Content deleted Content added
m moved Talk:Johannes Gutenberg\archive-06oct to Talk:Johannes Gutenberg\archive-2006oct: clearer name |
Gnomingstuff (talk | contribs) rv 2005 vandalism (diff: 15913908) to someone else's comment, undetected before archive |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Aan}}
==Untitled==
This page archives discussions upto the end of Oct 2006. [[User:Mukerjee|mukerjee]] ([[User talk:Mukerjee|talk]]) 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 40 ⟶ 42:
:, but they did not extensively employ them. (For the [[Chinese writing system]], moveable type would be markedly less efficient than for European [[alphabet]]s.)
I have removed this because I consider it (a) inaccurate, and (b) a POV statement. This statement implies that the use of logographic scripts is less efficient than the use of alphabets. Although it is true that there are thousands of Chinese characters, it is only a significantly smaller number that is used most. You probably know this... Also, if the statement was simply ''true'', there'd be no need for a justification added in brackets (this is where you defend your POV). I think what I don't like about this snipped is the choice of ''extensively''. The range of printed products, for example, was more extensive than in European until much later.
Also, maybe you'd enjoy reading the contribution about Gutenberg's using different letters above on this page... Now how's that for efficiency?
| |||