User talk:Brunnock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hyperpower

I understand that you think that you have sourced your statement on the British Empire. We are all familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Please take into consideration that no one but you thinks that your citations are sources for this statement. Let's take a break while you ponder this. Sprotch 11:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The links you provided to back up your claim of the UK being a "Hyperpower" are outdated. They refer to a time a very long time ago. To me it seems like you have a bias for the statement and links. No one else seems to agree with them and since this is a place for All Users, then you should stop restoring outdates, bias links and statements. The Hyperpower Wiki is not your personal toy.

70.157.60.141 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bubble Wrap

I have bubble wrap as a 1960 invention (see: http://www.sealedair.com/corp/history.html ), I realize this disagrees with Wikipedia's article on the topic. Do you have an alternative source? dml 00:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Then you should edit the Wikipedia article.

[edit] Dugout Boat

Why the remove on the Dugout Boat? -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the reference to Dugout boats with Shipbuilding which pushes the date back to 60 KYA. Brunnock 22:01, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation

Hi Brunnock: The aggressive comments at Talk:History are by User:TheoCIarke (note the upper case "I" in place of my lower case "l") impersonating me. Sigh ... --Theo (Talk) 23:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farming question

Please see... Talk:British_Agricultural_Revolution

Maury 11:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:The Renaissance is not an Historical Era?

I simply moved the category to Category:Renaissance, where the other parent cats are. - SimonP 00:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

In general such cats should go on the parent categories, I have gone through and cleaned up Category:Historical eras. On an unrelated note something also needs to be done with Category:History by period, which seems to closely duplicate Historical eras. - SimonP 01:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Columbian Exchange

FYI -- I think you will find the "Age of Discovery" category to be somewhat controversial/POV. On this page, and other pages dealing with native peoples, a percentage of editors consider this period an "Age of Conquest" or "Age of Genocide" or "Age of Colonization". Discovery and exploration don't have an acceptable connotation to them. Best wishes. WBardwin 21:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A merge to reduce the permutations of articles

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fertile Crescent

Sorry, I wasn't trying to dispute the location, I was just trying to revert some questionable edits back to the last good version; I guess I didn't pick the right version. I just revised my edits; let me know what you think. Jasmol 07:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Kinsale 1601 entry

Why did you remove the entry for 1601?

It's part of the 80 years war which is already linked to on the relevant century pages. --Brunnock 10:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It may be part of that, but only to an outsider. And then only at a push: the Spanish were minor players in what became a papal-supported war for national liberation. Kinsale was the decisive battle of the Nine Years War (1594-1603) which almost bankrupt the Elizabethan state. In Ireland Kinsale was, more importantly, the crucial battle which ended two millenia of Celtic civilisation and ushered in the British conquest of the entire island. That is the importance of it having an entry. As such, its significance for modern Ireland was far greater than was that of the 80 Years War for modern Spain.
Please list the war, no the battle. If you look at the page, there are no individual battles listed. Also, please get an account and sign your name. --Brunnock 20:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Err

YOu have heard of the Eastern Roman Empire (The Byzantines).. right?

Sure have. I call them the Byzantines. What do you call them? --Brunnock 13:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I think some more preliminary steps in the dispute resolution process might be better-advised at this point. Neutralitytalk 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help make it grow, set tasks etc. Thanks. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weblication

Hi! I've never heard this term before, but my Google search has 345,000 hits, not 26,000. I have heard of Web app before. Stephen B Streater 10:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. --Sean Brunnock 10:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In your amendment here you said only 26,000 hits was the reason for removing the term weblication. I don't think it's worth correcting there, but if there are over 10 times this number of hits, it might affect your opinion. Stephen B Streater 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperpower

Thanks for your fine edits on the pompous, verbose and badly written hyperpower article. --Guinnog 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Granary nominated to COTW

I have nominated Granary to WP:COTW. It is at this moment still a stub. --Francisco Valverde 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocene

yes? that's what we say on 10th millennium BC. On 9th millennium BC we say that the Neolithic began (which lies within the Holocene, we live in the Holocene to this day). I found the statement like that in the article and saw no reason to change it. dab (ᛏ) 22:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brunnock

Take a look at Brunnock; and article that appears to fail WP:N on verifiability. One might suspect it is intend as humor. Have you irritated anyone lately? 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I put a sockpuppet notice on User:Dannyfloyd. --Sean Brunnock 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Dear Sean Brunnock,

1. If you, for whatever reason, have any issues with me please could you direct them to me 2. I struggle to see why you are highlight my use of 'whilst' as it is a very common word taht I use appropriately 3. If I wanted to make a fake entry (sockpupperty I think it may be called) I would manage a much better effort than that I have recently read 4. I am not throwing accusations about but I am getting a little suspicious about what the real situation is here

Regards (oh shouldn't I use that word???) Andy

[edit] Quirinal

Agreed, I'll keep the entries to more important events. JMK 13:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History pages

I'm adding events to them that I believe are important events. They appear to me like very incomplete summaries of important events of those centuries. And many of the events listed in them are also doubtful as important entries. Take 1565 for example. Am I not proceeding correctly? How should we judge events as important or not? JMK 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference of opinion about pottery. mediation cabal case

Hey Brunnock, as you might have known Nick filed a mediation cabal case with you as a primary involved party. I asked him where he'd like for our discussion to take case, so in the meantime I would like to check up with you whether your fine and willing to participate in this mediation? Thanks, — Tutmosis 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate. --Sean Brunnock 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since your online at the moment, do you agree with the description of the situation Nick provided on the case page? Also what would like to be the outcome from this mediation? — Tutmosis 23:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a difference of opinion. Venus figurines are not pottery. I have cited 14 references which state that Jomon pottery is the oldest yet found. Those citations can be found at the top of Talk:Pottery. I don't think there's a single historian or archaeologist in the world that considers Venus figurines to be pottery. It's been nearly a year and Nick hasn't been able to cite anyone who claims that Venus figurines are pottery.
I don't want anyone to get the impression Venus figurines are pottery. I've already dealt with white supremacists and anti-Japanese whoevers who want to claim that Europeans and not Japanese invented pottery on the Timeline of invention. I don't want to go through with that again. --Sean Brunnock 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Both, I've just posted a note on my talk page (Nick) saying that it might be better to discuss this matter on the appropriate mediation page, but seeing that Sean has started the discussions on this page I'm perfectly happy that they should continue here. In response to what Sean has written above, I'd ask you both to look carefully at what I wrote, see the history section of my last edit to the Pottery article. I chose the words I used very carefully, out of respect for Sean's views and to try and avoid problems like those that arose last year. You will see that I was most careful not to write anything that could possibly be construed as suggesting that the Venus figurines were pottery. In fact the words I used were The earliest ceramic objects found so far are figurines discovered at Dolni Vestonice in modern-day Czechoslovakia. I'm very puzzled that this could be interpreted as meaning that the figurines were pottery. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Both, again, There is evidently a time-difference between us, so to try and speed things up I'll add the following to my response to what Sean wrote above. It is my personal opinion that the Venus figurines might quite reasonably be described as pottery (this view was also shared by most of the contributors to the debate that took place on the Pottery talk page last year). It is Sean's view that the Venus figurines can not be described as pottery, on the grounds that only pots can be pottery and that as a result things called pottery figurines can not exist. I hope that I have represented Sean's views fairly here. It happens that in the academic record there are many references to pottery figurines, a Google search on the term produced many hits; three of the ones from the first two pages are shown below. However, I also believe that what exists between Sean and myself is a difference of opinion and I realised some time ago that this difference was probably irreconcilable. This was why I wrote using the words I did, in an attempt to find a way round the problem. See: 1 2 3 Regards, Nick. Nick 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, reading the book excerpts Sean provided at Talk:Pottery, they all say that the oldest known pottery was found in Japan. One of sources also says that the oldest ceramics found are the Venus figurines, while not refer to them as pottery. So why do the sources Nick provided all refer to the figurines as "pottery figurines" in the title? I'm a little confused, if pottery is ceramic ware and this figurines are ceramic, why wouldn't they they be considered pottery? Now I dont think I saw Nick's sources say that the figurines are the "earliest known pottery" making me think that Nick made the judgement himself which seems reasonable when his sources refer to the figurines as 'pottery' and are dated older than the Japanese findings. Still, if archaelogists understand that this figurines are pottery why would they say that the earliest pottery is the one found in Japan? From my understanding Saun sourc only see ceramic vessels and pots as pottery. So why don't all official sources refer to pottery as just that? Such as my dictionary. Can you guys expand on this issue? — Tutmosis 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels. See [1], [2], [3], or [4]. Nick and others define pottery as anything made from fired clay. I think that when it comes to Venus figurines, we should adhere to the archaeological definitions. In the pottery article, I added links to the webpages I just mentioned. Nick deleted them and I restored them and then he asked you to mediate. --Sean Brunnock 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
One quick question though, this sources Nick provided [5] and [6] which appear to be pages from books, why do the titles refer to the figurines as "Pottery Figurines"? Is that a term that doesn't yet have an article Pottery figurines? I'll still wait for Nick to expand on his position more but based from the information provided so far I'm beginning to agree that Pottery isn't the place to mention this Venus figurines as being the "first instances of pottery", probably better off mentioned on the ceramics article as "oldest know ceremic figurines". — Tutmosis 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The Venus of Dolní Věstonice article does state that it is the oldest known ceramic and the Ceramics (art) article also states that the Venus figurine is the oldest known ceramic. That's been the case for years. The Pottery article used to define pottery as ceramic vessels (see [7]), but the definition was rewritten after I pointed out that Venus figurines aren't vessels.
I'm not sure where the term "pottery figurine" comes from. To me, the word "pottery" is a noun and is not meant to be used as an adjective. --Sean Brunnock 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Who rewrote the lead? How come no one reverted if it's wrong based on reliable source definitions such the ones you pointed out? — Tutmosis 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The lead was rewritten by User:WBardwin (see [8]). I didn't revert it because I'm sure this would lead to an edit war and I'm the only editor who believes that Venus figurines are not pottery. I've stuck to making my case on Talk:Pottery. In the past year, one of the pottery editors asked 3 admins if "something could be done about me" (see [9], [10] and [11]). Another pottery editor used a sockpuppet to write an attack article against me (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy).
This pottery situation has just been really ugly. --Sean Brunnock 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, indeed quite a complicated situation. I can't help but wonder why your alone in this dispute. You said you didn't want to get into an edit war, but seems this case was started by a revert. Was this the last straw and you had to do something? Have users tried to enter the information about the figurines before or is this basically the first time? Asking just to help me get a broader perspective on the overall picture. Also did you ever try to seek outside perspective on the issue elsewhere, like WP:3? Thanks, — Tutmosis 03:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I first became aware that Venus figurines were in the Pottery article during February of last year. An editor changed the Timeline of invention and used the Pottery article as the source of his information. I removed the reference to Venus figurines in the pottery article and posted my reasons on Talk:Pottery/Archive_1#Candidate for Oldest Pottery.
In March, I rewrote the History section of the pottery article with proper citations. To date, it's the only part of the pottery article that has any citations (see [12]). I don't know why Nick is trying to rewrite the section now.
I don't know why I'm alone in this dispute. I asked for help on Talk:Timeline_of_invention#Questionable edits in February, but to date no one has responded. I thought that after I posted 12 citations pointing out that Jomon pottery is the oldest then that would be the end of that dispute, but the debate continues. Some editors may have nationalistic or racist reasons for wanting to "prove" that Europeans and not Japanese invented pottery. This is not an isolated situation. I've run into a very similar debate on Talk:Rocket with editors who have changed the definition of rockets in order to prove that Europeans and not Chinese invented rockets. --Sean Brunnock 11:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Both, First off, I agree very strongly that the Pottery article is not the place to say that the Venus figurines are the first instances of pottery and in my last edit of the article you will see that I described them as being the earliest known ceramic objects. I think that Sean might not object to this description of them. Sean?

Sean wrote the words that follow (they are still in the article as it presently stands): Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels ... earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered pottery. This makes Sean's position clear; he holds the honest opinion that the statement he made is correct and I respect this, even though I do not agree with him. Sean's statement suggests that there is a universally-accepted definition of the term pottery that excludes figurines, which I do not believe is the case. At the risk of boring everyone to death, let me re-state what I think should happen. Since Sean and I are never going to agree on a definition of the term pottery, let us then re-write the history section of the article to avoid the problem. This is what I was trying to do in my last edit of the article. Alternatively, it might be possible for the article to reflect both of the opposing views, though I think that finding any sort of agreement on the wording to be used would be difficult.

The reason I think the section in question is due for a re-write is largely explained above. I think that Sean's statement, quoted above, must not be allowed to stand unchallenged. I know that Sean believes it to be correct, but there are other opinions on the matter and I think it is only fair that these should be represented too. Or, as I have suggested, the section should be re-written in a neutral tone that bypasses the problem. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it all comes down to reliable sources. If pottery is defined only as "ceramic vessels and pots" then mentioning Venus figurines in the pottery article might not make too much sense. I hope Nick, for the sake of his arguement, can provide sources indicating pottery has a much broader definition. I'm sure there are plenty of books and journals on pottery (specifically) if anyone bothers to search for them. I'm also sure most mention archaelogical findings (history) of pottery and when they date back to. If this books mention Venus figurines than I see no harm in mentioning them at Pottery. If they do not, then why mention them when the books don't? Now when I say books/journals I'm not talking about ones that are topic specific such as "Ancient japanese pottery" or "Venus figurines", I'm talking about the broad "Pottery for Dummies" type if you will, something on the overall subject. Ones both of you (if not already) are aware of how this books describe the "history of pottery" then I think it be quite easy to see who was right or wrong in this dispute. — Tutmosis 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Materials scientists do define pottery differently from archaeologists. Materials scientists define pottery as anything made from fired clay. This is a relatively recent redefinition. I don't think that this definition should be applied to the history of pottery. When it comes to the history and archaeology of pottery, I think that the tradition definition should be used. Otherwise, this article will rewrite the historical record. --Sean Brunnock 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it would be possible to split the subject into 2 articles to satisfy both fields of classification? — Tutmosis 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is. Currently, there's a note attached to the Pottery article which states that archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels with links to some archaeology related websites which verify this. If Nick will agree to stop deleting that note, then I don't care what he does with the rest of the article. --Sean Brunnock 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
So your fine with Nick inserting the Venus figurines note as long as the article states that in archaelogy pottery is known as ceramic pots & vessels? — Tutmosis 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There's already note in the pottery article to that effect. That should suffice. Materials scientists define pottery as anything made of fired clay. Great, but that has nothing to do with ancient pottery. If Nick or another editor starts claiming that materials scientists classify Venus figurines as pottery (which is not documented anywhere as far as I know), then that gives the racists and revisionist historians an excuse to claim that Europeans and not Japanese invented pottery.
I think that Nick should acquaint himself with WP:CITE. So far, none of his edits contain any citations. --Sean Brunnock 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I definetely agree that citing sources is the most important step in solving a content dispute. I asked my last question because I though your previous response sounded a little strange - If Nick will agree to stop deleting that note, then I don't care what he does with the rest of the article.. Getting back to the problem, You have said that "material scientists" claim a different position. I don't think it would adhere to WP:NPOV if we excluded a group of people. So we can try to split the article or another solution (probably better) is to clearly tell the reader all this things you have already told me: Who defines pottery as what. Would you agree to such a rewrite? — Tutmosis 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What group do you think is being excluded? --Sean Brunnock 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that these discussions are becoming unduly complicated. For me, the problem is Sean's statement that Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels ... earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered pottery. This is a very strong statement that in my view presents a personal opinion as fact. It is also written in a far from neutral voice.

If you search the scholarly literature (Google -> More -> Scholar) the term pottery figurines brings up twenty-two pages of hits and many of the articles found are written at least in part by archaeologists. Under Sean's definition of the term pottery the pottery figurines that are the subject of these papers do not exist; but they do exist and I don't see the point of trying to deny this.

It would be possible to write something like the following: The term pottery lacks a universally agreed definition. On the one hand the term is sometimes taken to exclude all wares except for vessels, but on the other hand it is sometimes taken in a broader sense to include such things as, for example, figurines, statuettes and tiles. But I don't think this would be the best way to handle the problem. Regards, Nick. Nick 09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, Hi Sean, Hi Tutmosis. I add support to Nick's latest suggestion. It is neutral. It would succinctly give a reader the necessary information. It is the type of entry that an encyclopaedia should contain
Also, and I do not know why, a comment I added yesterday did not appear, it was " Dear all. I became aware of this debate only earlier today when I removed what I thought was anonymous vandalism from the Pottery article. I have now read the background and can see it is quite a hot topic. I would like to make a suggestion. Let the article acknowledge that different useages exist. This seems a common sense solution. It would also benefit the article, and readers by allowing them to know that some fields of study consider figurines can be pottery whilst other fields do not"Theriac 11:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Venus figurines are not considered to be pottery. That is a verifiable fact. If you want to state that Venus figurines are considered pottery then you have to cite something. --Sean Brunnock 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sean, I think we've probably rehearsed the arguments for and against pretty well on both sides by now and are starting to go round in circles. Perhaps it might be better to call for mediation before too long, unless you have anything new to discuss. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Added later: Sorry, What I wrote in the final sentence of my last posting might better have been expressed as: Perhaps it is now time for us to call on our mediator to give his views on whether or not the disputed statement should be allowed to remain in its present form. Regards, Nick.

Hi Sean. I agree that some people (such as archaeologists) do not consider Venus figurines to be pottery. But people from other fields of legimate study (you wrote earlier about Materials scientists) do consider clay figurines are pottery. The article should include all legimate views (and I do not include those with prejudicial views which you also wrote about earlier). I add support to
  • The inclusion of the Jomon finds
  • Information about the differences of opinion on if figurines are pottery or not
  • Nick be given the opportunity to continue with his editing (which extends to more than just the archaeological finds)
  • An article that is neutral

ThanxTheriac 11:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's original research. I acknowledge that the material scientists' definition of pottery includes figurines, but no scientist in the world considers Venus figurines to be pottery. If you can't cite it, then you can't put it in the article. --Sean Brunnock 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sean. I do not understand what you refer to by "original research"? I think though that "no scientist in the world considers Venus figurines to be pottery to be original research" as this can not be cited. ThanxTheriac 12:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page. Specifically, my talk page. I'm allowed to state things here without citations. On the other hand, if you want to add the sentence "Venus figurines are considered pottery" to the Pottery article, then you have to cite something. If you can't cite anything, then you're doing original research. It's not a neutrality issue. I cite sources. Nick does not. --Sean Brunnock 13:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Sean. I know it is your talk page. But it has also become the talk page for the debate about part of the pottery article. If you are not happy with the debate happening here can you suggest somewhere else?
You misunderstood my earlier suggestion, so I will try to confirm these:
  • I support the inclusion of the Jomon finds. I think Nick does as well. This is in agreement with you so I do not think you need to be confrontational.
  • I did not write "Venus figurines are considered pottery" I wrote “Information about the differences of opinion on if figurines are pottery or not “ This does not mention the Venus figures
  • Nick has recently been editing the whole of the pottery article. He did include some new parts, and I did not agree with them all. But with his additions and minor edits by myself the article was improved. Allowing him to carry on (I think Wikipedia advises somewhere writers to be bold) could help the article to carry on improving. I do not know him, but in my recent exchanges with him he seems to value input.
  • The article needs to be neutral. This is why it should the different useages of term Pottery should be included. I am sure these could be cited. How about letting him, and others, try to improve the article. I am sure everyone accepts that citations must be included.

ThanxTheriac 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V takes precedence over WP:NPOV. Nick is not improving the article. He has been adding lots of unsourced material. Frankly, I don't care. On the other hand, he took a sentence which contained three citations and deleted all of them. Removing citations is not acceptable. --Sean Brunnock 14:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, what is your final sticking-point on this matter? May I take it that you will accept no compromise on the wording that you used ("Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels ... earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered pottery") that in any way leaves open the possibility that other views might exist? If this is the case, then, as I wrote above, perhaps it is now time for us to call on our mediator to give his views on whether or not the statement should remain in its present form. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick, you have to cite your sources. Cite the other points of view. At the same time, don't delete citations that you don't agree with. --Sean Brunnock 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. In the case of mediator involvement I add support to Nick's description. ThanxTheriac 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, you ask me to cite my sources and cite other points of view, so perhaps we are getting somewhere at last. I wish to see the article cover the figurines from Dolni Vestonice, in no great detail and without referring to them as pottery, because I think that the people who use Wikipedia would expect to find them mentioned in an article on pottery. Most of our readers will not, I think, make the fine distinction between pottery and other ceramic materials that you do. I note, incidentally that you have deleted all reference to the figurines in the article as it stands, except for the note containing the statement about figurines not being pottery. Now if you are happy that I should re-write the part of the article dealing with the figurines in a neutral voice, putting forward an alternate view and citing a reference for it, would you find this acceptable? The reference I have in mind is a paper by Stephen Chrisomalis of the Department of Anthropology at McGill University. I quote it here: In the case of pottery, Childe argues, "A moulded lump might easily have fallen into the fire and been baked hard. Apparently an intelligent mammoth-hunter at Dolni Vestonice (Moravia) noted the result of such an accident and repeated it deliberately" (Childe 1963 [1953]: 48). What is more amazing is that Dolni Vestonice is an Upper Paleolithic site, where pottery appears to have existed millennia before its rediscovery in Jomon period Japan and elsewhere. The book of Childe's to which he refers is Childe, V.Gordon. 1963 [1953]. The Prehistory of Science: Archaeological Documents. Regards, Nick. Nick 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the subject. You replaced the following line
Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels (see [13],[14] or [15]), 
earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolní Věstonice are not considered pottery
with
The earliest ceramic objects found so far are figurines discovered at Dolni Vestonice 
in modern-day Czechoslovakia. They were made more than twenty-five thousand years ago and are, 
it has been claimed, also the earliest known wholly man-made objects.
You claim that this was a "neutral edit". I claim that you removed several citations. We agreed to let a mediator settle this. --Sean Brunnock 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sean I agree, it's time to bring in the mediator, Tutmosis? Regards, Nick. Nick 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an authority on all matters, in fact this isn't my area of expertise (big suprise there). As a mediator I tried to get both of you to come to an agreement, that failed and you seek for me to take a side. To be honest, it's very hard for me to take a side on this matter. I agree very much what Sean is saying it terms of citing sources, this is the most important aspect in solving this dispute. The problem is it seems both of you have at least some sources that back up your view. I would like to advise Nick, not to remove or modify information but discuss your changes first. Sean, from what you have told be there appears to be a recent group you call "material scientists" who have their own definition of pottery. It would be wrong agains't WP:NPOV to exclude their definition. Both of you should respect each others views, if "pots and vessels" is the standard historic archealogical definition, well let the article state that. Also I would advise both of you stop making accusations at each other that the other has a secret agenda, that leads no where. Since you Nick strive to include more information to the article, clearly present your case while sourcing it. Something in the sense of "I would to include information A because source A says this to be true". Anyone has to be clearly in denial in order to reject clearly presented information. I think there was a lack of that before. When someone opposes your view and going ahead and including it is just provocation rather than a resolution. We are not here to present the truth (per WP:V), if Venus Figurines are indeed pottery, this will definetely be stated somewhere. If it's stated no where, it's just an opinion and original research. Myself, I can't tell you if Venus Figurines are pottery or not but books and journals can. — Tutmosis 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:N.Hopton STATEMENT OF POSITION

These discussions have become very confusing so I would like to present a summary of my present position on the issues in question. Sean might care to do the same thing.

Firstly, from what Sean has written above it is clear that his main interest in the Pottery article is to ensure that it presents the strong, clear and unchallenged view that the ceramic vessels of the Jomon period are the world's earliest pottery. This is because he is using the article as a weapon in a war of words that he is waging elsewhere. He believes that any edits to the article that represent views different from his own will undermine his position in this war and he deletes them. I do not believe it is proper that the content of Wikipeda articles should be determined by such considerations.

Secondly, to defend his view that the vessels of the Jomon period are without question the world's oldest, Sean has deleted from the article any reference to a group of twenty-five thousand year old ceramic figurines found in the Czech Republic (one of these figurines is the so-called “Venus of Dolni Vestonice”) beyond a footnote baldly stating that “Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels ... earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered pottery”. I believe that this statement is not written in the neutral tone required and is opinionated. The statement is also oddly phrased, taking the first part “Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels” one would expect it to continue “earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered by archaeologists to be pottery”. As written, the statement uses a trick to carry the reader from the specific to the general.

Thirdly, I argue strongly for the inclusion of the figurines found at Dolni Vestonice in the Pottery article, on the grounds that they are considered by some authorities to be pottery (see the Chrisomalis reference quoted above) and that even if they are not pottery they are regarded by some authorities as being precursors to pottery (I have references for this too). My personal view is that the figurines might with some degree of justice be described as pottery, but of course this depends on how the the term pottery is defined.

Fourthly, so far as I remember, I have never referred to the figurines as pottery, I have only ever used terms like ceramic objects and, in fact, it is of no personal interest to me whether or not the figurines are called ceramic objects, or pottery or precursors to pottery. However, I do insist that the article should be balanced and present the whole picture, and that very strong statements to the effect that the earliest pottery wares are those of the Jomon period and that the Czech figurines are not pottery have no place in the article.

Fifthly, Sean and others have rightly taken me to task for being lax about providing references. As it happens, a lot of the work that I have been doing on the Pottery article has been editing other peoples' efforts and trying to improve its structure. It is a fact, I'm afraid, that most of the original editors have not provided references for much of what they wrote and I am reluctant to try and supply these. I also have problems sometimes in knowing when a reference is required but I will look up the policy on this and do my best to comply with it in future.

Sixthly, in the discussion above Sean has said Nick, you have to cite your sources. Cite the other points of view. At the same time, don't delete citations that you don't agree with. Well now, what I deleted was the contentious statement that “Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels ... earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered pottery”, sorry to quote it again. This statement was not where it should have been, in the body of the article, but in a footnote. When I deleted it, the citations went too, which was not perhaps the most diplomatic thing to do. Taking encouragement from Sean's words (Cite the other points of view) what I propose to do in the next few days is to start editing the history section of the article, doing just this.

Finally, I'd like to thank our mediator Tutmosis for his participation in this exercise, I'm sure it's never an easy job.

Regards, Nick. Nick 13:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to adress your point about where you quote Sean as saying: “Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels ... earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered pottery”. If you agree with that statement then there is no point in putting the Venus Figurines into this article, since they are not vessels. if the statement is false and you can cite proof, then it's another story. — Tutmosis 20:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And Nick, I looked at that Chrisomalis paper you mentioned. It was paper he wrote as a first-year grad student. It was never published. He simply posted it to his personal website. You need to cite a more reliable source. --Sean Brunnock 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking Tutmosis's question first, I think if you look back over our discussions, in particular at the second point in my position statement above, it will be evident that I do not agree with Sean's statement. I will rehearse my reasons:

(1) The statement is opinionated, contentious, lacks a neutral point of view and was written to serve a purpose in a war about who made the earliest pottery.

(2) The statement is misleading, it refers only to how archaeologists define the term pottery and is intended to create the impression that all archaeologists define the term in this way, without providing references to support this claim.

(3) The statement uses a trick to lead the reader from the specific Since archaeologists define pottery as ceramic vessels, to the general, earlier examples of ceramics such as the Venus of Dolni Vestonice are not considered pottery. In other words, just because because archaeologists might use a term in a certain way, that usage is the general one. Even if we accept the doubtful notion that all archaeologists are united on a common definition of the term pottery who is to say that the definitions provided by, say, lexicographers are wrong? A collection of dictionary definitions of the term has recently been posted by User:Teapotgeorge on the Talk:Pottery page and I commend this to you; it demonstrates beyond question that there is no unanimity on definitions of the term pottery. Regards, Nick. Nick 12:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Sean's comments on the paper by Chrisomalis, I have to say that I think he's clutching at straws here. I found this paper by doing a search on the Google Scholar search engine. It was originally a document in PDF format on a site that has now disappeared (this eventuality is covered in Wikipedia:References) but that was converted to HTML by Google and cached by them. I think it odd that Sean should take issue with the paper on the grounds that it was written by a first-year grad student. Correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that a first-year grad student is someone with a first degree who is working for a doctorate. Why should a scholarly paper written by a such a student be judged by Sean to be unreliable? Only because it says something he doesn't like the look of, I think. The document was, of course, published. How on earth could I have found it had it not been? Discussions with Sean are always a joy, we are now set for a torrent of words on definitions of the term published, round and round we go. Regards, Nick. Nick 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Nick. It was never published. You can check Chrisomalis' CV- [16].
Nick, I have cited 12 verifiable and reliable references which state that Jomon pottery is the oldest yet found. That was over 10 months ago. I think this debate has gone on too long. --Sean Brunnock 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sean, Chrisomalis wrote this paper and published it on a web site. How else would you describe the action of putting a scholarly paper on a web site? One thing we do agree on is that the debate has gone on for too long, this mediation process has evidently broken down, so now we must be thinking about the next stage. I hope that our mediator Tutmosis will express an opinion on whether or not he considers that further progress is possible here. If further progress is not, in his opinion, possible, perhaps he would tell us where we go from here. I think we are probably beyond mediation and must now be thinking in terms of arbitration. Regards, Nick. Nick 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I did provide my long opinion above. My primary suggestion to progress forward is for you both to speak more to each other. As of now both of you seem quite uncommunicative. If you Nick want to include a mention of Venus figurines into the article then please cite sources. The situation about the definition of pottery is also something both you seem to be avoiding. Per recent discussion at Talk:Pottery if archaelogical definition is "pots and vessels" while the more general one is "ceramic ware" then you should discuss how to rewrite the article to satisfy both views. — Tutmosis 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello Tutmosis. I have been reading the debate, and adding the occasional comment. I have also received personal abuse so I know this is a sensitive subject. I would like to suggest that there are two separate sections:
  • Definition of pottery. There are differences across fields of study. Sean has acknowledged this (archaeologists and Materials scientists). I can see no reason why an article on Pottery should be exclusive to a single field, and exclude all others. There have been many sources cited already for the different definitions. These could be rationalised into a short summary, which acknowledges the different useages.
  • Inclusion of the Venus figurines seems to be more sensitive. Sean appears to object to any mention of them. Nick appears to favour some form of inclusion. I see that Sean has recently criticised a citation that describes Venus figures as being pottery. To me it seems a good citation but could you, Tutmosis, advise on this?

ThanxTheriac 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Tutmosis it is an excellent one. So Sean, how do you suggest we should rewrite the article to satisfy both views? Regards, Nick. Nick 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Tutmosis suggested that the article's definition should point out the archaeological definition. --Sean Brunnock 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sean. Well I am getting confused. There is debate here and over at the Pottery talk pages but I did find this from Tutmosis Sean, from what you have told be there appears to be a recent group you call "material scientists" who have their own definition of pottery. It would be wrong agains't WP:NPOV to exclude their definition.ThanxTheriac 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the mediation over? --Sean Brunnock 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So there you are Tutmosis, you suggested that we should re-write the article to reflect both views and Sean has rejected your suggestion, maintaining that his archaeological definition should be used. By this he means that only his archaeological definition should be used, unless I misunderstand him. Sean might care to clarify this point. In reply to Sean, I'd say that if you insist that only your archaeological definition should be used, then it is unlikely that further mediation will be of much use. Regards, Nick. Nick 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Nick is overreacting. WBardwin rewrote the definition of pottery citing the ASTM. This is the material scientists' definition of pottery. The current definition does not mention the archaeologists' definition. --Sean Brunnock 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see an ASTM standard listed in the references but it doesn't appear to be cited anywhere. I'm not sure that it was User:WBardwin who tried to define pottery in terms of ASTMs, he's a potter I believe. Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Above, I wrote "Sean has rejected your suggestion, maintaining that his archaeological definition should be used. By this he means that only his archaeological definition should be used, unless I misunderstand him. Sean might care to clarify this point". Would you care to clarify this point, Sean? Regards, Nick. Nick 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I said both definition should be stated since both of you or at least Sean acknowledge there are 2 definitions: archaeological and "material". The article, from what I understand is already written from the "any ceramic material" perspective. So maybe adding a mention that for a long time it was only know as "ceramic pots and vessels" before the definition was expanded by "material scientists" to include anything ceramic (all per what Saun told me). Regarding the Venus figurines, it all depends if archaeologists or who ever is involved in studying them classify them as "pottery". If they do then it would be reasonable to clearly state something like "The first ceramic object were the Venus figurines while the first ceramic pots and vessels were found in Japan." I haven't closed the mediation and wasn't planning on, I'm waiting for both sides to settle their differences. I'll be following the dispute until then. — Tutmosis 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tutmosis, regarding your suggested wording "The first ceramic object[s] were the Venus figurines while the first ceramic pots and vessels were found in Japan." yes, yes and yes again! But you have to understand that Sean will never accept any such statement in the article. Regards, Nick.

I have just posted a call for opinions on the matters being discussed here, on the Pottery talk page Talk:Pottery in the hope that this might help us to make some progress. Regards, Nick. Nick 12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pottery defintion - suggestion

Hello Nick, Sean, Teapotgeorge, Tutmosis.

I have been reading through the talk pages here and over at Pottery (and there is a lot!). But there is also much good stuff. I have picked some citations out from the pages, and some from books. I am not claiming this to be my own. I have tried to make a summary but which covers both sides. I suggest this as the start of the whole article:

Pottery is (1) the ware made by potters; (2) a ceramic material, (3) a place where pottery wares are made; (4) the business of the potter

More specific definitions lack universal agreement, with some writers advising “it can have various meanings and so has been avoided whenever possible [1]” Published definitions include:

  • "All fired ceramic wares that contain clay when formed, except technical, structural, and refractory products." [2]
  • "China, earthenware and any article made from clay or from a mixture containing clay and other materials" [3]
  • "A class of ceramic artefacts in which clay is formed into containers by hand or in molds or with a potter's wheel, often decorated, and fired"[4]
  • "The term pottery includes many varieties of ware from the crudest vessels of prehistoric times to the most beautiful decorated porcelains, stoneware and earthenware; it also includes many articles such as large grain-jars used in ancient times for storing corn and other dry materials, wine-jars and modern sanitaryware and the large tanks for containing corrosive acids. Many kinds of earthenware, stoneware and porcelains are used for scientific and experimental purposes as well as electrical apparatus (insulators, switch-bases, sparking plugs and bases or frames for electrical heating appliances)" [5]

[1] Singer, F. and Singer, S.S., Industrial Ceramics (Chapman Hall, 1963) [2] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM [3] COSHH in the Production of Pottery, Approved Code of Practice. HM Stationery Office 1990. [4] Ashmore and Sharer 2000: 252). University of Denver [5] The Chemistry And Physics Of Clays. 3rd edition. A.Searle & R.W.Grimshaw. Ernest Benn. 1959


ThanxTheriac 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this very helpful posting Theriac. It helps to make clear the fact that the term pottery can have a narrow meaning and also broader ones. As you know, I contend that the broader meaning should also be represented in the article. I also believe that this was the view of everyone who contributed to the great debate held on the Pottery talk page last year, except for Sean. Regards, Nick. Nick 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transfer of debate

Hi Sean. Taking note of what you said on the Pottery talk pages "I would be appreciative if folks would refrain from posting their personal opinions on my talk page. They are welcome to do so here." I have copied my earlier suggestion over there. So everyone please meet up again over at Talk:Pottery1 ThanxTheriac 14:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the full citation of the Ashmore and Sharer Theriac 13:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Pottery

I doubt your removal of pottery discovered in China 10,000 BCE ago,if you read carefully the reference,there are more ancient pottery excavated in China than Japan in 10,500 BC.There's no conclusion the the techniques of pottery spreading from Japan to other parts of Asia.So donn't try to make the conclusion.--Ksyrie 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Brunnock

Check the talk page for 11th century, I left a fitting response. Hah.--PericlesofAthens 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Centuries

This is to advise you that the above WikiProject which you created is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Centuries. Thank you. John Carter 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year page formatting of multiple events

Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~