Talk:Second round of simplified Chinese characters

message: This image was in the history section. I removed it because, while I don't doubt the intent of whoever inserted it, it contributes little to the article without an explanation of what's in the image.
The reader can deduce that these are (probably) proposed simplifications from the second round, but there's no explanation of what the characters represent, which method of simplification applies, whether any of them survived in informal use, etc. A table header in English would be a nice start. :) Recognizance (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I'd put them back in with a header or footer explaining that the left column represents the traditional characters, the right hand column the proposed 2nd round simplification. They are intuitively simpler than the traditional ones, even without knowing what the method of simplification was. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, if you go to the Unihan Database, you can look up the Unicode code points for those characters. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked a friend, he remembered this place  - someone scanned the chapter in a book by the 中国文字改革委员会 (Committee for Reforming the Chinese Written Language). Can't see the title but it lists them all nicely. Thought it might be useful. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issue 

message: So I picked up this book today, and it discusses at length the underlying Gestalt of the Chinese writing system: The politics of Chinese language and culture. (Part about the Second Scheme is on 63-64.)
:In their in-depth look at the psychology of the Chinese writing system, Hodge and Louie examine the Gestalt which is taught in the process of learning many characters' forms and argue that Chinese characters are "more saturated with ideological functions and ideological content than any other major writing system".Hodge and Louie, pp. 46-47. They use the Second Scheme as a case study of a failed attempt at altering the direction of a language's growth, pointing to the contrast between the First Scheme, which recorded existing variations, and the Second Scheme, which invented new ones. They use xian, the character for suspicion. Blah blah blah, the character originally used the woman radical. So basically this was a product of the Cultural Revolution, and the attempt at changing the underlying Gestalt of the language was another factor that led to the Second Scheme's failure and by this point the average reader's probably fallen asleep.
Probably have to chop most of that paragraph down in the morning, but I figured it was worth putting here. And the specialists among us might find the book interesting. Recognizance (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's too much detail at all personally, it's fascinating really. I like Routledge. Unfortunately books they publish are usually so specialised that 'picking up' a copy is rather expensive. Postulor (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, go for it. It's pertinent to the topic. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I added it but without the detailed explanation of the suspicion character. I also re-added Hannas (Asia's Orthographic Dilemma) to the reference list and added one citation to him, but I haven't been able to check him out at length yet. Still waiting on DeFrancis to arrive. Recognizance (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Responding to Recognizance RFC on #wikipedia.freenode.net. Not commenting on the article which I haven't read yet but the underlying issue, i.e. the nature of the Chinese writing system and its position in writing systems of the future, inside or outside China. First, the phenomenon (binding of concepts and recombination of same in characters and multi-character words) has also been referred to in some (eg AI) circles as "chunking" (due SFAIK (in re the reading of Hanzi) to Douglas Hofstadter). Second, the more general notion is not without experimental treatments outside of the context of Chinese, e,g. in implementations of Herman Hesses Glassperlenspiel. Lycurgus (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're getting me in trouble with the transparency crowd without even weighing in on the requested move I asked about? You're no help. (Kidding of course!) That is fascinating if outside the article's mandate. Recognizance (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This thread does not appear to be about a proposed move but rather a topic/§/whatever for inclusion which is what my response refers to. Rest of transmission garbled. Lycurgus (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  For inclusion (or at least food for thought) 

message: Just placing some here, in case no one knows about them:
Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-included images 

message: I have written a Proposal to Encode Obsolete Simplified Chinese Characters which may be relevant to this article, but to avoid WP:COI I am mentioning it here for other editors to evaluate. BabelStone (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to encode second round simplified characters 

message: An IP editor placed a contradict tag on the "Reasons for failure" section back in November of 2014 with the edit summary . This was apparently in reference to the following section:
I personally believe that this tag was placed in error. Clearly Hannas believed that the simplification caused greater harm than it solved; this is not what he meant by a "zero sum game." The "zero sum game" referred specifically to the reduction of complexity in one area causing greater complexity in another, and did not make any statement as to the overall benefit derived or lost (simply a quantification of complexity itself). Accordingly I have removed the tag. If anyone wishes to contest this, you are welcome to revert. CThomas3 (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of contradict tag