Talk:Bone china

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Craft

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Old query

Can any one confirm that calcinated OX Bone is still used in the manufacture of Bone Chine. Thanks

Yes bone china still uses calcinated ox bone, however recently many china manufacturer's have now moved to using other compounds to make fine china. Ox bone still makes some of the best china, and also allows the addition of more colourful patterns to the china. Though not as hard as true porcelain, bone china is more durable than soft-paste porcelain. The bone ash also greatly increases the translucence of the porcelain. You can put these plated under light and see how much ox bone ash they have just by seeing how much light goes through. English fine china makers such as Royal Doulton, still use this for china even today. A site I recommend as it discusses fine china, and has expert information is Tableware Tips. They also have a discussion forum - the tea room, where you can ask them questions. They are very knowledgeable and I have asked them questions about fine china, as I collect them as a hobby.

when did bone china start benchmarking?

We would like to know when the process of benchmarking start on bone china.

ceramic stub

The stub is far too limited. Bone china is far more widespread a subject than to be covered by a singhle, art dedicated stub

Multiple issues

This para seems to be POV pushing, carry undue weight, have primary sources misformatted-- have I missed something?

==Boycotting by vegetarians== Due to the use of animal bones in the production of some bone china some [[vegetarians]] and [[vegans]] will avoid using or purchasing bone china.<ref>[http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Health/VEGAN-L%20FAQ.htm]</ref><ref>[https://www.vegsoc.org/veggieaware]</ref>

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle oven

The 'See Also' of Bottle oven has been removed again as:

Why single out this part of the process? If this is listed then why not also list: blunger, ball mill, pug, RAM press, saggar, slipcasting and a large proportion of what is listed here.
Bottle ovens were not unique to bone china; they were used for a wide range of ceramics.
Bottle ovens have not been used for many years. Should a See Also link to the firing process be deemed necessary (which it is not as it should be in the main body of text) then link to kiln.
Its inclusion was supported by the claim in an edit summary by "with production being effectively localised in Stoke-on-Trent." This is out of date by many years. The production of bone china, and indeed all ceramics, in Stone on Trent has fallen drastically. These days manufacturers producing bone china are located in many countries, and which individually often exceed the combined output of the UK. Significant production is found in China, Bangladesh, Indonesia & India, with others also including Japan, S.Korea, Sri Lanka & Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have been editng fron this IP address for less than a day- but seem experienced,

Please register and sign in, so we can hold a cooperative conversation, and please sign your talk page entries.
Adding Glossary of pottery terms to see also is a good idea.
Bottle oven is the most complete article to explain the process used by Wedgewood
Looking at the criteris for FA status tells us that the perfect article must be a complete discussion of the subject- this is way off that but at this stage we are inclusive, leaving links for other expert editors to develop.
Thank you for correcting the typos.
It would be profitable for you to write up a fully referenced paragraph on modern production methods and levels

Feel free to continue this conversation.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have given reasons why Bottle oven should not be included as a 'See Also' in the bone china section. You have not given any reasons it should, whilst the closest you've come have been incorrect. And 'Wedgewood' (sic): the individual Josiah Wedgwood is associated with other body types not bone china. The company of Wedgwood is associated with both bone china along with other body types, and they have long since stopped using bottle ovens for all types. And other manufacturers are associated with bone china, and none use Bottle ovens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please have a discussion here to achieve consensus before removing referenced content, and adding irrelevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott by Vegetarians & Vegans

Vegetarians & vegans:- Please can the persistent disruptive editor stop. They have recently been making a number of damaging edits, often with misleading comments. They have now recently started to post warnings about 3 revert rule, when it is they who are close to being in breach. They motivation is unclear as their edit history clearly shows they are unfamiliar with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further references have been added, which now total 15. This is far in excess of what should be needed but hopefully it should counter the repeated damaging edits of (an agenda pushing?) persistently disruptive editor who has not explained their reasons for removing referenced content on the talk page, or join discussions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, uninvolved editor here. While I don't see any issue with the text in the article currently Due to the use of animal bones in the production of some bone china some vegetarians and vegans will avoid using or purchasing bone china, there's no reason for this to have so many "supporting" references. Suggest we pick one or two good quality, reliable (WP:RS) sources and just use those. Do you see an issue with this approach? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ryk72 - I'm more than happy for you to trim down the number of references. My only caution is about the potential reaction of a particularly disagreeable individual who has recently made a series ill-educated and detrimental edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "171". Many thanks for your reply, and for taking the time to respond. Greatly appreciate it. I think it's best if we focus on the content, so I've taken the liberty of changing the section heading above; apologies if this is presumptuous. I'm glad that we can agree to reduce the number of references for this part of the article; so I'll go through each and make a short list with some reasoning/thoughts. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the references, I have:

[1] "Oh, and when buying your plates remember that "Bone China" really does contain bones." - Mentions vegan only; potentially usable.

[2] - "Things to look out for if you are a vegetarian/vegan: Bone - used in bone china and cutlery handles." - Very succinct, but therefore clear; potentially usable.

[3] - "There is a certain kind of china that nick knacks may be made out of that can be made from an animal byproduct – bone china. Bone china is made from the bones." - No mention of vegetarians or vegans; suggest removal.

[4] - "Things to look out for if you are a vegetarian: Bone - used in bone china and cutlery handles." - I think the "vegsoc.org" is better, and contains the same information; suggest removal.

[5] - "We do not use Bone China which is made from 50% animal bone, burnt and then ground up and mixed with the clay."- This is essentially an advertisement for a shop; suggest removal.

[6] - Bone china & vegetarian are in separate sections; suggest removal.

[7] - "Alphabetical Glossary of Animal Substances: bone char – The ash of burned animal bones. Used in bone china crockery and ornaments. Major use to produce *charcoal." - Supports vegan only, we have equivalent sources for both vegetarian & vegan; suggest removal.

[8] - "Hog bones and skin are used in glue, garments, gloves, shoes, buttons and bone china." - opinion piece; suggest removal

[9] - "Some vegetarians even go as far as refusing to eat or use anything that comes from any kind of an animal source." "Vegetarians should not eat off of bone china dinnerware or use utensils that have bone handles." - Not sure if this is a WP:RS; suggest removal.

[10] - "For vegans and others concerned with animal rights, this issue is particularly salient. If bones don’t need to be in dishware, why would you include them?" - sources back to [11], which is better, but supports vegan only and is a Blog; suggest removal.

[12] - "Some children's toys are made from rabbit skin; and china, fine or bone china, contains up to 40% ox bone" "Some of the things you can do for animal rights are: 1) be a vegetarian; 2) boycott animal circuses; 3) boycott products with animal ingredients; 4) boycott products tested on animals; 5) last but not the least, be an active member of your local vegetarian society" - This looks potentially usable.

If there are no objections, I will remove those for which I have "suggest removal". We can then have a look & see if it looks better. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ryk72 - thank you. I support your constructive and collaborative efforts to rationalise the references. There were too many, although the reason for this sits with another unconstructive editor. I'm more than happy for you to reduce the number of references providing that mention remains of the avoidance of bone china by some vegetarians and vegans, and that the disagreeable individual does not take this has an opportunity to continue their quarrelsome behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.204.203 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello "171" & ClemRutter. I've rationalised the references for this section per the discussion above, and also updated the web references to use the {{cite web}} format, and included the link to the paper book which was lost in an earlier edit. I still feel we have (1-2) too many references for this section. Please let me know if you have any opinions or thoughts on both the current state and also any potential improvements. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: We still have an editor that doesn't wish to understand WP:UNDUE. Considering further, the heading is not accurate, I think it is far too strong to express that a small interest group who happen to be vegan are campaigning for a boycott, and I don't believe that vegetarians wish to be involved. Perhaps just Cultural issues would suffice. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "171" & ClemRutter. I have no particular issues with the removal of extraneous sources. The information is still in the article, and still sourced. I also have no major issue with renaming the section to "Cultural issues", which I will do in the next day or so if there are no objections. I am, however, having issues finding sources for the following section of this Talk page; plenty of sources for artificial bone ash existing, not many for its use in the commercial manufacture of bone china, mostly supporting use for pottery glazes. Please comment in that section, especially if you have any sources available. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Bone Ash

In the edit summary for this edit, the suggestion is made that some bone china is manufactured using synthetic bone ash. If this is so, I suggest that we should include some information in the Article on this, referencing sources in support.

I have done some quick searching, and while synthetic bone ash (dicalcium phosphate or tricalcium phosphate) certainly exists, I cannot yet find a reliable source which supports its use in the manufacture of bone china. I will continue looking.

Interested editors are invited to provide references & suggest wording for inclusion of this aspect. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.247.202.44 (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "220", Many thanks for seeking out this information. I looked through the list of sources, and while I concur that these verify the existence of "synthetic bone ash", and its use in pottery for glazes, they don't seem to verify the commercial production of bone china using synthetic bone ash. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic bone is most certainly used for the industrial production of bone china; either mixed with natural bone ash or on its own. Some web references are: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] & [26]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.250.15 (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2015

(UTC)

Reference this seems nice and clear.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "176" & ClemRutter, Firstly, thank you for finding some additional sources. I agree that the content of the "worththewhisk" source is clear. It is, however, a blog (and therefore a WP:SPS), and a more reliable source would be ideal. I have done some initial investigation on the Wedgwood website, but have not been able to find anything which confirms the claim.

W.r.t the other sources:

Researchgate.net is a write up of an experiment in using synthetic bone ash in bone china. It does not speak to the use of synthetic bone ash in commercial bone china manufacture; the assertion for which we are seeking sources. Additionally, while the Abstract is in English, the document itself is in in Turkish, which limits verifiability;

Potters Friend is also an SPS, aimed at the hobbyist; while it covers the existence of synthetic bone ash, and potential use as substitute in bone china bodies, it does not cover commercial use.

Bonechina.us & Belk.com are shopping websites.

The Island Online shows promise, Sri Lanka has a factory in a village near Colombo which is making look- alike bone china without using bone ash. They use calcium phosphate instead., but I do not concur that it is sufficient for the claim we are making.

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found 4 more references:-

Skeletons In The Cupboard. Asian Ceramics February 2013.
Bones Of Contention. Asian Ceramics. April 2004.
The Case For Synthetic Bone China. Asian Ceramics And Glass, July 2000.
Replacing Bone Ash In China. D.Gratton. Journal Of The Canadian Ceramics Society 65. No.4. 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.254.78 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have always regarded WP:SPS) as mandatory for biographies, and a strong warning for contentious articles. But we have consensus here! But in this case, taking a cautious approach we need to look at the notability of the blogger. Drilling down through her page she has endorsement from the Huffingdon Post- and runs a Food Blogging Convention. She seems to be a respected writer so safe enough to use in the circumstances while the search continues. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClemRutter, Apologies for the slow response. I usually take a fairly cautious approach, but am happy enough for you to WP:BOLD something up, either as a draft here or on the Article itself. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural issues - missing verb

Hello, I hope an editor more knowledgeable than I would correct the final entry which is totally improper written English, lacking a verb. It would make things ever so much better to read. 70.171.212.234 (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Resolved; readded text removed in this edit. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]