Talk:Miura Gorō

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary source
Soryy, I wrote "Is this primary source ?" is wrong. I wanted to wirte "Is not this primary source ?"

I think this is a primary source. What do you think ? Melonbarmonster2 ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source. You are not allowed to engage in original research using primary sources in wikipedia. If you don't understand what I'm talking about please read WP:CIT and WP:OR.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, why did you revert ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reverted in the primary source by mistake. I've repaired the text. Thanks for the heads up.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

nyt cite
Nazonnazo, the NYT article can't be used as a citation to support your use of "queen min" since the sentence you're trying support with the cite doesn't address that issue. The claim that's being made by the portion of the text is that there was international outrage over the assassination not that her title was "queen min". You need to address this edit issue of whether queen min is appropriate in the talk page or in a portion of text of the article that deals with this issue(obviously none exists). On top of that the NYT pdf doesn't even use the title "queen min".

Please read WP:CIT if you need more information on technical aspects of how to make citations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I search other sources.--NAZONAZO (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that claim that Queen Min is the proper title rather than Empress Myeongseong.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Inline citation issues
I added a new citation in the same citation format used for the entire article only to have it improperly reverted. Your wanting inline citations for the article does not mean you get to delete referenced edits of other editors.

By that logic the entire article should be deleted. If you feel inline citations are better, feel free to propose the suggestion and try to track down inline citations for ALL the references in the article. I have no feelings for or against inline citations since the exact portion of the text added is directly from the new reference.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the WP:BURDEN. Please read the policy carefully.


 * "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. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."


 * "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy."


 * In this case, your edit is challenged while other edits are not. You cannot insist there is other stuff, so other stuff should be the same. I never doubt you are forging the whole story, I just would like to confirm the source. However, your refusal to provide page numbers and direct quotes makes all the editors feel your edit may be a hoax. So please provide the inline citation with page numbers and direct quotes. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what WP:BURDEN is. Please review WP:BURDEN, WP:GF, WP:CIT. If English is a second language for you, feel free to ask me any specific questions about the above wiki rules. I'll be glad to answer them for you.


 * WP:BURDEN for any challenge to new added material is for CITATION itself and certainly does not condone deleting and reverting edits. By your ridiculous misapplication of WP:BURDEN the entire article should be deleted since none of it contains inline citations.
 * If you want inline citations go ahead and start transferring existing citations into inline form instead of reverting and engaging in disruptive and childish behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still insisting the irrelevant other stuff. If you continue to refuse to provide page numbers and direct quotes, your edit is considered to be a hoax and reverted. Fortunately there are many libraries in which your book is kept.  So if you provide the page numbers and direct quotes, I can easily confirm the fact.　You cannot continue to refuse to provide them, unless you edit is reverted or you are blocked from editing by administrators. Please note that this is the last request I make in this talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that citations for this article including my citation should provide page numbers and be changed to inline citations. I will try to find page numbers for as many of the citations as possible. You're more than welcome to assist me. I will have to disagree with you however about reverting or deleting the citations that are currently in the article including my recent addition. Imperfect citations should be repaired, not deleted. Unless you are suggesting that we blank the entire article I suggest that we work on repairing the citations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why you can't provide the page numbers immediately. You edited this article yesterday saying "More material from Chung's book". I can't agree your edits be kept intact. So I will revert your edit. If you persistently revert, I will bring this to a proper venue.


 * What I would like to discuss was not above trivial issue, instead about WP:NPOV issue. As you fully understand the author of the book you provided is a "Korean independence activist", in other word, "Anti-Japanese nationalist" who worked with Syngman Rhee and the book was written in 1921 during the Japanese rule. So the edit you made as if the view is generally accepted can never be allowed. Although there are many sources for this article written by neutral authors, your source is completely biased POV. So I would not agree any of the word from the book included in this article even if it is properly cited. You should refrain from such a provocative conduct, unless you would like to enter edit warring. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I suggested we will have to agree to disagree. At this point your repeated attempts at deleting my referenced edits are simply inexcusable.  There is no wiki rule that condones deletion of incomplete references.  There is already a banner that addresses the citation issue and I have already agreed with you that inline citations are necessary for ALL the citations of the article.  Instead of joining me in converting citations to inline form all you have done is to continually delete my reference and edit.
 * Your charge that my reference is POV also shows me that you do not understand WP:NPOV. The new reference is a published book.  Your personal judgments about the author, or mine, for that matter is irrelevant.  You do not get to cull references based on your personal whim.  Please improve your behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, both parties are to stop edit warring. Regardless of who says what, edit warring in not a solution and I'll just fully protect the article if it needs it. SGGH ping! 23:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, you are cordially invited to WP:ANI. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations challenge
At this point, the citations lack page numbers and lack credibility and need to be challenged. I suggest a reference check for the entire article and deletion of inaccurate and unverifiable citations. Please provide page numbers and convert to inline citations before unreferenced text and incomplete citations are deleted. I suggest a week for editors to provide page numbers and inline citations before proceeding with deletions.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still trying to evade your responsibility by bringing up "other stuff". Why are you continue to add back the challenged edit? I restored the article. Please edit after finding the page numbers and direct quotes. Please note that even if your edit is properly cited, the issue of WP:NPOV should be solved as I pointed out above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this what you are searching for? Page 327 summarizes the court's decision. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be. However direct quotes are still necessary after being disputed like this. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've placed a direct quote in there since you don't seem to be able to read the text in the link provided above. Now, please stop your edit warring, Phoenix7777. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the direct quote however the rest of the article needs to be corrected. Please provide incline citations. At this point this entire article besides the Chung reference is suspect for deletion.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to the two of you, since you get along so well. ;p ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)