Talk:Hanbok

Korea Start‑class Top‑importance

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

Deleted content

Edited out. --KJ 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to make a few modifications

There were 3 paragraphs on Mongolian invasion of Korea. This is quite odd, considering this is an article on Korean clothes. There were 2 statments which referred to Korea as a vassal of Mongolia (1300s), one paragraph after another. What does that have to do with the long history of Korean clothes. Silk which is the backbone of East Asian clothes were introduced to Korea in 200 BC. I think someone with a odd sense of humor was editing this site. I left one paragraph of the Mongolian info and added another sentence on Japanese silk/Kimono info to make it balanced. Although if who ever wants to take out both sentences that is fine with me. Maybe we should stick to describing when silk was introduced, what Gogoryeo, Baekje and Shilla clothes looked like, what Goryeo clothes/fashion was composed of and why current views of Hanbok only seems to focus on Joseon era, when their is a prior 2000 year history. --24.17.82.35 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk had little to do with Hanbok, or at least the variation of Hanbok that survived to this day, and Japanese Kimono and Hanbok are entirely unrelated. Much of your edits are nonsense. Not that the previous version was good either, but yours is by no means an improvement. Cydevil 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you can read Korean, please check these sources to get the basic idea of what Hanbok is and how it evolved:

http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=774992

http://cloth.krpia.co.kr

Here is a good page that shows how much differences in Hanbok were made over the period of 2000 years.. Although these are drama costumes, they are pretty much based on history. :Also in the bottom of the page you can see some modern Hanbok.

http://blog.naver.com/kjungrang?Redirect=Log&logNo=110037458062

(This is a blog page; is it okay to post this on the discussion section?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.75.199.206 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, Hanfu, Hanbok and kimono were seperate things before contact with China. After contact with China, Japan and Korea started adapting things from Hanfu into their systems as well as the other way round and also evolved independantly of each other on and off. Hence we see similarities as well as uniquenesses between all three. It is a fallacy to say they are not related to each other (a bit like saying Hanzi, Kanji and Hanja are not related, which is a false statement). --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have forgotten that Korea invented everything. --115.30.67.129 (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

This article certainly has plenty of pictures, but only one shows modern Koreans wearing hanbok -- and that one is a little bity thing tucked way at the bottom right. What makes the hanbok notable is that Koreans still wear it today, as least on special occasions. What kind of hanbok Korean kings wore strikes me as a specialized interest. I've tried to correct this, but without success. Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Commons:Hanbok and Commons:Category:Hanbok. You will get to acknowledge that there are quite many "modern hanbok" at Commons. I did intentionally not add them to here because there is almost nothing about description of such clothing. Of course, the article seriously needs to be cleaned up. I've been working on it as a part of the course, creating articles on basic items of hanbok. The unnecessary images should be removed eventually. If you check the article history, you will notice that "gwanbok" gallery was moved to the new article. So until enough texts are accumulated and images are transferred to Commons, we have to bear the transient status. However, you only inserted a not-so-good image of girls posing with V signs unlike your contribution to Aodai. Image:Kyunghwa girls dressed in Hanbok.JPG Besides, you put it on a wrong history section. That was not really helpful for improving the article, honestly. You're welcome to add "information and suitable pictures" to improve the article in general.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dopo and Durumagi

I have managed to gather some bits of information on the subject, and I really don't think Dopo and Durumagi were the same garments. Dopo seems to be roughly the same as the Ming Daopao, making it also similar to the Joseon Jungchimak (btw can someone get more info on the Jungchimak?).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.18.15 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-26T18:56:20 (UTC)

Dopo and Durumagi are not technically the same garment, but are in the same category of "po" and sometimes the terms are used as a same term. Since the end of the 19th century, the government prohibited men to wear dopo and others than needed a lot of fabric for clothing making, so men wore "durumagi" as an outer garment over jeogori, and then people began calling "durumagi" as a synonym of dopo according to sources.--Caspian blue 01:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. BTW, the above comment was from me.--SamjoonKim (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Scytho-Siberian"

The Hanbok is not of "Scytho-Siberian" origin. It's heavily derived from Chinese dress. One look at any of the Hanbok images in this very article should tell you that these clothes aren't "scytho-Siberian".

These attempts to de-sinicise Korean history in every wiki article are frankly embarassing.