Talk:Kawi script

Untitled
Please note: there is no written Vedic text. The first written Sanskrit text is an inscription issued by Rudradaman in 180 A.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.236.165 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kawi script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024114447/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081021-167699/Expert-on-past-dies-82 to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081021-167699/Expert-on-past-dies-82
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Kakawin
A kakawin is not a literary text written in this script, but it is rather an Old Javanese poem written in Indian meters. Meursault2004 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Unicode
A new version of the Unicode proposal has been made. --Apisite (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As for when Kawi will be part of a future Unicode version, maybe it will be late 2022. --Apisite (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Philippine Part.
I think that We Should Mention Philippine terms for Kawi Script name because it was a right thing to be done, Since the LCI, BIS and Silver Strips were clearly found in Philippines. it deserve a place on name term. for @User:Austronesier reasoning is: " Undue. We could as well (and for much better reasons) add Javanese and Balinese names, too. But then, there's no need"

(for Such). I have no problems with Balinese since it was part of Indonesian ones, but here's my question: "Is Philippines were part of Indonesia"? or another reasoning as you said (and for much better reasons)" much better reasoning of what?" (Please specify). as Many of People outside Wikipedia were suspecting that some of the Users/editors with WP:Conflict of Interest were in motivation into revision, exclude of delete /Cherry picking for instance for their better reasoning especially in Philippine history part i have no wonder why People has an mistrust issues with this website.

i have good reason to add and place it where it deserve as well. that's my job as an editor. (Snopik (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC))


 * First: there were no Philippines and Indonesia back then. Let's talk about Java, Bali, Luzon and Mindanao. You have basically provided the answer by yourself. There is one large inscription from Luzon, and two smaller artefacts from Mindanao that bear texts written in Kawi script. That's all. OTOH, the main corpus of inscriptions comes from Java, Bali (and marginally also from Borneo and Sumatra). This is less than surprising, since the script emerged and evolved in Java and radiated from there widely into the cultural and political influence sphere of Srivijaya and Majapahit, and thus also into Luzon and Mindanao. This means the Philippine corpus (in spite of its extremely high historical value) is marginal in the context of the history of the Kawi script. This is why I say that the addition of the Tagalog/Filipino name of the script in the opening sentence is undue. Note also that Anshuman Pandey describes Kawi as follows: "The Kawi script (from Sanskrit किव kavi “poet”) is a historical Brahmi-based script that was used from the 8th to the 16th century in what is now Indonesia, primarily in Java and to some extent in Bali." (The LCI is mentioned later, but NB not occupying space in the definition.)
 * Also, we don't even need the Indonesian translations here, but I leave this judgement to others.
 * Finally, the onus is with you show that the inclusion is due here, and get consensus for it. Per WP:BRD, you should self-revert instead of forcing your personal preference here by re-inserting contested material. –Austronesier (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)