Talk:Taegeuk

message: There is also sometimes seen a three part version, what does that extra yellow bit signify? Chris 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''three'' part

message: Shouldn't 태극 be taegeuk? I thought that was the current accepted transliteration. The article uses the word taegeukgi twice, suggesting the vowel should be eu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RisingSun96815 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, the official romanization (as you can see in the box) is Taegeuk. I requested a move. -- iGEL (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support requested move E.G. 07:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (2007) 

message: I understand that the Taijitu preceded and inspired the Taegeuk and that the Taijitu is often but not always split vertically as opposed to the horizontal split of the Taegeuk but what I don't understand is why they aren't just rotations of one another. 
:Look closely at  these shapes and you'll notice that Taegeuk, Cancer (astrology), Pepsi symbol, bq, Gg, S, & 5 all follow a 69 pattern, whereas Tajitu, 2, Z, ?, & ¿ all follow a Pd pattern. 69 rotated 180° (within the paper) yields 69 but no rotation will yield Pd, Pd just as Pd rotated 180° (within the paper yields Pd but no rotation will yield 69. 
:Please understand that I am not writing about the squariness of these characters. For clearer illustration, see the 69-style bq vs. the Pd-style pd or the 69-style Seven-segment_display_character_representations#Arabic_numerals 5, , vs. the Pd-style 7seg 2, . 
:Anyhow, to get from 69 to Pd or vice versa, one must reflect the image by using a mirror or by flipping the paper. As such, the Taegeuk is a reflected form of the Tajitu and thus not equivalent no matter what colours or rotations one uses. Thecurran 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taijitu <-> Taegeuk Inversion 

message: Sam Taeguk: Yellow: life  Blue: earth  Red: heavens.  Sam Taeguk: is Korean symbol it represented in Korean Buddhist temple. Not Korean fan.
During Koryo Dynasty Sam Taeguk represented Korean/ Korean buddhist symbols. It was modern day Korea that Koreans began to use " Sam Taeguk" as in fan. It has 
much longer history it has linkage to Korean buddhist temple.  In front of Korean buddhist gate has Sam-Taguk design. In Korean buddhist temple in Seoul it has
Sam Taeguk design. So its not only Korean fan design. So misinformed information about Sam-Taeguk linking with Korean fans needs correction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kp1korea (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Seoul 1988 Summer Olympics emblem´s  features a samtaeguk pattern.--Beaker35 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1988 Olympic logo image used to be on this article, but at least one person didn't like it here, the image almost got deleted, there were "fair use" considerations, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's because of Chinese wiki members wanted to removed it. Chinese members always budge into Korean topics and trying to China-wash Korean image. --Korsentry 06:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sam-Taeguk

message: "If the symbol is portrayed according to how humans view the world, red on the top would repel the earth and blue on the bottom would repel the heaven; this would break the harmony of nature."
Then why is that exactly how it's portrayed on the south korean flag?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.128.84 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm confused by the first paragraph 

message: In China, Taijitu represents Yin and yang, it origined in ancient Zhou Dynasty. Can't you see the relationships between Taijitu and Taegeuk? In 7th century BC, there is not even a country called "Korea". In the Taegeuk, they say Taegeuk was created in 7th century BC, is this a joke?
S. Liu (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The China of today didn't exist in the 7th century BC either. Nation states come and go. There's also a link to the Taijitu article at the bottom of the Taegeuk article. The claim about the Taegeuk originating from the 7th century BC comes from the book "An Illustrated Guide to Korean Culture - 233 traditional key words" by The National Academy of the Korean Language. Rōnin (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Have you read that book? Or just somebody wrote that and you just receive his/her opinions without suspect? In the original entry about Taegeuk, there is no "BC", it's just "7th century" only. You can check this in the edit history. I added "BC" because Zhou Dynasty was established in 256 BC. This means you didn't even check the current entry. I advise you not only to read books written by Korean people, you should also read books written by others. Most importantly, you should read some history book.
PS: In 7th century BC, the country in today's China named Zhou Dynasty, it is just a alias of China in ancient. But in the same time, is there a country in the Korean Peninsula? As I know, the first country in Korean Peninsula was founded by Wiman of Gojoseon. You can read this entry. I respect the Korean culture, she is a very important part of the East Asian culture, but you guys should respect your own culture. You can not respect her by making history, but learning history.
S. Liu (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's your point exactly? This article isn't about respecting culture or making history; it's about the Taegeuk symbol. Debates about East Asian culture belong somewhere else. Rōnin (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

text: My point is: Taijitu and Taegeuk have the same origin, and this origin can not be in Korean Peninsula. And if this entry is still written like the current entry, it is making history! You can check this website http://www.natkd.com/taeguek.htm , http://mcneilstkd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=18 . You can also do some search about Taegeuk
S. Liu (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such a claim has to be documented in order to belong in the article, and two unrelated pages from two martial arts websites don't count as historical documentation. As far as researching the Taeguk symbol goes; I don't really intend to contribute to the article's content. Rather, I've edited the article to ensure that editors respect Wikipedia's sourcing policies (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources / zh:Wikipedia:%E5%8F%AF%E9%9D%A0%E6%9D%A5%E6%BA%90). If the origin of the symbol cannot be in the Korean Peninsula, then that should be documented. Rōnin (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your suggestion. I will search more reliable evidence, and I will re-edit it. You can unprotect it now, I will not edit it until I get more information. S. Liu (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I did request the protection, it was enabled by a Wikipedia administrator. The protection is only temporary, though, and expires automatically in 6 days. Rōnin (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Taegeuk]]

message: Why "some" Koreans claim what doesn't really belong or originally from their ancestors? By claiming any other cultural traits or values as yours doesn't make your country "great", from the name of your people the "Han" = Koreans, and to this Taegukgi which is obviously part of Chinese religious and philosophical system for thousand of years you claim as originally yours because your delusional authors says so, even article from tour2korea.com website states that Korean Buddhism is much better than Indian and Chinese Buddhism, are you kidding guys? by claiming others culture as yours and saying great things about your nation doesnt make you righteous or great! revise this article, kamsahamnida!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.42.146 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the three-fold version as an independent symbol (as opposed to a small element in a larger symbol) seems to be much more characteristic of Korea than other east Asian nations... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is based on biased and nationalistic intentions and delusions! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Taegeuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101105151330/http://rki.kbs.co.kr:80/english/korea/aboutkorea/korea_aboutsymbol.htm to http://rki.kbs.co.kr/english/korea/aboutkorea/korea_aboutsymbol.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article currently says, "In the compound of Gameunsa, a temple built in 628 during the reign of King Jinpyeong of Silla, a stone object, perhaps the foundation of a pagoda, is carved with the taegeuk design." It then says, "In 2008, a 1400-year-old artifact with the taegeuk pattern was found in the Bogam-ri tombs of Baekje at Naju, South Jeolla Province, making it the oldest taegeuk found in Korea, predating by 682 years the taegeuk at Gameunsa." Unless my math is wrong, those dates don't make any sense. The Bogam-ri taeguk would date to 608, which is certainly not 682 years before 628. 2604:2000:EFC0:2:7C16:4E2E:E4E5:E5E8 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Gameunsa and Bogam-ri taeguks 

message: We need to be careful of reporting vs. endorsing claims or interpretations. 
We also have "Yin_yang_in_Celtic_art" at commons. 
Needless to say, there is no "Celtic yin yang". What this means, rather, is "interlocking spirals in Celtic art", which spirals are then compared to the (Ming era) taiji diagram which also has interlocking spirals. 
I presume we have a similar situation here. We find interlocking spirals in Korean artifacts, which are interpreted as early forms of "taegeuk". The thing is that even in Chinese sources, the term taiji isn't associated with spirally designs of this kind prior to the 16th or 17th century. Earlier (Song era) taiji-diagrams  look completely different.
What we need to report here is, what is there earliest known reference to the term "taegeuk" in reference to such a design. Otherwise we are just pattern-matching spirals. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Taegeuk" vs. random spiral designs

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Taegeuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305103827/http://www.sportmuseum-leipzig.de/Ablage-Zeitung/1+2-2003/Seite6.htm to http://www.sportmuseum-leipzig.de/Ablage-Zeitung/1+2-2003/Seite6.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article uses no grammar article in the intro. Whereas Swastika uses the, and Red Star uses a. Shouldn't there be uniformity? Moreover, later on, there is the Taegeuk. What gives?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No article before the Taegeuk in the intro