Talk:Remembering the Kanji and Remembering the Hanzi

message: I merged the four pages no reason why they should be separate. Everyone is out to get me (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged pages 

message: It seems to me that the one and only review presented on this page tells only one side of the story, and puts the series in a very bad light. Might I suggest complementing that review with a positive review, also?70.182.250.209 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm.... second opinion anyone? 

message: Well since Remembering the Hanzi is on this page I will also add a section on remembering the kana since there isnt anything about it on wikipedia. Everyone is out to get me (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remembering the Kana? 

message: *I thought I would draft a criticisms section. Note, this should be pretty slim and straight to the point. It will have to be trimmed before it goes into the article.
The series (RTK1,2,3) have attracted various criticisms. Most of these revolve around the unconventional mode of study. Most study methods will encourage the learner to gradually learn all 4 skills at once (reading, writing, listening and speaking), while Hesig's method is very focused on writing (and later, in RTK2, reading).
A common criticisms is that the book claims to teach the "meaning" as well as the writing of the character. As the book teaches a one meaning to one kanji it can be argued that this is misleading. Following this line of argument, it can be claimed that at the end of RTK1, the student will not truly "know" the 2000 kanji; they will just know one meaning and how to write the kanji. Further, some of the meanings that are given to the kanji are obscure and a few are wrong (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang.japan/browse_frm/thread/8eacd38d50b3b621/fa28b4a82879c4e8). In the study (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang.japan/browse_frm/thread/8eacd38d50b3b621/fa28b4a82879c4e8), of the 1000 hesig kanji checked, about 20 were not mentioned in Halpern `core meaning' for that kanji and could not be derived by association. 
RTK does not teach the sounds and the compounds for the kanji. The sounds do appear in RTK2, but compounds are never tought.
The ordering of the kanji can also be critisised. Where most text books will introduce kanji based on frequency, RTK uses its own order based on primitives.
-btw, I am an RTK fan, so i won't do justice to these arguments...
*Some other things i want to add to the article:
The target audience of the books. Ie "Anyone who wishes to atain full proficiency in reading and writing real japanese." and I guess NOT for people who just want to go on holiday and say hello.
*I would also like to split up the articles. Maybe into two or three;
#Remembering the kanji
#Remembering the Kana
#Remembering the Hanzi
Maybe the Kana can remain merged with the Kanji...
The grouping of 仲, 沖 and 忠 are not based on the Heisig method, but part of how the Kanji categorization called 六書（りくしょ). These three are in the 形声 type that comprises a "semantic and a phonetic element," with the phonetic element being 中.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.25.45.65 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticisms 

message: I guess an advantages section would be in order to:
-Knowing the meaning of a kanji can give you a hint as to what a compound might mean. For example on road signs etc.
--Boy.pockets (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages

message: I just found this article that i think would be good to work into the article. No time to do it at the moment though. --Boy.pockets (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Good resource

message: Have Heisig or Richardson given any indication as to when the 2nd volumes will be released?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.81.110 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanzi book 2 date 

message: Doesn't Japan have some tests of Japanese language proficiency of foreign learners? How do users of the books described in this article compare to users of other methods of studying Japanese? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there no independent research on the effectiveness of this method? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies of effectiveness?