 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
For bombast the OED says, "mid 16th century (denoting raw cotton or cotton wool used as padding, later used figuratively)".
Both bombast and fustian may be metaphors for pompous, but that doesn't mean they're the same type of physical object. We need to have a source that uses bombast to refer to the woven cloth.--72.152.235.205 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fustian is a useless blue blur. --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:48B1:FABE:6C83:FC2F (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]
The language selector dropdown menu links to what is supposedly the equivalent page on the German Wikipedia: Barchent [de]. However, that page describes a cotton-linen blend with a cotton weft and a linen warp that was historically made from camelhair, used for undergarments and socks in WWI, isn't in use anymore, and doesn't seem to have much in common with fustian, this category (not specific type of cloth) of heavy cotton weaves mainly used for padding.
That largely matches the description of the "original fustian" described here, but the two names seem to have developed differently enough that "Barchent" still refers to a very specific type of cloth, while "fustian" (as the article describes) came to lose its meaning and to refer to an entire category of loosely-related cloths ("The term seems to have quickly become less precise […] and in the reign of Edward III of England, the name was given to a woollen fabric").
I might be wrong, so please give me some second opinions here, but it seems to me that the two pages are tangentially related at best and certainly not equivalent articles describing the same thing. Could it be this linking from one to the other was mistaken (or one of the pages got moved/merged/renamed and the association between the two was rendered meaningless at some point)?
--HashtagH (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
