User:Agnistus/Hangul and Phagspa Discussion

Parent Systems
Wikipedia is not a place for original research and controversial theories. There are no hard evidences that Hangul's 'ancestors' are all those other alphabet systems.

Agnistus, the article Phoenician_alphabet does NOT say hangul is derived from phagspa script. Please do not lie. It currently says: "Many historians believe that the Brahmi script and the subsequent Indic alphabets are derived from this script as well, which would make it and ultimately Egyptian the ancestor of most writing systems in use today, possibly including even Hangul, which may have been influenced by Brahmic Phagspa. This would mean that of all the national scripts in use in the world today, only the Chinese script and its derivatives have an independent origin."

"... POSSIBLY including even Hanul, which MAY have been INFLUENCED..." I have highlighted the key words for you.

kwami, you left a note on my page saying: "Agnistus didn't mean that "Korean is based on all those alphabets", but that that is its genealogy. Controversial, but there is substantial evidence."

Genealogy is just a scientific word used to say "based on". You said yourself that it is controversial, so why include it in wikipedia?

If you guys feel intent on including something in the article about the REMOTE POSSIBILITY that Hangul is based on some other alphabets, then please do so as a separate section in the article, not in the table where only hard facts should appear. Wookie919 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not pushing for it to be included in the table, and the idea is already covered adequately in the body of the article. The evidence actually is very good, though a minority opinion. The Phoenician alphabet article is too full of weasel words. When you said "based on all those alphabets", I thought you'd misunderstood, and thought that Agnistus meant that each of those alphabets was a separate ancestor of hangul, whereas it's only Phagspa that's claimed to be directly ancestral. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that the connection between Hangul and Phagspa is uncertain, although the evidence is very good. If the genealogical information was completely removed from the table, then it would say artificial script, which is not true; since there certainly is connection between Hangul and Phaspa (quoting kwami: "The evidence actually is very good, though a minority opinion."). It is best to list the entire genealogical information, with an additional notice that says the connection is uncertain. I have done this by including the word "(uncertain)" next to Phaspa in the table. - Agnistus (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would just like to add that I have created a new article on the origin of Hangul called Origin of Hangul. I also removed the (uncertain) word since it affected the neatness of the table. (The 2 citations with regard to the controversial status of the Hangul-Phaspa connection were not removed). If any of you want to add it back, feel free to do so. - Agnistus (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is true that the connection between Hangul and Phagspa is uncertain..." - Enough said. Again, removed from the info box. Wookie919 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "The evidence actually is very good, though a minority opinion." - Enough evidence to include parent systems in Infobox. - Agnistus (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wookie919 (talk), please stop pushing lopsided POV - prove the hangul-phagspa connection to be false, before removing it from the infobox. - Agnistus (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above comment has a serious logical flaw in it. I don't have to prove that hangul is not based on phagspa. It is up to you guys to prove that phagspa is infact the parental system of hangul to include it in the infobox. "lopsided POV"? I could have used the exact same phrase in response to your post above - please try to stay objective. Now, let me say this again. Info box is a place for HARD FACTS, not THEORIES. If the evidence is enough, majority of the world would believe that phagspa is the parental system of hangul. I am not stating that there is NO possibility that a connection between phagspa and hangul exists. All I am saying is that this theory (while the evidence might seem good to both you, Agnistus, and Kwamikagami) is still only a minority opinion (as stated by Kwamikagami) and hence MUST NOT belong in the info box. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? The article already deals in depth with the possible connection between phagspa and Hangul. Wookie919 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also not a direct connection, as such a table would imply. Any comment in the infobox should reflect that. kwami (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me make this clear to you now Wookie919, the aim is to make the infobox as close to the truth as possible. You could either say in the infobox that hangul is an artifcial script OR show all the information along with the word "(controversial)" next to Phagspa. Which one is closer to the TRUTH ??? To any sensible person the former is without question. And most readers will understand the uncertain nature of the connection the moment they see the word "(controversial)" next to Phaspa. I hope this clears any misunderstanding you may have, Wookie919. It would be in the best interests of everyone to close the discussion here, and leave the infobox with full genealogical information along with the word "(controversial)" next to Phagspa. Thank you - Agnistus (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't edit this article, but I've been watching this for a while, Agnistus, and I guess I'll put my 2-cents in now. The theories you are putting forward at this page are all very interesting, but far, far from the standard, accepted history of hangul. I think you can see this, right? Wikipedia's standards are Verifiability not truth. So if you believe with all your heart that these theories are the truth, it still does not make it the standard, scholarly, verifiable version of the history of hangul. Rather than engage in an edit-war to push this marginal theory as "truth" at the page, I would suggest discussing with the other editors here whether the theory deserves mention as an "alternate theory" section of the article. Keep up the path you are following though, and you'll probably wind up blocked eventually... Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The connection between hangul and phagspa are completely verifiable (see Origin of Hangul). I thought placing the "(controversial)" tag wouldmake things clear for the reader, but it seems some editors still have a problem. Owing to the fact that the connection is indeed verifiable an closer to the truth, could those editors against showing full genealogical formatting provide a better explanation for doing so. - Agnistus (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agnistus, Ledyard is a very respected scholar in the field, both in the US and in Korea. However, I don't know how many Korean scholars accept his conclusions on this point. I imagine that many maintain the traditional view that hangul is an artificial script. I don't know either way, but this could be checked in to.


 * The rest of you, the fact that a connection is disputed does not mean that it is not included in the info table. For example, the derivation from Brahmi from Aramaic is probably accepted by a majority of scholars, but is hotly disputed by some, especially in India. Such connections have normally been included with a warning. This is similar to the situation with languages, where few old families have been established beyond reasonable doubt. I can think of only Indo-european, Uralic, Austronesian, and Afrasiatic which have been demonstrated. Yet in our info boxes we include families like Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Niger-Congo, and Nilo-Saharan, none of which are particularly well supported, as if they were fact. kwami (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agnistus, you are the one who wrote the whole article Origin of Hangul which is currently badly mis-titled (will get to that later) because it is merely a theory and it is basically a summary of the Ledyard's studies. Referring to Origin of Hangul only emphasizes that your argument is solely based on the thoughts of Ledyard, and nothing else. "The connection between hangul and phagspa are completely verifiable" - wow. Just wow. Now you have completed re-worded yourself as if to say that the connection is a HARD FACT! Wookie919 (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing, I am anxious to find out what your responses would be to the discussions of the article Origin of Hangul. It seems that you have taken only the bits that support your argument from Ledyard's and failed to see the whole picture of Ledyard's studies. Wookie919 (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agnistus did not write the article. He just moved it. kwami (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)