Talk:Jiahu symbols

Photograph is Not Jiahu Script.

The photograph given [[1]] is an oracle bone inscription dating to the Shang Dynasty. It reads 貞旬癸卯卜. Therefore, its inclusion into this so called Jiahu Script, is spurious. Dylanwhs 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Writing System Debate

"...some doubt that the markings represent systematic writing at all..." This should read that "...most doubt that the markings represent systematic writing at all..." Most archeologists and historians do not consider this to be an early writing form. The only people who think that this is a writing form are ethnocentric, government sponsored Chinese archaeologists/historians and the associated fringe Western types. Current evidence does not support this and therefore it should not be implied that there is already significant consensus on this matter, supporting the writing position. I will change the article accordingly.Phail Saph (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence?

It kinda looks like 目八头日, doesn't it? Well considering the first character is inverted 90 degrees which was how people wrote it in the Shang Dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.12.20 (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-split after merge

@Gothicartech, is there any update on expansion of this article here? In its present state in a vacuum I would advocate for it to be merged back as I did before, but given your confidence that it can be fleshed out into its own article that better serves readers I wanted to check in. Remsense ‥ 论 06:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is relatively easy to expand, as the generated controversy will continue to feed speculations by the scientists. There is no doubt in my mind that this subject is perfectly notable on its own. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no solid position on the merits of keeping this text as a standalone article or merging. Викидим (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Eh, what "controversy"? It should either be expanded or re-merged in its present state, is my point. It doesn't matter if it's independently notable (which I still have doubts about, fwiw), it doesn't suit readers better as its own article at the moment. Remsense ‥ 论 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear colleague: (1) the "controversy" part is pretty simple, a lot of people in China, some with money and power, want the Jiahu symbols to be declared the first writing system ever. Since this interpretation is plausible, I do not expect publications stating "this is writing" to cease. There are major interests vested also into the "not writing" side of the dispute, so these arguments will not stop either. This will generate plenty of WP:SIGCOV, IMHO. (2) I have spent about half an hour to easily add 1000 characters to the article, and I have found many more sources in the process, so there is no issue of the article being impossible to expand. When judging the merits of a standalone article, we should take its future prospects into account, not the current state of the said article (cf. WP:CONTN). (3) As the potentially first writing system, the encyclopedic notability of these symbols is enormous IMHO, with SIGCOV IMHO clearly demonstrated already. This is the situation where the importance of the Jiahu itself IMHO is less than that of the symbols: the site is just one of many Neolithic sites in China, while the symbols might be the first writing system in the world. (4) For the avoidance of doubt, I am not an expert but side with the "this is not writing" skeptics in this dispute. I am also not accusing researchers in #1 here of bending their scientific beliefs for power and money, and just note a simple fact that as long as grants will keep coming, so will the articles. Викидим (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The hypothesis that the Jiahu symbols comprise a writing system is not plausible nor seriously advocated by any palaeographer I've read. 1000 characters is not a remotely compelling addition as regards the issue here. The idea that we're meant to anticipate future coverage is a clear, fairly baffling contradiction of WP:CRYSTAL. Given you seem to take this position far more seriously than is warranted by the scholarship, I'm now more adamant that we re-merge , as your intent seems to be a WP:POVFORK in order to accommodate fringe views on the subject. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the Demattè source I've added. She says, "Some scholars consider the Jiahu signs in their entirety to be proof of incipient writing activities in the Early Neolithic (Li Xueqin et al. 2003; Cai Yunzhang and Zhang Juzhong 2003). Others are skeptical about the nature of the signs and the early date proposed for the origins of Chinese writing," (like you - and me - she agrees with the skeptics). Yet this type of wording is very far away from "not plausible" in the scientific jargon IMHO. Викидим (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not request to consider future coverage. In my very brief search I have discovered few independent sources that contain a few paragraphs to more-than-a-page coverage of symbols (Demattè has a separate section of almost three pages). This is typically more than enough for SIGCOV as-is. It is the future state of the article that I was talking about, explicitly referring to WP:CONTN: if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Викидим (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)