Talk:Kohl (cosmetics)

Proper Attributions
I am not familiar with the rules of Plagiarism; could someone who is please check the Health concerns section to verify that it is properly attributed? I am mainly concerned with the parts added in the. They seem to be a direct copy/paste of the original text. I don't know if this requires more than a token reference. — Shattered Gnome (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In English please?
"A group of researchers in China tried to find some scientific basis of this claimed property of lead sulphide (galena) relating to absorption of sun rays when applied into the eyes in the form of kohl.[20] The authors reported the ultraviolet (UV) absorption spectra of a thin film of lead sulphide prepared on "Indium Tin Oxide" (ITO) substrate. The spectra showed that lead sulphide thin films had higher absorption and lower transmittance in UV light band which further increases with the increased deposition voltage."

I'm generally considered a not-unintelligent sort of person, but I had to sit back and re-read that about 4 times before I decided that I think it means that they studied it and discovered that, yes, kohl does serve to block UV radiation. Things on wikipedia ought to be penetrable to people who speak plain English, unless you're talking about something so technical there is no way to put it in simpler terms. This is just an example of using jargon that sounds impressive but it really not necessary and just obfuscates the meaning of the paragraph to the average reader. And is that even good grammar? "[They] reported the UV absorption spectra of a thin film of lead sulphide"? Wouldn't they report ON the spectra, not "report the spectra"? And what is this about "deposition voltage"? I'd assume "deposition" related to the thickness of the film of lea sulphide, an what does that have to do with "voltage"? What does UV radiation have to do with "voltage"? All this has to say is that "researchers found that when they put a thin film of lead sulphide on an indium tin oxide substrate, it showed that the lead sulphide was effective at absorbing and blocking UV radiation". AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There definitely seems to be some stuff that's not NPOV - almost seeming as if the author wants to promote the use of lead; I notice that Vincent has got a paragraph here that seems to be identical to what is on the article page. Some of the language doesn't seem to scan very well, either. I may try to do a bit of tidying up when I have a moment.Philculmer (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Medicinal use of Kohl among the Ancient Egyptians
There is presently a 'citation needed' sticker after the statement that Kohl was used by the ancient Egyptians as an eye-medicine. Although it is a very old source, one possible citation that I came across last night (purely by chance: I was reading the book for occult interest and came here to try an obtain some images of kohl being worn to get a better idea of its appearance) is The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology by E.A. Wallis Budge, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1925, pp. 258-9:

''In all periods the Egyptians have suffered severely from disease of the eyes, and there seems never to have been a time when they did not apply unguents and medicaments to them to minimize the effects of the heat and glare of the day and the bitter cold of the night. They used many kinds of salves and ointments of a soothing nature, but these were not sufficient to preserve the eyes from rheum and inflammation, and at a very early period the use of mineral compounds became common, both among men and women. The mineral compound in common use was mestem-t... or stibium. This seems to have been a black powder, the sesquisulphuret of antimony, but oxide of copper, uatch, sulphide of lead and many other substances were used.''

On pp. 260-261 Budge translates some inscriptions on four-tube kohl pots, one reading fine eye paint [for use] every day, from the first to the fourth month of Akhat, for the season of Pert and for the season of Shemu, which he interprets as proving a variation of medicine throughout the year. Another is translated for daily use, a powder which opened the eyes, a powder which cleansed (?) the eyes, and last a powder which removed rheum from them. This, of course, he interprets as a medicinal rather than a cosmetic use.

I have not put it into the article as it is a very old source and there are some cautionary notes on the Wikipedia page of E.A. Wallis Budge with regard to opinion and incontrovertible fact not always being as sharply distinguished as we would expect now. Ideally an Egyptologist could settle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.107.163 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

General Cleanup July 2024
The article was and still is in some serious need of attention. A quick drive by of problems I noticed and tried to address: the article suffers from a tranche of excessive examples, there exists a large amount of non-English terms whose translation and transliteration is not provided (never mind sourced) or justified on notability grounds, there were long stretches where the article descended into passages resembling anecdotes, recipes, advertisements and health advice.

Major changes:
 * Lead section : I removed excessive examples of where kohl is used throughout the world
 * Etymology : I removed paragraphs about Persian, Yoruba, Latin, Greek and Egyptian etymologies, retained Arabic and English ones, saved a reference on a news report about health, deleted a reference that didn’t support the text whatsoever
 * Middle East and Africa : I removed a big paragraph that referenced (?) religious scriptures instead of academic sources (?)
 * West Africa & South Asia sections : I removed a whole tranche of extraneous examples and irrelevant information, most notably a seemingly “I was here” hotspot for translating kohl into editors' local languages…
 * Preparation : Turned three recipes into commentary on homemade preparations, removed sources which don’t support the text
 * In general : Copy editing, removed redundant information (anything repeated or phrased in only a slightly different way), moved some images around
 * Health section : I left it alone because although it has issues it seems much better than the rest of the article.

I'm pretty done for now but here are some suggestions: too many images, still too much unsourced, unjustified non-English language, article requires many citations for its claims...

Below are three citations whose text I deleted, but maybe they can be helpful to someone in their editing. Neatly95 (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Neatly95 (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

FAO: Anonymous IP Editors
First and foremost: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it is not a graffito wall where one can simply add essentially "I was here" for their own local language. The place for translations of the word "Kohl" into different languages is on the respective Wikipedia. If you want to talk about Kohl in Sanskrit, do so on the Sanskrit Wikipedia, not the English one. What argument do you present that "Sanksrit translation" must be included but not Swedish, Croat, Gaelic, Navajo, Quecha and Afrikaans, for instance? There are thousands of spoken languages, but this is the English Wikipedia, so translations are not the place for this. Please cease such cultural posturing within the content of this article.

Secondly: repetitively adding content that is reverted for good reason is seen as disruptive. If you wish to discuss why you think endless translations should be added in contravention of established policy; research, reason and present your case on the talk page. Neatly95 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)