Talk:Pottery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pottery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive tendency to islamsie everything - Secular pottery has islamic religion?[edit]

The poterry is classified in subheadings by regions of the world and not by the religion. Why do Muslim editors have this obsession with inserting Islam in every things, including in the secular topics. Really? Renaming Pottery#Islamic_pottery subheading under the regionally-classified higher-level heading to Pottery#Far West Asia. Pottery in that region existed before Islam, Chinese influenced them and Islamist invaders might have taken taken it elsewhere, but it is essentially Chinese-influenced Middle-Eastern/Persian pottery that might have traveled elsewhere, in short Middlestern pottery or far west pottery. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that technically Chinese and Middle-Eastern/Persian pottery could not be more different, and the influence in the decorative traditions has travelled east as well as west. Islamic decoration is distinctive. "Far West Asia" is not a term with any currency, and certainly never applied to Islamic pottery. We follow WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely right. Muslim editors are erasing all the cultures that predates Islam in regions conquered by them. It is a worrying trend in wikipedia as most of this so-called Islamic contributions were done by other cultures. --Pliers123 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

strength and solidity[edit]

Definition of "solidity": the quality or state of being firm or strong in structure. Definition of "strength": the quality or state of being physically strong. If we take the primary meanings of these two words (one can split hairs about their secondary meanings) they cannot apply to or describe a "shape" as in the phrase: "increase the strength and solidity of the object's shape", because while a shape is abstract or subjective, it is neither structural nor physical. A user has stated incorrectly that the latter view is nonsense. Rather the phrase reduces the lede's prose to baby language. Sometimes as a shorthand people may say "a triangle is a strong / the strongest shape", but that refers to an physical body's resistance to deformation under external forces, due to its shape. As the pot's shape doesn't change during baking, nothing occurs to make it a stronger or weaker shape in that sense. Neither can the solidity of the shape change at all, because the shape hasn't changed to start with. It is the internal structure that changes from weak to strong, the rest is constant. JMK (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In pottery, "shape" is always the term for the overall form of a piece. Pots are not buildings, and "structure" is only used in discussing microscopic or sub-microscopic levels of the material. It is unhelpful to mix the two up. And pottery is fired, not "baked" - no baby language please! Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies regarding oldest samples[edit]

"The Venus of Dolní Věstonice is a Venus figurine, a statuette of a nude female figure dated to 29,000–25,000 BC (Gravettian industry). Sherds have been found in China and Japan from a period between 12,000 and perhaps as long as 18,000 years ago. As of 2012, the earliest pottery found anywhere in the world, dating to 20,000 to 19,000 years before the present, was found at Xianrendong Cave in the Jiangxi province of China."

From the History by Region section I've (partially) reproduced the first two paragraphs. None of the sources seem to acknowledge the existence of the other. How can this be reconciled? FallingOutsideTheNormalMoralConstraints (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Venus of Dolni Vestonice (abd other Paleolithic European ceramic venuses) are the oldest ceramic objects. But the pottery from Asia is the oldest in terms of ceramic vessels (ceramic was not used to make pottery in Paleolithic Europ as faf as we know). And, as mentioned in the article, pottery was also invented independantly in various other regions (West Africa, the Americas, the Middle East, etc.). Regarding the contradictions regarding early pottery in Asia you mention, I might rephrase the passage you quoted somewhat as follows:
"The Venus of Dolní Věstonice is a Venus figurine, a statuette of a nude female figure dated to 29,000–25,000 BC (Gravettian industry) and among the oldest human-made ceramic objects.
Pottery herds have been found in China and Japan from a period between 12,000 and perhaps as long as 20,000 years ago. As of 2012, the earliest pottery (ceramic vessels) found anywhere in the world, dating to 20,000 to 19,000 years before the present, were found at Xianrendong Cave in the Jiangxi province of China."
Skllagyook (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article contradicts itself[edit]

The top of the "History" section says the oldest known pottery is from China and dates to 20,000 BC while a little further down the "Beginnings of pottery" section says the earliest pottery found anywhere in the world... [dates] to 20,000 to 19,000 years before the present. I'm guessing this is the somewhat well-known confusion of "BP" with "BC", meaning that the latter is correct and the former is wrong, but would someone more familiar with this topic mind addressing this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pottery&oldid=1194056343"