Start Hanja Script language for Korean

Fragment of a discussion from Support
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Well - I don't much care about anything about Hanja as long as no Hanja appears on [ko]. Korean-speaking wiki community's expectation is that Korean is for generally-Hangul-written and there is no need for Hanja injection - as established in w:ko:위키백과:사랑방 (일반)/2015년 제14주#한국어 위키에서의 한자 사용에 관한 의견 요청 (and w:ko:위키백과:사랑방/2012년 제40주#한자->한글 자동변환기능의 도입에 관하여 which also features wider community rejection of hanja use).

revi01:14, 19 October 2020
Edited by author.
Last edit: 20:07, 21 October 2020

You're wrong, wikis are not just first source.

They are not the South Korean government, which states that it no longer wants any Hanja characters in its own official/legal publications (it's their choice, but it only applies to these publications, and not to the cultural publications, as the South Korean governement still actively supports its cultural heritage, and the south Korean government also participates directly to the IRG, Ideographic Raporte Group, as part of a joint working group between Unicode and ISO/TC for the standardisation of sinographic characters: it has approved many sinographic characters and even made additions specific to the Hanja subset, not used elsewhere).

As well this policy does not apply to all Korean users for their own private use and even in their communications and cooperative works.

As well the wikis are not restricted to just South Korean users. And even if we have few users from North Korea, the South Korean governement requirements does not apply to them, and does not apply to other Korean users located elsewhere. We can't validly erase all Hanjs from the Korean culture.

Under ISO and BCP 47, the inclusion of Hanjs in [ko] is perfectly valid, standard, and even approved by the South Korean government for general use, even if the South Korean government will not use them for its own official/legal publications. Some Korean users will also want to apply the same thing, but this is also their own private choice/preference and not a requirement. A single wiki may also decide the same thing but this would require a community decision, which would apply only to this wiki.

The only way to "enforce" the restriction *against* Hanjas (what you want, or what the South Korean government wants of its official/legal publications, excluding its actively supported cultural support), is to provide specific translations for [ko-Hang]. But be aware that such enforcement is in fact difficult to maintain: even the South Korean governement requires the use of other scripts, notably Latin, including in official documents (e.g. on passports and in many international treaties, and trade/transport agencies, and many commercial contracts), as well as others (notably Kanjis and Kanas for Japanese people legally in Korea, Traditional Han for Taiwanese people, Simplified Han for PR's Chinese people and Singapoureans, sometimes Cyrillic as well, or Brahmic and Arabic scripts used by religous people coming legally to Korea from abroad). If it's not possibly to use only Hangul with [ko-Hang], it must be able to fallback to the more permissive [ko] code.

But there won't be any restriction for [ko]=[ko-Kore]=[ko-Hang]+[ko-Hani] (for example with important historic books in Korean Wiksource); as well, it's perfectly valid to request specific translations for [ko-Hani] to create a wiki that would prefer to use Hanjas as much as possible in preference to Hangul. And all these wikis must also remain open to North Koreans and Koreans living elsewhere.

Verdy p (talk)10:13, 19 October 2020

I never said anything about the Government, I don't care about the Government. I'm not sure why you continue to mention Government. Please re-read my statements and stop attacking strawman.

revi19:38, 21 October 2020

When you reply, please either supply a diff that User:Revi said anything abuot the GOVERNMENT or make a fresh argument on that Korean Wikipedia rejected the hanja usage.

I did not read your message beyond the "firs the South Korean Govenment" because the rest is merely hitting the strawman.

revi19:49, 21 October 2020
 

I'm not "attacking"' anyone like you are doing indirectly. And I prefectly read your message (several times). As well I've NEVER stated that Korean Wikipedia rejected the hanja usage (I said exactly the opposite!). Note a part of my reply above was unexpectedly truncated in one sentence "the fir ..." is where this occured just before I added the comment about the South Korean gov statement for its own works in its own adminsitration.

The initial request above (by Ellif) was incorrectly argumented. And it's a fact that Korean is more diverse than what you may think. You are just argumenting about some users preferences and these preferences are not a policy even in the supported projects (notably for Wikimedia where there's a freedom of choice, just like there's a freedom of speech). I do not want to raise any editing wars that the Korean communities must handle using their normal community decisions, local to each wiki (which does not apply here because this Translatewiki.net is for many other projects as well, not just those of Wikimedia: there are tons of wikis translated with Translatewiki.net that do not belong to Wikimedia, even if they use MediaWiki, and each of them can apply their own local policy).

I mention the South Korean government because it is on topic with your statement and the links you provided which have very limited scope (and not a policy decision) inside a talk page Korean Wikipedia where there are also other valid arguments.

As well you cited the intent of some Koreans campaigning against the inclusion of Hanja in Korean domain names (which is a separate, unrelated issue, and this opinion is not approved by ICANN, which cannot act on this, because the policy for names in the two Korean TLDs is decided by these Korean governments, and does not apply to gTLD which each have their own policy, asd long as they match with the IDNA framework, which allows for all scripts standardized in Unicode/ISO/IED 10646 and with relevant policies in RFCs and the Unicode standard itself, approved by many governments, and almost all web standardization bodies, including IANA for BCP 47 which is the most important standard, even more important than ISO 639 which still does not regulate at all the scripts or orthographies to be used).

Verdy p (talk)19:50, 21 October 2020