From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Typography (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophical Dicussions[edit]

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. (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A good start[edit]

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. -- (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Mesopotamia Mesopotamia[edit]

The section on Mesopotamia seems to have redudndant/repetetive/out-of-sequence passages about the tokens and development of clay writing.-- (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

-- (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)afriend of your sent you email he think humor has no place in our dailyy.. (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2015 (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 I 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) (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 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Szentgyörgyvölgy cow[edit]

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. (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


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.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazad12p (talkcontribs) 08:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please find my research publications[edit] Sujay Rao Mandavilli (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


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)