Talk:Longquan celadon

message: Shouldn't the B.C.'s in the text be replaced by A.D.'s ?
Moved from Image:About Longquan Celadon.doc with the following revision  history (UTC):
(cur) (last) . . 11:06, 16 Sep 2003 . . Patrick (Text moved to Longquan Celadon. This "image" to be deleted.) 
(cur) (last) . . 09:22, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:22, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . 09:21, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:20, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:19, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:18, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:15, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky (Longquan Celadon,pottery) 
(cur) (last) . . 09:10, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky (About Longquan Celadon)
Why is Longquan celadon illustrated with a picture that has no celadon in it? (Well, there is something greenish on the right, but that hardly qulaifies.) This seems to be really stretching for some kind of illustration. Dandrake 01:47, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
If the picture you mention is still the one that's there today, I agree. Possibly not even Longquan. Oh, probably not a planter, either.--Nick 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old

message: This article is in need of a total revision by someone who knows about the subject or can read Chinese and Japanese. Literate and informed!--Iwanafish 06:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REVISION 

message: At Wikipedia's Resource Exchange, an editor requested copies of about 50 pages of Gompertz's Chinese Celadon Wares, 2nd ed. They stated that their initial purpose is to check citations in this article against that source. I have the book, but am not comfortable copying so many pages of it within the limits of fair use. So I have offered to check some or all of the citations, posting the results here. We'll see how it goes, but I hope this plan will substantially reduce the number of pages that the requester needs copied. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Really you need to look at the version before SS started messing the article up (linked above).  The original said: "There were also large quantities exported west to the Islamic world, and one of the most important collections today is the 1,300 pieces surviving from the collection of the Ottoman Emperors, most now in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul" - ie almost exactly what you recommend!  But not all the Ottoman collection is still at Topkapi. Some is certainly in other Turkish museums, perhaps on quasi-loan. Note he has changed to describe celadon as "porcelain", but also changed the lead to call it stoneware!  More on that issue here, about 6 inches down.  Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked other sources for this, and I used porcelain because the article has consistently and incorrectly used porcelain throughout. The sources I've seen for Topkapi use the 1,300 to describe only the Topkapi selection. The original version is wrong, and it is more misreading of the source (like porcelain/stoneware) which is why I asked for this. I've also asked this editor numerous times to stop making personal attacks. My version isn't perfect but it's an improvement over what was here when I started, and it was the best I could do without the sources. It seems the sources don't matter unless they say what Johnbod wants them to say. Seraphim System (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The version before you arrived never described Longquan celadon as porcelain at all. This far into the argument, you are still coming out with very easily checked untruths - why bother? You were the one who introduced this description. What are these mysterious "other sources"?  Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Under WP:SPECIFICLINK the article should link to Stoneware, not Chinese ceramics. The Topkapi Collection includes far more then Celadon, but it may be better to change this because it is unclear. One of the most significant porcelain collections in the world is at Topkapi, (it has more then 10,000 pieces), but this article should be clear that Longquan Celadon are not porcelain, the way I wrote it was not ideal. I was trying to correct the unsourced and clumsy statement that part of that "most of that collection is now in the Topkapi palace" - this should be rewritten to reflect that the Topkapi celadon collection has about 1,300 pieces. Ideally there would be a source added for how many of those celadon are Lonquan celadon (some may be high-quality Japanese pottery, etc. currently called "imitations" in this article - this language should also be cite checked.) It should not make unsourced assumptions about whether some of the pieces are on loan, or located outside the palace (as this situation changes frequently, and this statement is currently based entirely on unsourced assertion.) I've templated for these problems, but I think it would be better addressed by an uninvolved editor. Seraphim System (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I'll just say that Stoneware is a far more general term than Chinese ceramics - I ate my dinner off some today, as perhaps did you. You are the one who wrongly added "porcelain" to that sentence, as already pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What I wrote wasn't incorrect. It is less misleading then saying "1,300 celadons" because we can't know the origins of all the celadons, and the inclusion of that number in this article without more specific sources would strongly imply that all the celadons were from the Longquan kilns- I know it's not ideal, but additional sources are needed for further precision here. You seem to have the source in front of you, so if I were you, I would focus on fixing the problems with the article, which must be very embarrassing. I'm not interested in continuing to escalate this, especially as you seem deadset on disputing every source that contradicts what you originally wrote. As for stoneware, last night you refused to accept it was stoneware at all, and said "OUP" was a non-expert source. There are numerous sources for this, and OUP most certainly does not have articles written by "non-experts" (who are named, and usually include citations, making OUP a very high quality encyclopedic source for evaluating due weight). I think the stoneware link is more precise because it has information about what stoneware is, and also because Longquan celadons are stoneware and Chinese ceramics is a very broad article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What the old (and now current) version said was: "In traditional Western terms, celadons are strictly counted as stoneware, since the fired clay body is neither white nor translucent. In the traditional Chinese classification, which divides pottery into low-fired earthenware and high-fired porcelain, they count as porcelain. Compromise terms such as "porcellanous stoneware" may be used to describe the pieces, and some Western writers consider the wares should be "regarded as porcelains".[5]"  It then refrained from describing them by either term, which is the best way. The article already used OUP's Grove, which is the big brother of the Decorative arts Grove you managed to find. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said on your talk page was "Longquan Celadon is on the border between stoneware and porcelain, and is often called both. The old version was careful not to call it either, but explained the situation. The new reference, from a short entry by a non-specialist, contradicts his fuller account elsewhere, not to mention the 4th para of the lead" — I don't see it as "explaining the situation" or accurately following the sources, which don't say "it is on the border" - as I said, I consider OUP to be an excellent source for evaluating due weight. There are other sources and nothing is stopping you from improving the body in a way that is WP:NPOV based on WP:RS that follows our basic policies for how to write an article including WP:LEDE for example there is considerable material that could be added like this  but there are also many sources like this  what you are describing as "was careful not to call it either, but explained the sitation" is an unbalanced lede that hasn't explained much of anything, but has cherrypicked quotes to create an perceivable bias in the article (including the prominence of placement, and the length at which the paragraph explains that alternate classifications exist, and de-emphasizing all sources that call it stoneware.) Seraphim System (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

text: "Trade, which was most important, and SS has cut, can I think be assumed from Gompertz" - do I really to say more about why a source check was necessary. I think the editor should stop trying to blame others for the poor quality of this article. I didn't have the sources, and because of the disruptive and non-collaborative tone of this editor, I had to go to Resource Exchange and ask for about 50 pages, which has created more work for other editors. This is really disruptive behavior, and poor quality work, but I am glad we can finally get started on fixing the many issues in this article. Seraphim System (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your patient efforts here. I think a clear pattern is emerging! In two cases, what you recommend is almost word for word what was in the article before SS began editing. In the other, knowing (or finding out) what the Warham bowl is solves most of the problem.  To save you reading all the arguments in the sections above, my contention is that SS's many edits, without the sources in front of him, have so messed up the article (in far more important ways than these examples have concerned) that the only practicable course is to revert to the version before he began, for me then to read through & try & explain some things better, and then see what people think. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All this source check proved is that in many places the article text misrepresents the sources, so this is really just an editor trying to protect his version, which is full of statements that misrepresent the sources that the editor did have in front of him by making personal attacks against another editor, which is more difficult now since I finally have proof that this article drastically misrepresents the sources and needs a full source check and rewrite (not just a copy edit.) - and I am adding templates for this. Usually, I do have a pretty good eye for where sources are being misrepresented (much as some editors have a good eye for COPYVIO, and can do a better job then Earwig, this just comes with experience I guess.) I probably should have GOCEreviwed this article, declined and templated it since I didn't have access to the sources, and that is what I will do from now. Seraphim System (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing! What it shows is that that all the problems with the text were introduced by you, editing without any sources. Does this mean that you are bowing out? Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors here aren't stupid, and they will see this through this frankly pathetic distortion. For example the original text said The celadons were located at "topkapi and other museums" without a source, and conflicting with other sources I've seen. The reason given for it is "But not all the Ottoman collection is still at Topkapi. Some is certainly in other Turkish museums, perhaps on quasi-loan." It said porcelain, which it's not, I've seen numerous sources describe it as an extremely high quality stoneware that is almost of the quality of porcelain. This is a misrepresentation. In another place complaining that I removed trade, because it "can I think be assumed from Gompertz"...the only question is how does someone without the sources in front of them have such a deadshot for where the problems are. Can't get them all, I only found porcelain/stoneware yesterday after consulting OUP, which contradicts the article. In fact GEDA calls into confusion more then one claim in this article, including the characterization of the major kilns. It doesn't follow WP:LEDE but Johnbod thinks the problem is that I removed his POV, and content that we now know is unsourced. I am templating it, because I can't deal with this editor, but hopefully someone else will fix it, and I strongly object to restoring "his version" and rewarding these kinds of personal attacks and disruptive behavior. (But he has started following me to other articles now to make personal attacks about my editing, so I really want to just cut this escalating drama short.) I think we can revert and I can GOCEReview decline and leave the appropriate templates instead. Seraphim System (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source check 

message: ;Source
Lung-ch'uan celadon became so famous ... that exports from China reached staggering proportions ... at the opposite extremity of Asia an incredible number of celadons were collected by the Sultans of Turkey, some thirteen hundred of which are still kept at the Topkapu Palace in Istanbul.
;Article
Celadons were also exported westward to the Islamic world; one of the most significant porcelain collections in the world is at the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul.
;Analysis
* Page 26 does not describe the Topkapi collection as one of the most significant. However, p. 182 says "In the Topkapu Palace at Istanbul there are some 1,300 celadons mainly of this type [Longquan of the Uyan and Ming periods], probably the most important group remaining in existence."
* Saying "most significant porcelain collections" (emphasis mine) overstates the source, which talks only about a subset of porcelain, namely Longquan celadon.
* The text indicates a connection between westward exports and the collection by using a semicolon, but weakens the connection by omitting the size of the trade, size of the collection, and who was collecting it when
;Recommendation
Large quantities were also exported westward to the Islamic world; one of the most significant collections today is the 1,300 pieces at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, collected by the Ottoman Emperors. (cite pages 26 and 182)
:Comment Really you need to look at the version before SS started messing the article up (linked above).  The original said: "There were also large quantities exported west to the Islamic world, and one of the most important collections today is the 1,300 pieces surviving from the collection of the Ottoman Emperors, most now in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul" - ie almost exactly what you recommend!  But not all the Ottoman collection is still at Topkapi. Some is certainly in other Turkish museums, perhaps on quasi-loan. Note he has changed to describe celadon as "porcelain", but also changed the lead to call it stoneware!  More on that issue here, about 6 inches down.  Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked other sources for this, and I used porcelain because the article has consistently and incorrectly used porcelain throughout. The sources I've seen for Topkapi use the 1,300 to describe only the Topkapi selection. The original version is wrong, and it is more misreading of the source (like porcelain/stoneware) which is why I asked for this. I've also asked this editor numerous times to stop making personal attacks. My version isn't perfect but it's an improvement over what was here when I started, and it was the best I could do without the sources. It seems the sources don't matter unless they say what Johnbod wants them to say. Seraphim System (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The version before you arrived never described Longquan celadon as porcelain at all. This far into the argument, you are still coming out with very easily checked untruths - why bother? You were the one who introduced this description. What are these mysterious "other sources"?  Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Under WP:SPECIFICLINK the article should link to Stoneware, not Chinese ceramics. The Topkapi Collection includes far more then Celadon, but it may be better to change this because it is unclear. One of the most significant porcelain collections in the world is at Topkapi, (it has more then 10,000 pieces), but this article should be clear that Longquan Celadon are not porcelain, the way I wrote it was not ideal. I was trying to correct the unsourced and clumsy statement that part of that "most of that collection is now in the Topkapi palace" - this should be rewritten to reflect that the Topkapi celadon collection has about 1,300 pieces. Ideally there would be a source added for how many of those celadon are Lonquan celadon (some may be high-quality Japanese pottery, etc. currently called "imitations" in this article - this language should also be cite checked.) It should not make unsourced assumptions about whether some of the pieces are on loan, or located outside the palace (as this situation changes frequently, and this statement is currently based entirely on unsourced assertion.) I've templated for these problems, but I think it would be better addressed by an uninvolved editor. Seraphim System (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just say that Stoneware is a far more general term than Chinese ceramics - I ate my dinner off some today, as perhaps did you. You are the one who wrongly added "porcelain" to that sentence, as already pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What I wrote wasn't incorrect. It is less misleading then saying "1,300 celadons" because we can't know the origins of all the celadons, and the inclusion of that number in this article without more specific sources would strongly imply that all the celadons were from the Longquan kilns- I know it's not ideal, but additional sources are needed for further precision here. You seem to have the source in front of you, so if I were you, I would focus on fixing the problems with the article, which must be very embarrassing. I'm not interested in continuing to escalate this, especially as you seem deadset on disputing every source that contradicts what you originally wrote. As for stoneware, last night you refused to accept it was stoneware at all, and said "OUP" was a non-expert source. There are numerous sources for this, and OUP most certainly does not have articles written by "non-experts" (who are named, and usually include citations, making OUP a very high quality encyclopedic source for evaluating due weight). I think the stoneware link is more precise because it has information about what stoneware is, and also because Longquan celadons are stoneware and Chinese ceramics is a very broad article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What the old (and now current) version said was: "In traditional Western terms, celadons are strictly counted as stoneware, since the fired clay body is neither white nor translucent. In the traditional Chinese classification, which divides pottery into low-fired earthenware and high-fired porcelain, they count as porcelain. Compromise terms such as "porcellanous stoneware" may be used to describe the pieces, and some Western writers consider the wares should be "regarded as porcelains".[5]"  It then refrained from describing them by either term, which is the best way. The article already used OUP's Grove, which is the big brother of the Decorative arts Grove you managed to find. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said on your talk page was "Longquan Celadon is on the border between stoneware and porcelain, and is often called both. The old version was careful not to call it either, but explained the situation. The new reference, from a short entry by a non-specialist, contradicts his fuller account elsewhere, not to mention the 4th para of the lead" — I don't see it as "explaining the situation" or accurately following the sources, which don't say "it is on the border" - as I said, I consider OUP to be an excellent source for evaluating due weight. There are other sources and nothing is stopping you from improving the body in a way that is WP:NPOV based on WP:RS that follows our basic policies for how to write an article including WP:LEDE for example there is considerable material that could be added like this  but there are also many sources like this  what you are describing as "was careful not to call it either, but explained the sitation" is an unbalanced lede that hasn't explained much of anything, but has cherrypicked quotes to create an perceivable bias in the article (including the prominence of placement, and the length at which the paragraph explains that alternate classifications exist, and de-emphasizing all sources that call it stoneware.) Seraphim System (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: p. 26 #1

message: ;Article
A few pieces reached Europe as diplomatic gifts from Islamic countries; these were sometimes given elaborate metalwork mounts that turned them into goblets.
;Analysis
* Page 26 does not mention diplomatic gifts, metalwork mounts, or goblets.
;Recommendation
*Comment Again the original is: "A few pieces reached Europe by trade of diplomatic gifts from Islamic countries, and were sometimes given elaborate metalwork mounts, turning them into goblets" Here "of diplomatic" is a fairly obvious typo for "or diplomatic". Gompertz, 26 mentions "the celebrated Warham bowl" which 2 secs on google shows you is a Longquan bowl "given elaborate metalwork mounts that turned them into goblets". Trade, which was most important, and SS has cut, can I think be assumed from Gompertz, but another ref is needed for diplomatic gifts (easily done if you have the sources). Clunas for example has a German example, also here; the Katzenelnbogen Bowl. The text there is also a ref for "diplomatic gifts", and the anti-poison idea. See also Gompertz, 147, which should be added to the ref, as should the Ashmolean and Katzenelnbogen links. Possibly "goblet" is not the best term, though acceptable, as these were probably used for drinking ceremonial toasts. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trade, which was most important, and SS has cut, can I think be assumed from Gompertz" - do I really to say more about why a source check was necessary. I think the editor should stop trying to blame others for the poor quality of this article. I didn't have the sources, and because of the disruptive and non-collaborative tone of this editor, I had to go to Resource Exchange and ask for about 50 pages, which has created more work for other editors. This is really disruptive behavior, and poor quality work, but I am glad we can finally get started on fixing the many issues in this article. Seraphim System (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: p. 26 #2

message: ;Source
The mysterious beauty of the celadon glaze gave rise to various fables: ... in the Near East and Europe it was believed that celadon dishes would disclose the presence of poison in food.
;Article
Their value was increased by the belief that a celadon would break or change colour, if poison was placed on them.
;Analysis
* The source is not specific about how celadon would react to poison. Possibly this falls under Wikipedia:Common knowledge. If anyone objects, make the text more vague or find a source that goes into more detail on the matter.
* The sentence wraps up sentences about exports to the Ottoman Empire and to Europe. It would do a better job if it mentioned where this fable was believed, as the source does.
;Recommendation
Their value was increased by a belief in the Middle East and Europe that the pieces would break or change colour if poison was placed on them.
*Original "Their worth was increased by a belief in the Middle East and Europe that the pieces would break or change colour if poison was placed on them.[27]" Once again, almost exactly what you recommend! There are other refs to this in sources already used, which could be added. Here's a not very high quality one a quick google search turned up, covering "break or change colour". Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your patient efforts here. I think a clear pattern is emerging! In two cases, what you recommend is almost word for word what was in the article before SS began editing. In the other, knowing (or finding out) what the Warham bowl is solves most of the problem.  To save you reading all the arguments in the sections above, my contention is that SS's many edits, without the sources in front of him, have so messed up the article (in far more important ways than these examples have concerned) that the only practicable course is to revert to the version before he began, for me then to read through & try & explain some things better, and then see what people think. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All this source check proved is that in many places the article text misrepresents the sources, so this is really just an editor trying to protect his version, which is full of statements that misrepresent the sources that the editor did have in front of him by making personal attacks against another editor, which is more difficult now since I finally have proof that this article drastically misrepresents the sources and needs a full source check and rewrite (not just a copy edit.) - and I am adding templates for this. Usually, I do have a pretty good eye for where sources are being misrepresented (much as some editors have a good eye for COPYVIO, and can do a better job then Earwig, this just comes with experience I guess.) I probably should have GOCEreviwed this article, declined and templated it since I didn't have access to the sources, and that is what I will do from now. Seraphim System (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing! What it shows is that that all the problems with the text were introduced by you, editing without any sources. Does this mean that you are bowing out? Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors here aren't stupid, and they will see this through this frankly pathetic distortion. For example the original text said The celadons were located at "topkapi and other museums" without a source, and conflicting with other sources I've seen. The reason given for it is "But not all the Ottoman collection is still at Topkapi. Some is certainly in other Turkish museums, perhaps on quasi-loan." It said porcelain, which it's not, I've seen numerous sources describe it as an extremely high quality stoneware that is almost of the quality of porcelain. This is a misrepresentation. In another place complaining that I removed trade, because it "can I think be assumed from Gompertz"...the only question is how does someone without the sources in front of them have such a deadshot for where the problems are. Can't get them all, I only found porcelain/stoneware yesterday after consulting OUP, which contradicts the article. In fact GEDA calls into confusion more then one claim in this article, including the characterization of the major kilns. It doesn't follow WP:LEDE but Johnbod thinks the problem is that I removed his POV, and content that we now know is unsourced. I am templating it, because I can't deal with this editor, but hopefully someone else will fix it, and I strongly object to restoring "his version" and rewarding these kinds of personal attacks and disruptive behavior. (But he has started following me to other articles now to make personal attacks about my editing, so I really want to just cut this escalating drama short.) I think we can revert and I can GOCEReview decline and leave the appropriate templates instead. Seraphim System (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: p. 26 #3

message: I am going to revert back to the original version and decline this review. After the first read through of this article, I did think it needed a source check, but since I could not access the sources, I probably should have declined, instead of copyediting. This was done in good faith. I did not expect to be attacked and yelled at for it - (and now followed to multiple articles where the personal attacks have continued). I asked for the pages at Resource Exchange, but there are too many, and the editor has shown an unwillingness to follow WP:RS when confronted with them (now it has been shown that the content I changed or removed was in large part not supported by the source used, which the editor has tried to justify by saying it is obvious, or it can be assumed.) When I have done checks with other sources, such as OUP, I have found other numerous and significant problems, which the editor has said is a "non-expert source." When I copyedited, I did not sign up for a major content dispute with a disruptive editor who can not follow our standards for WP:CIVIL conduct, and who makes these kinds of disagreements personal and brings them into other articles. I am sincerely appalled, and I have decided to self-revert the copyedit, and instead to GOCEReview-decline and add appropriate templates, so other uninvolved editors can work on the issues. Because of the extent of the sourcing problems, and the fact that even the source check is being challenged, I don't think this article is suitable for a copy edit at this time. Seraphim System (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOCE Review