Talk:Hangul

A request for clarification about the scope of recent reversion

I started editing this article on 15 September 2026, and discovered that @Grapesurgeon reverted my edits wholesale, leaving an edit summary saying: "Mostly unsourced, i already discuss eonmun elsewhere in the article".

I am confused, because the reversion deleted sentences with sources as well, along with sentences about how Classical Chinese relates to Hangul, so I'd like to understand the reasoning behind the reversion and see whether we can resolve misunderstandings.

The latest revision I created before the reversion is this one: .

I am new to editing Wikipedia, so if there is a better way to approach this discussion or if I have misunderstood any relevant Wikipedia conventions, I would appreciate any guidance. Censorless (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The article currently is tightly sourced. Basically every detail of it comes directly from the sources it is tied to.

In all of your edits, you added a single source, and that detail that you sourced is already contained elsewhere in the article (the bit about eonmun/ŏnmun). Otherwise everything else you added is unsourced.

On Wikipedia, ideally everything needs to be sourced. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific and identify the specific sentences you found redundant / problematic?

As of now, my major concerns with the reversion is as follows:

1. There do exist sentences mentioning Eonmun, but no sentence mentions that Hangul was referred to as Eonmun in contrast with Jinmun, a term for Classical Chinese. Yet, this sentence was deleted. Why?

2. In one of my edits, I fixed the broken link to the Second Literati Purge of 1504 (甲子士禍), and this edit was also reverted. Why?

3. In one of my edits, I introduced how Classical Chinese works and how its Korea-specific variants like Idu, Hyangchal, Kugyol failed to properly represent Korean language. This is information that you can easily verify by visiting Wikipedia pages for those alternative writing systems. So I did not cite a source for this. Was this one of the problematic sentences in your view? If so, how would you cite a source for this kind of information?

4. There was no mention of Kabo Reform in the article, although it was linked at the bottom of the article. I also discovered that one of the talks here titled "When did Hangul become the official script of South Korea" mentions Kabo Reform, yet the article did not mention this event. So I moved on to add this information, and the edit got reverted. Why?

This is all I can think of about specific sentences at this point, but another thing that did not click in me in terms of editing policy in this article was that somehow you did not want any mention of Classical Chinese at all in this article. Why? Classical Chinese dominated administrative documents in practically all countries in the Sinosphere until industrialization. Is this not a very relevant information to creation and reception of Hangul? Censorless (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Up front, please don't assume I'm doing this because I don't want any mention of Classical Chinese. As I've communicated to you multiple times now, my primary issue is with sourcing.

1. If you can find a source for this and communicate it more briefly, then I'm ok with this.

2. This is fine, I simply bulk reverted. It would have been better for me to go and individually leave this, so that's my fault.

3. We don't rely on sourcing on other articles on Wikipedia to prove claims. Articles are supposed to stand on their own as fully sourced. Also, we already mention idu/hyangchal/kugyol at present.

4. You can include a mention of the Kabo Reform, just please keep it concise.

You also have to remember we have History of Hangul and Origin of Hangul. This Hangul article is supposed to be a high-level overview of the subject, while those other articles go into more depth on those topics. grapesurgeon (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

If it is really about sourcing, then I'm more confused, mainly for concerns #1 and #4.

1. I already cited a source for this before the reversion. This is the sentence in question that got reverted:

"The use of Hangul was consequentially stigmatized among some Joseon literati, who used the term Eonmun (언문; 諺文; "vernacular script") for Hangul in contrast to Jinmun (진문; 眞文; "true script"), referring to Classical Chinese, the writing system that exclusively employs Chinese characters."

The paper directly mentions that Eonmun developed derogatory meaning in relation with Jinmun.

2. One problem solved then. I will keep in mind to fix the broken link back after this talk.

3. The other sentence mentioning Idu and Kugyol is this:

"Hangul and mixed script are considered to have a property called ŏnmun ilch'i (언문일치; 言文一致; lit. 'spoken–written agreement'): tight correspondence between pronunciation and text. By contrast, the Idu and Kugyŏl scripts for writing Korean do not have this property."

And this sentence does not give information on how Idu and Kugyol are systems derived from Classical Chinese. This is why I edited a pre-existing paragraph to include information about connections to Classical Chinese.

The paragraph that I created by editing a pre-existing, much shorter paragraph is as follows:

"and the Chinese Character-only writing system that dominated official communications and administrative documents required dedicated training to specialized vocabularies and sentence structures on top of mastery on individual Chinese Characters. Therefore, Korean pronunciations and ideas could only be indirectly represented, in Korea-specific variant systems of Classical Chinese such as Idu script (이두; 吏讀), Hyangch'al (향찰; 鄕札), and Kugyŏl (구결; 口訣)."

Here, I added information about Classical Chinese, and how Idu, Hyangchal, and Kugyol are variants of Classical Chinese, to a pre-existing sentence about Korean pronunciations and ideas not properly represented by pre-existing writing systems.

What part of this sentence is a 'claim' that requires a citation? Is it that Idu / Hyangchal / Kugyol failed to represent Korean pronunciations? Or that they are variants of Classical Chinese? Or that Classical Chinese needs additional training to produce and decipher on top of memorizing Chinese Characters?

I'm confused what source I am expected to cite for what information.

4. The sentence I added about Kabo Reform was this:

"Therefore, in general, Hangul stayed sidelined in official communications and administrative documents until Kabo Reform."

This sentence cites a source, but still got reverted. So I assume this sentence was not concise enough. What part of the sentence do you think I have to revise? Honestly it looks concise enough to me and has a proper citation, but I just want to make sure before actually adding the sentence back.

---

The fact that this page was a high-level overview of Hangul and somehow did not mention Classical Chinese at all was what motivated me to edit this article. It is the writing system that monopolized Korean literature until the invention of Hangul. I believe this is a critical enough information to mention on the high-level overview of Hangul. If you believe otherwise, then I'd like to know your reasoning behind it. Censorless (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

A few mistakes on my part.

1. Yes you did source this, my mistake. However, I think this is too much information for this high-level article. The derogatory connotation of eonmun/ŏnmun is already discussed in the article, jinmun is just not really that important of a word to include. It's a word that hardly shows up in literature on Hangul in Korean and English. I recommend you include that in the History of Hangul or Names of the Korean alphabet articles instead.

3. My mistake; on this article specifically idu/kugyŏl are not discussed beyond that sentence. I got confused because I discuss them in numerous other articles on Hangul that I've written. However, I had excluded mentions of them on purpose. They are derivatives of Chinese characters and the sentence Before the invention of Hangul, Korea had been using Hanja (Chinese characters) since antiquity. already is inclusive of that. Also what you want to add is too verbose and detailed; that dominated official communications and administrative documents required dedicated training to specialized vocabularies and sentence structures on top of mastery on individual Chinese Characters. could be expressed in much less words, if we wanted to express some of these details at all. We already communicate that Chinese characters were difficult to learn elsewhere, why would we repeat that? In conclusion, if you really want to add mentions of Kugyol/Idu, I think it should just be namedrops of them that they existed.

Also, to your question on what needs to be cited on Wikipedia, WP:BLUESKY is the principle. That knowledge about idu/kugyŏl etc only seems obvious to you because you know what those are and because you are looking at other articles. I repeat: Wikipedia articles must stand on their own. You need to find a source that says "kugyol/idu are based on Chinese characters".

4. Yes you provided a source. I disagree with the statement though. Hangul continued to stay sidelined even after that; see this sentence On 21 November 1894, the Joseon government decreed pure Hangul to be the country's preferred script for administrative documents, although mixed script was also allowed.[59] This edict was apparently enforced to varying degrees, as exclusive Hangul was rare in many documents even until the beginning of the colonial period.. You can mention the Kabo Reform by name if you want, but the rest of that sentence I don't agree with.

Also a general note: grammar issues and some typos/formatting errors in the edits you wanted to add.

I apologize for getting things wrong in last response. I look at these edits quickly. While we're ideally supposed to review every individual change before reverting and pick and choose which ones to let through, when you bulk them together it becomes hard to review them easily. Especially considering I disagreed with like 90%+ of the changes you wanted to make, so it just feels like not a great time investment for me to go in and make them. Because imo all that's worth adding from the proposed edits is adjusting a few links. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I can feel that we are getting somewhere now. This is great.

1. Without reference to Jinmun, users cannot have sufficient understanding on why Hangul was given yet another name. Plus, the only sentence in the article mentioning Eonmun is this: "The script also historically went by a variety of other names, including ŏnmun (언문; 諺文; lit. 'vernacular script'),[8] panjŏl (반절; 反切),[9] and kungmun (국문; 國文; 'national script').[10]"

This sentence gives no information about how Hangul was called Eonmun in contrast with Classical Chinese, and just introduces Eonmun as if it is yet another name equal in its connotation to other names, which is simply false. Kungmun is a term recognizing Hangul as national alphabet, and it comes with a certain level of respect; Panjol, on the other hand, is a technical term drawn from a pre-existing method with same name used to transcribe readings of Chinese Characters using other Chinese Characters. Kungmun is reverent, Panjol is technical, but Eonmun is derogatory, and it is impossible to convey this information without discussing how Classical Chinese was considered "true script" in contrast.

2. (solved)

3. I can address the verbosity problem at any time, as long as the contents of my edits are fine. But it seems the 'problematic part' in my sentence here is that Idu / Hyangchal / Kugyol were derived from Classical Chinese. The reason why I am still confused about this request for citation is because this is definitional information with no room for claims and disputes.

Would you be able to provide sources for sentences like "2 is equal to 1+1", "North is the opposite of South", "Chinese Characters are characters created in China", and such? The fact that Idu / Hyangchal / Kugyol are derived from Classical Chinese is no different because this is in the definitions of those writing systems. They are all writing systems combining Chinese Characters to construct sentences representing Korean language. There is no room whatsoever for ambiguity, because once you question that they are derived from Classical Chinese, then you practically refuse to understand what those writing systems are. Classical Chinese is in their definitions, and what other source can possibly be more reliable and credible than their own definitions? This is like looking up a dictionary for the entry "dictionary" and refusing to accept that dictionaries are reference works for languages, requesting a citation that supports the connection between dictionaries and languages.

Even the essay you gave me warns about over-citing. So why so obsessed with citation here? If you were in my shoes, what kind of source would you be able to find? Would you request citations even for sentences like "2 is equal to 1+1", "North is the opposite of South", "Chinese Characters are characters created in China", "Dictionaries are reference works for languages", and such?

4. This is a much better argument than the citation issues. So you have no problem with the sentence in terms of citation, but the information itself. Then yes, I see merit in your argument. I do know that even after Kabo Reform, Hangul was not a major script for administrative documents. I mean, President Syngman Rhee had to pass the Law Concerning Hangul Exclusivity far later on.

The reason why I worded the sentence the way I did was because I placed the sentence in the section about early spread of Hangul, and the next following paragraph mentioned Yeonsangun. It seemed chronologically appropriate to state the way I did. But strictly speaking, yes, it was false. I trimmed too much. If we have to prioritize accuracy, then I might need to move the sentence to elsewhere where I can discuss the Law Concerning Hangul Exclusivity as well.

---

As I said earlier, what motivated me to edit this article is that there is no mention of Classical Chinese. All I am trying to do is add more context to creation of Hangul by providing information on its relationship with the alternative writing system that preceded Hangul. I see no reason why this good-faith editing would be rejected. How can more information be bad information, especially when it fills the gap in the context? Censorless (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

These arguments you're making about sourcing are fundamental to Wikipedia. I'm a bit reluctant to discuss this at length with you, I've already spent tons of time on this. WP:OR, WP:V, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, read.

This will be my last reply.

Would you be able to provide sources for sentences like "2 is equal to 1+1"

Not needed per WP:CALC.

They are all writing systems combining Chinese Characters to construct sentences representing Korean language.

Again to you this is obvious because you know this subject. It's not to others. We cite what is not obvious. I've encountered plenty of editors that were just as confident as you and yet were flat out wrong. Why should we believe you over others? This is why sources matter.

Why am I strict about sourcing here? Because before I rewrote this article, it was terrible. Mostly unsourced, often incorrect. I made it rigorous. If we just let people add entirely unsourced content, as you did at first, the article would slip back into being unsourced and bad again. Let that happen over 20 years, with people who know less than you adding in incorrect info. This is why we eliminate the guesswork with sourcing.

The reason why I am still confused about this request for citation is because this is definitional information with no room for claims and disputes.

Because why should we believe your definition? What if someone else shows up and changes it to be completely different? This is why we add sources, to settle those arguments in advance. Arguing in favor of being less rigorous is not a good move.

This is like looking up a dictionary for the entry "dictionary" and refusing to accept that dictionaries are reference works for languages, requesting a citation that supports the connection between dictionaries and languages.

No, and this argument shows you don't understand WP:BLUESKY nor WP:V/WP:OR. This is really way simpler than you're making it out to be. "Is some bit of information obvious to most global people that don't have prior background in this topic? If yes, it doesn't need to be cited. If no, it should."

I see no reason why this good-faith editing would be rejected

I mean you already accepted some of my critiques of your writing, and I already accepted some of your suggestions. This statement seems moot.

In the time that you argued all of this out, you could have pulled up a source. And in future, please be more concise in these arguments; it is a burden on others to have to read and write so much. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

You already declared that you will not reply, so I guess this is the breaking point of this talk.

I'm still confused why you believe that the fact that Idu / Hyangchal / Kugyol are derived from Classical Chinese is not their definitions but my definitions. One minute of googling can instantly show you their objective definitions and every version of their definitions mention Chinese Characters and Classical Chinese in some way. If you take a time to look at how they work, then no one needs any explanation to realize that those writing systems are visually indistinguishable from Classical Chinese.

On the other hand, it's true that arguing in favor of being less rigorous is not a good move. I also prefer rigorous sources when I research topics. Your concern with potential consequences is also solid. So I went on and read all the essays you shared and yes, it was a burden to read so much on rules, and yet I could not find a rule about citations on definitional statements.

So I guess we have a stalemate on #3. Since your position seemingly comes from experiences, I won't argue on this anymore. As you said, it seems far better investment to search Korean history books and papers for the sentence I need.

---

Below is the summary of our talk so far.

1. 1: Still ongoing; no response from you
2. 2: Solved; broken link got fixed
3. 3: Stalemate on citation issue; find a source to work around
4. 4: Solved; need to move the sentence elsewhere or make it more detailed

---

It seems the discussion on citation caught your attention so much that you forgot to respond to #1.

I'd like your response on this, but you already declared that you won't reply anymore.

This is it then.

Since I know you are determined in your position and probably will apply same position to #1, I will see if I can find sources relevant to #1 along with those for #3. I will just assume that you have no objection to my position on #1, since you gave no reply and will not.

Thank you for your time so far. Censorless (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Another thing: when you cite journal articles, please cite the specific page number you're referencing. You're likely just looking at the abstract when citing, but that's insufficient. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about this paper? It's a paper written in Korean that happens to provide English abstract. I can identify which page is relevant if I translate hard, but other users won't be able to verify information.

Is "English abstract alone is no good" your rule, or Wikipedia rule? Can you provide a source for me?

As I said at the beginning of this talk, I am new to editing Wikipedia. Censorless (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

English abstract alone is no good I never said that; any language work can be cited. I said you need to point to the page in the paper where that information comes from. The abstract is just a summary (which often lacks detail/context) of the paper. At present, your citation points to like 20 pages of the paper in the pages= parameter; which page is being referred to? It's not clear to the reader that they should be getting it from the abstract. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Any language work can be cited? I assumed that citation is for verification and therefore only English works can be cited for English pages. Then that makes it easier. Censorless (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

References

A follow-up request for clarification on the reasoning behind another wholesale reversion on re-written edits

After my edits were reverted wholesale twice(first, second), I had a talk with @Grapesurgeon in the topic "A request for clarification about the scope of recent reversion" about those reverts.

There, @Grapesurgeon insisted on sourcing and declared that he would not reply anymore. Recognizing some merit in his demand on sourcing and his other arguments, I searched for relevant sources, completely rewrote my edits, and added them to the article.

And I discovered that the edits were once again reverted wholesale within half an hour, with edit summaries as follows:

"several romanization errors and typos. also the thing about ŏnmun being unilaterally unflattering/insulting is disputed; there are sources ive seen that cast doubt on that. if it was used insultingly and in contrast to chinmun, it was possibly by some people and not all. also this list format is ugly and imo it's too much detail; we already have a Names of the Korean alphabet article where this information is more appropriate. idk why you didnt listen to me about that.... may undo entirely"

"Yeah undoing the names edits; that should go in Names of the Korean alphabet"

"this is also too detailed.... i already told you this article is supposed to be a high level overview, why is a single diplomat's opinion so important that it deserves a lengthy quote here? put that in history of Hangul, not here"

---

In short, this time, Grapesurgeon raises two objections:

1. a certain information, even if it was backed by a government source, contradicts his unnamed source, and therefore should be deleted.
2. my edits are too detailed and do not belong to the article.

---

For #1, I believe the best course of action is to add his unnamed source as well, so that other users can see that a certain information is indeed being disputed. Sourcing was the standard that Grapesurgeon emphasized and insisted on very heavily in the previous talk topic. I'd like to see that the same standard apply here so that Grapesurgeon's unnamed source can be reviewed alongside my sources — It will provide a far more complete picture on the topic in question.

For #2, this is a great topic for a debate. My position is that yes my edits do belong to this article, because parent articles are supposed to at least introduce subtopics that child articles can expand in more detail, and yet the original version did not mention Classical Chinese and its relationship with Hangul at all. This is what WP:DETAIL states as well:

The parent article should have general summary information like a lead, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article.

Grapesurgeon has stated before that Hangul's high-level overview should not mention Classical Chinese, which he deems as 'too much detail' and should be introduced in child articles. But child articles are supposed to expand on subtopics that are already introduced in parent articles, which means, yes, Classical Chinese should be at the very least introduced in the parent article, and then expanded in more detail in child articles to include things like:

1. what arguments people used to either advocate or despise Hangul, compared to Classical Chinese.
2. what arguments convinced people to recognize Hangul as 'the national script' over Classical Chinese.

I'd like to talk this out and learn Grapesurgeon's position in more detail.

---

I know that Grapesurgeon declared that he would not reply anymore, but I created this topic for record as well.

I do hope that Grapesurgeon replies and honor Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but if he does not, then this new topic will stay as a record. Censorless (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I asked you to be more concise before, this is ridiculous. You write a 10 paragraph essay every time. I'll respond later but will keep my reply short. If you keep overburdening your replies I may go to admins. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I also prefer concise communications, but I cannot be concise when all I have of the other party's position is vague summaries like "mostly unsourced", "too much detail", "ugly format", "my source says otherwise", and "a single diplomat is not important". I have to practice due diligence as an editor, albeit a newcomer.

For context, remember that I started the previous topic in a simple text and then had to make four separate guesses on your concerns, leading to a prolonged multi-part discussion. And I started this new topic for the purpose of keeping a clear record of the whole thing as well, knowing that there is a chance that you would not reply at all. Censorless (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Ŏnmun connotation has not always unilaterally been negative, it at least began neutral. Your presentation of it misses nuance.

Before the invention of Hangul, Korea had been using Hanja (Chinese characters) since antiquity. The difficulty of the script limited its use to mostly upper-class people; commoners were largely illiterate.

Classical Chinese is already mentioned in the article.

And yes, I stand by my arguments that these additions are too detailed. Address this specifically: why is that insight from a single diplomat so important that it merits a fully quote and discussion of them in specific? Also why are we making inferences based on a single diplomat?

Do not write a 10 paragraph essay in reply. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

First, thanks for responding to both points. As you requested conciseness, I will split my response into two, each addressing each concern of yours.

1. "a certain information, even if it was backed by a government source, contradicts his unnamed source, and therefore should be deleted."

I wanted you to provide your unnamed source, and you are giving me a whole paper without a page number. In the previous topic, you taught me to specify page numbers when citing a paper (first, second).

Can you do the same here so I can locate the exact passage you are referring to? You said here that "... only seems obvious to you because you know what those are and because you are looking at other articles. I repeat: Wikipedia articles must stand on their own. You need to find a source..." I need you to apply the same principle here so that I can have a proper pathway to find out what seems to be obvious to you. Censorless (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

2. "my edits are too detailed and do not belong to the article."

Chinese Characters and Classical Chinese are not the same. The current version of the article covers Chinese Characters, not Classical Chinese. Chinese characters are characters that you use to construct sentences, and Classical Chinese is the rule behind constructing sentences. Would you say Mandarin Chinese, Japanese language, and Idu script are just 'Chinese Characters' because they construct sentences combining Chinese Characters, when they are not mutually intelligible?

Also, I'd like a direct answer on the other two sources as well, aside from the 'single diplomat's source'. After the previous topic, I found three different sources supporting that Hangul was called Eonmun in contrast with Jinmun / Jinseo / Chinmun / Chinseo referring to Classical Chinese:

"알고 싶은 한글". www.korean.go.kr. Retrieved 2026-09-16.: This is from a government source explaining the history of Hangul's names.

井上角五郎先生伝記編纂会 (1943). 井上角五郎先生伝. p. 98. doi:10.11501/1154607 – via 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション.: This is a page from a biography of a foreign advisor to the Joseon government who was involved in publishing Hansŏng chubo, one of the very first Hangul newspapers.

石幡貞 (1878). 朝鮮帰好余録 1. p. 23. doi:10.11501/894217 – via 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション.: This is a page from a book on Joseon written by a Japanese diplomat who was dispatched on diplomatic mission to Busan.

What do you think of the first two independent sources and the fact that they are describing the relationship between Hangul and Classical Chinese in the same way as the third source? Is this still just an inference resting on a 'single diplomat's source'? Is there any specific reason that you decided to dismiss the first two sources? If so, then please elaborate. Censorless (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Splitting your response into two does nothing, you wrote me another 10 paragraph essay that is needlessly repetitive in parts. You have also continued needling me on every detail. I have asked you multiple times to stop doing this and you have ignored me.

1. 17-18

2. I never implied they are the same. Classical Chinese is a subset of use of Chinese characters, and Chinese characters in general is discussed in the article, which includes Classical Chinese, Idu, Kugyŏl.

Like I have already said above, I do not mind if you briefly mention chinmun/jinmun in the article, but you need to do it in a way that is more concise.

I'm not replying to every detail in that post. Pick and choose your most important ones and don't present them all. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

1. This is a good source and it does not contradict my sources at all. Why did you think that this source supports reverting my edits wholesale?

2. No. That is wrong. Classical Chinese is a written language and Chinese Characters are characters. English is not a subset of the Latin alphabet. Same thing. Idu Script, Kugyol are also no different.

----

The impression I got was that you wanted to reject any description of Classical Chinese entirely. If you are fine with inclusion of Classical Chinese, and you believe conciseness is the problem, I assume that you thought my edits included substansive sentences and insubstansive sentences mixed together. Can you identify the insubstansive sentences you believe should be removed? It will make it easier to talk this through.

----

Also, picking and choosing one single source out of my three sources defeats my question's purpose. My question was about what you think of why all three independent sources describe the relationship between Hangul and Classical Chinese in the same manner. It's not about any single particular source. Censorless (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The impression I got was that you wanted to reject any description of Classical Chinese entirely.

Fyi this is a proper WP:ASPERSION. If you continue to make it I will file a report with admins. It is distracting and rude. I didn't accuse you of being biased in similar ways.

I'm done discussing, make the suggested edit and keep it concise. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

As long as you are not reverting the whole thing again and deleting Classical Chinese as a subtopic that child articles can expand in more detail afterwards, I have no reason to continue this talk either.

That was the whole reason why this second talk started in the first place anyway. Censorless (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I added mentions of those terms to the article. Is that enough? grapesurgeon (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

These edits give wrong impressions about the topics.

1. "including ŏnmun (언문; 諺文; 'vernacular script'),[8] which was used in contrast to considering Classical Chinese as chinsŏ (진서; 眞書; 'true writing');[9] panjŏl (반절; 反切);[10] and kungmun (국문; 國文; 'national script').[11]"

This reads as if onmun was used in contrast with not only chinso but also panjol and kungmun, which is false.

2. "Before the invention of Hangul, Korea had been using Hanja (Chinese characters), especially Classical Chinese"

This reads as if Classical Chinese is a subset of Chinese Characters, which is wrong. It's no different from how English is not a subset of the Latin alphabet. Chinese Characters are characters, and Classical Chinese is a written language.

I will correct them now. Censorless (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Revise it but keep them concise. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)