Talk:Iznik pottery

Composition

Hi Marshall 46, a few comments are questions: 1. How can the % formualtion before firng be known after around 400 years? Written documents? 2. Is the % formulation for body and glaze and before or after firing? If the former see question above 3. The component 'soda' needs to be expanded as this can refer to a number of different materials Thanx, Theriac 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Theriac. I got that information from Atasoy and Raby, which I consulted in a library. When I have a chance I will read the technical chapter again and see if I can answer your questions. Marshall46 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marshall46. Thanks for the reply. The information as currently written has the potential to be very interesting. But without a fuller explanation, the answers to my questions about pre- or post- firing and soda, it is at best misleading.I myself would also be mosted interested to know how the formulations were identified. In the abscence of written records I can only imagine it is based on the modern analysis on the fired products followed by some significant assumptions on how this could have been achieved.ThanxTheriac 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The analysis was done with a Cambridge microscan 9 electron-microprobe. See Atasaoy and Raby, p65.

Marshall46 12:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Marshall46. X-ray microanalysis gives the elements present. Converting elemental results to an oxide content is possible, so the glaze analysis looks sensible. But the quoted body composition does not make sense as the list (silica, frit and clay) are unfired materials. Converting elemental results on fired material to the unfired material takes some huge assumptions. Do the authors describe how this stage was done?ThanxTheriac 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond me. I have relied on the standard work. Marshall46 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Marshall46. I was not disputing the validity of the citation in respect to Wikipedia standards (though I question it being the "standard" work). But from the quote it does appear to be potentially flawed. Even with information on the raw materials it is exceptionally difficult, and without this impossible, to state the percentage formulation based on fired analysis. With the stated aim of Wikipedia being verificable sources rather than the truth there is little that can be done to flag this in the article. This does show one limitation with the Wikipedia philosophy of "as long as it has been published then it can be referenced." At best it would be a fudge but I suggest a small addition "According to Carswell From the late 15th century, red .. etc" ThanxTheriac 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs, when I have the text in front of me again I'll add "according to ..." (not Carswell, one of Atasoy and Raby's contributors). I'd be interested to know of a better work - in English, there may be several in Turkish. Marshall46 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marshall46. Thanks, it would improve the article. I am sure there are some very good books in Turkish. The Turkish ceramics industry is successful, and increasing all the time. I would imagine this would stimulate interest, and ensure a strong knowledge base. Thanx--Theriac 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Decline

I've tided Gryffindor's contribution. It's not clear how the production of tiles for the Sultan Ahmed mosque "exhausted" the potters or how this exhaustion led to the decline of the potteries. The addition of information about inflation and fixed prices is new to me. Where does it come from? - Marshall46 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag

I have just tagged the incorrect information of "lead and soda." The reason is these materials are not used in pottery:-

• There is no material called soda.
• Lead is a metal. It is not used in frits, glazes or bodies.

I would imagine the author, who obviously has never formulated frits, glazes or bodies, means some forms of sodium or lead compounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.191 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Raby states in the place cited that lead was introduced through dross of lead, which was used in Kütahya until the 1940s, and that soda was introduced from a substance known locally as bora, which is a potassium sodium carbonate with some chlorine and sulphate. In my view such details are too technical for the body of the article, but what is stated is now adequately sourced and sufficiently explained here. Marshall46 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Marshall. That makes more sense. The confusion is the article mis quotes the reference: I will modify accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.151 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. It would be helpful to other editors if you signed your contributions. Marshall46 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disabled reqphoto tag

{{reqphoto|in=Turkey}}

Since the article has a photo now, I have disabled the {{Reqphoto}} tag. If there are additional/better images needed, feel free to undo my actions. ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forcible relocated of craftsmen from Tabriz to Iznik

The article states that after the 1514 capture of the city of Tabriz by the Ottoman Sultan in the Battle of Chaldiran: "The ceramic artisans of Tabriz were forcibly relocated to Iznik to practice their techniques." and provides a link to an article by Arthur Stanley in "Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: a historical encyclopedia". One can preview the article on google books. Stanley doesn't cite any source.

If this is correct then I'm very surprised that it isn't mentioned by other authors. Carswell doesn't mention the relocation of craftsmen to Iznik although he does mention (p56) that the court designer, Şahkula, was brought from Tabriz to Istanbul and that some pottery was manufactured in Istanbul. Also on p58 Carswell mentions that the royal ceramic workshop was founded by Habib, a potter from Tabriz.

Raby has a section in Atasoy & Raby on the 'Masters of Tabriz' (pp 83, 88-89). Here again, there is no statement that craftsmen moved in 1514 from Tabriz to Iznik – although on p89 Raby mentions that a sherd that was illegally excavated in Iznik is in the style of the 'Masters of Tabriz'. But Raby also explains the frit used by the 'Masters of Tabriz' was technically very different from that used in the later Iznik pottery. Similarly, on p87 Julian Henderson writes "the technology used by the 'Masters of Tabriz' differed substantially from the typical Iznik body. If the two traditions were connected, there was a major modification made."

I think perhaps we should trust the more specialised sources ie Raby and Carswell – and ignore the unsourced statement in the "historical encyclopedia". I don't think we need to say "some scholars think .. while others think ..." Your views? Aa77zz (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also rely on Atasoy and Raby, the standard work in English. Carswell also has a good art-historical and curatorial background. Marshall46 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Support arguments are stronger and based on policy (WP:COMMONNAME) and usage in reliable sources, showing that community WP:CONSENSUS supports this proposal. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 01:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

---

İznik pottery → Iznik pottery – This is a non-standard spelling of the term. The dotted capital İ is the town of İznik spelt using the modern Turkish alphabet. English-language sources on the actual pottery do not spell Iznik this way, they call it Iznik pottery. The dotted I spelling should just be a redirect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tiptoethrutheminefield: Can you give some sources to back up this? I've checked foreign language Wikipedias and they have the same spelling (from those that I checked). It says in the article it's been named after the town, which has the dotted I. st170e 22:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• @St170e and Tiptoethrutheminefield: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

All the sources (even the one by the Turkish author Necipoglu) that are listed in the sources and further reading sections of the article spell it "Iznik pottery", none of them spell it "İznik pottery". Turkish-language sources also do not call it "İznik pottery" since they would not use the English-language word "pottery". About the only sources that do use "İznik pottery" are Turkish-derived sources written in English, and even they do not universally do it. That the modern Turkish spelling of the town of Iznik is İznik is really not relevant. The dotted I is from the modern Turkish alphabet invented in the 1930s, but both Iznik and Iznik pottery were around for centuries before that, and both have continued to be called "Iznik" and "Iznik pottery" in English-language sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is also "Iznik pottery" at the V&A [1] and The Walters Museum [2] and the Metropolitan Museum [3] and the Louvre [4] and the Gardner Museum [5] and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts [6] and the National Museums of Scotland [7] and Harvard Art Museum [8]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield and support the move. - Aa77zz (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

But those (frankly not serious print book quality) html webpages appear to be sources which don't carry Turkish accents at all (nor French or German ones), whereas WP:RS sources fit for the purpose being used can, do: such as Lonely Planet Turkey 2017 edition "The Persian crafters were skilled tile-makers, and soon İznik's kilns were producing faience (tin-glazed earthenware) of a quality unequalled even today. Peaking in the 16th and 17th centuries, İznik's tile-making was a unique Ottoman artistic tradition. However, the decreased demand for significant public works in post-Ottoman Turkey caused a rapid decline." The basis of this move doesn't appear to much better than past attempts to make all Czech hockey players appear as per html on betting websites. This is a serious encyclopedia, we need to follow book sources which are enabled with the same high MOS that Wikipedia editors have consistently chosen throughout the 6 million article corpus. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Words fail me if you think Lonely Plant guides outrank major museum pages as RS on art topics! The truth is exactly the opposite. But here are some "serious print book quality" sources that use "Iznik pottery" (100% of those I looked at):

• Rogers J.M. and Ward R.M.; Süleyman the Magnificent, 1988, British Museum Publications ISBN 0714114405
• Blair, Sheila, and Bloom, Jonathan M., The Art and Architecture of Islam, 1250-1800, 1995, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300064659
• Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, 2010, By Ga ́bor A ́goston, Bruce Alan Masters

These books have all the diacritical options available, if they want to use them, but they don't want to. In fact you have not produced any proper RS for the subject that use "İznik pottery", though I'm sure that Aa77zz is right when he says they exist, in translations into English. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

[I've idented]. "These books have all the diacritical options available". Yes it might appear so at first sight, but look more closely and this isn't true. Take it from someone who has worked in academic publishing. Yale's font set in 1995 wasn't complete. You can see this from page 134 of Blair and Bloom (1995): "To this period too, beginning in the fourteenth century, dates the development of the mosque with a single dome, such as the Alaiiddin Mosque at Bursa (1326), the mosque of Haci Özbek (1333) and the Green Mosque (1378) at Iznik (the latter ..." where Yale's 1995 typesetting captures the Ö - since that character is available from the German fontset - and captures Turkish lower case undotted ı against dotted i, but fails to capture capital İ. This isn't just a proofreading error, capital dotted İ is simply missing from several Yale books of the 1990s, whereas the rest of the Turkish alphabet is correctly captured. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing "webpages appear to be sources which don't carry Turkish accents at all" is plain silly. Any webpage has the ability to reproduce any typeface or character or glyph that has a character set for it - and given that no books are printed using cast typefaces anymore, the same applies to printed books. Books, magazines and web-based sources are spelling it Iznik pottery by choice, a conscious decision rather than a technological limitation. The comparison with architectural monuments or cities is completely invalid - they are fixed-in-place entities and these writers have decided to render their names in the form that they are currently written in in the country that the objects are located. Pottery items are moveable objects and collectors worldwide have prized Iznik pottery long before the invention of the modern Turkish alphabet. Moreover, production of Iznik wear ended centuries before the invention of that alphabet! The term "Iznik pottery" is an international art term, not the property of the Turkish State or the Turkish Language Institute. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but proof is required for a departure from the corpus practice across all Turkey articles on en.wp. If you can provide a fully typologically enabled source which uses capital dotted İ for the town and then does not use it for ceramics from the town then that would be a convincing evidence. But the sources presented so far only underline that this is not a conscious choice to internationalize the pottery to an Anglicism (such as deliberate writing of Cafe without French accent). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The corpus practice is clearly "Iznik pottery"! It is you who are arguing for a departure from both it and WP:COMMONNAME. It is like proposing the Wikipedia English-language articles on Hittites should be titled Hitit, and Byzantine Empire should be Bizans İmparatorluğu. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional English-language sources that use "Iznik tiles": Godrey Goodwin, "Islamic Architecture - Ottoman Turkey" has numerous mentions of Iznik tiles, such as, on page 149, a mosque being described as "a museum of Iznik tiles of the most gorgeous kind". Goodwin also spells the town as Iznik. Vreg Nersessian, "Treasures from the Ark", on p148 details the origin of Kutahiya Wear "after the demise of the Iznik workshops in the seventeenth century...". Jason Godwin, "Lords of the Horizons, a History of the Ottoman Empire" has numerous mentions of Iznik tiles, such as on p215 "the entire output of the Iznik tile factories was consumed in its decoration". The only EL source I have that uses "tiles from İznik" is the volume on Turkey in Taschen's World Architecture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Google Scholar searches do not distinguish between a dotted or undotted capital I, [9], but scanning through the 327 results, I noticed only six that spelt it "İznik pottery", plus two that (mis)spelt it "iznik pottery". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Certainly this is usual in English-language literature. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose @Johnbod: I can't see any print sources which use İznik for the town, then drop it for the town's pottery. It is not as if "Iznik pottery" is a art genre name in itself, it is just "tiles made in İznik". Wikipedia:Consistency İznik İznik shemaya İznik Ultramarathon ... all fall in with the standard MOS for all Latin letter alphabets on en.wp that we don't remove part of the alphabet unless it genuinely has a different name in English. Lake İznik should be restored to consistency also. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't see what this has to do with it, though I doubt you are right - what does "can't see any" amount to exactly? "Iznik pottery" certainly is an "art genre name in itself", and an important one, with shelves of books on the subject. Much of it may not in fact be made in İznik (that used to be the belief anyway), and it is certainly not all tiles. No objection to moving the lake, which is a separate issue that should not be covered here. WP:COMMONNAME is clear; we should use the normal term in English. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi - You have not cited a SINGLE SOURCE that uses "İznik pottery". How can you justify your position when none of the sources used for the article's content use "İznik pottery"? And you are wrong claiming Iznik pottery is not an art genre name in itself. Early-modern-era ceramics produced in Syria are also referred to as being in the "Iznik Style" if they are stylistically similar to the pottery from Iznik, and 19th-century European reproductions and reinterpretations are again referred to as being "Iznik style". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Because the town İznik and the terms pottery/tiles/ware are two separate words. Placing "pottery" next to the town name does not create a new term separate from the geographical origin. Even a phrase such as "Italian potters referred to their Iznik-style ceramics as maiolica alla Turchesca.'" is not divorced from the geographical origin. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So the basis of your argument is that you assert "Iznik pottery" or "Iznik wear" or "Iznik style" are not art terms? Apart from being wrong in that assertion, even if it were right it does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources that use the word Iznik in the context of ceramics do not spell it İznik. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This might be the place to step back from the horse. But no, what I said was what I actually said. See Jōmon pottery, Zürich ware, etc. And no one is disputing that most English websites, or books, that mention Turkish ceramics - or indeed Turkish any other subject - do not represent the full Turkish alphabet. Everyone here knows that. But en.wp does. This is enough now. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and move Lake Iznik back to Lake İznik. The use of a normal "I" in web sources has a very clear reason – Latin keyboards. Article titles should not be changed because people are too lazy to copy-paste the dotted "I" character. Laurdecl ^talk 09:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not at all the issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well actually it is. Those museum webpages are generally done with less editing that goes into print books by companies such as Lonely Planet, DK, Routledge, Brill and so on. So completeness of fonts is exactly the issue. WP:RS covers this. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The dotted I is not used in the titles of any of the sources used in the article. Atasoy & Raby 1989, Carswell 2006 and Denny 2004 all include Iznik in the title without the dot. If you believe that the dotted I is used by reliable English sources on the pottery, please provide the evidence. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The name of the city is İznik (with dotted i) So what are we discussing ? Of course the title is İznik and not Iznik. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well the evidence is above - no book which uses İznik for the city suddenly drops the correct spelling when talking about "pottery from İznik". İ and I are two different vowels in the Turkish alphabet, this isn't cosmetic but related to pronunciation and meaning. And is en.wp standard WP:Turkish throughout every article in the encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My statement above concerning the book titles is correct - but in fairness I need to point out that Atasoy & Raby 1989 use the dotted I within their book. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As does H. Stierlin, "Turkey", in Taschen's World Architecture. But two swallows do not make a summer if 1000 other swallows are flying in the opposite direction! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support The use of the dotted I in an English language publication is pedantic and affected. Pelarmian (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a professional encyclopedia, not one where people are too lazy to use the proper name. Laurdecl ^talk 22:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this the emergence of a new argument for pov-warriors: "all the sources are wrong because they are too lazy"? The proper name under WP:COMMONNAME is, unquestionably, Iznik pottery, "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"Pov-warrior"? Hardly surprising for someone who has been blocked six times before I guess. Laurdecl ^talk 06:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is a hardly surprising non-reply to avoid responding to my point in order to avoid the truth. Since it remains unchallenged, by you or anyone, I'll repeat it as a final comment: the proper name under WP:COMMONNAME is, unquestionably, Iznik pottery, it is "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope the "pedantic and affected" comment of Pelarmian will be disregarded as having failed to address that all en.wp articles including this one use full fonts - we need a specific argument to move this one and only this one away from the universal en.wp practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

punctuation

right: 1650–1710

wrong: 1650-1710

right: pp. 230–8

wrong: pp. 230-8

Ranges of pages or dates or other numbers require an en-dash, not a hyphen. See WP:MOS. Some of the punctuation errors in this article were instantaneously conspicuous because they were in section headings. There were dozens of them. I fixed them in this edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. But it's kind of pointless, and a little obnoxious, to berate editors who don't notice, don't care about, or don't bother fixing such things; even to try to educate them is nearly pointless, my experience here tells me. Be a gnome, but let others not be. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Arts of the Islamic World

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sedvabs, Rdemeke (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Eng215, Leonfitz1779, A702506, Sydlaumh.

— Assignment last updated by Eng215 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)