Talk:Yun Ung-nyeol

Burden
Additions to the stub article are needed, but they need to comply with WP:Burden.
 * A. Historiographer moved the title from Yun Ung-ryeol to Yun Ung-nyeol, presumably in a good faith effort to bring the article in line with an understanding of compliance with the consensus-derived WP:WikiProject Korea Manual of Style.


 * There is no incivility in simply asking for a citation to support this change. I construe established English spelling to be mean published, verifiable and cited name spellings. This is reasonable, and it is consistent with WP:NC-KO.


 * In this instance, I note this issue is addressed at Naming conventions (Korean): "If there is ... no established English spelling, then Revised Romanization should be used for South Korean and pre-1945 Korean names, McCune-Reischauer for North Korean names."


 * As it happens, a Google search for Yun Ung-nyeol produces zero results; and a Google search for Yun Ung-ryeol produces few results. This dispute over a very small matter serves to illustrate a much larger problem.


 * B. Historiographer added a meaningful adjective in the 1st sentence -- Pro-Japanese. If accurate, it should be relatively easy to provide citation support for this descriptor; if not, then it has no place in a Wikipedia article per WP:V.


 * There is no incivility in simply asking for a citation to support the addition of new information. It becomes more meaningful when the adjective to be added is non-neutral.  In a context established by WP:NPOV, this small question becomes noteworthy. --Tenmei (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In posting the above, I discover that Historiographer has not merely renamed this article -- not merely "moved" the spelling of the name of this historical figure. The red links above clarify that Historiographer has deleted the explicit spelling which is published, verifiable and cited.  I do not understand why or how this is justifiable? --Tenmei (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Category
I would imagine that the article should include at least one sentence and one citation which support a controversial category like this one: If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan?


 * The following edit was accompanied by a specific reference to this talk page in the edit summary:
 * diff 14:28, 26 September 2009 Tenmei (1,062 bytes) (removing "pro-Japanese" -- see talk)
 * Despite this Historiographer's reponsive edit presents an edit summary which construes judgment and/or conflict where neither were involved:
 * diff 02:08, 27 September 2009 Historiographer (1,846 bytes) (Don't remove on yourself's own judgment. He was given a title by the Japan, and also he is included in the 친일인명사전(親日人名事典).)
 * See above for additional explanation which explains. What point is there in investing time and effort in explaining a plausibly controversial edit here on this talk page when it's ignored or unread? --Tenmei (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)