Talk:Luristan bronze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Lorestān bronze)
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent edits and edit summaries[edit]

User:Johnbod made several edits today following the edits of myself and another editor, User:Ericoides. Johnbod's edits [1] and [2] were accompanied by highly disparaging edit summaries: in response to Ericoides' edit: "yuk - no!" and in response to mine, "partial revert [of] detrimental fiddling". I find both of these edit summaries to be disrespectful. Ericoides and I are both experienced editors, but even new editors who make good-faith edits would deserve more polite and constructive edit summaries. I am a member of the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors and have received much praise and appreciation for my copy-editing. I also have a degree in fine arts. I will not argue about Johnbod's edits, but I will point out one edit Johnbod made that introduces ambiguity: In this edit [3], Johnbod changed "the artifacts" to "them" in the second sentence:

They include a great number of ornaments, tools, weapons, horse-fittings and a smaller number of vessels including situlae, and those found in recorded excavations are generally found in burials. The ethnicity of the people who created them remains unclear, though they may well have been Persian, possibly related to the modern Lur people who have given their name to the area.

I suppose Johnbod thinks that it ought to be clear that "them" refers to "ornaments, tools, weapons", etc., but it could also refer to "burials", so it is clearer to use the noun, "the artifacts" (or "the artefacts").

I'm not an expert in this, but I wonder about this wording in the first sentence in the lede:

  • Luristan bronzes (rarely "Lorestān", "Lorestāni" etc in sources in English) are small cast objects decorated with bronze sculptures...

In some of the objects, the utilitarian part is clear, and it appears as if the decorative part is just that, decoration of a utilitarian object. In others, the entire object appears more of a decorative object (even though it may have been useful). I don't see why it is important to say that the Luristan bronzes are "objects decorated with...sculptures". To me, even though they may have had a utilitarian function, the objects ought to be considered sculptures – decorative sculptures – in and of themselves. But I will defer to Johnbod on this. Corinne (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not his greatest moment here... Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
People who edit articles when they are on the main page should be extra-careful not to introduce mistakes, which you both did. For simple examples: Ericoides introduced the different spelling of artifact within the same paragraph, and Corinne added the "but" in "Though there is a wide range of objects, but certain types are especially common, distinctive, and hence "canonical"." "Artifact" is an over-used word on WP that is often used in an attempt to impress; it's something of a warning sign in WP writing, on specific artworks anyway. As for the other point, we should follow what the sources say, eg: "The label “Luristan bronzes” (see BRONZES OF LURISTAN) designates a series of decorated bronze objects in a specific local style..." ("EI II") It is certainly significant that there are no "pure" works of sculpture such as deity figures. Articles on the main page often attract a flurry of "improving" edits (from 8 different editors in this case), normally from people who have not read the sources and if too ambitious are liable to introduce unhelpful changes in meaning without realizing it. Or they just fiddle with the prose, imposing personal preferences for no benefit. Many are of course useful, but those whose edits include mistakes need not expect "much praise and appreciation". Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That's as may be, we are none of us perfect, and I'm sure you might possibly have once made an error in the distant past. Of course we should not expect "much praise and appreciation", but there is no need to be rude, (this next bit added later) although on reflection I'm not sure "yuk" is even that rude, or meant "rudely", so perhaps ignore my little commentary. My intention was to improve the piece, and I got drawn into a complicated series of edits purely by wanting to replace the incorrect uncomma'd "which" with a "that", which meant changing a lot more besides for it to work.[4],[5] and then finally this errant one,[6] to solve it all at once, but introducing the dread "artefact" (oddly, tallying with the Br Eng "archaeologist" used below). Regards, Ericoides (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You see, if you could just get your head round the fact that there is nothing wrong with "which" there, you would have avoided all that. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but I can't. Ericoides (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are destined to continue to have your edits reverted then. Does this help? Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The "that" remains, at least for the mo, but thanks for the link. I don't agree with what it says, but it's often a game of opinions, isn't it, language? Ericoides (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── User:Johnbod You're right that I introduced "but" in error to that sentence; I guess in edit mode I didn't see the word "though", so I'm glad you fixed that. In the other sentence,

  • The "Master of Animals" motif, showing a human positioned between and grasping two confronted animals is common but typically highly stylized.

I had changed "but" to "and", and you changed it back to "but". I don't see how the two halves of this sentence are contrasting, or how the second part is somehow unexpected given the first part. Just because an animal/human motif is common doesn't mean that it cannot also be "highly stylized".

In this phrase, "horse-harness fittings, pins, cups and small fittings, I had added "other" before "small fittings" to distinguish these fittings from the horse-harness fittings", and you removed "other". Do you really think "horse-harness fittings...and small fittings" is good writing? I had thought of moving "other small fittings" closer to "horse-harness fittings" but didn't want to interfere too much in someone's chosen order of items. It should be "horse-harness and other small fittings".

In this sentence:

  • This second human head often also has a body, and two further animal heads, these typically of cocks, project from it lower down.

I had changed "often also has a body" to "also often has a body", and you changed it back. I think "often also" sounds ridiculous, and I think "has a body...and two...heads...project from it" is poor writing. I think the participle ("projecting") is needed there. Corinne (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I don't think a cup is a "fitting" anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)