From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Needs to include why saggars were used in the first place ... to protect ware from open flames Regards, Andy


Hi WBardwin, everyone. The article would benefit from a reword of the following "The revival and alteration of saggar firing methods by modern artists" as revival suggests that saggar firing had stopped. But given the paragraph above it I suggest the last sentence of the article be removed, and maybe replaced by "See also" with appopraite internal links. ThanxTheriac 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Raku & salt glaze[edit]

This article is about saggar fired pottery. This is not raku, it is not salt glazed pottery. Both have their own articles. (posted by anon.......)

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 accusing me of "making demands" when I celarly have not done so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)


The article is about saggars and saggar firing. The following is not: The revival and alteration of saggar firing methods by modern artists is echoed in the use of other traditional pottery processes, including low-temperature pit firing, the Asian technique of raku and the use of salt as a glaze element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 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. As to your argument, a secondary purpose of Wikipedia articles is to guide the reader to other related material to allow them to see an expanded view of the topic. One way of doing this referencing is through categories. Editors also use a "See Also" section. And another way, used here, is to include these side references withing the text. All are acceptable here.
I would suggest that you sign in to Wikipedia, establish an ID, and try and build a reputation as a good editor before making these persistent 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) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a familiar IP range indeed. Dear IP, please create an account. It's impossible for me to either take stock of the amount of edit warring going on, or to know who is saying what on this talkpage. It's very easy to create and use an account. It looks shady, to put it mildly, to persistently refuse to, in this situation (which is only too much like the situation at Salt glaze pottery before Bishzilla protected it). I trust that your failure to sign the above post was a mere accident, btw. If you keep on anonymously edit warring, she can protect this article as well. And she can do more. I suppose you realize she's a monster? (Cousin of Godzilla.) Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC).
I again reverted - this time the deletion came from IP It is very difficult to have a one sided discussion. Please come to the talk page. WBardwin (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Patience, W. That IP edit/deletion was made before my post above, so they wouldn't have had a chance to be impressed by Bishzilla's atomic protection yet. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

See also section[edit]

Clearly there is disagreement whethere unconnected techniques should be included. Nevertheless at present the current section is a unreferenced, a personal comment and original research. Irrespective of the merits of this section remaining or going because of it not being about saggars the lack of proper citations requires either their addition or it must go.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Material remains -- unless there is a consensus for the change! As you appear to be a member of the "citation police" -- be aware that this trend is a fairly recent Wikipedia fixation, unsupported by many long term editors, and has resulted in the deletion of much useful information. If you require citations, in my opinion, -- the onus is upon you. Do not delete! Research, read, come to understand the topic and article, and then produce a citation or report that one does not exist. Absence of immediate evidence on any matter is NOT evidence of the absence of any evidence! WBardwin (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions have been made of a statement comparing the revival of saggar firing to other revivals. They have been made from several IP addresses. From the similarity of concerns, style of writing, peremptory manner and indifference to the views of other editors it seems likely that they come from one editor.
The editor deletes the passage because, in his opinion, it is (1) not relevant to saggar firing, (2) an opinion, (3) original research, and (4) not referenced.
1. RELEVANCE. A comparison of A with B, C and D is relevant to A. The passage compares the revival of saggar firing to the revival of other methods in modern pottery. Hence it is relevant. If the editor thinks it is not, he should discuss his concerns, not repeatedly delete.
2. OPINION. Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. But the anonymous editor is the only person to challenge the passage and it is supported by W.Bardwin, TeapotGeorge, Avnjay and myself.
3. ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This is hardly original research because original research adds new knowledge.
4. REFERENCES. The lack of a reference does not in itself make a statement POV. But a constructive editor who thinks a statement needs a reference would try to provide one or else engage is discussion. Despite making 12 or 13 deletions this editor has never actually said why the statement is incorrect. Marshall46 (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


To end the anonymous slow edit war, I'm semiprotecting the article. It is no longer possible to edit the article anonymously. If you create an account and edit as one person, etc, etc, you will be able to edit the article after 4 days. bishzilla ROARR!! 09:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC).

A pile of saggars at the Gladstone Pottery Museum

Please add the image (right) as soon as possible: [[Image:Saggars.jpg|thumb|A pile of saggars at the [[Gladstone Pottery Museum]]]]. I can't do this as I'm a new user. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


Ok, there have been some external sources wondering why saggar fired pottery needs protection... I'm not quite sure myself what makes this topic so highly controversial, just thought I'd give a heads up. Lampman (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Ahem... perhaps infinite semi-protection was a bit steep. The protection was performed by my pet monster, User:Bishzilla, who does get a little ... over-enthusiastic sometimes. To general relief, she's not an administrator any more, and I am herewith unprotecting the pottery. Let me know if there are any further dynamic IP problems, and my cabal will take care of them. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Saggar-maker's bottom-knocker?[edit]

Was there ever such a trade, or was it just a joke? Adam Hart-Davis, who is cited here, doesn't know and "What's My Line?", a light entertainment show, is hardly a reliable authority. There are apocryphal stories about the peculiar occupations that used to be advertised in the situations vacant pages of the north Staffordshire Evening Sentinel, including "Strippers for Flat Work" and "Saggar Maker's Bottom Knocker", but I think we need a good citation if this is to stay in. Marshall46 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a lighthearted description of a real occupation as reliably referenced here TeapotgeorgeTalk 09:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You are right. Marshall46 (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The description of a SMBK was not expanded however. As it's possibly the main reason someone might read this article, I've expanded it. I've also changed the reason why the occupation is no longer required. It's not really to do with automation so much as the fact that kilns are no longer dirty (not coal fired) and so the wares do not need the protection the sagger provided, though that is an assumption and I could be wrong (but it does seem fairly obvious) Adagio67 (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong on three counts:
  • saggars are still made and used.
  • the word it's 'saggAr' and not 'saggEr'.
  • coal firing remains in use, perhaps you've just not seen it being used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

needs to be linked to the french version of this article[edit]

Here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)