Talk:Sadaejuui

220.111.69.67 or Brionies
Hey, (ocn.ne.jp) user, at this time, I know you're or another editor who contributed to making disruptive edit warrings on Namdaemun article in the whole Wiki. We met just 2 minutes ago. Just log in and talk with me. Logout edit is not prohibited here but using it to avoid scrutiny is bad, very bad. You already saw Talk:Sea of Japan, Japanese meatpuppetry plots and wikistalking and harassment on me. I'm so tired of this gaming, but if you keep doing that, will see at ANI. --Appletrees (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

merge
Should merge - more or less the same term, in which the definitions can be merged, and both Korean and other explanations can be placed together. All content can be maintained as-is, with information from both articles placed into one. Two articles is redundant. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't merge! This article can include much more historical information than can be reasonably accomodated within the general article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

They are all same concept
, you divide the stub article into "two articles" as if those are totally different terms from each other. Sadaejuui is a direct transliteration of Korean (사대주의) to avoid disambiguous meanings of Sadae. Either Sadaejuui or Sadae is not an established English translation term as well because any of Sadaejuui, Sadae sasang, Sadae policy, or just Sadae or collectively grouping "Saedae-Gyorin" are used in academics to describe the Joseon diplomatic policy in regards to China. Moreover, http://www.bookrags.com/research/sadaejuui-ema-05/ this site is not a reliable source and you don't know whether the author of the page actually cited his writing from the "further reading". According to http://www.bookrags.com/about/, the site is hardly a reliable source. Even if the content that you inserted to the intro "South/North Korean propaganda battles" would be true, that sounds more like "the site author's own analysis" on the contemporary trend of North and South Korea. If that turns out to be true, that could go under a section. However, given the site's character and the fact that the site link was originally inserted by some SPI, I doubt its reliability. Regardless of the reliability, I've left out the book list even though you did not actually cite them from the books from WP:AGF.--Caspian blue 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, Korean Britannica Encyclopedia says that the term was distorted by Japanese historians during the Japanese colonial period of Korea to justify the invasions of Korea. (this is direct translation from the source, not my assessment) That also striking contrast to the content from the bookrags site which was inserted by some SPI using sock IPs a while ago. I think the Korean encyclopedia's content is worthy to translate and warrants its reliability.-Caspian blue 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Tenmei've found an English source briefly mentioning the term, written by non-Korean history expert, which conflicts two reliable Korean Encyclopedias.--Caspian blue 23:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to The Korea Times, Anthony Michell is a visiting professor at KDI School of Policy and Management, and president of Korea Associates Business Consultancy, and, in this capacity, he is a convener of the Korea Business Forum, a seminar for multinationals and diplomats. He has worked for the International Labor Organization, the World Bank, the UNDP, as well as a number of foreign and Korean corporations over the decades. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is an economics/politics expert not historian according to your comment and the source, so that's why I already clarified his position on the article, and I've said the assessment conflicts two Korean encyclopedias on Sadaejuui. The conflicted interpretation of the term could be both addressed in the article altogether.--Caspian blue 00:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Layout
See illustration at right. Is there a valid reason why the format proposed in this sample is inappropriate or unhelpful in the context of this article? Perhaps this will help clarify the non-controversial nature of the format issues? --Tenmei (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is too small to recognize. The article was not originally created by me if you look at the history. I have no problem with your cleaning up the layout. However, would you explain about your insertion of a unreliable source and dividing of the article to two articles and removing an entry from the DAB list? Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A larger image is accessible by simply clicking on the image to enlarge it, as is explained in the terse caption. --Tenmei (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I of course clicked it (too small to recognize the headers in text) and the above comment was made after confirmation.--Caspian blue 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of the unreliable source
Tenmei, could you tell me why you repeatedly insert the unreliable source without any explanation? I asked you above, but you did not give me any answer. The listed books could be found from libraries to which you can access, so please read and cite directly from the books, not from the unreliable site. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you have removed the reference entirely, substituting . I also note here that this source was first posted in December 2007.  The source appears to have occasioned no comment since that time.  There was arguably good reason to accept that it had been construed as a non-controversial source by those who subsequently edited this article. --Tenmei (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a shame that none ever checked on the unreliable source until today, but that is not a good reason to insert it repeatedly after the site is addressed not as a reliable source. Moreover, you've cited WP:V and WP:RS a lot, so you could easily check the books in a library, and free to re-add them with actual page numbers after confirmation. Thanks.--Caspian blue

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sadaejuui. 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/20080108074830/http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/174/43/ to http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/174/43/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108074830/http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/174/43/ to http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/174/43/

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) 00:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge into Sadae
Much of the two articles overlap. You can cover the difference between the two concepts in one article. toobigtokale (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)