Talk:Chữ khoa đẩu

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Very confusing

This topic of the article is curious, but the current revision is very confusing, and possibly misleading.

What does it mean that the script is "doubtful"?
How are "Chữ khoa đẩu" and the "Tadpole script" related? The sentence about it is very obscure.
What is the article actually trying to say about the usage for the Muong language? That the same script was possibly used for both Vietnamese and Muong? Or that these were different scripts? Or something else entirely? It would also be a nice thing to clarify.

Perhaps the answers to my questions are hiding in the cited sources, but unfortunately they are written in Vietnamese, so I cannot read them. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chữ khoa đẩu

The article Chữ khoa đẩu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

pseudo-scientific original research by Đỗ Văn Xuyền, what he calls ancient Viet script is actually Tai Dam script, this is known as a hoax. The hoax is actually explained in the 4th source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sgnpkd (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgnpkd: I don't really have time to deal with this now, as the sun is shining and Vietnam/China issues about Vietnam's early history are fraught with nationalism. But if something is a hoax does not mean it is not notable. If it is a nationalistic myth then the issue here is notability. Are there enough sources discussing this hoax for it to pass WP:GNG? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bio of the scholar a better option?

https://petrotimes.vn/chu-viet-co-cua-ong-do-van-xuyen-tiep-113045.html https://sachhiem.net/VANHOC/PhamNgocDuong.php

four mentions on vi.wp haven't checked to see if relate to his Chữ Việt Cổ. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See definitions of "chữ khoa đẩu" (in Vietnamese) https://nghiencuulichsu.com/2018/04/20/nguon-goc-chu-khoa-dau-va-hai-chu-khoa-dau/

Đỗ Văn Xuyền's fraudulent claim https://trainghiemsong.vn/do-van-xuyen-va-viec-xao-xao-chu-thai-thanh-chu-viet-co/

This is the Tai Dam script which he claimed was ancient Vietnamese. Sgnpkd (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

second prod

@Sgnpkd: not sure that you should have placed a second prod. Please discuss with @Greenknight dv: In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

curprev 13:20, 30 April 2020‎ Graeme Bartlett talk contribs‎ 4,255 bytes −282‎ prod challenged by Greenknight dv at WP:REFUND stating:"Chữ khoa đẩu" version by Xuyền is certainly a hoax, but this hoax is still circulating among many Vietnamese fundamentalist nationalists. This is exactly why there should be an article about it, including the arguments refuting it, in the first place. Beside that, there are some other speculations, though still debatable, about what chữ khoa đẩu mentioned in ancient documents really was. We just do not delete an article about a hoax jus undothank

If the article should exist, as similar to Jindai moji then it should be renamed as "khoa đẩu" is the Vietnamese name of the Tadpole script, the script mentioned in "ancient document". I still think this does not deserve an article because of its poor content, nothing can be expanded anymore except stating it's a hoax. Furthermore, the hoax has not gained enough attention even in Vietnam, and since a long time, nothing is heard about this or from Mr Xuyền anymore. Any speculation, or hoax about pre-Sinitic script of the Vietnamese language should be merged into the Vietnamese language entry. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]