text:
Talk:Revised Romanization of Korean

What is the apostrophe?
What is an apostrophe as described in article? Goodralph 05:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Explained in article. --Menchi 05:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"eo" occurs in English
From article:
 * Although the common English name George uses "eo" to represent a single sound.

 * Well, the first 'e' merely 'softens' the preceding 'g' and does not have a vowel value of its own; 'o' is the vowel sound, not 'eo'. I'll take it out, but I cannot think of any "eo" combination that actually represents a single sound. --Iceager 06:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * You are correct in that the "e" converts a "hard g" into a "soft g." I was just trying to make the point that the "eo" combination is not absolutely foreign to English, although I know from personal experience that non-Korean speakers do struggle with the monophthong....  BTW, the "eo" in "people" is another example of the two vowels together, though of course the pronunciation (이) is completely different from the 어 that we are talking about.... -Sewing - talk 15:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No 'sh' Ever
I think this is a legitimate criticism, but not included in the Article. When ㅅ is followed by ㅣ,ㅕ,ㅑ,ㅛ,and ㅠ it becomes an 'sh' sound, but this doesn't ever get translated right. For example 신림, pronounced 'Shillim' is spelled as 'Sillim.' The funny part is they actually have the right pronunciation for the regular ㄴ+ㄹ case when the first ㄴ becomes an ㄹ sound, otherwise it would be 'Sinrim' with this system. I want to add this, but someone else can do so before me. I can also snap a photo of some signs where the inaccuracy has taken place here in signs in Seoul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.47.122.89 (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No one gonna add this? I think it should definitely go there, I also want to mention the confusion for words like 정앙 and 전강, they both become Jungang. Bluesoju (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * RP is more or less phonemic. Sh is not a phoneme in Korean. (The one exception I recall is either l or r for ㄹ.)

 * 정앙 and 전강 are distinguished by hyphenation, but you're right, it's optional, and will get left out just like the breves and apostrophes in Wade-Giles. kwami (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Role of Hyphen
There's been a bit of an edit conflict in both the Hangul and Korean language articles over the role of the hyphen. The Korean govt. site is rather sloppy: it's to be used "to avoid ambiguity", but not further standardized. This is a subjective call, and so different people revert each other's use of hyphens in the articles. For example, I've seen 한국어 as both Hangug-eo and Han-gugeo, each claiming to be "official".

According the gov. site, when the Romanization is intended to be back-transliterated into Hangul, the hyphen is used to represent silent ieung (except at the beginning of a word, of course). Should we adopt this as the standard for Wikipedia transliterations, to avoid future disagreements? Should we maybe vote on this?

(Another difference between the two systems is that 한국 Hanguk would instead be Hangug, but that's another issue.) 66.27.205.12 19:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * By which system would it be Hangug? Certainly not by RR or MR. --Wikipeditor 06:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, you mean RR transliteration. I don't think I've ever seen a term in RR transliteration except for the examples in the MC's RR guidelines.—Wikipeditor

 * I don't think there's any need for a vote here. Wikipedia works by consensus, wherever possible. See Survey policy.  As for the basic issue, it seems to me that the arguments for Han-gugeo are the strongest, since in RR "ng" is ambiguous between ㄴㄱ and ㅇ.  ... although in the end it doesn't matter that much.  We're getting to a point where an MoS for Korea-related topics would come in handy.-- Visviva 03:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism for oe ?
Has there been no famous backlash for translated 외 to 'oe' ? That is probably the worst translation of the entire RR as the sound is somewhat similar sounding to 'wae'. I'm still shocked that so called linguistic experts released RR without having thorough opinions on some of the sounds, especially from Korean Americans. I don't see how anyone would agree that 'oe' and 'eo' were good candidates for 외 and 어 respectively... you don't have to be an expert to figure that those are not very accurate matching sounds in english, yet the experts couldn't figure it out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 넌(nun) would be translated to 'neon'? Which in English is pronounced Nee-on.

I remember being confused when I saw a Korean pitcher who's last name was spelled 'Seo" wondering what it was really suppose to be, as two syllable last names aren't very common (세오??)... only to find out it was 서 (Suh). -CKL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.227.99 (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

POV?
After an anonymous user has given this article a POV tag, I take this opportunity to express my agreement. I think the article has been very unbalanced and does not do its subject justice. While I have hesitated to edit against what appeared to be a majority opinion, it seems I might not be the only one who thinks this article has contained more than a bit of emotional RR bashing. – Wikipeditor 12:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a note about the Revised Romanization
I've been a professional Korean to English translator for KBS, MBC, Vivendi, and other media companies for many years now and it is to my opinion that any attempt of romanization of Korean using a system of only 26 Alphabet characters with 44 phonemes is bound to be inadequate. However, Revised Romanization seems to have been created around the regular English Qwerty keyboard layout, which in turn, is more apt for Internet--for the usage of the masses. As someone else has already commented above, McCune-Reischauer and Yale system could be used for more technical linguists who are more concerned about being exact using inexact tools.

I've been using R.R. for many of dramas and movies I translate for last 2 years now and I haven't received any complaints about it. But many of other translators I know aren't even aware of R.R. yet. When I do introduce it, they've been pushing it away for now. It seems like only technical few like myself are willing to take a serious look at this and take the risk to change it. I think this makes more sense than McCune-Reischauer system when it comes to romanizing Korean for Internet and the mass-media.

Hanguk vs. Hangug and other issues are really non-issues when you consider the fact that most of vowels ("a" and "u" in this case) are pronounced without understanding basic rules by a neophyte. From my POV, the pronunciation of "g" or "k" in Hangug and Hanguk makes such a slight difference compare to the pronunciation of vowels by a neophyte that any discussion involving such matters deserve a tautological DoS. Of course, no one would prefer that we start writing Haangook, but we do need to deal with some bigger issues here and stop griping about such trivial matters.

And yes, most of so-called standards this Korean and many previous administrations have proposed have been sloppy. So it's not any news we're dealing with here. I think the populous would prefer that we just create a detail Wiki-standard for Korean Romanization and have the rest follow slowly. We can even use my connections in media industry to start lobbying the Korean gov't for the second draft. Shall we start with Haan-gook-uh?

Another angle to this discussion is the fact that Korean is very easy to read. Most of English-speaking people I've taught in last 10 years have been able to read most of Korean language in less than 6 hours of lesson time. It's that easy to learn. Some students were able to master reading it less than 3 hours. So, if someone's really serious about going to Korea and they care to know little bit of its language, I think it's much faster to just learn how to read Korean instead of learning the Romanization system. I hypothesize that this may be the reason why there hasn't been any major revisions for such a long time, despite the fact it's been commonly used without any vowel points. But since we're discussing this R.R., I'd only say that this is more for the mass usage rather than technical. --clayjar (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

More neutral revision needed
I think we need to quickly revise the article for more neutrality by simply presenting what Revised Romanization that Korean gov't has proposed is, and then move some controversial issues pointed out by the previous editors under the subsection called Controversy or alike. But I'd prefer to get some of your inputs first. --xclay 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I added a Criticism header and moved the first long, critical paragraph to below the Features and Usage sections. IMO that improves the overall tone of the article but some more defenses to the critisisms would make it more npov.--JackSeoul 02:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of RR is misunderstood by most.
Somewhere in the article it should be pointed out that the main purpose of the system is so that FLUENT user of KOREAN can seamlessly go back and forth between ROMAJI and HANGUL - also so that you can type away on an ENGLISH keyboard, and have the IME easily change this to the correct HANGUL.

This is the way it works with Japanese (albeit with some very minor exceptions - easily overcome).

The drawback is that the resulting ROMAJI version of Korean is nearly useless as a pronunciation guide for non-native speakers of Korean.

In my case I am fluent in Japanese, but my in-laws are Korean - it took me some time to figure out why Romanization of Korean was so messed up compared to Japanese.

Japanese has only 5 vowels (plus long and short versions of them) so it's easy to use non-accented English to represent Japanese.

Koreans should have adopted a larger character set - perhaps a combo of French and Swedish characters - to more accurately be able to BOTH go back and forth between ROMAJI and HANGUL as well as to give beginners and visitors an idea of how Korean words are actually pronounced.

The current RR system is doomed to only work for those already fluent in Korean - which really is sad, since Romanization is supposed to benefit non-native users of the language. That's why Reischauer came up with his system of Romanization of Japanese in the first place - goofy as his first approach was.

One example "Choi" - this is NOT pronounced anywhere near the way it is Romanized - it's actually "Ché"... "Park" is really "Pak" and "Lee" is really "Ii" and...

It's messed up - doomed to remain that way - get used to it. Learn to read Hangul!Thomas (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New comment on this section: Let me just add on to the bottom of this section. I'm glad to see someone point this out, but this is not how it is used in the modern world. It is used very often to put a Korean word in front of an English speaker. It's not just bad for this purpose, it's downright TERRIBLE, but as terrible as it is, it is still an improvement over McCune Reischauer. As an example, the island in Korea named 거제도 is Romanized as "Geoje-do." The only people who can look at that and pronounce that anywhere close to the pronunciation of 거제도 are people who already read Hangeul. In that case, in the modern world, why even bother to Romanize? But instead, it is Romanized like this and put on maps, or put in front of English speaking people expecting them to be able to pronounce it, and unfortunately, it's not English, and follows absolutely no English spelling or pronunciation rules, nor even any of the exceptions in the English language (and the English language is famous for its manifold exceptions to everything.) Hearing a sports announcer pronounce "최" because it has been Romanized as "Choi" just drives me nuts. This is how Revised Romanization is used today, though. (Hankook Tires isn't exactly Revised Romanization, but it certainly tickles my ears. Even with American accents, people could pronounce it closer to the original than that "hand-cook" pronunciation that is always used if it was Romanized to more closely fit the phonetic pronunciation, rather than the letter for letter transliteration.)

For all of the purposes that are listed for it here, it is outdated, and worse than useless - incorrect is worse than useless. The Korean Ministry of Sports, Culture and Tourism really needs to revisit this, and if they want to adopt something as the official method, they need to create something more true to their language, and that would be something that represents their language as somebody on earth might pronounce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.231.7.225 (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Spelling
To §: I think both Rs should be R, not r. It's a name, after all. – Wikipeditor
 * I agree. The Korean government officially capitalizes both Rs, so the official title is "Revised Romanization..."  --Akira123323 09:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Misspellings abound in Korean government publications, we must not turn to them for guidance. – Wikipeditor

Transliteration vs. Transcription
Let us not neglect the differences between a transliteration (or romanization) and a (phonetic/phonemic) transcription. If there is any need of a revised romanization, it should be 100% straightforward and ignore any and all pronunciation peculiarities. Whereby 듦 would be x-litʼd (transliterated) as "dŭlm", since ㄷ = "d", ㅡ = "ŭ", ㄹ = "l" or "r", and ㅁ = "m". That would be its x-litʼn. It would, of course, be different from its transcription/pronunciation but it would be an accurate romanization. This way if one were given the syllable "dŭlm" to x-lit into Hangul there would be no doubt as to what each element stood for. I have devised and continuously use this system since it is essentially foolproof. I think that all transliteration systems ought to be reciprocal and have a 1-to-1 graphemic correspondence. As I aforestated, this wouldn't necessarily correspond to the pronunciation of the word, &c., but it would allow for interchangability and leave no room for ambiguity. The need for such elemental accuracy is attested in x-litʼns of such arcane writing systems as Egyptian hieroglyphics, which rendered its words almost unpronounceable unless gratuitously laden with e vowels (a vowel which has eluded many writing systems throughout history) to "aid/assist pronunciation". Who the hell would recognise "KISRS" as representing the name "Caesar"? Well, Champollion, for one. Aye, those were the days… At any rate, we mustnʼt confuse romanizations with pronunciations. McCune-Reischauer, &c., are good systems when it comes to traditional romanization. And by "traditional" I mean transliteration which is designed to be pronounced as it is written. But, IMNSHO, there should be two systems at work here; viz 1.) transliteration for reading/writing and 2.) transcription for listening/speaking.—Strabismus 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An official transliteration system already exists within RR: (bottom). Not to mention Yale.—Wikipeditor 10:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with-out illustration!
This article does not have a table showing how EACH Korean letter gets transcribed. There is discussion and comparison (narrative, not tabular) to RM. Please, some-body put a table in. One of the main uses of an encyclopedia is to be a quick, user-friendly how-to source. (Links that might or might not be usable are no substitute.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25

 * A table has been deleted from (at least the Korean) WP to avoid possible copyright infringement. This page lacks any copyright notice, but I doubt this means we can just copy parts of it. I don't know to what extent copyright applies to official publications of South Korea in general and to romanisation schemes intended for general use and/or tables illustrating their use in particular. Outbound links are probably better than nothing. We also still have Korean romanization as sort of a quick reference, which does not show romanisations for each letter either. Wikipeditor 09:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Automated conversion?
Anybody have a link to a decent hangul<->RR<->hangul converter? The best I've found is this but it doesn't do syllable endings properly. Jpatokal 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Korea-related topics notice board and keep in mind that automatic conversion programs will never be perfect, as there are a few ambiguities (kk may represent -[vowel]ㄲ-, -ㄲㅇ-, -ㄱㅋ-, -ㄲㅋ- or -ㅋㅋ-) inherent in the RR rules, as well as badly documented grey areas. Wikipeditor

Moved comments
These comments are from a stray version of this talk page. --Kjoonlee 08:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Add English and Chinese characters to all examples
Also, "encouraged to change, but not necessary.": bad English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.201.31.246 (talk • contribs)

Add English and Chinese characters to all examples
Also, "encouraged to change, but not necessary.": bad English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.200.105.226 (talk • contribs)

Requested move
Talk:Revised romanization of Korean → Talk:Revised Romanization of Korean – To match capitalization of article --Kjoonlee 09:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~

Discussion

 * The request was speedied. --Dijxtra 10:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Messy sentences
Hi, I'm not korean, and try to understand this page. And I wonder what is ment by the two following sentences:

"In proper names, only the initial consonants were usually affected. This because it is at the beginning of a term that searching for a domain name would typically go awry."

1. What is a "proper name"? 2. What is a "domain name? 2. What does "awry" mean?

Another thing, "this because it is" should probably be written "this is because it is" to make it grammatically correct. But the whole sentence probably needs to be rewritten instead.

List please!
Can anyone please put down a list of transliteration between Hangul and English for this system? Similar to the one in McCune-R. Thanks! --Edmundkh 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikitravel phrasebook needs help
A cry for help: Wikitravel has a fairly comprehensive phrasebook for Korean, but the transscriptions are currently all over the place with completely off-the-wall stuff like "han-goo-gǒ-reul" (!?!) for 한국어를. If you can pitch in even 5 minutes and help fix it up into consistent Revised Romanization, the travellers of the world will be grateful. Jpatokal 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request
The Korean language really needs a better and more accurately revised romanization, like the Japanese romaji and the Chinese revised romanization. Here are a few suggestions to the new revised romanization de Coree:
 * 착 = Chak
 * 찬 = Chan
 * 찯 = Chad(t)
 * 찰 = Chal
 * 참 = Cham
 * 찹 = Chab(p)
 * 찻 = Chat(s)
 * 창 = Chang
 * 찾 = Chat(j/z)
 * 찿(!) = Chat(ch(t))
 * 챀(!) = Chak(t)
 * 챁 = Chat
 * 챂(!) Chap(t)
 * 챃(!) Chah(t)
 * ㅕ = yu
 * ㅓ = u
 * ㅑ = ya
 * ㅛ = yo
 * ㅠ = yoo
 * I am asking the permission to create another page for the New Revised Romanization of Korean. Thank you. Polleo

 * Do you mean that you want to create a page filled with examples? (Wikimachine 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

 * Korean is not Japanese...? Japanese doesn't have changing sounds based on word position. Are you asking to create an entire page with every possible character? That's prett crazy, although it would make transliteration more concise, I suppose. Just unwieldly. 65.189.170.90 05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanese DOES have changing sounds based on word position - all the time! That's the typical purpose of daku-on - (e.g. ha/pa/ba, sa/ja).Thomas (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it has less. Though that's because after World War II., the Japanese revised the kana orthography, adapting it to 1:1 represent the spoken language, while in both Koreas, hangeul orthography is still largely etymological, hence why you have stuff like SAM-JEON-RI where SAM-JEOL-RI would make more sense. Japanese was riddled by similar problems before the post-war reforms, as classical kana usage was still used while the pronunciation had changed leaps and bounds since that was originally codified, so you had eg. kyō written in Kana as kehu, etc.
 * Another thing that helps alleviating the number of exception in Japanese is the fact that whatever can be written in kanji, is written in kanji, while Korean by far and large abandoned hanja. If in SAM-JEON-RI, you wrote the JEON in hanja, it would then become a matter of learning the way the reading of the hanja mutates in a given environment rather than a writing-reading incosistency. Japanese has such changes too, eg. 八百 is read happyaku not hachi-pyaku as one would expect, but it's not a problem because it's generally written in kanji, and when it is spelled out in kana, it's written HA+tsu+PI+ya+KU (はっぴゃく), ie. as it is pronounced, and then romanized accordingly, therefore avoiding the confusion that exists in Korean.
 * So if Korean did what Japanese does - using hanja wherever possible and when transcribing hanja to hangeul, writing them as pronounced rather than strictly etymologically, romanizing wouldn't be the pain it is. - 94.140.73.150 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, some of your suggestions are inaccurate as well. 찯 = Chad(t) ---> should be Chat

챀(!) = Chak(t) --> Why the (t) ? ㅋ is not in any way related to a t sound

찾 = Chat(j/z) --> There is no z sound in Korean. If i'm not mistaken, J/Z aren't really related in anyway on a linguistic chart either.

챃(!) Chah(t) --> Chat (you can't end in a 'h' sound) etc etc

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to do? - CKL

transcription vs. transliteration?
Does RR contain two subsystems, transcription and transliteration? That's what I'm getting from the refs, but I don't read Korean. That is, is there an option of writing 백마 as unhyphenated Baengma or as hyphenated Baek-ma? If so, we should dedicate a section to it; if not, there are several transcription errors in the article. This is relevant at hangul, where we're reverting back and forth between ahaekkeul and ahaetgeul for 아햇글.kwami (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't tell anyone I told you, but speaking from memory, I think there might be a mention of that in the official docs. (I vaguely remember seeing it, but I'm not sure.) Nonetheless, I've seen super-duper-serious-transliteration mode in use in academic (linguistic) journals, where 아햇글 would be written as a haes geul or something like that.
 * But other than that, normal usage in subway signs is definitely transcription, not transliteration. --Kjoonlee 15:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Usage in wikipedia
The Revised Romanization of the Korean language in common in/on Wikipedia. While Englisg (From the united kingdom of great-britain and northern ireland) and not south korea, Why does wikipedia use Revised Romanization instead of the more efficient Mccune-Reischauer.--82.134.154.25 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most readers have no knowledge in hangŭl. For them the RR romanisation is terrible. The RR romanisation is useful for koreans only. So, big +1 :-) Excubia (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

morphophonemic usage
Could we expand on morphophonemic transcription/transliteration? There's someone at Korean grammar reverting everything to phonetic, using this article as evidence, and thus obscuring the very things illustrated there. kwami (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Consonant letters
This is the way the article reads at the moment. The Roman "g, k" for the first cell "ㄱ" does suggest that the first "g" stands for the initial or first consonant while the last "k" for the last of a Korean syllabary. Then it should follow that the pairs "dd, tt" and "bb, pp" respectively for the Korean letters "ㄸ" and "ㅃ" should stand for the first and the last consonants, respectively. Unfortunately, however, those "ㄸ" and "ㅃ" are NEVER used for the last consonant. So I have to take it seriously if this chart makes any serious sense. May I dare to suggest one more thing? The current content of the article is too poor to be of any practical, if not authoritative, help as regards the problematic romanization of the Korean language, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

romanization of film title "악마를 보았다"
Could someone please check the romanization of this film title? Is this really according to RR? Except for Rotten Tomatoes (see the URL line here), everyone else (including IMDb) seems to be using a different version, namely this one: Akmareul boatda. So, which romanization is correct, and if both are, which one is preferable, and why? Thanks for your help – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

verification / references needed for some sections of the criticisms section
General lack of objectivity in some of the criticisms forwarded here (example below) Observed that many articles in the wiki korea project, present article included, tend to be written anecdotally or marred by political agendas, bias or plain ignorance.

"Despite governmental promotion, the revised system met with considerable opposition among foreign residents in South Korea, many of whom felt the revised system contained serious flaws and felt that the government failed to consult with them beforehand, they being the primary users of Romanized Korean inside South Korea."

- first off no citations. - dubious word choices "considerable opposition among foreign residents" + from what I recall a few years back the majority of the opposition came from non-Korean speaking white anglophones while many Korean-Americans actually supported the change. + last I checked the opposition group in question constitutes less than 5% of the "foreign" population of the country and less than 25% of the English speaking foreigners here (majority being foreigners of Korean descent)
 * point here is to write clearly, objectively and according to the standards set out in this project.
 * contributing to an article is more than passing anecdotes at some sketch bar in Itaewon.
 * Unsourced information can be removed at any time. I removed the entire section just now because tags asking for references had been in place for several years. --Random86 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Reading"
Would some IPA be too much to ask? In the "Reading" row of the table, does "u" mean /u/ or /ʌ/ or what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can find IPA pronunciations and allophones of each individual jamo at Korean phonology. To answer your question, "u" is, but "ui" can be , , or , depending on several factors, such as the position within a word, personal preference and surrounding letters. —     A ndreyyshore    T    C    04:49, 9 Oct 2017 (UTC)

There is something wrong on the table of paragraph Transcription rules-Vowel letters.
125.189.33.68 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ㅎ + ㅅ = ...hs?!
Should a final ㅎ followed by an initial ㅅ really be transcribed as hs? Where are the sources for that? I think ts, ss or even just s would work better.

Pusan National University and Wiktionary's algorithms use s at the moment. —    A ndreyyshore    T    C    04:49, 9 Oct 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a source from the National Institute of Korean Language in the article. The sound changes caused by adjacent consonants are covered in section 3. ㅎ + ㅅ is not explicitly covered, but given that ㅎ + ㄱ/ㄷ/ㅂ are, I can only assume that hs is considered correct by omission. Pusan National University would evidently beg to differ, since they only include the H in the Yale Romanization and in the "academic applications" section, where the romanization has to match the orthography (which reflects underlying forms) more closely. I was going to suggest seeing if either RR or MR was codified in an ISO standard at some point, but it looks like the ISO standard for Korean romanization resembled Yale romanization and was withdrawn in 2013. Commander Spock (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't understand the logic in your third sentence.
 * Here is how I see it: According to the Standard Pronunciation Method (§12), ㅎ + ㄱ/ㄷ/ㅂ/ㅈ become aspirated consonants, as if they were spelled ㅋ/ㅌ/ㅍ/ㅊ (RR agrees, everything makes perfect sense so far), but ㅎ + ㅅ becomes a tense consonant, as if it were spelled ㅆ (ss), so they are slightly different transformations. However, aside from the fact that they all begin with a ㅎ, the other thing all these clusters have in common is the fact that they consistently resolve to a single sound (ㅋ/ㅌ/ㅍ/ㅊ/ㅆ). If the first four were transcribed phonetically (k/t/p/ch), then I would incline towards Romanizing the last one as ss, by the same principle.
 * Also, if the principle didn't apply, then it would be ts by omission, since a final ㅎ behaves and assimilates like a ㄷ (t) everywhere else (except in ㅎ + ㅇ, obviously). I really can't see where you're coming from with the hs.
 * On a side note, I agree with the current Romanization for two adjacent ㅎ's — it fits the rest of its column, like it's supposed to. ㅎ + ㅎ = ㄷ + ㅎ = ㅌ = t (maybe th in nouns). The first ㅎ gets simplified because that's what finals do in general, and then the second one aspirates the first, though I doubt that ㅎ + ㅎ ever actually occurs. —     A ndreyyshore    T    C    06:00, 11 Nov 2017 (UTC)
 * The point of my third sentence is that the Pusan National University page you linked provides a romanization that differs from what the National Institute of Korean Language appears to recommend. The NIoKL's romanization page doesn't provide an explicit treatment of ㅎ + ㅅ, but since it does provide one for ㅎ + ㄱ/ㄷ/ㅂ/ㅈ, I assume that they didn't simply forget to mention ㅅ. This would make hs the correct RR for ㅎㅅ. Pusan National University's romanization tool instead romanizes it as simply s for both RR and MR, except for the output in its "academic applications" section, where it takes an approach designed to permit reconstructing the Hangŭl spelling from the romanization (and thus leaves the H there). Note, by the way, that nothing on the page suggests that ㅎ should be romanized as anything other than h outside of those four combinations, regardless of its sound. This would appear to be either a mistake or a poor choice, since it would make hieuh the romanization of 히읗.
 * While I can read and write Hangŭl just fine, I don't actually speak Korean myself beyond a few words and phrases, so I may be forced to take you at your word regarding the content of the Korean-language Standard Pronunciation Method page you linked. As best I can tell, the part you're referring to is §12.2, which appears to provide phonetic respellings of words like 싫소 > 실쏘. One would think that if the aspiration change is reflected in the romanization of ㅎ + ㄱ etc., then the tensing that occurs with ㅎ + ㅅ would be as well—but this isn't supported by the page of romanization rules. Why that's the case is open to speculation: perhaps it was thought that hs would be good enough, or perhaps it was left out by mistake. Your guess is as good as mine. Commander Spock (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're going about this the wrong way because of how the table here at Wikipedia presents things, i.e. based on actual Korean spelling. See how there are rows for final ㄷ, but also final ㅅ, ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅌ and ㅎ. Phonetically, they would all become ㄷ most of the time.
 * The NIoKR goes about it a different way. First of all, they state that "Romanization is based on standard Korean pronunciation" (disregarding tensification in consonant clusters, however) and don't mention the value t below any of ㅈ, ㅉ, ㅊ, ㅅ, ㅆ or ㅎ. That's because, further below, we can see that they first respell the words according to pronunciation rules and it's only after that that they actually Romanize them. That is why they don't even bother specifying how letters like ㅅ or ㅊ should be Romanized in final position to begin with.
 * In the case you mentioned (히읗), their thought process would be: 히읗 → [히읃] → hieut, rather than 히읗 → hieuh$WAIT, THAT DOESN'T WORK$ → hieut.
 * Similarly, 좋소 → [조쏘] → josso, rather than 좋소 → johso? jotso?$WAIT, THERE ARE NO RULES FOR THIS, WHAT DO WE DO?$ →.
 * So I wouldn't say that they made a "mistake" or a "poor choice"; on the contrary, we are the ones misunderstanding the guidelines because of our foreign POV, and our table furthers the confusion by overemphasizing Korean orthography.
 * Section 3.1 of the Romanization guidelines is more like them saying "don't forget about this phonetic change and that phonetic change, with a few specified exceptions", rather than setting hard, exclusive rules for which consonant clusters should receive special treatment. Korean phonology is much more complex than that. —    A ndreyyshore    T    C    15:53, 11 Nov 2017 (UTC)

Examples should clarify
The article as it stands today is, at best, confusing for any reader of the English Wikipedia who doesn't also happen to read Hangul. The examples given for various RR results can only boggle the minds of those who have no idea how the spoken Korean language sounds. They seem to imply that a (spoken) [t] becomes an [s], an [r] becomes an [l], an [n] becomes an [r] etc. – whereas it's more likely that in fact a (written) /t/ becomes an/s/ etc. The basic difficulty is that the article talks about "romanization" rather than (letter-for-letter) "transliteration" and (phonetic, sound-for-sound) "transcription". And even the links in the infobox with the names Transliteration and Transcription both point to another article, Romanization of Korean! – which one hesitates to consult because it threatens to further confuse the issues with details about other, older, competing systems of "romanizing" Korean.

The only way I can see for this article to become useful for people who have little or no prior contact with Korean, is for a substantial revision that clearly distinguishes, at every point, whether we're talking about "transliteration" or about "transcription". And any examples given could most usefully proceed:
 * 1) from a given Korean word's standard spelling in Hangul, to its RR(?) transliteration; or
 * 2) from a given Korean word's standard pronunciation in IPA, to its RR(?) transcription; or
 * 3) preferably both the above – perhaps in tabular form.

yoyo (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Transcription of ㄴ+ㄹ
The table under “Special Provisions” lists the transcription for ㄴ+ㄹ consonant clusters incorrectly:  for ㄴ+ㄹ and  for ㄹ+ㄴ. Unless I am mistaken, both of these should be transcribed as  as per examples cited in the korea.net source (신라 Silla, 한라 Halla, 별내 Byeollae). Objections?

AbunPang (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Revised Romanization of Korean


text:
Talk:Expressways in South Korea

"–"(dash) is hard to input.
"–"(dash) is hard to input. There isn't dash in the keyboard. How about delete dash in the name of article? Example: Gwangju–Daegu Expressway → Gwangju Daegu Expressway --ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"in" and "of"
What is the difference between "in" and "of"? This article uses "in" in the name, but some articles (for example, National highways of South Korea and Local highways of South Korea) uses "of" in the name. I think they have to use same words. --ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) (ㅂ|Bieup ㄱ|Giyeok ㅇ|Ieung) 12:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Expressways in South Korea


text:
Wolfgang Drechsler

Wolfgang Drechsler (born June 6, 1963 in Marburg, West Germany) is a Public Administration and Management, Innovation Policy and Political Philosophy scholar. He is Professor of Governance, and one of the founders and directors of the Technology Governance program, at the Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia, where between 2010 and 2016 he also served as Vice Dean for International Relations at its Faculty of Social Sciences. Since 2019, he is also affiliated with University College London, where he is Honorary Professor at the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) and Principal Investigator of the John Templeton Foundation "Islamic Public Value" project, and since 2023, with Universitas Indonesia as an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Administrative Sciences.

Drechsler holds degrees from Bridgewater College, the University of Virginia, the University of Marburg, and the German Post-Graduate School of Public Administration Speyer. Between 1993 and 2006, he was Professor of Public Administration and Government at the University of Tartu. Before coming to Estonia, and during this time, he taught at Universities of Marburg, Giessen, and Frankfurt am Main, all Germany. He was Visiting Professor of Sociology in Lund, Sweden, in 1997, of Governance at the University of Erfurt, Germany, in 2007, of Public Management at the Collegium Civitas, Warsaw, Poland, in 2011, and at the University of Malaya, Malaysia in 2013, and during the same year, of Public Administration at the Central University of Finance and Economics in Beijing, China, as well as in 2015 at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, and at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2016 at the National Institute of Development Administration in Bangkok, Thailand, and in 2017 at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. In 2012-2014, he served as the André Molitor Chair of Political, Administrative and International Reforms (as professeur invité) at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium. From 2017 to 2024, he was also affiliated with Harvard University, as a Davis Center Visiting Scholar, Center Associate, and for six years a member of the Advisory Board.

He has served as Advisor to the President of Estonia, as Executive Secretary with the German Wissenschaftsrat during German reunification, and, as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow, a Senior Legislative Analyst in the United States Congress. He was the Vice Chairman of the executive board of Praxis, Estonia’s pre-eminent public policy think-tank, and a member of the Innovation Policy Council of the Estonian Ministry of Economics.

In Public Administration, Drechsler emphasizes the non-technocratic, non-managerial, "state sciences" approach that focuses on effectiveness rather than efficiency. He is also especially interested in Non-Western Public Administration (Confucian, Islamic, and Buddhist). In economics and public policy, he is a strong protagonist of the role of the state in economic growth and of innovation and industrial policy. Philosophically, Drechsler is a classical Hermeneutician, as one of the last students of the late Hans-Georg Gadamer.

Drechsler serves or has served as an advisor, especially in the areas of public management reform and innovation policy as well as e-governance, for national governments and international organizations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Council of Europe, SIGMA, World Bank, European Union (Lisbon Strategy), Inter-American Development Bank, and United Nations Development Program; he has worked, in different capacities, on the national development plans of, e.g., Estonia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Peru, Brazil, and Norway.

In 2000, Drechsler co-founded The Other Canon, a center and network for heterodox economics research, with - amongst others - main founder and executive chairman Erik Reinert.

Drechsler received the 1997 Estonian National Science Award, Social Science category, the 2001 Alena Brunovskà Award for Teaching Excellence in Public Administration, the 2002 Outstanding Alumnus Award from Bridgewater College, where he also delivered the annual W. Harold Row Endowed Lecture, in 2004, the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana (Maarjamaa Rist), Estonia's Order of Merit, and in 2005, the German one, the Bundesverdienstkreuz. In 2013, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Social Sciences by the Corvinus University Budapest, Hungary, and in 2017, the Senator Peter B. Boorsma Award from SECoPA, the Southeastern regional association of the American Society for Public Administration, for his merits in international public administration theory and practice. The Academy of Management’s (AOM) 2023 George R. Terry Award for “the book judged to have made the most outstanding contribution to the global advancement of management knowledge during the last two years” went to his book, with Rainer Kattel and Erkki Karo, How to Make an Entrepreneurial State: Why Innovation needs Bureaucracy (Yale University Press).

Books

 * The Neo-Weberian State, Max Weber Studies 23:1 (2023, co-ed. with Sam Whimster)
 * How to Make an Entrepreneurial State: Why Innovation Needs Bureaucracy, with Rainer Kattel and Erkki Karo (Yale University Press 2022)
 * Gadamer in Marburg (3rd edition 2016)
 * Islamic Public Administration; First Explorations in the Second World (and Beyond), Administrative Culture (2014, co-ed.)
 * Techno-Economic Paradigms: Essays in Honour of Carlota Perez (2009, co-ed.)
 * A Distinctive European Model? The Neo-Weberian State, The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy (2009, co-ed.)
 * Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900: Economy and Society (2006, co-ed. with Jürgen Backhaus), contributions by among others Sophus Reinert, M.A.G. van Meerhaeghe
 * Kaiserliche Universität Dorpat 200 - Academia Gustaviana 370 - Das Jubiläum der Universität Tartu (2004, co-ed.)
 * Enhancing the Capacities to Govern: Challenges Facing the CEE Countries (2004, co-ed.)
 * Good and Bad Government (2001; on Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Siena frescoes)
 * Die selbstverwaltete Gemeinde (1999, ed.)
 * Paradiama (Otto Kaiser 75), Trames (1999, ed.)
 * On the Eminence of the Social Sciences at the University of Dorpat (1998, also in Estonian)
 * Foundations of Public Administration (1997, ed., in Estonian)
 * Johann Ulrich v. Cramer’s Opuscula (5 vols., 1996, ed.)
 * Estonia in Transition, World Affairs (1995, ed.)
 * Reforming Higher Education and Research in Eastern Germany, World Affairs (1992, ed.)
 * Andrew D. White in Germany (1989)

title: Wolfgang Drechsler


text:
HP-65

The HP-65 is the first magnetic card-programmable handheld calculator. Introduced by Hewlett-Packard in 1974 at an MSRP of $795, it featured nine storage registers and room for 100 keystroke instructions. It also included a magnetic card reader/writer to save and load programs. Like all Hewlett-Packard calculators of the era and most since, the HP-65 used Reverse Polish Notation (RPN) and a four-level automatic operand stack.

Bill Hewlett's design requirement was that the calculator should fit in his shirt pocket. That is one reason for the tapered depth of the calculator. The magnetic program cards are fed in at the thick end of the calculator under the LED display. The documentation for the programs in the calculator is very complete, including algorithms for hundreds of applications, including the solutions of differential equations, stock price estimation, statistics, and so forth.

Features
The HP-65 introduced the "tall", trapezoid-shaped keys that would become iconic for many generations of HP calculators. Each of the keys had up to four functions. In addition to the "normal function" printed on the key's face, a "gold" function printed on the case above the key and a "blue" function printed on the slanted front surface of the key were accessed by pushing the gold or blue  prefix key, respectively. For example, followed by  would access the sine function, or  followed by  would calculate $$1/x$$. For some mathematical functions, a gold prefix key would access the inverse of the gold-printed functions, e.g.  followed by  would calculate the inverse sine ($$\sin^{-1}$$).

Functions included square root, inverse, trigonometric (sine, cosine, tangent and their inverses), exponentiation, logarithms and factorial. The HP-65 was one of the first calculators to include a base conversion function, although it only supported octal (base 8) conversion. It could also perform conversions between degrees/minutes/seconds (sexagesimal) and decimal degree (sexadecimal) values, as well as polar/cartesian coordinate conversion.

Programming

The HP-65 had a program memory for up to 100 instructions of six bits which included subroutine calls and conditional branching based on comparison of x and y registers. Some (but not all) commands entered as multiple keystrokes were stored in a single program memory cell. When displaying a program, the key codes were shown without line numbers.

A program could be saved to mylar-based magnetically coated cards measuring 71 x, which were fed through the reader by a small electric motor through a worm gear and rubber roller at a speed of 6 cm/s. The recording area used only half of the width of the card. While reversing the card to store a second program was possible, it was officially discouraged (unlike in later models such as the HP-67) because the other half of the card was touched by the rubber wheel during transport, causing extra abrasion. When inserted into an extra slot between the display and the keyboard, the printing on top of the card would correspond to the top row of keys (A - E), which served as shortcuts to the corresponding program entry points.

Cards could be write-protected by diagonally clipping the top-left corner of the card. HP also sold a number of program collections for scientific and engineering applications on sets of prerecorded (and write-protected) cards.

The HP-65 had an issue/design flaw whereby storage register R9 was corrupted whenever the user (or program) executed trigonometric functions or performed comparison tests; this kind of issue was common in many early calculators, caused by a lack of memory due to cost, power, or size considerations. Since the limitation was intended from the beginning and documented in the manual, it is not, strictly speaking, a bug.

Significant applications
During the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the HP-65 became the first programmable handheld calculator in outer space. Two HP-65s were carried on board the Apollo spacecraft. Calculation of parameters for the several thrusting maneuvers needed to rendezvous with the Soyuz spacecraft was done on the HP-65 and compared with the results calculated by the onboard Apollo Guidance Computer. Another program for the HP-65 allowed the crew to compute pointing angles for the spacecraft antenna for aiming at the ATS-6 communications relay satellite.

In the same year, Mitchell Feigenbaum, using the small HP-65 calculator he had been issued at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, discovered that the ratio of the difference between the values at which successive period-doubling bifurcations occur tends to a constant of around 4.6692... This "ratio of convergence" became known as the first Feigenbaum constant.

title: HP-65


text:
Talk:Ryanggang Province

Untitled
I've just seen that the German WP has maps for these provinces (follow the interwiki link). Kokiri 10:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Map
Location Map (Note: map is not drawn correctly)

This isn't supposed to be written there. If the incorrectness is negligible, explicate the note and put it below the map in smaller letters; if it's not negligible, remove the map pending its fixing. --Joy [shallot]   08:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ryanggang Province


text: Talk:Sabi (Korea)

title: Talk:Sabi (Korea)


text:
Talk:Sambyeolcho Rebellion

POLITICAL EXPLOITATION
Is the section of the article as titled above a propos the Sambyeolch'o Rebellion and, if so, is it balanced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed4linda (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

title: Talk:Sambyeolcho Rebellion


text:
Talk:Samcheok

Coordinate error
The coordinates need the following fixes:

WGS84:

37.449855,129.165316 125.245.25.218 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. BrainMarble (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Samcheok


text:
Talk:Samguk sagi

1145 or 1146?
I follow the majority not the minority at the moment, although I don't like such manner. Kadzuwo 10:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oldest?
Yes, this is very well known.Kadzuwo 11:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * How about Hwarang Segi?

 * It is thought ordinarily as a forgery among Korean scholars. But only Professor Yi Yung Hoon of Seoul National University department of economics is against it, and Korean News Paper reported about his claim:

 * Korean page
 * Machine translation by worldlingo (Hwarang Segi is translated as "anger Rang century")

 * If translation does not appeared, please use Worldlingo.
 * Please remember it is not my word but a report from Korean major news paper.Kadzuwo 00:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * A correction: Professor Yi Yung Hoon is not only one but one of few such scholars. I'm very sorry for my misreading.Kadzuwo 01:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chronicles?
Why suddenly is it being called the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms? I think this will only cause confusion as it has always been translated in academic literature as History of the Three Kingdoms. Chronicles to me describes a purely chronological history (therefore the pongi section of the history might be termed the Chronicles of Silla, etc.). But the Samguk sagi as a whole incorporates biographies and monographs as well. Besides, the Chinese 史記 clearly denotes "historical record" not chronicle.

Straitgate (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
Since the lack of reference and sources it should be looked over and be rewritten. Some part is really hard to follow. And the whole article seems to discredit the author rather give information about the book. To me it seems to violate NPOV since the lack of reference... And what doest the "Assessment" section do here!? Wiki is not suppose to make any assessments. Just present facts. Im removing that section for now... – Oppa  talk  –  22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Assessment" section has any problem. It is generally accepted concerns. If the name "Assessment" is not appropriate, then please change the name of the section instead of blanking the whole section. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree about the content, but the whole article already points out that section and its up to the reader to make assessment of the fact presented, no? – Oppa  talk  –  15:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

 * There is no references to any sources that support any statements or the "Assessments" in this article. Please provide some.. this article have no credibility. Only bias POV AFAICS – Oppa  talk  –  01:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your blanking of this page. If you wish to add RfC. Please relist again without removing the past discussions. Also please see the translation of Korean article ko:삼국사기 section "Assessment and criticism". I don't understand your objection to "Assessment". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I archived the discussion, didn't blanked it. I'm not Korean. Can't read or understand Korean. I don't oppose the content since I don't know if its right or wrong.. but my critique is based on how the article is written and the lack of sources for the statements. – Oppa  talk  –  12:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Does this article have any credibility?
There is a lot of statements in this articles but no references to any sources to back it up. I can't say I'm familiar with the story of Kim Busik or if the content of the book is valid or not. But this article seems to be bias, written to discredit the book and the author rather than present neutral facts and information about the book. Furthermore, is Wikipedia suppose to make assessments? I thought the viewer was suppose to make their own assessments based on the fact presented. The article shouldn't make any assessments for them, this clearly indicates that this article is bias to me. If someone could provide sources to the statements in this articles would be nice. Thanks! – Oppa  talk  –  12:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some sentences in the assessments section do read like a subjective assessment rather than objective viewpoint, and may need to be reworded if that's not the true situation, so that readers will be certain of the credibility of this section. Phrases such as "It thus appears that", "what all historians agree upon is that" (this generalization should also seriously be reconsidered, and in my opinion definitely requires a citation) need attention. Citations should be added. This is to confirm that such content and alleged claims in the Assessment section were drawn from reliable third-party source prior to its inclusion, to ensure that they will read in accordance with the WP: Original Research policy. I am unfamiliar in this field, but felt that it is important to have reliable and trustworthy information on Wikipedia, and not paragraphs that attempt to mislead or misrepresent. Bstephens393 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, responding to the RfC. I added the Inline template to the article, because the article does seem to have a number of sources listed, they just aren't being cited much in the text itself.  Maybe we could also change the "Assessment" section-title to something like "Criticism" or "Academic criticism"?  (As long as there are published sources on modern scholarly "assessment", there's no reason WP can't provide a summary of that here). WikiDao    ☯  15:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Samguk Sagi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.hawaii.edu/~dkane/Samguk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOR
I have tagged the Background section as containing original research because the majority of it has no citation to backup the claims. If you have managed to find a good source for the section, feel free to add the necessary citations and remove the template. Northern Moonlight 17:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. ~SS49~  {talk}  04:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi → Samguk sagi – As per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies... For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources. Ngrams says lower case "sagi" is more common, and the lower case is used by the Cultural Heritage Administration, as per. toobigtokale (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ChoHyeri (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Writing quality
Please write in an encyclopedic tone and cite sources. This is one of the most important texts in Korean history; it's honestly upsetting to see this article in such a poor state. Please do better; read the Wikipedia manual of style and be more thorough. Otherwise, don't add anything; it's better to have sparse articles than bloated poorly written articles. I deleted a chunk of poor writing. toobigtokale (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Samguk sagi


text: Talk:Samguk yusa

title: Talk:Samguk yusa


text:
Garvellachs

The Garvellachs (Scottish Gaelic: Garbh Eileaich) or Isles of the Sea form a small archipelago in the Inner Hebrides of Scotland. Part of the Argyll and Bute council area, they lie west of Lunga and northwest of Scarba and have been uninhabited since World War II.

The islands include Garbh Eileach, Dùn Chonnuill and Eileach an Naoimh.

Overview
The waters surrounding the islands are extensively used for leisure sailing. A good knowledge of the area is required, with weather conditions likely to change very quickly. Due to the array of separate tidal races produced by the underwater topography there are some treacherous stretches of water. These include the Grey Dogs between Scarba and Lunga and the Gulf of Corryvreckan, between Scarba and Jura in which is located the infamous Corryvreckan whirlpool, which is the third-largest whirlpool in the world.

The area is part of the Scarba, Lunga and the Garvellachs National Scenic Area, one of 40 such areas in Scotlands, which are defined so as to identify areas of exceptional scenery and to ensure its protection by restricting certain forms of development. The Scottish plant collector, Clara Winsome Muirhead surveyed the plant life of the islands and published The Flora of Easdale and the Garvellachs in 1962.

title: Garvellachs


text:
Talk:Samuel E. Martin

Meinichi
Did Martin really die on his birthday, or is this just an accidental oversight in editing? Himatsu Bushi (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake. At present I can't find out when his birthday was. Once obituries have been published I will update and expand the article. BabelStone (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin 1966: The article says, it is in "Language 12". But isn't it in Language 42? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.235.51.10 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Samuel E. Martin


text:
Talk:Seoul Broadcasting System

Name table
I'm a big fan of Korean name tables generally. But if I had to make a list of articles that don't need one, this would be right at the top. Would anyone mind if the name table were removed? -- Visviva 10:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Update Needed
According to the list of programs, it seems to be at least 2 years out of date... can someone update the list please? JustShin 11:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits by Hyunah661992
It has come to my attention that user Hyunah661992 has been contributing inappropriate and false information to the page. As I have recently come across to editing this page and restructuring it to be more suitable through the help of the Korean page, a lot of the information that Hyunah661992 has provided (and which has been untouched for a long time) is actually inaccurate and fake. Barely any citations were made throughout the page and where there are citations, the user cites social networking sites such as Twitter, tumblr, allkpop, and soompi which are not reliable sources of information. "News" sites like allkpop and soompi sometimes presents inaccurate translations and bias. The user provides a very biased point of view and explicitly has been adding more "controversies" to the page since I have mention this to them. Unfortunately, the user has refused to communicate with me and therefore I must bring this issue out to the community. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! Aman329 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hangeul and Romanisation do not match the former name of SBS
If someone more well versed in the ways of Romanising would like to correct it from "group" to "system", that would probably be helpful. I would have done it, but I don't know how to correctly Romanise Korean. --ElectronicPaint (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View issue with broadcasting articles.
Hi,

I've noticed that the Broadcasting Station articles (like SBS in this case) has many controversial events written, which is mostly un-neutral (written in a way that goes against the broadcasting station itself in most cases). Also, some of the details (like nip slip scandal of Ryu Hwayoung, mini skirt controversies, etc.) should be omitted altogether as it does not belong on an Encyclopedia. Please explain why these "Controversies" are needed in the article.

Thanks.

Tibbydibby (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seoul Broadcasting System


text:
Talk:Qing invasion of Joseon

Untitled
After the first Manchu expedition to Korea, the Joseon Dynasty remained unfaithful to the Manchus.

Korea was under no obligation to be "faithful" to the Manchus. It's 2004, Nanshu. Did you really have to write this article from a 17th-century Manchu point of view? I didn't change the article because you would just revert it. --Sewing 14:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Korea became a client state
Chosun Dynasty was longer then Qing Dynasty. Chosun Dynasty lasted 500 years. Korea and Korean exist today what about Manchu and Qing Dynasty. In the end Manchu's became a client to Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.51 (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Korea became a client state to China after Second Manchu invasion of Korea The article does not clearly mention about Korean's client state to Sino-China. Korea became independent after the Treaty of Shimonoseki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samjeondo_Monument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeongeunmun_Gate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Gate

One of the oldest korean flag clearly states "大清国属 高麗国旗". It translate "属 belongs" to "大清国 The Great Sino" "高麗国旗 Korean flag" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_old_Korea.jpg

 * I wonder why Manchu decided not to colonize korea and set up their ruling family there, as they did in China. This is interesting because they kept expanding and colonizing other areas such as Tibet, Taiwan, etc... Optimus2005 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I really wish that we could have more consistency in romanization in regard to Korean articles on Wikipedia. The use of two romanization systems really limits the usefulness of these entries. As a native speaker, I understand that the revised romanization is attractive, but this is not the romanization that is used in English and in English language academia. Revised romanization is most useful for Korean speakers of English, actually. If we are creating these entries to be of greater use to the larger community, I think we should stick to McCune Reischauer romanization (yes, it's imperfect, like all romanization) and keep to it, instead of the random romanization people use in these pages. And please, check grammar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.17.216 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 인조의 항복.jpg

More than 10,000 Korean women were taken as prisoners for Qing army according to the annals of the Josean Dynasty
Is the estimate more than 10,000 Korean women were taken prisoner ? According to this source: [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p3yW5MdzKnUC&pg=PA114&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Pae-yong Yi (2008). Women in Korean History 한국 역사 속의 여성들]

Although it said " Many Korean women were kidnapped and were raped at the hand of the Qing forces, and as a result were unwelcomed by their families even if they were released by the Qing after being ransomed " it doesn't put the estimate number.

According to the "The annals of the Joseon Dynasty depict more than 10,000 women wailing toward King Inko and his evacuation in the Naham Mountait fortress..............given all these women captured in the capital area alone. it can be easily imaged how many women were taken prisoner across the country. It talks of Korean women being raped by Qing forces.Vamlos (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 * '"우리 임금이시여, 우리 임금이시여. 우리를 버리고 가십니까."

하였는데, 길을 끼고 울며 부르짖는 자가 만 명을 헤아렸다. 인정(人定) 때가 되어서야 비로소 서울에 도달하여 창경궁(昌慶宮) 양화당(養和堂)으로 나아갔다.' by 'The annals of the Joseon Dynasty' http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kpa_11501030_002 => many of the resources available on-line also contain erroneous or biased information. 10,000 women did`t exist. No further information about gender is available at this stage. They are probably men.
 * I know what I want to show you.

「아배(我輩)가 고려(高麗)를 정(征)하여, 부녀(婦女) 수만인(數萬人)을 노략(擄)하였는데, 실절(失節/절개를 잃음)한 자(者)가 없었는데, 어찌 당당(堂堂)한 중국(中國)은 무치(無恥/부끄러움이 없음)이 이에 이르렀는가?」 'Korean women committed suicide to keep their virginity. but Chinese women allowed their bodies for Manchuria army.' by 揚州十日記 (양주십일기)-上-
 * Please keep in mind about it. You have very negative perception about Korean women.Skyslandscanner (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Qing invasion of Joseon


text: Talk:Seohaean Expressway

title: Talk:Seohaean Expressway


text:
Talk:Seomoon Tak

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 04:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seo Moon-tak → Seo Moon Tak – Seo Moon is a 2-word Korean surname. Timmyshin (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks like a BLP with no sources (the reference is dead, the purported official site in Japanese is dead). Given that this is a stage name and there are no sources, what are our grounds for talking about the composition of the "2-word surname"? And is this person notable? Dekimasu よ! 05:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Just asking. I've located 서문탁 and I'm adding it to the article now. For the time being, support Seomoon Tak per the orthography here. Dekimasu よ! 05:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

 *  Weak oppose - That could make the naming more confusing to average readers who know nothing about name ordering of Korean people. What about names, like Park Geun-hye? Also, per WP:NC-KO, "If there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized." --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The official website uses "Seomoon Tak", but independent sources use Seo Moon Tak. I don't have preference on which style because I'm not familiar with her or the way Koreans are named in English. I know that Korean surname goes first before two more characters. --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Her name is established in English sources, but I'm neutral for now. --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Hanja authorized to use on name (by Supreme Court of S. Korea) states Seomoon is also a surname. I'd support Seomoon Tak. (George Ho: Korean surnames generally has one caracters, but as always, there is exception, such as Jegal, Seomoon and so on.) — Revi 15:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Support Seomoon Tak. We don't need to di vide ev er y syl la ble of a name with spa ces. —  AjaxSmack   01:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Support Seomoon Tak. The two-syllable family name Seomoon has to be used like Hwangbo Kwan, Jaegal Sung-yeol, Namkoong Won, Sunwoo Hwi. Sawol (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Seomoon Tak


text:
Talk:Seon

Untitled
I'm including the alternative transliterations Sôn Buddhism and Son Buddhism here in case anyone's searching for them. -- 201.51.166.124 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seon