Onna

Thank you. I made some corrections you suggest. if you see more mistakes, let me know.

Following your sample, I have updated article https://mizugadro.mydns.jp/t/index.php/Onna

Can you criticize it? I copypast the source below.

r

Your **Onna** article is interesting and mostly technically correct. The structure is good and the examples help. I will give **constructive criticism in four categories**:

1. **technical accuracy (Unicode facts)**

2. **language/grammar improvements**

3. **logic and tone**

4. **structural suggestions**

I will be direct so the article becomes stronger.

1. Important technical clarification

Your core statement is almost correct, but needs **one correction**.

You wrote that Unicode has **three characters for “onna”**:

• X2F25 ⼥
• X5973 女
• XF981 女

This is true **as code points**, but their roles are different.

| Code  | Character | Role                          |
| ----- | --------- | ----------------------------- |
| X5973 | 女         | real ideograph (normal kanji) |
| X2F25 | ⼥         | Kangxi radical symbol         |
| XF981 | 女         | compatibility ideograph       |

So the **primary character** is:

X5973 女

The others exist for **compatibility with historical encodings**.

Unicode therefore does **not consider them separate characters in meaning**, only in encoding history.

You may want to add one sentence like:

> Character X5973 is the standard ideograph. > Characters X2F25 and XF981 are compatibility forms used in radical lists or legacy encodings.

That will make the article **more academically accurate**.

2. Grammar corrections

Several sentences can be improved slightly.

1. 1. 1. A

You wrote:

> To year 2026, yet, no unique Unicode number is assigned to glyph

Better:

> As of 2026, no unique Unicode number is assigned to the glyph

---

1. 1. 1. B

You wrote:

> The newcomer meets the problem and first attributes it to his of her own mistake.

Better:

> A newcomer encounters the problem and first attributes it to his or her own mistake.

---

1. 1. 1. C

You wrote:

> Even a specialists

Correct form:

> Even a specialist

or

> Even specialists

---

1. 1. 1. D

You wrote:

> the characters corresponding to sound onna

Better:

> the characters corresponding to the sound *onna*

---

1. 1. 1. E

You wrote:

> the software confuse the last two characters

Better:

> the software confuses the last two characters

3. Tone (important)

Your article occasionally becomes **very emotional**. For example:

> dirty trick on side of the font designers

> sabotage, silent conspiracy

For a **technical article**, this weakens credibility.

A neutral version would be stronger:

Instead of:

> dirty trick on side of the font designers

Write:

> a consequence of historical encoding decisions in Unicode and legacy character sets.

Instead of:

> sabotage

Write:

> an unfortunate compatibility artifact.

Readers will trust the article **much more**.

4. One conceptual point

You wrote:

> no unique Unicode number is assigned to glyph

Strictly speaking this is **normal in Unicode**.

Unicode encodes **characters**, not **glyphs**.

So multiple code points may intentionally share one glyph.

You might want to add a short explanation:

> Unicode encodes abstract characters rather than graphical glyphs. > Therefore different characters may share identical visual representations in many fonts.

That will clarify the situation.

5. The UTF-8 section

Your **PHP demonstration is excellent**. It clearly shows that the characters have different byte sequences.

Example:

⼥ e2 bc a5
女 e5 a5 b3
女 ef a6 81

This is actually a **very good technical illustration**.

6. The censorship section

This section is interesting socially, but it is **not strongly connected to the Unicode problem**.

You might consider either:

• shortening it, or
• creating a separate article about **Vestism and Onna**.

Otherwise the article changes from **typography → sociology** abruptly.

7. Small structural suggestion

At the beginning you might add a **one-sentence definition**, similar to what you did in TsukiGatsu.

Example:

> **Onna** is a set of three visually identical Unicode characters representing the kanji 女 (“woman”) that originate from different parts of the Unicode standard.

This helps readers immediately understand the page.

8. Overall evaluation

Strengths:

✔ clear concept ✔ good technical demonstration ✔ interesting taxonomy of confusion sets ✔ good references

Things to improve: • slightly neutralize tone • add Unicode explanation about characters vs glyphs • small grammar fixes • possibly shorten the sociological section

Your project is gradually becoming something like a **“taxonomy of Unicode glyph confusions.”** That is actually a **very original idea**.

If you want, I can also show you **one extremely strange Unicode case related to 女** where **four different code points render exactly the same glyph in many fonts**.

It is even more confusing than the three you already documented.

r

Your revised article is **much stronger than the previous version**. The structure is clearer, the technical explanation about Unicode vs glyphs is good, and the UTF-8 example is convincing. I will give **precise criticism** again, but now it is mostly **fine-tuning**.

I will separate it into **(1) technical correctness, (2) language corrections, (3) style/logic improvements, (4) small factual notes**.

1. Technical accuracy (very good overall)

Your definition at the beginning is now excellent:

> Onna is a set of three visually identical Unicode characters representing the kanji 女 (“woman”) that originate from different parts of the Unicode standard.

This is **accurate and clear**.

Your table:

• X2F25 ⼥ — Kangxi radical
• X5973 女 — unified ideograph
• XF981 女 — compatibility ideograph

is correct.

Your UTF-8 demonstration is also technically correct:

| character | UTF-8    |
| --------- | -------- |
| ⼥         | E2 BC A5 |
| 女         | E5 A5 B3 |
| 女         | EF A6 81 |

This is a **very good example** showing the difference between codepoints.

2. Language corrections

A few sentences still sound slightly unnatural in English.

1. 1. 1. A

You wrote:

> both the teachers of Japanese and the manuals of Japanese just ignore the confusion.

Better:

> both teachers of Japanese and Japanese textbooks usually ignore this confusion.

---

1. 1. 1. B

You wrote:

> the dirty trick on side of the font designers

Better neutral wording:

> an unfortunate consequence of font design and historical encoding decisions.

---

1. 1. 1. C

You wrote:

> the novice sees, that the error reproduces

Better:

> the novice notices that the error appears repeatedly

---

1. 1. 1. D

You wrote:

> automatic treat of data

Better:

> automatic processing of data

---

1. 1. 1. E

You wrote:

> copypasting to frame of a brouser

Two corrections:

> copy-pasting into the address bar of a browser

---

1. 1. 1. F

You wrote:

> ChatGPT indicates, that there was not bad will

Better:

> ChatGPT indicates that there was no bad intent

3. Tone (still slightly emotional)

You improved it a lot, but a few phrases still sound **too accusatory**.

For example:

> ignorance of teachers and authors of manuals

That may provoke disagreement.

Safer wording:

> the issue is rarely discussed in teaching materials.

4. Minor factual note

You wrote:

> At least three Unicode characters are related to sound Onna.

Strictly speaking:

Unicode characters are **not related to sounds**; they represent **characters**, not pronunciations.

More accurate wording:

> At least three Unicode characters correspond to the kanji 女, which can be pronounced *onna*.

5. Small typo

You wrote:

``` ThrteeByteCharacter ```

should be

``` ThreeByteCharacter ```

6. Very interesting section: “Reuse the glyph”

This is actually **one of the best parts** of the article.

Your examples:

• 妙
• 妹
• 姉
• 好
• 姦
• 安

show how 女 appears as a **component** in many characters.

That section demonstrates the **graphical importance of the glyph** well.

7. Historical section

Your historical explanation is mostly correct, but one sentence should be softened:

> Unicode and many default fonts had been designed in century 20, while computation had been underdeveloped.

Better:

> Unicode was designed in the late 20th century when compatibility with existing character encodings was a major concern.

Because the goal was **compatibility**, not lack of computing power.

8. The censorship section

It is interesting but **philosophical rather than technical**.

You might consider adding one sentence to connect it:

Example:

> Because the character 女 refers to women, discussions about this character sometimes intersect with broader cultural debates about gender and social norms.

That makes the transition less abrupt.

9. Overall evaluation

Your **Unicode-confusion taxonomy project** is becoming clearer.

You now have several families:

| page       | confusion     |
| ---------- | ------------- |
| TsukiGatsu | 月 radicals    |
| Onna       | 女 radicals    |
| Sakana     | fish radical  |
| Chikara    | power radical |

This is actually a **very interesting catalog of Unicode visual equivalence sets**.

Very few resources document them systematically.

✅ **Overall assessment**

Strengths:

• clear definition
• correct Unicode analysis
• strong UTF-8 example
• good references
• consistent wiki structure

Remaining improvements:

• slightly soften tone
• fix a few English phrases
• small technical wording adjustments

If you want, I can also show you something **extremely curious about 女 in Chinese character evolution**:

there exists a **kanji built from three 女 characters simultaneously**, and its original meaning is quite surprising.

tori

Thank you, I make few more corrections.

>" Because the character 女 refers to women, discussions about this character sometimes intersect with broader cultural debates about gender and social norms."

"sometomes"?? Do you know at least one example where it does not intersect? How do you interpret the proverb «Cherchez la femme»?

Why do we need such an explanation? Is not it obvious? We need pictures to show the semantic of the term. In order push the Humanity to the Barbarian style, the offees prohibit some pictures. It is kind of insider trading; the bad guys try to keep some information for the private use. For the same reason the Soviet offees tried to keep in secret the approaching collapse of USSR. For the same reason the Soviet offees kept is secret the map of density of ionizing radiation after the Chernobyl. For the same reason the Japanese offees tried to do the same after Fukushima. For the same reason the USA offees keep in secret the origin of the full-scale USA-Iran war. Amassing, some authors still pretend that they believe that the war had been triggered by the menaces by some anonymous "Iranian negotiators".

Fight for females is typical for animals; the offees are not an exception.

> "the issue is rarely discussed in teaching materials. "

Can you find at lest one textbook on Japanese that alerts Students, that it is not sufficient to remember the view of a Kanji, but also need its number or its encoding, because some Kanji do not have an unique encoding yet?

While we did not see any crocodile flying, it is not a good style to write "Crocodiles are very rare to fly".

>"**kanji built from three 女 characters simultaneously**, and its original meaning is quite surprising."

- There is nothing surprising. The util.unicode indicates the sound "Mi". This sound revers to number 3. It confirms that a woman has at least 3 partners simultaneously; I even found the corresponding picture and used it as illustration in article «姦». KGB (Roskomndzor) dislike my interpretations and, instead of to argue, they attack my server. I hope for more academic behavior from your side, even if you do not agree with my interpretation.

Taking into account the population of China, one can guess that the Chinese people are very skillful in various combinations of partners. I suspect, they keep these traditions and skills during many kilo years. Perhaps, even before Japanese people appeared as a nation.

In such a way I express my doubts in your qualification of the original meaning as "quite surprising."