Talk:Chinese calligraphy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese calligraphy. 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/20110917105406/http://www.communitycenter.org.tw/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cot/COT_201005.pdf to http://www.communitycenter.org.tw/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cot/COT_201005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321051147/http://www.communitycenter.org.tw/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cot/COT_201006.pdf to http://www.communitycenter.org.tw/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cot/COT_201006.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.laoziacademy.com/daoist-arts/daoist-chinese-calligraphy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Spirati (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

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

We can consider including the modern day popular use of rewritable water writing cloth, which doesn't need ink and thus environmental friendly.But overall, this article is well-developed with high level of organization. --Xenia0418 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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)