Talk:Hangul supremacy

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This redirect falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This 'article' has got to be a joke. Otherwise, explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. I've never heard of "hangul supremecy" . And the sources used in the link seems to be backed by a respectable linguist. Not created by Korean patriotism.

In addition as someone who is a japanophile, and polygot. I am very much aware that Japanese and Korean language does have many ingenious advantages linguistics-wise. For example "languages with thousands of distinct symbols at their disposal — such as Japanese, Chinese and Korean — have an advantage in compressing their communications" and why, Asian logograghic languages are among the very fastest to type on a phone or computer keyboard in our modern world. Alot faster and more efficient than English. And other reasons like conveying an idea more concisely; etc

Source

https://www.livescience.com/55607-whats-the-fastest-language-for-texting.html

My point is if a professional linguist praises the modern ingenuity of Korean language hangul system and its unique advantages with good thoroughly explained reasons . That does not automatically translate as "supremecy complex". Two separate different things. 120.18.48.193 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might be merely agreeing with previous comments - I can't quite tell - but I don't see any evidence being given for "supremacy". The claim of the article isn't in any of the sources, not even if all the sources are aggregated. (For example, "most scientifically constructed" is perhaps a claim worth arguing - but "scientifically constructed" isn't "supreme".) The alphabet used in English is not phonetic, making English spelling inconsistent, sometimes wildly so; at the same time, English text inherently conveys information about etymology. This means English is able to show differences in meaning between words that sound identical, something that the scientifically-conceived but deliberately limited Korean text is incapable of doing. Does this make the English writing system "supreme"? No. But does this one fact suddenly make "Hangul supremacy" highly questionable? In my opinion it does. I suggest that "Hangul boosterism" is a distinctive and cute aspect of Korean culture, that may merit an article. But I don't think "Hangul supremacy" has the slightest chance for substantiation. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and greatly enjoyed it. It's clear to me that, amongst many linguists, there is a belief that Hangul is either the simplest or most logical alphabet system in the world. Not sure if that's true, or even if could be finally proven, but I can see that many experts think it's the top of all of them. Supreme, in that sense makes sense. There were a few problems with citations, but I think I've solved them all now.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the comments here questioning the validity of the term "supremacy", I quote The National Institute of the Korean Language for you.

"Every script used all around the world has its features, merits and demerits; the 'most' scientific script can change depending on the criteria used to evaluate it."
(Translated from Korean)

This is not some scholar's opinion, like that of those Hangul supremacists mentioned in the article; This is the official statement of the qualified institute that deals with Hangul. There is not a single criterion scholars all over the world agree upon, within which one script can be regarded superior to all the others. Therefore all that "Hangul is the best." argument cannot be regarded as justified belief with good thoroughly explained reason; it is rather a unilateral argument that focuses only on the "merits" of Hangul and ignores "demerits". And to me, a unilateral argument that proclaims something is better than all the others, seems pretty "supremacy".

Link to the quoted site: https://news.korean.go.kr/index.jsp?control=page&part=view&idx=12670 1.216.198.83 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hangul supremacy. 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/20150924024752/http://www.han-style.com:8001/english/hangul/spec/science.jsp to http://www.han-style.com:8001/english/hangul/spec/science.jsp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not support this article[edit]

The cited sources are not about the topic Hangul supremacy. Instead, this wikipedia article is more a review of the newspaper articles and therefore original research. --Christian140 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to support the assertions, or the quotes (they don't have to be entirely about the topic!). As far as I can tell, the sources do that fine.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?[edit]

I question the validity and notability of this entire article. Many people all over the world, of practically every group that exists, believe that their own way or system (or whatever) must be superior to the rest. It's just simple prejudice, and the "reasons" given for so-called "Hangul supremacy" are substantially the same as the "reasons" for all the other local prejudices in the world.

I don't say there's no prejudice; I say the prejudices are all basically the same thing, and they don't deserve individual pages unless they have had some disproportionate effect on world politics or other major effect beyond their own borders or their own topics. This one doesn't appear to fit those exceptions. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this article could be merged into Hangul (or deleted entirely). BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]