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?

I am confused: The page states - more than once: "Both are easy to work and slightly soluble in water. They have been used for making a variety of indoor artwork and carving, and they will not survive long outdoors." But then continue to describe and include pictures of windows made of alabaster, list examples of window and ROOF panels and then even a white CITY. I am confused as how a city is build to not survive long ourdoors, why roofs are build to not last long outoors and why bother to put windows which will not last long outdoors. So either that statement is not correct or the alabster uses are listed incorrectly, or it needs to be carified how often these windows, roofs and cities are rebuild. Thanks for correcting/clarifying

• • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.50.198.136 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

I've revised it somewhat - I hope better now, but even Grove is pretty confusing. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Spent (too) much time dealing with precisely this. Only now did I read the comments. I hope I found the logical mistakes in the article. Now that it sounds more logical, I can only hope I didn't miss some non-linear fact and spoiled something. Anyhow, I feel relief that it wasn't only me being puzzled. Now the intro (lead) might sound didactic, but that's the least of the evils in an encyclopedia. At least it makes sense. ArmindenArminden (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Alabastron

The link to Alabastron does not go to an article about a town in Egypt. Anyone have time to research/write an article? Samatva (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorted out. ArmindenArminden (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alabaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051129011651/http://www.metmuseum.org:80/works_of_art/viewOne.asp?dep=3&item=1988.323.8&viewmode=0&isHighlight=1 to http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOne.asp?dep=3&item=1988.323.8&viewmode=0&isHighlight=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050901175655/http://www.metmuseum.org:80/works_of_art/viewOne.asp?dep=3&viewMode=0&item=40.156 to http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOne.asp?dep=3&viewmode=0&item=40%2E156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Problems after rework July 2016

@Johnbod: Hi, and thanks. My main problem is that much of the art. still relies on the 1911 Britannica art., while the mention of Brit. slipped somewhere deep among the references. Either someone takes the time to mark each bit copied from or "inspired" by Brit., or it should become a highly-visible hatnote above the lead (how do you do that?). Second, the core part, "Types, occurrence, history" seems to me the main problem. I don't have the time to check its source(s), I just gave it more structure, so now one can work on it subtopic by subtopic. As it is, it combines TYPES (calcite and gypsum, with black a. as a gypsum subtype) with OCCURRENCE (that's normal) and HISTORICAL USE, which is problematic:
a) because there are contexts (countries & periods) where both types were used simultaneously, like ancient Egypt and probably Italy;
b) I don't know if the separation is factually correct (Britannica 1911, again, I guess...), because now one has to trust invisible sources, as there is nowhere any elaboration connecting use by region, period, or product type, to specific mines of type A or B. Is the use as window panels really limited to calcite alabaster? Are all those regions/countries really limited to just one type? (Only the Middle East is mentioned in both categories).
It was an editorial decision (whose? Britannica's?) to combine 3 factors - types, occurrence, history -, but here the content doesn't explain this decision, and it might not be an ideal one for a multiple-editor medium like WP. ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked at Grove when I last worked on it, though as I say above, that was also rather confusing. I'll look again when I have time. Certainly the English gypsum was never used for windows, but it isn't usually white. Colour variability needs adding too; the current text is not accurate. The Processing section refers only to gypsum (it seems), is rather boring and over-specific, and should be much lower down. Alabaster has been extremely widely used, & while the current text may not give the right balance, I doubt anything in it is actually wrong. The galleries mix the types inappropriately, & the text is hardly illustrated, so the pics should be moved around. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere! Great. The Processing section comes (almost?) completely from 2 serious Volterran websites. I can't think of a reason why calcite a. should be worked with in a different manner, Mohs hardness 1.5-2 vs. 3 hardly makes a difference for nowadays' tools. I really don't know if the Italians do have easy access to calcite a., but they sure did use a. for windows on an impressive scale in different epochs, and Barluzzi even tried to use it for a roof (!), which didn't work out because of leaks, even in rain-poor Palestine (Mt Tabor). Maybe it didn't have enough time to dissolve before they had to cover it over. Still, I wonder if he tried to make it weather-resistant; he did dye the Gethsemane windows purple, so he did experiment around to a degree.
I would think that the vast majority of the users won't care much at all about the mineralogical varieties, alabaster is of little interest to geologists, but very important in an archaeological and artistic context. That's why I think that we shouldn't overdo with the chemical aspects, but concentrate on periods, areas, and styles. The risk is that it becomes too confusing to the layperson who wants to look up the term or the context of some object they saw somewhere. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should not load up the top of the article with too much on the mineral/technical aspects. Btw, have you seen this database? Plenty of Italian calcite there. Try searches like alabaster, travertine, gypsum, Volterra, calcite, etc. All VERY confusing. This book, which uses "gypsum" and "travertine", is useful for A. Egypt. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)