Talk:Hangwa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move proposal[edit]

The hanja[edit]

Wikipeditor, FYI, this term is referred to as "韓菓" in the Doosan Encyclopedia while your source from The National Institute of the Korean Language says 漢菓. I sometimes see incorrect information from the both sources. I guess this is either a mistake occurred after they wrongly transferred contents from paper to the online, or the two cases are both used. So without contacting the both sites, I don't think you can say that "you're wrong".

On the other hand, traditional Korean confectionery was originally called "jogwa (造菓 meaning "making (fake) fruits"), but the term, hangwa was made to differentiate with yanggwa, Western confectionery (洋菓). 韓 means Korean, while 漢 represents Chinese. For example, Han River (Korea) (漢江) was named as such because the river runs toward the West, Chinese continent. I searched 한과 菓 in Google News, and among 17 hits, only 5 hits are 漢菓 including "opinion from a reader" who has a relative running a hangwa factory and one's link is broken. So well, emailing is necessary, I guess. --Caspian blue 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In another Korean Encyclopedia, the hanja for the food is referred to as 한과(韓菓)와 양과(洋菓).--Caspian blue 06:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I might've slip my mind not as checking your source carefully. The entry does only refer to "one" of yumilgwa (fried confection), not Korean confectionery as a whole. I'll revert your edit then.--Caspian blue 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for calling your hanja wrong, and also for only checking this talk page now. I'm sorry! Thank you for pointing out how rarely “漢菓” is actually used on the internet, although it would be nice to know how the word was written in pre-internet times, like in the first half of last century. Past and current usage notwithstanding,

  • The 국립국어원 is the one and only official South Korean language regulator, so almost by definition they cannot be wrong. Instead of assuming they must have made a mistake and deleting “漢菓” from the article, how about assuming they intentionally used “漢菓” until proven otherwise? Why must I contact an otherwise reliable official website to ask them whether they really mean what they say? I'm all for mentioning popular usage[1] but we shouldn't ignore what state language regulators have to say when there are any.
  • The definition in the 표준국어사전 may strongly differ from “Korean confectionery” in general as described in the article. However, the link I had inserted shows zero entries for “韓菓”, making it clear that the 표준국어사전 people didn't seem to think that there is anything in this world called 한과 except “한과(漢菓)” and “한과(閑窠)”. So there are not two different things called 韓菓 and 漢菓 respectively, even if the 표준's 漢菓 definition doesn't match everybody else's idea of what the word 한과 should be used for. The 표준국어대사전 has an entry for just about every word there is, so there would have been two entries if they thought 漢菓 and 韓菓 were two different things.
  • Some entries in the 표준국어대사전 give two sets of hanja for the same meaning. That they haven't done that in this case shows that they must have either thought that anything except 漢菓 is wrong, or they made a mistake.

I propose showing both 漢菓 and 韓菓 in the article, preferably explaining that “major internet dictionaries, internet encyclopedias and everybody else on the internet uses 韓菓, but the South Korean standard dictionary for some reason has 漢菓 instead”, or something along those lines.

You said you sometime see incorrect information from both sources. I know the 표준국어대사전 folks have included many obsolete Latin names for animals and plants, and the etymology sections of loanwords keep quiet about their Japanese or Chinese origin. Concerning spelling and hanja, however, we should keep in mind that it's them who makes South Korean orthography rules. So, from a prescriptive POV, that should be enough to invalidate any accusation that their spelling and hanja could be incorrect. Of course, whether a word's hangeul or hanja spelling is linguistically/etymologically justified is another issue (which can be discussed in articles).

Mmm now would be a good time for some hangwa, a nice cup of tea and a sitdown… – Wikipeditor (talk)

No original research[edit]

Not only the two "commercial encyclopedias" written by researchers, academics, professional writers just like Britannica, major newspapers says "韓菓" and the president of Korean confectionery museum says "韓菓", not 漢子. I think you better emailing to the the National Institute of the Korean Language first since I think you clearly misinterpretate your source. According to your source, 漢子 is one of yumilgwa which is actually one variety of hangwa. Therefore, I have to delete your long-winged "own analysis" to the article. No original research, please. --Caspian blue 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's “original research” in my changes. Every statement is directly backed up by at least one ROK state institution's website, there's zero “analysis” or “interpretation” on my part. – Wikipeditor (talk)
I'm almost speechless about your pov pushing mixed with the original research. You can provide me reliable sources in which the other example about Chinese/Korean medicine and hangwa are compared together just like your addition. If you can't, that is original research. The content is still very much misleading. In your logic, hanbok even should have the 漢 instead of 韓.--Caspian blue 06:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the part about the “traditional medicine” hanja change, as it is only related to the word “hangwa” but not to the concept of hangwa which the article should focus on. I still don't see how anything I've ever done for this article is “original research”, though.
I have never said that using 韓 for hangwa, hanyak etc. is bad. I have never discouraged anybody from writing however they like. I wouldn't even have a problem with people (or the 국립국어원) deciding to think of the han in “Hangang” or “Han dynasty” as 韓. I just thought that readers might be interested in disagreements (in the case of hangwa) or changes (in the case of “traditional medicine”) concerning a word's orthography. There are other articles which do this – please have a look at Karate#Etymology. As long as it's not proven that the 표준's authors intended to write 韓 but made a typo, I don't see why such information should be in Karate (with no sources except another unsourced Wikipedia article) but not in Hangwa (where I've provided sources). – Wikipeditor (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The deleted material is your original research. If not, there is no reason for the deletion. We're building up the article on the "encyclopedia", not on a blog. Editors here strictly have to write based on sources. I would have less roblem even if the 국립국어원 defined that 漢菓 indicates all kinds of Korean confectionery. However, it's not. The hanja of Dangui (I created the article btw) is 唐衣, meaning "Tang's garment", but I have no problem at all because reliable sources say so. I don't understand your another comparison. You think I'm doing political correction, but I'm only pointing out your wrong edits. Moreover, the 국립국어원 does not cover all Korean terms especially originated after the mid 20th century. Even samgyeopsal was registered to the dictionary just recently. Moreover, according to the source, 漢菓 is a variety of Korean confectionery. Hangwa was called jogwa in Sino-Korean term or gwajeul (과즐), pure Korean word. The term, hangwa was named as such not long ago according to news sources. Moreover, I deleted your another original research that han usually refers to "Chinese" in Korean language. You should be very careful about sourcing.--Caspian blue 21:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I still think I did write strictly based on sources, at least in the part I deleted for you. Restoring it would improve the article, but I'm not going to to that before we have some input from others. And I didn't think you're doing political correction, I just didn't understand why you seemed not to accept the Pyojun as a source. Anyway, I'm happy with the way the article looks now! Wikipeditor (talk) (have a confectionery) 2009-02-28

Yakgwa a kind of Yukwa?[edit]

To Caspian blue : I do not think Yakwa for these reasons : 1. Yakgwa main ingredient is wheat flour. Yukwa main ingredient is glutinous rice flour. 2. Yakgwa is a type of Yumilgwa and the most popular Yakgwa. 3. Yumilkwa is different from Yukwa because the main ingredient is different. 4. Yumilkwa is a type of hangwa. Yukwa is a type of hangwa as well. sources : http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=759802 : 한과 http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=828170 : 유과 http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=108873 : 약과 --Lawren00 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, yumilgwa is another name of yugwa, and both of which mean "(stir-)fried confectionery". The fact that the two words are synonymous can be confirmed with this Naver Korean dictionary.[2][3] It is largely divided into yakgwa, gangjeong according to Korean Britannica Encyclopedia.(quote) 유밀과는 크게 약과류와 강정류로 나뉜다.
As you point out, according to the Naver encyclopedia (in fact, Doosan Encyclopedia), yakgwa has been an indispensable food for ritual ceremonies since ancient times, as yumilgwa was commonly referred to as yakgwa whichi is a representative confectionery of yumilgwa. (quote) "약과는 예로부터 제향(祭享)의 필수음식이었으며, 유밀과를 흔히 약과라고 부를 정도로 유밀과의 대표적인 과자이다."
http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=249399&v=44 This is a pretty good source, Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If you want me to reduce the confusion, I will move Yugwa article to Yumilgwa, and then the Korean dictionary entries.--Caspian blue 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your answer. It looks like a very tough topic :D Ok let me restart my explanation. If you check here http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=122208 where Doosan encyclopedia is explaining about Yumilkwa "보통 유과(油菓)와 같은 말로 쓰이기도 하지만, 약과 종류는 유밀과, 강정·산자·빈사과 등의 종류는 유과로 구별된다. 재료도 유밀과는 밀가루와 메밀가루를 이용하며, 유과는 찹쌀가루를 이용하는 차이가 있다." So if I understand well, even if we usually misuse yumilkwa and yukwa, they say clearly that it is different. To justify, they explain that the base ingredient is different. Additionally, I would also add that yumilkwa is written 油蜜果 and yukwa 油菓. Different hanja, different origin, isn't it? If we check all these sources from the same encyclopedia, http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=828170 yukwa is a type of Hangwa, http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=5636 Gangjeong is a type of Kwaja and http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=108873 Yakwa is a type of Yumilkwa. Waiting your comment :) --Lawren00 (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Lawren00, indeed, this is a very complicated issue given the disagreement between the sources. I think we should apply the similar approach like "according to A, yakgwa is classified as a variety of yumilgwa, while B defines yakgwa as a yugwa"... You may want me to clarify more in this confusion. If the article of yumilgwa is fully developed into "starter-status", then there would have a room to describe such disagreements of the sources, but I have currently something to be done, so I may not reply to your query very soon.--Caspian blue 17:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hangwa. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 00:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)