Talk:Hangul

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hangul article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	Hangul was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 9, 2004, October 9, 2011, and October 9, 2016.

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Korea Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

I don’t really like the current example (꿀벌) of the correct way to write Hangul. I think we should change it either to 조선글 or the word for either “line” or the first person singular pronoun, both of which are only one syllable. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:95D5:228D:3A88:24BC (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any explanation at all of why you do not like the honeybee? I can't see any obvious reason to want a single syllable; but I can see that a simpler example might be better, 서울 for example. It is definitely a bad idea to use the topic itself as an example word. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just prefer 조선글 over 꿀벌 for the longer ones. For shorter ones, we could possibly use the first person singular pronoun (나). 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:1946:E2D:F45:B356 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to change to 서울? I think so. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:1946:E2D:F45:B356 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed 꿀벌 to 서울. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:FD4C:A8C1:338A:A961 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As title. Currently "Hangul" seems to be capitalized throughout this article. Is this "preferred" practice for this and other articles?

I guess it's possible that either capitalization is fine and that intra-article consistency is what matters, but considering that this article sets an implicit standard for how we capitalize "hangul" in other articles, I think it'd be nice to establish a consensus here about what's "better".

Some relevant Wikipedia pages:

• MOS:CAPS Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
• MOS:PEOPLANG
• Talk:Hangul/Archive 4#Capitalization (interesting point made here)
• Talk:Hangul/Archive 3#capitalization

A poll of dictionaries:

• Lower: Merriam-Webster (specifies "often capitalized"), Collins
• Upper: American Heritage, Random House (based on archive 3 discussion)

Other evidence:

• Upper: Ency Britannica, ngrams (Take with grain of salt; probably counting occurrences at beginning of sentence)

Not a reliable source, but Wiktionary seems to consider wiktionary:Hangeul to be canonical.

Does anyone know how the linguistics literature capitalizes it? So far common capitalization practice seems unclear to me. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my library (focusing on sinograms and East Asian writing at-large) usage is literally split 50/50, right down the middle. I've opted for lowercase in Chinese characters for congruence with direct cognates like kanji, and related terms generally being lowercase. I don't think that has to apply elsewhere though. Remsense诉 04:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Korean linguistics books almost always capitalize it, but with a variety of romanization methods (though they seem to have converged on "Hangul"). Here's a survey of some "general" reference works on Korean:

• A Reference Grammar of Korean (1992) by Samuel E. Martin: uses "Hankul"
• Korean (1994) by Ho-min Sohn: uses "Han'gul", although the term itself doesn't appear very often in the book
• The Korean Language (1999) by Ho-Min Sohn: uses "Hankul"
• The Korean Language (2000) by Iksop Lee and S. Robert Ramsey: uses "Hangŭl"
• The Korean Language: Structure, Use and Context (2005) by Jae Jung Song: uses "Hankul"
• A History of the Korean Language (2011) by Ki-Moon Lee and S. Robert Ramsey: uses "Hangul"
• The Handbook of Korean Linguistics (2015) ed. Lucien Brown and Jaehoon Yeon: uses "Hangul"
• An Introduction to Korean Linguistics (2016) by Eunhee Lee, Sean Madigan, and Mee-Jeong Park: uses "Hangul"
• Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. (2019) by Jaehoon Yeon and Lucien Brown: uses "Hangul"
• Korean: A Linguistic Introduction (2019) by Sungdai Cho and John Whitman: uses "Hangul"
• The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics (2022) ed. Sungdai Cho and John Whitman: uses "Hangul", "Hangŭl", "hangul", and "hangŭl" (a few occurrences)

I also looked through Google Scholar, and it seems like "Hangul" is usually capitalized in linguistics papers. That said, it's possible that usage is more mixed outside of specialized sources. Malerisch (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would opt against capitalising, on the basis that there's nothing in the manual of style that suggests we should be capitalising, really. I could potentially support italicisation on the basis of MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, though. Theknightwho (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPS, as the OP mentioned? The question is whether the consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources criterion is satisfied. Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the OP; based on the comments from Remsense and Malerisch, it's unclear to me that there's a clear consensus, although it may lean towards the capitalized "Hangul" per Malerisch's comment.

Until more research is conducted, I suspect we'll stick with intra-article consistency for now, although de facto leaning towards "Hangul" because of this article's convention. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logging a related discussion about this article that happened here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#SPA. I don't think "글" has a formal Hanja analog; some might think it's "㐎", but to quote an edit comment by 218.158.10.163: see the 한글 entry in Standard Korean Language Dictionary: [1]/ compare with this entry, which *actually* has hanja: 단어(單語) [2].

This Naver Dictionary article also seems to support the claim that "㐎" was a later invented transcription. [3] seefooddiet (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point in raising this was that the SPA was not a neutral editor saying "No need to mention the 㐎 character, for which there is certainly an argument -- rather the SPA ranted that this was "nonsense", and simultaneously made various romanisation changes. The absence of something in a dictionary pub. by the Korean govt. is no evidence at all: such sources are all tainted in that they seek not to tell us the facts, but what they believe the facts ought to be. I believe there is a WP decision in particulr to call it 'Hangul', because this is factually the more widely used spelling within English texts, rather than the 'Hangeul' which the Korean government believes ought to be the most widely used, or just "Korean-government-correct".

I do not know much about Korean, but most of it closely parallels Japanese, in which characters like 㐎 are called kokuji, i.e. "Han characters made in Japan". The element -gul (글) had no Chinese character, so they made one up. I guess it is essentially not used at all, so could be omitted for this reason, but the Korean govt counterfactually demands that it does not exist. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the editor is a rough communicator, I still agree with their point.

Naver Dictionary is not operated by the South Korean government. No Hanja given here either: [4]. Compare to "Hanja", which has Hanja: [5]. Same case for Daum Dictionary: [6][7]. These two dictionaries are major (by far some of the most used nowadays) and are aggregators of other dictionaries too.

Also, "Hangul" is the WP:COMMONNAME and also a word in English. English-language dictionaries list the word using that spelling. [8] seefooddiet (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]