Talk:Chinese calligraphy/Archive 1

Seiseki Abe

I would like to suggest an article on one of the gratest caligraphers in modern Japan, the master Seiseki Abe. Besides being one best shodo teachers in the world today, he's also an Aikido master, holder of 10th degree. A direct disciple of the founder of Aikido (Ueshiba), and at the same time Ueshiba's caligraphy teacher. His work is simply breathtaking. I recomend urgency on this matter due to fact that Abe sensei is very old.

I see lists of great calligraphers -- added his name (unfortunately in Romaji, only) ot the list. Nikevich (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may be recognized as good by some people, but I don't think he deserves to be listed among the likes of Ono Michikaze and Fujiwara no Yukinari. Wait a few years after he's dead, and then see if he's worthy. IMO not even Qigong should be on there.174.23.214.78 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions for consensus on main translation of script names

I strongly feel that Wiki should be using, as the main translations and page titles, the terms used by influential educators and scholars. I am proposing to use the following as the primary terms-- oracle bone script (not oracle script); Zhou bronze script (specifying Zhou if that is the period, since bronze is a medium for inscriptions from the mid Shang to Han and onward); clerical (not official or scribal) script; cursive (not grass or draft) script; semi-cursive (with running hand secondary) script; and as for kaishu, I cannot identify a standard term -- reputable scholars seem to use all three forms (standard, regular, & "kaishu"). For each script, the primary term should be used on each page mentioning it, while all the secondary terms can be mentioned once in a box on the main page for each script style.Dragonbones 09:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support. if you have the proper references that verify the most common english name, you should just go ahead and change it. Appleby 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no published survey asking professors which term is most common; the best we can do is have a look at textbooks and scholarly articles to get a feel for whether there's any consensus. The above is my read on that consensus; certainly the terms official, scribal, grass and draft are not dominant standards, although each can be found. I cite Qiu Xigui in translation by Norman and Mattos for the preferred usages. Dragonbones 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference:

裘錫圭 Qiú Xīguī (2000). Chinese Writing. Translation of his 文字學概論 (1988 PRC ed. in simpl. Chin.; 1993 Taiwan ed. in reg. Chin.) by the late Gilbert L. Mattos (Chairman, Dept. of Asian Studies, Seton Hall University) and Jerry Norman (Professor Emeritus, Asian Languages & Literature Dept., Univ. of Washington). Early China Special Monograph Series No. 4. Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley. ISBN 1-55729-071-7. Note: this is a fundamental, systematic, comprehensive and authoritative work on the nature, origin and history of the Chinese writing system. It has been recommended by scholars of the highest caliber.Dragonbones 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to change the English names, you should move the articles as well!!! Right now you've basically broken our links to the ~~Running script and~~ Grass script!! -- ran (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! (oops). Stupid newbee mistake. Dragonbones 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of seal and clerical script updated

The brief references to the origin of seal and clerical script were misleading or unclear. Note (briefly) that seal evolved organically out of the Zhou bronze script, and contrary to popular conceptions, the style of small seal was already established before Qin Shihuang or Li Si were even born. Similarly, clerical script arose not from the official Qin script (seal) but from its vulgar counterpart. Furthermore, this evolution began during the Warring States period; thus clerical script was not born in the Han dynasty. Rather, it matured partway through the Han. I will be updating the seal, clerical and Chinese writing pages to reflect a more modern scholarly understanding, and will expound upon this, with references, in the relevant discussion pages in the near future.Dragonbones 10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

origins of standard, or regular, script updated

After "The Regular Script (often called standard script or simply kǎishū) is one of the last major calligraphic styles to develop, emerging..." I've added "between the Hán and Wèi Dynasties, gaining dominance in the Southern and Northern Dynasties, and maturing in the Táng Dynasty. It emerged from a neatly written, early period semi-cursive form of clerical script." The reference is the authoritative Qiu Xigui (pp142-9) which I've added to the references section. I'll incorportate similar but more detailed information on the main page for that script soon.Dragonbones 07:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason the regular script sample shows 'shu' in simplified characters? It would be more accurate to show the running style with this allowable simplification, and this seems to conflate completely different issues (styles of writing and forms of characters) which those who aren't fluent in Chinese might easily misinterpret.

Every script was originally brush written

This is to correct a common misconception about ancient scripts. None of them, not even the Shang script, was fundamentally a carved form as opposed to brush-written. The brush has existed since Neolithic times, as evidenced by brush-marks in the pigment on painted potteries of the time. In the Shang script, characters for brush and book are present, and some of the oracle bones still have vermillion ink graphs on them (uncarved). The misconception arises because the vast majority of early writing has survived in carved form, which is of course because perishable wood, bamboo, and later silk and paper media didn't survive as well as harder ones. See Qiu Xigui (ref. on main page) for evidence. Dragonbones 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New image

There is a new image available Image:Japanese calligraphy.jpg if anyone wants to use it, I don't know anything about the subject, so I might put it in the wrong place. - cohesion 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The top icon is not good. It is ugly and it is not in regular script as it claims to be.Hillgentleman 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I believe this page should be renamed to Chinese calligraphy. Either that, or Chinese calligraphy should be a separate page. "East Asian" calligraphy is Chinese calligraphy. The only exception is Hangul calligraphy, which is (as far as I know from glossing over Hangul entries in international calligraphy competitions) written with Kaishu-style strokes. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term "East Asian" calligraphy is inaccurate and it is basically Chinese calligraphy using Chinese characters. We should move this page to Chinese calligraphy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

We have East Asian calligraphy for the same reason that we have Islamic calligraphy instead of, say, Arabic calligraphy. Although Islamic calligraphy is done in the Arabic alphabet, it is done not only by Arabs but also by Muslims of many other ethnicities, and is done in not just the Arabic language but also many other languages spoken by Muslims. Similarly, calligraphy is used by Japanese and Koreans to write in the Japanese and Korean languages. -- ran (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to have a separate article on Chinese, Japanese, and Korean calligraphy?

... I merged Chinese calligraphy and Japanese calligraphy together in the first place because I found that 90%+ of each article applied to the other one as well. -- ran (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ran, I think you're envisioning "this-and-that calligraphy" as "national" identities... What I'm saying is, all forms of "East Asian calligraphy" are derived from Chinese characters, and as such should be called Chinese calligraphy. Another problem with "East Asian calligraphy" is that it assumes this form of calligraphy to be practiced by all East Asian peoples... and that isn't really true. -- Миборовский 02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar wiki articles is not a justification for renaming two separate things in my opinion. The articles should be separate or there should be a paragraph explaining the similarities.

--Sunawave 08:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese calligraphy is very different from Japanese calligraphy. Firstly the brush-holds are different. Then the aesthetics are different. Hillgentleman 10:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I would like to see a seperate page of Chinese calligraphy (and also pages of Korea and Japanese calligraphies also) since it is a deep subject.Hillgentleman 10:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Brush Holding

The image of brush holding does not look right to me. It seems too laxed. I don't know about other people, but my habit is to use the first segment of my index finger to control the brush. And the little finger should be on the nameless finger, not on the brush itself.Hillgentleman 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way brushes are held depends on the calligrapher and and style. There is no such thing as a "Chinese way" or "Japanese way" or whatever, although some ways of holding a brush are more popular in certain regions. There is no one correct way. You can cite 田英章《九成宮碑技法精解》.Asoer (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I am talking about. There is a standard way which every Chinese calligrapher more or less follows, which is not followed by the Japanese. Please get beyond your one-book reference and check with the outside world. Best, Hillgentleman (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topics of Calligraphy

What about the typical topics of calligraphy? Not a word on that. Can I safely say that the topics of Chinese calligraphy are classic and religious writings on the one hand, and Poetry and proverbs on the other? UncleMatt 12:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grass script

As one of the possible meanings of the first character 草 can be "draft" (according to EDICT dictionary[note1]), I wonder if it woulden't be more logical to call it "Draft script".

No mention of Vietnam calligraphers?

Before Vietnamese changed their writing system (I don't know when), they also might have notable calligraphers using Chinese characters. Once I saw old Vietnamese paintings which looks similar Chinese paintings, so if anyone in project Vietnam see this thread, please fill up the information on it. --01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I had already put several Vietnamese writers who would have obviously been calligraphers, if not expressedly, then by default...and yet, the constant ignorant conspiracy to forceably remove Vietnamese culture from the greater Sinic culture, and superficially calling it "Southeast Asian" was again, at work here. Some "unknown" wikiuser removed it, assuming that they were "not known" for being calligraphers, simply because some of them did not claim to be in so many words...but they expressed different styles of accomplished writing Chinese characters and even had their own pen names! Ho Xuan Huong, Nguyen Trai, Nguyen Du, Tran Trong Kim, and Ho Chi Minh are my suggestions for Vietnamese calligraphers...because they WERE OBVIOUSLY calligraphers!

Furthermore, Chinese and chu nom calligraphy competitions are still popular even among the youth today...I had just attended one in Ho Chi Minh City and in Hue the other year.

Le Anh-Huy (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnamese name for calligraphy types has clearly mentioned but calligraphers' list were erased several times? It is absurd to remove the list of Vietnamese calligraphers. Vietnam's case is different from the rest of the Southeast Asia. The other Southeast Asia countries adapt Chinese character for their writing? Not that I know of.

Then I think the title of this article should be renamed like "Chinese calligraphy" since the current title "East Asia" refuses to include the Vietnamese calligraphy in an absurd reason. For alternative, "Asia calligraphy" seems too broad.

Japan, Korea, Vietnam has strongly influenced by Chinese culture even thought they have their own unique individuality. The fact and history don't change that all of countries mentioned adapt(ed) Chinese characters and their calligraphy culture reflects upon the writing system. Even old or modern Korean calligraphers write in Hangul (Korean writing), the information can be dealt with in the future Korean calligraphy article. My suggestion is simple, just including Vietnamese calligraphers or changing the title name. How do you think? --Appletrees (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the history of the article, User:DHN claimed you didn't provide the references of whether the people are famous for calligraphers in Vietnam[1]. If you add relevant references, there will be no objection to your claim. --Appletrees (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reference that these people were calligraphers. They are famous people who happen to compose their works using Chinese characters. I haven't found any source that makes any claim about their calligraphic abilities. DHN (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.141.68 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt to re-name

Chaps, this really is about calligraphy with Chinese characters, not 'East Asian' calligraphy. I'm proposing a re-name to Chinese Calligraphy, as is only meet and right. There's no reason why there should be a separate Japanese calligraphy article while this one is stupidly-named 'East Asian calligraphy'. The article on the characters is Chinese characters, with Kanji and Hanja as daughter articles, not 'East Asian characters'. The same should apply to an article on various written forms of those same characters. InfernoXV (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If one looks at what this article is about, an accurate title would be "Han Character Calligraphy" or "Chinese Character Calligraphy." However, a reasonable title would be "Chinese Calligraphy," "Chinese" referring to Chinese script, which should be obvious given that the article is about script. Although each region in the Sinosphere has their own variations and styles, their calligraphic works still primarily use Chinese characters. If one wants to account for these differences, one should create separate articles, for example, Japanese calligraphy, Vietnamese calligraphy, Korean calligraphy, etc. For calligraphy in scripts that aren't Chinese, but still native to East Asia, I also recommend separate articles, or a section in an article about calligraphy in a region, for example a section about Kana calligraphy in the Japanese calligraphy article. Asoer (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody says otherwise within the next few days, I'll attempt to move this article. Asoer (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calligraphy was not art

In ancient China, the "書法" was not considered an art, but simply the (correct) way of writing. Its main goals were to ensure that characters can be read, to ensure that they are concise, and to ensure that the characters look good. Only recently was it considered an art, and calligraphers started departing from the aforementioned three goals. You can cite 田蘊章《每日一題每日一字》. Asoer (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While making an edit, 128.195.141.204 asked the question "How can calligraphy be consider by the chinese to not be an art form until recently. Even the cited reference uses aethetics as a criteria for good calligraphy." Even though one of the objectives is to produce something that looks good, something with an objective of producing something that looks good isn't necessarily art. Characters are often aesthetically pleasing by themselves if the other objectives are met. No legitimate calligrapher seeks anything special in the aesthetics of a character. An artist may actively seek something special in the aesthetics of their work. This is one of the differences between 書法 and art. Asoer (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of calligraphers

To be most helpful to users, the list should be of notable calligraphers and not famous calligraphers. Ding Shimei is a modern "calligrapher" who won modern rewards that are given by modern people. Such rewards and recognition isn't necessarily indicative of his level of calligraphy. The list in the article is for notable calligraphers that should at least be superior if not in the same league as Qigong. A criterion I recommend is that if people who are added are still alive, there is a high chance that person shouldn't be there. Also, there's a format to the list. If someone randomly adds a name that doesn't follow the format or is out of order, the added name likely shouldn't be there. It also helps if there's an article about that person. Same with Liu Bingsen. Don't let his high position like "Vice-Chairman of the Chinese Calligrapher Association" automatically make his calligraphy better. Such positions are often poor indicators of their level of calligraphy.

I know there's a lot of random people in the Japanese and perhaps Korean list. I'll look into it later.

But from now on, watch addition of new names, especially modern calligraphers. Asoer (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive blanking by User:Asoer

Since the article is about calligraphy of four Asian countries, the article splitting and merging should not be unilaterally decided by one person. Raise the issue to WP:CHINA, WP:JAPAN, WP:KOREA, WP:VIETNAM. I don't see any discussion for the splitting decision.--Caspian blue 03:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#What_to_call_East_Asian_calligraphy Asoer (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bokuseki

This is related to the debate about whether east-asian calligraphy is an art or not: I think there are other calligraphic traditions than simply brush-writing in the “big five” styles. I’m thinking in particular of the so-called Zen calligraphy, called Bokuseki 墨跡 in Japanese. I might be mistaken here, but I’m under the impression that bokuseki is 1) very individualistic and æsthetics-driven, thus closer to our idea of “art” than 書道 and 2) kind of lived outside the (past) rigidity of 書道 tradition. It seems to me that, in the tea ceremony, bokuseki is more popular as an alcove-scroll exhibit than pure shodō; if that’s true, it would be another point for bokuseki-as-art.

---lazy anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.10.219 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, Japanese themselves distinguish between the traditional art/craft of calligraphy, and the modern individual and aesthetics-driven styles. The latter are motivated by the Western concept of "art" and the "artist" (the concept popularised by 19th century France). The former is "tradition", and does not allow the artist to express his/her personality. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 May major expansion

Redone, added, moved, or displayed sections:

#Definition (redone)
- Names (added)
- Art or practice debate (not balanced -> summarize + moved to Debate around East Asian calligraphy as an art)
#Evolution section (added)
#Technique: principles (added)
#Evaluation (hidden -> display)
#Influences (1 Japanese and Korean calligraphies; 2 Other arts) (added)

Consensual contributions welcome. Creation of article Korean Calligraphy welcome. Yug (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration that needs revising

The caption begins: "Scheme of Chinese calligraphy paper..."

It's plain that considerable thought and care went into preparing the illustration; there are considerate touches such as kind references to beginner's aids. However, the illustration can be improved. It seems likely that the creator/artist has an Asian first language. If I were learning that person's language, and could come anywhere close to that person's fluency in English, I'd be very happy, indeed!

This illustration, however, needs the help of a native English speaker; it definitely needs copy editing. As well, the layout could be improved. Individual blocks of text, in some instances, could be placed better (there are even some overlaps). For some mysterious reason, the right side is cut off, although when the .svg file is rendered in Inkscape, the text is complete. The .svg file includes a large Chinese character, located some distance to the right, which does not show in this Wikipedia illustration, and might possibly just simply have been forgotten.

While "Paper" is understandable as the title, when one thinks about it, something like "Traditional Document (Page? Sheet?) Format (or Layout)" would be more descriptive. The diagram on the right side, that shows where to start writing, and where the seal should be placed, is so tall and narrow that (except for color -- a very pleasant color, btw) it's hard to recognize as representing the paper. I tried to rework the diagram in Inkscape, and found that I simply don't know how to do many necessary changes (such as editing text).

The term "case" which apparently describes what's technically a bounding box (within which a character is written) is quite confusing. Whether "bounding box" is OK to use in such an illustration, I just don't know; it's a technical term in typography.

With my best regards, and hopes to start learning,

Nikevich (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nike,

First, the file you seen was broken. Asoer restored a correct version on March 20, 2010.

Several of your comments seems relate to those display bugs.

Case -> Bounding box. ok, noticed.

An IP also said : "wrote vs written", can someone confirm ? ("Traditionnally, Chinese calligraphy is wrote in column from top right, to bottom left.")

Yug (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the photograph contained within the "Evolution and Styles" section needs some serious revision as the grammar is, no offense, pretty abysmal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.78.34 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, the author's best language is French. It seems that the image shows a typical configuration of items on the table. "Starting case" points to the area where one starts writing. "Stamp area" points to where one might typically sign (and stamp) a work. Paper may have grids printed on them to assist in aligning characters. The block of text in the middle I would word as "Chinese is traditionally written in columns going from right to left. Each character fits within a square. The main text may be in any script and size, while authors may sign in a smaller size, and may also stamp." My vector graphics software created a broken image last time I tried using it. Asoer (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 啟功 and 阿部醒石

Qigong, although considered good in his time, is average at best when considering China's entire history (田蘊章(2006).《每日一題每日一字》). When I cleaned up the list before, I left him on, but he was on the very edge, the lowest common denominator. He is not in the same league as the rest of the people on the list of notable calligraphers in China. Seiseki Abe is still alive. It takes time, among other things, for one to be recognized as notable in this field. As a precaution against a conflict of interest, I recommend not adding people who are still alive. Asoer (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asoer, I added some sources (Stanley-Baker). If you have time, take a look at it. It's mainly on Chinese painting, but that's closely relate (nice for our understanding!), there is some direct mentions of calligraphy and the importance of motion. I did read Stanley-Baker 2010a and extracted the key content relate to calligraphy. I didn't did it for Stanley-Baker 2010b, which should be more focused on Chinese painting in modernity. Yug 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.117.35.27 (talk)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The editing history currently under Chinese calligraphy will be swapped to East Asian calligraphy. Aervanath (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian calligraphy → Chinese calligraphy – East Asian calligraphy more commonly refers to the grouping of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean calligraphy. Chinese calligraphy is the common name for calligraphy with Chinese characters, where the Chinese refers to that script. If it's truly about East Asian calligraphy with all the East Asian scripts (which it is not), than there should be a section about Japanese and Korean calligraphy with their respective charachters in use in those cultures here with a {{main}} header. "East Asian calligraphy" is applied to the region as in calligraphy in East Asia as a whole. Google ([2] vs [3]) / Googlebooks ([4] vs [5] / JSTOR ([6] vs [7]) give significantly more hits for "Chinese calligraphy" than to "East Asian calligraphy". Taking in account that East Asian calligraphy refers to the grouping commonly, it is even higher. The current page would be a disambiguation page.relisting see below. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC) --Cold Season (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Use the common and non-misleading name. Shrigley (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. This is already a complex story, with extensive discussion and some cut-and-paste moves. The history currently at Chinese calligraphy needs to be preserved, so it's not a simple move. But the central questions are (1) what is the scope of this article? Does it include Japanese and Korean calligraphy? At present it does deal with these, despite what is said above. (2) Does the term East Asian calligraphy include Japanese and Korean calligraphy? At present and for some years the article has claimed it does not [8], but this claim is unreferenced. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's the impact on and difference of it in context of Chinese calligraphy. (2) That looks like an uncited compromise as this article is located here, and WP:COMMONNAME overrules it anyway.--Cold Season (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that COMMONNAME overrules, the policy is quite deliberately phrased to prevent that particular argument. You seem to be challenging the current article content East Asian Calligraphy usually refers to Chinese character calligraphy [9], is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese calligraphy meets wp:commonname over East Asian calligraphy, and what I earlier mean is that it still applies even if "East Asian calligraphy is usually Chinese calligraphy", which it is not and uncited. Correct. I should note that the article does not state that Japanese and Korean is not included in what is termed East Asian calligraphy as you mentioned earlier. --Cold Season (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support No doubt an article that should be called "East Asian calligraphy" could be written, but this is an article that should be called "Chinese calligraphy", which redirects here. Rewrite the lead sentence, & set up a disam page for EAC with the various national types. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. But there should be an article for East Asian calligraphy more generally, since the calligraphy of kana and hangul do share important characteristics with the calligraphy of Chinese hanzi for fairly obvious reasons. Those are dealt with only very briefly in the present article. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Black paper, white ink, and pencil brush

Example of Siamese calligraphy using similar technique

John Robert Morrison (1814 - 1843) accompanied Edmund Roberts to Cochin-China and Siam, as Chinese interpreter and translator. As he was fluent only in Mandarin, many negotiations where conducted by means of Chinese characters on Chinese black paper using white ink and pencil brush. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem laying out

With this table : " {{East Asian Calligraphy styles|place=right|size=60px}} "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.39.175 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting (mostly) vandalism

I reverted today a set of edits to the intro between 27 February and 8 March 2013; some were clearly vandalism by anonymous users, deleting material (also parts of words); other ones were partially in good faith, but were deleting the resulting nonsense instead of reverting the vandalism. Some deletions might have been intended and legitimate, but without an explanation I assumed otherwise. In particular, I restored the sentence "There is a general standardization of the various styles of calligraphy in this tradition.", even though it's rather vague and hard to understand - but I think it probably just deserves rewriting.

So:

should we protect the page from anonymous edits, given the amount of vandalism by anonymous users?
if you want to redo some of the edits, please do them as clearly non-vandalic edit, with a username and an explanation. Thanks!

--Blaisorblade (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I agree with Blaisoblade Mikhail.bulgakov (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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) 07:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]