Talk:Korean pottery and porcelain/Archive 1

message: This entry is mistakenly redirected from KOREAN CERAMICS which includes a general history of ceramics, within which later on the subject of pottery or materials turned on a potter's wheel is introduced. Please do not hack this article before you have read the divisions introduced. It is being written by someone who knows a good deal about the subject. And once the framework is laid out, will be edited by Seoul University professors.
:Ceramics includes pottery, but pottery does not include ceramics.
POofYS Dated 06:35, 20 March 2005.
*It's a good idea to start an article with a reasonable amount of detail, rather than with one (plain text)sentence — especially as you don't have a user name.  Editors on the look out for the many spoof, vandal, or substub articles added by anon users to Wikipedia every day are likely to assume that yours is one of them, as I did.
**Ah, I see that you have — except that you're not logged in.  I'm not sure what's going on.  Is more than one person using this account?
*If you open a Wikipedia user account (free, easy, and very useful), you can develop an article in your own User-space, adding it to the encyclopædia when it's ready.
*Please look at other Wikipedia articles, and see how they're presented (the names given to standard sections, such as 'External links' rather than 'Webography', for example), and try to present your article in the same way.
*Aleways sign your comments on pages like this one with four tildes (~~~~), even if you don't have an account; it makes it possible for others to contact you, as well as to find out something of your editing history. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean ceramics

message: Moved the following sentence from article for discussion - and hopefully, eventual concensus.
Specific references to pottery which falls within the purvey of the larger genre ceramics will be attended later in this article.
::Before we go further in restructuring the clay world in Wiki -- please read my lengthy response to the original author, ( 65.94.158.92) who left a message on Pottery's talk page.  We are seemingly dealing with semantics which vary from his clay culture -Korean, apparently- and the English/American clay culture.  For in America, our point of view is very different -- Pottery includes ceramics, but ceramics does not necessarily include pottery or art.  About the only time American clay people use ceramics is in course titles at university or when discussing technical processes.  To many clay people, ceramics is becoming an American "dirty" word.  So -- in a Korean Wiki (does one exist?) his clay article structure might be best, but such an organization would be very confusing and perhaps annoying in the English Wiki.  
And, please - 65.94.158.92-, don't try and pull rank, I too know what I'm talking about - for the last 25 years.  WBardwin 13:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Panic over Semantics! 

message: Author(s):  Thank you for the new information on this article and others.  "Mel Etitis" is doing a little copy editing on your material to make it less formal for English readers.  I'm looking over the pottery information, and learning what I can.  This should turn into a great article.  Looking forward to more.   WBardwin 10:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Material! 

message: I don't want to stir up the ceramics/pottery/clay waters, but asthe article currently stands it is called "KP" and has a Wik link to KC.  But this link simply circles back to KP under a re-direct.  Would some-one please change this with-out destroying any appropriate re-directs?Kdammers 06:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect Problem 

message: sorry to intrude, but I think the first couple of sentences in this article are alarmingly misleading. The oldest pottery in the Korean Peninsula is among the oldest in Northeast Asia (or the WORLD for that matter) and dates to the Incipient Jeulmun pottery period (c. 9000-8000 B.C.). In the 1990s the Jeju University Museum and the National Institute for Cultural Heritage Research excavated a site in Jeju-do called Gosan-ni in wich they found the earliest example of Yunggimun (융기문토기) pottery. The article on Korean pottery gives the impression that the earliest pottery dates to the historic period!! I advise you to correct this.Cheers,Mumun 23:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  giving wrong impression? 

message: Any attempt to redefine an East Asian ceramic history back to "pottery" is an example of linguistic and intellectual absurdity. East Asian languages alone will not permit this. The character for "pottery" is combined with the character for "porcelain" to produce the new and inclusive term "ceramics." We should at least have minimum respect for the cultures we study and restrain any personal fondness we have for folkways real or imagined. It was East Asian innovation that invented "porcelain" to begin with, and necessitated the new term "ceramics."
Go with the flow?
Iwanafish 5/30/07
::I have moved the page back to Korean Pottery.  This is an English Wikipedia, and English usage rather than Asian usage predominates.  This topic has been debated here for several years.  Such a change should only be made after consensus is reached, and so far, that has not occurred.  IMO, usage should be consistant in all clay related articles in the English Wiki.  Please read the previous debates and opinions on this and related talk pages.  Best............WBardwin 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brit?? That's a laugh, although most of my great, great, great (etc....) grandparents came from Britain.  No, I'm an American.  I'm almost a Mayflower descendant - one of my ancestors was on the third expedition to New England.  I live in the American West and spend a great deal of my time working with clay -- both as a teacher and as a producer of functional clay works.  Yes -- I'm a potter and an archaeologist too!  I've always got my hands in some kind of mud.  The differences we've long been discussing on this page are, from my perspective, based on a language preference in Asian cultures for "ceramics" and the western clay communities preference for "pottery."  Both communities appear to define the two words differently.  When people from art galleries and art academia show up, we often get a third perception.  And historians and archaeologists may have a fourth viewpoint.  Korean contributors (see top of page) seemed to believe that "pottery" was a low-class term and denigrated the "art"/ceramics of their country.  Some contributors to other clay related articles in Wikipedia insist that vessels -- of whatever sort, from whatever culture -- are pottery, and non-vessels are ceramic items (see the talk page on Pottery).  If you look around, you can see that the debate is broader than just this article, and that Wikipedia titles in this area are very inconsistent (see Chinese ceramics).  I have a strong personal preference for pottery as the generic term, and use it that way in my writing.  But I have an even stronger wish to come to some kind of consensus, some standards for clay related articles.  You may be coming at this article from a different perspective, perhaps dealing with the history or art culture of Asia.  But I suspect you can see the value to the Wikipedia reader of consistent terms for related topics.  Would you be interested in working at common definitions of these terms?  For many articles?  Best wishes....WBardwin 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't move the article again, just yet.  But I do wish you hadn't moved it until consensus was reached.  Community involvement in decisions and consensus are considered among the highest of the Wiki-community virtues.  WBardwin 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And......all the changes from "pottery" to either ceramics or porcelain?????  In English usage (American too), pottery is not defined by composition of clay or by firing temperature.  Korean ware (as most clayware around the world) began as earthenware, then some gray/red stonewares were produced.  In Korea, porcelainous stonewares were developed (with true porcelain slip decoration), and finally porcelain itself.  You can't use porcelain as a generic term in English.  It means a specific material with a specific outcome.  Let's negotiate on these changes in terms.  WBardwin 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Pottery????? 

message: Since the page in question is a collection of ceramics of poor quality and the photos are even worse, let us end this discussion. The creaters of the above page should have the grace and GOOD TASTE to get rid of it.--60.239.194.26 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods discussion.