It's just not cursive. This is not controversial, there was a huge debate ~15 years ago when cursive instruction was removed from the curriculum in the US.
What is the point of arguing definitions in this case? It seems you think one thing. The Wikipedia article says another.
Are you claiming there is only one internally-consistent way of defining terms? Hopefully not.
Do you think that definitions exist "out there" as objective realities? Hopefully not, as they exist in your head. On what basis is the definition in your head better than Wikipedia's? Or vice versa?
Are you claiming definitions are determined by authorities? Hopefully not. What do you think the editors of dictionaries themselves have to say about that? As I understand it, they view themselves as collecting popular usage.
Does popular usage serve as the "proper" and "fixed" definition? If so, does that mean usage {1, 10, 100, 1000} years ago was wrong?
Are you making some kind of statistical claim; e.g. "most people would think that cursive is..."?
The trope of "No, Thing X is not Y, see Source S" is rather myopic. There is often no disagreement once you speak clearly about what you _mean_.
Did you read the first sentence of the Wikipedia article? It contrasts cursive with block letters.
Anyway, you're of course free to call block letters cursive. It's not the traditional meaning, and it's interesting to observe that people don't even know that anymore.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Second, please recognize that my comment was based on what you wrote above: "It's just not cursive." But it seems my point didn't get across.
> No, your point came across. You think every sort of handwriting is cursive, and I don't think I can help you with that :)
No, that was not my point.
I'll try it a different way with two questions and a comment: what is the point of arguing definitions? What does it get you? If your point is communication and persuasion, pointing to a definition and asserting that it settles the issue isn't a great strategy.
And by the way, it is incorrect to claim I something like a complete relativist regarding definitions; I am not saying anything goes. For example, I said above that internal consistency matters.) Very important is a particular focusing goal other citing authority (such as effective communication) which involves 2+ parties.
Typo fixes: "And by the way, it is incorrect to claim I'm something like a complete relativist regarding definitions; I'm not saying anything goes. For example, I said above that internal consistency matters. It is important to have a particular focusing goal other than promoting one definition over another. For example, if your goal is effective communication you probably won't be tempted to say things like "It's just not cursive."
The description of "italic script", that the parent claimed was "one of the many types or cursive", explicitly says
> Italic script, also known as chancery cursive and Italic hand, is a semi-cursive, slightly sloped style of handwriting and calligraphy that was developed during the Renaissance in Italy.
