Talk:Yeo Ui-son

JPOV doubt
I note with interest that the user page for Historiographer includes the following Perhaps it will be constructive to address this perceived issue directly. If so, this thread provides a constructive opportunity.
 * User:Historiographer#JPOV doubt (permanent link):
 * Joseon Tongsinsa
 * Joseon diplomacy
 * Joseon missions to Japan
 * Pak Tong-chi
 * Yan Yu (diplomat)
 * Yǒ ǔi-gye
 * Naval history of Japan

One way to avoid any perceived bias is to cited sources, as has been done here. I would hope this will be construed as a constructive step towards averting any suspected POV or JPOV. --Tenmei (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue -- No.


 * It's not within the realm of reasonable actions when you unilaterally delete what anyone has posted -- and this is true no less for me than for anyone else. Who's kidding who?


 * This was no mistake. This deletion is characteristically provocative; and indeed, it has provoked a response.


 * What is particularly distressing to me is that this tactic has so often worked for you in the past. At this point, I really find myself wondering how many you have discouraged from participating in Wikipedia?


 * As far as I can tell, there are those who can be construed to have endorsed and encouraged this kind of gambit again and again and again and again ....


 * A diff 16:04, 11 October 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (973 bytes) (→JPOV doubt: tweaking)
 * B diff 01:54, 12 October 2009 Caspian blue (218 bytes) (removing duplicated WP:SOAPBOXing per WP:TALK. adding project banners)
 * C diff 01:55, 12 October 2009 Caspian blue (141 bytes) (the Etsuko Kang incorrectly translated the diplomate.)
 * D diff 01:57, 12 October 2009 Caspian blue m (141 bytes) (moved Talk:Yǒ ǔi-gye to Talk:Yeo Ui-son: Not only this article ignores the Korean naming convention, but also the person is wrongly named based on a book whose author incorrectly translated the Korean to English.)
 * E diff 03:05, 12 October 2009 Caspian blue (1,903 bytes) (→Removed original research, incorrect, irrelevant information: new section)
 * F diff 03:09, 12 October 2009 Caspian blue (2,086 bytes) (→Removed original research, incorrect, irrelevant information:  p.s)


 * If you have a constructive comment, you can reasonably feel free to add whatever you think best; but deletion is not among the options available. You've pressed the envelope a bit too far, but to no avail.  In a few short minutes, you denigrate hours of work; and, for example, it takes quite a bit of time simple to respond constructively, including the time it takes to recreate the edit history with diff-link sabove.


 * In short, your experience would seem to have taught you that causing trouble is easy and relatively risk-free, whereas the slow process of cleaning up the chaos you create takes time and patience and persistence -- which you construe as a "win-win" scenario. No -- not good.


 * In this, you have been poorly served by those with whom you've come in contact in the past. More to the point, I have been poorly served by those who have led you to believe you can do what you have done here.


 * No -- I have reposted what you deleted.
 * '''NOT "original research" .... If so, it's up to you to explain.
 * '''NOT "incorrect" .... If so, you have not yet explained.
 * '''NOT "irrelevant information" .... If so, explain what you mean.


 * Deleting text is not equivalent to a discussion thread. --Tenmei (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would welcome any constructive criticism or conversation with you "on contents". However, you're just repeating your old totally inappropriate habits and breaking your violation of your WP:ARBCOM ban in regards to commenting about me over and over. My patience has its limit, so don't push too hard on me. If you continue, I have no choice but ask help from WP:Arbitration enforcement. This is why you should have your assigned mentor and appear to help you prevent from making the atmosphere WP:BATTLE. If you have a problem with, you gotta directly talk with him on his or your talk page, not here. Article talk pages are supposed to assist for discussion, not for your personal vendetta or something. I removed the offensive thread per WP:TALK guideline since the nonsensical thread has duplications all over the place. However you decided to re-add and added even more offensiveness and personal attack. I don't think your thread serves no good but WP:DRAMA and feed WP:DISRUPTION. Let's see the named content to the thread that I initiated.--Caspian blue 17:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Context
In the context Caspian blue creates below, the following become a reasonable addition. Historiographer posted a complex message on my talk page, and I tried to respond thoughtfully. This venue is perhaps better? In any case, the chronology of postings on this page now unfolds in a sequential order which becomes necessary in order to understand how the tag-team action evolved:


 * Historiographer's commentary:
 *  Your copy of my user page JPOV


 * Tenmei, you pasted a list in my user page to many article talk pages. I made some lists in my user page to maintain and clean for Korean topics. However, you pasted them and publicized to make me look so bad. You mentioned my nationality many times (ex: Korean user~) to attack me and write articles from Japanese view, so "JPOV" is clearly correct. I fixed and clean your many incorrect information, you ignored currently using Korean Romanization naming convention. You divided from Joseon Tongsinsa to two articles for your POV pushing and created many not notable Korean official and diplomat articles. For example, I also had to fix your incorrect translation of 반민족 as "half-national" to "anti-national" and Yung Ung-ryeol. In Korea, Yung surname is no exist. Your copying my private page to many pages looking like canvassing, so please stop attack and canvassing about me..--Historiographer (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The emperor has no clothes
 * Historiographer -- The design of this strategy seeks to divert attention from a process which leads to consensus in terms of specific elements of unique articles. It is unhelpful to make conclusory assertions which resist parsing and closer scrutiny. It is an elephant in the room. In the service of deliberately redundant emphasis, I re-copy a representative example of the threads to which you now object .... (omitted here) .... Perhaps it will be constructive to address this perceived issue directly. If so, it is modestly reasonable to mention that almost every sentence in the current version of this article is supported by a citation and a reliable source. The sole exception is the material which Historiographer has introduced. One way to avoid any perceived bias is to cite sources, as has been done here. I would hope this will be construed as a constructive step towards averting any suspected POV or JPOV. --Tenmei 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1st revert
 * Historiographer -- I don't understand the rationale for this edit:
 * diff 02:37, 11 October 2009 Historiographer (4,062 bytes) (It has nothing to do with this article.)
 * This thread allows for meaningful discussion. Perhaps this can be a step towards consensus. --Tenmei 03:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 2nd revert
 * Why is there no talk page participation? --Tenmei 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I urge you to reconsider. Candidly, don't you understand? I think others will see that I identify the elephant in the room by posting your schema on the talk page of each of the articles you listed: at Talk:Joseon diplomacy; at Talk:Joseon missions to Japan; at Talk:Pak Tong-chi; at Talk:Yan Yu (diplomat); and at Talk:Yǒ ǔi-gye.  As I see it, this list represents a problem so big that we can't ignore it.


 * ''' Proposal : Why not address specifics?
 * '''Why not focus instead on individual articles?
 * With each explicit inline citation I have added to these and other articles, I demonstrate that I am willing and able to do what I now ask you to do. --Tenmei 15:53, 11 October 2009

My measured, thoughtful language speaks volumes in substance and tone. Despite this, past experience leaves me worried and provoked; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed original research, incorrect, irrelevant information
, since your articles were coming up to the newest article indicator at the WikiProject Korea noticeboard, I've known your creations of Korean diplomats, and I really appreciate your efforts. BUT your articles not only disregard the naming convention of Korea, but also contain false/irrelevant/uncited information. Their service as diplomat are only small portion of their careers, but well, their biography are only about Joseon Tongsinsa things. Given the limited accessible source, I can understand that, while you copy-and-pasted all the same material of Japanese shogunate to those article by just changing their names and date.

Even though I have explained so many times, the title was in McCune-Reischer, not Revised Romanization of Korean. I tried to find any information on "Yeo Ui-gye (or Yo Ui-gye) in both English/Korean, but could not get any hit except the book written by Etsuko Kang. I searched through the website of Annals of the Joseon Dynasty with a great deal of time, and found out she incorrectly translated hanja to English. His name is Yeo Ui-son (呂義孫), but the author certainly confused ' (pronounced Son) with ' (pronounced "Gye") Since you can read Chinese characters, I do not explain what the letters mean (you can click them though), but each have a different meaning from the other. I expanded the content with 8 citations, and removed your original research (I left my message to edit summaries).

And talk page is for discussion not for soapboxing, so please use the page with the right purpose. Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus, the citations from the annals both display Chinese characters and hangul, so you can confirm them.--Caspian blue 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Caspian blue -- No. I have re-posted what you removed.
 * '''NOT "original research" .... If so, it's up to you to explain.
 * '''NOT "incorrect" .... If so, you have not yet explained.
 * '''NOT "irrelevant information" .... If so, explain what you mean.
 * Deleting text is not constructive in a discussion thread. --Tenmei (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Original research I deleted this sentence and unsupported citations. Yǒ ǔi-gye's actions were more narrowly focused in negotiating protocols for Joseon-Japan diplomatic relations. (Kang, Diplomacy and Ideology, p. 275; Hall, John Whitney. (1997). The Cambridge History of Japan: Early Modern Japan, p. 242.)
 * I don't see any mention about him from the second book at all. The first book has just a brief summary list, not about "negotiating protocols for Joseon-Japan". It appears to be your personal analysis, so this is a clear WP:Original research.
 * Appendices
 * Appendix 1. Korean embassies to the Muromachi Bakufu and Hideyoshi.
 * Year Shogun Korean King Ambassador Purpose of Embassy
 * 1404 Yoshimochi T'aejong Yo ui-gye Responsive envoys.


 * Incorrect information To tell you the truth, if I could not fine any single info on "Yeo Ui-gye" (여의계), I was going to nominate it to WP:AFD because Kang's book is the only source referring to his name in the list of Korean envoys. The incorrect name prevented me to find any Korean/English source. He does not appear to be a notable historical figure in these days, since Korean encyclopedias have no entry for him. After digging the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty website with several keywords regarding his surname, mission to Japan, and a few others, I found out his name was incorrectly translated into English. This is why biography articles should be written based on several reliable sources. The annals could be perceived as 'primary sources' although it has modern translations and footnotes, so I also looked through other sources. His marginal notability is related to his appointment as the first Jeju governor for one and half year, and his charge of collecting finest stones to build a royal tomb of a queen, King Taejo's wife. They are also "too sketchy" to fill the article. Of course, half of the blame should attribute to the author, but well, I'm wondering how come you can even think of creating this article with the one poor information (the book deals extensively with Korea and Japanese ideologies, so I would not evaluate that book is poor, but "the incorrect info on Yeo Ui-son" is poor and wasted my time)
 * Irrelevant information. I also deleted The Japanese hosts may have construed this mission as tending to confirm a Japanocentric world order.(Arano Yasunori (2005). "The Formation of A Japanocentric World Order," The International Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 2, pp. 185-216.) The article is about "Yeo Ui-son", not about Joseon Tongsinsa, missions to Japan, Japanese shoguns or Joseon dynasty diplomacy. I also want to WP:AGF, but the journal is not accessible to just ordinary readers, and the page range is too broad in caparison to the information So what page mentions about the info, and why you think the analysis on the Japanese view toward Joseon Tongsinsa should be mentioned in the "biography article"?
 * In addition, you added Category:Edo period but this is irrelevant of the Korean diplomat. Likewise, if I add Category:Joseon Dynasty to the article of Ashikaga shogunate, how long do you think it would last? I bet it be removed just in a minute to a day.

There could be more issues, but well, I think I fully answer to your questions.--Caspian blue 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Caspian blue -- yes. As you suggested, I did add add Category:Joseon Dynasty to the article about the Ashikaga shogunate. Also, I did edit that article by adding a "Foreign relations" sub-subsection which consists of a single sentence.


 * Foreign relations
 * The Ashikaga shogunate's foreign relations policy choices were played out in evolving contacts with the Joseon Dynasty on the Korean peninsula and in changing relationships with the Imperial Chinese court.


 * I invite you to join me in discovering how this sentence fares over the coming week? I also invite you to join me in learning how the new Joseon Dynasty category will be received? Tenmei (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC))