Talk:National Intangible Cultural Heritage (South Korea)

112

shouldn't it say "korean cast iron" or something? It seems like cast iron was used by a lot of people in the past, it doesn't make much sense.

36 and 37

36 and 37 are not on Korea's official website. If anyone can find them, please add them. Badagnani 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

52, 54, 59, 63, and 94

52, 54, 59, and 63, and 94 are also missing. Badagnani 01:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Article name change?

The name "Important Intangible Cultural Properties" seems rather generic, and I think it should be changed to something like "Important Intangible Cultural Properties (South Korea)" to indicate that it's specific to South Korea. Does anyone else agree? 220.76.15.85 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fine because there is no other country with the same nomenclature. Badagnani (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think changing it would be a good idea. Japan uses the same terminology.--Cckerberos (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Japan use the same terminology in Chinese characters and English? If so please show me some proof.--Caspian blue 16:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a Japanese government page using the term in English [1]. This article doesn't include the Chinese characters for the Korean term, but if they're 重要無形文化財 then it's the same (see [2]) The Japanese usage dates from 1954.--Cckerberos (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I've known Japanese project uses "Living National Treasures" within Wikipedia, and the page does not show that they use Important Intangible Cultural Properties as their "fixed" term such as the passage, holders of important intangible cultural properties (so-called Living National Treasures). In East Asia, countries share same words based on Chinese character with different styles in English. So I'm wondering what you have in mind? Do you want to move the article to Important Intangible Cultural Properties of South Korea, and whatever the Japanese one to Important Intangible Cultural Properties of Japan?--Caspian blue 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely the official translation for the phrase (see page 7 of [3]). You're right that currently there's an article on Living National Treasures of Japan, but that's about people rather than the actual cultural properties. I'd like to create a new article, either Important Intangible Cultural Properties (Japan) or Important Intangible Cultural Properties of Japan, and move this article to Important Intangible Cultural Properties of South Korea. Important Intangible Cultural Properties could then be made into a disambiguation page.--Cckerberos (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, so you want to choose the new name for Japanese articles instead of the commonly used names. I think that naming of the Korean article should be discussed by "Korean project members" first since I'm not sure it should add either "of Korea" or "of South Korea". And you can create Important Intangible Cultural Properties of Japan without touching the article anyhow. All you need is just a disambiugation page, don't you? Are you planing to separate the article of Living National Treasures of Japan or just move to Living National Treasures of Japan to Important Intangible Cultural Properties (Japan)? If you do the former with two different naming, isn't an original research?--Caspian blue 19:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I downloaded it just several minutes ago, and I could not find "Important Intangible Cultural Properties" are the official title for the Japanese cultural properties not only on the page of 7, but also the whole pages. Instead, "Intangible Cultural Heritage" are used.-Caspian blue 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because while National Living Treasures are related to Important Intangible Cultural Properties, they are not the same. "Kabuki" is an Important Intangible Cultural Property, while a particular famous kabuki actor may be a National Living Treasure. They should be two separate articles, and I don't see what makes that original research.

Page 7 of that pdf includes a box in the chart that reads "Important Intangible Cultural Properties," and mentions "Important items are designated as Important Intangible Cultural Properties." The chart on page 8 also mentions the "establishment of a system for designation of Important Intangible Cultural Properties." The term is used many times. And here: [4]. Page 12, Article 56-3 of the 1954 Japanese Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties.

I'm afraid I really don't understand the resistance to changing the name of this article. Is there any reason to not change this article to Important Intangible Cultural Properties of Korea or Important Intangible Cultural Properties of South Korea?--Cckerberos (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the new source, since it also requires to download the big file. The change requires to "change" to many related to Korean articles unlike the Japanese articles, so my request for clarification should not be simply disparaged as "resistance". I skimmed the page, and searched the keyword with "", but could not find anything. If the text became an image, then the search would not be effective. I think there are "different interpretations" on the two different and similar systems. In South Korea, the term refers to both people who retain remarkable traditional skills and the skills themselves altogether, so although the people are so called "living treasures" in Korean (인간문화재, 人間文化財 Ingan munhwajae), the administration does not divide retainers and the skill with two terms. I'm also not sure that the Japanese government divides their retained skills and the artisans separately. What I was asking you is your intention and clarification on how to do with the new title and other related articles. Moreover, "Intangible cultural heritage" seems to be more widely used than Important Intangible Cultural Properties.--Caspian blue 01:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think search works in the first pdf I linked to.

The two countries handle it differently. In Japan the skills are designated Important Intangible Cultural Properties (重要無形文化財) and the individuals (the "Living National Treasures") are officially called Preservers of Important Intangible Cultural Properties (重要無形文化財保持者). Kabuki or Bunraku would never be referred to as Living National Treasures. Another difference is that the Korean list includes things that the Japanese government would classify as Important Intangible Folk Cultural Properties (重要無形民族文化財).

"Intangible cultural heritage" is a widely used term, but it has some problems in this case. First, I think the term is strongly linked to UNESCO and the UN. Second, it's not the official Japanese government term. Third, I think its meaning is too broad... Important Intangible Cultural Property is a definite designation used by the government with a limited meaning. The article I'm planning to write will center on government policy, so I think it's best to use the official terminology.

If the overlap becomes too large, I'll merge Living National Treasures of Japan in as a subsection of the new article, but I'm planning to cover a lot more than just the Living National Treasures.

I'm certainly willing to help make the necessary changes to the relevant Korean articles.--Cckerberos (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Redid article

Just redid the table by merging and converting the tables on the kowiki version of this article. I think this should be better than the previous version, see version history to get a sense of it. It still needs Template:interlanguage links though. toobigtokale (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)