Talk:Salt glaze pottery

Untitled

Started this page 1-27-05. Will work on it. Advice welcome. -W

It looks very good. I don't know anything about the subject, but I've just done a bit of wikification and added it to the Pottery category. A picture would go well. Thryduulf 11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have some pics of pots by a friend. Will get permission to insert them if possible. -W

Soda glaze

Added a paragraph about soda glaze. Perhaps this should be a separate entry? -SC 163.120.80.183 19:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Salt-glazed stoneware

Sometime ago I suggested a merge of the article above with this entry, as it has a more general title. Someone later added a tag to that effect. With recent edits, this might be a good time to make the merge and restructure a larger article. Any objections? Comments please. WBardwin 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreement for a merger from me. ThanxTheriac 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Will be out of state for a few days in the last half of April -- with my recent history the trip might start another "wikibreak". But, unless anyone objects, I'll try and merge the articles around the 1st of May. Comments? WBardwin 06:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Will merge the two articles. I plan on using Salt glaze pottery as the final title - as it seems more inclusive. Although, frankly, I don't know anyone who does Salt glaze earthenware, and porcelain in this method is probably rare. Comments? WBardwin 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a merger. I feel that salt-glazed stoneware is a specific type of pottery that was the predominant houseware of America from around 1800 until the late 19th century. It was used in other countries at different time periods, but its most prolific usage was within the tradition that began in the Rhineland area of Germany and was subsequently elaborated on by the Americans. This, in my opinion, warrants its own topic. Salt glaze pottery is a very general topic that encompasses any salt-glazed ware produced from the time of the discovery of the technique up until the present day. The point of the article, which I originally wrote, was to illuminate this important houseware for what it is. Thanks for any input. Billyshears 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to lose any of the info in this article, but to make a stronger article out of two small ones. Eastern American salt-ware is quite distinctive, but has its roots in the European tradition. We can beef up the history and discuss historic and modern techniques in a larger article, as well as profiling the salt-ware as you do here. Would you like to work on an outline that might suit your preferences? WBardwin 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Billyshears talk page about this merge. Anyone else have comments, objections? WBardwin 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed. Comments and additional information welcome. WBardwin 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal For External Link

Would like to propose external link to the following article - American Stoneware Pots and Jars Smithville 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

looks like an interesting cite, but Wikipedia does not allow/support commercial links. see: Wikipedia:External links. So, if you know of sources of good information that do not sell stoneware, that would be more appropriate here. WBardwin 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Raku & Saggar firing

This article is about salt glaze pottery. This is not raku, it is not saggar fired pottery. Both have their own articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.223.65 (talk) 00:40, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of articles on Wikipedia is, first, to provide a strong overview of their subject, second, to provide notes and references for additional research, and third, to provide links and information to lead our reader to related articles. No article here stands in isolation. All of these articles talk about production and firing methods for pottery ware, they are all related and could be of interest to our readers......even if they are not of interest to you. I would suggest that your work with other editors, striving for concensus, rather than making deletions and demands. WBardwin 01:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And I would suggest you stop suggesting that I am making demands when I clear have not done so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.81.7 (talk)

Reasons for removal

• "Modern studio potters using traditional salt processes are working in many areas of the world. The unique salt glaze finish entices potters as it provides an opportunity to capture spontaneous changes in atmosphere and color and is a tool for ongoing experimentation and creativity." Leaving aside this is simply opinion, what a load of bullshit! What the heck is "a tool for ongoing experimentation and creativity"? This is meant to be an encyclopedia.

• "Other traditional pottery processes which have been revived or modified by modern potters include low-temperature pit firing, the Asian technique of raku and the use of saggar boxes in gas and wood fired kilns." This is about slat glaze,and these are not. Why not include every other technique that has been claimed to be revived - methinks it suggest the writer's personal favourites.

The above smart-alecky posts, unsigned but by User:81.153.68.105, who has been confusing self-confidence with information in a persistent deletion at Meissen porcelain, might reasonably be ignored. Perhaps User:WBardwin (see above) has the more sensible approach to encyclopedia compiling, and might be induced to re-edit and re-insert the deleted text, supported by an apt quotation to silence carping. --Wetman (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wetman - I may have been a little blunt in my comments on the discussion page (which after all are discussions) but my edit to the article are quite valid. I removed unencylopedic content and might be unreasonably be ignored. I am trying to improve articles, and this has meant removing incorrect information, opinion and peacock terms. I welcome constructive input and not sarcastic comments.

Restored material -- which, while brief and not very comprehensive, certainly deserves a little more consideration than the user offers. I will take a little time and look through a few books. Patience, please. WBardwin (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi WBardwin. Firstly I will say I am sorry for my blunt comment about the removed material - I was being flippant. But the "spontaneous changes, ongoing experimentation and creativity" are peacock and opinion - not fitting for an encyclopedia. I have left the preceeding sentence which I was mistaken in removing. The next paragraph, about raku and saggar firing, have no connection with salt-glazing, and therefore there is no value in having them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.110 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced opinion

I have removed a section that previously has been deleted. For the same reasons, it is unreference and personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.21.129 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a deletionist. Whenever possible I save material that is in articles by doing research and rewriting. You, if I'm not mistaken, under various IP numbers, have been trying to delete this material for some time. But you do not offer a reasoned argument nor do you try and rewrite the material to suit your view by presenting a contrasting source. I would suggest that you sign in to Wikipedia, establish an ID, and try and build a reputation as a good editor before making unexplained deletions. Establishing a working relationship with other editors on articles of interest is the best way to be taken seriously as a contributor. This is especially true, for me, for people who delete and criticize but do not contribute. WBardwin (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your comments as the reasons for the removal of text was given. Also Wikipedia allows open editing without registration, but it does not allow articles to contain unreferenced opinion. I do not understand your objection. (talk)

You do not understand because you, apparently, haven't taken the time to learn how things work around here. There are many Wikipedia tutorial sections, policy sections, and procedure sections to review. Yes, Wikipedia allows open editing, but your editing will always be reviewed, changed, and possibly reverted if others disagree with your work. If you don't like this particular section -- and I'm not fond of it myself -- put some time and energy into it. What do you think the editor was trying to say? What sources do you have that might deal with the same topic, or provide a contrasting opinion? How could you rewrite or alter the material to deal with your objections? Establishing an ID here allows you to establish an identity as a reasonable contributing editor and allows others to talk to you about issues. Using revolving IP numbers often labels you as a hit-and-miss editor -- here for just a moment, then gone. This pattern is often used by vandals, who are the bane of regular editors like me, so you are less likely to be taken seriously. Please, put a little effort in, actually write in the article, before simply deleting again. WBardwin (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't warn me, buster!! You also are on the verge of 3-RR's. And this tell me that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing - pretending you don't know how things work. Sign in and talk like a reasonable editor! WBardwin (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You say You do not understand ." Nevertheless

• I understand that Wikipedia does not allow publishing opinion, that I was I removed someone's personal viewpoint.
• I understand that Wikipedia requires supporting references, that I was I removed sections that have none.
• I understand that Wikipedia insisting on civility. I did not "warn you" I advised you were on the verge on breaching the 3RR. And you are not being civil with "Don't warn me, buster!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.88.117 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• And I did not claim I didn't "know how things work." I wrote I didn't understand your comments. Please take care in making leading statements, and please do not name call, wolf in sheep's clothing. Insults are not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.88.117 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In my long history here -- several years, I have never been blocked. IP's like yours, with this type of behavior, are often blocked. Wolf in sheep's clothing? Yes, you are obviously an experienced editor trying to hide behind an IP#. Why? Are you in trouble here? Are you doing things that others object to? Consensus means you should contribute rather than criticize. You should work with others rather than delete other's work. As for courtesy -- deleting and the citing policy can be a sign of a control freak. Are you trying to control ow own these articles? As for being polite -- sign your posts! Obviously you know you should. WBardwin (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Are you in trouble here?" ???? Please get a sense of proportion - this is just an online encylopedia; nothing more. And whilst talking about courtesy please do not make accusations that are without merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.88.117 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed this from an earlier comment you, if I'm not mistaken, under various IP numbers, have been trying to delete this material for some time. You are mistaken. Just because people may express a similar view on an article, that differs from your own, do not make them the one and the same. (For the record I confirm 86.146.21.129 was me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.88.117 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms?

Can someone point out which terms are considered peacock here? It all seems fine to me? Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In the above section you can see my irritable efforts to talk to one of several IP numbers (who knows how many actual users) that have targeted this section in the last few months. I guess you could call this a looooooooooooong edit war. I too would like these folks to talk about what they consider objectionable. An then I would like to see them make an effort to improve the sections. Simple deletion and/or "tagging", to me, removes a change for both dialogue and article improvement. But, so far, I have not had much luck engaging these folk (or just one user?) in constructive dialogue. So, I keep replacing the material in one form or another to try and encourage discussion. Teapotgeorge, if you have any idea what sections the "peacocking" tag targets, or areas we could work on to improve the article, I'd be happy to collaborate. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

yet again, IP editors are trying to tag this paragraph as "peacocking." I have reverted and will continue to revert until they come to the talk page and begin a discussion. WBardwin (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi WBadwin. re. your comments here and direct to me on another page: Hi "perhaps they are all one person" I do not know, "perhaps you?" no they are not, just today / yesterday, "wants to discuss the matter" there is existing discussion on the page, "I will continue to revert any changes" that is rather unhelpful don't you think? I and other could do the same, and where would that get us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.20.139 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's called an edit war, and regretfully that is what has been going on on this page, regarding this particular paragraph, for almost a year by one IP editor after another -- or perhaps just one editor with differing IPs. Nothing has been done on the section by the IP's but deletions, tagging and reverts. Instead of edit warring, come to the discussion page - this is where people talk about article issues. Place your complaints and concerns here, in clear English. Explain what you see as the problem and make some constructive suggestions. Then wait for responses from others and make more suggestions. Eventually a group of editors come to a "consensus" about a particular problem and a section is then, and only then, altered to the satisfaction of all concerned. Despite the fact that this, and any article can be improved, I will continue to revert tagging and deletions by anonymous editors without any effort at discussion. So - are you going to explain your problems with this section? WBardwin (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotecting

I note with interest that 86.155.88.117 acknowledges being also 86.146.21.129,[1] and thus was himself/herself edit warring when warning WBardwin on April 27.[2] (86.14620.139 is obviously the same as well.) This slow edit war has gone on long enough. Editing as an IP is permitted (though in a situation like this, it's certainly discouraged), but dishonest editing is not. I'm semi-protecting the article. bishzilla _ROARR!! 07:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC).

American Stoneware

I want to move the section on American salt-glazed stoneware out into a new page entitled "American Stoneware." I want to do this for a few different reasons. 1. American Stoneware deserves its own topic. It has always been of significant interest to decorative arts / ceramics historians but it is of extreme interest now. It is highly collectible and is one of the most highly regarded antique American decorative art forms. It is also an important part of American history, period. 2. For American stoneware in general to be lumped in with all Salt-glaze pottery is a bad way to handle it, I think, because not all American stoneware is salt-glazed. Also, it should not be seen only as an off-shoot of a worldwide tradition of salt-glazing but should instead be seen within a much narrower and relevant context. It is derived out of the salt-glazed stoneware than originated in the Rhineland but it is also closely related with certain earthenware pottery (commonly called "Redware" in America today), which was often produced by the same American potters who produced stoneware. 3. Someone has complained that "This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject." It seems to me that he or she is right in that the purpose of the Salt-glaze pottery page is to give an overview of worldwide salt-glazed ceramics. The section on American stoneware seems out of place in that it is fairly detailed (including a list of makers, for instance) and puts the focus of the article on American salt-glazed stoneware.

All of that being said, I think American Stoneware deserves its own topic, and I've already got something ready to go if no one has any objections. Thanks for any comments / criticisms / jokes / etc. Billyshears (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Name Change?

With the addition of some soda based info -- how about a change to "Vapour glaze pottery"? The article could begin with a discussion of the whole sodium chemistry and then set out info on both salt and soda techniques. History, in sections by geo area, would be helpful too. 65.54.154.18 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits & request for images

I've just undertaken some tidying up including the addition of references. What I don't have available are any appropriately freely licenced images so I'm posting a note here in the hope someone else does. Certainly one, ideally more, are needed to replace that of the badly decorated & deformed piece currently displayed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a photo of a salt glazed jug that I own hope this was the sort of thing you were looking for? RegardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin Bros

I don't think the section on English Salt Glaze Stoneware can be complete without mention of the Martin Famil - would be good if someone could put in a few sentences about them and a link to their page 151.228.156.103 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)