Talk:Hanbok/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Deleted content

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edited out. --KJ 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Headdress for nobles

From watching enough accurate Korean dramas, and from my own research outside of Wikipedia, I know for certain that the women's headdress explained in the article is in some places incorrect, and in others, incomplete.

All female hairstyles started out by being parted down the middle and gathered at the nape of the neck. A single female would wear her hair in a single, 3-strand braid. The left and right side of the head would have 2 lace braids that perfectly met the hair's middle partition on each side. They were gathered with the rest of the hair at the nape of the neck, then braided into the 3 strand braid. It was secured with a thick ribbon, most likely a piece of fabric that was cut, folded and sewn with one hidden seam on the side. These were not ribbons that us Westerners would understand.

A married woman didn't roll her hair up in a ball and shove a binyeo in it. The hairstyle is still based on the idea of 3-strand braid that a single woman wore. It was worked into a loop, usually adding some horse hair for thickness (this was common), and the bottom end of the braid was brought up under the top of the braid, at the nape of the neck. A very wide ribbon would secure the end to the top of the braid, wrapped around several times. I'm unsure how they secured the ribbon, but the ends of the ribbon are usually hidden. The loop that was formed would then be opened and brought around the ribbon, creating almost an upside-down heart shape. The binyeo goes through the right side, under the ribbon, and back through the other side. The binyeo balances in the hair like a shawl pin behaves, and keeps the braided bun secure. I can confirm how this bun behaves because I've done it myself on several occasions. Yes, I have hip-length hair and I wear various braided bun hairstyles every day. There are a few dramas that show a woman's looped braid when women have been sleeping, then were awakened at night. In many cases the looped braid is shown over the shoulder to draw attention to it.

As for the men, I've seen that with poorer families, young, unmarried men wear their hair in a simple 3-strand braid. Noblemen, however, wear the topknot that this article mentions only married men wear. The only real difference I've seen in my research and what Korean dramas allow is this: young, unmarried noblemen still wear a 'gat,' but they don't wear facial hair. I've only noticed that in all portrayals of noblemen, once they are married they grow facial hair. The older a man gets, the longer the beard portion seems to be portrayed.

Gisaeng, which are not the same as Geisha (do your research, Geisha weren't always prostitutes), would only have their hair raised after they lost their 'flower.' If they were brought up there as young girls to be courtesan slaves, the "raising of the hair" was an event for them. And yes, Gisaeng were slaves, property of the government. The hairstyle they wore was this: It was looped at the nape of the neck much like a married woman's looped bun, however, much longer horsehair was added to create one that would loop around the entire head. Over this, a wig was added, usually in a rope-braid style, but very, very thick. Different Korean dramas have displayed their own versions, usually based on artistic license and/or the program's budget. The looped braid, which was a base and guideline to set the wig on, can sometimes be seen in Korean dramas, but one must look closely. There are a couple dramas that display the process of attaching the wig briefly.

I would link to sources I've used, but I already know that Wikipedia wouldn't accept it. It's more about the fact that I know my sources are correct, but whatever supposed checklist Wikipedia uses wouldn't allow them to accept my sources. I'm just writing what I can in hopes that the smart people out there will realize some of us know what we're talking about. Hairstyle was all about status, after all. I hope that someone will do more research and write that part of the article more true to history, rather than just breeze over it as if it's nothing. All aspects of history are important. And many people view Wikipedia like it's all written in stone.

Images

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article certainly has plenty of pictures, but only one shows modern Koreans wearing hanbok -- and that one is a little bity thing tucked way at the bottom right. What makes the hanbok notable is that Koreans still wear it today, as least on special occasions. What kind of hanbok Korean kings wore strikes me as a specialized interest. I've tried to correct this, but without success. Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at Commons:Hanbok and Commons:Category:Hanbok. You will get to acknowledge that there are quite many "modern hanbok" at Commons. I did intentionally not add them to here because there is almost nothing about description of such clothing. Of course, the article seriously needs to be cleaned up. I've been working on it as a part of the course, creating articles on basic items of hanbok. The unnecessary images should be removed eventually. If you check the article history, you will notice that "gwanbok" gallery was moved to the new article. So until enough texts are accumulated and images are transferred to Commons, we have to bear the transient status. However, you only inserted a not-so-good image of girls posing with V signs unlike your contribution to Aodai. Image:Kyunghwa girls dressed in Hanbok.JPG Besides, you put it on a wrong history section. That was not really helpful for improving the article, honestly. You're welcome to add "information and suitable pictures" to improve the article in general.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dopo and Durumagi

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have managed to gather some bits of information on the subject, and I really don't think Dopo and Durumagi were the same garments. Dopo seems to be roughly the same as the Ming Daopao, making it also similar to the Joseon Jungchimak (btw can someone get more info on the Jungchimak?).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.18.15 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-26T18:56:20 (UTC)

Dopo and Durumagi are not technically the same garment, but are in the same category of "po" and sometimes the terms are used as a same term. Since the end of the 19th century, the government prohibited men to wear dopo and others than needed a lot of fabric for clothing making, so men wore "durumagi" as an outer garment over jeogori, and then people began calling "durumagi" as a synonym of dopo according to sources.--Caspian blue 01:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. BTW, the above comment was from me.--SamjoonKim (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to make a few modifications

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

There were 3 paragraphs on Mongolian invasion of Korea. This is quite odd, considering this is an article on Korean clothes. There were 2 statments which referred to Korea as a vassal of Mongolia (1300s), one paragraph after another. What does that have to do with the long history of Korean clothes. Silk which is the backbone of East Asian clothes were introduced to Korea in 200 BC. I think someone with a odd sense of humor was editing this site. I left one paragraph of the Mongolian info and added another sentence on Japanese silk/Kimono info to make it balanced. Although if who ever wants to take out both sentences that is fine with me. Maybe we should stick to describing when silk was introduced, what Gogoryeo, Baekje and Shilla clothes looked like, what Goryeo clothes/fashion was composed of and why current views of Hanbok only seems to focus on Joseon era, when their is a prior 2000 year history. --24.17.82.35 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Silk had little to do with Hanbok, or at least the variation of Hanbok that survived to this day, and Japanese Kimono and Hanbok are entirely unrelated. Much of your edits are nonsense. Not that the previous version was good either, but yours is by no means an improvement. Cydevil 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you can read Korean, please check these sources to get the basic idea of what Hanbok is and how it evolved:

http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=774992

http://cloth.krpia.co.kr

Here is a good page that shows how much differences in Hanbok were made over the period of 2000 years.. Although these are drama costumes, they are pretty much based on history. :Also in the bottom of the page you can see some modern Hanbok.

http://blog.naver.com/kjungrang?Redirect=Log&logNo=110037458062

(This is a blog page; is it okay to post this on the discussion section?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.75.199.206 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

TBH, Hanfu, Hanbok and kimono were seperate things before contact with China. After contact with China, Japan and Korea started adapting things from Hanfu into their systems as well as the other way round and also evolved independantly of each other on and off. Hence we see similarities as well as uniquenesses between all three. It is a fallacy to say they are not related to each other (a bit like saying Hanzi, Kanji and Hanja are not related, which is a false statement). --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to have forgotten that Korea invented everything. --115.30.67.129 (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Hanfu and Hanbok may be more closely related due to Confucianism. Confucianism highly influenced the Joseon time period. It isn't so much about culture as it was about philosophy. Confucianism taught the people to be very conservative in dress and lifestyle, which is why the Hanbok had so many layers and covered up to the neck.

Names of traditional Korean women's underwears

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

궁중의상 단속옷의 이름은?? (in Korean). I hope this helps. Komitsuki (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hanbok as social status

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Possibly the two should be merged, but there is enough distinctive material in the social status article that perhaps they would be better separate. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge the two, under a new, neutral name. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Done

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hanbok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hanbok. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent issues

1. Scytho-Siberian - this is the specific terminology that sources use, and Scytho-Siberian does not necessarily mean Scythians. Scytho-Siberian is more indicative of a cultural sphere across the Eurasian steppes, with Scythians at the western end and Koreans on the eastern end. Their racial composition, as it says in the source, very may well be Mongoloids.

2. Iranian/Persian influence - This is in the Three Kingdoms of Korea era, so that's where it belongs.

3. The categorization of Hanbok as Hufu(barbarian clothing or non-Chinese clothing) is well sourced and I don't know why this part is getting deleted. VeryGoodBoy (talk)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hanbok. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Scytho-Siberian"

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

The Hanbok is not of "Scytho-Siberian" origin. It's heavily derived from Chinese dress. One look at any of the Hanbok images in this very article should tell you that these clothes aren't "scytho-Siberian".

These attempts to de-sinicise Korean history in every wiki article are frankly embarassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it ought to be easy to find reliable sources on the Chinese influence on hanbok. A quick search turned up a recent paper "Study on the relationship between Hanfu and Hanbok" by Wang Ji Yong. However, it is in Chinese. Nonetheless, it is worth reading to see whether it contradicts the arguments of the other side, which is mainly based on Korean sources. Unfortunately, nationalism is deeply embedded in the historiography and culturography of both China and Korea. Thus, an independent Western source ought to be preferred, especially on English Wikipedia. However, I have not found recent English sources dealing with the topic. Sourceless edits on a controversial topic are not helpful. Lathdrinor (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold claim you are making there. Western sources are somewhat better than others? Are you serious...? Or even more, english sources are better than those in other languages? Wow! That sounds pretty racist to me.

I don't think these comments are relevant. Both English and Non-Western sources can be reliable. It really depends on where they got their facts individually, not on what language it's written in.Jkoo8197 (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

English sources might be more verifiable for an English Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean those would be somewhat better. Do we agree? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Korean nationalists (including Korean-Americans) are everywhere in Wikipedia. Please be careful. They're often too (I wouldn't say 'fanatic') conservative compare to your average Wikipedians. Komitsuki (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That Hanbok originated from a common style of nomadic clothing in northern Asia is pretty much the academic consensus. If you actually look at what the Scythians wore, and compare that to what Koreans of Goguryeo, Silla and Baekjae wore, you'll find the obvious similarities. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do even the most cursory search on the internet for what Scythians wore it is very clear it is nothing like a Hanbok.Canodae (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Topless

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The current redaction makes it as if the bare-breast version was limited to the 18th century. However, from this post, it seems as it was found even during the Korean War. If so, it should be mentioned and referenced and probably illustrated with period pictures and photos. The references provided by the article and the comments are:

Han Hee-Sook, "Women’s Life during the Chosŏn Dynasty", International Journal of Korean History, 2004: 6, pp. 141–146, 152–153
Chun Boh-Kyun, "조선 여성의 ‘젖가슴 사진’을 둘러싼 기억의 정치 - 그녀들의 ‘미니저고리’가 ‘아들자랑’이 된 사연", (Feminism, 2008: 4, pp. 125-157)
http://www.chosun.com/culture/news/200507/200507150124.html

--Error (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Error:

Sure, as long as it's properly sourced. If you plan on using the "Chun" or "chosun.com" sources, please provide direct quotations so I can confirm the accuracy of the content. The "Han" source, which is in English, can be accessed here [[1]]. The LiveJournal entry you linked cites "pp. 141–146, 152–153", but the content about toplessness appears to be limited to page 142. ~~You cited page 140 in a recent edit to jeogori [[2]], but it should be 142.~~ You also cited it in a recent edit to toplessness [[3]], but the source makes no mention of the 18th century in relation to toplessness in Korea. The source says "it is unclear when such a practice began to take root". Furthermore, it seems that you're using the LiveJournal entry as an uncited source for the content you added about the "heoritti" and the Korean War. LiveJournal is not a reliable source as you probably know, especially an entry titled "Joseon girls gone wild". The issue is not necessarily the information, but the sources and editing.

Bamnamu (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Error:

Oh, wait. The content you added to jeogori [[4]] is originally from hanbok. Sorry for the misattribution. However, my concerns about this edit [[5]] still stand.

Bamnamu (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Error:

I think I see now what you meant when you said "The current redaction makes it as if the bare-breast version was limited to the 18th century." Currently, the article says "In the 18th century, the shortness of jeogori reached an extremity and scarcely cover the breasts." That sentence does not necessarily mean that the "fashion" was limited to the 18th century, but I can kind of see how it can be interpreted that way. If you would like to reword it, then please go ahead. However, I would still have to add a citation needed tag due to the "18th century" part. My issue with that sentence, being a stickler for accuracy and proper sourcing, is that it's not sourced. What if the trend actually began in the 17th century, not the 18th century? Also, please understand that I'm not trying to be critical toward you or your edits specifically. I have a tendency to not read articles in their entirety, and, generally, only make edits when something catches my eye in my watchlist. Cheers.

Bamnamu (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the information in. Now I miss some pictures. --Error (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"Scytho-Siberian cultural sphere"

Latest comment: 4 years ago41 comments4 people in discussion

@VeryGoodBoy:: I have used Google Translate to check some of your sources, and it seems to me that the Korean languages sources use a definition of "Scythian" that is foundamentally different from contemporary English academic usage of this term. For example, this sentence:

중국에서 스키타이계 복장은 전국시대 조(趙)나라의 무령왕(武靈王)이 호복령(胡服令)을 내려 처음으로 사용하게 되었다는 기록이 있어 주로 ‘호복(胡服)’이라는 명칭으로 착용하였다.

Translation: In China, Scythian clothing was first worn by King Wuling of Zhao, ...

The statement is wrong to the point of being ridiculous if we take the "Scythian" at its literal meaning. While I'm not familiar with history research in Korea, it is quite obvious that their definition of "Scythian" is very different from that used in English language sources. From the Scythians article: "Early authors continued to use the term "Scythian", applying it to many groups unrelated to the original Scythians, such as Huns, Goths, Türks, Avars, Khazars, and other unnamed nomads." This is probably closer to their meaning of the word "Scythian", and it is very misleading to directly translate this to English without explaining the difference here.

Also, whoever writes that "the earliest evidence of the hanbok's basic design features is seen in ancient wall murals of Goguryeo before the 3rd century BCE" lacks basic knowledge in Korean history. There is no such thing as "Goguryeo before the 3rd century BCE". In the sources I found, it is explicitly stated that the murals date to 4th-6th century CE. It is interesting how you dismissed books on costume history as "without any evidence at all" and then went on to use distorted quotes from TV news sources.

I have reverted to my edit. It is WP:Original Research to use foreign language sources without explaining terminology differences. Furtermore my list of references include Korean government sources too, and they are not any less "authoritative" than your edits. Esiymbro (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If you actually did some research on this, you would find plenty of sources discussing connecting Scytho-Siberian culture and bronze age Korea. Scytho-Siberian in Wikipedia redirects to the article Scythian cultures, where Scytho-Siberian is used as one of the alternative names, and defined as a culture that flourished across the entire Eurasian steppe. The sentence you quoted says Scythian style clothing was first worn in China during the reign of King Wuling of Zhao by his order to wear the hu clothing. The hu clothing here refers to the clothing of nomadic horseback riders to the north of ancient China. Other East Asian clothing like Chinese Hanfu and Japanese kimono are essentially a robe made from single piece of cloth. Scythian style clothing and Hanbok, on the other hand, consist of two pieces, a jacket and trousers. If you read the article on King Wuling of Zhao, it explains how these two styles fundamentally differ.

None of the sources I added are quotes from TV news sources. The first one is from the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture published by the Academy of Korean Studies. The Academy of Korean Studies is the foremost research institute on Korean Studies. The second one is an article from the National Institute of Korean History. It is the foremost research and administrative institute on Korean history, and regulates all official Korean history text books. The third one is a journal article discussing the connection between Scytho-Siberian culture and the origins of Hanbok. Unlike the sources you provided, which only provide one or two sentences in a cursory manner, all the three sources I additionally provided discuss the origins of Hanbok in detail throughout the entire articles. Not to mention the other two sources that were already cited, which also specifically deal with the subject in detail. Only one of your sources are from the Korean government, the Korean Culture and Information Service. It's a publicity institution for foreigners. In terms of academic authority, it's not comparable to the Academy of Korean Studies and the National Institute of Korean History. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In the "National Institute of Korean History" source, it is claimed that King Wuling of Zhao adopted Scythian clothing, when in reality, Wuling adopted clothing of the Xiongnu and the Donghu, both have no relashionship whatsoever with the Scythians, and there is no known link between Zhao and the actual Scythians in Central Asia. If the sources are actually authoritative as you suggests, then they mean something entirely different when using the word "Scythian". It apparently uses the same word when referring to the "Scythian" origin of Hanbok, and that may be referring to the tribes in present-day Manchuria, the Xiongnu, the Sakas, or dozens of other ethnicities. If both the Manchurian Donghu and the Central Asian Scythians can be covered by one term, the term is so broad that it is almost useless.
Another question, where does the "Siberian" come from? While "Scythian" in the sources does have the general sense, "Scytho-Siberian" in your edits means specificically the Iron-Age Iranian populations in northern Central Asia, and it is unthinkable that early Koreans adopted their clothing from this group and skipped the many nations and tribes in between. This is another example of WP:OR.
"All the three sources discuss the origins of Hanbok in detail throughout the entire articles." Two of them are so short that "generalized research that covers origins of Hanbok scantly" covers this subject with more details, although I have to thank you for including them so that I can find out the exact source of the "Scythian" problem. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." Not to mention there is an unsolved problem of mistranslation here.
After the "ancient wall murals" sentence is this citation, ""Korea for the World, the World for Korea." www.arirangtv.com".. No TV sources? And there are likely lots of other misquoted or fake citations in the History section. Esiymbro (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bamnamu:, as you are one of the main authors of this and other Korea topic articles, can I have some input from you? The several tags and "disputed" banner about Hanbok's origin have been there for a long time, and we can discuss a version of this section that is more accurate and acceptable. Esiymbro (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Esiymbro: Hi, Esiymbro. I'm not one of the main authors of this article, and, to be blunt, I'm not heavily invested in this article or its subject, including its origin(s). I have other priorities on Wikipedia at the moment, and, as with many other editors, my time and energy are limited. One thing, though. @VeryGoodBoy: How would you directly translate 스키타이계?

Also, perhaps gwanbok can be mentioned in the lead.

Bamnamu (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I have added a link to gwanbok in the lead. Esiymbro (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bamnamu: In the article, I'm going along with the term Scytho-Siberian. I think this term appropriately carries the implication that it is not conceptually limited to the original Scythians of the Pontiac steppes, going beyond to cover the vast area of Siberia. In this talk page, I mainly used the term Scythian style. Dictionary definitions of 계 include system, origin, descent, a family line, lineage, a faction, a clique. A more direct translation should be Scythian system or Scythian affiliation. But in an archaeological context, I believe the better term is Scythian cultural sphere. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A simple search[6] on Google proves usage of the term Scytho-Siberian is not WP:OR. What one would call Scythian style of art and technology were speread afar acroos the Eurasian steppes, affecting nomadic populations in northern China, Manchuria, and the Korean peninsula. Please do some basic reading on the cultural history of East Asia, and study the northern complex or northern bronze complex, then hopefully we can have a discussion with some necessary ground of common knowledge. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Northern bronze complex dates far earlier than the origin of Hanbok. And how does that prove a foreign origin of Hanbok, something so fundamental in Korean culture and East Asian culture in general? You should stop listing irrelevant topics just for the sake of "educating" other editors. It is pointless in this discussion.

The Google search you linked yourself clearly shows that Scytho-Siberian refers to a culture in the Altay region. It is up to you to provide sources that the earlier sources you linked actually mean this specific Scytho-Siberian culture, no the broadest term "Scythian" which can cover everything on the Eurasian steppe.

A google search on "Hanbok" + "Scytho-Siberian" returned barely more than 1000 results, and everything on the first pages are copied from this WIkipedia article. If this is actually proven, where are the English language sources?Esiymbro (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It would have some deep effects in history research if the Korean traditional clothing is actually found to come from an ancient Iranian people, and you would expect such a find to be among the top archaeological discoveries in this century. But apparently there is nothing about this on the entire Internet. Esiymbro (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources seem to use the broader scope of the meaning of Scythians, which includes northern nomads to the north of China, and the bronze age culture of Manchuria and Korean peninsula.

The source from Academy of Korean Studies says "기본복(基本服)의 원류는 스키타이계이며 북방민족의 복식이다." "The origin of this basic form is Scythian and is the clothing of the northern peoples".

The source from the National Institute of Korean History says "신석기인은 주로 가공된 가죽이나 직물을 이용하여 만든 간단한 의복을 착용했을 것으로 추측되나 보다 완성된 우리의 유고(襦袴, 저고리와 바지)의 기본 양식은 청동기시대의 스키타이계 복장에서 이루어졌다. 기원전 108년 한(漢)나라 군현(郡縣)의 설치로 중국 문화권에 포섭되기 전까지 우리나라는 북방 유라시아 전역에 퍼져 있던 스키타이계 문화권 내에 포함되어 있었던 것으로 추측된다. 스키타이계 문화는 유목을 위한 이동 생활이나 기마 활동 등 유목·기마 민족 특유의 환경적 배경에 맞추어 창조되었으므로 농경 민족과는 현저하게 취향을 달리하고 있다. 그러나 한편으로 그들 상호간에는 분포 범위의 광대함에도 불구하고 이상할 정도로 유사성이 발견된다. 그 중에서도 복식, 무기, 말 장식 등에서 비슷한 것이 많고 그들의 신앙 속에 강한 샤머니즘적인 요소를 포함하고 있다. 또한, 예술품은 특유의 동물 의장으로 대표되며 주술성과 실용성이 가미되어 빠른 속도로 유라시아 전역으로 전파되었다." "It is postuldated neolithic people used simple clothing made from leather or hemp, but a more complete basic form of jeogori and baji came to be from Scythian clothing of bronze age. It is postulated that before Korea became part of Chinese cultural sphere by establishment of the Han commanderies in 108 BC, Korea was part of the Scythian cultural sphere, which extended all over northern Eurasia. Scythian culture was based on mobile life and environmental background of horse riding and nomadism, so it was different from agricultural peoples. However, despite large distribution between these two, similarities between them are peculiar. Especially, there are similarities in clothing, weapons, horse ormnanents, and they share shamanistic elements in their faith. Also, its art is represented by a unique animla style, and with additions of practical use and ritualism, it spread fast all over Eurasia."

Article from National Institute of Korean History continues, "우리의 ‘한복’은 스키타이계 복식 문화에 속하는 대표적인 옷으로, 이와 같은 유고 복장은 당시 스키타이 족의 주 활동 무대였던 흑해 주변과 유럽 동북쪽을 비롯하여 북방 유라시아 스텝 지대를 지나는 ‘초원의 길’을 통하여 각지로 전파되었다." "Our ‘Hanbok’ is a represenatitive clothing that is part of the Scythian style clothing culture. This clothing, consisting of tunic and pants, spread across the Black Sea area and northeastern Europe, which were the main stage of activity of the Scythian peoples, then spread to other areas through the ‘steppe highway’ of the northern Eurasian steppes."

These two sources use the broader concept of Scythian, not the narrow concept of Sychtian that @Esiymbro tries to use. There is an ongoing debate at Scythians over the scope of its usage, and the broader concept of Scythian is explained in the article Scythian cultures. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually this problem wouldn't rise at all if you use "northern nomads to the north of China, and the bronze age culture of Manchuria and Korean peninsula" in the article from the start, instead of the "Scytho-Siberian cultural sphere, spanning across Siberia from western Asia to Northeast Asia" expression. Most English readers would understand "Scythians" in the narrow sense because that is how the vast majority of modern English academic and popular sources use that term [7]. And I can't see the reason to use a terminology that is already abandoned by English sources when more accurate descriptions are available [8].

Another problem is the Three Kingdoms of Korea statement which does not conflict with any of your sources. Can you explain why this is removed? Esiymbro (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's for me or for you to decide. The sources clearly say Scythian style. Wikipedia has an article, Scythian cultures, that uses the same concept. There is a debate in Talk:Scythians#Some_issues_with_this_article that may interest you and address the same concerns that you have. I will abide by whatever comes from the Sycthian scope of concept debate at Scythians and how Scythian cultures will turn out.

I only removed the date of the wall murals of Goguryeo. The article clearly explains that the earliest evidence of Hanbok's basic design features can be found in Goguryeo wall murals, and it was used in its basic form during the Three Kingdoms of Korea. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I paid a closer look at the 3 newly added sources here, @VeryGoodBoy:, and there is some contradiction between them, especially, this part in the National Research Foundation of Korea source's abstract:

"Thirdly, ancient Korean Scythai garments were found to have homogeneity in their garment culture in that northern nomadic cultural district’s Hobok-Goseupje, i.e., open-front Caftan Jeogori and pants called Sangeuihago is its basic with a triangular cone hat shape (transformed hat) and boots, which is the basis for considering that ancient Korea exchanged culture with Scythai, who once lived as active northern nomads. However, it can also be seen that ancient Korea and Scythai garments differed in form depending on region, weather, culture, custom and the like. As such, Scythai and ancient Korea have an aesthetic bond because northern nomads and Scythai exchanged their cultural traits of the times. The evidence supports this idea as it seems that the characteristics of garments that can be considered to be Scythain in style are also commonly discovered in ancient Korean garments.

This is clearly different than saying that Hanbok "originates" in Scythian clothing. The expression used in the AKS source seems a little ambiguous too. Esiymbro (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the source in detail at your behest. Here are some notable quotes. "Areas of Scythian activity pertain to modern Ukraine, steppes of southern Russia, and northern Irain, and these cultures of course influenced Eurasia, and also influenced ancient China, the Korean peninsula, and Japan." "Representative clothing type of Scythia as apparent in literature and artifacts of the time is open caftan style, and this form was commonly adopted in Central Asia, including Korea, since ancient times." The article then makes detailed analysis of the 1) hat, 2) upper garment, 3) lower garment, 4) footware, and notes that while Scythian clothing and ancient clothing of Korea shares homogenuous traits, but there are also some discrepencies, where ancient clothing of Korea has unique features, which are comparatively more roomy silhouette and use of outer coats. The article concludes that the honogenuous traits of Scythian style clothing and ancient clothing of Korea points to cultural exchange between Scythian cultures and ancient Korea, unqiue traits of ancient clothing of Korea points to adaptations to local climate, culture and practices. I will reflect this article's conclusion on the article. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I wish to add some more details to increase your understanding of Scythian influence on ancient Korea. Ancient Scythia of western Asia was a very advanced metallurgical culture, consisting of bronze, iron and gold smithing. Through centuries of time, this culture spread eastward through the "steppe highway" of Eurasia, and introduced bronze age to the northern bronze complex of northern China, such as Ordos culture, and ancient Korea, represented by Upper Xiajiadian culture and its offshoot, Liaoning bronze dagger culture. Introduction of this bronze age culture from Manchuria to the Korean peninsula hints at major population displacement. Its intrusion into the Korean peninsula was marked by a long hiatus of rice agriculture, and archaeological remains of the previous neolithic culture, Mumun pottery culture, were mostly burnt remains, destroyed from warfare. Scythian art continues to present itself in ancient Korean culture from bronze age to the Three Kingdoms of Korea period. Bronze and golden artifacts of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla show art motifs of Scythian art, such as animal motifs, tree motifs, and horn motifs. You should also look at one of the Goguryeo wall murals in the gallery of this article, where horse-riding hunters wearing Hanbok performing the Parthian shot. I of course do not believe the Scythian cultures exclusively consist of ancient Iranians. I personally disagree with the term Scythian cultures as a Eurocentric term that does not conceptually encompasse the diversity of cultures and ethnicities of this vast cultural sphere. I agree with you that use of the term Scythian can be misinterpreted by some as being limited to the Iranian culture of the Pontiac steppes. Scythians and their descendents no doubt played an important role in the cultural transmission of their art and metallurgy, but this role of cultural transmission was passed to other cultures and ethnicities as it spread to different parts of Eurasia. This is why I prefer to add Siberian to the term, as Scytho-Siberian, to emphasize the broader concept of this term. At the moment, there is a debate over what to call this cultural sphere that extended from ancient Scythia all the way to Northeast Asia. I personally don't think I'm qualified to enter the debate, but if you are interested and motivated, I encourage you to research the subject and help establish a consensus of a less Eurocentric term that represents a vast cultural sphere that had such profound influence over not just western Asia, but also the East Asian clutures of China, Korea and Japan, and involved not just the Iranian peoples of the Pontian steppes, but also the diverse peoples of Central Asia, the Mongolian Steppes, northern China, Manchuria, and the Korean peninsula who accepted this culture and made it their own. As previously stated, I will abide by the outcome of the debate at Talk:Scythians#Some_issues_with_this_article and consensus-based article name of Scythian cultures. Also, I think the part on foreign influence doesn't entirely reflect the changes that Hanbok went through throughout the ages. I try to find appropriate sources and make some additions. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to touch on the subject of the constant disagreements on whether ancient Chinese clothing and Hanbok are related. They are not. Chinese style clothing either consists of a robe without pants or uses skirts as the slower garment. This distinction is clearly made in the article itself, where it says Han Chinese use skirts called chang, and Manchu use pants called ku. Gwanbok is also an ambiguous subject, as it is a foreign style garment from west Asia adopted by the Tang Dynasty and then passed over to Korean and Japanese kingdoms. I think Dopo (clothing) is a good candidate to mention as a Chinese-influenced Korean clothing that was commonly used, although I'm yet to find a reliable source to back that up and can't find the exact Chinese counterpart. Ceremonial clothing used for coronation of kings and queens from Goryeo dynasty and onwards are of obvious Chinese derivation, based on Han dynasty clothing, and I am sure there is some reliable source that will back that up. Meanwhile I think it should be emphasized that the aoqun of early Ming dynasty is not of Chinese origin, but of Korean origin from the Yuan dynasty, when many women from Goryeo were taken as consorts in the Mongol court. Many Hanfu revivalists seem to confuse aoqun as the origin of Hanbok, despite the fact that female Hanbok was used centuries before the introduction of aoqun in China. If you wish to add some Korean clothing that is related to traditional Chinese clothing in the ancient Chinese clothing article, you should find some alternative to Hanbok that is actually related, just as the Vietnamese Áo giao lĩnh is mentioned as a related clothing and not the unrelated Áo dài. I will also make this comment in the ancient Chinese clothing article as to further prevent any misguided attempts to relate Hanbok with Chinese clothing. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As you have said, there was "Scythian influence on ancient Korea" in prehistory. Now, the concept "influence" is very different from the term "origin" used in the article. We can take a look at the translations you posted above: "Areas of Scythian activity pertain to modern Ukraine, steppes of southern Russia, and northern Irain, and these cultures of course influenced Eurasia, and also influenced ancient China, the Korean peninsula, and Japan." "Representative clothing type of Scythia as apparent in literature and artifacts of the time is open caftan style, and this form was commonly adopted in Central Asia, including Korea, since ancient times." As well as this part of the article's abstract: "Thirdly, ancient Korean Scythai garments were found to have homogeneity in their garment culture in that northern nomadic cultural district’s Hobok-Goseupje, i.e., open-front Caftan Jeogori and pants called Sangeuihago is its basic with a triangular cone hat shape (transformed hat) and boots, which is the basis for considering that ancient Korea exchanged culture with Scythai, who once lived as active northern nomads. However, it can also be seen that ancient Korea and Scythai garments differed in form depending on region, weather, culture, custom and the like. As such, Scythai and ancient Korea have an aesthetic bond because northern nomads and Scythai exchanged their cultural traits of the times." These clearly suggest Hanbok's origin in Korea itself (only borrowing specific forms), and directly contradict with the statement in the article.

Hanbok is not a Bronze Age clothing style. Most of the cultures you mentioned date a millenium or more before than the earliest Hanbok, with the exception of Ordos culture, which is likely an Iranic culture (ie. related to the Scythians in the narrow sense). You opposed to books on clothing history as being too general, but don’t seem to have problem citing entirely irrelevant archaeological discoveries. The Parthian shot, your example that was contemporary to early Hanbok, was a military tactic that was very extensively used by nomads, and its existence is not a convincing argument for continued Scythian influence in this period.

Also, why would you still insist on "Scythian" when you have already acknowledged that it is a Eurocentric term, and not suited to describe the diversity and complexity of steppe cultures? Almost no English sources link Korean Hanbok with the term "Scythian", and much better terms exist, for example, "Euroasian steppe nomads".

Can you explain this edit [9]? We have confirmed for many times that "Scythian", or "Scytho-Siberian", does not exclusively refer to the ancient Iranians, so where does this "Western Asian Iranian cultures" come from? It is not mentioned anywhere in the "Middle East Institute" source, and the same should be assumed for the other source.

A last thing, there is too much nationalist controversy when it comes to Hanbok and Chinese clothing. It is not related to this discussion and I hope we can stay well away from that topic here. Esiymbro (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried providing you with some background knowledge needed to understand why people are using the term Scythians, but you dismiss them all too easily as "irrelevant archaeological discoveries" without giving it an inkling of thought or at least some informed rebuttal based on research. The sources are clear and direct, they use the word 원류, which means origin, not influence. They are direct in that Hanbok has its origins in Scythian cultures. The cultures I mentioned are well within the scope of the Gojoseon period, which the source directly mentions as its scope of study. If you don't like the term Scythians, take it up to Scythians and propose a change to "Euroasian steppe nomads". I think you are taking your issues in the wrong venue. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Source link for dallyeong.[10] VeryGoodBoy I don't see any reference to an Iranian culture. Why are you seeing things that do not exist? (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the logic of this, "take it up to Scythians and propose a change to 'Euroasian steppe nomads'"? The page on Altaic languages exists, and that doesn't mean people will not raise objections if other articles try to pass this as a still valid linguistic classification. As a less accurate analogy, the page Negro exists too, and does anyone use this term?

Those cultures are not linked to Hanbok in any provable way, and they are there only to show off your allegedly superior knowledge (see this, "to increase your understanding of Scythian influence"). That is why they are irrelevant. Esiymbro (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You are outright lying, @VeryGoodBoy:, as if page histories don't exist. [11] Who added "Iranian" there? Even you have removed "Iranian" now, the rest of this sentence is still WP:OR for exactly the same reasons. Esiymbro (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A majority of sources on early Hanbok, including those you provided, mentions the time period of its origin. But somehow these become "less reliable sources". Esiymbro (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources directly refer to Scythian cultures. This is not WP:OR. I am not the one who is making it up. The reference to Scythian cultures is made by not me, but by reliable research on the subject of origins of Hanbok from multiple sources. If you think this is WP:OR, you have a serious misunderstanding of the concept, and you are welcome to report to WP:NORN. You claim that Scythian cultures are not linked to Hanbok in any provable way. Now, that is WP:OR. That is your personal opinion. I have cited multiple reliable sources where researchers say otherwise. These sources make direct reference to Sychtian cultures. If you think the terminology is wrong, then take it up to the talk page at Scythians where there is a relevant debate that addresses your concern. Multiple reliable sources directly say Hanbok traces its origins to Scythian cultures, and I will abide by any changes to the terminology established by a consensus made from Scythians and Scythian cultures. If you keep reverting without establishing a valid claim, I will go to WP:NORN and other related noticeboards myself and report your disruptive editing.

And do not accuse me of outright lying. The edit where I supposedly added "Iranian" is actually a revert of a previous edit where you removed the entire passage.[12] VeryGoodBoy (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That does not matter because "Iranian" stayed until I pointed it out, after which you quietly removed it and tried to pass it off as "I don't see any reference to an Iranian culture." And it should be known to you that ad hominem reverting of uncontroversial content is itself disruptive editing, as you have done with the Gwanbok link in the lead section. Esiymbro (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that I paid attention and removed it, as you seem to find the concept of "Iran" very objectionable. The important thing is that when you complained of refernces to "Iran"[13](00:40, 23 October 2019), there was no mention of "Iran" anywhere in the article[14](19:07, 22 October 2019). And you talk as if I had anything to do with it. I can make no recollection of adding anything "Iran" to this article with the exception of reverts. Someone else added it, and I removed it. And I am no longer reverting the gwanbok link in the lead section. So what is the source of your discontent? And how would you explain your removal of the link to dragon robe at the article gwanbok? Or use of gwanbok at wedding ceremonies? Or whether gwanbok was a formal attire, as opposed to business attire? Are they controversial, or is it ad hominem reverting? VeryGoodBoy (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You says that as if I have not reported to WP:NORN. Any source that is added by you is reliable, and any source that is added by me is unreliable, is that how you understand it?

I "keep reverting", what a joke. Every time I add sources according your request, or edit a different section of this article, the result is [15][16][17][18]. Esiymbro (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Please adhere to Wikipedia policy. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You have quoted this part of the abstract. "Thirdly, ancient Korean Scythai garments were found to have homogeneity in their garment culture in that northern nomadic cultural district’s Hobok-Goseupje, i.e., open-front Caftan Jeogori and pants called Sangeuihago is its basic with a triangular cone hat shape (transformed hat) and boots, which is the basis for considering that ancient Korea exchanged culture with Scythai, who once lived as active northern nomads. However, it can also be seen that ancient Korea and Scythai garments differed in form depending on region, weather, culture, custom and the like. As such, Scythai and ancient Korea have an aesthetic bond because northern nomads and Scythai exchanged their cultural traits of the times." There, it clearly says ancient Korea exchanged culture with Scythai. Other passsages to consider to put this in proper context.

"고대 한국 복식 문화는 수천 년의 역사 속에 많은 변화를 거듭하면서 현재에 이르고 있다. 고조선 시대 광활한 초원지대를 누비며 예맥(濊貊)-동이족(東夷族)의 뿌리를 이어온 우리 조상들의 복식은 일반적으로 북방유목민족의 한반도 지배설에 근거하여 이여성(1947)과 김동욱(1979) 등이주장한 스키타이 복식에 원류를 둔 북방계 유목민족문화권의 ‘호복(胡服)-고습(袴褶)제’로 구분되고 있다. Based on previous research, since Gojoseon period ancient Korean clothing style is Northern Nomadic cultural sphere type, which originated from Scythians.

고대 한국 복식은 스키타이와 공통된 요소 외에도 다양한 복식 양태를 보이고 있어 한국 복식 원류의 정체성을 스키타이에서만 찾는다는 것은 무리가 있다. Although ancient Korean clothing share common elements with Scythians, there are other diverse forms of clothing. Therefore, origin of Korean clothing is not exclusively from Scythians.

Firstly, ancient Korean and Scythai share similarities in art work, craftwork, accessories and the like, which allows us to make a guess at the relationship between ancient Korea and Scythai of that time. Secondly, Scythai garments are based on the tight and well-fitted Caftan Yugoje, which is tightly fit to the body, as well as including garments similar to the drapery Kiton and Tunic found in ancient Greek garments, from which can be seen that the garment of culture medium passing between the East and the West had nomadic horse-riders’ ethnic characteristics and Eurasian characteristics. Thirdly, ancient Korean Scythai garments were found to have homogeneity in their garment culture in that northern nomadic cultural district’s Hobok-Goseupje, i.e., open-front Caftan Jeogori and pants called Sangeuihago is its basic with a triangular cone hat shape (transformed hat) and boots, which is the basis for considering that ancient Korea exchanged culture with Scythai, who once lived as active northern nomads.

Based on this source, and along with others, this sentence best expresses the sources. "Based on this common style, Hanbok evolved to include unique features that reflect local climate and culture of ancient Manchuria and the Korean peninsula." "Based on this common style" means the Scythian clothing Koreans acquired, which are upper garment, lower garment, headware, and footware. "unique features that reflect local climate and culture" means the independent features that the source has analyzed and deduced that are not of Scythian origin. "ancient Manchuria and the Korean peninsula." means Gojoseon. If you have other suggestions that best expresses the sources, please present them. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"The earliest evidence of this evolved hanbok's design features are described in ancient Chinese literature on proto-Korean kingdoms such as Buyeo." The source cites multiple descriptions of ancient Chinese literature on Buyeo. Therefore, this sentence is a valid expression of the source.

"It is postulated that the basic structure of hanbok, namely the jeogori jacket, the baji pants, the chima skirt, and the po overcoat were established by the times of Gojoseon, the first Korean kingdom." This is a direct interpretation from the source. "한국 최초의 고대국가였던 고조선 시대부터 한국복식은 유고상포의 기본형을 갖추었을 것이며 여기에 모자인 관모, 허리띠인 대, 신발로 신목이 긴 화 또는 신목이 짧은 이(履)를 더하면 한국 고대복식의 기본구조가 완성된다." VeryGoodBoy (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have said for numerous times already, that the concepts "origin" and "influence" are different, and mutual-exclusive. Either Hanbok is influenced by Scythian clothing, or it originates from Scythian clothing. And now you are still deliberately confusing "exchange", "similarity", etc. with the actual term used in the article which is "trace its origin".

The other tag is for the words "this evolved hanbok's design features", not the Buyeo part. Most sources, including the ones you provided, explicitly describes the Three Kingdoms era clothing to be the earliest Hanbok. It was the beginning of a new Korean tradition, not a evolved form of some Scythian clothing.

And yes, I completely agree that editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Now, of the three sources you primarily used, apart from the journal article we are currently discussing about, one is History of Korean Culture, and the other Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. While I do not question their reliability, which of them "focused on the topic at hand"? Didn't you sense any hypocrisy when writing that? Esiymbro (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The source uses the term 원류, which means "origin". The authors don't use "origin" and "influence" as mutually exclusive terms. When they use the term "influence", they are explaining how Scythian clothing was passed onto Koreans. Koreans wouldn't have been using Scythian style clothing if Scythians didn't have cultural influence on ancient Korea. This is common sense.

The source you use to dispute others, which concludes that hanbok was not exclusively of Scythian origin, explain that hanbok was used in earlier times than Three Kingdoms of Korea period. Other sources explicitly say hanbok was of Scythian origin. Hanbok is a tradition that started from an earlier prototypical style that was of Scythian origin. Hanbok did not start from a complete blank state as you claim. This, again, is common sense.

The articles are focused on the topic of the origins of hanbok. There are also journal articles that focus on the topic of the origins of hanbok. They all clearly support the statement that hanbok traces its origins to Scythian clothing, using the words 스키타이, meaning "Scythian", and 원류, meaning "origin". VeryGoodBoy (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@VeryGoodBoy: You have not explained anything. You first point is blatantly false, and anyone who have seen the source's abstract can see the difference there. And then you say, "Hanbok did not start from a complete blank state as you claim". Yes, our clothing can all be traced to the furs and leaves of prehistorical African hunter-gathers.

It is also very ironic for you to say any of this, because you yourself did not care this "clearly mentioned in the source" critera at all in your earlier reverts. (Myeong-Jong, Yoo (2005). The Discovery of Korea: History-Nature-Cultural Heritages-Art-Tradition-Cities. Discovery Media. p. 123. ISBN 978-8995609101. The history of the Hanbok goes back to the Three Kingdoms period. Macdonald, Fiona, ed. (2004). Peoples of Eastern Asia. Marshall Cavendish. p. 366. ISBN 9780761475545. Retrieved 18 October 2019. Hanbok dates back to the Three Kingdoms period. Lee, Samuel Songhoon (2015). Hanbok: Timeless Fashion Tradition. Seoul Selection. ISBN 9781624120565. Retrieved 18 October 2019. Hanbok's origins can be traced back to the Three Kingdoms period. Korean Culture and Information Service (South Korea) (2014). Guide to Korean Culture: Korea's cultural heritage. 길잡이미디어. p. 90. ISBN 9788973755714. Retrieved 18 October 2019. Although some of the basic elements of todays Hanbok ... were probably worn at a very early date, the two-piece costume of today did not begin to evolve until the Three Kingdoms period. ) I did not respond because it is a complete waste of time, and even yourself did not believe in your "reasons". Esiymbro (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A summary

@VeryGoodBoy: This discussion has been going on for a month, and the recent posts are no more than just rewording of earlier questions and answers. Right from the start these three questions were raised:

Whether Hanbok originated from Scythians in the broadest sense
Whether it is acceptble to use "Scythian" in this broad sense here; and
Whether early Hanbok is contemporary of the Scythians.

A month has passed and we gained absolutely no consensus on any of them. It is obvious to both of us that we are producing nothing new after the first few rounds, just examining and re-examining the same sentences from the sources.

If the discussion goes on normally, I am actually willing to accept all your contents in the article, as long as the disputes are properly tagged so that other readers can find this and offer their opinions. But if you cannot find convincing arguments, and are not even willing to accept this compromise -- then there is no point continuing the discussion at all. For it to reach any conclusion both sides at the very least have to treat the other’s views seriously. Now the only purpose this "discussion" serves, is to make reverts somehow seem "discussed" rather than "unexplained". This does not mean that I agree with any of the new content you added in the period, however, even though it currently stays in the article.

I have asked other editors and linked this page at WP:NORN in the first days. You are welcome to seek other dispute resolutions if you are actually interested. Esiymbro (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Here, the Scythians in the broadest sense Esiymbro refers to is Scythian cultures. This specific concept is used to explain origins of Hanbok in reliable sources cited in the article. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not referring to that. I do not consider that the "Scythian" concept in your sources is the same as that in Scythian cultures. Please do not distort my views as in your Wikipedia:Third opinion entry. Esiymbro (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Then please define your concept of Scythians in the broadest sense. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You wrote the contents and cited the sources, and it is you who said that the "Scythian" was used in a broad sense. Now, somehow it becomes my concept of Scythians?

I have written in my very first comment in this page [19] and then again for no less than three times [20][21][22], that by including irrelevant peoples in northern and northeastern Asia, the "Scythian" in your sources is not the same as the primarily-Iranic Scythian (or Scytho-Siberian) cultures in Central and West Asia, which is the concept English readers are familiar about.

I explain this for any potential new editors here, not for you, VeryGoodBoy. First you claimed that I tried to use a "narrow" sense of "Scythian" [23], now when that don't work you claim that I refer to the "Scythian cultures" concept. Just say it if you do not want a sincere discussion. You are fooling no one here. Esiymbro (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are the one who summarized this dispute and used the concept of Scythians in the broadest sense. I asked for your definition of the concept, and out of nowhere, you start accusing me of being insincere and deceitful. So what did you mean by Scythians in the broadest sensse? Please provide your definition of this concept to prevent any confusion and misunderstanding. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Use of the word 'Scythian'):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Hanbok and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

When one refers to "Scythian" or "Scythia" in English, it refers solely to a region in which an empire was formed in the first millennium before the Common era, which stretched from the Black sea to Persia. It appears to me that the use of the wording "Scythian" would be needlessly confusing to the layperson. Even if the sources which were given use this term, it does not appear to me, prima facie, that deference to some source—regardless of reliability—outweighs an obligation to clearly convey the truth. The "Scythians" referred to by VeryGoodBoy do not appear to be those which the lay person would identify as being from an area stretching from modern-day Ukraine to Georgia. I would be of the opinion that a different term ought be employed. Ifly6 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Can you please consider the discussion on the concept of Scythians[24] and the article Scythian cultures to make an informed decision on what the consensus is at Wikipedia regarding the use of a broad concept of Scythians that extends beyond the Pontic–Caspian steppe region? And if you are still opposed to the use of the term, what alternative do you suggest in its place? VeryGoodBoy (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Structure of the History section

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The “foreign influence” section is a bit inconsistent. This section covers not all but only some of the foreign influences, mostly those during Silla and Goryeo, while this article otherwise leaves a blank for this period. On the other hand, there are descriptions on similar influences here and there in other sections, for example, the “bird feather ornament in “Antiquity” section is a foreign influence on Silla. It is not always possible to completely separate influences and native trends, and doing this may be confusing to readers because later development would be built upon earlier influences. It is better to restore the chronological order so that others can more easily contribute to these sections. Esiymbro (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the restructuring is a good change. But you left out the part where Silla's aristocratic fashion adopted from Tang dynasty ceased to exist by the time of Goryeo dynasty, when aristocrats started using hanbok again.

The "bird feather ornament" in the "Antiquity" section explains Goguryeo headwear, not Silla's. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I checked the source, and you are right that it does say that the trend had faded by Goryeo period. The influence was not limited to gwanbok though, it affected hanbok as well. A trivial issue anyway. Esiymbro (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hlovekorean

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Hlovekorean: Please establish consensus before adding any controversial content. Please do not make edits that are clearly against the consensus. Esiymbro (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Hanbok has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Hanbok can be traced back to the Three Kingdoms of Korea period (1th century BC–7th century AD), with roots in the peoples of what is now northern Korea and Manchuria, including significant influences from various Chinese dynasties. Lowbin (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Hanbok can be traced back to the Three Kingdoms of Korea period (1th century BC ~ 7th century AD), with roots in the peoples of what is now northern Korea and Manchuria.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A Companion to Korean Art p. 192

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In Koryŏ Buddhist paintings secular or mythical figures mostly appear in the form of worshippers or patrons, as an audience for the Buddha’s sermon, as witnesses of the heavenly realm, and as participants in rituals. They are mostly royalty and aristocrats (possibly donors of the paintings) wearing elegant court dress and elaborate hairdos decorated with jewels and gold. Clothing and headgear of the royal members and nobles usually follows the official dress of the Song dynasty. It is interesting to note that the costume of the contemporary Chinese Yuan dynasty scarcely appears in Koryŏ paintings.

^[1]

This section and quote was posted by @Bamnamu: but it appears that he forgot to sign his post. I saw his last edits, and I agree with him undoing my last edit re: this subject (i.e. "Undid revision 1035231964)" dated 13:19, 24 July 2021‎) as his paraphrasing is indeed more reflective of the original source. @Bamnamu: Thank you :) work. Gyuligula2 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Park, J. P.; Rhi, Juhyung; Jungmann, Burglind (1 September 2020). A Companion to Korean Art. John Wiley & Sons. p. 192. ISBN 978-1-118-92704-5.

SkylightXO

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

@SkylightXO: You need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS before making ontroversial edits. In particular, that clause have just been the subject of an edit war, and the majority of editors clearly wish to see it remain in the article. You need to convince other editors if you wish to remove it. Esiymbro (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Checking on edit history, what I can deduce is that the controversial clause you are pointing to is the "Chinese dynasties influenced" clause. This clause was first added by an editor using Manual of Style as the reason. After that was reverted, a group of editors with a discernible pattern added that clause without giving any reason. You were the first to give a reason for the addition of that clause, which was "Chinese =/= Han Chinese, Chinese influence =/= Hanfu influence". My answer is "type hanbok =/= type China", and I changed Chinese to Han Chinese. Other disagreements that I can deduce are hobok and Scythai. I agree with you that Scythai is not a suitable word, but I do not agree with you on hobok and its characteristics. I spent some time in the library to look through several books. The books I've read are unanimous. Hanbok or Korean clothing style are hobok, and its structural features facilitate horse-riding and ease of movement. The flaw is that these books do not clearly define hanbok and Korean traditional clothing. The ambiguous definition of hanbok causes much of the confusion. This is something that I plan to work on in my next series of edits. SkylightXO (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@SkylightXO:, could you properly elaborate as to why you are reverting @Gyuligula2: edits and blanking significant amounts of content, despite the fact that they are providing WP:RS citations and journals? I've cross-referenced them, and your edit summaries seems to be misleading. Whatever it is you both are in disagreement with, you have to use the talk page to gather consensus, as @Esiymbro: themselves has already mentioned to you weeks ago. Do not use Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND by engaging in tendentious editing. Ekuftle (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to create an edit war. I do appreciate that SkylightXO is taking his time to contribute to this page. I do take the time to check each edits made by SkylightXO to pay respect to each of his contributions, and it is very time consuming. I can provide with reasons re: why I do not agree with some edits (not all) made by SkylightXO:

Removal of content:

A direct quotation from book have been removed.

From the edit history, it is not the first time that significant portion of content have been deleted by SkylightXO and had to be restored by other editors.

Content along with its sources were deleted based on POV as they were deemed too old, including a reliable source which only dates to 2010.

Deleting portion of the text which is deemed as non-scholarship: Full content from the book by Hanbok: Timeless fashion tradition by Lee, S. S., & Han'guk Kukche Kyoryu Chaedan (2013) which kept on being erased is published in the Ebook Central Academic Complete and can be accessed through a university library as long as you have accessed or if your university has a subscription. It is a reliable english source and which can be verified by any editors. If there is a claim in the book which is deemed controversial by editors, it might be best to use to the template dubious or better sources needed rather than blanking significant portion of the page content. If the option 'cited by' on Google scholar is used to track the number of time this book was cited, it can be found the book is being used in university thesis.

Misleading and inaccurate paraphrasing: some edits are oversimplified/ re-paraphrased to the point that it lost its accuracy and do not reflect the content and meaning of the source materials.

Nationalism POV: The Chinese influence on certain type of hanbok and the adoption of some clothing style in Korea from different China's dynasties can be verified in several sources; this can be crossed-referenced and it is not based on Chinese Nationalist POV. However, the new edits have been removing/downplaying such influences or adoption of clothing, through what appears to be blanking/removing or inaccurately paraphrase those influences.

Consensus on content: other editors (other than me) have also edited and contributed to the content of this page. For example, as it can be found below in the section below 'A Companion to Korean Art' and from the edit history, you can see that a consensus was reached. The section which cited A Companion to Korean Art also led to an edit war some weeks ago and the paraphrase made by Bamnamu was kept.

This is just a brief list of what I have identified so far. I would like to say once again that I do not want to engage in an edit war and would prefer having a third party involve in reviewing the content and edits of this page to keep it as neutral as possible. For now, I will be abstaining from editing/reviewing content on the page hanbok to provide other editors' possibilities to edit and/or review the content. Best, Gyuligula2 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: no reliable source. Wikipedia articles is not just made up.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are these clothes all made of polyester fiber? These clothes have been all white because of the lack of dying technology and knowledge. The British explorers had taken photos of them, and they prove the scientific controversial point: which ancient people wearing colourful clothes in the drawing pictures and no one wearing such things in the photographic evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psw (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not at all true that Koreans did not have dyeing skills. They have worshiped white clothes since the Three Kingdoms period, which was influenced by the peoples of northern East Asia. https://namu.wiki/w/%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%A0/%EC%98%A4%ED%95%B4#s-3.3 조선은 가난해서 염색도, 무늬도 없었다? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega23days (talk • contribs) 07:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Hanbok has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

1. 'The trend of wearing a short jeogori with a heoritti was started by the gisaeng and soon spread to women of the upper class. Among women of the common and lowborn classes, a practice emerged in which they revealed their breasts by removing a cloth to make breastfeeding more convenient. As there was an excessive preference for boys in the Joseon dynasty, the deliberate exposure of breast eventually became a cultural practice and an indicator of women's pride and status symbol in having given birth to a son and thus she would "proudly bare her breasts to feed her child, deliberately provoking the envy of other women".'

2. "scandalous appropriation of the distinctive national culture of Koreans"

Remove

1. The data that women in Joseon were dressed to reveal their chests only exists on the hostile Chinese side, which claims that the hanbok belongs to China. There is no such thing as above in any historical material with public confidence, and this is a malicious paragraph that is not necessary to convey information on hanbok. Therefore, I hope to delete it.

2. The word 'scandalous' is an incorrect word for a dictionary that requires fairness. I hope to delete it. 61.254.237.111 (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the scandalous part is a direct quote so it shall not be changed. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need Chinese characters and Pinyin?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

John Yunshire If it is because of the ethnic Koreans living in China, there are ethnic Chinese living in South Korea and North Korea for over 100 years.

If it is the same logic, shouldn't we write Korean notation in the Qipao Wikipedia article?

Information on ethnic Koreans living in China has already been written, and it is misleading to mark Chinese characters and Pinyin in Wikipedia's "Korean" traditional costume documents.

If you go to the modern usage paragraph, there is already a description of hanbok worn by Korean-Chinese in China, and Chinese characters and pinyin are also written.

What is the reason for writing Chinese characters and Pinyin at the top? I posted on the discussion page in other paragraphs as well as you, but there is no answer.

Tprtm (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

[1] Park, J. P.; Rhi, Juhyung; Jungmann, Burglind (1 September 2020). A Companion to Korean Art. John Wiley & Sons. p. 192. ISBN 978-1-118-92704-5.

[1]