Talk:Hangul

Undue weight for connection between Hangul and ʼPhags-pa script?

The idea of a connection between Hangul and ʼPhags-pa script is tentative at best, and even proponents of the theory don't go so far as to suggest that Hangul directly evolved from ʼPhags-pa script (it is, after all, a constructed writing system). However, the infobox currently suggests otherwise. 47.196.190.78 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Fully agreed. I've removed it. Remsense ‥ 论 06:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hanja is not the same as classical Chinese characters, Hanmun is not identical to classical Chinese

Hanja is not identical to classical Chinese; I believe this is not really a largely disputed assertion. Simply put Hangul itself could and often is transliterated into Hanja as 韓㐎, but that transliteration is impossible in classical Chinese. Daldidandal (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is that characters were mostly used to write Literary Chinese in Korea until the modern period. They were also used to write Korean (though almost exclusively restricted to Sino-Korean vocabulary). The use of Hangul between its invention and the 19th century was largely restricted to phonetic annotations for these texts. Hanmun is Literary Chinese using a system of annotations for Korean speakers, and Hanmun texts were readable as Literary Chinese throughout the rest of the Sinosphere. This is the context that is (or should be) articulated in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 06:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the Chinese characters used in Korea are called Hanja. I agree with you that before Hangul both written Chinese and spoken Korean in writing used Hanja, but Hanja is a different thing both from Classical Chinese or modern Hanzi. In the text it is clearly stated that Hanja was the predominant writing system, with hyperlinks to the Hanja article that already explains the difference between Hanja and Classical Chinese (I'd assume), which is completely enough for someone to see the change Hangul made. Using Hanja once in the beginning and writing the rest of the article in the form of substituting every place 'Hanja' should be with 'Classical Chinese' is wordy, and wrong- because they are different things by themselves, as I stated above. Also, 'They were also used to write Korean (though almost exclusively restricted to Sino-Korean vocabulary).' This point is wrong. Hanja characters were used as early as from the the 2nd century for transliterating Korean, and If they were 'almost exclusively' limited to writing down Hanmun, what's the point with Gugyeol and Idu? Daldidandal (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what that passage is meant to say. You made a few changes, so I just wanted to articulate my issues here:

−

Hangul was created in 1443 by Sejong the Great, fourth king of the Joseon dynasty. It was an attempt to increase literacy by serving as a complement to ''Hanja'', which were Chinese characters used to write Literary Chinese in Korea by the 2nd century BCE, and had been adapted to write Korean by the 6th century CE.

+

Hangul was created in 1443 by Sejong the Great, fourth king of the Joseon dynasty. It was an attempt to increase literacy by serving as a complement to Hanja, used to write Hanmun in Korea by the 2nd century BCE, and had been adapted to write Korean by the 6th century CE.

It is misleading not to indicate Literary Chinese as the language here. I think I see a potential confusion, as Hangul were not used to write Literary Chinese, but this is not the way to correct that error. Remsense ‥ 论 06:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not feel the need to necessarily remove the terms 'Literary Chinese' from the text itself, but I do think it is necessary to provide a differentiator between Hanja - as they are, in fact, different things with separate articles; I also think providing the article on what terminology literary Chinese was called by Koreans then and now is helpful. Daldidandal (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daldidandal Chinese characters that are used to write Classical Chinese are not called Hanja in English, even if they're written by Koreans. The term "Hanja" is used to refer to characters used in writing Korean, and - as Remsense says - it is misleading to replace instances of "Classical Chinese" with "Hanja", because they imply two totally different things to readers. Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hanja is not used to refer to Chinese characters used writing Korean, It's the Korean pronunciation for the word 漢字, which encompass all Chinese characters, or Hanja, Koreans use. Where did you come up with that? Daldidandal (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daldidandal From the article Hanja: "Hanja ... are Chinese characters used to write the Korean language."

I know what Hanja are, and they're used to write Sino-Korean vocabulary in Korean. If a text is fully in Classical Chinese, those are just plain old Chinese characters. This is why I'm talking about the word "Hanja" in English, because you can't just equate it with 漢字 and use that to claim all Chinese characters are Hanja, which is completely misleading to English speakers. When languages borrow words, they don't always have exactly the same meaning, which is why "Hanzi", "Kanji" and "Hanja" all mean different things in English, even though all three come from 漢字. Theknightwho (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A text is rarely fully in classical Chinese. All the East Asian countries have different national characters and abbreviations, and the set of chinese characters + native additions/modifications in Korean history is referred to as Hanja. Koreans before Hangul used Hanja, which is not identical to "plain old Chinese characters.", as you have just said. Daldidandal (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Hanmun (한문) is about the Chinese Classical writing, but hanja can sometimes be used to generally mean hanmun too. Daldidandal (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daldidandal Yes, that's correct, but the passage we're referring to is talking about the historical use of actual Classical Chinese in Korea, which is why it doesn't make sense to change it to "Hanja". The same thing happened in Japan, and there was a parallel phenomenon in Europe, where Latin was used for official documents through much of the medieval period, which gradually gave way to modern European languages, though they still borrowed extensively from it. Theknightwho (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at with your reply. As an avid Hanja learner I don't really care if literary Chinese was used, that's the reason why I didn't really do anything about this topic after the previous conversation ended. What I do think is wrong about the article is that the article keeps equating Hanja to classical Chinese characters, which is again- technically wrong. For example, changing "as well as the large number of Chinese characters that are used." to "as well as the large number of [[Hanja]] characters that are used." is correct because Koreans used Hanja, because Hanja is what you call the sets of Chinese characters used in Korea. Daldidandal (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A is original version of B. B is popular and used extensively. You cannot argue that because A is original of B, A was popular and used extensively. Just like you cannot argue that the the Ford model T and its success is attributed to or is the same as Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot's automobile. Daldidandal (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daldidandal No, the term "Hanja" in English refers to Chinese characters used to write the Korean language; it doesn't refer to all Chinese characters used in Korea. This is relevant when dealing with Classical Chinese texts that were written in Korea, but which are still recognisable as Classical Chinese. Theknightwho (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hanmun (한문) is about the Chinese Classical writing, but hanja can sometimes be used to generally mean hanmun too. ? Daldidandal (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think your most recent reply is just straight out wrong. The chinese characters used in korea are called and are; Hanja Daldidandal (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daldidandal No, because that would mean you could say a Japanese text written in Korea also used Hanja, but you can't. It would still be Kanji. It's about the underlying language, not who wrote it, or where they were. Theknightwho (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Why can't you just read the article? Hanmun (한문) is about the Chinese Classical writing, but hanja can sometimes be used to generally mean hanmun too. So if it's about the underlying language, why does it say that, hmm? Daldidandal (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daldidandal The fact it can sometimes be used for that doesn't change the fact that it's misleading to replace "Classical Chinese" with "Hanja", because it changes how the sentence will be interpreted. Why are you still not understanding this very straightforward point? Theknightwho (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Um, no, it's not misleading. As you said, those two are different things, and Koreans used Hanja, not CC. Just to make it simple for you: All Chinese characters used in Korea and by a Korean to write something in literary Chinese = Hanja. Also, the two things I added to the article was 1. Hanja, and 2. Hanmun. So I guess you're happy with the replacement of the long and wordy 'literary Chinese' every now and then in the article to 'Hanmun?' Daldidandal (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I'd appreciate your input here. @Daldidandal clearly isn't grasping the issue.

Daldidandal: you've just contradicted yourself by saying that Koreans used Hanja, not CC, since before you were arguing that Hanmun (한문) is about the Chinese Classical writing, but hanja can sometimes be used to generally mean hanmun too. You can't have it both ways. I simply don't see how it's helpful to use a term that's usually used to refer to writing Korean when talking about Classical Chinese written in Korea, when we can be more specific than that and not risk misleading readers. Neither is "wordy", so there's really no problem that your change is solving. Theknightwho (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Hanja is the set of Chinese characters used in Korea, Hanmun is literary Chinese used in Korea. get a hold of yourself lol. This argument of 'No korea don't use Hanja korea use CC!' is just.. XD. I don't really care for this anyway, as I said: I didn't edit the article after the previous conversation ended- But since you're so interested, we can both agree that 'Hanmun (한문) is about the Chinese Classical writing', and in articles like these it is preferable to use native terms for their representitive articles, right? Daldidandal (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Daldidandal Why is it preferable to use native terms that readers won't understand over much more common terms they will? No korea don't use Hanja korea use CC - I never argued this lol; this is just the opposite of your own argument, but it's not what I've actually been saying. I'd advise you to stop treating people who disagree with you like they're stupid, too - I've seen you do it in other threads as well, and it won't get you far. Theknightwho (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What have you argued? Also, you're talking to me, aren't ya? Daldidandal (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Theknightwho's point about your conduct. @Daldidandal you really need to watch your tone. seefooddiet (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Further addition of material about Choi Man-Ri's opposition?

He is the posterboy for Hangul-opposition and makes an interesting argument. Just stating that Choi's opposition merely existed seems a bit bare. Daldidandal (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

For context for others, this post is a significant reason for why I undid your previous large edit (I meant MOS:HEADINGLINK in my edit comment, typo), and why I'll be skeptical of future large edits. It largely has to do with editorial decisions.

Even if more coverage of Choe's opposition is merited, the way that you provided it was clearly unhelpful. It was way too much detail for this article (especially the reproducing documents in their entirety), there were numerous grammar and formatting problems (bare URLs in references especially), and you made a bunch of other changes that were seemingly unexplained or arbitrary. Especially for deletions of sourced information, you should provide clearer rationale.

Your recent edit I think is less harmful, but it still has many of the same problems as before: grammar, formatting (bare URLs), MOS:HEADINGLINK, MOS:REPEATLINK, MOS:DASH, avoidable typos, and more.

If more people on Wikipedia trusted your writing, you could basically rewrite entire articles and nobody would question you. But that requires your writing to be very strong. The need for trust is even higher on important articles, and you've picked several really important articles to work on despite obvious issues in your writing.

I'd recommend slowing down to learn more about writing on Wikipedia before trying this again. Try smaller edits, or edit on less important pages until you feel more confident that your editing has improved. seefooddiet (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)