Talk:Bernhard Karlgren

Untitled

Niohe - Your article contains English errors and leaves out many important things. Yet when I try to address these failings, you immediately undo the changes. This is counter-productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.104.138 (talk)

Anonymous - please feel free to correct my grammar. But please don't remove statements that can be verified.--Niohe 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Niohe - The opinion of von Falkenhausen - who is no linguist - is not verification. If you want to know the facts on Karlgren, read Baxter's _Handbook of Old Chinese_. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.104.138 (talk)

Please sign your contributions and verify your statements.--Niohe 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signing is not required by Wikipedia, as you know. As for my statements, they follow Baxter, who is a linguist (unlike von Falkenhausen). Citation information will follow (when I get to the library sometime in the next few days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.104.138 (talk)

But it is customary to sign your contributions. Anyway, I am not ready to argue over this. Instead, it might be a better idea to remove WP:WEASEL statements like "his originality is exagerrated" and the like.--Niohe 00:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note spelling: "exaggerated." If you can propose a better way to say that Karlgren's originality is exaggerated, that'd be good. But the fact is that many in western Sinology act like he invented the ideas he used (as in the original version of this article). This is simply not the case. And to make this clear is not "weasel." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.104.138 (talk)

Did you check the link on WP:WEASEL? Anyway, I'm quitting this. I didn't write the article and it's fine if you can improve it. As for the claims that you make regarding the exaggerated originality, you are supposed to verify them, not me. Besides, this is not a debate forum or soapbox, so it would be good if you could maintain a neutral tone in your revision. I will check back in a couple of days.--Niohe 00:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the link on "weasel." It doesn't apply to a statement of simple fact that Karlgren was not as original as he is often made out to be. You've deleted "exaggerated," which I guess is fine, but that leaves a reader without some important knowledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.104.138 (talk)

Ipa

Can we please use IPA, not Yankee Academic nonsense? 46.97.168.251 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)