Talk:Penmanship

Writing B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contradiction

In adding stubs for Platt R. Spencer and the Spencerian Method, I noticed that "The publication of The Spencerian Key to Practical Penmanship by Platt R. Spencer in 1866 introduced Business writing to North America. This "Spencerian Method" was taught in schools until the about the mid-19th century" seems to contradict itself. If the method was published in 1866, how did it last only until the mid-19th century? That is no time at all. Additionally, as far as I know, Spencer died in 1864.

Presumably that is a typo for "20th century". This is the simplest explanation, at least... Adam Bishop 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree, if it weren't for the fact that I think the method was probably published before his death rather than two years after it. Aniras 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...maybe it was published posthumously? Adam Bishop 07:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like it was prepared by his son after his death: http://www.ashtabula.lib.oh.us/archives/tour/archtour1.shtm . I've also found numerous references to it being popular a century after its publication, so I'll switch it to 20th century and leave it at that.

I object to the title "Penmanship" because it is discriminatory. The word "pen" unfairly assumes that everyone writes with a pen. But what about all the people using pencils? Or what about contracts written in blood? Or what if there's some tribe somehwhere that draws pictures in the dirt with sticks? We don't want to exclude anyone.

We could use the title "Handwriting", but that presents a new problem, because of the word "hand". What if some people write with their feet, or their noses? We wouldn't want to hurt those people.

Removed:

, while others consider it a more efficient method of handwriting than other forms, such as cursive

I'd actually like to put this back, because it's pretty interesting (and adds balance, as mentioned). However I know of no one of note who actually thinks this. Is there a source somewhere? - Hephaestos|§ 14:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hate to agree with the silly anonymous person at top, but penmanship ("the art of writing clearly and quickly", as given in the article) is not handwriting which is a skill, and not an art, and is something done both quickly and slowly and clearly and illegibly.

Also, this article is incredibly narrow. There's some notes about what's done in North America, but what about the rest of the world? What about not Latin scripts? I'm scrounging some stuff up about Cherokee handwriting anyway, but it's really won't fit with the general level of this article. --Prosfilaes 21:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Until there is a better term for "the art of writing with an implement that can be held by a person which allows the writer to express an individual style" penmanship will have to do. Jackiespeel 17:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see information about how to learn good penmanship. David McCabe 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Penmanship" is confusing I mistaked it for penfriend at first ~

To the previous anonymous edit: Penmanship is an long-used English term. It bears little resemblance to penfriend, surely? I am with Jackiespeel's argument above. There is no synonym we can use for penmanship that exactly equates to it. That some users of Wikipedia in English find it a difficult language to master is regrettable -- it is! -- but that is not a criterion for changing the language around. Re. the argument that others may write with other parts than the hand; this is political correctness gone mad. We all respect hand/foot painters etc. but the term handwriting doesn't DISCRIMINATE AGAINST such a skill. Otherwise, words like handiwork becomes footiwork or somesuch. Handicraft, hand me that wrench, hand-made, hand-in-glove, hand-over-fist, hand over that gun, hands off approach, hand-to-mouth existence... none of these is actually perjorative or discriminatory. The vast majority of folk use hands. To those who don't, the word will still apply in a modified sense. When a blind person says, "I saw the New Year in" or "I see Terry got that job", he isn't being literal. Are we to polish every term till it is so neutralised it ceases to have meaning, Goddamit? This PC "fear of falling foul" is a sort of obsessional neurosis, which seems a poor reason to reconstruct our English usage. Many terms which apply to most people are not absolutely universal, but surely, that doesn't disqualify their legitimate usage. Trevor H.

Um, Trevor, I think he was joking...

Book Information

I'm concerned about the information about the books that have been used in North America. For one, if we are to include it, shouldn't it get a section of its own further down, seeing how it is not so important as to be part of a general description of penmanship in the first paragraph? Secondly, should it even be included? It is rather narrowly focused compared to the rest of the article and I don't feel like it gives much in the way of useful information to the average (in my very humble opinion). And furthermore, the only citation given doesn't seem to provide any support for the information it is supposed to support!AliaGemma 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 I agree, this page is more about books used to teach writing skills, than writing itself. I came to this page looking for information on penmanship, that is, "neat, clear, hand writing". Anyone know if it possible for one with messy writing to change their habits? Or if these books have any usefulness? Are they for elementary students or for persons looking to change their messy writing skills into cleaner, more legible printing? I found this artile pretty useless after it got to the books section. - random user

North America section

This article isn't about book production in North America, but Handwriting in general. This American books focused section - the vast majority of the article - needs to be obliterated or moved. Given the effort put in to create it, I won't delete it now, but at the moment this article is atrociously biased. 23/2/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.19.21.168 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

or better, add stuff for other countries.

image

i've got this image of fast, untidy handwriting. large in size- must be around 2000 x 2000 pixels.. is it needed for this. thanks.. Wildpixs 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, i think your handwriting is based on your personality like what you like and it represents you and your own style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.105.119 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

{{helpme}} I can't figure out how to add citations to material I added, or how to do other corrections to a "protected article." Kate Gladstone - http://learn.to/handwrite 15:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, you wait for it to be unprotected. But the attached page isn't protected. Cbrown1023 talk 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can read up on citations here:Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Of particular interest would probably be Wikipedia:Footnotes. Hope that helps. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me on my talk page! Camann•TALK 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

penmanship

well, like i said i think your handwriting is one of the things that makes you, well you and i enjoy writing quite a bit so i hoped you like my entry so thanks for reading

> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.105.119 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

report of page errors

Sorry people, I am not familiar with your Wiki protocols but someone who can fix the mess should know that the Penmanship page (at 3rd February 2009) has serious problems. Specifically, under the "Books used in North America" heading, after the bit that goes: Gaskell's Complete Compendium of Elegant...." there is a whole section missing. I didn't do it (the mess) I just visited the page to read about Penmanship. I had to go to a Russian website to read the original missing part which goes:

"....Writing" and "The Penman's Hand-Book" (1883).
Starting at the beginning of the 20th century, Zaner-Bloser Script and the Palmer Method, introduced by Charles Paxton Zaner (15 February 1864 - 1 December 1918) and Elmer Ward Bloser (6 November 1865 - 1929) of the Zanerian Business College and A. N. Palmer in his "Palmer's Guide to Business Writing", published in 1894, became the dominant copybooks in North America. Fact|date=February 2007 The A. N. Palmer Company finally folded in the early 1980s — Zaner-Bloser continues, and accounts for roughly 40% of handwriting textbook sales in the USA. Fact|date=February 2007
New scripts include D'Nealian Script and Getty-Dubay — both published in 1976. D'Nealian (named after its inventor, Donald Neal Thurber) uses a slanted, serifed manuscript form followed by an entirely joined and looped cursive of the typical American variety. Getty-Dubay (named after its inventors, Barbara Getty and...." .

I sure hope one of you guys can fix the mess. By the way, the people who object to the title "Penmanship" should realize that this is a historical term. The people of the previous two centuries fully understood the nuances of the term, and as the major forms such as Spencerian and Palmer styles are practically extinct, except to those of us who make it our job to learn and revivify them, to rename this lost art in the present era smacks of a revisionist arrogance.

Signed, Snozzle (who did not create account but just wanted to report a messed up page). Bye now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.213.85 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixedjonathon (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking

Does wikipedia have an article on handwriting / marking symbols.

e.g.

awk. (awkward)
cap. (capitalization)
ref (reference)
w/ ("with)
w/o (without)

--75.154.186.241 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is currently too US-centric

Right now, apart from a small amount of lead-in material, this article is focussed entirely on penmanship in the US. It'd be really great if it could be expanded with discussion of handwriting styles from the rest of the world (which are often quite different; anecdotally, you can easily spot someone who grew up in the US from their penmanship, not that I have a citation for this assertion) to improve the encyclopedic nature of the article. Note that I'm not suggesting that the US-centric material be removed! Far from it. I'd just like to be able to compare the styles and history of the topic across a wider scope. —Donal Fellows (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be better now. rem. tag. Lexlex (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgery

Does anyone think this tidbit of information deserve section of its own? Does Forgery relate to the topic enough to even mention it? I’d like to suggest removing it completely. — 15.195.201.88 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. --GRH1087 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good handwriting

I think handwriting is an ART how you show that your handwriting is good. it can be many method but the main goal is to communicate with people in written way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.10.252 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in the eastern handwriting section

There are some serious errors in the section covering Chinese handwriting. The article confuses character forms (Simplified Chinese characters vs Traditional Chinese characters) and styles of scripts (Kaishu, Xingshu and Caoshu). All subsequent discussions on simplified characters are also irrelevant. It is also wrong in calling all three styles cursive: Kaishu is standard, Xingshu is semi-cursive, and Caoshu fully cursive. The same type of mistakes are made in the schools of east section.

I suspect a similar error in the paragraph covering Japanese handwriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.132.92 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic Penmanship

What about penmanship in countries that still use the Cyrillic alphabet? Does anyone know if there is a cursive Cyrillic? Ileanadu (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Russian cursive is one example of cursive Cyrillic. I've tagged for globalization since this article is quite incomplete, and re-titled the "Western handwriting" section to "Handwriting based on Latin script" since it applies to writing systems that use the Latin alphabet. Cyrillic-based script (Russian, Turkic, etc.) should have its own section too. The method of handwriting and styles for other scripts such as Arabic script, Brahmic-based abugida scripts, Greek, Caucasian scripts (Armenian, Georgian), Native American scripts, and more, should also be mentioned. 68.101.102.227 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken scratch

I found a treasure trove of phrases in other languages that describe poor handwriting in versions of "chicken scratch," that is to say, referencing bird's feet. It might make a nice addition to this page. It's already in a chart, and for someone who is more savvy than me, the relevent lines of the chart could simply be pasted over. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Greek_to_me Hope this is a fun discovery for some of you! By the way, if you search for "chicken scratch" the disambig page takes you here! --Petrichori (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]