Wikipedia

Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Merge in 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

The following seems relevant in this context. --Tenmei (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This was copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa
Adding PERMANENT LINK: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you please come to discuss disputes on the talk page of Taejo of Joseon, and Joseon Tongsinsa? I deleted some unnecessary information in Taejo of Joseon about relationships with Japan added by User:Tenmei. But the user readded it and placed a lot of talks on Talk that I can not understand. He did the same to Joseon Tongsinsa. He deleted arbitrary about diplomatic mission (Tongsinsa) of Joseon Dynasty before Japanese invasions of Korea, and changed their name as old romanization. Those are history articles that need more opinion from editors who know Korean history. Please join the discussions. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

 
EX. I This diagram graphically represents one view of the articles which are proposed for merge:
A=Joseon tongsinsa
B=all missions to Japan
Although a merge headnote has been posted, no explanation for it has been provided. For me, it is difficult to guess what Historiographer had in mind when proposing the merge. At present, in the absence of any compelling arguments, I see no reason to alter the two articles.
  • Support: I suggest to merge the two articles because these articles are about the same topic about the Joseon Tongsinsa, Korea's diplomatic missions to Japan in Joseon Dynasty. I read the past discussion, but several articles were merged to here last year because of the same reason. POV fork is clearly unnecessary, but why do you split the articles? The past discussions were about rename the article to English name. But you cuted and pasted almost all of contents to your new article. Also, for changing title of article, Wikipedia:Requested moves is right course. Because Wikipedia does not allow cutting and paste page moving. You arbitrarily deleted many materials and source. You added unrelated and excessive described materials to Taejo of Joseon and named of each Korean diplomats in old Romanization for Korean articles too, and it lead to serious confusion. The articles should be in correct places to reconvey.--Historiographer (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Historiographer -- I want to avoid seeming, in your words, to add "a lot of talks on Talk that I can not understand." Briefly, responding seriatim:
  • 1. You write: "... these articles are about the same topic about the Joseon Tongsinsa, Korea's diplomatic missions to Japan in Joseon Dynasty."
Comment: No – incorrect. Can you be more specific?
  • 2. You write: "... several articles were merged to here last year because of the same reason."
Comment: No – incorrect. Can you be more specific?
  • 3. You write: "POV fork is clearly unnecessary ..."
Comment: I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?
  • 4. You write: "... why do you split the articles?"
Comment: This is already explained in the text of the articles.
  • 5. You write: "The past discussions were about rename the article to English name. But you cuted and pasted almost all of contents to your new article. Also, for changing title of article, Wikipedia:Requested moves is right course. Because Wikipedia does not allow cutting and paste page moving."
Comment: No – incorrect. This appears irrelevant, but can you be more specific?
  • 6. You write: "You arbitrarily deleted many materials and source."
Comment: No – incorrect. Can you be more specific?
  • 7. You write: "You added unrelated and excessive described materials to Taejo of Joseon ..."
Comment: No – incorrect. Can you be more specific? I would have thought that this discussion thread probably belongs at Talk:Taejo of Joseon, not here?
  • 8. You write: "[You] ... named of each Korean diplomats in old Romanization for Korean articles too, and it lead to serious confusion. The articles should be in correct places to reconvey.
Comment: No – incorrect. See below ....
Historiographer, please understand that the manner in which this continues to unfold is entirely up to you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Historiographer -- Please clarify which of the two articles is construed as non-notable. Please explain why you hold this view? --Tenmei (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Support See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseon_tongsinsa (This is a same repetition happening). Tenmei should explain why the article is divided into two article as if the diplomatic missions and Joseon Tongsinsa are totally different topics. The article underwent a AFD discussion and the result was 'merge'. Since the article is a notable topic in both Japanese and Korean history, collaboration from consensus is essential to build the article. Please use WP:RM first instead of cut-and-paste move/split if you think you don't like the previous name. It is very regretful to see that my contributions are totally erased from the article and I'm the subject of personal attacks again as seen in above threads.--Caspian blue 22:57, 17 September 2009
  • Support I have been asked to comment. The main reason for my support is the diagram Tenmei provides. The best way to discuss the tongsinsa missions is in the context of other relations with Japan. I have no intention of editing the article though, so I don't feel that too much weight should be placed on my comment. Taemyr (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the diagram is accurate; and yes, Taemyr's intuitive reasoning has superficial appeal. However this logical analysis becomes irrelevant in the context established by the text of these two articles and the research which informs each. The unsupported contributions to this article by Caspian blue and Historiographer have been clarified and corrected by research. Taemyr misconstrues WP:Burden to require that I disprove each flawed factoid which was wrongly incorporated in this article before referencing this policy. Despite the fact that Taemyr's view is 180° askew, I have done just that step by step by step. Therefore, applying topsy-turvy Bizarro World wiki-logic, the utility of WP:Burden shifts. --Tenmei (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You deleted contents supported by Korean academics (my source from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture is mostly written by academics), so please do not disparage my contribution based on such untruth.--Caspian blue 15:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Caspian blue -- Extravagant language is off-topic. Your sentence contrives a non-issue. Perhaps you might want to move this sentence to another thread where it can be addressed without distracting from the subject, which has to do with Historiographer's merge proposal. --Tenmei (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your allegation is not truth. As long as you're misqleading my contributions, I have a valid right to state my position or to demand to retract your false assessment. --Caspian blue 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Again, off-topic. If you want to move this to another thread, fine. Otherwise, I will not comment further. --Tenmei (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hardly an off-topic in the whole dispute since you're misquoting me for your reply to Taemyr like The unsupported contributions to this article by Caspian blue and Historiographer have been clarified and corrected by research. --Caspian blue 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Tenmei you misunderstand me if you think I claim that you have to disprove troublesome statements. What I am saying, and all that I am saying, is that you have to be clear on which statements you object to. I fail to see how the presence or lack of sourcing matters for wether or not we should have two seperate articles, provided both topics meet WP:N. Taemyr (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
 
EX. II This diagram graphically represents an alternate view of the articles which are proposed for merge:
A=all missions to Japan
B=tongsinsa to Japan
Taemyr -- Thank you. This was helpful, both in terms of this specific thread and elsewhere. Until I encountered Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:BURDEN at the article level, I had not considered parsing WP:V and WP:N independently in the context of WP:AfD, nor had I understood that this could be germane in a merge proposal context. Am I correct in restating the issue in this way -- Historiographer's proposed merge needs to clarify which article is construed as non-notable per WP:N and why? --Tenmei (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, that would not be correct. A merger should be carried out if two topics are better treated in a single article, like what is the case here, even if both topics are notable. Taemyr (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Taemyr -- Aha. Then my short argument is this: There should be no merger because the two distinct topics are better treated in separate articles. Both topics are notable, but not congruent. --Tenmei (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am aware that they are not congruent. I do not see why this means that we should treat them in separate articles. Discussion of tongsinsa missions belong in the more general articles that covers all diplomatic missions since this provides important context to our readers. Taemyr (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Tenmei, the two articles are almost duplicated articles. And during Joseon Dynasty, there was other diplomatic missions to Japan. So I do not believe two articles about one same topic is unnecessary. I ask you. Why you split the article to two? You did not say your reason. -Historiographer (talk)
Historiographer -- It would be helpful if you would acknowledge and comment with specifics. See my earlier requests for clarification of your earlier posting. See above -- dated 17 Sept and 18 Sept. --Tenmei (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am unsure what you mean here, do you mean where you ask Historiographer to detail which article he suggests are non-notable. If this is the case note my reply here. As far as I am aware Historiographer has at no point indicated that he thinks either of the subjects are non-notable. That is not in itself a reason not to merge. The reason provided for the merge is (1) the two topics intermesh and it's not reasonable to discuss it without discussing the other, and (2) that there is significant overlap between the two topics. The relevant howto guide is WP:merge. Taemyr (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Historiographer -- Since Taemyr is unsure, I re-state: What you wrote in your Support here caused questions. I asked for explanations and more specificity here -- see above:
As anyone can see, Taemyr makes good points; but unfortunately, the reasoning is based on mere theories. This thread needs specifics, not conclusory generalizations. This discussion needs the kind of necessary information which informs good judgment. I'm simply trying to elicit the kind of detail which clarifies assumptions which are part of this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Burden

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

Historiographer has substituted unverified names for established English spelling. The following edits are very likely correct, but they are also unexplained.

  • diff 14:28, 17 September 2009 Historiographer (20,132 bytes) (→17th-19th century diplomatic ventures)
  • diff 14:25, 17 September 2009 Historiographer (20,136 bytes) (→15th-16th century diplomatic ventures)

Despite assumptions of good faith, the fact-of-the-matter is plain: In each instance, the edits effectively deleted the established English spelling which was supported with an explicit source citation. As WP:V expressly requires:

  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

It is not unreasonable to ask that the established English spelling be supported by a specific, verifiable source citation. In this way, the corollary articles about these Joseon envoys can be modified accordingly. As WP:Burden expressly requires:

  • The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale.

It is not enough that Historiographer's edits are understood by him/her alone.

Each established English spelling must be shown to be verifiable as is required by WP:V. An assumption of good faith is not the same thing as an assumption about accuracy.

These legitimate questions are reasonable in light of unsupported additions which were posted in the past, e.g., here. It took a great deal of time and work to resolve the serial problems Historiographer's earlier edit presented.

Assuming that that Historiographer's revised romanizations were verifiable by sources not yet online, I created re-directs to articles with alternate spellings backed up by credible sources which were online. However, now is the time to show that such fragile assumptions were justified.

The following makes expresses presents the problems in a graphic format:

1428

1439

1636

1655

1682: Yun Jiwan,[1] also known as Yun Chiwan[2]

1711: Jo Tae-eok,[3] also known as Cho T'aeŏk[4]

1719

1748

1764: Jo Eom,[5], also known as Cho Ŏm[6]

In the absence of credible source citations, assumptions become demonstrably unjustified. --Tenmei (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tenmei, first of all, thank you for creating all the article of Korean diplomats. Some of them are notable figures aside from the Joseon Tongsinsa missions (that is only part of their careers), so creations of articles on them are really helpful to Korean Project. However, those do not follow the Korean naming convention. Except North Korea-related subjects, all Korea-related articles follow Revised Romanization of Korean. South Korean government has officially adopted the method since 2000, so academics are slow to use it while many scholars still prefer to use McCune–Reischauer. However, since naming convention and MoS are to organize Korean subjects in a consistent way, please respect the naming convention. Moreover, you can easily confirm on whether Historiographer's changes of the names, you can compares the two Romanization methods. 정 in Korean is rendered as "Jeong" in Revised Romanization (a.k.a RR), Chōng in McCune–Reischauer (a.k.a MR). Moreover as for Jo Eom, well here are sources with the Romanization on his name.[1][2] Those look pretty good sources, so you can use them for the article. Even if supposed that Jo Eom was a North Korean in nowadays, the article could not be at Cho Ŏm because the Korean naming convention does not use diacritics for the title except the entry in the Korean name infobox. For example, the right Romanization of Kim Jong-il in McCune–Reischauer is Kim Chŏng-il, not Kim Jong-il. You see the diacritic is not used for his name.--Caspian blue 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The established English spelling of names which have been posted were each explicitly verified. Searching online for the unsourced names posted here and here was an difficult exercise because the available online references did not mirror the posted spelling nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles).
The progress my work has brought in the on-going process of improving articles about Korea's foreign policy is not insignificant. However, my small successes do little to diminish the essential issues and problems which existed before I took on this project. I hope you will understand that no unproductive WP:Ownership is demonstrated by simply acknowledging the continuing difficulty.
The research invested thus far encourages me to ask again: Where are citations which confirm the following established English spelling of these names? In a sense, my point is illustrated by the red names in this list which no longer link to articles which do exist. A redirect will resolve the color, but what about the need for a terse citation -- just one per name? If this is now unnecessary, why? When did it become unnecessary?
Do you begin to see that these are not an unreasonable questions. The explicit evidence of my work in creating the articles about these historical figures underscores the need for just one more step. If not, why not? I would hope that the persistence of this issue now explained sufficiently? --Tenmei (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I already gave two reliable sources on Jo Eom in Revised Romanization just for example to show that Historiographer's change is indeed correct, so at least you could've removed Jo Eom from the checklist. If somebody is not certain about Korean naming convention, a common practice to confirm it is to request for checking Korean Romanization on something to WT:Korea. You've said you can not read Korean, so a fast way to confirm on whether Historiographer's change of names is correct or not is to get inputs from Korean readers who know Korean naming conventions pretty well. Please also tone down your argument and let's avoid saying inflammatory comments since we all know what we have been through. --Caspian blue 01:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You do seem to miss the point, but if you would just restate the citations so that I can re-copy them in the appropriate articles .... A good step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if I missed your point, but please summarize your concern more succinctly for me. Weren't you saying about the unverified Romanization on the listed diplomats? --Caspian blue 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
No need for summary. No need for explanations about romanization nor for analysis of contemporary North Korea-South Korea disputes. Just looking for verification of established English spelling of names, and that verification is not readily available using Google Books search. If you don't want to invest the effort, fine; but I don't expect anyone will agree to conflate your personal decision-making process with something else.
The work which Historiographer now attacks was scrupulously researched and explicitly compliant with WP:V and established English spelling as explained at WP:KO-NC. What I've written above makes that plain.
In effect, your argument calls for deleting the spelling of names which are supported by published citations; and you would construe consensus-derived MOS as a reason for the substitution of names which are not explicitly supported in a like manner.
As for "tone" and "inflammatory" .... No. Who's kidding who? There is no justification for introducing these terms. My tentative strategy for dealing with this characteristic, knee-jerk distraction is to demand specifics; and in consequence, the suggestive force of your extravagant language may evaporate. No. You seek to contrive a dispute where none exists. --Tenmei (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Tenmei, I've never claimed to delete names, but they would be redirects to articles of the Korean diplomats styled according to the naming convention. Your insistence against the existing the guideline just prolongs the unnecessary dispute. If you're so unpleasant to use the naming convention, then you're welcome to raise to change the existing Korean naming convention. However, the result would be slim or nil for your wish since your claim would affects 8300 articles. I invested my time to provide two reliable sources on "Jo Eom" and checked on why my Korean sources and contributions are deleted. I am also willing to provide reliable Korean sources and a site to change Korean to the Revised Romnaization.
By the way, who is your mentor? You're supposed to be assisted by (a) mentor(s) by WP:ArbCom whenever you're in a position of disputing with other editors. That is one of your ArbCom probation. I think we can take good advice from him/her since your edits cause some concerns from several editors. Taemyr already pointed out your tone is not adequate for developing the article, and I have the very right to say about your tone, since your attacks to me, Historiographer, and even Taemyr above are concerning. When I totally was absent to avoid you (you said Caspian blue feigned blah blah...and 7 occassions). I've been well of your beach of the ban, but I did not report you to WP:AE. I politely asked you to refrain from your way of argument, so please don't push to your boundary any more.--Caspian blue 14:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is not about MOS, not about romanization Are you deliberately missing the point as a strategy? If not, perhaps the 1st paragraph of this thread will clarify. --Tenmei (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your argument is hard to figure out what it is, so if others interpret otherwise unlike your intention, that is your onus to clarify it for others to clearly understand you. I've asked you to do so, and you refused it. I also left a question about your mentor to rectify the tame dispute.--Caspian blue 15:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This isn't complicated. Here is an illustrative example of this issue handled easily.

  • (Move log); 15:27 . . Tenmei moved Talk:Cho T'aeŏk to Talk:Jo Tae-eok (conforming spelling of name of this historical figure to conventions of WP:MikiProject Korea MOS)
  • (Move log); 15:27 . . Tenmei moved Cho T'aeŏk to Jo Tae-eok over redirect (conforming spelling of name of this historical figure to conventions of WP:MikiProject Korea MOS)

Again, I direct attention to the first paragraph of this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you're asked me to look up the first paragraph again, I think it is hardly a matter of WP:V since the naming convention is easily identified within Wikipedia and you know two Romanizations have been used for Korean subjects. I think Historiographer's unexplained edits to this article are more of Help:Edit summary. However, you also noticed that three articles of Korean diplomats were moved by him,[3][4][5] and his edits to the article were after the move, so it is not a rocket science to figure out his edits were to follow the naming convention. You can ask him to leave edit summary whenever he would expect to receive reputes from other editors--Caspian blue 15:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Established English spelling

edit
Shortcut

Historiographer continues to change names of diplomats in this article; but other than the comments by proxy Caspian blue, no explanation or rationale has been presented in this thread which would justify those changes. As I construe Caspian blue's reasoning, MOS would seem to be elevated over WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RS in this article. If this is the case, why not express this point-of-view explicitly?

In this instance, I note this issue is addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Romanization of names: "If there is ... no established English spelling, then Revised Romanization should be used for South Korean and pre-1945 Korean names, McCune-Reischauer for North Korean names." In the changes made to this article and to each of the articles about Joseon diplomats which have been created in recent months, Historiographer now replaces established, published, verifiable and cited name spellings. This is not reasonable in a context which includes refusal to participate in this thread,

Moreover, Historiographer clarifies the case by explicitly introducing contemporary politics in edit summaries cited by Caspian blue above, e.g, Go Deuk-jong, Bak Hui-jung and Jo Eom. --Tenmei (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tenmei, where is your mentor supposed to be assigned by ArbCom as the probation? I've politely asked you several times, but you have intentionally refused to answer to my question but instead gave uncivil replies. I think your mentor should appear to mediate here. If you do not have any mentor yet, this is a matter of questioning to WP:ArbCom's role and duty. I'm not sure why you're creating unnecessary dramas with the Korean naming convention, not assuming good faith. Great. I've been asked to give my input to your unilateral splitting of the article and some questionable edits to Korea-related articles. Since you've questioned about the Korean naming convention, I have tried to make your understand it. The established Korean name means that subjects of some biography articles use their own way of "Anglonized styles" such as Kim Jong-il (not Kim Chǒng-il) or Lee Byung Chull (not I Byeong-cheol or Yi Byeong-cheol or Yi Pyǒng-ch'ǒl). The "one or two" books with the McCune Romanization on the non-notable diplomats (many of articles that you created are not non-notable) is not "established naming convention" on the Korean figures. Please do not event non-existent convention for Korean articles. If you're unhappy with it, please raise your concern to the pertinent project talk page. Korean articles follow the convention, but why do you argue that your created articles should be exceptional?--Caspian blue 15:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Caspian blue -- There is no incivility in simply asking for a citation to support any changes in this article or any other. As I have explained in several different ways above, I construe established English spelling to be mean published, verifiable and cited name spellings. This is reasonable, and it is consistent with WP:NC-KO.
I am neither questioning nor disputing any conventions. You complain about a confrontation where none exists; and the issues I raise are only re-packaged as controversial by you. As I have clarified in several examples above, this matter is easily resolved in a manner anticipated at WP:Burden and WP:V. --Tenmei (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
There is no controversies (Tenmei, such the hyperbolic exaggeration does not help you for anything) on my part because articles about pre-1945 including this and other Korean diplomats should follow the naming convention based on the Revised Romanization. So no need for further misunderstanding on the simple practice or for overriding exceptions because you do not approve the Korean convention and follow it? Hmm..I've patiently explained to you about the convention many times, and validly asked you for the existence of your mentor since the trivial discussion(?) is going toward nowhere. Your mentor could assist you and other editors here to end this side-topic about the naming convention. One admin who knows the history of the article very well called this dispute "tame" and not even a debate.[6] So, please do not make unnecessary dramas any more but focus on the "merge discussion" up there. You're the only one supporting for your unilateral splitting.Caspian blue--19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Off-topic commentary is unhelpful. This thread is focused, on-point and reasonable in light of the abundantly cited research which informs it; however,
  • A. Historiographer's non-participation becomes notable in this context.
  • B. Caspian blue's non-responsive words are unrelated to WP:NC-KO, which also becomes notable in this context.
This does not appear to be a genuine misunderstanding, but what is it? --Tenmei (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Cultural Heritage Administration, Name of Cultural Properties, Yakjojechalbi (Stele of agreement), 2006.
  2. ^ Walraven, p. 361.
  3. ^ Kim, Tae-Jun. (2006). Korean Travel Literature. p. 119.
  4. ^ Walraven], p. 361; OCLC 84067437 -> Titsingh, p. 416.
  5. ^ 염정섭 (Yeom Jeong-Seop). 조선 후기 고구마의 도입과 재배법의 정리 과정 ("The Introduction of Sweet Potatoes and the Development of Cultivation Methods during Late Joseon Korea"), 韩国史硏究 No. 134, January 2006. pp. 111-147.
  6. ^ Wiwŏnhoe], Yunesŭkʻo Hanʼguk. (2004). Korean History: Discovery of Its Characteristics and Developments, p. 305.

Stub

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has over 30 in-line citations and a dozen bibliographic reference sources cited; and yet it is still considered a stub. This oversight needs to be remedied.

The significance of this article is also unclear or undetermined at this point. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Measured response to confrontational strategy

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The salutary WP:AGF is axiomatic; but the combination of Historiographer's serial edits and refusal to participate in any talk page discussion threads make that axiom unworkable. The question becomes: What next?

The tactics which are demonstrated in edits of this article are played out across a range of articles. The commonalities of those tactical choices are evidence of a strategy. In other words, the accumulation specific data sets equals strategy; and in the list of articles above, Historiographer makes that strategy explicit. Dealing with the consequences of that explicit strategy becomes unavoidable.

Investment in confrontation strategy
When Historiographer invites special caution and care by posting the following phrase: "... placed a lot of talks on Talk that I can not understand."

  • A. diff 14:45, 31 August 2009 Historiographer (10,082 bytes) (→Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa.: new section)
  • B. diff 14:45, 31 August 2009 Historiographer (10,081 bytes) (→Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa.) (undo)
  • C. diff 14:51, 31 August 2009 Historiographer (10,103 bytes) (→Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa.) (undo)

I explicitly acknowledged Historiographer's claimed inability to understand, e.g., here and here. For redundant, unmistakable emphasis, I posted this sentences on September 17th:

"Historiographer -- I want to avoid seeming, in your words, to add 'a lot of talks on Talk that I can not understand'."

In addition, I invested time in parsing the text Historiographer had posted; and I explicitly identified the elements which I did not understand. Also, after each questioned fragment, I added a short specific suggestion, "Can you be more specific?"

The edit history of this talk page shows that my effort was ignored. Historiographer did not invest an equivalent amount of time in trying to engage any specific issue, in trying to develop a working relationship, in trying to establish meaningful communication. Nor was there any acknowledgment of my constructive work. Instead, these were Historiographer's edits at WP:WikiProject Korea which frame needless conflict based on conclusory generalities:

  • D. diff 14:28, 2 September 2009 Historiographer (9,065 bytes) (→Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa)
  • E. diff 14:29, 2 September 2009 Historiographer (9,066 bytes) (→Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa)

Investment in JPOV strategy
At the same time, the explicit JPOV strategy list was posted on Historiographer's userpage under the heading "Addition edit plans":

Sub-heading: JPOV doubt
Sub-heading: Created by the Japanese user
JPOV list expanded

Rather than addressing specifics, Historiographer contrives an explicit confrontational strategy. In addition, Historiographer explicitly detail a strategy which encompasses a number of related articles.

Investing in measured response
What is a constructive response? This is an unavoidable, confrontational situation which has developed slowly despite my constructive, citation-driven contributions to this article and other related ones:

STEP ONE
What I did do was to adopt a counter-strategy based on a marriage of the Emperor's New Clothes and the Elephant in the room. I effected this counter-strategy by creating a "JPOV section" on the talk pages for each article Historiographer listed -- see above here.
STEP TWO
When "tag-team" co-combatant Caspian blue reverted the Talk:Yeo Ui-son#JPOV doubt, the edit summary explained its rationale here -- removing duplicated WP:SOAPBOXing per WP:TALK.

In response, I did restored the deleted text here; and I tried to explain why I believed deletion was not the best course to adopt.

STEP THREE
A broader perspective was introduced at Talk:Yeo Ui-son#Context. I explicitly explained the elements of the counter-strategy here. Subsequent thread development at Talk:Yeo Ui-son#Removed original research, incorrect, irrelevant information veered towards reasoned, constructive engagement with specific, citation-driven discussion about how best to improve the quality of the article about this 15th century Yangban scholar-bureaucrat.
STEP FOUR
In light of what I deduced there was to be learned from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 7#Edit war at Joseon Dynasty (permanent link), the usefulness of one-sided talk pages appeared increasingly problematic, e.g.,
Talk:Joseon missions to Imperial China (permanent link as of 05:57, 18 October 2009)
  • 1 Synthesis
  • 2 JPOV doubt
o 2.1 1st revert
o 2.2 2nd revert
o 2.3 3rd revert
o 2.4 4th revert
I added shortcut-links boxes to the policy pages which I thought were arguably relevant and helpful. I had used this as a communication device at Talk:Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop where it was not as effective as I would have wanted, but it was not considered inappropriate or wrong. I believed that shortcut-links were arguably useful in identifying common ground. I reasoned that shortcut-links could be helpful when the discussion threads were mired in a Gordian Knot of cross-purposes. I theorized that shortcut-links might be useful with complicated apples and oranges issues.
Rjanag reverted these edits, construing them as "disruptive tagging." I did not guess that posting shortcuts might be perceived as controversial or disruptive. In Rjanag's opinion, I was wrong; and I will be guided by that opinion in future.
STEP FIVE
This summary and analysis was written in hopes that it will lead towards something more constructive.
In light of Rjanag's comment and Historiographer's reply at User talk:Historiographer#Edit warring again, I posted a cautiously non-specific, unrevealing, neutral ping at User:Rjanag#Assister. I did anticipate that Rjanag was likely to check my recent contributions, but I did not expect the shortcuts boxes to be construed as "disruptive tagging."

Looking towards the future
My challenge continues to be how best to balance on a narrowing path? how best to remain constructive, moderate, responsive, and non-confrontational?

The New York Times reports that Japanese contributions in Wikipedia venues have fallen off. I can't answer that question, but part of the analysis needs to include a better understanding of the lessons to be learned from the tale of the Blind men and an elephant.

Bottom line: I can't understand how it escapes anyone that JPOV is a red flag. This is not a problem of my making, nor this within my ability to resolve independently. --Tenmei (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tag-team? I'm sick and tired of your long-term disruptive behaviors motivated by your usual bad faith which has led to your ArbCom sanction. I have to clean up your mess including original research and incorrect information on Korean related articles. Here is an encyclopedia, not for your battle field, so if you can not face the fact, then "please find a suitable place" for you and everyone else just like many people said to you on your ArbCom page. However, you can not dare to revert the admin's removals of your disruptive tagging campaign, but you reverted my one time removal of your soapboxing and canvassing on the talk page of Talk:Yeo Ui-son (you incorrectly named "Yeo Ui-gye by the way) because you think you're free to mock me even though "you're banned to comment about me". I wonder why did you not call the admin's removals "tag-team" just like you did? I was asked to help the situation because I know you and you're disrupting the articles with unreasonable reasons like your disregard to Korean naming convention. You also have moved your usual harassment behavior from me to another Korean editor for whatever agenda you have. You also created Goryeo missions to Imperial China just because you chased my and the other editor's recent contributions. If you do not like your created articles of Korean subjects are challenged by Korean editors, then "abide by" WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and read WP:MoS. Remember, the talk page is supposed to assist to improve the article, not to soapbox or interrogate your opponents. For one more time, where is your mentor? --Caspian blue 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Caspian blue -- Perhaps you might want to consider the bare assertion fallacy? Ipse dixit? Ipse-dixitism? Perhaps it will be useful to put this in a broader context than just this one article, e.g.,
Timeline: 21 Aug 2008 ... 23 Aug 2008 ... today ...? --Tenmei (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, I said the induction not only from your allegation to the admin who reverted your disruptive tagging but also long observation on your behavioral pattern. I would appreciate that you are ready to answer to my repeated question: Where is your assigned mentor from ArbCom? When you're making bogus allegations, then you're responsible for that. --Caspian blue 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Moreover, posting the 12 non-existent entries do mean nothing to explain about your creation of Goryeo missions to Imperial China. Timing is a clue to tell many things.--Caspian blue 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Restatement

edit

My contributions to this thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

Can't we all agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Joseon Tongsinsa. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseon_Tongsinsa&oldid=1212605852"