Talk:Tiger Cave Kiln

Excellent article

Thanks to whomever started this article. If someone could give me the Pinyin for Loa-hu-tung I'll put this in the right place. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the picture of the Mongol Period Tiger Kiln Celadon Bowl, is there any evidence to link this directly with the Tiger Cave Kiln? It would be nice to have some pictures of the Southern Song blue wasters from the site as well.

It might just be me being dim, but I can't see any mention of how the Yuan wasters from the site might help solve the problem of Ge wares (Guan/Ge, lump or split?).

Sorry to be a menace. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

Nick's additions of photo material from the PD Collection were mostly of Ru Official Ware and unrelated to the subject at hand. The Mongol Period celadon bowl was indentified as a product of Laohudong from a study of excavation reports. My article itself is ongoing and will be revised. The Ge Ware subject had been raised in various excavation reports and is not yet resolved. This needs to be expanded and clarified. I have studied and collected Chinese ceramics for over 40 years in Japan. I am fluent in both Chinese and Japanese and am a sinolgist by training. I appreciate Nick's comments and input although I sometimes disagree. (Iwanafish)

I have to disagree with Iwanafish's comments above. I put in links to pictures of two pieces of porcelain in the Percival David Foundation (PDF), both of which in my opinion could not possibly be confused with Northern Song Ru wares. However, neither my opinions or Iwanafish's opinions count for much on Wikipedia. Wikipedia demands references from reliable sources, which is what I provided for the two specimens from the PDF. I note that Iwanafish does not provide references to substantiate the very strong statement in the caption of the picture that the brown bowl shown was made at the Laohudong (Tiger Cave) kiln. I would ask him to provide such a reference and also to revert his edit of the article to reverse his deletion of the PDF references. Regards, Nick. Nick 08:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iwanafish, I've allowed a day for you to respond to my posting above. Now I feel I must must take action to put right what I believe are serious problems with this article. Firstly, I propose to restore the reference and links to the Southern Song official wares at the PDF that you have deleted. The source document for the reference was, incidentally, written by Rosemary Scott. Secondly, in the absence of any references to reliable sources, it is impossible that the picture of the brown bowl can remain in the article, labelled simply and without evidence as being from the Tiger [Cave] kiln. Please see these Wikipedia pages: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

It follows, of course, that if no reliable sources can be found that establish a link between the bowl and the kiln, then the pictures of the bowl have no place in the article and I will remove them. Please look to this matter quickly, the pictures must not remain in the article labelled as they are for very much longer. In closing, perhaps I ought also to mention that in Wikipedia there is no such thing as a my article. Let's collaborate and get this business sorted out, it's a very interesting topic and it could be a good article. Regards, Nick. Nick 11:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples from th PDF Foundation are unspecified as to origin of kiln. Thus the two cannot be attributed to the Tiger Cave Kiln. They should be deleted. Iwanafish

Hello Iwanafish, I did give a reference for this, Rosemary Scott, who wrote "... and a number of scholars believe that this dish and the David guan vase were made there". Made at the Xiuneisi kiln, that is. The two specimens are PDF A46 and PDF 4. It's a perfectly respectable source and I don't think I misrepresented it in the article. Regards, Nick.