Talk:Writing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Major Restructuring. May 9, 2005

I apologize that I couldn't actually finish the reworking of this article. I thought it would take me only three hours or so, but I vastly underestimated the time requirements. As it is now the article is probably in worse shape that it was originally. However it is, to my eyes, in a form that makes it more easily extensible. I do plan on finishing what I started, but I can't devote any more time to it today, so I thought that I could get a little help.

As it is now the article looks terrible, much of it's content is blatently ripped from other locations within the Wikipedia, and it's horrifically incomplete. In addition there are no longer all of the sweet sweet hyperlinks in the article text and the images ( which go a long way to improve appearance ) are non-existant.

The wikipedia documentation encourages bold editing. How's this for bold? --blt 21:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Very nice. It's much easier to read and actually has the proper branches of information. RickGriffin 04:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has bad information. Hieroglyphic writing WAS NOT principally logogramic. It is a mixture of semantic symbols, phonetic signs and phonograms. This is an important point, and is not included in the article. To say that hieroglyphs are prinipally logogramic is flat out wrong. 00:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what logographic systems are. This is covered in the article. kwami 09:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What Needs To Be Done?

In my opinion, we should break this article up into sections. As far as I see there are three things discussed here. First is writing, a noun meaning symbols and characters that convey information, and the history of this in ancient Mesopotamia etc. Second is writing, a verb meaning to produce written material such as books, articles, etc.. A little history on the second definition might be in order as well, discussing the oldest known written works and that sort of thing. Third is other things referred to as writing, which would be the bits about ghosts, cryptography, surrealism and hard drives currently in the article. If this doesn't adiquately devide the information then maybe a disambiguation page is called for, I don't know.

Any reactions or further ideas to this would be quite helpfull. If we just continue to add more and more things that are called writing we will eventually have the worst mess on the wiki. --Shane 01:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I rearranged a bunch of things. I took out the thing about writing on rice and (with) atoms, because they probably didn't belong in the opening paragraph. If you still want them, try putting them in somewhere else? RickGriffin 01:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Is anyone able to expand on writing at near-atomic level? --Daniel C. Boyer

---

Typically, however, one will use a writing utensil (such as a pen or pencil) to write characters on paper; or a computer (or typewriter) to record characters to disk (emphasis added)

Er, show me this typewriter.

The day I met my girlfriend we went through the communications exhibit at the American Museum of National History, and I don't recall seeing any computer typewriters, but I'll admit under the circumstances I might not have been paying attention. --Calieber 15:52, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

I cut this:

An exception to the general rule that writing is an attempt to communicate is the writing in unknown scripts or languages alleged by mediums to be communicated to them by ghosts, spirits, or other, generally supernatural or extraterrestrial entities. This technique is known as automatic writing.

and this:

Rarely, "writing" is used to refer to the making of marks using various methods, that is not, strictly speaking, writing, as in the "indecipherable writing" (a type of surautomatism) developed by the Romanian surrealists; "indecipherable writing" is actually more akin to what would commonly be described as drawing or painting than writing.

because it didn't seem relevant to the general subject of writing. UninvitedCompany 23:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could not interactive writing be covered under this heading? Apogr 15:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For example, the letter N in English

Is this not the Roman alphabet?

---

An omission was made when discussing alphabets. Why not to regard Runic Alphabet that played a great role in the development of writing of Germanic Peoples and English as a member of the group of Germanic Languages also. Not only the development of writing but the culture was affected. The symbolism of writing should not be omitted. I'll come up with something soon and you are free to edit and implement your ideas.--Beastieboy 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dates

As I tidied the article recently, I noticed that it used a mixture of BC and BCE dates, so I made it consistent. Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) reverted all my edits, claiming that I was "date-warring". He continues to insist on this, without bringing it to Talk, despite the fact that he's the only one doing the warring. Do other editors here have strong feelings either way? The article has to use one or the other; which should it be? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Be honest, it's date warring. There was no BCE in the article before, it was a BC article. Changing it to the less popular and suposedly "politically correct" BCE without consensus is date warring, and it will be reverted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there was one BCE in the older version that was recently added by mistake. There are 6 BC's and this has always been a BC article. So yes, to be just, you should have "made it consistent in the other direction" as you put it on my talk page. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict.

If Codex Sinaiticus could see past his obession with this subject, he'd see that the article was indeed originally incosistent (and that even if it hadn't been, changing the dates wasn't warring — that was instituted by the person who reverted). As I went through it I found that there were far more BCs than BCEs, but I thought it more important to make it consistent than reverse my edits so far. I repeat; if other editors have an opinion, it would be good to see if there's consensus either way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you've found out, some people are extremely touchy about the use of BC or BCE, and Wikipedia guidelines are to go with whichever dating system was used at the creation of the article (see [1]), unless there is an uncontentious consensus to use a different system. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, a majority vote does not give an editor a mandate to convert an article from one system to another, as that will tend to provoke edit/date-warring which is a Bad Thing. Polls are taken not to guage which view is correct but to ascertain the spectrum and scale of divergent points of view. I believe the first version of this article to use dates here [2] uses BC, so in the absence of a compelling reason to change to BCE, the article should stay with the BC style. Hope that helps. WLD 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Punth

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

A punth is any writing utensil, this may include: pens, pencils, crayons, markers, chalk, etc. It comes from the Latin root "punct" which means to point or prick. The word came first from inscriptions because any pointed object could be used to write, eventually the word broadened its meaning to any writing utensil.

This was added by this edit by an anonymous contributor. It seems to be a hoax/neologism, as it isn't in any online dictionary and only gets about 1,320 Google results. PeepP 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan African writing

Are there any records of when writing developed in Sub-Saharan or simply the non-Egyptian regions of Africa? What were these peoples' writing systems like? 152.23.84.168 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just viewing this page for the first time and it is curious that there is no mention of African writing systems. There are a few pages that might interest you (particularly the first two) and could also be referenced in a short section on the subject in this article: Ge'ez language, Tifinagh, Vai language, N'Ko, Mandombe. Latin script usage: African reference alphabet (probably others). Arabic script usage: some notes at Arabic alphabet. An external page with links is on the PanAfrican L10n site.--A12n 15:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge history section

It should be merged into History of writing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A brief synopissi is good for this page ... with a main to the other .... J. D. Redding 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

New World find in Vera Cruz, Mexico (the Olmec civilization)

FYI: [3] deeceevoice 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Writer's hand with pen

I don't know whether it will "pass", but should this image be included in this article somewhere? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since you're left-handed like I am. xD ~crazytales56297 12:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I wonder if this article might benefit from a section on handwriting? This could include types of writing, and also how people learn to write, etc. Walkerma 02:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Styles of Writing" redirect to theis page

It might be better for that redirect to lead to a disambiguation page.--A12n 15:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Professional writing

I also found the following redundant STUB. I quote it below. Whatever useful content it contains - about which I make no judgment, as I have not sudied it - should be merged into this article.

Professional writing is writing that is traditionally done in a formal or professional setting, though this isn't always the case. Those who pursue careers in professional writing often end up in technical and scientific communication jobs, public relations, authoring web content, information design, writing and editing, translation, journalism, and education.

Neil Nixon 16:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I'm against merging Professional Writing and writing, mainly on the grounds that Professional Writing is a growing academic discipline, notably in the US and UK and is developing its own identity outside of Creative Writing. The paragraph above isn't especially helpful but it is driving at the same point I am making.

External links

• Sample of a professional writing course and what you would learn in such a course - wpi.edu
• Subject matter for a 100 level professional writing course - University of Melbourne
• Ideas of some careers specifically involving professional writing - from Michigan State University

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Writing

I strongly recommend, immediately after the Introduction, a section on the "History of writing"!!!

--Ludvikus 16:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Writing

I'm not going to try to do an edit (too much work for an anonymous newbie), but it seems to me that the current History Of Writing section is bizarrely ethnocentric in its contention that the only writing systems that matter are the alphabets. "It is irrefutable that without one writing remains tremendously hindered in its absence"? Mildly incoherent, and patently untrue: one of the world's most literate cultures still prefers a logographic/syllabic system.

In fact, wouldn't you be better off splitting the whole technical topic of writing systems and their history off from this verbiage about writers and what they do?

-- monkey number six billion 80.176.227.229 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Writing, in historical perspective

Is there any reason for this section to be in the article? In addition to having npov problems, it seems redundant given that it references History of writing as a main article, which article is also referenced as a main article by the Writing in Historical Cultures section. -Hgebel 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What are the NPOV problems? J. D. Redding 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A brief outline here is not a bad thing ...

But main article tag it ... as it is now ... should be good ... J. D. Redding 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious -- pinyin a "phonetic component" of Chinese writing?

No writing system is wholly logographic: all have phonetic components (such as Chinese Pinyin or Hanyu Pinyin) [...]

I don't consider Pinyin to be part of the Chinese writing system. One never need write pinyin when writing Chinese, and it's rare to see it used inline with Chinese characters. I also disagree with the statement that "no writing system is wholly logographic", because, as far as I know, phonetic components and the like are not excluded from the definition of "logogram". - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mm, I'm withdrawing the second half of my comment because the logogram article seems to agree that no writing system is wholly logographic. OK, whatever. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm deleting the Pinyin comment. (Hanzi do have a phonetic component - about 90% are radical-phonetic compounds). kwami 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removals

Removed the following unencyclopaedic and unnecessary paragraphs:

Writing also presupposes, at a minimum, three other activities.

Letter and word recording used to presuppose penmanship, and in earlier times, there were professional scribes who were especially talented in that regard. In more recent times, a new requirement emerged - the skill of typing. But today, one-, or two-fingered typing is sufficient, though inefficient, a new skill is presupposed, though not necessary: the knowledge of dedicated software, such as WordPerfect, and Word. The elements of such writing are, of course, the letters of the alphabet and the alphanumeric character set included within the standardized ASCII family of signs or symbols. When appearance factors such as legibility and aesthetics of the words are of greater concern, graphic design-related letter and word recording skills such as typography and typesetting may be required.

The next skill required is the ability to spell words, or significant knowledge of the contents of a dictionary, and the rules of grammar. However, with the advent of the computer a useful new tool has emerged, the so-called spell check, which automatically checks, and, or, corrects, often both spelling and grammatical mistakes or errors. But even the best program cannot find all errors, so spelling is still an important skill.

But the most important skill in writing is considered to be talent, which is believed to be an inborn ability. Nevertheless, courses and schools exist which, if they do not promise to teach one how to become a writer, at least are recognized as being able to improve one's technical skills on the road to improving one's writing ability.

The article is about human representation of language in a textual medium. The above is basically irrelevant. It is also not very well written and presupposes a Western anglophone worldview. Donama 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)sorry any problems email us at maria_claridad@gmail.com

Prehistory versus History

I do not believe that written language is the measure of history.

The extension of human memory began when events were passed from one generation to another by oral tradition.

This predates the use of script to represent language by several eons!

prehistory

As an interesting aside, historians draw a distinction between prehistory and history with the advent of writing systems. The cave paintings and petroglyphs of prehistoric peoples can be considered the precursor of writing systems, but cannot be considered as such because they relied heavily on oral tradition in order to be understood. --writing and representation are completely different means of expression. Whole paragraph ought to be dropped in my opinion.

I agree that this para has problems:

• Firstly, it can be noted that any writing system relies almost exclusively upon oral tradition to be understood - writing systems are learned and explicitly taught via spoken methods (at least, until the point where one understands enough of a writing system to be able to use it to further interpret that or other systems).
• Secondly, it might be better to be more specific re the distinction between history & pre-history, if this is to be maintained. Insofar as there is a boundary between the two concepts, the distinction usually implied by historians who adopt it is between recorded history (meaning, from that time onwards there are available texts of some sort or other which the historian can rely upon to give some near-contemporary account of events), and pre-recorded history (periods of time for which no records are extant or existed in the first place, and one must rely solely upon archaeological or other reconstructive methods to gain insight into the events of the past).

It could also be noted that such a boundary would occur at different periods in different regions, and that within the same region recorded history may lapse into the un-recorded (and back again) numerous times.

• and finally, if it is accepted that writing divides a view of history in this way, then it would be more than just an interesting aside to make the claim...--cjllw | TALK 04:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

merge Written_language into this article?

I think we ought to merge Written_language into this article. The new title of the merged articles could be either writing or written language.--Sonjaaa (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Add new entry in the "SEE ALSO" category

I'd like to add "Metawriting" as a selection. Please add the link in the category. Thank you.--Jrw7235 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,no mention of Writers Chat rooms

Hello, see no mention of writers Chatrooms online. Thanks (Dr.Edson Andre' J.)Andreisme (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hangul

Under Featural scripts, it says, "in practice, Korean is learned by children as an ordinary alphabet, and the featural elements tend to pass unnoticed." Where's evidence? Considering Hangul is represented in feature, phoneme, and syllable levels simultaneously, why would children learn it as an "ordinary alphabet" (what's an ordinary alphabet? Latin script?) any more than as a featural system or as a syllabary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.45.98 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ru:Письменность

Hey, plese add ruwiki ru:Письменность. --91.210.22.89 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please add zh:寫作 as well. --Worrydoes (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the edits by SummerWithMorons

I think that the series of edits by SummerWithMorons are non-NPOV, and are unfairly biased against Western culture.

I also think that many of these edits, especially the one in the introductory section, are not relevant enough to be included in this article. I suggest that such material be moved to another article, such as cultural bias.

I have removed those edits which I feel are not suitable. I invite the author of these edits to discuss them with me on this talk page. Mathmagic (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed one of the Globalize templates added by the editor in question: the edit summary for the addition, as well as the content edits made at the same time, show a mistaken notion of what writing actually is. Eastern writing is not "pictographic writing", and all writing systems, not just Western, function as actual or potential transcriptions of speech. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking notes from vocal messages

Should this article contain at least a "See also" about (I'm not sure what it's called...) taking notes from a vocal message that includes things such as long pauses, deep breaths, an angry voice, sighs, or other important cues and clues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.22.148 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Coincidental?

In the Writing as a category section, in the last paragraph, it states that: "Writing is also a distinctly human activity. Such writing has been speculatively designated as coincidental. At this point in time, the only confirmed writing in existence is of human origin." I don't understand what's coincidental. The last sentence implies that there is some comparison being made, but it seems that only a fragment of a statement is actually being made here. 74.243.12.168 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The role of left-handed people

Most of the people on earth are right-handed, roughly 10:1. This meant that when someone wrote in ink, that the preferable way to write, was left to right, to avoid smudging what had been written. For some reason, prejudice against left-handedness did not seem to stop Asians from writing right to left, risking smudging!

I have not seen anything written on this, but something was clearly awry when you have 3/4 of the people on earth writing potentially smudged documents without complaint!

Not badly done in Left-handedness#Handwriting_and_written_language. Nothing in this article, oddly enough.

(And no, this is not like driving on the right or left. Not nearly that arbitrary due to the supposed overwhelming numbers of right-handers!) Student7 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic slur in writing history

View history of writing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's lovely, but you are removing sourced content and replacing it with your own, badly written, original research and novel synthesis. Wikipedia considers this vandalism and you have been reported to AIV. Pol430 talk to me 12:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, just sorted by time. In history section chronology matters. Just think a bit more and if you get somethnig answer why not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way, both of you are inches away from being blocked for edit warring. Good job starting a discussion here, but don't revert the article again until there's a consensus. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Same, consider yourselves warned about the consequences of edit warring. -- Luk ^talk 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy about being accused of, or warned for, edit warring when I revert obvious vandalism. If you check the IPs talk page and contribs you will see sufficient evidence that they are a long term vandal that has come back after their previous block and started editing again along the same lines, in the same subject areas. I was drawn to this page because the IPs edits triggered an edit filter flag when they removed references; not because I am trying to edit the article to my own POV. The IP has now been blocked by the reviewing admin at AIV and I was going to come back and revert to the last good state once the Ip had been blocked. Now you have threatened me with the ban-hammer I won't bother, but I would be grateful if you reviewed your comments. Pol430 talk to me 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I must be blind, but I read the diffs twice before commenting, and I didn't see more than a wording dispute here. -- Luk ^talk 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if an edit is badly written, or if the sourcing is flawed or suspect, it's not vandalism if it is (or appears to be) a good faith edit. And you had reverted three times when I posted here. Even if the edits are clearly unhelpful or problematic, that doesn't make them vandalism. The fact that the IP started a discussion here is a mark in their favor, honestly - and I'm surprised they were blocked so quickly (but that's AIV for you). In the future, rather than bumping up against 3RR, you might consider posting a request at the edit warring notice board or some similar forum, if only so other editors can confirm your analysis that the edits were unhelpful - or, in the alternative, so that they can find some middle ground between your version and the other editor's. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of vandalism is carefully pitched against WP:VANDTYPES. I feel that the removal of referenced content, combined with the insertion of POV and frivolous explanations in the edit summary is sufficient to qualify these actions as vandalism; particularly when considered, in context, against the IP's previous disruption and block. In terms of discussion, the IP made no attempt to discuss anything, he simply posted an external link to the page history without making any salient point on article content. Notwithstanding any of that, I don't want to get into an argument about this, I have no agenda with this article and I have now removed it from my watchlist and intend to walk away. I am just a bit peeved that I have been accused of edit warring when I don't believe that to be the case, and it is situations like this that cause me to question why I bother trying to protect articles from vandalism. Pol430 talk to me 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing in Wikipedia :D

I am not quite sure some people are able to write ....around here :D using expressions like 'the thing' or 'has two things' [4] in an encyclopedia... it is not about first or second language usage :D ... but probably having a vocabulary of 100 words (even if English is native language). the thing is that you cannot write like this in an encyclopedia :D as it is usually understood in the scientific world :D but also the thing is you often see such things as the promotions of Foucault's philosophy, refers to two things (a very strange semantic formula), etc. Also what actually bothers me is that such degradation of language style in writing can be seen in published books too in the recent years, but in Wikipedia reaches some peaks of mid school gems and I am afraid especially that most of the readers and writers are even unable to notice them.

Because language has two sides: grammar but also semantic rules of expression. --Aleksd (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Writing (Process)

Should there not be an article for the process of writing like there is for Reading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.117.181 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Which process? Penmanship, typing, dry transfer, stencil, engraving, typesetting, speech recognition or all of the above? Oicumayberight (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jane Goodall

'She researched chimpanzees' and she did not die. She started when she was 26 years old in 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4FF:8930:CABC:C8FF:FEA7:36DB (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A good start

This is a good start: a careful scholarly review of various forms of writing and of the earliest record of writing in various parts of the world, but doesn't quite get to the point that at least one person came here looking for. Writing often began--apparently--as a kind of accounting system and gradually took on a broader recording capability. However, this latter phase, arguably the most important one, is barely covered here.

Writing becomes more broadly useful and used presumably when a larger number of people become educated in how to read it and write it. Which forms of writing became more widespread and when? Presumably this took place when people began to record on manuscripts but when did this happen? It may be here but I didn't see it.

I feel that a key section describing the development and widespread use of writing in different parts of the world is needed here. Without it, this is a report of fragmented incidents of writing. --184.70.23.98 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical Dicussions

Shouldn't this article reflect the decades old philosophical discussion regarding writing as a more than merely a supplement to speech and as a "something" which might even precede it? It could be argued that the scope of an encyclopaedia should be mostly scientific (which is debatable), but it's important to point out that scientificity itself has been argued to be the product of the technological concept of writing. See archi-writing. 82.9.92.183 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mesopotamia Mesopotamia

The section on Mesopotamia seems to have redudndant/repetetive/out-of-sequence passages about the tokens and dechi[k'fkhjdghljkl;dhjkfhjkghjlgjlldjh;pdh'dujl;dfjlfvelopment of clay writing.--23.119.205.88 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What Is The Type Of Way To Be One Person When Your friends Want You To Be Another Person ThatS What I Dont Understand Like Why Cant They Like Me For Who i Am & What Im Not ? But Anyways My Life Is Wrost Right Now Ifhjluyjdpuiksyossytjkghslkssykish DOnt Got Time For Those Kind Of People Talk To Me Like Im Just A Toy , You Dont Need Friends to Have A better Life You Just Need The Some People Around you Trust The Most , No Fakes In My Life & I Know Im Not The Smart Person In The World But i Do Know What Im Doing & Whats Wrong Or Right Cause Thats The Person i Am Not A Toy You cant Mess With Cause If You Do You Wouldnt Like :)

                                                 Thank You Sign LNT ! 2015Problems .22:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)208.114.179.185 (talk)

Please edit that part with Dacia(Romania). At the time of the Tartaria tablets there were no dacians in the present day romania as they are indo-european peoples that came to modern Romania later. That is written by a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.39.66.84 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Szentgyörgyvölgy cow

As written, the significance of Szentgyörgyvölgy cow is vague (world model?) and unsupported (no references). What is Szentgyörgyvölgy cow, and what does it have to do with writing? There is even a picture. The significance of Szentgyörgyvölgy cow needs to be clarified or the two sentences and picture removed section removed. 70.172.234.192 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ghourghushti

hourghushti is one of the largest village located in the Chach Valley in Distrck Attock of Punjab Pakistan. The key stake holder of this village are pathan according to some views. However, which pathan group or khel or kom came to this land is still unknown and there are no reliable resources to verify this information. Nonetheless, it is today one of the large village based on pathan population along with other koms or groups. Pathans Koms includes the following: Inayat khel, dilawar khel, sulman khel, kara khel, najab khel, asad khel, haider khel, Dilazak, Sawati, Awan, Babri, chach khel and others such as Shah or sehyad. The other akwam includes the following: Julah, Lohar, Tabehay, Komhar, Rajhey Choudary, Kasmires includes Butts, Dar/Mirs.

Many different views exists today who were the key stake holders of Ghourghushti. There is no doubt that the Inayat khel known as KHANs are predominate bread winners as they occupy majority of lands in the village. According to certain views they inherit majority of land in the village during the British Raj. The land or area of Ghourghushti also belong to other Pathans khels. The majority goes to Maliks, Chach khel, Dilazak and others.

Ghourghushti belong to Sikhs/Hindos before the particiton of Hindostan, and majority of area were belong to them such as Bazaars and others. After the partictions the land was divided into different pathans and others. Majority of Pathans tribes in this area migrated due to wars and killings in their own area. These pathan tibes had no choice but to move from their area such as Hazara, Peshawer, Sawat, and other areas during the wars.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazad12p (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please find my research publications

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sujay_Rao_Mandavilli/contributions Sujay Rao Mandavilli 106.216.165.138 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese

Regarding Chinese characters, the entry now says "In Chinese, about 90% of characters are compounds of a semantic (meaning) element called a radical with an existing character to indicate the pronunciation, called a phonetic. However, such phonetic elements complement the logographic elements, rather than vice versa." --> However, radicals were added to the phonetics for purposes of disambiguation, not the other way around. Many books on the Chinese language acknowledge this. Am I misunderstanding that last sentence? Bao Pu (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

False claim in article

"By definition, the modern practice of history begins with written records. Evidence of human culture without writing is the realm of prehistory."

The great philosopher of history and archaeologist RG Collingwood demonstrated the falsity of this claim: the distinction between "history" and "pre-history" is based on the outdated idea that history is what the people there at the time wrote down. Before writing, we just do history with one fewer type of evidence! GeneCallahan (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Neolithic writing?

Most scholars agree that the Vinca symbols, the Jiahu symbols , and the symbols on the Dispilio tablet do not represent writing systems. I therefore propose to remove the section on Neolithic Writing because it misrepresents the current state of scholarship. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Not English

Hyrdlak: How would you like to rephrase "The technology of writing underpins the rise of the western in its origins dichotomy between language and dialect." so that it is meaningful English? Currently it doesn't make any sense. Langcliffe (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence sounds as if someone is trying to look more clever than they are. Yes, it's broken English, but the main problem for me is that it is completely out of place in the intro. The first three paragraphs discuss the basics of writing, the paragraphs follow one from the other, and then someone throws in something completely different, much more specific, as the second paragraph, apparently without even reading the intro. The fact that the editor violates WP:MINOR and marks both the addition and the reversion as a minor edit does not help either. This is not how Wikipedia works. As WP:BRD says, when someone reverts your contribution, do not revert their revert, but discuss your addition on the talk page. It's not up to the reverter to defend their revert.—J. M. (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Where's the definition?

Eg Fischer

♦ Complete writing must have as its purpose communication;

♦ Complete writing must consist of artificial graphic marks on a durable or electronic surface;

♦ Complete writing must use marks that relate conventionally to articulate speech (the systematic arrangement of significant vocal sounds) or electronic programing in such a way that communication is achieved.

Doug Weller talk 06:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

correction of error

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elamite-language "Elamite language, extinct language spoken by the Elamites in the ancient country of Elam, which included the region from the Mesopotamian plain to the Iranian Plateau.."

2.3.1. Cretan and Greek scripts

is not a sub-heading to 2.3 Elamite

although since 22:42, 13 October 2010 2.3.1 was a sub-heading of 2.3.

c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Writing&offset=20130603184932&limit=500&action=history 22:42, 13 October 2010,‎ 80.196.3.154 talk‎ 31,129 bytes +1,313‎ undo Tag: references removed [accepted by Tony Fox ]

so I corrected the error

(this is the second section made about this error by this user)

Diametakomisi (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

source "‎Jean-Pierre Olivier" does not show concurrence "summarized as follows:ref name=Olivier" (i.e. deleted because "follows" + Olivier is not true because "Olivier" does not show the information (Abstracts only) for "as follows" to be true, &, no reason to show a source to verify the information @, if there is no information available (if the source does show the information: "Article Purchase 24 hours to view or download: GBP 34.00" does not necessarily allow someone to verify the content is true) Diametakomisi (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

headings changed to alphabetical (the headings contents don't show chronology, there is no (obvious) meaning to the previous organisation) - "Cretan" + "Greek" was ordered @ Greek because is the most anciently existing of the two, "South America"; deleted: "had no known script" isn't a subject of writing; no reason to presume a naive reader will think of failure to include within wikipedia to be a factor, if it is the case that South America (with no known script) must be included, then surely all places with no-known script would need to be included, to re-assure the reader Diametakomisi (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC) (minor changes after signature)

"Writings" (as a search criteria intra-wikipedia) was a search return redirect to "Ketuvim" ("...In English translations of the Hebrew Bible, this section is usually titled "Writings".." "(source Meyers 1992)") from 04:39, 2 May 2004 to < 19:16, 18 January 2020‎

redirected to Writing#History (edit made 19:16, 18 January 2020) > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Writings&oldid=936421547

(meaning of: < (shown in this heading)

Diametakomisi (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)