Talk:Paisley (design)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 19 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MDV13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Persian Pickles?
I don't feel that "Persian Pickle" is a common enough colloquialism for paisley to be featured so prominently. There's also no citation, the existing citation is to a fiction book called the "Persion Pickle Club"... A2800276 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2800276 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of Boteh
Boteh, بوته I believe، is a Persian word meaning a bush or a bushy plant (Steingass Dictionary, also it gives Brushwood). It is incorrectly attributed to the Hindi Bota which means Flower. Jegheh جغه   is a crest with which a wrestler is decorated- (Steingass Dictionary- these are the smaller forms). --Wool Bridge (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What Patterns Are Similar to Paisley?
Paisley seems to be an umbrella term—I've seen some designs akin to paisley in style but different shapes/structures, not "twisted teardrop shaped". They are frequently just called henna or mehndi, which I think is just the medium, not the pattern. People seem to treat these three as synonyms, but their are so many varying styles that it's confusing. Can anyone help clear this up? Thanks, —L 72.74.189.65 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC) In The Netherlands the paisley design is found on cloths which most often are used as wall hangings. They are called "wortelnoten doeken"(or "worteldoeken")as the pattern is seen as resembling the patterns in walnut. Usually made of wool, with a black centre and fringe and with dark browns and reds as predominant colours, they have been part of Dutch interiors since colonial days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.180.51 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Golden Yarns of Zari
I'm trying to compact the repetitious captions of some of the pix:
 * Persian Silk Brocade. Persian Textile (The Golden Yarns of Zari - Brocade). Silk Brocade with Golden Thread (Golabetoon). Paisley Left and Right (Bote Jeghe). (Persian Paisley)
 * Persian Silk Brocade. Persian Textile (The Golden Yarns of Zari - Brocade). Paisley Right-Leaning (Bote Jeghe). (Persian Paisley)
 * Persian Silk Brocade. Persian Textile (The Golden Yarns of Zari - Brocade). Silk Brocade with Golden and Silver Thread (Golabetoon). Paisley Left and Right(Bote Jeghe). (Persian Paisley)''

Is "The Golden Yarns of Zari" a book title or what? —Tamfang (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation
added this category but it's not directly verifiable from the article. The current text perhaps hints at it—one could make an educated guess, but that would be WP:OR. Particularly since the term can carry negative connotation, it's better to wait until we have some scholarly cites for the designation before categorising as such.—Aquegg (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge of Paisley (design) and Buta (ornament)
Couldn't find any discussion on this elsewhere... so please move this if it's in the wrong place...

The actual patterns shown in the photographs on the Buta page look a lot more like the traditional patterns commonly printed and sold as paisley (particularly kerchiefs). The main difference appears so be in the proportionate size of the feathering and the overall visibility of the solid lines forming the shape of the teardrop. Buta, and most traditional paisley I've seen (search your favourite online marketplace for Paisley Bandana) has a visible line marking the teardrop, and feathering that is not more than about 20 % of the overall width of the design. Both elements tend to be on the same background.

This is of course based on my own experience of what's called traditional Paisely in the UK. But I'd say the pic on the Buta page is more recognisable as traditional Paisley than the images shown on the Paisley page (expect the stamp).

?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicawi (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

✅
 * ...and now reversed - this was very ill-considered! See below. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Paisley and fractals
Has anyone else noticed the resemblance between the paisley teardrop and patterns seen in fractals such as the Mandelbrot set? -- Markshale (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paisley (design). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130124184517/http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/konLRIQkD2_73vIR6KdPXQ to http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/konLRIQkD2_73vIR6KdPXQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
The recent edit to this page seems to me to have no value whatsoever. Taking it in order:


 * a bud, curved mango almond, tear drop, pine cone

Besides the obvious grammatical error, what is the use of removing the Farsi term and instead inserting this pointless series of words in place of "tear drop"? "Tear drop" describes the pattern neatly and concisely.


 * Of mainly Indian origin

There are two difficulties with the cite used for this assertion. First of all, there seems no reason to suppose it is reliable. The site is about Paisley, the place in Scotland, not the pattern - not that there is any particular reason to suppose the author is an expert on the place.

Secondly, it doesn't actually support the assertion. It says "The Paisley Pattern can BE traced back to the Indo-European cultures of 2,000 and more years ago." By 0AD, Indo-European cultures are basically everywhere in Europe and most of Asia. This does not in any sense say that the pattern is of Indian origin.


 * It gained prominence in the world as a Kashmiri embroidery design where it is called called buta in the 11th century.
 * Popularity of Paisley designs in Indo Islamic kingdoms of India lead to the adoption of this motif in Persian, egyptain designs which strictly adhered to geometrical designs in both architecture and textile.

These assertions are completely unsourced.


 * remains popular in other items of clothing in India, Iran and Central Asian countries.

India replaces "South Asia" here. Why? Do people not wear paisley in Sri Lanka, say?


 * Oxford dictionary defines Paisley as ...

Why is this even here? We already defined paisley above. It's also a direct quote from a source, not normal practice, and makes the common error that the material that appears on the website cited is the same as that which appears in the OED. It adds nothing to the page.


 * The origins of Paisley can be attributed to both India and Persia.

Sharp practice is being used with the BBC source here, which later on refers to "The original Persian droplet-like motif". This source doesn't actually support the editor's intention here to crowbar India into the article; what this source says is that the origin of the pattern is in Persia.


 * In tamil

In tamil what? This sentence no verb, and no object, and no cite.

In summary, this edit has no value and I submit it should be reverted forthwith, perhaps retaining the BBC source added to support the assertion that the pattern originated in Persia. Ping who may at least have half an eye on this page? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Looks like a POV-pushing attempt (inserting personal opinion with some random links). What do you think about this? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the edits are completely disruptive. In every sense of the word. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * i would doubt as your two sources clearly provide Indian base for paisley design but in both of your sources, only one source states it has persian origins, since paisley has been imitated from indian designs of kashmiri origins, i stated that paisley has mainly indian as well as persian origin, notice, i didn't remove persian origin, any article which deals with persian design can state persian origin but not in this article. but willfully it has been omitted from the intro and the origin headline, is it not a misinformation in the first place? secondly there are numerous sources which only and i state again only mention indian as the origin of paisley design and not persian and since in some sources both pf them are mentioned i included persian but i emphecised indian because Persian may have been origin for some elements of paisley design doesnt mean persian designs have been directly the source of origin for the final design paisley inspired from  see no persian origin, only indian origin ::Link: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=uV49AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA300&dq=paisley+pattern+indian+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO_5Lt7bbbAhXUbn0KHaiNAVQQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=persia&f=false  Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * if it was unsourced, you could have easily demanded the source before removing it, since i was under the process of editing the article but you blatantly resorted you remove all my references by reverting it and not modifying or editing it which is beyond my understanding. the source is provided as

link: https://www.britannica.com/art/buta
 * Link: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=qEypAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&dq=buta+design&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit8d_nwrHbAhWMdn0KHVvyBLkQ6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=buta%20design&f=false
 * link: https://www.academia.edu/4034805/The_Use_of_Flora_and_Fauna_Imagery_in_Mughal_Decorative_Arts Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * im quoting definition which i cannot willfully change according to my desire, Oxford dictionary is a very reputable spurce and has mentioned no persian origin for paisley design, with this source i can easily dispute your source which has mentioned based on indian design and your source cannot be accessed online to verify the sentence written as a 'source'. i have no idea instead of accomodating ocford as a source you completely removed the source with is beyonf my understanding.Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the article clearly states further elaborates, the persian motif has been separately described as among one of the inspiration for paisley, remember, we are discussing paisley here, a european pattern and not persian designs which may have been used in persia, paisley's hindu origins has also been stated.
 * here, i provide you citation link: https://www.paisley.org.uk/2013/01/roots-of-the-paisley-pattern/ Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the article clearly states further elaborates, the persian motif has been separately described as among one of the inspiration for paisley, remember, we are discussing paisley here, a european pattern and not persian designs which may have been used in persia, paisley's hindu origins has also been stated.
 * here, i provide you citation link: https://www.paisley.org.uk/2013/01/roots-of-the-paisley-pattern/ Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

what issues you are having with my edits, and why are you reverting my referenced info additions and why dont you resort to editing if you think some info is incorrect? if you do not convince with your reason i will call the admins to resolve this issue. I will add references to the persian use of geometric rather than floral motifs after some time. thanks

it is your reference stating the origin of paisley design in europe is from indian design (Link: http://www.zanzibartrading.com/indian_shawls.htm) Rameezraja001 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My issues with your edits are explained above, which is why three separate editors have agreed with me and/or removed them.
 * I suggest you don't "call the admins", both because "I am edit warring against four different editors" doesn't generally go down well and because one of those editors _is_ an admin.
 * The cite you quote above does not say it is of Indian origin. It says, essentially, that the Victorians referred to these shawls as "Indian" and that they got the design from India. This does not preclude the ultimate origin being elsewhere. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * neither does it say persian origin, i would just like to cut the chase, since your first reference itself says
 * i would edit the intro adding ''based on Kashmiri Indian pine cone motif which itself is of persian origin with roots in ancient mesopotamia and reference BBC Link: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20151021-paisley-behind-rocks-favourite-fashion, and oxford link: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paisley and link: Link: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/leah-morrigan/paisley-fabric-men_b_5586339.html also based on
 * i would edit the intro adding ''based on Kashmiri Indian pine cone motif which itself is of persian origin with roots in ancient mesopotamia and reference BBC Link: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20151021-paisley-behind-rocks-favourite-fashion, and oxford link: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paisley and link: Link: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/leah-morrigan/paisley-fabric-men_b_5586339.html also based on

link: https://www.britannica.com/art/buta
 * Link: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=qEypAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&dq=buta+design&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit8d_nwrHbAhWMdn0KHVvyBLkQ6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=buta%20design&f=false
 * link: https://www.academia.edu/4034805/The_Use_of_Flora_and_Fauna_Imagery_in_Mughal_Decorative_Arts
 * in the origins headline i would add info from
 * based on the link: https://www.paisley.org.uk/2013/01/roots-of-the-paisley-pattern/, Link: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/leah-morrigan/paisley-fabric-men_b_5586339.html , Link: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20151021-paisley-behind-rocks-favourite-fashion.
 * in the third para is would elaborate the history of paisley design getting influenced by indian kashmiri designRameezraja001 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * and others such as   i'll wait one weak for your input on my desired edits suggested above and discussion on the above post so we can reach some sort of agreement based on facts and materials available online and your counter argument based on solid references, if you dont contribute, then i will automatically assume you dont have any issues and i will make the following edits on Saturday. i have also asked   why the user reverted my referenced additions but i have not received an answer. Rameezraja001 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should assume no such thing. Your edits remain undesirable. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * well desirable or not by you, who are you to decide, it is your your website.
 * in the third para is would elaborate the history of paisley design getting influenced by indian kashmiri designRameezraja001 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * and others such as   i'll wait one weak for your input on my desired edits suggested above and discussion on the above post so we can reach some sort of agreement based on facts and materials available online and your counter argument based on solid references, if you dont contribute, then i will automatically assume you dont have any issues and i will make the following edits on Saturday. i have also asked   why the user reverted my referenced additions but i have not received an answer. Rameezraja001 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should assume no such thing. Your edits remain undesirable. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * well desirable or not by you, who are you to decide, it is your your website.


 * is blocked indefinitely. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He may start a long-term sockpuppetry quest as he has already did it: So better watch this article and other targeted articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge reconsidered

 * Paisley is a Western, essentially English, term for Western designs adapting Asian motifs. Unfortunately all the current images show the Asian precursor versions, which should of course be covered, but are not actually Paisleys. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * this article seems more like iranian/persian propaganda article than anything else, i suggest make a separate article about native iranian/persian motif so these people can spare this article, seem to be operating tag team to vandalise every article. Rameezraja001 (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We used to have Buta (ornament) but this was merged here in 2016, with next to no discussion (see above). This was probably a mistake. Can we agree to demerge back to the last version, and start from there? Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to rewrite Buta, then my answer is yes. Because the last revision of that article looks like a blog post, especially with all of those non-English citations. If Buta is just the Persian style of Paisley, then it needs a separate article and Paisley should covers all versions, e.g. removing Persian buta and a NPOV version. Last revision before merging. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not exactly - Buta is the single motif, and paisley a Indian-influenced Western pattern using lots of them crammed up together, at different sizes & orientations, which the Persians didn't do. So the two are best kept apart. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be content with that de-merge if the new Buta (ornament) looks sensible. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well (14 months later), I have gone ahead and done the de-merge. That article should really be at boteh, imo, the Persian form & normal in WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by longterm significance and importance for just the word "Paisley". The town is already naturally disambiguated. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Paisley (design) → Paisley
 * Paisley → Paisley (disambiguation)
 * Oppose I certainly can't see this is primary. Lots more evidence would be needed! This only gets ~50% more views than the town, which is not enough. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnbod. I don't think the design fits either facet of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's not viewed much more often than every other topic (mid-50% for everything called Paisley), and it isn't much more important than the town it was named after. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if anything the town. And clearly doesn't qualify by either criteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Scottish town could be primary if anything by PT#2 (given its the original meaning) and the views for the town are 8,387 compared with the design's 12,054 which clearly isn't "much more than any other"[|Paisley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)|Paisley_(design)|Paisley_(name)|Paisley,_Florida|Paisley,_Oregon|Paisley,_Pennsylvania|Paisley,_Ontario|Paisley,_Edmonton|Paisley,_South_Australia]. If I Google Paisley I get more results for the Scottish town but that's probably because of my location. Furthermore the town isn't naturally disambiguated, comma disambiguation is natural in the US and Australia/Canada but its usually not in most other countries. In other words the town isn't called "Paisley, Renfrewshire" anymore than the deign is called "Paisley (design)" there simply WP qualifiers.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:41, 14 November 2019 (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.

"Hippie" pattern relations
Hi, so before I found out (yesterday) that this particular pattern is called "paisley" (or that it indeed, even had a name at all) I've always known this as "that fractal-y hippie pattern" There is no information about its use or associations in the 1960's counter-culture movement however. I did find https://hippie.wikia.org/wiki/Paisley which talks about just this (is it a valid source?) anyway, learning about that specific thing is why I came to the wp article in the first place - it was interesting to learn of its Persian/Indian origin, but I was explicitly looking for information on the 1960's counter-culture association. ~🐈🐈~ ♪ ~何? 08:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , Wikia.org is never an acceptable source, because it is a self-published source, like Wikipedia. See the Fandom section at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Vexations (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes fine, I wasn't actually expecting wikia to be an acceptable source, but what about the 1960's counter-culture association that this design has? I know not much about this, nor am I an experienced wikipedia *editor* (I mostly gnome) so I wouldn't know where to start. ~🐈🐈~ ♪ ~何? 12:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe you'll find your answer - or at least a jumping off point - in the "Bandana" section of this article where the association with the Psychedelic movement of the 60s and the Beatles are both mentioned in association with the popularity of paisley patterned bandanas. Mikerrr (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've moved that whole para into the lead, as it isn't bandana-specific. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverting syndrome
This my edition for origin section of this article.👇🏻

There is evidence to suggest that cypress had symbolic significanc in pre-Islamic Iran And paisley is a continuation of the same concept of cypress. Especially because the concept of cypress continued in classical Persian literature. Cypress is a symbol of individual freedom and independence in classical Persian literature. Also, paisley is called "بته جقه"(bote jeghe) in Persian, which "بته"(bote) or "بوته"(bute) means bush(and "جقه"(jeghe) means feather).

According to a Zoroastrian tradition recorded by the Zoroastrian poet Daqīqī a sapling of the “noble cypress” (sarv-e āzāda) was brought from paradise by Zoroaster to the Kayanid king Goštāsp, who planted it, as a memorial to his conversion to Zoroastrianism, near the first fire templein Kašmar/Kāšmar in Khorasan. According to the Nozhat alqolūb (Written in the fourteenth century) ,the Kāšmar cypress was planted by Jāmāsp, Zoroaster’s son-in-law and Goštāsp’s minister.

Islamic sources show that the Iranians also considered a tree in Kashmar sacred after the Arab invasion and considered it the tree of Zoroaster. The Kashmir tree was later cut down by Al-Mutawakkil, the Abbasid caliph, and the wood was taken to Baghdad. This tree was 1400 years old when it was cut down. 

But my edition was reverted. However it is more accurate and complete than what is now! What's it's problem? Histo.beh (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Paisley bandanas and American history
The section about paisley and bandanas and US history seems to be a generalized recasting of facts around the bandana, but there is not specific evidence of paisley bandanas in that period. it seems to be a synthesis of "many bandanas have paisley patterns" and "bandanas were common in US history." The specific combination does not seem to exist.

So the section about that topic is probably wrong to make that connection to paisley, and as a result is really only about banadanas, not specifically paisley ones, and thus would fit better in the article for Bandana. 73.193.118.20 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there other pattern designs other than paisley?
Or are there different paisleys/paisley pattern designs? If so does each unique pattern designs have a different name? I have tons of different patterns that are all mostly paisley but differently designed patterns.how do I find out what each unique name is for each different design pattern?or is it all just simply paisley, no matter the uniqueness of them being paisley pattern but a small bit different. I'm aware there are different prints, like cowprint,polkadot,camo, etc. But I'm wondering about the paisley patterns that are paisley but they're not the same as the other paisley. Jaylovetripp (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally they are all just paisley. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)