Talk:Pottery/Archive 3

I would like to ask for the opinions of interested Wikipedians on the issues concerning the Pottery article currently being mediated at Sean Brunnock's talk page, see User_talk:Brunnock. For background information on this matter please refer to the discussions under various headings above.

For me, the major issue is emphatically not the question of whether Jomon vessels are the earliest known pottery, or whether the Dolni Vestonice figurines are the earliest known pottery. The issue at stake is much simpler than that; it is the question of whether or not the article should be re-written to reflect the fact that definitions of the term pottery vary: the term is defined by some authorities to apply to vessels alone and by others, who take a broader view, to apply to a wider range of artifacts, including such things as figurines.

I think I am not alone in believing that the article should reflect the fact that broader and perfectly valid definitions of the term pottery exist. I also believe that the article should be re-written using a neutral voice to remove direct and contentious claims that any objects, be they Dolni Vestonice figurines, Gulf of Cambay artifacts or Jomon vessels, represent the earliest pottery. Wikipedia is not The Guinness Book of Records.

Could I ask you to express your opinions on Sean Brunnock's talk page User_talk:Brunnock, which is where the attempt at mediation is taking place.

Regards, Nick. Nick 12:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be appreciative if folks would refrain from posting their personal opinions on my talk page. They are welcome to do so here. --Sean Brunnock 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, would you prefer to transfer the whole discussion to the official mediation page at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-16_Difference_of_opinion_about_pottery.? We could move all of the relevant words on your talk page there too. Regards, Nick. Nick 13:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick, the mediation page states that If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Coordination archives. --Sean Brunnock 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, I don't recall expressing a complaint about the mediation procedure, you misunderstand me I think. I'd taken your comments above to indicate that you didn't want your talk page cluttered-up with comments and suggested that we might transfer the discussion to the mediation page. I didn't have any ulterior motives for making this suggestion, in fact I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what ulterior motives I could have. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nick, Sean, Teapotgeorge, Tutmosis. Taking note of Sean's comment I have copied my suggestion that first appeared on his pages earlier today below.

I have been reading through the talk pages here and over at Pottery (and there is a lot!). But there is also much good stuff. I have picked some citations out from the pages, and some from books. I am not claiming this to be my own. I have tried to make a summary but which covers both sides. I suggest this as the start of the whole article:

Pottery is (1) the ware made by potters; (2) a ceramic material, (3) a place where pottery wares are made; (4) the business of the potter

More specific definitions lack universal agreement, with some writers advising “it can have various meanings and so has been avoided whenever possible [1]” Published definitions include:

• "All fired ceramic wares that contain clay when formed, except technical, structural, and refractory products." [2]
• "China, earthenware and any article made from clay or from a mixture containing clay and other materials" [3]
• "A class of ceramic artefacts in which clay is formed into containers by hand or in molds or with a potter's wheel, often decorated, and fired"[4]
• "The term pottery includes many varieties of ware from the crudest vessels of prehistoric times to the most beautiful decorated porcelains, stoneware and earthenware; it also includes many articles such as large grain-jars used in ancient times for storing corn and other dry materials, wine-jars and modern sanitaryware and the large tanks for containing corrosive acids. Many kinds of earthenware, stoneware and porcelains are used for scientific and experimental purposes as well as electrical apparatus (insulators, switch-bases, sparking plugs and bases or frames for electrical heating appliances)" [5]

[1] Singer, F. and Singer, S.S., Industrial Ceramics (Chapman Hall, 1963)

[2] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM

[3] COSHH in the Production of Pottery, Approved Code of Practice. HM Stationery Office 1990.

[4] Ashmore and Sharer 2000: 252). University of Denver

[5] The Chemistry And Physics Of Clays. 3rd edition. A.Searle & R.W.Grimshaw. Ernest Benn. 1959

Thanx--Theriac 14:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So how would we rewrite the lead with the above definitions, anyone have any suggestions? — Tutmosis 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tutmosis. Why not

As the opening line have Pottery is (1) the ware made by potters; (2) a ceramic material, (3) a place where pottery wares are made; (4) the business of the potter

Then under a subheading of "Definitions" have More specific definitions lack universal agreement, with some writers advising “it can have various meanings and so has been avoided whenever possible. Published definitions include: then all the five examples. The citations tidied away to the bootom of the page. ThanxTheriac 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I definetely would agree with that. Ofcourse this is about Sean and Nick and they should be happy with the rewrite, if we proceed with it. So I want hear what they have to say.

Also check this out: Dictionary.com encyclopedia displays 3 seperate encyclopedia entries for pottery including 1 from wikipedia. I was quite suprised by the wikipedia entry. What version of the article is that? Also to consider, all those entries cite pottery-related books, has anyone read anyone of them? They seem relevant. — Tutmosis 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tutmosis. Thank you. I hope there can be agreement on my suggestion. It does recognise the different useages. The Wikipedia entry on the page you give is different? Could it be an old one? About reading the books, which ones? I have have read many ceramic (or pottery :-)) books ThanxTheriac 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All this seemed like they might contain some information regarding the history of the term "pottery":

See L. A. Boger, The Dictionary of World Pottery and Porcelain (1970)

E. Cooper, A History of Pottery (1973)

R. Fournier, The Illustrated Dictionary of Pottery Decoration (1986)

ASTM Standard C 242-01 “Standard Terminology of Ceramic Whitewares and Related Products”

Hamer, Frank and Janet. (1991). The Potter's Dictionary of Materials and Techniques, Third Edition. London: A & C Black Publishers. ISBN 0-8122-3112-0.

Rice, Prudence M. (1987). Pottery Analysis – A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-71118-8.

— Tutmosis 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Theriac's new lead looks very good. Lots of citations. The very first sentence may need a citation. (Don't blame me. I didn't write the rules.) --Sean Brunnock 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Thanks. Is there anything in the first sentence you do not agree with? Or are you just being exact with the rules? The reason I ask is that its looks to have existed in the article for sometime without any problem. AND I could try to chase citations down but it may take time. ThanxTheriac 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I have no objections. It's just Wikipedia policy that everything must be cited. Considering how contentious this has been, you might as well go whole-hog. --Sean Brunnock 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Thanks again. How about waiting for Nick's opinion? If he is OK with my suggestion I will add. I will then hunt down citations to support the first sentence. ThanxTheriac 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, I think that Theriac's (User:Theriac) proposed solution definitely offers a way forward. Were it to be implemented, the history part of the article would then have to be re-written along the lines of:

The earliest known ceramic objects are twelve-thousand year old figurines found at Dolni Vestonice in the modern-day Czech Republic. The figurines in include the notable Venus of ... and so on.

and

The earliest known pottery vessels are those made by the peoples of the Incipient Jomon period ... and so on.

Of course, having established definitions for the term pottery earlier in the article any statement or footnote in the history section to the effect that "Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels ... earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolní Věstonice are not considered pottery" would have to be removed, because leaving it in place would be re-writing the agreed definition of the term pottery. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks. I was trying to keep the debate on definitions wholly separate from the debate about the inclusion and description of the Venus figures. I will add the agreed definitions to the introduction part later. I provisionally agree with your suggestions for changes to the history section. But could you submit a fuller section? I personally feel that all finds (Jomon, Venus, others?) that readers may find interesting should have some mention. Comment about, for example, the view of archaeologists should also be included

I try to remember : collaboratively writtern; neutral phrasing; not dedicated to a single field of study; supported by citations

ThanxTheriac 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Theriac, In my view only, of course, I'm afraid that the debate on definitions is so closely bound to the debate on the inclusion of the figurines that it will be impossible to keep the the two separate from one another. In fact the whole discussion about whether or not the figurines should feature in the article hinges on definitions of the term pottery. Yes, I agree fully that the Dolni Vestonice wares, the Jomon wares and any other candidates should be included in the article, but that no view should be expressed about which represents the earliest pottery. I think that the place for the archaeologists' definition of pottery would be in your proposed definitions section near to the start of the article. It would I guess say something like Archaeologists tend to confine usage of the term pottery to vessels; pots, dishes and such wares [Sean's references go here] while other authorities define the term more broadly [Theriac's references go here] to include such ceramic wares as figurines, statuettes and tiles. How about this? Regards, Nick. Nick 12:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, after including the words immediately above in the definitions section, the body of the history section might then say something like this:

The earliest ceramic objects found so far are figurines discovered at Dolni Vestonice in modern-day Czechoslovakia. They were made more than twenty-five thousand years ago and are, it has been claimed, also the earliest known wholly man-made objects [Nick to provide a reference for this]. Stephen Chrisomalis writes of these wares In the case of pottery, Childe argues, "A moulded lump might easily have fallen into the fire and been baked hard. Apparently an intelligent mammoth-hunter at Dolni Vestonice (Moravia) noted the result of such an accident and repeated it deliberately" (Childe 1963 [1953]: 48). What is more amazing is that Dolni Vestonice is an Upper Paleolithic site, where pottery appears to have existed millennia before its rediscovery in Jomon period Japan and elsewhere. [Citations for the Chrisomalis reference and the Childe reference go here]

The earliest pottery vessels known are those made by the Incipient Jomon people of Japan around 10,500 BC.^[1] Of these wares Jared Diamond writes ”For the first time in human experience, people had watertight containers readily available in any desired shape. With their new ability to boil or steam food, they gained access to abundant resources that had previously been difficult to use: leafy vegetables, which would burn or dry out if cooked on an open fire; shellfish, which could now be opened easily; and toxic foods like acorns, which could now have their toxins boiled out. Soft-boiled foods could be fed to small children, permitting earlier weaning and more closely spaced babies. Toothless old people, the repositories of information in a preliterate society, could now be fed and live longer. All those momentous consequences of pottery triggered a population explosion, causing Japan’s population to climb from an estimated few thousand to a quarter of a million.” ^[2]

There we are, all nicely balanced. Regards, Nick. Nick 15:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nick, I have removed the note that you objected to and I have placed a reference to Venus figurines in the History section. The Chrisomalis paper is not an acceptable reference. It's a student paper that was never published. Please use books or journals as references. --Sean Brunnock 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi Sean. I personally would not be so quick to dismiss the Chrisomalis paper (which I have not read but I would like. Could someone give me more details). Could a Wikipedia mediator pass comment about its suitability? ThanxTheriac 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I see Nick's proposal very reasonable except for "What is more amazing is that Dolni Vestonice is an Upper Paleolithic site, where pottery appears to have existed millennia before its rediscovery in Jomon period Japan and elsewhere. [Citations for the Chrisomalis reference and the Childe reference go here]" sentence. Do we really need a sentence that starts with "What is more amazing" and a direct reference to Ancient Japanese pottery, considering the fact this whole conflict is centered on this comparison? Also to add, I think the figurines and vessels are 2 different things and shouldn't be compared or made out to look like they are related to each other, except the fact they are "ceramic" which is quite obvious on it's own. — Tutmosis 16:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hi Tutmosis. I think you have touched onto the very heart of the debate, that is ceramic v pottery useage. Sean follows what he says is the archaelogists' definition that "pottery" must be a vessel (I do not know enough archaelogists to know myself if this is used by them all. [I know that last bit is opinion]). Nick follows the wider useage of "pottery" being any article shaped in clay and then fired
    • I think with a careful and neutral choice of words that both can be accomadated
    • ThanxTheriac 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I definetely agree, I only see that one sentence problematic. Everything else I think sounds great. — Tutmosis 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A few postings back Theriac asked for more on the Chrisomalis paper. By all means Theriac, the article started out in PDF-format and has been cached by Google. This eventuality is covered in Wikipedia:References. The URL for the paper is: . It appears to be a perfectly respectable piece of work written by an anthropology student doing post-graduate research. It must also have been published because if it wasn't then I would not have been able to find it using the Google Scholar search engine. Regards, Nick. Nick 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong and wrong. Stephen Chrisomalis received his PhD in 2003. The paper that Nick has cited is dated 1996. This is clearly not "post-graduate research". Chrisomalis doesn't even list this paper on his CV- . --Sean Brunnock 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, what you've written in your recent edits to the history section look to me like a step in the right direction. I think you might care to acknowledge Diamond in the body of the text, for example, Diamond wrote: These durable and watertight containers..." and replace the bits that you chopped out of his article with dots. I'd even be happy to see you quote Diamond's statement from the same article The end of the Ice Age was accompanied by the first of the two most decisive changes in Japanese history: the invention of pottery because it would be him saying it and not Wikipedia. But this would have to be balanced by something like the Chrisomalis quote.

However, my problems with what you have written are, of course, that you have removed all reference to the figurines, save to dismiss them as not being pottery, and that you persist in maintaining (in a slightly modified form) that Jomon wares are the earliest pottery. This is and always has been the sticking point. Regards, Nick. Nick 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nick, it is not my opinion that Jomon pottery is the oldest pottery yet found. It's a fact. It's a fact bourne out by the 12 citations at the top of this page. The article doesn't need "balance". Wikipedia has no such policy. If you want to state that Venus figurines are pottery, then you have to cite something. Tutmosis has already told you that you need to cite a book or a journal. --Sean Brunnock 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, I think you know well enough that it is not (and has never been) my position that the Venus figurines are pottery and I have never referred to them as being pottery. My view is, as you know, that by some definitions of the term pottery they might fairly be described as pottery. Round and round we go. We'll be walking around Windmill Hill down by Avebury tomorrow, so there'll be a bit of a gap until my next posting. At Windmill Hill I'll be kicking over the mole-hills looking for fragments of Neolithic pottery, depend upon it. Regards, Nick. Nick 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. I have been rather busy today. I have read through the previous talk pages (very long and a little hot at times) There have been references to Venus and pottery. I have listed these below. Have also included some of my own. These support that some mention of the Venus should be incuded (I strongly support the inclusion of the Jomon articles)--Theriac 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yet from the famous site of Dolni Vetonice in Czecholslovakia, where Upper Palaeolithic huts have been dated to 23,000 BC and whose associated flint industry is Eastern Gravettian, comes the fired-clay Venus figurine, the oldest identified (Wymer 19828: 262) Not an isolated find, the figurine was recovered along with 2,200 pellets of baked clay, some of which were fragments of broken or unfinished statuettes (ibid 239). Wymer himself concludes, not only that pottery figurines are unknown from any other Upper Palaeolithic site, but that ‘this invention of ceramic techniques was a flash which failed to ignite any need or response in the community and probably died with its inventor

The Emergence of Civilization: From Hunting and Gathering to Agriculture, Cities, and the State in the Near East. Charles Keith Maisels. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1994), pp. 776-777

• “Although the earliest fired pottery based on wet clay and bone was unearthed at Vestonice (Czechoslovakia) and dated 25,000 years ago”

Ethics, Tools, and the Engineer. R.E. Spier. CRC. 2001. ISBN 0849337402

• “But most communities, tending their crops in the Neolithic Revolution, soon discover the technique and use of pottery. With one remarkable exception, at Dolni Vestonice in the Czech Republic (where models of animals and a Venus figurine have been dated to about 25,000 years ago), the earliest examples come from the Middle East, the region where agriculture first develops. Pottery fragments from about 6500 BC have been found at Catal Huyuk in Turkey”

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab98

• “Soffer and her coworkers previously identified impressions of woven material on 27,000-year-old pottery from a Czech Republic site”

Science News. Vol. 158. No. 17, 2000. P.g 261.

• “Artifacts from a 27,000-year-old site in the Czech Republic indicate that a broad spectrum of its ancient residents—including women, children, and the elderly—joined hunting expeditions in which rabbits, foxes, and other small prey were caught in homemade nets. Communal hunting of this type occurs in some modern hunter-gatherer groups and typically results in large food yields, ceremonial gatherings, and feasts, says study director Olga Soffer of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. Soffer and her colleagues identified impressions of woven material on pottery fragments found at the site. “

Science News. Vol. 153, No. 21, 1998, p. 331

• “The oldest ceramic ever manufactured, the Venus of Dolni Vestonice, is displayed at the Anthropology Museum, at Brno, Czech Republic. The Venus of Dolni Vestonice was visited by Prof. Joseph Davidovits who writes: ” I still had for my eyes the image of the yellow limestone Venus displayed at the Vienna Museum, Austria, to be very surprised by this one. It was not worked in soft stone, but manufactured out of terra cotta. Thus, I was looking at the oldest ceramic manufactured by Homo Sapiens 25.000 years ago (...) We have been taught that the terra cotta pottery was not invented before the Neolithic Age, 15.000 years later. And yet, I had in front of me an artifact resulting from the use of fire, at a time when, logically, the prehistoric men did not master this technique, according to the teaching of Prehistory.”

GeoPolymer Institute News. 28 June 2006

• ”Dolni Vestonice was an Upper Paleolithic habitation in Czechoslovakia on a swamp at the joint of two rivers near the Moravian mountains. In the spring of 1986, near the village of Dolni Vestonice, the remains of three teenagers were discovered in a common grave. Approximatley 27,640 years had passed from the time of the burial until they were found. Two of the skeletons were heavily built males while the third was judged to be a female based on its slender proportions. Archaeologists who examined her skeletal remains found evidence of a stroke or other illness which left her painfully crippled and her face deformed. The two males had died healthy, but remains of a thick wooden pole thrust through the hip of one of them suggests that the death didn’t happen naturally. On the ground surrounding the burial site, red ocher powder was splashed, which was thought to be for protection. Dolni Vestonice is also the site of the earliest known potter’s kiln. For acres around, the fertile clay soil is seeded with carved and molded images of animals, women, strange engravings, personal ornaments, and decorated graves. In the main hut, where the people ate and slept, two items were found: a goddess figurine made of fired clay and a small and cautiously carved portrait made from mammoth ivory of a woman whose face was drooped on one side. The goddess figurine is the oldest known baked clay figurine. On top of its head are holes which may have held grasses or herbs. The potter scratched two slits that stretched from the eyes to the chest which were thought to be the life-giving tears of the mother goddess. Above the encampment in a small, dry-hut, whose door faced towards the east, was the kiln. Scattered around the oven were many fragments of fired clay. Remains of clay animals, some stabbed as if hunted, and other pieces of blackened pottery still bear the fingerprints of the potter.”

Minnesota State University. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/europe/dolni_vestonice.html

• Terry, I kept my citations at the top of this page brief out of courtesy to the readers. Anyways, which of your citations do you consider to be the best? --Sean Brunnock 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I listed the citations in the wrong place. I hope you will excuse my inexperience. Your question “which of your citations do you consider to be the best” (not that they are mine) but do I need to decide which is “best”? I listed these just to support that the Venus figure should be mentioned in this article. Again I stress that I believe the Jomon should be included. ThanxTheriac 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, Re: Balance. Before I go to bed and before we go walking, I commend Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias to your attention. Particularly this: The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. Regards, Nick. Nick 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• And what source of information do you think has "comparable reputability" to Current World Archaeology magazine which published an article titled The Oldest Pottery in the World less than 4 years ago?--Sean Brunnock 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, walk cancelled, snow. Last year when this question was discussed on these very pages you managed to drag out the proceedings until the subject was talked out. I hope you understand that I am not going to allow this to happen again. If it becomes necessary, I will take the issues in question to binding arbitration and I think you have a fair idea of what the likely outcome of this would be. You will, to take one small example, find yourself arguing a case that the editor of Webster's Dictionary is wrong. I suggest that we find an agreement before things come to this, but this will have to be based on the understanding that the article makes no claims, direct or implied, that any wares, be they Jomon vessels, Venus figurines or any others, are the earliest pottery. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, again. I'd also draw your attention to the reference to Wymer posted by Theriac above. Wymer himself concludes, not only that pottery figurines are unknown from any other Upper Palaeolithic site, but that "this invention of ceramic techniques was a flash which failed to ignite any need or response in the community and probably died with its inventor." John Wymer was one of the really big-hitters in the field of Palaeolithic archaeology. He died early last year, unfortunately. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Time flies, so I'd like to raise another important issue now. I believe that many of the academics whose words we are wrenching off the page and hurling about here would be outraged to learn that their works are being used, even indirectly, in a war of words being waged between extreme factions in a shallow-nationalistic, tub-thumping conflict over what is, or is not, the world's earliest pottery. With some rare exceptions, scholars do not write the things that they write so that their words can be used in this way and it is highly disrespectful, to them, to do this. The war of words to which I refer is, of course, not being waged here; it is by Sean's account being fought elsewhere within Wikipedia. It remains a fact, however, that Sean has re-written the Pottery article in such a way as to present the unchallenged message that Jomon pottery is the world's earliest pottery, so that he can use this as a weapon in his war with the forces of darkness. Sean does not deny this and I have never questioned his honesty in this regard, or, in fact, his honesty in any regard. However, I believe strongly that the content of the Wikipedia article on pottery should not be determined by such considerations. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for the URL to the Chrisomalis (bit of reading for me tonight) ThanxTheriac 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, Hi Sean. After just reading Nick’s recent message above I just wanted to state that I am not a member of the “forces of darkness.” I also recall an earlier comment from Sean about prejudiced individuals. I know nothing about this. I have just tried to add and improve Wikipedia where I can.

I would like to agree with something that Sean wrote “Nick, it is not my opinion that Jomon pottery is the oldest pottery yet found. “ (my highlighting.) This is important. There may be new finds out there that have not been discovered. It will never be possible to know when the first pottery was made, just the oldest that has currently identified

As I have written previously I add support to:

• The inclusion of both the Jomon finds and the Venus (and new ones?)
• Acknowledgement of all useages of the word “pottery”
• Collaboratively writtern; neutral phrasing; not dedicated to a single field of study; supported by citations

--Theriac 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Theriac and All, Re-reading what I wrote in my last posting, I think it is just possible that this might be misunderstood as being a criticism of the helpful people who have posted references and quotations in this discussion. This is far from being the case. Regards, Nick. Nick 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. "misunderstood as being a criticism " Not by me! Sorry about the snow. It has been pretty cold down this way as well. Theriac 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this Theriac. What Sean wrote, by the way, was Nick, it is not my opinion that Jomon pottery is the oldest pottery yet found. It's a fact. Which rather changes its meaning. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Added later: of course, it goes without saying that I agree entirely with your three bullet-points above. Nick 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nick, the sentence that you objected to has been removed. The Venus of Dolni Vestonice is mentioned in the body of the article. What do you want now? --Sean Brunnock 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean, Hi Nick. How about setting up a sandbox? This would allow suggestions to be submitted and commented on (and if need, though I hope it would not be needed, for a moderator to consider) ThanxTheriac 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sandbox for what? What do you want? You keep saying that you want Venus figurines mentioned in the article and I keep pointing out that the Venus of Dolni Vestonice is mentioned. So what do you want? --Sean Brunnock 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. The sandbox would allow suggestions of ammendments to be submitted and discussed. These may include:

• Why some writers quote Jomon as the earliest pottery (i.e. useage of pottery to be 'ceramic vessels')
• Why some writers quote the Venus to be valid (i.e. useage of pottery to be clay based article with no reference to shape)
• Citations to other finds (I do not have any now but who there might be out there)
• Relevant information, such as the first known potter's wheel

ThanxTheriac 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds a lot like original research. Why don't you and Nick start finding citations to all of the unsourced material in the article? Most of the article is unsourced whereas the history section has many citations (except for the parts that Nick added). --Sean Brunnock 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. No it would not be original research. Ammendments would be supported by citations. I suggested a sandbox to allow anything new to be scrutinised, including, should this be necessary, a moderator. Your question about all the article? Nick, with a little input from me, was in the process of updating / correcting / ammending the article before this long discussion started. ThanxTheriac 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, in the past year Nick has never added a citation. I got involved with this article again because Nick was deleting citations. They're not exactly a priority for him. I would feel more comfortable if I could see that Nick was adding citations to the article. --Sean Brunnock 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at the outstanding issue. Saun archaeological "pots and vessels" definition is included into the lead. The Venus of Dolní Věstonice is mentioned in 'History'. I'm confused at the outstanding, issue are we back to claiming which is the oldest considered pottery? As far as I was informed no source says Venus figurines are the oldest known pottery, they were only refered to as pottery figurines in some sources. Also can this sentence be rephrased ...pottery was first developed by the Jomon in Japan around 10,500 BCE. to what we suggested above, instead of saying "pottery" clearly say "pots and vessels"? — Tutmosis 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I also don't understand the terms "pottery figurines" and "pottery vessels". Nick and others insist on adhering to dictionary definitions of pottery, but all of the definitions that I've seen say that the term "pottery" is a noun. Theriac just expanded this article's definition of pottery to cover many viewpoints and they all use the term pottery as a noun. None of them call the term pottery an adjective. The adjective for pottery is "ceramic" and it's an irregular adjective- one of several in the English language (there's a list at List of irregular English adjectives.) I found an interesting article on the Clay Art mailing list on the subject- I doubt that any educated, English-speaking person would describe something as being a "pottery sculpture" or "pottery pot". So it appears that these controversial terms such as "pottery figurines" are simply bad English. --Sean Brunnock 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tutmosis. I have recently listed a number of citations about the Venus of Vestonice being classed a pottery and being around 27,000 years old. These are sonewhere above. But to re-quote a fairly short one:

• “Although the earliest fired pottery based on wet clay and bone was unearthed at Vestonice (Czechoslovakia) and dated 25,000 years ago”

Ethics, Tools, and the Engineer. R.E. Spier. CRC. 2001. ISBN 0849337402

My point is only that if supported by citations these should be mentioned. (Again I note that I support the inclusoion of the Jomon finds. But not together with others) ThanxTheriac 08:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean.

• Rather selectively quoting by you?. The full quotation from Clayart is “ Perhaps it would help if everyone learns that the word "ceramic" is only an adjective to describe something made from clay? I doubt that any educated, English-speaking person would describe something as being a "pottery sculpture" or "pottery pot". Equally wrong, would be a "sculpture made of ceramics". According to this person then ceramics are something made of clay. Please refer to ceramics to see this is not correct. Also I do not believe that one person’s opinion on a mailing list is anyway conclusive
• "So it appears that these controversial terms such as "pottery figurines" are simply bad English." Now that is original research. Anyway it does not matter if it is bad english as there are published works that do use “pottery figures”
• I also do not understand the argument (if there is one?) They have been citations given where the Jomon finds are dated as being the oldest, and thee have been other citations where the Venus of Vestonice is dated as being the oldest. All the citations refer to “pottery”. These should not be excluded fromt the article

ThanxTheriac 09:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, I've looked at your latest edits of the history section. I think I'd better start by saying that I don't enjoy backing people into corners without giving them an escape route, because it's not good tactics to do this and more importantly, because it hurts me when I do it. Your latest wording is this While ceramics had been developed in Europe earlier (e.g. Venus of Dolni Vestonice), pottery was first developed by the Jomon in Japan around 10,500 BCE.[ref]. As I have mentioned above, this is the heart of the problem, you still don't mention the figurines, save to dismiss them as not being pottery, and you still insist on maintaining that Jomon wares are the earliest pottery.

There is a way round the problem; quote Diamond's words: The end of the Ice Age was accompanied by the first of the two most decisive changes in Japanese history: the invention of pottery [ref]. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to do this, but it would also make it clear that it was Diamond saying these things and not Wikipedia. To balance things up there would have to be a proper mention of the figurines, with references, but there would be no need to call them pottery. Ceramic objects or some such term would do. This is the best I can do for you, Sean. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nick, it is not my opinion that Jomon pottery is the oldest, nor is it Diamond's. There are 12 citations at the top of this page from verifiable and reliable sources which clearly and unambiguously state that Jomon pottery is the oldest yet found. The references which you have cited consist of papers and books which use the word "pottery" as an adjective, an unpublished student paper, and a book about engineering ethics. Your references don't pass muster as "comparable reputability". --Sean Brunnock 16:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Sean, Hi Nick. This is why I suggested a sandpit. A version could be prepared there and submitted for review (and I am sorry to see this looks as if a moderator will be needed) ThanxTheriac

Hello Sean, if your posting above (Nick, it is not my opinion...) really is your last word on this matter then I think we really have to accept that mediation has broken down and consider the next step. Could I ask for our mediator's view on whether or not he thinks that further mediation is going to help. Tutmosis? Regards, Nick. Nick 17:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion did break down. I ask again that we split the sentence as was suggested: "earliest ceramic art...Venus figurines" while earliest traditional pottery...Japan". The history section already does this but I guess we could split the sentence into 2. I don't really see why both of you care so much as to see a certain discovery stated as "first". I think it's fine to just say that the earliest ceramic art (which is considered pottery in some cirles) is the Venus figurines, but the earliest (traditional definition) pottery of pots and vessels is found in Japan. Why is it such a big issue to avoid saying that and instead claim "pottery" is this? We already came to the conclusion that the meaning of pottery varies across circles, therefore the history section should read the same. As to the suggestion to take this discussion a step further, I guess a request for comment would be reasonable, but this is such a tiny issue I am suprised it needed to be taken as far as it already has been. — Tutmosis 19:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tutmosis. Thank you for your suggestions, with which I largely agree. Recognising there are differences in the useage of “pottery”, which are published, is, I believe, correct. My only comment is around certain choice of words

• For the Venus you suggested “ceramic art (which is considered pottery in some circles)” I do not think it appropriate for us to class it as “art.” We do not know why it was made. It may have been a religious artefact. We just do not know.
• For the Jomon you suggested “the earliest (traditional definition) pottery of pots and vessels“ This would be more accurate to be “the earliest (using the definitions favoured by many archaeologists) pottery of pots and vessels“

ThanxTheriac 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tutmosis, thanks for joining us. Sorry, I evidently haven't made my position clear in these discussions, so I'll have another try. Taking what for me is your main point above, I must stress again that I have no interest in arguing that the figurines represented by the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are the world's earliest pottery. In fact, I have no interest in claiming that any particular wares represent the world's oldest pottery. This is not a simple case of opposing views, with Sean arguing on the one hand that the Jomon wares are the earliest pottery and with me on the other hand arguing that the figurines are the earliest pottery. It is more complicated than this. Sean's case is that the Jomon wares are without question the earliest pottery and that this clear message alone should appear in the article. My case is that, as you have pointed out, definitions of the term pottery vary widely and that the article should reflect this fact. It is this very point that Sean will not accept, the need for balance in the article to reflect differing but perfectly valid definitions of the term pottery. For reasons of his own (explained by me above) Sean, in my opinion, will never willingly accept an edit to the article that in any way softens his message that Jomon vessels are the earliest pottery. With respect, this is, I believe, a very important issue, it concerns everything that Wikipedia is supposed to be about; the people who come here are entitled to a balanced view. I think that now might be the time to make a request for comment, because I am fairly confident that further mediation will not produce agreement. Regards, Nick. Nick 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I liked the very well done introduction idea by Theriac with a list of definitions, however according to the sources they consolidated, one word was misquoted, and it makes all the difference: "(2) a ceramic material" should be "(2) a ceramic ware" . I also looked up "Ware" in the dictionary and it seems very suitable. Goldenrowley 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What I wonder should be the criteria for being included in this section? Would for example Len Castle be better placed in the studio potters section of the Studio pottery page? Teapotgeorge 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgreoge. I agree. Transfer him over to "Studio Pottery". There is already an internal link in the "Pottery" article to the whole of "Studio Pottery" ThanxTheriac 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is concerned with definitions of the term pottery and the way that differing definitions of the term should affect the content of the Pottery article.

The term pottery is defined narrowly by some reputable authorities to exclude everything but pottery vessels; pots, dishes and suchlike things. Other equally reputable authorities define the term more widely, to include such things as figurines, statuettes and tiles.

The question of when and where the first pottery was made is a highly contentious one in some quarters. Attempts have been made on one side to prove that the earliest pottery is that represented by ceramic figurines found in the modern-day Czech Republic, while others have sought to prove that the earliest pottery is that represented by ceramic vessels found in modern-day Japan.

A protagonist in the dispute holds the firm opinion that only vessels can be pottery and from this argues that the pottery article must present without qualification the view that the Japanese vessels are the world's earliest pottery.

Another protagonist in the dispute holds the view that the wider definitions of the term pottery should be taken into account and that mention of the Czech figurines should not be excluded from the article.

This matter has been discussed since February of last year under many headings on this page and at User_talk:Brunnock. 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are 12 citations at the top of this page which state clearly and unambiguously that Jomon pottery is the oldest yet found. The Venus of Dolní Věstonice is mentioned in the article. --Sean Brunnock 11:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, The Venus of Dolní Věstonice is mentioned in the article but only so that it can be dismissed as not being pottery. Let's wait and see what the comments will be. Regards, Nick. Nick 12:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nick, Sean, moderator, everyone. The article currently states the Jomon finds are the oldest pottery. The article currently describes the Venus of Vestonice to be ceramic. It does not describe it as pottery. I understand this a distinction that Sean is very keen to maintain. But:

• There are different useages of the term "pottery" across fields of study
• There are published references to the Jomon finds being the oldest pottery
• There are published references to the Venus of Vestonice being pottery and being older than the Jomon finds
• There are published references to other finds that are pottery and are older than the Jomon finds

The article should include all published references

ThanxTheriac 12:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pottery" should be disambiguated at the beginning of the article, noting that some authorities use it to refer to any ceramic artifact, while others use it to refer specifically to vessels. The article can then continue under either definition--I would encourage continuing under the narrow definition (vessels), with a link to ceramics for discussion of the use and development of ceramics in general. (With mention, in that article, that some authorities use "pottery" to refer to all ceramics, etc.) Continuing the article under the "broad" definition of ceramics (all pottery) would create redundancy, since surely the ceramics article would have to include these as well, in any event.

I would also add, regarding the heading of this discussion, that ceramics--including pottery--were "invented" independently in multiple locations... it makes no sense to say that the Jomon society "invented" pottery, but that the Middle Eastern or Native American societies did not, merely because the Jomons were first. (Or whoever; I'm not familiar with the references of older pottery that Theriac mentions... which should certainly be included, if they are regarded as credible.) Claims that any particular society "invented" anything are always politicized--and therefore inappropriate to Wikipedia. They are attempts to claim cultural superiority on the basis of greater antiquity: "We did it first, so we're better." The only time a single culture or source can make a legitimate claim of this sort (if you ever consider claiming superiority as "legitimate"--I don't) is if that culture was the sole source of that innovation, and the entire rest of the world borrowed or adapted it from them. Such a claim might be made regarding alphabetic writing, for instance--I am not familiar with any alphabet that did not arise from cuneiform, usually in symbol set and always as the original source of the idea; this is not true of most other "basic" innovations of human society. Even where it is, the claim must be considered in light of any possible political agenda held by the person(s) making said claim. I would have the article state that "The use of pottery [and ceramics, in that article] arose in multiple locations, with the oldest recorded pottery being found in X." This is far less political--and more accurate--than saying "X invented pottery."--Vyasa Ozsvar 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your valuable comments Vyasa, I believe they definitely offer the prospect of a way ahead. I agree about the need for a note on the ambiguity of the term pottery at the head of the article. Rather than continuing the article using one definition of the term, I'd rather the article tried to reflect both; the narrow view, pottery defined as vessels and the broader view, pottery defined as including other things as well. I really don't have strong views on this, though, it's just that I think most people coming to Wikipedia would expect to find things like Palaeolithic low-fired-earth figurines mentioned under the heading of pottery. I give unqualified support to everything else you say in your comments and agree strongly with your view that “Claims that any particular society "invented" anything are always politicized--and therefore inappropriate to Wikipedia.” With one stroke you have cut to the core of what this prolonged debate has been about. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vyasa Ozsvar. I too thank you for your comments and agree thy offer a way head. I would though just comment that no one considers the "broad" definition of ceramics to be all pottery. Ceramics is a very large group of materials and includes pottery, cement, glass and a vast array of other materials such as silicon nitride, barium titanite and zirconia. For more detail have a look at the article ceramic ThanxTheriac 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Sean, we've had the issue up for comment and now it's time to think about where we go from here. So, I have to ask you whether or not at this point you will willingly accept changes to the article that reflect differing definitions of the term pottery. I also have to ask you whether or not you will insist that the article continues to represent Jomon vessels as being the earliest pottery, without balance or qualification. Regards, Nick. Nick 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what "balance or qualifications" means. All of my additions to this article are supported by citations. You've added a lot of unsourced material to this article. I think you should concentrate on adding citations. --Sean Brunnock 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is the way you want to play it Sean, I have to push things along. Even at this late stage, I'd ask you to reconsider, because if you don't I believe that things will get rough. You'll be arguing a case that the editors of several dictionaries, including Webster's, are wrong, for example. In addition, you will find your motives for resisting changes to the article which in any way soften your clear message that ... pottery was first developed by the Jomon in Japan around 10,500 BCE will be questioned. I believe it is wrong that anyone should insert a statement of opinion in a Wikipedia article and represent it to be a hard and unchallenged fact. That this fact should then be used in arguments outside of the article concerned (it must be true, Wikipedia says so) is even less tolerable. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Regards, Nick. Nick 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment but I am afraid was buried and lost. My comment is on Theriac's suggestion to offer multiple definition in the introduction. I agree with but would have you change (2) as it is not the material but the ware:

"Pottery is (1) the ware made by potters; (2) a ^fired^ ceramic material ^ware^, (3) a place where pottery wares are made; (4) the business of the potter"

I am simply staying true to this source you gave us: (2) "All fired ceramic wares that contain clay when formed, except technical, structural, and refractory products." [2]...[2] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM

Next subject, I agree with a ceramic figurine can be here. But on this page it does not HURT in fact is INTERESTING if you tell me where different ceramic wares were made in ancient time....I'd like all the different places and times, not just the "first" one made.Goldenrowley 19:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Goldenrowley, definitions are Hell; and discussions about them often crystallise into debates between lumpers and splitters. By nature, I'm a lumper, and that is why my personal preference is that things like figurines should be included in the Pottery article. I think this is where most people coming to Wikipedia would expect to find them. I'm not quite so sure about your definition (2) above, ceramics are I think, by definition (groan), fired. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nick I think I am a "splitter" for articles but a "lumper" for stubs. Goldenrowley 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Goldenrowley. I can see why you added "fired" (to be consitent with the ASTM) definition) but the change has created an example of taughtology as, by definition, all ceramics must have been fired. Still as Nick notes "definitions are hell" ThanxTheriac 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, it was me what wrote the dictionary-like headline definitions of the term pottery (pretty much as they stand in the article at present). But now I'm not so sure, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Perhaps something like this would be better:

Pottery is the ware made by potters and the places where such wares are made are called potteries. In everyday usage pottery is frequently taken to be a ceramic material, often of a lower-fired type such as earthenware or terracotta, but the term is sometimes extended to include to include higher-fired ceramics such as stoneware and porcelain. Modern-day archaeologists tend to define the term pottery in ways that confine its meaning to vessels; pots, dishes and suchlike things.

This is plainly horribly written, but something like it would help to kill several bird with one stone. Before too long I'd like to see the history section of the article broadened to cover (not in great detail) prehistoric ceramics including things like figurines and vessels (without representing any particular ware as being the earliest pottery, it goes without saying) and something like the words above would help to set the scene. Just a thought, comments? Regards, Nick. Nick 13:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick, you wanted a mediation, you got one, you agreed to use the definition that Theriac wrote, and now you want to rewrite it?

Don't you think that the history of ceramic art should be separate from the history of pottery? --Sean Brunnock 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. My only comment about your suggestions of a separate history of ceramic art is that we then have to define what art is. And, as I think you may be trying to suggest (forgive me if I am wrong), we do not know the Venus figure was art. I noted a couple of days ago it could have been a religious artifact. But we do not know. It would be wrong (and I think original research) for us to class it as art ThanxTheriac 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I made no mention of Venus figurines. There are separate articles for Pottery and Ceramic art. I think it would be a good idea to have separate histories. --Sean Brunnock 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. "separate histories" I would not agree, I would not disagree. But prior to a suggestion by anyone it would not be correct to include the Venus figure in a ceramic art piece. The figure may have been art, it may have been a religious artefact. We do not know. To class it as art is wrong, imposing modern sensibilities on an unknown culture, and original research. ThanxTheriac 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• What? Pick up an art book. Of course religious artifacts and symbols are treated as art. Read the Prehistoric art article. Venus figurines are mentioned there. They're certainly not vessels. --Sean Brunnock 17:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Thanks for the link. Seems like a good article which I am sure I will enjoy reading. But personnally I think it incredibly arrogant of modern man to decide what ancient man intended. I also think it wholly flawed. (I know that is my opinion, and I am not suggesteing that it goes into the article. But I think it opinion to decide what pre-historic man was thinking) I agree the Venus of Vestonice figure is "not vessels" I have never suggested otherwise. But to some writers, but not all, it is pottery. My position is just that the Pottery article should acknowledge all published accounts. ThanxTheriac 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's nice. Have you been able to find a published reference which states that Venus figurines are pottery? --Sean Brunnock 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Yeah. There have already been given. ThanxTheriac 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• A book about engineering ethics? A book which uses the word "pottery" as an adjective? Anything else? --Sean Brunnock 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. Yes there have been others. Please read back. Please note I am not trying to prove one is older than another. Also I am not looking to argue with you. And I am not looking to engage in criticism of various references - yours, mine or from other people. There are published references to the Jomon pottery being the oldest, and there are published references to the Venus of Vestonice being pottery and being older then the Jomon articles. ThanxTheriac 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please, I asked you before what was your best source and you wouldn't answer. One of your sources is a book about engineering ethics. If you don't have a decent reference, then you can't claim that Venus figurines are pottery. On the other hand, there are many references which refer to Venus figurines as art. Therefore, the Venus of Dolni Vestonice should be discussed in a history of ceramic art. --Sean Brunnock 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. As I noted before I do not believe it is necessary to decide which is the "best" reference. As far as I know they meet Wikipedia's requirements. These show that some writers class The Venus of Vestonice as being pottery. Sure if appropriate it should be discussed in other articles, but that does not exclude it from the Pottery article. ThanxTheriac 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Venus figurines should have her own article, she deserves it. ^should be mentioned in both places as a particularly interesting form that pottery took. Upside is that you can then categorize her in archeology (sp?), as well as in mythical objects, ceramics and ancient art, all at the same time. You could perhaps get help from the religious Wiki-project on her to explore and find sources for her religious uses. The fact that art historians talk about her as the 1st human form does not mean she was by the creator made as a "fine art". We don't know really. Art historians do talk a lot about religious icons and churches but that does not mean she is a "fine art" just like a church is not considered art exclusive of every other use. Now art historians analyze pottery pieces and put them in the art museums as art...and Venus is one of their "topics" but so are Italian sarcophogus and the design of helmets. Museums have rooms set aside for art icons. One might explore how museums classify her.Goldenrowley 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, I agree with Theriac's suggestion that the Venus figurines warrant a mention in the Pottery article. Perhaps they also warrant coverage in the Ceramics (art) article too, where they would be discussed as art rather than history. To Goldenrowley I'd suggest you'd be on pretty firm ground if you included the figurines in Ceramics (art); no-one knows what purpose they were intended to serve, trawling around I've found references suggesting that they might have a religious significance, that they might be the Palaeolithic equivalent of Playboy centrefolds and that they were made purely for the fun of watching them explode in the bonfire (the ones that survive being failures). Who knows? Perhaps they weren't made as art, but a fair number of people would regard them as art nowadays. If you want them in, put them in, I reckon. Lump-lump-lump, not split-split-split. Regards, Nick. Nick 17:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. "Palaeolithic equivalent of Playboy centrefolds" I like that suggestion! Is there a citation so it can be included? Anyway thanks for making me smile ... really needed that tday :-) ThanxTheriac 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all... could we archive some of this page it takes at least 1 minute for me to load! I did not mean to startle you, I said I liked the introduction, but it is just one word that really has no basis. Pottery is not a "material". Clay is the material. Pottery is an object or "ware" How about change to pottery is: "2) a ceramic ware". I can live without "a fired ceramic ware" Goldenrowley 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. I agree that archiving some of the debate would help. I will leave it to others as I don not know how to do it! Your secondd point - pottery is most certainly a material. Pottery is a type of ceramic material. (The word can have other meanings, such as an article / object ) Clay is not the material. Clay minerals would have been present when the article was shaped (and almost certainly along with other minerals such as quartz and feldspar) But pottery contains no clay. The firing changes it. The clay can never be reconstituted. (Please note this is wholly separate to the debate about figurines, vessels, Venus etc.) ThanxTheriac 08:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Added later - I have reverted your minor change, and for support one citation is “Pottery was the first synthetic material to be discovered by man: an artificial stone produced by firing clay shapes to a temperature sufficiently high to change the physical and chemical properties of the original stone clay into new substance with many of the characteristics of stone.” An Introduction To The Technology Of Pottery. 2nd edition. Rado P. Pergamon Press

ThanxTheriac 08:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Both, if you're going to archive the discussions here could I ask you to be careful about how you do this (the page provides a record of stages in a process that might well end with a request for binding arbitration). Thanks and regards, Nick. Nick 09:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for the note of caution. I will not be archive the discussion as I do not know how to do it ! ThanxTheriac 09:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

HI Theraic I certainly learn something everyday...I'll believe your source its a synthetic material. Nick dont worry I am very careful when I archive and it will all be linked top of this page when done. Goldenrowley 17:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC) -- OR maybe you want me to wait. I can wait. I just came here on your invite from another page. Goldenrowley 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Goldenrowley, no, that's okay, go ahead and archive it with the link, I know it's causing you problems. I'd be grateful if you could leave the Request for Comments section here, though. Regards, Nick. Nick 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully safely and soundly. Goldenrowley 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article practically a how-to manual on making pottery? If you look at the Glass or Tupperware articles, they don't devote anywhere near as much space to construction techniques. --Sean Brunnock 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sean. I guess the content of every article is simply the combined results of all authors. ThanxTheriac 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, I'd guess it's because not many potters contribute to the article, which is a shame. For myself, I'm a soulless technician. Oh, and by the way, I did have a glance at the Glass article; I haven't looked, but from the characteristic wording in parts I'll bet there was a wondrous debate behind the scenes on whether glass should be regarded as a solid, or as a supercooled liquid. Regards, Nick. Nick 13:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, Just looking at the first few lines of the article, I suggest that we might now delete everything from More specific definitions lack... down to the table of contents; not because they're not good words, but because they were put in to set the scene for a problem that no longer exists. How do we feel about this? Regards, Nick. Nick 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Go on, give it a go. What the worse that can happen :-) ThanxTheriac 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Theriac, I think the words in question were yours, weren't they? I know they represent a lot of hard work, which is why I was reluctant to hack them out without asking first. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I've got no issue with you hacking them about. I'm sure changes could be easily discussed if needed. ThanxTheriac 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks, Nick. Nick 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. No complaint from me. The citations are on record so can be resurrected if needed. I particularly like that from Singer & Singer “it can have various meanings and so has been avoided whenever possible", as it does highlights the source of some contention. ThanxTheriac 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the point of the introduction to explain the fact that pottery can have a narrow definition, as provided in the sources by Saun? — Tutmosis 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tutmosis, nice to hear from you again. The point is that the problem you mediated appears to have gone away and with it the need for long explanations about wide or narrow definitions of the term pottery. This is very much my own opinion, by the way, but Theriac, who wrote most of the words in question didn't raise any objections. Have a look at what the history section of the article now says about the figurines and Jomon pottery. Regards, and thanks for your efforts, Nick. Nick 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just about to remove the section on Evolution of glazing technique. The words will always be here of course, accessible from the history page. The words themselves look good to me, but a little too specialised for a general article on pottery, perhaps. They might belong in an article on Islamic ceramics, or almost stand on their own in their own article. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreement from me Nic. Theriac 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"...but the pieces which emerge often have characteristic patches of orange color on the clay itself, known as "blushing". If the editor who wrote this is still about, could I ask if these orange patches are like the ones that occur on unglazed parts of Ming blue and white wares? Reoxidation they call it. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And what comes out of the kiln would not be clay. ThanxTheriac 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. As a paragraph summary of firing I would be pretty hard pressed to improve on your recent addition. But it doesn't mean to say I have not tried :-) Seriously though; I have tweaked it slightly, and hope you are happy with it. Let me know what you think, and if need I can explain a bit about the reasons. ThanxTheriac 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Theriac, your edit is fine by me, I'm far too wordy anyway. We do have a problem, though, we're chucking words like body about without telling people that they have special meanings in this context. I think a note on the terms potters use might be useful; perhaps somewhere near the start of the article. Regards, Nick. Nick 09:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You're too wordy? You talking to Mr.Verbose here! I do agree that explanation of the diffeence between "clay" and "clay body" is needed. It is of fundamental importance. ThanxTheriac 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. The new additions looks good. What do you think of the next three paragraphs? Those starting with “A number of various”, “wood firing” & “The Western” I don't think they're quite right for a general article, especially one that is quite long. ThanxTheriac 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I am pleased that you have started to edit the whole of the article. It was needed, and I am sure a much improved article will result. I know not all the words are your own, but I am still hesitant to comment on some of your recent edits. But I hope you do not think it rude for me to say

• Start of article: ”everyday usage the term is taken to include a wide range of ceramic wares, including earthenware, stoneware and porcelain.” Wares should be replaced with material.
• About the “Making pottery” section:

• Confuses clay and clay body (I know we have touched on this before)
• Considers only one method of making. For example:

• Casting & granulate pressing do not start with kneading.
• Kneading is only used for making small amounts of potter, and using a very limited range of shaping methods.
• Wedging is only used for making small amounts of pottery, and using a very limited range of shaping methods .

• ”Shaping of wares” is too heavy on hand making methods. Perhaps it could just reference the later “Methods of shaping section”
• The statement “Drying and finishing After shaping it is common for pottery wares to be air-dried" is only valid for small scale operations or very hot countries. The use of dedicated dryers is by far more common.

I guess this seems critical, especially as I have not added much (No time moment!) Sorry ThanxTheriac

Hello Theriac, taking your first point, I've played about with the wording to get round the problem. The rest of your points are all perfectly valid, but as is explained at the top of the making pottery section, just one of many routes leading from clay to pottery is described. I think in the longer term it might be better if all of the making pottery section was integrated into the stuff that follows it. Regards, Nick. Nick 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I would not disagree that it would be better to merge the making pottery and the later sections. I tried to make a start but hit a problem. I made an internal link for "clay body" in readiness to start a new article, but there is already one, and this is a Scottish Voodoo doll! So a disambiguation would be needed, but Wikipedia's help pages are anyhting but. You seem much better on these things than me, so do you know how to move ahead. ThanxTheriac 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, I've just started a new page Pottery terminology which is intended to explain some of the special terms and slang used by potters in the ceramics industries. It's just a word list at present, please help to fill it out, (almost) any contributions would be welcome. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nic. Nice one. I'll add bits as pieces on an ad hoc basis. ThanxTheriac 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice indeed especially for beginners. I sugges the once debated currently dropped ceramic definition can be resurrected and placed there, and I must say, beginners will be grateful for any definitions Goldenrowley 03:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found a source for pottery etymology to enhance the definitions at this link -- I am thinking to utilize the etymology found here and to place some at Wiktionary. I have already done and wiki-linked this article to a definition for wikt:engobe as a test case. Feel free to check my work. Goldenrowley 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. Yeah it's a good article isn't it. I think it would be a useful source for the Wikipdeia article. ThanxTheriac 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that this site: http://www.potterycentre.com/content/view/12/2/ is a direct copy of this article or vice versa. JHS

Yes JHS it is a copy, with Wikipedia being the original. What is funny is that www.potterycentre have copied a old, and severely flawed version and hence shows them to be not only thieves, but uneducated thieves to boot.

Nice, silly people taking credit for other's work! JHS 68.147.147.68 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says: Pottery is made by forming a clay body into objects... Actually much traditional pottery was, and still is, made with a single clay unformulated clay. When I was working as a production potter in a studio in Italy we threw tons of such unformulated clay every week. Seeing this article has had editors working on it for quite some time, I hesitate to make changes without discussion. Kwork 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kwork, welcome. We fight about such terms frequently in clay related articles. Each cultural tradition/academic standard/author uses terms to more or less suit themselves. You will find debate about the use of common terms on many of the clay-related talk pages. We have even had a hard time simply defining pottery, ceramics, and porcelain. As to your concern above, I would say that a clay "body" doesn't necessarily have to be humanly formulated, it is just distinguished by chemical makeup and characteristics from another naturally occuring "body" from another location. For example, within 40 miles of my home, we have three naturally occuring clay beds, each maturing at earthenware temperatures. Each of these "bodies" is chemically distinct from each other, containing different metals and other fluxes. One of the three can be used as a high fired glaze without any preperation other than straining. The others have more problems, one being used primarily as a glaze component, the other making fairly nice earthenware. Each different -- so what other term than "body" would you choose? Best wishes. WBardwin 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To me they are clays if they are used in the formation process without any additions. If two or more clays are combined to change color, or plasticity, or firing temp, or if feldspar (or whatever else) is added to change some characteristic of the clay, then it becomes a clay body. Be well. Kwork 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kwork, I agree with what WBardwin wrote above, we do have problems with definitions and these can sometimes get acrimonious. Not so long ago we had a serious dispute about the definition of the term pottery for example, which caused a lot of pain for the people involved. I'm not a potter, I'm just interested in pots, but I also have some slight knowledge of soils and to me, wearing my soils hat, clay is a name give to a group of minerals that includes the smectites, kaolinites and illites, for example. But in wider usage the term clay is often taken to be the stuff that potters use to make pots, even though it might often contain only small amounts of true clay minerals. As for clay body I think most potters I've spoken to take this as being the stuff they buy or prepare themselves for making their pots and I don't have problems with this. Definitions are Hell and arguments about them usually crystallise into closely-reasoned debates between lumpers and splitters. I'm of the lumping persuasion by and large. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are humanly formulated bodies and natural bodies. The materials Kwork knows will not be pure clays, they will natural bodies which contain those minerals which other potters mix together to form bodies. It is very close to impossible to use 100% pure clay, like kaolinite or montmorillionite, to make pottery. The defintion of "clay" is widely agreed, very simply this is a group of minerals, and for this reason "clay body" is often used to describe the material for pottery, porcelain and the like. (contributed 15:36, 28 June 2007 by 81.153.30.87)

I have removed the following as it contains more wrong than right

• Physical stages of clay
• Clay has names for its condition depending on moisture content. Certain operations can only be applied to clay when it has a specific moisture content:

You can not use mositure content to define fire pieces.

• Plastic is the name of clay that is very moist and malleable.

The material may be plastic ut it is not the name of clay itself.

• Leatherhard is the condition of clay has a tough feel, but is still moist.

Leatherhard is defined in relation to the critical moisture content.

• Greenware is clay has very little moisture but has not been fired.

Ware is a shaped article. Clay is group of minerals.

• Bisque, bisqueware, or fired clay is clay that has been fired; this clay has no moisture left in it.

After firing it is no longer clay. It is a ceramic. This is a permanent change.

• Glaze-fired or glazeware is clay that has been glazed and fired again.

Again after firng it is no longer clay. And what about once-fired ware?

TeaPotGeorge suggested that we put this up for consideration on the discussion page

Plainly, the elimination of named Potters from the External Links was wrong.

That writer has a different perspective as to which potters are not notable.

I suggest that the individual potteries be put into a different category, thereby not 'cluttering' the internal links (See alsos), while maintaining these. You may not realize, for example, the import of Pewabic Pottery -- but it is of significance to the Arrts and Crafts movement, and at least to much of the Midwestern U.S.

The deletions were ill-advised. Getting rid of the new category and the listing orphaned a lot of serious articles on the subject. I was trying to work within the framework of letting the "External Links" be shortened and simplified.

Stan

7&6=thirteen 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The following were already listed under "see also" Delftware Iranian pottery Jasperware Kakiemon pottery Longquan celadon Native American pottery Poole Pottery and others do not qualify for inclusion into a "notable potteries" section? Teapotgeorge 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Teapotgeorge:

You have several good points. I understand that we should not have unnecessary redundance, and that those specific items should not have been listed.

However, you have 'thrown the baby out with the bath water.' There are a number of other listings that could/should be listed. You have simply vetoed (ipse dixit) my proposal, and have not addressed its merits.

Please rethink this.

Stan 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It was I that removed some of the list. The edit was an attempt to correct a narrow and parochial list of individuals' personal favourites. It was both long, and rather heavy on the USA. For example MccoY Pottery, this maker is unknown outside the SUA, and within is only of interest to a small band of collectors. If this is included it could be argued that ever small, and closed, pottery maker in the world be included. Also from a wider view of pottery the importance of Pweabic Pottery is very small - it is ony of relevance to the development of Studio Pottery in the USA. What relevance is tis to a village potter in Peru, a worker in a pottery factory in China or a school student in Sweden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.81.220 (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved a couple of links specific to Staffordshire ceramics to the "Staffordshire Potteries" page, and linked that article under "See also." The links seem like a better fit under a specific subject, rather the general article. (And four links to the same organization's website in one article is on the road to violating WP:NOT#LINK).

To the editor at IP 86.151.154.226 who also re-added www.search.exploringthepotteries.org.uk - OK, on a closer look I see that this is not a commercial site, and I believe the photos do add value to the article. My apologies for the removal. Jackollie (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Musicwriter (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest what this is a reference for?

Tschegg, C., Hein, I., Ntaflos, Th., 2008. State of the art multi-analytical geoscientific approach to identify Cypriot Bichrome Wheelmade Ware reproduction in the Eastern Nile delta (Egypt). Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1134-1147.

added by IP address with no explanation. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Teapot. I have changed back yor edits as they removed valid corrections. These are-

• 1. clay becomes clay body. This is correct as clay is a group of minerals, whereas clay body is what pottery is shaped from.
• 2. removed the section "a clay body that remains slightly porous after firing is often used for making earthenware or terra cotta flower-pots." This is because it is confused. Whereas Earthenware is of course slightly porous the description above is, as we say round here, arse-about-face. Such a body would not be used to make earthenware, such a body IS earthenware - although of course the material would only be called earthenware after firing rather than the unfired body being earthenware.

Above unsigned comment by 119.224.1.162 (talk)

Just passing by, but thought I'd add a non-expert opinion. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for the article to discuss both the material (clay) and the form (the clay object or body) in the same paragraph. I also don't see what's wrong with mentioning the flower pot as an example of special purpose mix of materials. It the terminology needs tweaking, tweak it. There's no need to delete a long standing example. In both cases I prefer Teapotgeorge's version. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But the material is not clay - that is the point. The material is a mixture of different clays and other minerals; this is known as a clay body and is different to what you describe as the form.

Thanks for clarifying. I learn something new every day. I also see that the List of pottery terms defines multiple uses for these terms. -- Tcncv (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been sorting out the caramics categories, adding new ones such as Category:French pottery and Category:Ceramics manufacturers of the United States and clearing out the vast number of articles on potters etc lazily dumped in Category:Pottery in particular. User:119.224.22.238 has objected to, and twice reverted, a number of removals from Category:Ceramics, without giving any reasoning - he says (my talk):" Thank you for the message. I do not understand your reasoning for your sudden and unilateral changes to long standing categories, my argument for restoration is based on maintaining the status quo until consensus is reached. I would be happy with slimmed down categories but this needs to be by agreement with the community. Therefore I will revert pending discussion and agreement. Regards. ". I had already referred him to WP:OCAT, and said (his talk): "There is no point in duplicating every article in Category:Pottery in Category:Ceramics. I moved many articles into the ceramics materials & pottery categories, and removed most of the duplication where the articles seemed concerned exclusively with pottery. Some of these might be debatable, but you have reverted many where it clearly is not, so I will revert all or most of your changes. Please produce reasoned arguments for further changes." For example he has restored Bird stump (is a variety of vase popular in 1920's England...) to Category:Ceramics, when I had moved it to Category:English pottery. I would welcome comments on this, centralized here. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of pictures on this page, some illustrating things that are shown perfectly well in other pictures. The result is a mess. Can we prune them so that each picture shows something different? As a temporary measure I have re-arranged them on the page. Marshall46 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is lacking the history of pottery in the New World. Just because the wheel wasn't used in the New World for pottery doesn't mean you can leave it out. Even just a blurb about when it came about in different parts of the Americas would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.28.165 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The current third para after The potter's wheel states: "The first step, of pressing the rough ball of clay downward and inward into perfect rotational symmetry, is called centering the clay, a most important (and often most difficult) skill to master before the next steps: opening (making a centered hollow into the solid ball of clay), flooring (making the flat or rounded bottom inside the pot), throwing or pulling (drawing up and shaping the walls to an even thickness), and trimming or turning (removing excess clay to refine the shape or to create a foot)." Mal wants to add the word to the beginning, calling the entire process - centering, opening, flooring, and throwing "throwing", as well as, with that placement, calling the wheel action itself "throwing". This is inaccurate and misleading. Secondly he wishes to clarify that this is an English language term. On the en.wikipedia. Why not state that pots are called pots in English too? This is poor writing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a phrase explaining that the process of forming pots on the wheel is called "throwing" by English speaking potters. That is not elsewhere in the article, and putting it at the beginning of the section about throwing seems logical. I now that the word throwing is used previously as wheel-throwing, but without explanation. (Without the extra explanation, the word "throwing" could be a little puzzling to some readers; remembering that people world-wide read these WP articles, and that English may not be their first language.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

English language students should be at Simple, not English, Wikipedia. There is no reason to clarify this word, among the millions on Wikipedia, is an English term. You're not giving a list of what its called in many languages; this is the English Wikipedia, ergo, it is presumed to be the English term. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is normal in WP to explain specialized words. Unless the inclusion makes it more difficult to understand the content, and I think it does not, and because it could help some, the addition is good. When I have some time to find a good source for the Old English source of the term, I will include that also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying its an English term explains nothing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I like your recent edit here, is that backed up by a source I hope? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I will add the source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, much better - you've added the explanation to the "English", so it now makes sense, and added the source as well. I'd still prefer it to be at least one paragraph lower but not enough to debate pros and cons. Nice, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I could not deny that getting harried over an edit has, many times, lead to improvements. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if it made no sense to me, and had no rationale, then IMO it would not make sense to most others. I'm sorry you took my objections as being harried; that was not the intention. I do think the section is greatly improved now by your more detailed (and sourced!) phrasing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting harried can be good. I will not bother you with my philosophy concerning such things, but for instance, if the potters I worked with had not been demanding I would not have learned even what little I did. I was not complaining. It was a thank you note. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification - I was concerned that you felt I'd been uncivil, or attacking you. I know I'm blunt; I hoped I hadn't been misunderstood. Glad to hear that wasn't the case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to recommend a quality website www.pottery-on-the-wheel.com as a great external link reference for the readers of this page. This site is dedicated to education related to all aspects of pottery on the potter's wheel. 168.103.129.80 (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

known ss "bisque fired". ss should be "as" typo error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.155.22 (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is pottery "the material from which the potteryware is made", or is pottery "all fired ceramic wares that contain clay"? If potters merely manufacture "the material from which the potteryware is made", who makes the potteryware? And is not the material from which potteryware is made just clay etc.? (Stuff nobody makes.) What is this distinction getting at? Srnec (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"And is not the material from which potteryware is made just clay etc.?" No it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.5.251.186 (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Potter at work, Jaura, India.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 22, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-12-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A potter at work in Jaura, Madhya Pradesh, India. Pottery, defined by ASTM International as "all fired ceramic wares that contain clay when formed, except technical, structural, and refractory products", originated during the Neolithic period.Photo: Yann

Archive – More featured pictures...

Dictionaries clearly show that the common definition of pottery is products made of clay. And the common idea is what the article is about. If a technical definition exists that pottery is clay that needs to be properly sourced and explained in the body of the text - if anywhere in a general knowledge article. Rmhermen (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page. Please stop further reverts of the stable version until concensous has been reached, I have no objection to the OED definition being include, but please stop removing that which has been stable for a long time, is fully referenced, and is from a recognised authority. Please suggest an opening paragraph here, and then all can discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.214.17 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I initially changed it June 3 - directly in response to question about the meaning just above on this page. You still have not quoted this technical definition or explained why it is more important than the common English definition. Besides the OED, we can see Random House Dictionary: 1. ceramic ware, especially earthenware and stoneware. 2. the art or business of a potter; ceramics. 3. a place where earthen pots or vessels are made. and Merriam-Webster: 1. objects (such as bowls, plates, etc.) that are made out of clay usually by hand and then baked at high temperatures so that they become hard, 2 the art or activity of making objects out of clay, 3 a place where potters make objects out of clay Rmhermen (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)