Misplaced Pages

Talk:Yeongeunmun: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:21, 26 July 2008 editCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 edits →Third opinion: Your personal attacks again.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:58, 24 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,157 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(29 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WPKorea|class=start|importance=low|wg=history}}
{{WikiProject China|class=Start|importance=}} {{WikiProject Korea|importance=low|history=yes}}
{{WikiProject China|importance=low}}
}}
{{high-traffic|date=01 December 2007|site=2channel|url=http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1194048623/|page=talk}} {{high-traffic|date=01 December 2007|site=2channel|url=http://mobile.seisyun.net/cgi/read.cgi/society6/society6_korea_1194048623/|page=talk}}
{{Archive box|
* ] <small>(2006—2008)</small>
}}
{{Clear}}


== On the definition of Sadae ==
==Chinese text at Wikisource==
HSL, I don't wanna spend time for u, but I'm gonna give u some info.


There's a lengthy description of what Sadae is in this page even though it already has its own.
http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/read.php?board_id=phistory&nid=63282


I already cleared out some grammatical errors in the text but I'm not sure if I should take care of the redundancy as well, so I'm trying to get this article to the attention of a higher power.
]: Chinese text at Wikisource


Also every single Korean and Chinese character seems to be lengthily translated and analyzed. Isn't it excessive? ] (]) 01:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that you should learn history by yourself at first.] 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

:<small>I restored above comment and his/her signature, because it was removed by {{IPUser|220.146.187.249}} at 13:57, 3 November 2006 UTC. The just reason of this edit is here. --] 12:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)</small>

== "tributary state"? A big mistake. ==


"tributary state"? It was more like a client state. Korean king knelt for Chinese messanger 9 times to the ground, which was called Kowtow(http://en.wikipedia.org/Kowtow) back then.
This clearly shows korean's client state. It is described on "Samjeondo Monument"(http://en.wikipedia.org/Samjeondo_Monument) in Seoul.

"a symbol of respectful diplomatic policy"? No, it is not. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::: ''' acutually, korean king never 9 times to the ground to chinese messenger in history. you may confused with ]. only one time knelt ground to Qing's emperor. this is very famous japanese fabrication. your IP is japanese, too. also, japanese can not prove by public trusted source. this is one of the typical japanese fabrication. that's all. after ], manchu and korea battle was over. and manchu conquere to mainland china. chinese slaughtered and raped by manchu race. and destroyed thieir goverment by Qing and must obey manhu style culuture(like manchu hair style) but korea was not. they keep their culuture and goverment.'''
:::: also, manchu and korean are family race. Qing's former founder was korean. this proved by history of jin (金史). Jin is former dynasty of Qing. 金之始祖諱函普，初從高麗來，年已六十余矣) ('''Jin's founder was korean, he leaved korea at age 60.''')] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:::::<small>I restored a link above comment, because it was modified to by {{User|Referloose}} at 03:48, 4 October 2007. The just reason of this edit is here. --] 13:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)</small>

::::::Korea had been a vassal state of China for hundreds years as everyone knows. If korea was a independent country, why Koreans built the gate named INDEPENDECE Gate? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::: IP 85.214.86.199 is proxy IP in german. and no one can prove this fabrication. ] (]) 07:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

== Change log ==

I found the description of Yeongeunmun Gate in the "Independence Gate" article which is more accurate. So I used the words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Independence_Gate
"... Treaty of Shimonoseki. After that, Korea demolished the Yeongeunmun Gate, which had been the symbol of prevailing submissive diplomatic policy towards China, and built the Independence Gate." <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:: ae you retarded? Dongnipmun Gate (Independence Gate) was constructed in 1898 through the initiative of Dr. So Jae-pil. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:13:53:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC)|&#32;13:53:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Totally Fiction Edit==
I find This edit by ].
It's Totally Fiction. also I can't find this souce anywhere. ]

== This article is on 2channel's watchlist ==

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on the watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with ], the largest Internet forum not only in ] but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets related to the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

* Relevant articles.
**] (in ] archive380)
**] ()
** ]()

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people<br>
○ for articles with heated edit warring

{| class="wikitable collapsed collapsible" width="100%"
|+ The watchlist of 2channel editors
!width="33%"|Japan / WW2
!width="33%"|Korea
!width="33%"|Korean culture/ China
|-
|valign="top"|
*'''Articles related to Japan'''
**] ●
**] ●
**]
**] ●
**] ●
**] ●
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]

*'''Articles related to ]'''
**]
**]
**]
**]
|valign="top"|
*'''Korea related articles'''
**] ●
**] ●
**]
**]
**]
**] ○
**]○
**] ○
*''']'''
**]
**]
**]
**]
***]
***]
***]
**]
**]
**]
**] ●○
**]
**]
**]
**]
**] ●○
**] / ]
**]
**]
**]
**]
|valign="top"|
*'''Articles related to Korean culture'''
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**], ]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
*]
*]
*]
*]

*'''Articles related to China'''
**]
**]
**]
**] ●○
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
**]
|}

P.S This article, ] was "sincerely' discussed on Japanese ], so if you want to know what they talked, visit the this . I translated some. --] (]) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

==POV tag==
Appletrees, can't you present arguments logically? You placed the POV tag. It is not meant to express, "I don't like this article," but to mark a NPOV dispute. You have to ]. But you haven't.

What you have to do is to ]. As always, the stuff you put on this talk page is simply irrelevant to the supposed content dispute of the current revision. --] (]) 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:Vice versa, your removing the tag and the above comment seem to like "I don't like the tage being stuck to the article to which I dedicated."

:Nanshu, why are you so emotional? It is not a logical way for us who has different standpoint to cooperate. I tell you the reason. First, the page is totally written from Japanese point of view, you who tend to make wonderful edits to Korean related articles such as ]. There is no analysis from Korean or Chinese scholars. You try to emphasize that Joseon dynasty was not an independent nation which also has been pushed by Japanese editors here. Thus, It lacks of neutral point of view and needs more expansion by other than you. Once the article is contested by someone, you can't remove the tag whether you don't like it or not. Plus, don't resort to personal attacks. My notice on ] here is quite appropriate because the disruptions by your frineds are ongoing and you proved that your saying "I'm not related to the board" proved wrong. So your "as always" is a false accusation on me. If you wish to discuss on this article with me, please be civil as possible.--] (]) 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not vice versa. It's you who put the POV tag. As ] clearly says, the burden of proof is on you, not me. It's no wonder that the policy goes that way as long as you intend to improve articles. The tag alone does not give any substantial information about the problem to be resolved.

It's really hard to understand your logic. While guessing whay you trying to say, I made a hypothesis: the policy is not obvious to you because you do not aim to improve articles. In other words, you just try to degrade the article you don't like. This assumption explains your baffling remark.

Finally you seem to give an explanation, but as always, it doesn't make sense. I assumed that we were discussing the gate. But most of your comment is simply irrelevant. I searched for something constructive and this effort is near-worthless. Finally I found a sentence: "the page is totally written from Japanese point of view." Too obscure to discuss. The rest seems an outpouring of emotion. Maybe you try to bring a new idea to Misplaced Pages that reliability is secured by personal qualities rather than citation. If so, this is not the right place. --] (]) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:Nanshu, welcome back? Finally, you might have your summer vacation. That is good for you. (your 2channel people started being re-active recently) As always, you're putting irrelevant things on Korean related talk pages like personal attacks or biased information. Please refrain yourself from committing such behaviors if you wish to discuss with other editors. Well, we're always judged by our past behaviors and I've trying to be neutral on this article. Even I defended it to be deleted or restored from massive blanking as you might miss it. The theory of "What I don't like it" seems only apply you, ''"I don't like the tag attached to this that I wrote."'' The POV tag is not necessarily needed for immediate proof. I thought you agreed to the article is biased, because you've been very clam for months, so to me, you finally acknowledged your logical flaws. Since the overall tone of the article written by you is assertive without recent secondary sources (your souce is very outdated) and weighs ], so anyone thinks that the article is biased, he or she can put the tag. Moreover, someone challenged your source already and you intentionally styled ] kings to ] king and illustrated all kings did the ceremony. The lead written by you misleads the contents and readers, that is disruptive. Unless you're a well-known academic in the history of Korea, your bare hyperthis not can be introduced to the article because here is not your blog.--] (]) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not unusual that people initially do something without deep thought. But once it goes wrong, such naiveness is no longer accepted. Again, something concrete is required. And the burden of proof is on you.

You changed your argument as if you have had no specific reason. Is my source outdated? Hey, exactly who is challenging it? We stand on the shoulders of giants. We sometimes overturn previous work but it cannot be without clear evidence. For example, I explained at ] why Ledyard's paper is outdated. I pointed to a newly discovered map and cited a recent paper that overturned it in concrete form. I expect you to do the same thing.

And the new second point. The Joseon/Korea stuff. Does it really matter? I assume that no one questions the identification of Joseon as Korea, unlike, say, Goguryeo. So Korea is basically preferred to the unfamiliar word of Joseon. And I explained the date of the construction of gate, the clear pointer even if you don't know when the Joseon Dynasty founded. Lastly, I now added "the Joseon Dynasty" to the leading section.

And the third point. I've already pointed out below why 61.39.55.2's edits are wrong. But you reinserted the error. It's nothing but vandalism!

BTW, I suspect that you regard discussion as a game in which whoever leaves a comment at the end wins. I advice you to refrain yourself until you organize your thoughts. Dealing your random thoughts is just a waste of time. --] (]) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:{{User|Nanshu}}, you really need to refrain yourself from committing such disruptive comments. Your usual calling people who object to your biased information and attitude vandalism is nothing but all ]. You've been pointed out on such the behavior by many people here and there. As for naiveness and the links, well, so? I just confirm that you have not shown your so-called ''intelligence'' yet so far. As for the Joseon/Korea, it does matter in style. If it does not matter much, why your friends were so sensitive to how people call ] or ], ] to articles. Or people would not gather to discuss for RPC moving to China. Your last paragraph is nonsense. Blame your frequent absence, or take a deep breath to refresh your mind. Different point of view is not vandalism. Besides, I said that the NPOV tag has nothing to do with immediate burden of proof. If so, I would put <nowiki>{{OR}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{Unreferences}}</nowiki>, but is related to your writing tone and unbalanced info unsuited to Encyclopedia which should be always neutral.--] (]) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now it's too clear that the discussion with you cannot make constructive progress. I will ask for a third opinion. --] (]) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

=== Third opinion ===
Hello, a third opinion was requested, and I came here to provide one. First of all, I have read through the article, and tried making improvements were I could. It was very hard for me to get a good idea about how neutral this article is, all sources are in Korean language. And the only language I do speak having the subject is Dutch, but being a very small article without sources.

The reasons for using the template were stated to be <i>"at least two people think this biased, and you styled Joseon to Korean King."</i> I believe the latter has been resolved, it's not in the current version. An argument is stated to be that the article is written from "Japanese point of view", I have no idea if this is true, but think it's a good plan to give ] some time to back it up in one clear entry. Including references to reliable sources in English or translated to English. Pending that there is not much against having the template a bit longer.

When you want to make controversial changes to the article, try to discuss them on the talk page first. Don't editwar. ] (]) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you for your comment, Species8473. Several months has passed since I've posted a complete rewrite of this article, and ] can hardly be expected to bring substantial improvement. But OK, I give him some time.
:PS. The main source ''Keijō-fu shi'' is written in Japanese. It's concise but doesn't cite primary or secondary sources. So for convenience of reference, I added Classical Chinese documents written in Korea, which ''Keijō-fu shi'' is based on. There is little hope of getting any good English source. And I've never seen a scholarly dispute over this gate. --] (]) 13:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I give ], aka Appletrees, "some time" to back it up in one clear entry, but no improvement was made by him. Besides, he ignored the discussion below, and inserted a factual error again.

I'm really tired of wasting time for Appletrees. He spends tremendous time in unproductive activity. As his edtis on this talk page clearly demonstrate, his activity doesn't lead to improvement of the article. I think we need help from administration guys, to tackle with this kind of useless hard workers. --] (]) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Nanshu, you have the very disruptive tendency of falsely accusing opponents of vandals as well as personal attacks. That appears to be one of your fixed bad habits. Besides, when did you wait for me to improve the article? The initial objection was not by me, I've trying to be as neutral as possible. You just went off from Misplaced Pages and starts your bad habits again. I don't need to improve the the article in urgent by your definition. There are many articles that I'm interested in, and you deliberately denounce me as "useless hard worker". That is way more that personal attacks. I would not condone your disruption any more. Will see.--] (]) 23:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not owned by you and your accumulated history of Japan-Korea related articles full of biases. I will

==61.39.55.2's edits==
61.39.55.2 added a new claim that &lt;sic&gt;since 1634, stopped this kowtow performance.&lt;/sic&gt;, citing the article of the 戊辰 day, the 6th month, Injo 12, of the ''Injo Sillok''. If s/he'd read that page and the next (of the printed edition), s/he would have learnt the actual consequence. The article of the 戊辰 day just records a discussion in the court. The article of the 癸酉 day reports a counterargument given by the Chinese ambassador. And the king did do the rite of ''wu bai san koutou'' as described in the article of the 甲戌 day:
:上曉出郊外迎勅. 行五拜三叩頭禮.
--] (]) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:58, 24 February 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconKorea Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.
WikiProject iconChina Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
High traffic

On 01 December 2007, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archiving icon
Archives

On the definition of Sadae

There's a lengthy description of what Sadae is in this page even though it already has its own.

I already cleared out some grammatical errors in the text but I'm not sure if I should take care of the redundancy as well, so I'm trying to get this article to the attention of a higher power.

Also every single Korean and Chinese character seems to be lengthily translated and analyzed. Isn't it excessive? Some dunce (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Categories: