Talk:Potter's field

Plagiarism

First sentence as it stands is plagiarized from the American Heritage Dictionary. Can someone revise it?

65.213.77.129 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a little more?

In looking at this article as it stands, it fails to really convey the current uses behind Potter's Field. Do we want to leave it like this? Or add to it? Any current thoughts? Wikiport (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Scripture

Curious about Matthew 27:7 I pulled out my bible and looked it up. The piece writen exspands into 3 verses.

Matthew 27:5-8

5: And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,and depated, and went and hanged himself. 6: And the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, it is not lawful to put but them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7:And they took to counsel, and bought with them the potter's field to bury strangers in. 8:Where for that field was called , The field of blood, unto this day.

--dixierosesc (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Riseabovethis

Wallabout Bay

The part about a section of the East River seems to come from a Joseph Mitchell book called The bottom of the harbor. This book is a work of fiction and seemed unworthy of being used as a citation. The part from the book says its actual name is Wallabout Bay.--DataSurfer (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kerameikos

The original cemetery of Athens was also the potter's quarters. Perhaps you want to mention the site as another possible source of the name "Potter's Field" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.81.21 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

References to Jeremiah and Zechariah

I added these as they seem relevant and are in the Good News study bible.

Also, as there is a Potter's Field album, a place in Omaha of the same name, a song (by Tom Waits) and well as this page is there not a good case for a Potter's Field disambiguation page?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Strip mining?

A field from which clay is extracted is not a "strip-mining site"! It is also speculation to say that a field from which clay was extracted would be useless for agriculture, but usable for burials. If there was no soil, and the clay had been taken, stones would be left - useless for graves too.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

While you are onto the right track, there is no making sense of it . Its quite possibly a back-explanation of the name Potters Field to say that it must have been literally where clay was harvested/quarried. There is a reason that a cemetery would be called a potters field ,rather than a cemetery. The children may be particulary scared to walk into a cemetery right, so you might tell them its a Potters field  ?

The name is apt, as a paupers cemetery, which may be in a poor state of maintenance may have numerous depressions ,where the old grave has been, which might remind one of a field that has had clay harvested from it. The field in Jerusalem referred to in the Christian bible would certainly have old graves evident in the form of pits , depressions, and debris from digging, as the Jewish practice is to retrieve the bones from the field and inter them into crypts at or nearer the family home. The article clearly says that the bible reference is only a way to date the name back to then. It does not strongly indicate that the original field was literally used to quarry clay.

27.96.199.11 (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

'US' expression

2nd sentence of article: "The US[1] expression potter's field derives from the Bible, referring to a field used for the extraction of potter's clay; such land, useless for agriculture, could be used as a burial site." This is clearly not exclusively a US expression. The examples list includes a quotation from William Blake, a British artist and poet, and Potters Fields in London, England. Collins New English Dictionary, Collins, London & Glasgow, 1st Ed 1956: "potter's field (Bib.) a burial-ground for stranger Jews; hence a burial-place for unidentified persons etc. (fr. pot)." The source cited for this statement is Collins, 10th Edition, which gives 1520s as the date of earliest recorded usage: "Potter's field (1520s) is Biblical, a ground where clay suitable for pottery was dug, later purchased by high priests of Jerusalem as a burying ground for strangers, criminals, and the poor (Matt. xxvii:7)" The 1520s precede the existence of the United States and of American English as a separate version of English usage. Aside from being inaccurate as regards 'US' usage, the sentence used is not derived from the source it cites. I am therefore replacing it. Robocon1 15:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It does appear to be a US expression now. This is called pauper's grave outside US, and not sure why this article has a US title when common grave is used in all varieties of English? "Potter's field" in books refers to Judas and Akeldama, or Zechariah 11. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have certainly never heard this term used in British English. --Ef80 (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in NYC , where english has been used for a while now, when Ichibod was told to reserve a paupers field , as in a paupers cemetery , he heard "potters field" which he knew as a biblical reference.

Whats missing is that potters field ought to be in a poor state of maintenance. The jews retreive the bones after a year or two, and so the graves would be left as holes ready for reuse. hence it would look like the field had been quarried...

1.129.109.98 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move to the proposed title, and no consensus to move to any of the other suggested titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Potter's field → common grave – common grave and pauper's grave redirect to this article at the American expression, but "common grave" and "pauper's grave" are also understandable in American English. The content about the American idiom can by placed lower in the page, and content about common graves in the rest of the world added. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• A shared term is certainly better, but "common grave" does seem to run the risk of being used to also mean mass grave -- indeed we also have this stub common burial (although I'm not sure that article needs to exist independently).--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Per User:Zxcvbnm, should this not come to a consensus, the article should certainly be restored to its status quo name, rather than the one it was just moved to. Please note that this is not me yet weighing in on this proposed move.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - This seems to be the (a) WP:COMMONNAME, or is suffiently clear that it can be used as WP:NATURALDIS to avoid the parenthetical. Add {{Distinguish}} pointing to mass grave and potentially merge the stub Yaksar mentioned and redirect. -- Netoholic @ 09:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support alternate move - Moving this article back to Potter's field where it used to be until the undiscussed move today and moving The Potter's Field to Potter's Field per WP:SMALLDETAILS. It seems quite disingenuous to move an article to an unnecessary disambiguation and then nominate it for a different name to 'avoid' said disambiguation that was never necessary in the first place. Common grave can also mean mass grave, perhaps it should be a disambiguation page with common burial also redirecting to it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hold on it's not disingenuous it's that (1) "potter's field" usually refers to the literal original Akeldama of Judas Iscariot in books not to a generic common grave in New England, (2) as an idiom for "pauper's grave" this idiom is geocentric American and with all respect, this isn't the American Wikipedia. But whatever I'm not greatly concerned about the (graveyard) bit, but look at the GBook results: "common grave" About 80,700 results, "pauper's grave" About 29,000 results, "potter'+field"+grave+OR+burial -judas-zechariah-iscariot About 21,800 results and many of those results are US place names. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Having said that I wasn't aware that "common grave" can be used for "mass grave". As it is "common grave" redirects here so if it is ambiguous it is coming here any way. Looking at "common grave" in books, it does seem to not be "mass grave" in most instances, but as per @Yaksar:'s suggestion, Common burial might be better, and merged into this. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Potter's field" does not refer to "a generic graveyard in New England", it is the overall term for any graveyard that has unknown bodies interred in it. This dismissive attitude is not helping the discussion and shows that the move to a disambiguation was done in haste. It might not be "American Wikipedia" but it is the most specific term to describe it and anyone who is not from America and is confused can refer to hatnotes/disambiguations._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

But it isn't. This is a US term. In books "potter's field" (small p) refers to Judas Iscariot and really should redirect either to Akeldama or The Potter's Field dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not common grave, since that refers to a collective grave, mass grave, or common burial (at least to some people including me). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: do you think then it would be better if I amended the move template to pauper's grave as per the 2007 Mozart book book below? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's very uncommon for the outcome of an RM to be different from the initial suggestion, even without changing the move template mid-stream (which might be confusing). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that a "potter's field" is a graveyard, not a grave, so a change of title from "Potter's field" to "Pauper's grave" would be a change of the topic, not just a change of the term used to describe the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose common grave sounds like a mass grave, etc. Also, potter's field is the same in Oxford [1] and MW [2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: please note the blue italic "historical : A burial place for paupers and strangers." Those are dictionaries, not encyclopedias, so obviously the archaic historical term exists in dictionaries alongside modern terms. Please consider this, that no scholarly book would say "it is certainly not the case that Mozart was buried in a potter's field: individual graves were the exception, not the rule," (that from 2007 says "not the case that Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave"). And the same https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pauper's_grave does not have the blue italic historical which is used for the "potter's field" entry. It simply has "NOUN A grave provided for a pauper by means of public or charitable funds". In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What's your question? No, Mozart was not buried in a potter's field, nor did he have a pauper's grave, he was buried in a mass grave in accordance with Viennese custom, his funeral and burial being paid for by a patron. A potter's field denotes a graveyard, it is an area (field), not a single grave, nor a single mass grave - and one can be a pauper (someone without funds that no person will pay burial for), an unknown stranger, or a criminal that no one will/can claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. A common grave is a single grave with more than one body in it. The term should not redirect here. Srnec (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. A common grave can mean (1) a mass grave, (2) a grave in common (e.g. several members of one family buried in a common grave, often under a single headstone), and (3) a grave for commoners as opposed to aristocracy (see Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Funeral).

That said, I find the title "potter's field" thoroughly unsatisfactory. In UK (notwithstanding the old quotations noted above), the overwhelming primary meaning is (what I've just learned is called) the Akeldama. "And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in." and "And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." (Matt 27:7, 10). I had never heard the American meaning before today.

I prefer pauper's grave or paupers' grave, which is descriptive and seems to have the same meaning on both sides of the Atlantic, and possibly also in other English-speaking countries. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Narky Blert. 'Pauper's grave' is descriptive and straightforward and understood throughout the English-speaking world. The article should be moved to that title and the US bias removed. 'Common grave' is ambiguous, as most seem to agree here.
Jamesmcardle^(talk) 01:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 26 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Potter's field → Paupers' grave – I think that enough time has elapsed since the last WP:RM (Requested move 7 March 2018, which I recommend to anyone posting in this new discussion; there are also relevant remarks in 'US' expression, above) to reopen this issue. The meaning of 'potter's field' as 'a burial place for the poor or the unknown' may nowadays be exclusively US. It is certainly unknown in UK, where – if it is understood at all, and it wouldn't be to people of many faiths – it would be taken as a Biblical reference. See my remarks in the discussion of 7 March 2018.

(I had almost forgotten that earlier discussion. I am posting now because User:DPL bot had just alerted me to a bad link to Potter's Field (a redirect to a DAB page) in Homewood Memorial Gardens, Homewood, Illinois, which I was able to repair.)

(If my suggested move is accepted, some consequential edits will be needed, probably both to articles and to redirects. I point the closer to WP:FIXDABLINKS, which IMO puts an unnecessary burden on RM closers. I suggest that closer {{ping}} all !support voters (including me) to help with the cleanup.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 11:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to contribute to the move of 'Potter's field' to 'Paupers' grave'.Jamesmcardle^(talk) 09:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Paupers' grave or Pauper's grave? (i.e., where should the apostrophe go?). I suggest the latter, since it otherwise implies a single grave for more than one pauper, which I don't think is the intended meaning. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not exclusively American, Canadian too. It is a Biblical reference, but so what? If this is an ENGVAR issue, leave it alone. Although the proposed title is better than last time's. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR. Calidum 17:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per historical significance and long-term stable name (if it is). The ngram on this is pretty interesting], almost a statistical tie in 2008 but not quite, as Potter's field is used more often. I say historical significance because the ngram shows 120 years of predominate usage of 'Potter's field'. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Separate topic. The article matches the current title, and paupers’ graves are a related, but different topic. Paupers graves are not typically found in Potters’ fields. One topic is an ancient thing, the other is modern. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.