Talk:Gyeogam Yurok

uncertain notability, possible hoax
Dear User:Elinruby,

the Doopedia is not an hoax, it's rather a notable encyclopedia and a reliable source

the Encyclopedia of Korean National Culture is not an hoax, it's rather a notable encyclopedia and a reliable source

the Korean Wikipedia is not an hoax, it's rather a tentative encyclopedia, no more no less than the English-speaking Wikipedia. But, horresco referens, no more no less reliable than the English-speaking Wikipedia, and therefore exiled from the sources section and relegated to the see also section.

Best regards, Pldx1 (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to suggest that the Korean Wikipedia is a hoax. I was referring to the paragraph in the article that says that the book of prophecy that is the subject of the article has been called a hoax. It is unclear, at least to me, by whom. I bring up the Korean Wikipedia because each language has its own standards and I have been trying to get a slightly different standard in place for translations, since for example my translations from French, while good translations, tend to fail verifiability in a number of ways since the French tend to assume great familiarity with certain material such as the history of its revolution. And I don’t know about you, but I work by translating first then addressing these problems so I have had quite a number of talks with the editors who delete new articles that they feel have too many flaws. Bottom line, I am on your side here, especially since I see that you have produced quite a number of good articles we probably would not otherwise have. But. If it is in fact a translation from the Korean Wikipedia, the article needs to show this either on the talk page or in an edit summary. I did not see one, and this is important for preventing legal problems. If this is confusing I will find you a how-to page or some examples. It is also in the interest of the article to so label it because it will help prevent the article from being deleted while you are working on it. I myself I am not pushing to delete this article but someone will eventually if you simply delete my template. But you are free to do so if you choose; I have no particular authority here except that I have previously had some of the problems I am warning you about. If I can help you please do let me know. Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have created this article from scratch because I hadn't the impression that the ko:wp one could be used as a backbone to organize knowledge about Nan Sago, his own writings, and the writings that were, later, attributed to him.
 * There is  published in 1923
 * Then an old book from 1941
 * Then an incubation (started 1961) from  and 
 * Then ...
 * All of this comes above and mask what could have been transmitted from the original collected papers of Nam Sago himself. And one cannot ignore the buzz made about the "Park-prophecy" in the "Jo should become King" way of doing. And the appearance of Nam Sago in some dramas, etc. Therefore starting with a sound backbone was more appealing. Pldx1 (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that you are speaking to someone with no knowledge of this book, or of Korean either, and I am probably typical of an en.wiki reader in this. I don’t understand a lot of what you just said, but I think part of it is that you think the Korean article is badly structured, and you think you are writing a better article than exists on the Korean Wikipedia, and so it is not a translation. This is fine with me and for all I know is entirely true. My point however was simply that if it was a translation, or contained translation, attribution should be given. I haven’t looked at this article in several days, and only glanced at it just now, but I noticed that you now have footnotes in addition to the sources, a good step forward that I was going to suggest. However one of them is the Korean Wikipedia, right? So perhaps you still should have the template, since someone is going to take exception to a footnote to Wikipedia, and apparently you do draw from the Korean article. But this is a more minor issue that the previous lack of any references. I think you are moving out of the condition where someone will try to delete, especially since you are responsive and actively improving the article. I will take a good look at the article later and make some further suggestions. Oh and I didn’t get back to you the last time I looked, but those two sources look quite good. I think one of them might be equivalent to the French Bibliotheque Nationale (National Library)? If so, yes, a very good source. Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

About templating
Dear User:John B123. You have said: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. But this only looks as a sequence of weasel words. If you are challenging any material here, then be sufficiently kind to tell which sentences you are challenging. If you think that 3 citations to three different encyclopedias, plus an in-deep analysis in a notable newspaper is not a sufficient number of references for a 4 sentences stub, then be sufficient kind to tell how many references are required, in your opinion. Pldx1 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Doosan Encyclopedia/doopedia is not a reliable source as it can be user edited.
 * This book was criticized as a forgery (Kim Hawon 1995) since it contained many elements branded as anachronisms and In any case, an exemplary of this book is kept in the National Library of Korea are both unreferenced.
 * If you think refimprove is just a "sequence of weasel words" then I suggest you take it up with the creators. --John B123 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * to be fair, there are footnotes now, where there were no sources at all before. Progress is being made. But you are of course correct. Since you are here, perhaps you have an opinion on my comments above. I am in this as a wikignome who frequently deals with foreign-language material. I see you frequently in uncatagorized articles. I was suggesting one of the translation templates, but says the article is not using the structure of the Korean article and so is not a translation. I don’t know the solution to this, since I personally usually start with a translation, but I think, if that material was found in the ko.wiki, the answer may be a section version of the translated template. I know there is one, I just don’t usually use it myself. I will go look it up, then explain that you are right about the need for references. Meanwhile, you should note that one of the sources is in fact the Korean National Library, so conceivably this can be footnoted. Elinruby (talk)


 * My mistake, was conflating with the Academy source. It does look very reliable, but it’s not the National Library.


 * the documentation for the translation template is here: Template:Translated page I did not find anything specifically geared to sections, but the next time you edit that section you could use a variation on the suggested edit summary, so:
 * “Material in this section is derived from the corresponding page of the Korean Wikipedia. See the history there for attribution”. This is non-negotiable, really and truly. You should also put the translated template on the talk page. Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Other issues
Remember, you are talking to people who don’t know anything about this. Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is Lee Do-eun
 * Who was Nam Sago (1509-1571), styled Gyeogam.
 * who is Kim Hawon

Do It Yourself
'Do It Yourself' is the topmost pillar of a crowd sourced work. Pldx1 (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If User:Elinruby want more than Nam Sago (1509-1571), styled Gyeogam was a scholar of the Joseon period of Korea. He was well versed in mechanics, feng shui, astronomy, fighting, and physiognomy. And he was already known for poems and prose with prophetic intents, then User:Elinruby is allowed to work harder on the topic. Moreover, this article WAS NOT written using the ko:wp article. so what ?
 * If User:John B123 has difficulties with MOSORDER, then User:John B123 can reorder the sections as he wants. Moreover, is suffices to read the sources given, to see that Jeong 2009 was also a reference for the next two sentences. So what ?
 * Home work (about Kim Hawon): 김하원, 『조작된 위대한 가짜 예언서 격암유록』 (서울: 도서출판 만다라, 1995). 2004년. 에 『격암유록은 가짜 정감록은 엉터리 송하비결은?』이라는 제목의 개정 증보판이 나왔 다. 이 책이 나오기 전가지 출판된 주요 저서는 다음과 같다. 김은태 편, 『正道令 : 韓國


 * Sigh. I have been trying to help you. It may amaze you to know that I have other projects which preclude learning to read Korean any time soon. Good luck with your attempt to bully en.wikipedia into hosting your cryptic and indecipherable content. You are in the english wikipedia and English speakers should be able to read your article at a minimum. As for so what: if you did *not* (emphasis yours) use the Korean wikipedia, then why do you give it as a source? I have my own article to reference and have concluded that you are a waste of time and processing cycles. As far as I am concerned anyone who wants to can speedy delete the article. Peace out. Elinruby (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the article you are criticizing. The Korean Wikipedia is not given as a source. But only mentioned in the "see also section". Pldx1 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Do It Yourself' is the topmost pillar of a crowd sourced work, but it's not part of Five pillars. 'Do It Yourself' does not justify non-adherence to policies and guidelines and expecting others to clean-up after you. --John B123 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What a great joke!
Dear User:Elinruby. The sentence an exemplary of this book is kept in the National Library of Korea is backed to the weekly edition of the Kyunghyang Shinmun, a major daily newspaper published in South Korea. But your comment is "unreliable source", tabloid. Are you saying that the book is stored somewhere else (maybe in the US), and the news paper is purposely lying? Or is this only an example of some systemic bias ? Moreover, confusing the Korean Wikipedia and the Doosan Encyclopedia is rather surprising. Do you have a (reliable) source for that ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read:WP:Reliable sources. This is not a joke. The onus is on you once challenged. You do not seem to understand that both your article and your comments are almost impossible to understand. Feel free to share your sense of humor at the reliable sources notice board. Do not remove the tags without addressing them. Elinruby (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any significance whatsoever to a book being kept in the National Library of Korea? Many countries national libraries keep copies of all published works, as a matter of policy. See the Wikipedia Legal deposit article for an explanation.109.157.106.253 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear User: 109.157.106.253. When a manuscript is kept in the Ancient Books section of the National Library of Korea, this implies (or at least seems to imply) a work from the ancient times. This pseudo-implication was used to create a whoaw effect. But Kim Hawon proved that the manuscript was only stored here due to the fact that it was an old-fashioned bound manuscript, with a seam on the side, and was only received in 1977, as the copy of another (undisclosed) work. More details can be read in quite all the references I have given, the Jeong Yong-in article among them. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Korean wikipedia is not an external link
This is not considered an external link. I have set up interlanguage links for you. This is the preferred syntax. The ":ko:" links you have under external links are acceptable, but in-text need to be piped. The one to the author's name is indicating that an English article exists, which turns out to be this one. Apparently someone has set up a redirect, but that is a separate issue. The reason why it is better to use the ILL template is that it indicates the existence of an article in another language, the [ko] part, while the english red link puts it on a list of articles that en.wiki doesn't have. I would like you to verify that these links go to the correct page of the Korean wikipedia, then delete their entries under external links. It looks to me like they do, but I do not want to delete work I cannot re-create Elinruby (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I just clicked the external link in the External Links section. The University of Hawaii Press is a reliable source, so you could use this as a reference, perhaps. I do not currently see its relevance unless it is a sample of the book in question, so I am not going to attempt this myself, but a university press is a reliable source, generally. Elinruby (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretense about copyvio
Dear User:Elinruby. You can pile on every comment you want in the "just add another tag" section. But your pretense that part of my work could be a copyvio (from the ko:wp, or from anywhere else) is simply false... and rather inflamatory. You should stop doing that. Or provide precise comparisons, but there is a reason why you are not sustaining your accusations with precise comparisons. Pldx1 (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not a violation of copyright to translate from one wikipedia to another. Perhaps this is why you so frantically resist the designation. It merely requires the template that I have put on the page for you. You're welcome. Elinruby (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not remove maintenance tags
Unless, of course, you feel you have addressed the issue. They are there to attract editors who may improve the article, which is still extremely marginal, whatever you may think. Also the translate template is REQUIRED and is not remotely derogatory. It merely protects Wikipedia from lawsuits if the translated article complies with fair use provisions of the original Wikipedia but not en.wikipedia. I have to look up the syntax again, which is annoying, but I will be doing so and will escalate this if it is removed again.

I know you deny having translated, so perhaps you do not understand that this applies if any part of the article is translated. And I am sorry but I simply do not believe that you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate. Also, it is in fact a rough translation, as it is almost indecipherable, and possibly another Korean speaker can improve it, since you apparently cannot see the need to do so. This template is also used for articles written by those who do not speak English as well as they think they do, which certainly seems to apply here. I am losing patience with  your obstructive edits. Elinruby (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

styled Gyeogam
I am unclear as to what this means in the lead. Where I have seen "styled" before is in articles about French aristocrats with very long eight-part last names, who are "styled" Lieutenant something. If that is what it means here, the structure of the sentence implies this. But since the word is in the title of the book it seems possible that it is the *book* that is so styled. I can probably make the sentence clearer if you will let me know which one it means. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe I may have fixed this. I suppose the title of the book means something like The Tale of Gyeogam? I would appreciate confirmation that my edit, which makes this clearer, is correct. If not, I apologize and would ask you to try again to explain. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * tale, styled himself, how inventive. Either you have sources (it would be surprising, but who knows?) or you better avoid such inventiveness! Pldx1 (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am just trying to read your writing. If that is not what it means, please feel free to inform us what it is that you are trying to say. The issue here is that I can't understand it, nor can I verify it, but let us say it could conceivably be verified if I spoke Korean. Giving you the benefit of that doubt, it is still an article about book that *may* have been written by someone, that someone else published, we don't know who, and maybe it is a forgery, assuming that the reference is a reliable source, which you still have not shown. And that contains random text which you refuse to explain. If you aren't trying to communicate, why write an article at all? If I have not understood why the world "styled" is there, please explain it to me so I can help you. Elinruby (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems also that you have a hard time understanding that 2004 is not a proof of 1995. By the way, you broke the citation style used in this page, despite the lettersoup saying otherwise. But don't they say: everything you publish will be mercilessly edited? Pldx1 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a citation style? Ok then. I wondered what it was. Anyway. Yes, they do say that. As best I can tell the rest of what you just said above is not an answer to my question about "styled". Maybe if we could focus without going off in the weeds demanding apologies on the drama boards, we might get something done here. If you are simply gobsmacked at the stupidity of the question, I am kind of used to it; happens a lot when I ask questions about articles that need editing. But I assure you, I just want to know what this article says. So eventually I'd like an answer about "styled", because if I changed the sentence to say something wrong, because I misunderstood one of the riddles you give me as answers, then that isn't good either. Let's try this one: There is a name in the text, and the sentence says that that person published this book. Is this name a publishing firm? A religious figure? A celebrity? I have tried to Google it, before you give me more homework; it seems to be a pretty common name, and the top hits as I recall are for a movie star. What I really want to know is whether we can cite or wikilink this name, so people can find out who it is if they want. If not, would it be better to say that the book was printed that year, without confusing detail? Another question: The author is described as a scholar. Is it accurate to call him a poet? For whatever reason, we don't have a category for Joseon scholar, just Joseon poet. Was this book ever translated, by the way? Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, possibly I have intuited your issue about the dates. See if it is better after the change I just made (?) Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Header fix
The convention on the English Wikipedia is that the first letter of the first word is capitalized and all other words in the header begin with a lower case letter. I dislike headers that begin with "The", but I am not sure that this is a policy.

will perhaps let us know if I have in fact resolved that issue to his satisfaction. Elinruby (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The headings look fine now. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

About this move
Let us discuss about this article. More to come. Pldx1 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Onel5969, your move has been reverted. Perhaps you should justify your action. Pldx1 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) This article needs editing for compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In particular, it has problems with MOS:ORDER.
 * you are welcome to change any order you want. So what ???
 * 1) This article is a rough translation from another language. It may have been generated by a computer or by a translator without dual proficiency.
 * this was proven false at ANI.... and was retracted at the PNT page. So what ?
 * 1) This article needs additional citations for verification.
 * this article is backed by FIVE references:
 * Doopedia "남사고" [Nam Sago]. Doosan Encyclopedia.
 * AKS "격암일고(格庵逸稿)" [Gyeogam Writings]. Academy of Korean Studies.
 * EncyKor "남사고비결" [Nam Sago Prophecies]. Encyclopedia of Korean National Culture.
 * Jeong Yong-in (2009-02-03). "국운예언서 '격암유록'은 진짜인가 ?" [Is the Korean prophecy "Gyukam Yurok" Real ?]. Weekly Kyunghyang . "9 Cover Stories about prophecies".
 * Kim Hawon 김하원 (2004). 격암 유록은 가짜 정감록 은 엉터리 송하 비결 은? [What is the secret of Gyeogam Yurok's fake Junggamrok?]. 인언 (Ineon, Seoul). ISBN 9788995510018., 440 pages. Also 민중 출판사|year=2008|ISBN=9788998024246
 * i.e. three encyclopedias, a newspaper in good repute, and a published book by a scholar in good repute. So what ?
 * 1) This article needs additional or more specific categories.
 * You can add all the categories you want. So what ?