Talk:Kangwon Province, North Korea

Why Kangw&#335;n and not Kangwon?
I don't know much about McCune-Reischauer, but I would transliterate 강원도 as Kangwon and not as Kangwŏn. Is there a special rule or is it just a mistake? -- IGEL 03:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a special rule. Under the McCune-Reischauer system, the vowel sound &#50892; is transliterated w&#335; .  Under the Revised Romanization used in South Korea, it is transliterated "wo", however the sound &#12593; is transliterated "g."  Thus we have the MR (North Korean) Kangw&#335;n and the RR (South Korean) Gangwon.
 * Of course Kangwon is more common than Kangw&#335;n in practice, but it's not strictly correct. That usage just reflects the fact that diacritical marks are a pain in the butt.  -- Visviva 08:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! -- IGEL 08:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kangwon Province (North Korea). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040903042549/http://seoul600.visitseoul.net/seoul-history/sidaesa/txt/5-3-2-1.html to http://seoul600.visitseoul.net/seoul-history/sidaesa/txt/5-3-2-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Osomite deletion of User:U B Prudent edits
I am posting this to discuss the removal of information by Osomite. The user made four edits to the Kangwon Province article on January 27, 2018. I will address these changes one at a time.
 * First, Osomite made | this edit.  In it, the user deleted the following text while insisting that it lacked evidence; "In 2018, the new year saw a surge in defections from North Korea".  But, the very next reference in the Wikipedia article linked to this source.  This might be an oversight by  Osomite.  But, the user should have started a discussion on this talk page.  We could have found a way to adhere to the Try to fix problems editing policy.  But, what's done is done.  So, in the spirit of cooperation, I will agree to provide additional sources to support the claims made by the deleted text.  In exchange,  Osomite should undo their removal of information.
 * Second, Osomite made | this edit.  In it, the user disputed the validity of the following statement; "It was also discovered that North Korea has been using a mobile espionage campaign to thwart the efforts of potential defectors."


 * 1) The user claims that "The cited source "multifest.org" misrepresented the original article from "infosecurity-magazine.com".  Again, even if this criticism were true, the user should have started a discussion on this talk page.  However, the reason that  Osomite gave for that deletion was obviously false.  The very first line of the original Infosecurity Magazine source says "Malicious APK files are being used to attack North Korean defectors".
 * 2) If  Osomite doesn't like the way that this information is being presented, I would once again like to refer the user to Wikipedia's Try to fix problems policy.  Perhaps we could ad the original Infosecurity Magazine source to the references for this article.  Also, my original statement might have oversimplified the technology.  Okay, if  Osomite really wants to make the article more complicated we can discuss that.  But, the user should be mindful of the Wikipedia's  relevance policy.


 * Third, Osomite made | this edit.  The user gives the following reason for deleting two of my sources; "The two footnotes which cite "multifest.org" articles are not creditable. I would say more about these two articles but I will not as the content is repellent."  In referring to the sources as repellent''",  Osomite seems to be admitting to violating the  neutrality policy.  In my view, this deletion should be undone in a timely fashion.


 * Fourth, Osomite made | this edit.  The user deleted everything I added about North Korea's participation in the Winter Olympics.   Osomite gave the following reason; "North Korea participating in the Olympic Games is not historically notable. North Korea has participated in the Olympic Games on and off for the last 50 years."  This is why it's important to use proper Wikipedia terminology.  The  notability standard is used to determine weather a topic deserves its own article.  This discussion should actually evolve around the  relevance policies.  Also, this discussion should have started on the articles talk page.  It should not have started with the deletion of relevant information.

I am posting this on the talk page for the Kangwon Province article. However, I welcome any and all Wikipedia editors to help me achieve true consensus on this article.U B Prudent (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says that a bold edit (such as yours) can be reverted (or partly reverted, as in this case), and discussion should follow. Therefore, Osomite was quite in order to undo your edits without opening a discussion first, just as you are to be commended for starting a discussion before restoring your edit.
 * I completely agree with Osomite that the Charles Black / Multifest articles are repellent, and would never qualify as reliable sources. Additionally, it has not been shown that the general subject of defection from the North, or any action taken against defectors, are of specific relevance to Kangwon Province. Similarly, the Winter Olympics are taking place in Gangwon Province, South Korea, and therefore are not specifically relevant to this article. I support all of Osomite's edits. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:D93E:7812:AF6E:D217 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am posting this message as a response to the anonymous comment posted on February 19, 2018 on the Kangwon Province talk page. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that you referred to is not an actual set of rules. In fact the page starts off saying "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy"  If it's "not mandated" it's not a rule.  So, it appears that the mere mention of the BRD guideline is not adequate.  The editor still has to show that my edits violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * The assertion that the Multi Fest sources are "repellent, and would never qualify as reliable sources." is a violation of the importance of context in determining reliability.  Your use of the word "never" makes this violation unambiguous.  Also, your use of the word "repellent" is an admission to the violation of the neutrality policy.  Unlike the aforementioned  BRD guideline, the intro to the  neutral point of view article clearly states "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
 * You claim that both the topics of defections from North Korea as well as participation in the winter Olympics are of no specific relevance. But, I can't seem to find any policy referring to any topic as being either specifically relevant or not specifically relevant.  I did however find  this article about relevance.  So, lets just go ahead and discuss my edits within the context of policies that actually do exist.
 * The Kangwon Province is a province in North Korea. But, it shares a boarder with South Korea.  Defections from North Korea are therefore directly relevant to the Kangwon Province.  According to Wikipedia's policies, my edit qualifies for a  Relevance level A.
 * Claiming that "the Winter Olympics are taking place in Gangwon Province, South Korea, and therefore are not specifically relevant to this article." is actually a misapplication of the Wikipedia policy on relevance. You see, the article is about a province in North Korea.  Therefore, if North Korea is participating in any winter Olympics anywhere at any time, it qualifies as  Relevance level A.  I would like thank you in advance for your future civility in discussing this matter. U B Prudent (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're awfully sure about rules, aren't you? If it's "not mandated" it's not a rule. But where is the rule that it is forbidden to revert an edit without first discussing it fully on the talk page? There is no such rule. Instead, users tend to rely on BRD when a disagreement arises. The assertion that the Multi Fest sources are "repellent, and would never qualify as reliable sources." is a violation of the importance of context in determining reliability. In what way is it a violation? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." How many people are engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing of Multifest.org, and what qualifications does Charles Black have, to be considered an authority on the subject of defection from North Korea? If in doubt, you can ask at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard whether Multifest qualifies as a reliable source. I have no doubt that the answer will be "no". Also, your use of the word "repellent" is an admission to the violation of the neutrality policy. Eh, no. WP:NPOV says that "all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view". It does not apply to edit summaries or talk page comments. Reverting your edit did not introduce any bias into the article, and you cannot construe bias just on the basis that the reverting editor, or another editor agreeing with him or her, showed a dislike of the cited source. My edit qualifies for a Relevance level A. Leaving aside the fact that WP:Relevance – like WP:BRD – is an essay, not a policy, this is simply not true. WP:Relevance gives the example "John Smith is a member of the XYZ organization" for Relevance level A. The equivalent, in this article, would have been "In 2018, the new year saw a surge in defections from Kangwon Province", Kangwon Province being the subject of this article. An example of Relevance level B – information that is "one step removed" – would be "In 2018, Charles Black claimed the new year saw a surge in defections from Kangwon Province". The sentence in your edit was, "In 2018, the new year saw a surge in defections from North Korea." That is "two steps removed", i.e. Kangwon Province is in North Korea, and there were also defections from North Korea. Exactly the same applies to NK sending athletes to the Olympics. WP:Relevance calls this Relevance level C, and says that it should not be included.
 * Do you have some connection to Charles Black or Multifest? I looked at your contributions, and I was struck by the fact that each and every one of them cited up to four different articles by Charles Black on Multifest.org. If you have any connection with them, it would constitute a conflict of interest. You would need to declare any such COI, and carefully read the "rules" about what is and is not permissable. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:D977:CDFB:3C7F:D6C3 (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a response to the comment posted on February 21, 2018 on the Kangwon Province talk page. That comment was posted by an anonymous user.  The comment was posted as two lengthy bullet points.  But, for the purpose of clarity, I will divide my response into multiple bullet points.
 * First Bullet Point As far as I can see, you appear to be taking issue with the reliability of the Multi Fest source.  In your view, the source lacks reliability.  It should therefore be removed along with any content pertaining to the source.  But, in truth, a lack of reliability does not warrant the removal of a source.  You see, Wikipedia editors are required to follow something called  editing policy.  If you take time to  read this policy, you would see that it has  these specific rules that must be followed while removing any material of any kind.  When it comes to reliability, you can only remove "material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published."  But, you failed to prove that no reliable source had ever been published.  Furthermore, you failed to establish that Muti Fest is not a reliable source.  The reliable sources notice board is not an exhaustive list of every single reliable source in the world.  Your assessment of the Multi Fest fact checking process in based on pure speculation.  Furthermore, the author Charles Black doesn't need to be an "authority on the subject of defection from North Korea".  I'm pretty sure that he just needs to be qualified to provide news and commentary on the topic.  That's pretty much how news and commentary have always worked.
 * Second Bullet Point I'm trying to understand your argument regarding neutrality and editorial bias.  I sounds like you are saying that the laws on neutrality are only designed to govern "encyclopedic content".  But, those laws don't govern edit summaries or talk pages.  So, if  Osomite refers to my source as "repellent", but they do it in the space set aside for edit summaries, you think that is not a violation of neutrality.  You might be partially right.  It might be perfectly legal to post biased comments in those spaces.  But, those comments could still be used to prove that  Osomite applied their own personal bias while editing the "encyclopedic content" that the edit summary was referring to.
 * Third Bullet Point This is my favorite bullet point.   Osomite made | this deletion in which my edit was removed.  The user sited notability as the reason for the removal.  It was a misapplication of the notability guidelines.  Those guidelines are only used to determine weather a topic warrants it's own article.  In my initial assessment of the users deletion, I tried to apply  this article about relevance. But, you pointed out that the  Relevance article is just an essay.  It's not a policy or guideline at all.  I'm glad you noticed that.  Because, it means that  Osomite should have never removed my edit on the bases of  relevance or on the bases of some clumsy misaplication of the notability guidelines.  The most applicable guideline that I could find was  this policy regarding level of detail.  Quite frankly, I didn't come anywhere close to violating that guideline.  My edit should have never been deleted.
 * Fourth Bullet Point You asked be if I had any connection to Multi Fest or Charles Black.  Then you directed me to the  conflict of interest guidelines.  Once again, I'm glad that you were able to direct me to this useful information.  You see, the conflict of interest guidelines only prohibit people and organizations from writing Wikipedia articles about themselves.  There is no such restriction applied to an editor using his or herself as a source.  In fact,  this section of the Conflict of interest article states; "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason".  So, you see, even if I was the founder owner and operator of Multi Fest,  Osomite should have never deleted my edit.  They should have adhered to Wikipedia's clearly stated  Try to Fix Problems policy.  It says to "Fix problems if you can".  It looks like, Osomite could have fixed this problem.  That's because,  this section of the Conflicts of interest article encourages editors to disclose their conflicts of interest.  Then it clearly states "that someone else may add this for you."  So, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Osomite should have disclosed their suspicion that a conflict of interest might have existed.  But, they should have never removed any of the material on the bases of their suspicion.  That's just how the forum is designed to work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by U B Prudent (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC) U B Prudent (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that some of the policies I directed you to were helpful. But you still insist on interpreting Wikipedia policies as if you wrote them yourself. None of the policies mean what you say they mean.
 * The Reliable sources notice board is not a list of anything! It is a place you can go and ask, "is so-and-so a reliable source for the content added in [this edit] (providing a diff of the edit)." People with many years experience of editing Wikipedia and interpreting its policies, especially WP:RS, will answer you. It's not enough to say "I'm pretty sure that anyone who provides comment is a reliable source for anything they say." That's certainly not what WP:RS says.
 * You haven't said whether you have any connection to Charles Black or Multifest, but you have encouraged me to go to the Conflict of interest noticeboard and raise my suspicions. I will do that now.
 * The rest of your assertions are too far off the mark for me to even try to argue with you. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:E407:181E:EFE0:D6A2 (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, here is a link to the discussion at COIN. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:7160:3394:390C:44AD (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gangwon Province, South Korea which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Kogen Province, North Korea" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kogen_Province,_North_Korea&redirect=no Kogen Province, North Korea] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 12:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)