This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jazzie444 (article contribs).

Manhwa[edit]

So what is the Korean term for a manga-ka? Greyweather 02:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

manhwa-ga! Easy, right? =) --himasaram

Manhwa is in fact a Chinese word.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.247.178.132 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 November 2004

Hasn't the word been created in Japan, from chinese compounds? (I am not sure, but I think chinese words borrowed into both japanese and korean generally are more alike, than native wrods from both languages)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.149.24 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 November 2004

Manhwa is a copy cat of Manga![edit]

Manga is a Japanese word compounding Chinese characters. Not Chinese. Korean Manhwa was created later. Of course, we should equally respect Manhwa as Manga but the concept is "purely Japanese". Manhwa is not originally Korean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.58.40 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 January 2005

Outrageous. Do you hear? Outrageous! And to the people below, both the terms manga and manhwa are the words in each languages that refer to all comics, regardless of the origin.

Starshade17 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--WTF? It's from the chinese characters 漫画, comic books have been around for a long time, doesn’t matter if you pronounce it まんが　or 만화, it's the same word. What point are you trying to make? --Ce garcon 20:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy ppl. Yes, the combination of the two Chinese characters 漫画 were possibly cocieved in Japan. However it is now widely used in East Asia, so debate of the word's origin is of purely academic interest. Right? I'm rephrazing the article into something more neutral. --himasaram

I agree that this is somewhat a of a copycat, but not for the reasons stated by the anonymous poster. Manga is a very established term for what we would otherwise simply call "Japanese comics", but I've never heard of "manhwa" used to designate "Korean comics" before. Why should we keep this at the native name just because it happens to be etymologically related to the Japanese term? Since we don't keep "French comics" at "bande dessinée", this should apply here too.
Peter Isotalo 16:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, manga is just the Japanese word for "comics" as far as it would go in Japan, but they still get called manga outside of Japan to refer to Japanese comics specifically. Therefore, it'd be rather inappropriate to call the Korean comics "manga", when they'd be called "manhwa" in Korea. It may be a different case in a few short years or decades, but for now I'd have little luck getting Korean comics anywhere BUT my local "manhwa-bang". Also, since there are a few things stylistically different about manhwa (most noticeably the direction it's read, but also a few things artistically are more Korean IMO), I think that manhwa should be kept as a seperate article for now. Keep in mind that some people's opinions about manhwa often derides it as inferior to manga, but it'd be impossible to get into that subject and keep it neutral. 68.100.68.23 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the logical assumption of connecting the two DIFFERENT words of manga and manhwa. Yes, the definition and context of which they are used are similar. As both are understood as media that are depictions of anime style art work. However, anyone who have considered and read both types of cartoons, for a lack of better term, know that Japanese and Korean styles are vastly different. Languages, cultural references, ideological viewpoints expressed by the artist through the plots and character interaction, are all some of the major and divisive factors that separates the two distinct manga and manhwa styles.

Manga is a commonly used term to describe anime comic books in the United States (I assume it is true in most of North America, if not Europe). Manga's mass acceptability does not mean that the word manhwa, the standard term to describe KOREAN style comics in the Korean Peninsula and for those who are willing to use the two terms interchangeably in other locations, to be a copycat, as the discussion thread starter refers to it being so.

Let us write a wikipedia article for manhwa, which discusses its distinct content and styles. The word's etymological roots, of which should also be discussed and contrasted in the wikipedia article (because that's what we stand for, thorough and informative articles!), should not disparage a race or culture, or country.

I'll leave you all with a sentence I found, quite enlightening in fact, from the main introductory paragraph.

Although manhwa is distinct from Japanese manga and Chinese manhua, all three terms are cognates.

Gunbolt 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the top paragraphs...manga and manhwa are NOT the same. Both words are derived from Chinese, as many words in Korean and Japanese are from. Manhwa is the Korean pronounciation, and the Japanese pronounced it manga. Of course, "manga" is more commonly known in the west, since Japan began "manga." Oh, and the title of this paragraph is definitely POV. Manhwa is not a "copycat" of manga. Its just a word. Oyo321 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To top paragraph... Nonsense. Who would say that American comics are copycats of the English counterparts? Would anybody argue that Belgian comics are copycats of French comics? Being in the same cultural region with a lot of common heritage doesn't mean that one copied from another. There are strong influences manga in manhwa for sure, but then again manhwa has also influences from American comics and European as well. Manga also has been heavily influenced by English satire cartoons and American masters such as Disney, Hal Foster and Chester Gould among countless others. Such is any culture. --146.151.104.101 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense, mr. anonymous.Hellwing 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What Japanese fear from Koreans using the word, Manhwa is that Koreans will insist that Manhwa is originated in Korea without any influence of Manga, and Japanese copied the idea of Manhwa and created Manga. Personally, I believe Koreans will insist so later on, saying Japanese stole the korean culture. I mean, Koreans always do for god's sake. And let me say this. Pizza is spelled "Pizza" everywhere. You might pronounce differently, but the spelling will be always the same in English. You just don't change the spelling. I don't care how it is spelled in Hangle, but it should be spelled Manga or Manhua in English. Koreans don't use chinese characters. Where did "Manhwa" derive from? From Chinese characters. Okay, you might pronounce differently, but a new spelling such as Manhwa should not occur. It's deriving from Chinese characters. Thus, it should be spelled Manga or Manhua.

I've never seen such a thing like Koreans claiming copyright on anything Japanese happen, even as a Korean myself, for god's sake. Putting this aside, even manga is the Japanese way of pronouncing 漫画. Which means, exactly according to your own philosophy, a new pronunciation like manga also should not occur. Besides, if manhwa is a copycat of manga, then the American English is also a copycat. Derived from the British English, it features different spellings (such as honour into honor). Is that what you speak of? ccording to your philosophy, why did the Americans copy the British English and change it to a new spelling, even when such new spellings should not occur? Taking a step further, why don't you go on saying that English is a copycat of Latin and Chinese the copycat of Sanskrit? I wonder. Anyway, this rubbish about manhwa being a copycat of manga is completely outrageous. Starshade17 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oho. I suppose you read the damned Kenkanryu. Starshade17 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't think there are many words that are spelled the same everywhere in the world (if there is any). Second, we are using a phonetic writing systems (manga, manhwa, or manhua) because many people can't read the logographic writing system (漫画 or 漫畵). And last, it is very common to borrow words from other languages, it happens for various reasons, you can't call that copy cat. H eristo 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Manga was inspired by American comic books left over from a war & the Koreans do all of the in-between animation for every anime you've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So stupid to argue on the topic of the same word... Manhwa is just how Korean speakers pronounce 漫畵 in Hanja which is absolutely a Korean word. Like in Chinese that 漫畫 is pronounced Man-Hua... (Or 漫画...for Simplified Chinese character, Which Japanese use for "Manga".) I don't think any idiot westerners would see these characters and don't realise that they are very obviously related. Manga is well-known among westerners, but at least billions of Chinese speakers don't say "Manga" when they mean Japanese comics, instead, they just call it 日本漫畫...125.25.42.141 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese and Koreans both "copied" the Chinese. 漫畫 is the term for animation. Honestly it comes down to differences in pronunciation of the same word. Japanese and Koreans are Chinese anyway. Chinese is the language of East Asian. And by the way, there isn't really a single Chinese culture anyway (for example Hakka, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc all have different cultures). For a more politically correct sentence, the cultures and languages of East Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) are all so intertwined anyway and to even try to untangle them into separate entities is ridiculous. Chinese, Japanese, Korean people should all stop bickering about who is stealing who's history, when all of it is shared, evolved and built up together. Manhua = Manga = Manhwa = 漫畫 = 漫画 ; case closed. 67.71.55.184 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to linguistic and stylistic problems with the term Manhwa, the more correct term "Korean Manga" should be used[edit]

There seem to be many misconceptions here. Problems arise with "manhwa" because there are both linguistic and stylistic issues present with confusing overlap. First of all, the kanji compound 漫画 (Chinese: manhua, Japanese: manga, Korean: manhwa) is technically and linguistically a Japanese-invented word using kanji (Chinese characters) roots. These type of words are called 和製漢語 (wasei kango). A perfect example is how the term 電話 (denwa "telephone") was created in Japan from the kanji roots 電 (electric) and 話 (speak). This term was then adopted by the Chinese and Koreans, and even if written in Chinese characters or Korean Hangul, the original term is a Japanese creation. (Similar to how English coined "telephone" from the Greek roots of "tele" and "phonos" and then the word telephone spread back into Greek and other languages.) Therefore, linguistically, 漫画, 漫畫, and 만화 (漫畫) all mean "comics" in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean respectively, but the term was a Japanese invention.

The stylistic concern is something different. After cartoons and animation in general were picked up by Japan, and a new Japanese style of animation was created (now called anime in Japan), the term anime came back to English to refer only to this new style of Japanese animation. Today, when talking about shows such as Avatar: The Last Airbender or Teen Titans, people say they are anime-inspired, anime-style, or American anime. The key word is using the term anime to denote the style of Japanese animation. Similarly, comics evolved in Japan through developing a specific style into Japanese-style comics called manga in English.

Modern comics in South Korea are overwhelmingly influenced by Japanese manga, and are often stylistically hard to distinguish because the Japanese style has been adopted so fully. Because of this, in English the term "Korean manga" makes the most sense. If the reasons for this are not readily apparent, consider this: The term manga in English refers to Japanese-style comics. If you are talking about Japanese-style comics made in Korea, then "Korean manga" makes sense. Confusion arises because the words for general comics in Chinese and Korean are now "manhua and manhwa" which are analogous to "manga." However, in English, manga refers only to Japanese-style comics. In Chinese and Korean, the terms manhua and manhwa can mean comics in general, but ALSO specifically refer to Japanese-style comics. Comics in Korea that are based on Japanese manga that some people are determined to call "manhwa" in English are not even called "manhwa" in Korean, they are called 한국 만화 (Korean Manhwa/Manga). If you are talking about comics in Korea (of any kind), that may be one article, but the modern genre of Korean comics that is stylistically based on Japanese manga, that should correctly be referred to as "Korean Manga" or "Korean-style Manga" and not "manhwa." AziaStyle (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to move this article to Korean comics.[edit]

I can't understand why we started to use the word manga. Why didn't we just call them Japanese comics so that we didn't have to waste time explaing the meaning of the word? (Furthermore, note that the difference between the meanings of manga (Japanese comics) and 漫画 (comics) caused another confusion.)

Of course, it's too late for the "manga" case, since it is already established as a English word. But I think there is no reason to spread this problem to cases of other languages. --Acepectif 09:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too late for manhwa. Petrusbarbygere 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making Korean comics redirect to manhwa. --Tjstrf 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Manhwa articles[edit]

Requested Manhwa articles -- Here's the list of requested Manhwa articles incase anyone is interested in doing them. --Kunzite 16:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anime and manga[edit]

The WikiProject Anime and manga covers manhwa as well. --Geopgeop 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. WP:MANGA specifically states that they do not cover Manhwa articles. --tjstrf 07:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

So, what is the Chinese word for "manga?" Anyone know? Or is there a word for chinese manga. What about C-pop?? Is there a C-pop like K-pop or J-pop? Oyo321 00:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhua. —pfahlstrom 02:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a manhwa article. On wikipedia we need to stick to the subject of manhwa not pop. Jump Guru 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Since we have Manhwa section, shouldn't we also have Manhwa-younghwa section? dooly00000

Yup Oyo321 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something bothering me[edit]

On the bit of the article that describes how to tell apart manhwa from "proper" manga, something about the first point is bothering me.

Firstly, this really needs a source of some sort because it reads like Original Research. Secondly, while it is at least partially true, I believe it is incomplete information. There are character design differences, but they extend beyond merely the girl's comics. --tjstrf talk 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs actual research. I'll tell you right away that if the necks are long, it's quickly more easy to identify as a manhwa. Why? Angular faces and long necks are just a Korean ethnic feature, and within most cultures one's own culture is the one that tends to look best, because it's the most familiar (the most generic person you can think of would probably be the most common type of person in your own culture). Korea is mostly ethnically homogenous. Therefore it would make sense that mostly Korean characters in Korean comics would look mostly Korean. Guess someone needs to come up with something that would make that sound more sensitive while pointing out that it's definitely an ethnic featre... being half-Korean I kind of have trouble with this "racial sensitivity" thing. -129.21.96.59 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

Does manhwa have demographic genres? What made me think of this is that on the Rebirth article it said shounen. Does anyone know if manhwa has thier own genres and demographic genres? Jump Guru 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German and French wiki[edit]

I believed that Korean related articles at English Wiki have more contents than any other wikipedia, but that turns out wrong. I've seen so many Japanese editors POV pushings without any proof for that manhwa is a translated Japanese manga. So I started searching info and found some useful references. I just went to the German and French articles via the interwiki links, they already have well-written history sections and good contents! Thank them in the wikipedia for their efforts. If there is someone who can read those languages, translating the contents to English is good to develop this article. I can simply rebut to some persistent odn.ad.jp users (SoftBank)'s unwarranted claim with the translation. --Appletrees (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

The etymology and origin of this Korean word should be given: specifically, what are the first instances of the use of this term in print (both in hanja and hangul). Badagnani (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology and origin of this Korean word should be given: specifically, what are the first instances of the use of this term in print (both in hanja and hangul). Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhwa Market Slump.[edit]

At Sakura Con, Tokyopop pannelists were telling us about the Manhwa cafes, the people reading manga for free, manhwa sales declining, series being cancled, publishers filing for bankruptsy. I think it should be mentioned here, with a reference to how American's are trying to make the same thing happen by not taking down Scanlations of mangas that have been licensed. There was even a survey on Crunchyroll where users said they don;t buy manga because they can read it online for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhwa book[edit]

I found that there has been an English-language book about manhwa and its history published "Manhwa, Another Discovery in Asian Comics" published by "Korea Culture and Content Agency", looks interesting since it's hard to find any good info on the subject in English. http://hanbooks.com/maandiinasco.html http://www.amazon.com/Manhwa-Another-Discovery-Asian-Comics/dp/B000TG5WN0 Hope this isn't considered an advertisement. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reference[edit]

This article from Publishers Weekly might be of use in the future. It discusses how manhwa is being introduced into the US, and has some information on how Korean and American manhwa-producing companies operate. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an archived page for it; WebCite. PW sometimes undergoes changes and articles can be lost. So just in case. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resource parking[edit]

Interesting newish academic article: Kukhee Choo 2010, Consuming Japan:Early Korean girls comic book artists' resistance and empowerment, Complicated Currents: Media Flows, Soft Power and East Asia, Volume 1, No. 1. Talks about the history of sunjeong manhwaa and its growth out of pirated manga, and the early Korean donginji (doujinshi) scene, among other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRBrown (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manhwa were inspired by classic Asian arts, especially Chinese. Manhwa will be a copy of Manga(japan).[edit]

Do they hide influence of Japan? 220.106.178.205 (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. Yes, manhwa has some inspiration from manga. No denying that. But they are still separate and fairly distinct. You'll notice the common characteristics of manhwa characters often diffes greatly from common manga characteristics. They aren't a "copy" of anything. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.konest.com/data/korean_life_detail.html?no=2882

pirated edition is copy. They changed the name of the manga author into Korean. It is the criminal act that is serious in the history of Manhwa.220.106.178.205 (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Manhwa resembles Manga. The pirated edition is important in reciteing the history of Manhwa.[edit]

The Korean deleted the name of the Japanese artist by a pirated edition. Korea has begun to be affected without knowing it with Japanese Manga. 221.184.33.74 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Manhwa. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Editing Plans[edit]

Hello, I am a student at Texas A&M University working on an editing project assigned by User:Etherfire, and I am looking to review the following article and possibly make some changes. These will include any reorganization, clarification, and focusing of the content. I will post any intended changes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.33.83.24 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I began my reorganization of the topics to try to make the article more fluid. I am currently playing around with certain ideas in a sandbox labled sandbox1: Jazzie444/sandbox1 Jazzie444 (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my editing of this article. I followed through with what I planned to work on. I arranged the article in a completely different fashion, trying to model it after similar articles I had found. I also created new sections as there were bits of information here and there that seemed to not quite fit in their designated sections. For the few lists in the article, I placed them at the bottom as I thought they didn't fit well in their original place once I moved things around. I went through and tried to update some of the information to be current as well. I looked through what required citations were remaining and I was able to find a few but there are still a few pieces of information I couldn't find proof for. I worked on smoothing some transitions, but some of them could still use a little bit of work. I think looking forward, this article could benefit from having a writer who has actually experienced Manhwa as a part of their culture. That would give it a less American-centralized point of view. Jazzie444 (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A More Detailed Outline of Edits

I expanded on the lead, making it cover the rest of the article more thoroughly. I then tried to set up the sections as they did in the manga article, but I realized that I would not have the same amount of information. I ended up taking some parts from the manga article that would apply to the manhwa article as well and entering them in. Once I had done this, I took bits from other sections where they did not fit and added them into a new section I titled Etymology. In my reorganization of the article, I kept finding information build-up about influence, but not necessarily set it up as a specific point in history so I was not quite sure where to put it until I settled on Etymology as that paragraph already included a different form of influence. As I continued to look through the article, I continued to find little pieces of information that would not completely fit under their sections, and I realized that this article needed some reorganizing. I struggled to title some areas and came up with the idea to create a characteristics section. I then had to find some additional information to make the section big enough to be of importance. I also knew that certain things like the direction it read, and the art styles are significant qualities of these comics and needed to be included as they helped distinguish them from manga and manhua. When I got to the history portion, I had to take out information that did not seem to fall in a timeline area. I also had to add more current events as there had not seemed to be an update on what was happening with manhwa in a while. I ended up making webtoons a subcategory as it did not seem to contain enough information on its own, and it was a significant milestone for manhwa. When I moved on, the section was titled something along the lines of manhwa in the United States. This seemed too American-central for something that did not belong to our culture, so I rephrased it and added the US as a subtitle. I then organized information that would apply to both categories and only one. I also added a little bit more about webtoons as they are significant here as well. The section that probably got the least work was the animation and live actions section. I did not have much to add as it seemed like a thorough layout. Plus, I was not able to find a similar section in any similar articles to base it on. I did not think that this made it irrelevant, but I did go back and forth debating about whether this was essential information. Other than that, I mostly just combined lines that contained things happening in the same year and added some more Wikipedia links. I then went back to the lead and made sure that it still covered the entirety of my article. Throughout this article, I did a lot of source work. I added citations when I could find one, to apply to the citations needed tags, and I would go find some for myself when it seemed like the author would make a claim that was not supported by the source they later provided. I also took all the lists that they had and brought them to the bottom as I felt they no longer fit in their original areas. I believe I even deleted one that did not bring anything to the article. I followed through with a thorough read-through to make sure that sentences flowed and made sense. Most of my work was reorganizing sentences in a better order so I feel like some of the flow might still be choppy, but I tried to improve the transitions without adding in too much of my own writing. I wanted to improve the clarity of sentences rather than rewrite them myself. I had trouble deciding what order I would have my sections in and kept changing it up as I felt many important ones needed to be at the top. I eventually settled on the current one, believing that there would be a logical transition from one topic to another. I believe the article feels a bit more focused now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzie444 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Munch6777 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nickmurphy72903.

— Assignment last updated by Danibanani3 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories