User talk:Luminans

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please don't post nonsense as you did at history of hangul. Hangul "enlightened the Korean people to get through Japanese colonization" -- really? What does that even mean? Are you claiming that the Koreans expelled the Japanese with an alphabet? And "it became the official Korean script in 1894 and ... right after Korean independence in 1945, Hangul gained the official title." Again, what in the world is that supposed to mean? What is the difference between "official" and "official title"? Please take this to talk. "Historical fact" is welcome, but this is gibberish. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding the editing rule. Let me try to answer your question based on historical facts.

What I mean by "Hangul enlightened the Korean people to get through Japanese colonization" is to positively rephrase that historical facts that the Korean language spoken or written in Hangul was considered as reaction to Japanese administration. By the same token, Hangul was chosen as the official Korean script in 1894 and banned in Japanese colony between 1910 and 1945. There are many resources to support my claims but let me point you to the following papers: Burton, Ayako Shinomiya. Japanese language planning in Korea, 1905-1945. Diss. Theses (Dept. of Linguistics)/Simon Fraser University, 1994. M. J. Rhee (1992) Language planning in Korea under the Japanese colonial administration, 1910–1945, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 5:2, 87-97, DOI: 10.1080/07908319209525118

Your changes seem to be less precise in time and to understate or distort the value of Hangul in Korea at least. Hangul is invented in 1443 not only transcribe Hanja but also represent the Korean language. In fact, it can represent other languages in north east Asia. "Initially denounced by the educated class as eonmun (vernacular writing, 언문 言文)" Have you read 世宗實錄 [1] or 訓民正音 [2] I don't see any statement Hangul was denounced by the educated class as eonmun. Precisely speaking, 언문 諺文 meant a phonetic writing system.

"it only became the primary Korean script following independence from Japan in the mid-20th century." There are many evidences that Hangul was used widely in Korea until it became the official script. Precisely, the Korea got independence from Japan in 1945 (August 15).

I hope my short reply is convincing and you have a chance to take a look the resources to find out the historical evidences. Otherwise, you should explain why your claims are correct or fair and how they are supported by historical facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminans (talk • contribs) 04:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your changes may well be improvements. But some are not.

I don't recall the source for hangul being initially denounced, but it's not hard to find.

"positively rephrase that historical fact" -- in other words, propaganda/bullshit. We're not here to rewrite the facts to make them sound better, but to be as accurate as possible.

"invented by King Sejong the Great in 1443" -- do we know that he started and finished hangul within that year?

"not only transcribe Hanja but also represent the Korean language" -- but at the time hanja were used for both Korean and Chinese, so those are the effectively the same thing. You leave out the fact that it was intended (among other things) for people who didn't know hanja. So your description is also imprecise. Also, which "neighboring languages" were written in hangul? I don't recall any except Chinese (and maybe Mongol), which weren't exactly its neighbors.

Still no explanation of how "official" differs from "official title".

You're also changing what we claim the sources say. If our sources don't say what you claim, then you're misrepresenting the sources.

— kwami (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you realized that you cut off your nose to spite your face if you applied your rules to yourself. Your statements are not precise in terms of timing according to the primary sources and make an excuse that you were lazy. "gain the official title" is a common expression. I don't understand why you cavil at my simple words. The neighboring languages include Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, and Manchurian at least. I don't think it is important to enumerate them in the first paragraph. I don't agree your propaganda to put everything from primary sources as it is, which is not the case for your changes. Please be mindful of your statements to align with the primary sources.