text:
Carlos Hathcock

Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 – February 22, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. Hathcock's record and the extraordinary details of the missions he undertook made him a legend in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was honored by having a rifle named after him: a variant of the M21 dubbed the Springfield Armory M25 White Feather, for the nickname "White Feather" given to Hathcock by the North Vietnamese People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN).

Early life and education
Hathcock was born in Little Rock, Arkansas, on May 20, 1942, to parents Carlos Norman Hathcock I (1919–1985) and Mae Thompson (1920–1989). He grew up in Wynne, Arkansas, living with his grandmother Myrtle (1900–2000) for the first 12 years of his life after his parents separated. While visiting relatives in Mississippi, he took to shooting and hunting at an early age, partly out of necessity to help feed his poor family. He would go into the woods with his dog and pretend to be a soldier and hunt imaginary Japanese soldiers with the German Mauser which his father, a veteran of two wars, brought back from World War II. He hunted at that early age with a .22-caliber J. C. Higgins single-shot rifle.

Hathcock dreamed of being a Marine throughout his childhood, and so on May 20, 1959, his 17th birthday, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. Hathcock married Josephine "Jo" Bryan (née Broughton; 1930–2016) on the date of the Marine Corps birthday, November 10, 1962. Jo gave birth to a son, whom they named Carlos Norman Hathcock III.

Career
Before deploying to South Vietnam, Hathcock had won shooting championships, including matches at Camp Perry and the Wimbledon Cup. In 1966, Hathcock started his deployment in the Vietnam War as a military policeman and later became a sniper after Captain Edward James Land pushed the Marines into raising snipers in every platoon. Land later recruited Marines who had set their own records in sharpshooting; he quickly found Hathcock, who had won the Wimbledon Cup, the most prestigious prize for long-range shooting, at Camp Perry in 1965.

Confirmed kills
During the Vietnam War, Hathcock had 93 confirmed kills of People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and Viet Cong personnel. In the Vietnam War, kills had to be confirmed by the sniper's spotter and a third party, who had to be an officer. Snipers often did not have a third party present, making confirmation difficult, especially if the target was behind enemy lines, as was usually the case. Hathcock himself estimated that he had killed between 300 and 400 enemy personnel during the Vietnam War.

Confrontations with North Vietnamese snipers
The PAVN placed a bounty of US$30,000 on Hathcock's life for killing so many of its soldiers. Rewards put on U.S. snipers by the PAVN typically ranged from $8 to $2,000. Hathcock held the record for the highest bounty and killed every known Vietnamese marksman who sought him to try to collect it. The Viet Cong and PAVN called Hathcock Lông Trắng, translated as "White Feather", because of the white feather he kept in a band on his bush hat. After a platoon of Vietnamese snipers was sent to hunt down "White Feather", many Marines in the same area donned white feathers to deceive the enemy. These Marines were aware of the impact Hathcock's death would have and took it upon themselves to make themselves targets in order to confuse the counter-snipers.

One of Hathcock's most famous accomplishments was shooting an enemy sniper through the enemy's own rifle scope, hitting him in the eye and killing him. Hathcock and John Roland Burke, his spotter, were stalking the enemy sniper in the jungle near Hill 55, the firebase from which Hathcock was operating, southwest of Da Nang. The sniper, known only as the "Cobra", had already killed several Marines and was believed to have been sent specifically to kill Hathcock. When Hathcock saw a glint (light reflecting off the enemy sniper's scope) in the bushes, he fired at it, shooting through the scope and killing the sniper. Hathcock took possession of the dead sniper's rifle, hoping to bring it home as a "trophy", but after he turned it in and tagged it, it was stolen from the armory.

Hathcock stated in interviews that he killed a female Viet Cong platoon leader called "the Apache woman", with a reputation for torturing captive U.S. Marines, around the firebase at Hill 55. However, scholars such as Jerry Lembcke have cast doubt on Hathcock's account and questioned the existence of "Apache".

Hathcock only once removed the white feather from his bush hat while deployed in Vietnam. During a volunteer mission days before the end of his first deployment, he crawled over 1,500 yards of field to shoot a PAVN general. He was not informed of the details of the mission until he accepted it. This effort took four days and three nights without sleep and with constant inch-by-inch crawling. Hathcock said he was almost stepped on as he lay camouflaged with grass and vegetation in a meadow shortly after sunset. At one point he was nearly bitten by a bamboo viper, but had the presence of mind to avoid moving and giving up his position. As the general exited his encampment, Hathcock fired a single shot that struck the general in the chest, killing him.

After this mission, Hathcock returned to the United States in 1967. He missed the Marine Corps, however, and returned to Vietnam in 1969, where he took command of a platoon of snipers.

Medical evacuation
On September 16, 1969, Hathcock's career as a sniper came to a sudden end along Highway 1, north of Landing Zone Baldy, when the LVTP-5 he was riding on struck an anti-tank mine. Hathcock pulled seven Marines from the flame-engulfed vehicle, suffering severe burns (some third-degree) to his face, arms, and legs, before someone pulled him away and placed him in water because he was unaware of how badly he had been burnt. While recovering, Hathcock received the Purple Heart. Nearly 30 years later, he received a Silver Star for this action. Hathcock and the seven Marines he pulled from the vehicle were evacuated by helicopter to hospital ship USS Repose (AH-16), then to a naval hospital in Tokyo, and ultimately to the burn center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas.

Post-Vietnam War and health decline
After returning to active duty, Hathcock helped establish the Marine Corps Scout Sniper School at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia. Due to the extreme injuries he suffered in Vietnam, he was in nearly constant pain, but continued to dedicate himself to teaching snipers. In 1975, Hathcock's health began to deteriorate, and he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He stayed in the Marine Corps, but his health continued to decline. Just 55 days short of the 20 years that would have made him eligible for regular retirement pay, he received a permanent disability separation. Being medically discharged, he received 100 percent disability pay. He would have received only 50 percent of his final pay grade had he retired after 20 years. He fell into a state of depression when he was forced out of the Marines because he felt as if the service had kicked him out. During this depression, his wife Jo nearly left him but decided to stay. Hathcock eventually picked up the hobby of shark fishing, which helped him to overcome his depression.

Hathcock provided sniper instruction to police departments and select military units, such as SEAL Team Six.

Later life and death
Hathcock once said that he survived in his work because of an ability to "get in the bubble", to put himself into a state of "utter, complete, absolute concentration", first with his equipment, then his environment, in which every breeze and every leaf meant something, and finally on his quarry. After the war, a friend showed Hathcock a passage written by Ernest Hemingway: "Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and like it, never really care for anything else thereafter." He copied Hemingway's words on a piece of paper. "He got that right," Hathcock said. "It was the hunt, not the killing." Hathcock said in a book written about his career as a sniper: "I like shooting, and I love hunting. But I never did enjoy killing anybody. It's my job. If I don't get those bastards, then they're gonna kill a lot of these kids dressed up like Marines. That's the way I look at it."

Hathcock's son, Carlos Hathcock III, later enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps; he retired from the Marine Corps as a Gunnery Sergeant after following in his father's footsteps as a shooter and became a member of the Board of Governors of the Marine Corps Distinguished Shooters Association.

Hathcock died on February 22, 1999, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, aged 56, from complications resulting from multiple sclerosis. He is buried at Woodlawn Memorial Gardens in Norfolk, Virginia.

Awards and decorations
Hathcock's awards include:

Silver Star citation
Citation:

"The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star to Staff Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock, II (MCSN: 1873109), United States Marine Corps, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving as a Sniper, Seventh Marines, FIRST Marine Division, in connection with military operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam on 16 September 1969. Staff Sergeant Hathcock was riding on an Assault Amphibious Vehicle which ran over and detonated an enemy anti-tank mine, disabling the vehicle which was immediately engulfed in flames. He and other Marines who were riding on top of the vehicle were sprayed with flaming gasoline caused by the explosion. Although suffering from severe burns to his face, trunk, and arms and legs, Staff Sergeant Hathcock assisted the injured Marines in exiting the burning vehicle and moving to a place of relative safety. With complete disregard for his own safety and while suffering excruciating pain from his burns, he bravely ran back through the flames and exploding ammunition to ensure that no Marines had been left behind in the burning vehicle. His heroic actions were instrumental in saving the lives of several Marines. By his courage, aggressive leadership, and total devotion to duty in the face of extreme personal danger, Staff Sergeant Hathcock reflected great credit upon himself and the Marine Corps and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

Legacy
Hathcock remains a legend in the U.S. Marine Corps. The Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock Award is presented annually by the National Defense Industrial Association "to recognize an individual who ... has made significant contributions in operational employment and tactics of small arms weapons systems which have impacted the readiness and capabilities of the U.S. military or law enforcement." The Marine Corps League (MCL) sponsors an annual program with 12 award categories, which includes the Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock II Award presented "to an enlisted Marine who has made an outstanding contribution to the improvement of marksmanship training." A sniper range named for Hathcock is at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

In 1967, Hathcock set the record for the longest sniper kill. He used an M2 .50 Cal Browning machine gun mounted with a telescopic sight at a range of 2500 yd, killing a Vietcong guerrilla. In 2002, this record was broken by Canadian snipers (Rob Furlong and Arron Perry) from the third battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry during the War in Afghanistan. Hathcock was one of several individuals to utilize the M2 Browning machine gun in the sniping role. This success led to the adoption of the .50 BMG cartridge as a viable sniper round. Springfield Armory designed a highly accurized version of their M1A Supermatch rifle with a McMillan Stock and match grade barrel and dubbed it the "M-25 White Feather". The rifle had a likeness of Hathcock's signature and his "white feather logo" marked on the receiver. Turner Saddlery similarly honored Hathcock by producing a line of leather rifle slings based on his design. The slings are embossed with Hathcock's signature. On March 9, 2007, the rifle and pistol complex at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar was officially renamed the Carlos Hathcock Range Complex.

Books
Hathcock is the subject of a number of books including:
 * reissued as a paperback in 1988, ISBN 0-425-10355-2,
 * reprinted 2001, ISBN 978-0-425-18165-2
 * reprinted 2001, ISBN 978-0-425-18165-2

Weaponry
Hathcock generally used the standard sniper rifle: the Winchester Model 70 chambered for .30-06 Springfield cartridges, with the standard 8-power Unertl scope. He also used the M40 Remington 700 chambered in .308 with a Redfield 3-9x Scope. On some occasions, however, he used a different weapon: the M2 Browning machine gun, on which he mounted an 8X Unertl scope, using a bracket made by metalworkers of the SeaBees. Hathcock made a number of kills with this weapon in excess of 1,000 yards, including his record for the longest confirmed kill at 2,500 yards (since surpassed). Hathcock carried a Colt M1911A1 pistol as a sidearm.

In popular culture
Hathcock's career as a sniper has been used as a basis for a variety of fictional snipers, from the "shooting through the scope incident" to the number of kills he made.

Film

 * The H2 documentary, Sniper: Inside the Crosshairs (March 10, 2015), depicted a sniper team that successfully reenacted the "through the scope" shot.
 * The 1993 film Sniper, starring Tom Berenger and Billy Zane, was loosely based on Hathcock's first Vietnam tour. Scenes include the "through the scope" shot, as well as the assassination of the General.
 * The 1998 movie Saving Private Ryan reproduced the "through the scope" shot against a German sniper.

Television

 * The Discovery Channel series MythBusters tested the question of shooting another sniper through his riflescope. Episode 67, entitled "Firearms Folklore" (November 29, 2006) featured the test: "Can a bullet travel through a sniper's scope and kill him?" Using a police industry standard SWAT sniper rifle and standard police match ammunition, the MythBusters fired several shots at a scoped rifle mounted on a ballistics gel dummy. The bullet was unable to hit the dummy: it was either stopped or deflected by the multiple layers of lenses in the scope, leaving the dummy relatively unharmed. Without any clear evidence that a bullet can penetrate a sniper scope, the MythBusters decided to label the myth as "busted". But, due to much debate by viewers, it was revisited in episode 75. Using a period-accurate scope (this story originates from reports of Carlos Hathcock in the Vietnam War, and the scope used by Hathcock's opponent did not have the numerous internal optical elements of the scopes tested), it was found to be plausible.
 * Hathcock was mentioned in the NCIS episode "One Shot, One Kill", when a white feather was found at two crime scenes where the victims were shot and killed by a sniper. The series' protagonist, Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs, a former Marine scout sniper, realized the significance of the feather as the perpetrator's "calling card", referencing Hathcock's nickname during the Vietnam War ("White Feather Sniper"). He credits Hathcock with "39 confirmed kills", apparently having transposed the digits of Hathcock's actual 93 confirmed kills.
 * Hathcock's duel with Cobra was mentioned in the History Channel Sniper - Inside The Crosshairs in 2016. As in Mythbusters, this show also tested the question of whether shooting a sniper through his scope was possible and came to the conclusion that it was highly plausible after four shots by a modern Marine sniper.

Books

 * Author Stephen Hunter has on many occasions admitted that he took the inspiration for his series character Bob Lee Swagger from Hathcock.

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

title: Carlos Hathcock


text: Talk:Mi-Hyun Kim

title: Talk:Mi-Hyun Kim


text:
Talk:Figurate number

Cleanup
I have cleaned up the page somewhat, removing irrelevant material, adding some material on terminology, history, and so on, and supplying references or asking for them where I don't know enough. The content is still quite incomplete, with no specifics on polygonal numbers past squares, polyhedral and polytopic numbers, and the formulas for calculating figurate numbers or using them in other formulas other than one each for Fermat and Euler. I am working on a sequence of Turtle Art lessons on figurate numbers on the Sugar Labs Wiki, and wanted to be able to send readers here for useful information. Sugar Labs started as the software arm of One Laptop Per Child, and has branched out to Replacing Textbooks (with Open Education Resources).--Cherlin (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

About sum of n consecutive odd numbers $$n^a = \sum_{i = {n^{(a-1)}-n \over 2} + 1}^{n^{(a-1)}+n \over 2} {(2i-1)}\,$$
You mention that you can get the value of $$\scriptstyle n^2\,$$ by adding up the first $$\scriptstyle n\,$$ odd positive integers, and that to get $$\scriptstyle n^3\,$$ you use something similar to a moving average... Actually, it seems that there is a simple formula that can tell you at which number to start and at which number to end, for any power.

To get $$\scriptstyle n^a\,$$ you sum the odd numbers from $$\scriptstyle n^{(a-1)}-(n-1)\,$$ to $$\scriptstyle n^{(a-1)}+(n-1)\,$$ (the 2 bounds being always odd,) i.e.:

 * $$n^a = \sum_{i = n^{(a-1)}-(n-1)}^{n^{(a-1)}+(n-1)} {(i\mod2) i},$$ or equivalently:

 * $$n^a = \sum_{i = {n^{(a-1)}-n \over 2} + 1}^{n^{(a-1)}+n \over 2} {(2i-1)},$$

For example: 3^2 	start at: 3^(2-1)-(3-1)=3-2=1 end at:  3^(2-1)+(3-1)=3+2=5 So 3^2 = 1+3+5=9 4^5 	start at: 4^(5-1)-(4-1)=256-3=253 end at:  4^(5-1)+(4-1)=256+3=259 so 4^5 = 253+255+257+259=1024

This method has worked with every test I tried, but I could've missed something. 64.223.238.101 17:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What happens is that you end up adding $$\scriptstyle n\,$$ odd terms with mean equal to $$\scriptstyle n^{(a-1)}\,$$, so you get:

 * $$ n^a = n n^{(a-1)} \,$$

This is easily proven by using Euler's method:

If n is even:

n^{(a-1)}-(n-1)} + ... (n odd terms) ... + n^{(a-1)}+(n-1)} +  n^{(a-1)}+(n-1)} + ... (n odd terms) ... + n^{(a-1)}-(n-1)} ---       2n^{(a-1)} + ...      (n pairs)       ... + 2n^{(a-1)}

then: (1/2) [n (2n^{(a-1)})] = n n^{(a-1)} = n^a

If n is odd:

(central       n^{(a-1)}-(n-1)} + ... ((n-1) odd terms) ... + n^{(a-1)}+(n-1)}    term)     +   n^{(a-1)}+(n-1)} + ... ((n-1) odd terms) ... + n^{(a-1)}-(n-1)} --- n^{(a-1)} +        2n^{(a-1)} + ...      ((n-1) pairs)      ... + 2n^{(a-1)}

then: n^{(a-1)} + (1/2) [(n-1) 2n^{(a-1)}] = (1 + (n-1)) n^{(a-1)} = n n^{(a-1)} = n^a

Tentacles (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a textbook

 * Is there a shortcut? Can S be manipulated to generate fourth powers?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should not present exercises for the reader to solve; it should present the solution and explain it in detail. --Eequor 15:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

A topic related site
Greetings, I am the moderator for

[]

where the topic of figurate numbers is open for discussion with hopes of finding answers to puzzles and practical applications for this fascinating field.

Question about the location of a paragraph
The paragraph "This procedure (taking many words to explain, but quickly executed) is not restricted to calculating square roots of natural numbers or positive integers. It can even be applied toward calculating the irrational square root of 2, to any number of decimal places." appears at the end of the section on "Cubes and cube roots" but it appears to belong to the discussion in the section on "Square roots". Is this intentional for some reason that I have not grasped?

You have a good point there. In fact, if they are going to talk about square roots and cube roots, they should also include the roots of triangles, pentagons, and if possible, tetrahedrons, etc; Aside from the use applied by children in grade school, others need to mention additional potential uses for figurate numbers. --R3hall (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)R3hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by R3hall (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Where should we put the shortcut?
I am not sure that Figurate number is the right place to detail the manner of calculating square roots. I don't frankly see what connection the shortcut has with figurate numbers per se... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Right. There is already an article called Methods of computing square roots. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion
I am going to so nominate it, I hope I do it correctly. There are so many reasons that I will list them here. 1) A small web search reveals that in most places (excluding those lifting from this page) figurate number means polygonal number or at least a plane figure. It is true that the reputable site Wolfram Mathworld has a more expansive definition (indeed some of this text may be lifted from there). 2) the one outside link is to a 2001 conference paper from Korea which I can believe is mathematically correct and well written but not published in any peer reviewed setting. I have not checked the references from MathWorld (Guy, Conway Kraitchik) which MIGHT anchor a reasonable wikipedia entry. If desired I can do a MATHSCINET search on Monday to see how big a splash there is in the research math world. The one reference is to a specialized book. 3) Most of the article concerns square roots and cube roots in a somewhat idiosyncratic manner. 4) The reference to Picks theorem is not appropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlemath (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I have deprodded it. It's the main article in Category:Figurate numbers and would leave a hole. If you also want the category deleted then that would require a discussion at WP:CFD.
 * 1) MathWorld is a large and important source for Wikipedia. And Encyclopædia Britannica says in : "Polygonal numbers constitute a subdivision of a class of numbers known as figurate numbers. ... Polygonal number series can also be added to form threedimensional figurate numbers".
 * 2) Even if the name "Figurate number" was deemed inappropriate, the article might be renamed or merged. Some of the content looks OK.
 * 3) I agree the square roots and cube roots stuff is problematic to have here. The square roots got no support in the above section. Feel free to remove it. Some of the content being bad is a reason to improve the article and not to delete it.
 * 4) Pick's theorem is a see also link and not a reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You are correct that figurate number needs to be here unless many other articles are changed. Some of the content is OK, but maybe less than one might think (I could argue that the title, the first and third sentences, and the last few words of the second, are about it) BUT (to get the less important comments out of the way first)
 * 4) Picks Theorem is not really an appropriate "see also" since it deals with the area of arbitrary non intersecting polygons which have all vertices from the square lattice while polygonal numbers correspond to patterns of dots which are regular in one way or another but in most cases (n-gon for n=5,7,9,11,13,14,15) not subsets of any planar lattices

 * 1) (part 2) Britanica does say that. It is hard to explore Britanica without a subscription but it appear that Britanica may have figurate number only in that place (number games) and never defines them except by examples (which are not consistent)
 * arrangement of points representing numbers into series of geometrical figures. Such numbers, known as figurate or polygonal numbers [so are they numbers or arrangements? and are figurate and polygonal synonyms?]
 * Other examples include arithmetic progressions like 1,2,3,...,r (so all integers are figurate.. of course n is the first non-trivial n-gonal number.
 * You can make pyramids too

 * 1) (part 1.. alas) I am going to get a little wordy here because I feel something important needs to be said but I don't want to seem petty. Disclaimer: I immensely value Wikipedia and I immensely value MathWorld. If I need to figure out something about Math I usually go to them in that order (that's where Google takes me..) and I am well served the majority of the time. However I usually go on to a  more primary source (which I am aided in finding by starting at W or MW). So both Wikipedia and MathWorld are highly useful encyclopedeae, each is a labor of love supported by passionate contributors. In the case of MathWorld the vast majority of entries are written by Eric Weisstein (according to his author bio.)
 * OK, now that I said that, I think it is a mistake to use MathWorld as a source for Wikipedia (but a great idea to use it as a source of leads FOR source material such as the book by Conway and Guy.. I leave aside the question if that book is too much original research). two reasons that it is a bad idea . One is that in some case MathWorld is non-standard or even misguided and then Wikipedia (using MathWorld as a source) repeats the usage and then parasite web sites echo the usage making it seem widespread. A second reason is that in other cases chunks of text are just lifted out of MathWorld verbatim which is plagarism. Sometime both things happen at once. An example is in this article (regular p-topic number) which I hope to correct. --Gentlemath (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I should add that perhaps PlanetMath (which I am not so familiar with) is a more robust source (although again not enough in and of itself). PlanetMath says figurate number is another name for polygonal number. The usage is just not that standard and Wikipedia should not favor one thing over another. I suppose oblong number should link to figurate number. The greek name for composite integer was rectangular number which is not a stub but maybe should be. The one place I found that it does show up is in Hexagonal number with the somewhat silly remark that the hexagonal number $$h_n= n(2n-1)\,\!$$ can be rearranged into the rectangular number n long and 2n−1 tall (or vice versa). (Ignoring the fact that 1 is not really a rectangular number) --Gentlemath (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting to clean up this article.
The term polytopic previously used here is very problematic both for Wikipedia and the web at large. As you can see, it links to the article polytope (which is noted as a confusing and unclear article) but that article never uses the word polytopic. It says that a polytope is a pretty generic generalization of polygons (including tesselations etc.)

The article prism uses the term "polytopic prism" and goes on to mention "0-polytopic prism" and "1-polytopic prism". A Google search turns up maybe one usage of "2-polytic". There are 188 uses of "polytopic prism" but they all look to be more or less automatically copied from the prism article.

The article on Figurate numbers in MathWorld contains a certain passage beginning
 * The nth regular r-topic number is given by

and ending
 * rising factorial

It seems plausible that polytopic number is a neolgism coined by the author of (most of) the articles in MathWorld. It appears 977 times in Google but only 74 of those are without the word regular and most of those 74 seem to still be lifted from this page. And "r-topic" shows up 217 times in Google. All of them also include the phrase "given by the pattern." Or perhaps it was coined by E.J. Dickson in his classic book. Not used much until MathWorld and then pow. I could be wrong about that history however I will assert that the meaning is completely unclear in this article so it should go unless someone wants to fix it.

The passage quoted from MathWorld includes equations with binomial coefficients, rising factorials and multichoose numbers. This Wikipedia article quotes this in a somewhat garbled way. I don't know if the garbledness gets around the command:" Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license."

At any rate the formula $$ {n \times {{n+r}! \over {n+1}!} \over {r!}} $$ is a disaster because n+r! would usually mean n+(r!) rather than (n+r)! as intended here. More serious is the fact that even with proper parenthesis this does not equal the binomial coefficient on the other side of the equal sign.

Evidently the author of MathWorld intends regular r-polytopic to mean something having to do with a simplex and there we find that: The regular simplex family is the first of three regular polytope families, labeled by Coxeter as αn SO if it is really that valuable then someone should explain it better than is done in MathWorld.

Until polytopic is fixed the examples for r=2,3,4 are in limbo. I won't touch the Gnommon bit for now but I see no dots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlemath (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I see you removed most of the article in 3 edits and then Melab-1 brought it all back. I think some but not all of it should go. This is the main article in Category:Figurate numbers and it seems OK to duplicate some content from other articles there like Gnomon (figure), although a shortened overview would be better in most cases. Google Scholar has some hits on "polytope number" but I haven't read them. Not everything has a precise unique definition and Wikipedia may have to reflect that, although exact definitions are usually more appealing to mathematicians. I support removal of the stuff about square roots and cube roots which doesn't belong here. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do also support removing some of the cube roots stuff, but not the formulas. The formulas are neccesary for a good description of "Figurate number". Other math articles contain formulas to define their subject or properties in their subject. Keep the header section the way it is. And, I don't think the article should be ranamed to "Figured number". That sounds like someone figured out a number and "-ate" suffix is needed because it is a form not an adjective. --19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is enough to say that not so much should go. If I provided careful reasoning for what I removed then I think that before restoring it, my comments should be adressed.

On the positive side I now have Leonard Eugene Dickson's history of thetheory of numbers and T. L. Heath's History of Greek Mathematics so Imay try to build things up again.I'll suffice for now with removing the square and cube root stuff togetherwith the tragically flawed formula. But please respond to the following orI will feel justified in removing the corresponding stuff.

1) Why keep polytopic? Are all figurate numbers polytopic numbers?

2) A math research paper from 2003 defined the term "polytope numbers". Do we endorse primary research articles?

3) The expression I said was wrong is still wrong.

4) In 1999 Midhat J. Gazale wrote a book (now out of print) where heextended the idea of gnomon to things like the chambers of spiral seashell. He goes on to relate this to Fractals and the golden ratio.Why is that relevant as an outside link on this page? And why should the entire article gnomon(figure) be repeated here?

5) To be a "see also" Picks Theorem should have **something** to do withfigurate numbers. Does it?

1. The word polytopic appears 17 times in Wikipedia (not including talk and user pages). At most two are not either on this page, a redirect to this page or a repeat of the first section of the page in the article Number. There is no definition so what does it mean and why do we need it?

2. The conference paper linked to at the bottom of the page by Hyun Kwang Kim actually does appear in PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETYVolume 131, Number 1, Pages 65-75 That is a very good journal. The paper may never have been referenced. In it (according to Math Reviews MR1929024) the author constructs (regular)polytope analogues of Euler’s polygonal numbers. If we are going to link to the preprint of that paper, explain why.

3. The formula $$P_r(n) = {{n + r - 1} \choose r} = {n^{(r)} \over{r!}} \mbox{ } \mbox{for} \ n \ge 1 \mbox{ } \mbox{or} \mbox{ } {n \times{{(n+r)}! \over {(n+1)}!} \over {r!}}\quad \mbox{for} \ n \ge 0$$ is a little better than last time but still wrong. According to it $$P_2(n) = \mbox{ } {n \times {{(n+2)}! \over {(n+1)}!} \over {2!}}={{n(n+2)} \over 2}$$ but that is not even an integer when n is odd. I think that this was lifted from MathWorld where it is rather garbled anyway. Actually this just says that binomial coefficients are figurate numbers for generalized triangles. This well known observation appears in the article for Pascals Triangle so I'll just link there.

 * A final challange. I may propose changing this to Figured Number. Who beside MathWorld and Wikipedia clones uses Figurate Number in this way? This is the term I have found in the two books above. Dickson uses Figurate number for generalized triangular numbers (i.e. binomial coefficients).Many sources use figurate number for polygonal number. Comments?--Gentlemath (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop automatically undoing changes
I have given detailed justifications for removing things. In fact I first discussed, then waited a while, then deleted. It is fine to disagree but important to say why. Please discuss but do not just delete. Case in point: I disliked the usage figurate but gave notice. No response but I did find more uses of it in that sense so I am now satisfied to leave the title as figurate numbers. I will need to add an explanation that figurate means only polygonal in some places (Planet Math and many scholarly books)and only triangular, tetrahedral etc in others (Dickson's History of the theory of numbers).

Some of this stuff is flat out mathematically wrong and I explained why. Please, let's create great articles but lets do it together. --Gentlemath (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, but I just think that for now the formulas should be put back in ust without the part I added. Thoughts, I'd like the formula put back in. I admit that maybe there's something wrong with the last formula. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Figurates listed are not all the figurates
The figurate numbers listed in this article are not complete; the list is missing one that the Pyagorians knew about. These are the oblong or oblate numbers. Like the square numbers, they are rectangular, but unlike them, that have exactly one more column than rows:

7 7  7  7  7  7  7  7           7  6  6  6  6  6  6  6           7  6  5  5  5  5  5  5           number of columns, 8 7 6  5  4  4  4  4  4           number of rows, 7 7 6  5  4  3  3  3  3           7  6  5  4  3  2  2  2           7  6  5  4  3  2  1  1

The difference between the oblates and the squares is the seed which is 'cornered,' that is:

oblate seed                        square seed ---                        ---

1 1                                   1

oblate cornered once            square cornered once

2 2  2                               2  2              2  1  1                               2  1

oblate cornered twice          square cornered twice -          -

3 3  3  3                           3  3  3             3  2  2  2                           3  2  2             3  2  1  1                           3  2  1

While the general formula for a square is n(n - 0), the formula for an oblate is n(n - 1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.3.105 (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Related AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Linear number. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2016 (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) 22:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * GrayDotX.svg

Introduction
The introduction of this basically simple concept is unnecessarily obscure. Kdammers (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Figurate number


text:
Talk:Muryeong of Baekje

Untitled
I think only several Japanese historians claims Shima's mother was a hostage. So it is not appropriate to show that in Wikipedia.

Hmmm, maybe there was a different reason of sending a pregnant woman of the royal family to a foreign country I can't think of. --Nanshu 03:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, what if the two kings of Baekje and Japan were just brothers? Even several Japanese papers suggest it. Again, it's definately not appropriate on an Encyclopedia.

Go to Tondemo. Korean "scholars" have created many "theories" whose cores cannot be verified. The scarcity of historical sources allows them to live in fantasy world. We don't treat such "theories". --Nanshu 04:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe some, not all of them. I think Japanese "scholars" have similar habits, too. :)

Nanshu, just shut up. If you want to go brag about your barbarian island country, go do it somewhere else. But if you want to start making sarcastic remarks about the truth ..... well, then there's simply something wrong about the bullshit you're saying. Do you really think that Shima's mother was a hostage? Especially when your homeland back then practically bowed 90 degrees to Baekje? I think not. And don't start saying any crap about Baekje's and Japan's ties as mutual. It was pretty much one way, and that one way of culture traffic that built that Jap country on the edge of civilization came from Baekje. Look at Todaji and Horyuji. They're all things Korean engineers and architects built. Don't wanna admit it, Nanshu? Then go tattletaling onon that coward, good-for-nothing, sore-loser country.

Yeah, Japan was cultured as a loser by the Baekje who themselves are losers for being chased off the continent, just look at the filth that is Japan today!

Question of Baekje's ethnicity
Based on Beckwith's landmark studies on the language of Goguryeo, where he found it to be cognate with Old Japanese, but not with Old Korean, the Ledyard hypothesis that the Goguryeo and the Japanese are of the same stock of horse-riding invadors has gained worldwide attention again. Since Goguryeo language and Old Japanese are different branches of a root language, it is therefore inferred that their kinfolk in Buyeo and Baekje also speak a branch of Old Japonic (to differentiate it from modern Japanese). This would put together the entire jigsaw puzzle.

The Proto-Japonic Buyeo conquerors and their offshoot peoples moved southwards from Manchuria into the Korean peninsula in the process forming the Goguryeo and Bakje kingdoms, in places where they subdued the Bronze Dagger Culture people (identified by Korean archaeologists as Gojoseon) in parts of the peninsula, with other areas maintaining their independence amongst which the state of Silla is the strongest of these native kingdoms. But the Buyeo invadors did not stop in Korea, for they also crossed the sea and conquered the Yayoi people (the Yamatai state with rulers such as Queen Himiko, as described in Wei-Shu) to start the Kofun culture.

When Silla finally successfully evicted these Japonic conquerors from the peninsula, those from Goguryeo fled back into Manchuria, where they helped to form the new state of Parhae. But the Japonic Goguryeo people were eventually absorbed by the Jurchens. In the case of Japonic Baekje, however, many of them fled to their Japonic brethen across the sea and settled there, being assimilated into the main population. Thus the modern population of Japan is molded out of a class of Buyeo (Proto-Japanese) rulers over a native Yayoi-Jomon people.

The people of Silla are in reality the descendents of the Bronze Dagger/Gojoseon peoples who conquered this place a few centuries before moving from Liaoning into Korea. Incidentally the native people of Korea are those of the neolithic Mumun culture. It was the Bronze Dagger/Gojoseon conquest that lead many of the Mumun peoples to flee across the sea to found the Yayoi culture in Japan. Thus the modern Koreans come from a mixture of the Bronze Dagger Gojoseon ruling class over a Mumun general population, plus some remnant Japonic Buyeo mixture.Wayne Leigh (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeo-Japonic hypothesis emphasize that some Japonic toponymes or place names, found in the central part of Korean peninsula, don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language in the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.
 * Firstly, None of the Japonic toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated. Secondly, some Japonic toponymes (such as Japonic numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in the southern part of Korean peninsula. On the contrary, many Koreanic toponymes were evenly distributed all around the territory of Goguryeo kingdom from Manchuria to the Korean peninsula.
 * The fact that proto-Japonic people lived in the central and southern part of Korean Peninsula (including Jeju, a big southwestern Island where some elements of Japonic Language have survived) suggests that at least the linguistic ancestors of the Japanese-Ryukuan people (it may be worth considering the possibility that some of the Yayoi people were originated from the lower basin of Yangzi River) migrated from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago and made a important contribution to the formation of Yayoi culture in Japan. On the other hand, proto-Japonic people who remained on the peninsula were pushed to the south by proto-Korean peoples who expanded southwards from Manchuria into the peninsula and founded successively new small states which gradually developed into the Three Kingdoms of Korea, on the prehistoric Korean peninsula. Eventually indigenous proto-Japonic people on the central and southern Korean peninsula were assimilated into Koreanic peoples.
 * Jagello (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 백제 무령왕.png

title: Talk:Muryeong of Baekje


text:
Talk:Konglish

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Courtneyleey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

konglish phd thesis
Hi all. I am doing my PhD at Seoul National University in (Linguistic) Anthropology. I'd like to add some of my research papers to this site. I'm just afraid that the content is too large. Each paper is 10-15 pages. Is there a size limit or a average size for wiki editing? I'm really interested in the mixing of languages and I like the issues you guys are talking about.Cbrucelawrence (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't allow massive articles like that, and you can't just copy the papers word for word in to the article anyway. even if it was only a paragraph as we run into copyright problems. In addition to that we don't allow WP:original research on wikipedia, so if your research papers are peer reviewed and published by the the university they can be used as citations for information. Otherwise any content you add would have to be sourced to the original sources that you drew opinions and information from, so long as they are reliable sources and you're not actually performing any analysis of the synthesis or trying to put forth conclusions and opinions not explicitly stated by the sources.--Crossmr (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll scale it down. My work hasn't been published yet. It always has reliable sources with the exception of some websites I quote for public opinion. I'd like to add some things to wiki's site. There are some really cool issues regarding Konglish and Pidgins, Creoles, New Englishes and Sociolinguistics.Cbrucelawrence (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I recommend giving WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS a good read since you're talking about adding things that you've written during your educational career.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

V v. B.
just wanted to add..that 'v' sound cannot be pronounced by koreans..so they use 'b' sound instead but it is not that case in north korea..they substitute it with 'w' sound hence, 'vodka' in s.korea pronounced 'bodka' whereas in north, 'wodka'
 * I think this is very likely to be a lie. You can't write down 'wo', 'wu', 'yeu', or 'yi' in Hangul, and I doubt people would be able to pronounce 'wo' in the North. --KJ 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * In Korean it would just be called yangju. Korean people reading English words can certainly pronounce 'wo' so you can't assume this is wrong based on that.
 * No, of course each type of alcohol has its own name. Yangju is a general term that means foreign spirits. If you ask a Korean "what is this called in Korean" they will usually tell you "양주" (yangju) because they know you already know the names, since they are the same in English and Korean.  If you were to ask what whiskey is called, then ask what vodka is called, and then look puzzled when you get yangju both times, I'm sure they would tell you whiskey is 위스키 and vodka is 보드카. They use Konglish for these because there is no native term for them.

 * To the unsigned poster who wrote "Korean people reading English words can certainly pronounce 'wo'" that is very much untrue. In general, Korean speakers find it very hard to pronounce /w/ before any of the back vowels: /u/, /o/, etc. Just yesterday, one of my students was trying to pronounce "woven" and, as expected given Korean phonemes and phonotactics, this came out [oben]. This was not a surprise to me as I'd already identified this years ago as a problematic combination. And, of course, I'm not the first person to have noticed this. The difficulty of pronouncing /w/ in such environments is a commonplace among people familiar with teaching English to Korean speakers. Korean speakers find it difficult to pronounce /w/ in words like the following: wood, won't, woe, woke, woozy, wolf, woo, swoop. [And to everyone contributing to this and other pages please sign your comments by typing the ~ key four times. It makes it much easier to follow these discussion. Inter lingua  12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Koreans love the Konglish term "whoa whoa whoa." It is spelt "워워워" according to YBM-Sisa's English to Korean dictionary (Under the entry for "Whoa"). Remember that the vowel 워 is written as "wo" when romanized, even though the sound is very slightly different. It is possible that North Koreans chose to call vodka "워드카" (wodka). The 워 sound would be closer to the vowel sound made by a Russian speaker saying vodka, and the north would have been more likely to have vodka introduced to them by Russians rather than Americans. However, I have no evidence of this to support the OP's claim.  I did read a North Korean newspaper article with a Korean journalist friend of mine one time and the spellings of non-Korean words were extremely different.

 * It's important to note that North Koreans generally do not adopt foreign words. This article mentions that: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/dialect.php From the article: "When North Korean defectors are asked to go 'shopping' after they arrive in the South, they are at a loss about what that English word means. Likewise, South Koreans puzzle over what North Koreans mean by a 'vehicle that goes straight up after takeoff,' when the simple English word 'helicopter' will do."

I've never heard of some of these Konglish words, but I like to mention one thing: You forgot "Hwai ting!" ("Fighting!"). Back then when I first heard this strange word, I saw a bunch of athletes in a team putting their hands all in the center and raising them up at the same time after shouting "Hwai Ting!" I thought they were saying "High Team!" Hilarious.

Heh. I totally forgot this article. is indeed impossible for a Korean speaker to pronounce on the first try. It's just not possible under the phonotactics of the language. If people say otherwise, they're wrong or not understanding the statement correctly. --Kjoonlee 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

dialect v. accent
To me this article does not cite it's sources and it seems like it's missing parts. Also there is a huge difference between "dialect" and "accent" Dialect is the within one language use of words. Such as BEV versus what people term as "Standard English". The article also contradicts itself, it says things like it borrowed from the soldiers, then it says it borrowed it from TV. However, from my understanding of Korean and taking Korean classes it's neither of those. The influence was from the opening of Korea's gates to the west and finding things like "highway"s which they didn't have in Korea. Most of the loan words are words that were not found in Korea at the time of this event. THEN there was the occupation from Japan. (There is also no source that the loan words are Japanese from English loan words, and in fact the hangul doesn't seem to support this idea either... so that needs a source from an objective non-Japanese source.) Then the advent of TV took place. But even then the majority of the loan words seem to be technology-based. Such as television, computer, highway, ice cream. (Note that North Korea is another issue since they are trying to get rid of loanwords completely.) This badly needs sources and someone who knows what they are talking about. For example a linguist studying Korean... I'll give this about a week before I slap on the this article doesn't cite its sources tag and ask one of the linguists to look it over. BTW, I took first level Korean and I'm aiming to major in Cultural Anthropology... --Hitsuji Kinno 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What is 'black english'?
Can some one enumerate on the term? Even the dictionary is kind of spotty on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.179.67.14 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The use of “Black English” on this page is indicative of the shoddy scholarship Wikipages offer the world. I am taking the liberty of removing the term, as it is insulting to anyone of even moderate intelligence. “Black English”? Please. Konglish is strewn with US military slang, but to suggest that it is “Black English” is asking us all to traipse down the garden path past the point of logical return.

Added reference, sublanguage, not dialect
dialect is a linguistic term for lexicon and syntax defined by social class or geography. Konglish is not defined by this, since Koreans in general use it. The article which is more academically written and more creditible since it cites its references says that Konglish is a sublanguage(Linguistics), i.e. part of the larger language, but unlike register, is not defined by a social situation. This article still seriously needs citations. That means footnotes, etc as per wikipedia rules. I re-put up the request for citations that I had in the last revision.

The guy who wrote Life In Korea article was missing citations which breaks the rules for credibility--he's not a linguistic professor or even a Cultural Anthropologist. Journalists are journalists, not trained scholars. (Also the argument about Fan fic was weird because there was no tracking or backing up to the statements made and seems entirely wrong to me.) There is also no proof that it comes from BEV (Black English Vernacular) either, which is why I support that cut.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K-qT1oSOh-sJ:www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Doms5.pdf+origins+of+Konglish&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oYDEzPR4qhEJ:www2.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~judy/gyoseki/36konglish.doc+origins+of+Konglish&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 * On the other hand, both countries had a clear and steady favorable relationship with the US. Moreover, the continued presence of the US military meant that modernization came to be synonymous with westernization in both countries. Thus, both Korea and Japan continued to introduce loanwords directly through English. In Korea, these newer borrowings clashed with the older Japanese ones, resulting in some linguistic confusion:
 * Many of the modern loanwords were borrowed through their Japanese renderings, but some of those have been given new versions taken directly from English. There remains considerable controversy over the standardization of current loanwords from English. The trend is to favor close imitation of American pronunciation of the words, rather than to follow Japanese patterns, as was sometimes done in the past. But for words well established over several generations, the now traditional version is usually conceded. (Martin 1992: 94)

is more reasonable (second link). It doesn't say the words "come from the US military and are military slang... but that the continued presence of the US military had the effect of Koreans wanting to borrow English. (As my Korean teacher put it, it became important to learn English.) So that mis-wording needs to be fixed because this shows there is no backing for those statements. (It also cites its references and doesn't put much weight on Scott Soper...) --Hitsuji Kinno 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Konglish words
Of course it would be quite possibly very boring to list all of the English words adopted by Koreans such as the terms for Western spirts (양주) like whiskey (위스키) and gin (진) or what have you now. But, it would be interesting to list the Konglish words which do not immediately transliterate into English. Examples would include: shutter man (셔터맨), gag man (객맨), and there are other examples I can't think of right now. Now, one can often guess the meanings of Konglish words if one thinks about it for a while, but others, such as my example of "shutter man," which is a term for a man whose wife runs a shop while he does not work (hence she is the chief bread winner of the family), and his "job" is to come to the shop to pick her up and close the shutter (hence, shutter man). There are other examples of words like this, but I'm sort of pressed for time. Anyway, it would be interesting/informative to get a list going on this page.

Justin

I agree. There's an excellent doc here with a very long list and I'll link to that. But I'm aware of no other place on the web that highlights this interesting facet of konglish. Things like slippers and one piece can well confuse a native speaker. Worse a male talking about his panties might produce rude laughter from a westerner unfamiliar that the term is used in a unisex fashion. It would make this w/u valuable to list many of those.

Mindme (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Konglish words, own page?
For example quebec french has a lexicon page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_French_lexicon

Please comment by Sept 6, 2008. If there's a consensus by then (or no dissenting comment), I'll move the list to its own page. Thanks.

Mindme (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with moving it to its own page. I would also like each word to explain something of its etymolgy. American lists of Konglish on the 'net abound but some Konglish words seem perfectly reasonable to other English natives, such as "set" (isn't it Wendy's that uses the word "set" while McD's uses "meal" and BK uses "combo"?) and "same same" is really Chinglish and damn common Chinglish at that... as common as "same old, same old" - any comments? Also, "one plus one" has entered common use. In Ontario, I saw a couple of Pizza places called "one plus one" or "two plus one" - in any case, it doesn't seem Korean in origin... Darkpoet (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

geu-ree-shi
geu-ree-shi (그리시; "greasy") - to describe a dirty or unshaven person.

That's not quite a Konglish word that has a unique meaning in Korea. In Canada we call dirty people "greasy". Mindme (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Konglish References
It seems to me demonstrating real world use of a konglish term (in say a blog) is a reasonable source. Mindme (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No its not. Blogs and randomly hosted images fail WP:V anyone could go create a blog to demonstrate a "real world use". You need a reliable source using the word to indicate that its used, what the context is for meaning and its widespread enough to appear in a reliable source. Not to mention half of those references that you restored (even if they had come from a reliable source) didn't support what was being said.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they fail WP:V. However, there aren't a lot of WP:V sources being written on Konglish. These, however, are terms manifestly being used in Korea. We could leave them un-sourced or we could support them with real world usage from sources that appear to be authoritative. We can debate each source, whether or not say the gyopowife blog is a trust worthy source. Anyway, I'm calling for a consensus among interested editors. I vote Keep. Mindme (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because there aren't a lot of sources about something doesn't mean you can ignore WP:V. Please go read the policy again there is no vote. If you want to keep the material you need to find sources which meet WP:V. There is already a consensus formed on the relevant policy page. No small group of editors here can overrule that. The only thing that can show these terms manifestly being used in Korea is reliable sources using them, nothing else. It shows both what the term is and the notability of therm.--Crossmr (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend reading WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. Just because someone makes up a konglish word and uses it on a self-published source like a forum or blog is no indication that the word is remotely notable. Having it appear in a reliable source is necessary to establish that. We are not a repository for all konglish words that someone cares to make up and toss on a blog.--Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, crossmr. Anyway, I look forward to a consensus opinion on my suggestion. Mindme (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * there already is a consensus. you can't use unreliable sources to cite things on wikipeda, there isn't any exceptions to that. WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. After a week any entries in the section for which there haven't been any reliable sources provided will be removed. If you want to keep them I'd suggest you find those reliable sources and see the relevant section in WP:V under burden of evidence for people who want to keep and/or restore material to articles.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to read WP:CONSENSUS consensus isn't formed by a vote, its formed by discussion. You haven't made a single compelling argument as to why unreliable sources should be used as citations on wikipedia. So this point your !vote doesn't have any weight. As well these sentences might be of particular interest to you Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right. and Polls are structured discussions, not votes.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made what I believe is a compelling case for using real world examples of a konglish term. Again, thank you for your input. I look forward to finding a consensus among editors of this write up. Mindme (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't remotely made any argument for ignoring WP:V and as I've pointed out policy forbids any local consensus on this article from overriding WP:V so you're waiting for something which can't happen. It seems like you're going out of your way to not get the point and at this point you're basically refusing to get the point. I've shown you 4 policies which do not allow what you want. WP:V requires everything to come from reliable sources, WP:NOT explains that wikipedia is not for random things just made up, WP:OR says you can't interpret sources to give meaning they don't (which was what was being done with some of those sources), and WP:CONSENSUS forbids any local discussion from making a change that would run afoul of any other policy. In addition to that you're treating WP:CONSENSUS like a vote, which it isn't. Consensus is a debate which you're refusing to engage in. I would suggest you go and find reliable sources for that content if you want to keep it in the article. I'm doing you a courtesy by leaving it in there while I give you a chance to find appropriate citation, but it seems you have no interest in actually doing that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. Again, thank you for your input. Oh yeah, who put in the weird non standard romanization of the hanguel? Ugg. Mindme (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't assume good faith blindly. You've had the policies repeatedly explained to you. You can either find reliable citations or the content will be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no real interest in the subject, but IMO Crossmr is right here, you cant consensus your way out of verifiability. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

More objective view on this
I think I've found a more objective way to create a list of konglish words. Instead of grabbing a random selection of words that may not have exact meanings in English which doesn't really provide a lot of context, instead I've found a book of Korean vocabulary put together by a company that is based on word frequency. It is the 6000 most common words in Korean further broken down into 3 levels. The most common level has about 1000 words in it, and there is Konglish present. As such we could objectively say that these words are the most common Konglish used in Korean. I'm most of the way through the first thousand, and I can't give an exact count on how many entries are Konglish, but as a rough guess, I'd say it might only be around 3-5% Konglish. So not an overly large list, but split into a double wide column with definitions it could prove useful to understanding what words Koreans most commonly have adopted from English and other languages.--Crossmr (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm doing some clean-up and citation on this article. I feel like massive parts of it will need to be removed as I'm not sure cites exist for it. There are a lot of "weasl" words being used in the article (many, commonly, etc) and without citations all those sentences are going to have to go away. I have managed to find several citations so far though.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation moved to talk
I'm moving this to talk since I'm not sure I'll be able to find a reliable source on it:

In South Korea, the term Konglish is used to refer a variety of English spoken with a (strong) Korean accent. Its pronunciation is closest to American English, influenced by American TV shows and movies. This makes it the second Asian variety of English based on American English pronunciation after Philippine English. But there are still some differences:

 * Words ending with consonants, except b, d, g, and s, are appended with a schwa.
 * Final consonant clusters add a schwa at the end, while at the beginning of the word, a schwa is inserted between the consonants.
 * Voiced "th" (ð) like them is pronounced "d" and voiceless "th" (θ) like thrill is pronounced "s".
 * l and r are allophones in Korean. Final and initial r are sometimes pronounced as l.  Speech is sometimes non-rhotic.
 * Fs are pronounced p or hw, since there is no widely used f sound in Korean.
 * Vs are pronounced b, since there is no v sound in Korean.
 * Zs are pronounced j, since there is no z sound in Korean.
 * Rs are pronounced as alveolar flaps.

if sources are found I'll move it back into the article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Korean immigrant info moved to talk
I'm moving this to talk as well as I haven't come across cites for the majority of it:

This phenomenon can be commonly seen in the culture of second generation Korean-Americans. Here, the supplanted words are often loan words used to fill the gap of a limited Korean or English vocabulary. These borrowings may be seen as being used to compensate for a deficiency (or perceived deficiency) in either English or Korean.

This behavior, referred to as code-switching by linguists, may be an expression of the speaker’s desire to be included in either the English or Korean speaking community even though this speaker lacks complete fluency in the respective language. In this case the use of a mixed Korean Immigrant Konglish can be seen as an attempt to gain entry into the social group even though there may be something of a lack of language ability.

Another possible rationale for the use of English words in Korean sentences or Korean words in English sentences may simply be that these linguistic borrowings help the speaker to better convey their meaning than if only one language were used. Because of cultural differences between American and Korean society, there may be no single corresponding word to concisely express an idea in the other language. It may, for example, be simpler to merely say something such as “I helped my father because of hyo(효)” than to say “I helped my father out because of a deep sense of traditional Confucian filial piety”. This is especially true when both the speaker and listener are familiar with the borrowed term.

Finally, this form of Korean Immigrant Konglish may be used between fellow Korean Immigrants who wish to express a unique identity that is neither wholly of the adoptive country nor wholly Korean, but a complex fusion of both. These speakers should not be considered fully trilingual, however. They are generally unable to speak Korean, English, and this immigrant varient of Konglish with equal fluency. Generally people who speak immigrant Konglish lack full fluency in either English or Korean. Indeed, some fall short of fluency in either language. It is, however, reasonable to assume that by speaking some from of Konglish (speaking neither English or Korean), these speakers are signaling their membership in a unique Korean Immigrant subculture. In so doing, speakers of this type of Konglish act to exclude both monolingual Korean speakers who lack an understanding of English, and monolingual English speakers lacking the ability to comprehend Korean. In this way, Korean Immigrant Konglish has become the unique language of this cross cultural second and third generation immigrant group.

If cites are found for all or parts of it, it can be moved back to the article with citations.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

location of superscript
I suggest if some-one wants to move this back again, that instead we ask for an outside party to evaluate the issue. Kdammers (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning makes no sense and runs contrary to WP:CITE An inline citation is a citation next to the material it supports, which is provided to maintain text-source integrity. The citation is to come after the material it cites not before. This is where most people would expect it to come. If you are having trouble seeing the number at the end of the section, I suggest you see an optometrist. Edit warring it back then insisting on a 3rd party isn't going to get your version kept.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:COOL and WP:LAME are also helpful here. And let's not get personal.

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

노트
This word is translated as "note" if I understand the talbe correctly. How-ever, I have never heard it used to mean "note." In my experience, it means "note-book." On the other hand, Google.translate gives "notes" as the translation and E-Mart sells 노트북s. Does any-one have an authoritative source? Kdammers (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick search on naver shows it being used in many situations meaning "note" and not "notebook".--Crossmr (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * 노트 is not quite equivalent to "note" as in, per say, [Your boss left a note on your desk], where note means a notification. In Korean, 노트 is more associated with notebook; and what's funny is, 노트북, which is the direct translation of notebook, is closely related to notebook computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.19.45 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Common Konglish terms unique to Korean
I took all those words and sentences directly from the Korean wiki article; I don´t think that is what is our policy on Original Research is trying to prevent (the policy was instituted back in the day to deal with physics quacks), but I'll just cite a reliable dictionary source anyhow because it is true that in a perfect article everything should have a citation. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely what it addresses. If you keep adding unsourced material to the article, it will be seen as disruptive. You've already been told to provide sources once. The sources attached to those entries are not sources for the claims being made. They source that those words exist. They do not source that the words are common and unique to Korean. For example Handphone is apparently widely used in Singapore, so that hardly makes it unique to Korean. You need a reliable third party source which makes this determination, like a news article that calls these words common and unique. That's a violation of WP:OR.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see what you mean. I will remove the unsourced claims that those words are "common" and "unique to Korean." (Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Which now makes the list useless to the article. So what if they're "other" terms. There are thousands of konglish terms, and that many examples are pointless. Lists in articles are used when the items presented have some kind of significance, like in the case of the existing list as being the most common based on frequency. The point of the article is not to make an unending list of every konglish term ever thought up. If you have a reliable source which calls out certain konglish terms for a certain reason, say being what they'd consider "the best/worst" konglish terms, or if a new source creates a most common list or something like that, that would be a good list to add to the article. All that section does now is create a drive-by section for people to endlessly add things to without actually contributing to the article itself. We add content to improve the article and with 50 or so other Konglish examples there, what case are you making that adding these terms in a whole new section does to improve the article or further the understanding of Konglish?--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that adding those terms is "useless" to the article, and unilaterally and repeatedly removing properly cited content without reaching a community consensus on the talk page could be considered disruptive. But I agree that we do not want an unwieldy list of every single Konglish term anyone has ever heard. We can calmly discuss which (cited) terms to include and reach a consensus on the talk page. As I mentioned, I took those terms directly from the Korean wiki, which is not a reliable source proving the terms exist but does indicate that actual Koreans editing that article over months have chosen to keep those terms as representative examples; I did not choose those terms at random based on my own original thinking and personal experience. If we have a list of less than a dozen terms, all properly cited, and another editor adds an uncited term or one that we conclude on the talk page to be too insignificant for inclusion, then we can calmly remove said term on a case-by-case basis after reaching consensus. Currently, the article only contains examples that are transliterations into Korean; Konglish is also those words invented by Koreans that native English speakers don´t use, and we need to have at least some examples of those. The "Other" terms  were all properly cited as existing in the Korean language; a reliable source that says "these are The Ten Most Common Korean-invented Konglish Words" is only necessary if we make that claim (which we aren't). Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. Other wikis, including other wikipedia projects are not reliable sources. Nor are the choices they make there. We really don't know how they reached the decision to include that list. The point of lists in articles is to provide a distinct compact example. It isn't to just add words for the sake of adding words. In all that, nowhere did you explain what adding further examples would do for the article. The current list is a list that is well defined, extensive, has a unique criteria and gives examples of very common in-use Konglish based on word frequency. The fact that those are mostly transliterations is beside the point. For compound konglish words, we have the example of officetel in the article. You still haven't really gotten at what it is you think can be better explained by adding further random examples to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with "The fact that those are mostly transliterations is beside the point"; the word "Konglish" only exists because native English speakers needed a word that means "Korean words invented by Koreans based on non-standard English usage" like 커닝 and 디카; if Konglish consisted solely of easily-understandable transliterations like 샤워 and 초콜릿 then the word "Konglish" never would have been invented. Every language has to transliterate names like 러시아 and 캐나다, just like writing kimchi or Daegu in English letters.

I think 원룸, for example, is used far more often in daily Korean life than several words in the National Academy of the Korean Language list. I agree that we absolutely do not want any uncited terms or terms cited from unreliable sources, but we do need at least a few Konglish terms of the variety that native English speakers do not readily understand. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and unless you had a reliable source to back it up, it's original research. This is based on word frequency analysis. Prior to the collapse of the soviet union, Koreans referred to the country as 소변. America is 미국, germany is 독일 and England is 영국. Not all names are transliterations. Most native speakers wouldn't readily understand most transliterations anyway due to the way the words are pronounced. While a few stand-out as being easy to interpret, a great number of them aren't as quickly picked up because of the mangled pronunciation. Can you cite any reliable sources which agree with your definition of Konglish? I've found plenty of reliable sources referring to Konglish as many different things. Combo words being one of them, which is present and cited in the article. None of those combo words make it into the 1000 most common Korean words. A couple of modified shortened ones do though, like the word for air conditioner. As I said, if you want to include further examples, they can't be arbitrary. A reliable source, be it a newspaper, academic source, etc. should identify whatever examples you want to include as significant. Anything arbitrary creates various issues.--Crossmr (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that all names in Korean are transliterations; you are turning my words into a straw man argument. (And 소변 means urine! The abbreviation of "Soviet Union" is 소연.)  The National Academy of the Korean Language essential vocabulary list is designed for people learning Korean and is not a purely frequency-based list with no editorial alteration; how can we know that Lee Jae-wook did not specifically exclude Korean-invented Konglish when he compiled this list? We don't have access to his statistical analysis. His list is a reliable source, but not the only reliable source. It is not the Be-All, End-All, Final Word on Konglish, and I think you should consider discontinuing treating it as such. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a typo on my part, its also not 소연, is 소련 (蘇聯). And how do you know that he did do that? Now you're just speculating to try and dismiss it. Have you ever considered that the kind of Konglish is just not as common as you think it really is? It's easy for our perceptions to be skewed. Just because you see it a lot on signs or advertisements doesn't mean it's used as much in speech or publications. That's what word frequency is. I only took the konglish from the first level of frequency. Not the entire book. There is plenty more in there. I'll check if your examples fall under lower levels of frequency. It may not be the only source out there, but right now it's the only source we have that puts any Konglish words in any kind of prominence to give an indication that they are useful examples of Konglish--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
but I didn't remove it just now as a ref in case the old URL may help us find the current address of the article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I got a 404 error notice when I tried http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200001/200001140271.html

Am I missing something here? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also this appears to be a dead link: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/01/117_18210.html
 * Second one works fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The first was caught in google cache here .--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * scratch that, archive.org got the actual page here . not sure why the bot didn't get that and add it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

External image
I believe this external image adds value to the article and should be included. What does everyone else think? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * What value? What does it demonstrate that isn't already sufficiently addressed in the article? Remember that someone viewing an offline copy of the article or a printed version is unable to see that content which is why featured and good articles rarely, if ever, contain those kinds of links.--Crossmr (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don´t believe that lack of links to external images is a criterion for GA status. Where is that written? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Need sources
"As Koreans emigrate to English speaking countries, Konglish has also come to refer to single Korean words being used in English sentences by native English speaking Koreans to succinctly state a Korean cultural concept that has no adequate single word translation in English, such as Hwabyeong, Han or Hyo." I know this is true, but, alas, we do need a proper citation. Does anyone have a source for this? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

flickr.com
Here are a random selection of totally awesome Konglish examples from flickr:
 * Old fish, old oil and oid friend are the best.
 * Please come freely.
 * cocks Now Loading
 * Hotel Manhattan: Small Hope, Big Service
 * Crap cake
 * Not allowed to pregnant
 * White lover

I think we can upload flickr images to Commons because they are Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can, but articles are not galleries. The amount of photos used has to be inline with the article size and of course the usefulness of using more photos which are more or less the same thing. This article already contains over 50 examples of Konglish, so if further examples are to be added to the article there has to be a good case made for doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I didn't do it because I knew you'd immediately remove any image straight-away.  Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I don't support endlessly stuffing articles with repetitive examples. That isn't how good articles are made. At least 2 of those images are not NC-SA 2.0. 2 of them are copyright reserved. You might want to double check anything before you even remotely consider uploading it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not "remotely considering" adding any of them here because you own this article and if anyone has the temerity to attempt to even slightly alter this article they will find their clearly disruptive edits reverted in this epic battle of Good against Evil. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, but as you're free to make edits to the article, so am I. You've now crossed over into assuming bad faith. It's quite clear you aren't even paying attention to what you were trying to push into the article were you? . You just took this list from earlier, without examining it all and continually tried to add it to the article with various rationales. Had you bothered to do so, you would have noticed that two of the entries on it are already in the list above. You also would have noticed that most of the examples in that list are also just transliterations, White shirt, mishing (from japanese, which likely comes from English), burberry coat (which is just a brand name, no different than a country name), or shortenigs like remotecon and autobai which are no different than the couple of shortenings we already have as examples in the previous list. All 디카 is is an abbreviation for a transliteration which hardly makes it unique. So really out of that entire list, only a couple would even demonstrate anything different than what is already in the article. Hardly worth a section all to their own. Especially with no sources calling them out as good examples of this kind of Konglish creation. if you don't want content you've added to the article to be removed, I suggest you actually look at it before doing so and make sure it is inline with a quality article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of photo
An IP just noted that the image had been poorly transcribed, this occurred here:. The word on the sign is 정통, not 전통. 정통 does not translate as "traditional".--Crossmr (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to replacing this, due to the previous bad translation, any editor translating a sign and identifying it as Konglish is original research. There are tons of Konglish examples given in various reliable sources. Any new photo should be of one of these examples given in a reliable source and cited with it. This might be a sign of the word "Fighting!" at a Korean sports event, or any other examples that appear in any reliable source as an example of Konglish.--Crossmr (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of most common KONGLISH???
I believe one item in the article is mostly wrong. Most words in [List of most common Konglish] are not what most people would identify as a Konglish. If what I understand is correct, Konglish does not represent these - rather, Konglish represents broken English, strewn with common mistakes Koreans make - or, distorting English words into forms that we English-speaking people do not use would fit the bill as well. That list does not contain any of these. They are called 외래어 (外來語) in Korean - meaning, [Words whose origin is foreign]. (Koreans do acknowledge them in their own way.)

Moreover, some terms were imported words from Japan - most notably, 에어컨. (Curiously, the list omits 리모콘, which is also of same origin.) They come from Japan, after Japanese folks cut it down from Air Conditioner to AirCon, which is what 에어컨 is. (Same with 리모콘, which is contracted from Remote Controller -> RemoCon) Believe it or not, Apartment belongs to that group as well. (I suggest you look for the words like: エアコン (Air Conditioner）, リモコン (Remote Controller) and アパート（apartment). You may even find some here on Wikipedia.

Other than these, the list contained coarse transliteration of English words into Korean phonetics. I seriously doubt if that alone is enough to qualify as Konglish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.19.45 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Konglish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117091424/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr:80/www/news/nation/2008/01/117_18210.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/01/117_18210.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Konglish


text: Talk:Korea Bay

title: Talk:Korea Bay


text:
Talk:Korean nobility

Titles & Styles
Err... a lot of things were left out...

The titles of Pre and Post Mongol Goryeo rulers was not just Je, but Hwangje. They're styled as Pyeha by their wives and people of lower rank, but as Hwangsang by their parents and grandparents. Monarchs of Mongol Vassalized Goryeo and of Chinese vassal state Joseon were known as Wang and styled Cheonha.

The Shilla rulers also used varioius titles starting with Geoseogan, Imgeum/Isageum, Maripgan, (all Native Korean titles, along with the title Dangun which was applied to the rulers of Asadal, more commonly known as Gojoseon) and finally changing the title to Wang after adopting Tang styled government. They were styled Mama before Tang government adopting. After the adoption of the Tang styled government they were styled Cheonha.

It should also be known that Gun and Wangja aren't the only styling of a prince and that their titles were wrongly explained. The King's son is known as Wanja, but his title is Gun. For example, Yeosan-gun. The name attached is Yeosan, and gun means prince WHEN ATTACHED TO THAT NAME. Otherwise, he is known as the Wangja or Wangja-nim. There's Taeja, which was used during the Pre and Post Mongol Goryeo Era as well as during the Korean Empire in the early 19th and late 20th centuries. Taeja was styled Cheonha, the same level as Wang in the Confucian hierarchy.

There's also the consorts and queens. Queens who ruled without a King were known as Yeowang and were most likely styled Mama, doubtfully Cheonha. The consorts were known as Wangbi and certainly styled Mama. Empresses were called Hwanghu and styled Mama. A female emperor or an empress who ruled without a marriage would probably be called Yeoje, probably styled Pyeha. The mother of a king/wang would be known as Taebi, where the mother of an emperor/hwangje would be known as a Taehu. Both are styled Mama. The grandmother of the King would be known as Taewangtaebi, and that of an emperor Taehwangtaehu. Also styled as Mama.

Reasons, Explainations & the Importance of Culture on the Titles of the Day
It should also be noted that the titles of monarchs in Korea don't only reflect the government model, but also cultural differences between the Chinese and Koreans. When Shilla adopted the Tang model government, the title Wang came with it. The title Huangdi/Hwangje was not ethnically available to the people of Shilla as they were not of Chinese origin. China considered rulers of any nation other than itself as Wang as a sense of nationalism. This is similar to Japan in which Tenno refers only to the Japanese monarch, however historical records show that in the Chinese court, the ruler of Japan was referred to as Wang. This explains the use of Daewang in Goguryeo. However, Goryeo went against this by proclaiming basically that Korea was adequate to use the title of Hwangje (Huangdi in China), despite the fact it was supposed to be used by a Chinese emperor only. In a Confucian society, the Emperor is above the King. Goryeo was the first true Confucian state in Korea, and therefore it styled its rulers as Hwangje to elevate thier status, and the status of Goryeo.

To add, the title Hwangje is given to a nation that is independently established. This also makes sense of Shilla's use of Wang, as well as Joseon's use of it. Shilla, prior to the land it obtained through the alliance with Tang, used the title Imgeum/Isageum and Maripgan. The Unified Shilla period starts when the title Wang was brought into the Korean system and applied to the Korean Monarch. Because Unified Shilla wasn't independently established, but was established with the help of Tang, its rulers used the title Wang. However, Goryeo was established without foreign intervention, and therefore the title Hwangje could be applied. Joseon, however, was established with help from the Ming dynasty, and in turn it became a vassal state of Ming, and in the future of Qing, and its rulers therefore took the title Wang. The Korean Empire, or Dae Han Je Guk was "established" "independently" (I quote these because the monarch remained the same and just proclaimed himself an emperor of a new nation that hadn't changed either, and because Japan technically intervened by breaking Chinese sovreignty in Korea) and therefore could use the title Hwangje.

So as you can see, it is very, very complicated, and this should all be explained in this article.

The definition of an empire and an emperor in Asia is much different than that of Europe.

Temple Names & Posthumous Enshrinement
ALSO... To add about the names of emperors of Goryeo and kings of Joseon... Although they both use temple names, (names that end in -jo or -jong) posthumously, they are different according to the periods.

The Tang Empire in China enshrined its rulers using Temple Names, as Goryeo proclaimed itself to be an empire, it fitted its deceased rulers with the Temple Names similar to that of the Chinese. When deceased rulers of an empire were referred to, they were referred to by their Temple Names, and not by their names when they ruled. This is a characteristic of an empire of the time. When Goryeo was subjugated by the Mongols, the Temple Names were taken away from the rulers to show that Goryeo was no longer an empire, and that is why the last rulers of Goryeo are without temple names.

However, the Ming dynasty changed tradition and began enshrining rulers differently and posthumously not referring to their rulers by temple names, but did still give these names to their rulers. During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, a deceased ruler was referred to by his Era Name. The Temple Name still existed, however. That is why Joseon continued to use Temple Names; because the Chinese system changed, and it was no longer an emperor's characteristic to be referred to by his Temple Name as it had been in earlier dynasties.

Examples of Temple Names in Korea: Taejo of Goryeo Sejong of Joseon

China: Gaozu of Tang

Posthumous enshrinement is very important in East Asia, and is also important when trying to understand the status of nations. One should always keep the time periods in mind, however.

All of the above contributed by Jisae.

MIstranslation of titles
I've removed many instances of "...can also be translated as emperor." Most of the titles alleged thusly are rarely, and inappropriately, translated as such. In translating East Asian titles, "Emperor" is reserved for "Hwang" and "Je" -- titles derived from the Chinese Huang and Di. Just because a kingly ruler rules over other kingly rulers does not automatically make him an emperor. Across the world, most titles meaning "great king" are not translated as emperor. Uly 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Why d'you think so? What is then difference between "kinh" and "great king"? Gantuya eng 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean nobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130712160429/http://archive/ to http://archive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean nobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150204113943/http://www.qz.gov.cn/English/Recent/201405/t20140519_278510.htm to http://www.qz.gov.cn/English/Recent/201405/t20140519_278510.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Korean nobility


text:
Talk:Korean Air

Morning Calm scheme
Hello, please advise why my edit was deemed "not related". It has been added into the section "Loyalty programme", explaining where its name comes from. Thanks Goodwillgames (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Extensive information about the airline's frequent flyer program and amenities, etc should not be included. Remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide so please focus on aircraft and airline destinations. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC) By focusing on airline destinations we would make a travel guide; by focusing on etymology of the Air Line names and schemes we make an encyclopedia. Aircraft models and routes’ details are already well available in the company’s website, whilst additions such as mine give alternative information to the corporate ones. By removing my entry, you just made the explanation of the whole company’s product less comprehensive. I intend to revert your edit and bring it to the Talk page for others to comment Goodwillgames (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Write the issue here. People can’t understand what you’re talking about if you only copy and paste my talk page. Thanks. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Split
Many, many other airlines on Wikipedia, including much smaller airlines, feature their own fleet page. Why not Korean? SurferSquall (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Make your case, people will chip in with their opinion. Just for the record, other stuff exists is not a sufficient argument.  See WP:SPLIT for some reasons why a split might be appropriate, as well as the way to start a discussion that people might notice.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding Lithopsian, and I'd also point out my comment at Talk:Asiana_Airlines : 3 F4U (they/it) 02:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this? Discussion seems to have virtually stopped and there doesn't seem to be strong momentum to split. I may close soon if nothing toobigtokale (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Necessity of splitting has not gone away, i might take a stab at it again SurferSquall (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind based on the Asiana thread it seemed like there was consensus objection to splitting; you're welcome to open second discussion but I predict it'll end similarly toobigtokale (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply objecting that "there needs to be a split" does not provide an adequate reason to split. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Refer to the WP:Guideline (WP:SIZERULE) only article with over 50  kB or 8000 words may be considered for split. As of now, current article prose size is only 15 kB (2512 words). So, no need to even to consider split article. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Fleet
I found only two sources across the internet that Korean Air is going to retire their 747-8is by 2031. But the rest of the internet says that there is no such evidence that Korean Air will retire their 747-8is by 2031. From my opinion, it does not provide enough evidence that Korean Air is going to retire 747-8i fleet by 2031. Good Highlights (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Found the same problem. BuddyHeigh (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fleet
Greetings from fellow Wikipedian BuddyHeigh! Found lots of problems regarding the fleet information about Korean Air fleet. The fleet information shows that KAL's going to phase out the Airbus A380s by 2026 and and the Boeing 747-8is by 2031. This information is only found in the internet other Wikipedia is SimpleFlying, who shares the same information. But SimpleFlying still needs some fixing as it sometimes gives wrong information. The fleet information needs proper source to claim that the fleet information is correct. One website is not enough to provide enough source for the fleet information. If any other Wikipedian finds my topic useful, please make sure to keep watch that no one shares such wrong information. Thanks Wikipedians, BuddyHeigh BuddyHeigh (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello BuddyHeigh, we would need to find a reliable source for those numbers. However, SimpleFlying is not reliable. They have been found to copy the content from other websites including Wikipedia without an checks. --McSly (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wikipedian McSly for agreeing with me.
 * BuddyHeigh BuddyHeigh (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Korean Air


text:
Talk:Korean Americans

Korean Americans return 2023 CE
Korean Americans return 2023 CE 223.39.179.85 (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"Koreans in the United States" scope?
Currently Koreans in the United States is a redir; is this page exclusively for ethnic Koreans with American citizenship, or is it also supposed to cover Korean expats? toobigtokale (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Asian American History
— Assignment last updated by Brysonjun456 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Korean Americans