor", though. Therefore I have invited the user on User_talk:Steverci to contribute what s/he knows, and to support the edits with correctly cited, source-verified references. HajjiBaba (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Reed, Stanley (1972). All color book of original carpets and rugs. New York: Crescent Books. ISBN 0706401700.
I had made a mistake, it's Reed's 1967 book Oriental Rugs and Carpets that says this. I'm currently gathering more such sources. --Steverci (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we all try to focus on content please? --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Teaser image[edit]

Anatolian double-niche rug, Konya region, circa 1650-1750. There has been much debate about this carpet, which was originally purchased by LACMA as a circa 1550 masterpiece example. Since then this dating and opinion have been greatly modified and now this rug is accepted to be at the earliest circa 1750-1800 and it is not considered by anyone but the seller as a masterpiece of the type. LACMA M.2004.32

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)

Historical neutrality[edit]

A set of unrelated facts gathered in History section in order to suggest that first carpet ever was Turkish carpet which I think it might be author's personal belief. It is easy to spot several disputed, even made-up, statements throughout the article which seems to be driven by Turkish nationalism.Mhasheminia (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Article abstract is full of misleading assumptions without citation. "History section" can easily confuse readers if the section is about "history of Turkish carpet" or about "history of invention of carpet by Turkic people". Author starts with a paragraph about climate and how it motivated ancient people to produce woven carpets which may seem unrelated to main title. However, the authors use this climatic necessity as a foreword to tie early carpet makers to Turkic people who are historically far more recent than oldest carpets found. The writer next follows up with association of The Pazyryk carpet to a modern terminology of "Turkish Knot" which has adopted recently. Many historical records noted without reference.Mhasheminia (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Since re-editing the article in 2015, I have felt somewhat uncomfortable with its title. So, we may use the neutrality dispute to have another go at improving. However, the introduction/summary in its current form has been discussed before, and clearly defines the use of the word "Turkish" as a term of convenience in the absence of any better wording. The introduction carefully outlines that many ethnic and religious communities have contributed to the tradition of rug weaving in this part of the world.
Kurt Erdmanns theory of the origin of pile rugs (climate) is perhaps better placed in Oriental rug, and might be removed here to avoid redundancy. However, Erdmann was not promoting any nationalist agenda.
The section about the Pazyryk rug is perhaps overly long, and the elaborations on its symbology are rather speculative (personally, I would delete them as a matter of opinion rather than scientific reasoning). The terms "Turkish" and "Persian" knot are historical terms of Western invention, and should be replaced by the technical terms "symmetric" and "asymmetric" knot. However, their use, in my understanding, does not imply any nationalist connotation, but demonstrates a certain reluctance to give up an outdated terminology. The latter may also apply to other WP articles related to rugs.
How shall we address the issue then? Shall we move the article to Anatolian rugs or Rugs of Asia minor, and adapt the text accordingly? Personally, I would prefer "Anatolian rugs", with the explicit intention to use this term in a descriptive, geographical sense devoid of any nationalist connotations. "Anatolian" is also frequently used in the literature. Any opinions?--HajjiBaba (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me - I trust your judgement and neutrality on this. Various redirects will be in place. Asia Minor is rather dated these days. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Edited and moved article from Turkish carpet.--HajjiBaba (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)