Talk:Artisan

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations

Craft Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeffzzy97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note on gender neutral terms

To avoid an edit war around the issue of gender neutrality, I've added a note explaining the usage of gender neutral terms, and reasons why people prefer to use them. The intention is to reach a compromise between people who are passionate about gender neutrality, and people who think it doesn't belong. (And no, I'm not going to declare my own point of view, even if you ask nicely. :-) Waitak 02:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waitak. I can't say I agree with the additional notes that you have added re craftswoman etc. There are just too many articles where you would then need to include the exact same information. I don't mind changing terms when there is a general consensus in society for the change ( ie previous discussions regarding lineworker vs lineman) but I am opposed to gender neutral changes when there has not yet been an acceptance for the term. I think including notes to appease gender neutrality views is not for the Wiki. Off the top of my head one of the few gender neutral success stories is probably dropping actress for the all inclusive actor, but then I suppose the offensive term man was not in the title. Lumberjack Steve 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the note was a revision of changes made within the article. The intention was to compromise between those who feel strongly on the issue, and those who really don't care at all. Waitak 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that concerned to revert the edit, if others are then so be it. I have watched with a little interest some of the gender neutral discussions and I think the recent issues have probably resolved themselves with patient reasoning between those involved. See ya around the wiki Lumberjack Steve 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some grammar corrections that might tromp on this gender neutral issue. In US and UK English (as well as all other dialects as far as I know) it is always incorrect to use "they" as a singular pronoun. The correct "gender neutral" singular (subject) pronoun is "he." Some people feel that "he" is not gender neutral because it is identical to the masculine singular subject pronoun "he." In that case, you can use the more awkward, but still grammatically correct, "he or she."Tdshepard (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender neutral" terms are usually nothing of the sort. Changing normal usage of the English language for political reasons is not neutrality, it is a form of social engineering based on a political agenda. For instance the chairman of a board can be of any sex, so to change the word to chair is both unnecessary and using the incorrect word. Fishermen can be of either (or perhaps I should say any) sex, so to use "fisher" instead is unnecessary and once again using the incorrect word. I don't think that Wikipedia guidelines require the wholesale re-writing of standard English, as in 1984.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The degree to which gender neutrality has been achieved in the text is really great. What happened with the images? There are five images of males working around the world, and none of females. There should be an equal number of images representing both genders. What happened? Fb2ts (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the second picture

I think the second picture is offending to Russians! User:DavidWatts 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.61.138 (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual/Hands

Can an Artisan not work with his mind? Could you not have a software Artisan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.9.140 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in my experienc a artisan works mind and hands

michael o'rourke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.177.204 (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to thinking about routines, that author of computer software types their intended program or method with their hands, and looks at the output of debugging tools. In that sense, software is a manual art that requires experience, and sometimes apprenticeship or on the task learning to really excel. Look also at journalism or being an editor for a newspaper, there are elements of both a craft and and art. They are practicing a trade, and good journalists and good programmers strive to rise above being just a fast typist. However, a computer program is abstract as a material good, and a newspaper or a webpage of the day's news, is rather abstract as a physical good, it's just a sheet of paper or another computer file, like so many others.

As one of the previous commenters mentioned, it would be a mistake to overlook the fact that an experienced woodcarver or blacksmith for example tends to bring planning and thinking to their work. Perhaps by sketching out a design idea in advance somewhat like how a programmer might make a flowchart of their code's function. I'd say that artisans deal primarily with the shaping and creating of physical objects, distinct from the abstract fields of building expression or function within a diverse language. In the end there's no reason both sides can't take some inspiration from the other if they wish. Abstract "mind workers" seem like they have expressive terms for what they do besides those focused on physical goods, perhaps because they also tend to be the ones doing the describing. Whitebox (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find and document references on the use of "artisan" in this sense, then by all means add it to the article. Otherwise, doing so would constitute expressing a personal opinion or, possibly, independent research, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Someone who makes a living authoring software normally would be called a "professional" rather than an artisan.Tdshepard (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval history

This section was recently added; I've cleaned up some of the grammar or spelling, but if somebody with more knowledge could look into the facts there, I'd appreciate it. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts were taken from a study at Boise State University which I have referenced on the reference section below the article. I am an artisan and this article could really use some additional information. --ArtisanTony (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, Spelling

Uh, who was the person that made most of this article? I mean, come on, 'Jewellery'? It's jewelery. Not to mention countless others. I'm going to go over this article now and fix some grammar/spelling. 66.60.210.32 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewellery" is British English. Please check these things before you decide that everyone else is wrong. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I don't see the alleged "merge" discussion trumpeted here and at Tradesman. Craft should certainly not be merged to this article. Although it's a strangely insubstantial article at present, it should be both about the products of craftsmanship, and the abstract notion of "craft" as a kind of skilled handiwork (so "craft" and "craftsmanship" could be a single article). "Artisan" and "tradesman" raise issues of social position and guilds and such, with an interesting history in antiquity and the Middle Ages and Renaissance, all missing here. "Artisan" in the States, at least, has a rather different cast from "tradesman." An artisan might make by hand one-of-a-kind pieces of furniture, for instance, for sale at specialty shops or arts fairs; a tradesman practices a trade, though I see that "trade" bizarrely redirects to "craft". Two cents worth. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________ May 30, 2012 Just my two cents on this "merge" issue: I think it's a complete travesty and just plain shameful that the commercial industry has devalued the term "artisan", when there obviously is a need to elevate it to a much greater level of aspiration and badge honor. I cringe everytime I see a bag of potato chips marked artisanal and I wince every time I see some rag tag site claim the garbage they are shoveling out is made by an artisan. We need to save this label for only those that deserve it. Or else, what do you call someone who creates with such a passion for the pursuit of beauty and perfection as to easily rival any “artist”? For example, what do you call the person that makes the $100,000 horse saddle (…or a $30K shaving razor, or $250K watch, or even a $100 bottle opener)… not so much because they give a damn about the price (it costs what it costs), but because that person was is driven to make the most exquisitely beautiful version of that thing that one could possibly make – to strive for perfection and create something with a soul. Perhaps the maker is addicted to high of seeing the experience such a meticulously crafted embodiment of beauty can give to those that seek and can appreciate that kind of work.

True Master Artisans create the ultimate things that give us such great emotional experiences – that somehow magically give us a deep and sentimental connection to what otherwise would be a just another plain object in our everyday lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.24.34 (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No merge, per Cynewolfe - I'll remove the tag. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Artisan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120426052739/http://www.whatisanartisan.com/what-is-an-artisan/history-of-artisans/ to http://www.whatisanartisan.com/what-is-an-artisan/history-of-artisans/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shokunin

Why is there a section on Shokunin? Japanese artisans are not inherently different from other artisans.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artisan. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107061228/http://history.boisestate.edu:80/westciv/medsoc/23.shtml to http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/medsoc/23.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]