Talk:Chinese calligraphy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese calligraphy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minor verification
I inspected the following diff and I found some information lost. Need to come back to pick them back. Yug (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Overall phrasing/article wording review?
Just a passing-by observation, this article seems as though going over it and fixing grammar mistakes/quirks might be a good idea, though not one of particularly high priority. Things that might seem to cross the boundary between encyclopedic description and editorial could also be addressed ("...embodying the artistic expression of human language in a tangible form."), or things where citations are addressed without introduction ("According to Stanley-Baker..."). Essentially, the article could use a syntax/phrasing review if not a content one.
Sport
The first line of this article states calligraphy is a kind of sport. In what way does it meet the definition of a sport? Is it competitive? I would have thought it was more like an artform than a sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.20.60 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Present day technology for calligraphy practice
Vietnam
@Donald Trung: I agree that Vietnam is relevant. It actually was mentioned until a this revision boldly and systematically removed all mentions of Vietnam throughout the whole article (not just the section you amended). I thought removing the mentions was qestionable, but I was busy that day and assumed someone else would deal with it, so I forgot to do anything about it until your edit showed up on my watchlist. – Scyrme (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Scyrme, the justification this person gave was "not reflective of East Asian context of article" which is something they did in a lot of articles whether or not "East Asia" was mentioned or not. Oftentimes this is plain vandalism and they also suffer from "WP:CIR" issues, see here and here. Their main aim on Wikipedia seems to be removing any references to Vietnam in any article discussing Chinese culture claiming that "only East Asia should be mentioned" as if culture is purely geographical and whenever someone questions them they reply with "stop spreading errors". I'd argue that they are essentially "spreading hoaxes through omission" as lying by omission is a form of lying and claiming that Chinese culture never influenced Vietnam and doesn't have any relevance to Vietnam is a hoax. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note that this article is called "Chinese calligraphy" and not "East Asian calligraphy", yet DelusionalThomaz515610's justification is essentially that this article may not discuss anything outside of East Asia so deleting this is justified because of some "East Asian context of article" (SIC). Their vandalism of Sinosphere articles dates back to 2019 and if someone undoes their vandalism they will return a year later with the exact same justifications. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
