Talk:Micrography

French citation: Parallels

"with parallels in Christianity and Islam". The citing is in french or some other language. how does this citing help me in an english languaged encyclopedia? either revert or cite an english languaged site. Yonidebest 11:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The assumption that an English language encyclopedia should quote exclusively English sources is absurd. It has never happened in the past. Citing in French is not supposed to «help» anyone, but rather «encourage» one to learn languages in general. Merely one single language in the world is English; many serious sources are in other languages. Should they not be used, merely because somebody might not understand them? –––––––––––––––––––– The single source quoted as a basis for the assertion that Jewish micrography has «parallels in Christianity and Islam» is clearly misleading.

1. In that text there is no mention whatsoever of Christianity.
2. The French verb «micrographier», mentioned twice there, means in French merely «minusculy writing», writing in very small letters. It is a verb denoting any small writing. «Micrography» (noun) on the other side is the very specific way, in which Jewish scribes wrote Hebrew texts in minuscule letters to form drawings (figurative or geometric). Forming drawings through minusculy writing was never the case in Islam, but it is essential for the notion of micrography.

Pisipojakene (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo please?

I'll add to Wikipedia:Requested photos. Tempshill 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

micrography/microcalligraphy

This art form is also known as microcalligraphy, I suggest that term is also cited so it will be included for search purposes. 212.150.219.27 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To whom is micrography «known» also as calligraphy («micro» or not)? Why is this «knowledge» of one or some anonymous persons, (which might very well be biased or scolarly irrelevant) worth mentioning here? There are no references here, neither serious ones, nor less serious. Pisipojakene (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Cite Sources + NPOV?

I think this article needs some more inline sources, and it seems to be written from a non-neutral point of view (e.g. "Richly symbolic and steeped in the tradition of the Jewish heritage, this art form is both intellectually and visually stimulating"). These opinions really ought to be attributed to some experts. bdodson (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

There are no sources cited to support anything in this article. The only item in the References section is just a link to an image (with a description of the image in French). Unsourced content is subject to deletion at anytime. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Try the external links section, and you'll find plenty. Jheald (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That will not do. WP:VERIFY requires that all statements made in an article be supported by inline citations. Without that, the assumption is that statements unsupported by inline citations are WP:OR, which is absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Refer to the Burden of evidence section of WP:VERIFY[1]. How to cite inline sources is explained in WP:Citing sources. Please read that for how to include sources. If you have trouble getting the sources in right, try your best and I, or another editor who see the problem, will help fix any formatting problems. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

BY the way, when I deleted the problematic material, that you restored, it was my intention to replace what I removed with new content based on sources I had found. I you think they might be helpful to you, I can give you links to the sources I intended to use, and you can do the writing yourself. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you've got material you want to insert, then insert it. Be WP:BOLD. But don't lobotomise the article until you have.

Regarding WP:VERIFY, note the wording: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed." (Emphasis in the original). I don't see anything that particularly goes out on a limb in what we currently say. Jheald (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The content was challenged when an editor (not me) put a neutrality tag on the article. When I removed the problematic content, you reverted the change (including a small amount of content I had added,) but you did nothing to correct either the sourcing problem, or the problem with WP:Neutral point of view. This article might be okay on your personal blog, but not on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. As it is now, the article is so problematic it could, perhaps, be nominated for deletion[2]. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few sources I found that are reliable sources:

1. http://www.jtsa.edu/prebuilt/exhib/microg/index.shtml (from the Jewish Theological Seminary)
2. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/loc/Micrography.html
3. http://web.mac.com/jkorenblat/Joshua_Korenblat_Home/Articles_files/Word-picture.pdf

Using them might help the article. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Guess what. We actually already link the first two. The third one is a useful addition though. So, if you want to rewrite the article, then rewrite it. But don't just butcher any and all useful factual substance from it. Jheald (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing the external links, but the need refs: particularly the need for sources, cited inline, to support the content of this article. (The image used with the article is a problem too, because it is not well done, and the Hebrew calligraphy in it is amateur quality.) 173.52.187.133 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Jheald (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The moment I did make a change, you reverted it....which to me suggested a slight problem with WP:OWN. I really do not have time now to deal with that, and have work (calligraphy) waiting to be completed. Salve. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You might consider using this image[3] in the article. The calligraphy seems of a much higher quality than what is in the article now. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a paper right now on the topic and the work of Leila Avrin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is an important resource on Micrography. In particular, "Micrography as Art" and an exhibition booklet from the Israel Museum's "Hebrew Micrography: One Thousand Years of Art in Script," are solid academic references. There is also an article called "La lettre hebraique et sa signification" by Colette Sirat if we have a French editor who can contribute. The claims in the article are, as far as I can tell, accurate both in specifity and generality. If I have the time before I return these sources, I will attempt to make them congruent with the article. Wes! • ^T_c

NB: The usual, and I think best, approach is to find reliable sources and build the article content on those sources. On the other hand, the approach you seem to have in mind, finding sources that support previously written unsourced content is problematic. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. Most of the assertions made in the article are accurate and were probably originally written with these sources in mind by someone unaware of Wiki protocols. I'm not convinced that any of the article is problematic or loaded in content or language. I'm not quite sure where the NPOV problems are.. 76.91.29.44 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the user who tagged it for neutrality was concerned about the unencyclopedic sounding content, like this: "Richly symbolic and steeped in the tradition of the Jewish heritage, this art form is both intellectually and visually stimulating". It is not that the statement is untrue, it just too enthusiastic (in the context of WP) and and sounds a little too much like a gallery dealer's sales pitch. Also, the image that is used in the article does not support the claim of "richly symbolic", nor "visually stimulating" either, because the image's calligraphy and design is amateur quality. If you do not want to use the better image I suggested above (which is in Wikimedia Commons) it would be better to use a copyrighted image under fair use policy[4]. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Objection terminology

There have been some objections to this article, as noted above, namely that it use enthusiastic language and lacks inline citations. These are properly addressed by the templates {{peacock}} and {{citation style}}, which I’ve added. Nothing in the article strikes me as unencyclopedic (9th century Jewish calligraphy is certainly encyclopedic) or original research – it’s just praise. Accordingly, I’ve replaced the cleanup templates with more precise ones; hope this proves agreeable.

I’ll have a shot at cleaning up the wording.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I’ve cleaned up the wording and accordingly removed the POV and peacock templates; article can still use work, but it should be unobjectionable.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

differences with Calligram

I can't find the differences between micrography and Calligram, waiting for expert to explain it in the article.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Voynich Manuscript

Just to note that the theory that the Voynich Manuscript was written in micrography has been disproved as an artifact of the aging process (quite apart from the length of the text). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Micrography. 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/20111128003333/http://www.jtsa.edu/prebuilt/exhib/microg/index.shtml to http://www.jtsa.edu/prebuilt/exhib/microg/index.shtml

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) 08:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)