Jump to content

Talk:Han River (Korea)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length

[edit]

The Han is not very long? I think you're missing the point. This is an economically and culturally important river....why are you hung up on the length of the Han? Is it supposed to be longer? Is the writer a non-Korean who has not concept of Korean ideas of things?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.180.75 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Han is not a very long river, as far as rivers go; just as Korea is not a very large nation as far as nations go. Feel free to write about the economic and cultural importance of the Han river. It would be a magnificant contribution. Isaac Crumm 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Han has little economic importance. The "Miracle on the Han" does not mean literally that it occurred on the water, but to the sides, in the cities. The river itself played little part. JPBarrass 13:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I've added a map, but it's too much of the lower Han and not enough of the Bukhan and Namhan, so if anyone can make a better one that would be great. JPBarrass 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(15 years later) Nobody sees it as problematic (not to mention embarrassing and unencyclopedic) that this article lacks a map showing exactly where this river is located on the Korean peninsula, with the map showing the whole of the Korean peninsula? Of course readers would want a map showing this. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges over the River Han - Problem

[edit]

I'm not sure where to put this, so it's going here. When you click on a bridge name to go to that page, there is a box. It isn't a category, so I don't know how to edit it, but it's wrong. It says that the Hangang Railway Bridge is the to the east of Hangang Bridge, whereas it is in fact to the west. (This article gets it right - it's just that box that gets it wrong.) Does anyone know how to edit those things? JPBarrass 09:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

漢(한) means China, not "large"

[edit]

I don't see how you get "large" from the Hanja 漢. It means China, which is precisely why it's used in the word Hanja itself: 漢字. "Large" is 大(대) as in 大韓民國. (74.177.36.3 (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not exactly. Chinese characters were used to represent Korean words and place names both according to their meaning and according to their pronunciation. Since native Korean words aren't related to Chinese or Chinese characters at all, these representations could vary a lot. Han is a native Korean word meaning large, and could be represented by 漢, 韓, or 大, among other possibilities. I don't think the Han River is named after China. --Amble (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amble, but Han cannot be represented by 大 in Korean. 漢 probably came from 漢城, the old name for Seoul, but why '漢' was used is speculation at this point. 222.152.105.200 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot now, but it could at one time: historically, Han very often was represented by 大. This is the origin of many modern place names in Korea. For example, the original name of Daejeon was Hanbat, meaning a "large field" in native Korean. When Chinese characters were introduced to Korea, there was no standard system for writing native Korean words and place names. It could be done phonetically, or by translating the meanings. So Hanbat was written in a variety of ways. One of these was by writing the Chinese characters with the same meanings: "large field" = 大田. Originally the pronunciation was still Hanbat. But over time, the Korean language standardized the use of Hanja so that 大 could no longer represent Han, and the same characters came to be read as Daejeon. This is where the city gets its modern name. Many other Korean place names containing 大 originated in the same way. --Amble (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that 漢 refers to China. 漢 was originally the name of another river, and it's probable that whoever chose the hanja for the Han River in Korea is familiar with the Han River in China. Doing so on purpose would be confusing. More info on why it's called 漢江 would be useful. 174.27.235.204 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of ateji. -iopq (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion and the paragraph it discusses is completely incomprehensible for anyone not completely fluent in Korean, medieval Chinese or both. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.158.63.26 (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(bit late,but) the 漢 in 漢江 carries the sound for 'Han', which just means something along the lines of 'big,great' in Korean. This Korean prefix 'Han',or 'Ha-' is/was transcribed in many different Hanja letters,including 韓, in both Korean and Chinese records. That's why you see the letter '한/han' in so many Korean words that have something to do with physcial/abstract greatness, and is the reason Seoul was named Hansung(castle),or Hanyang(above the river,which would be the Han river). Daldidandal (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

So what does Han mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.113.201 (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hantavirus

[edit]

Hey there is a virus which has taken its name from this river. I think it should be noted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.92.192 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Han River (Korea). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

translate

[edit]

@Jasper Deng:Just as the Yellow River should be translated into Yellow River, the Han River should be translated into Big River. --Ojatia (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojatia: As I explained on your talk page, that is emphatically not how titles are chosen on Wikipedia. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. The Yellow River's name is a situation where the literal translation happens to be the name commonly used in reliable sources in English. That is not the case for this river or the Yangtze.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, why is this friend here? Jasper Deng, you can ignore him for your time. He travels many wikis recently :p --Sotiale (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Han River(Korea)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Han River(Korea) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Han River(Korea) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

change,additions in history and etymology ,tiny bit of geography

[edit]

Because I've gotten a note saying that my contributions to the article are controversial, I'd like to lay out my intentions.

On the addition of etymology,

Han river has had many names from different gov'ts from it's past, alongside varying degrees of treatment of the region-and the river itself. Don't know how this was lacking, although I know Korean history people mostly don't really go through English wikipedia.

The article before my edit however lacks a lot of placenames from history,and this addition of previous names seems perfectly reasonable to me.

On history, this region was very vital in the transportation of various grains and commodities to and from the area, especially since the Joseon dynasty when they patched up the mostly unused land area,since Bakjae,of what is currently the upper parts of Seoul up and turned it into the capital.

Also, the previous article just skirts around most history (doesn't even mention neolithic,bronze age and begins with Bakjae,apparently) and somehow uses most of the history section up to introduce the later mid 20th century along with a picture of Rhee standing with his wife & U.S Troops, which seems >> unreasonable?

(previous article's history section)

no mention of before Bakjae,mentions briefly Bakjae~Silla 668 (675 years),no mention of years 676~1391,one mention of the river during Joseon dynasty(1392), rest of it all about after mid 20th cen.

(my article's history section)

covers everything from prehistoric~current day including Goryeo,unified Silla,which patches in all the blank spots from the previous version,and is citied by information provided by the state or papers.

Unfortunately the mods have failed to provide for what or where my article is generating controversy, so I take my resources here.


Daldidandal (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hangang River

[edit]

Seoul govt says "Hangang River" is their preferred name. [1]

That said, official names don't strictly matter per WP:NC. What matters is WP:COMMONNAME. seefooddiet (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also lol at the last sentence in the article: The Korea JoongAng Daily editorial board has decided to maintain the use of the Han River terminology according to our style guide. looks like we'll have continually divided use, with the global press using "Han River" and only the South Korean govt using "Hangang River" seefooddiet (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might (big might) be worth including as a hatnote, but other than that idk how much it matters in this article as of me writing this. I do wonder why the gov said that; maybe for differentiation from other Han Rivers? — Dantus21 (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also recommend the same pattern for islands and mountains, e.g. "Hallasan Mountain"
My guess is that, in Korean, you will hear "Hangang", "Hallasan", etc. If you just said "Han River" to a native Korean, they wouldn't understand what you were talking abt. But if you said "Hangang River", the term "Hangang" is recognizable. On the other hand, in English the naming pattern "x River" is really common and expected for rivers, and quickly tells anyone (regardless of proficiency in Korean) what the thing is.
It's a clever idea, I think. It's something that's bothered me; I've been converting "Gyeongbukgung Palace" -> "the palace Gyeongbukgung", because otherwise the term is opaque.
The more I think abt it the more I'm ok with it. Such reduplications are common in linguistics. I just want the average rando around the world to quickly grasp Korea-related concepts. seefooddiet (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continued discussion and made more general at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Place names. seefooddiet (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Han_River_(Korea)&oldid=1258634540"