Talk:List of Korean inventions and discoveries

-Food-

Untitled
Since when did food become inventions? Kimchi is simply fermented vegetable with some spices, other countries also have similar food. The Korean version of the fermented vegetable is definitely the first, but doesn't that mean that every country's version of fermented vegetables should be considered an invention? Ridiculous, take this food section off.

Martial Arts
Can martial arts be counted as inventions and innovations? I don't see anything of the sort on the List of China inventions page, and there are tons of Chinese martial arts. I vote that we take the martial arts section down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.43.60 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this? A joke? One item is not a list and their own language doesn't need to be mentioned as an invention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.130.212 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Joke eh?
Sadly, it might as well be one, for a country with so much controversies in regards to their past inventions, this article might as well be a creation/edited of/by some die hard Korean nationalist. That being said, I'm sure there are plenties of legitimate inventions that are actually native to Korea, so why don't you go and improve upon this article rather than simply complaining about it?

On that note, I'd like to point out that some of the older editions of this article had some very detailed sections that are later edited out, perhaps we should go back and see just what happened there.Gw2005 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Any such claim not backed by multiple high-quality sources should be removed immediately
Any Korean inventions and innovations without valid references will be removed as per  WP:REDFLAG  Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Any such claim not backed by multiple high-quality sources should be removed immediately.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of Korean inventions and discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013063122/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200706/200706260010.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200706/200706260010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ondol being found in Alaska without remenants in between is not surprising because it is wwll known Korean whaling tribes have made their way across the strait to Alaska at some point during stone age. Because they moved by boat, there were no artifacts in the land path from korean penninsula to Alaska, but only on the ends Hwachadoing (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

3-in-1 Coffee....
...although undoubtedly something that has a strong place in Korean popular culture, and was first successfully marketed there on scale, appears to be a Japanese invention. Take a look at this cite,. Anmccaff (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Good find. You're correct. I'll remove it. Bamnamu (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Korean inventions and discoveries. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526010820/http://www.graphene-applications-summit.com/4/speakers/124/byung-hee-hong/ to http://www.graphene-applications-summit.com/4/speakers/124/byung-hee-hong/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.telecompaper.com/news/samsung-electronics-unveils-sphm2100-phone--182214
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Jan2007/4165.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * needhelp=


 * backup
 * Bamnamu (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Apartment-type factory
This has obvious equivalents in North America nad Europe, many over a hundred yeards older. A re-invention at best, no? Anmccaff (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Apartment-type factory seems to have features a traditional factory doesn't. For example, a drive-in system where trucks load/unload at multiple floors, instead of just at the first floor, so all businesses at all floors are at equal footing. Here is a video. If you discover examples of this in Europe or North America a hundred years ago, I welcome it. Hwachadoing


 * ...Like the Fiat Lingotto factory, maybe? Anmccaff (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The Fiat factory is one giant factory. An Apartment-type factory is like an apartment, with space rented out to many tenants but for manufacturing companies. Separate entities stacked on top of each other, doing completely unrelated things. Hwachadoing —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Korean inventions and discoveries. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://optik2.mtk.nao.ac.jp/~somamt/gendai3/004-014HJYang.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170405173423/http://hpm2012.onpcs.com/Proceeding/Poster/P2.pdf to http://hpm2012.onpcs.com/Proceeding/Poster/P2.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Attack Aircraft
Please move the Bigeo back to the millitary section, and revert back to "attack aircraft". There have been records of manned gliders in China prior to the Bigeo, however the Bigeo was the first to be armed with bombs or any form of offensive capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwachadoing (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for your contributions to this article. I hope you don't mind the changes I made to your edits to make them more consistent with the rest of the article. The bigeo though, in my opinion, has a couple of issues. I couldn't find anything about the existence of the 倭史記 or 왜사기 on the Japanese Internet. Also, please listen to what the researcher being interviewed by YTN (from one of the cited sources) concludes about the bigeo . Anyway, I'll restore the bigeo to its original state for the time being. Bamnamu (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I looked into the bigeo some more and it turned out to be problematic.
 * I found a research paper ("RP") about the bigeo on the National Science Museum website that I'll be referencing in this post . It contains all passages about the bigeo from pre-20th century sources. I also found a book about the bigeo written by the researcher ("Lee") mentioned in my previous post . The vast majority of other sources about the bigeo on the Internet are news articles that regurgitate nearly identical ill-researched content. There has been misinformation going around about the bigeo in the Korean media.
 * The first problem is that the "倭史記" or "왜사기" does not exist. I'm not the only one to notice this problem . Somehow, this nonexistent book made its way into the Korean media without proper fact checking. The bigeo has 4 citations in this Wikipedia article. Citation #1 is an opinion piece, so it should be discarded . Citation #2 is an ill-researched, unreliable news article (more on this later) that cites the nonexistent 倭史記 . Neither of those two articles were written by a historian. Citation #3 contains information from Doopedia and makes no mention of the 倭史記 . Citation #4 is a YTN segment with Lee . Although Lee mentions the 倭史記 in the YTN segment, I couldn't find a single mention of "倭史記" or "왜사기" in his book, using the search tool. The RP mentions the alleged existence of the 倭史記 in its Internet investigation ("우리나라의 서적 이외에도 일본의 ‘왜사기’라는 사서(史書)에 비거에 대한 언급이 있다고 한다." in "인터넷 조사"), but does not provide additional details about the book itself or confirm its existence. Lastly, searching "倭史記" on the Japanese Internet (because it's supposedly a Japanese book after all), reveals that the book simply does not exist. Please note that this specific issue is not about the existence of the bigeo itself, but specifically about one of the oft-cited sources.
 * The second problem is the description of the bigeo as an attack aircraft. Citation #2 states that Jeong Pyeong Gu (the alleged creator and pilot of the bigeo) invented paper bombs and used them in combat. However, citation #2 is an unreliable source. It cites the 倭史記, which doesn't exist, and it also makes the claim about paper bombs, which cannot be found in the RP (i.e. pre-20th century sources). The only sources that make the claim about paper bombs are blogs and other news articles that regurgitate the same wrong information. Citation #3 states that "gunpowder" was used in combat, citing "근대 실학자 신정준(1912∼1982)이 쓴 《책차제》", a book written by a person born in the 20th century, which makes me skeptical. There is no mention of gunpowder being used in combat in the RP, specifically in the 여암유고 by 신경준 (18th century) and the 오주연문장전산고 by 이규경 (19th century), which are the two oldest sources on the bigeo. Therefore, the only information about the bigeo being used in combat dates to the 20th century. What hurts the gunpowder claim even more is that googling 실학자 신정준 brings up practically nothing.
 * Based on the above, the bigeo being an attack aircraft is ruled out, making it a glider or some kind of unpowered aircraft. As you mentioned, gliders already existed in China, so there needs to be something unique or distinct about the bigeo to make it stand out to be considered an invention. Unfortunately, we can't make that judgment due to the lack of detailed records about its design.
 * Please let me know what you think. Also, please don't get the wrong idea. I really appreciate your contributions. I'm only trying to make this article as legitimate as possible.
 * Bamnamu (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Although you could still leave bigeo as bigeo, since its likely an improvement over previous gliders, just like how hwacha is left as hwacha. I'll leave it up to you.


 * But we should really keep gender equality as a separate category. Generally, Asia is not historically highlighted for gender equality related developments, and it will provide future scholars a great starting point for further research and correction of the record in this aspect of Korean history.Hwachadoing (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the bigeo, there isn't enough historical information about its design to determine if it was an improvement, so I think it might be best to leave it out. Regarding a separate "gender equality" section, if you would like to restore it, please go ahead. Regards, Bamnamu (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * SGR-A1.jpg

How can you call these Korean inventions?
If most of these stuff you learned or copied from China??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.97.218 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)