Talk:Yeongeunmun/Archive 1

Chinese text at Wikisource

HSL, I don't wanna spend time for u, but I'm gonna give u some info.

http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/read.php?board_id=phistory&nid=63282

s:zh:大淸皇帝功德碑: Chinese text at Wikisource

I strongly recommend that you should learn history by yourself at first.Amanatsu 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored above comment and his/her signature, because it was removed by 220.146.187.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at 13:57, 3 November 2006 UTC. The just reason of this edit is here.[1] --Nightshadow28 12:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"tributary state"? A big mistake.

"tributary state"? It was more like a client state. Korean king knelt for Chinese messanger 9 times to the ground, which was called Kowtow(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowtow) back then. This clearly shows korean's client state. It is described on "Samjeondo Monument"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samjeondo_Monument) in Seoul.

"a symbol of respectful diplomatic policy"? No, it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.146.187.249 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

acutually, korean king never 9 times to the ground to chinese messenger in history. you may confused with Second Manchu invasion of Korea. only one time knelt ground to Qing's emperor. this is very famous japanese fabrication. your IP is japanese, too. also, japanese can not prove by public trusted source. this is one of the typical japanese fabrication. that's all. after Second Manchu invasion of Korea, manchu and korea battle was over. and manchu conquere to mainland china. chinese slaughtered and raped by manchu race. and destroyed thieir goverment by Qing and must obey manhu style culuture(like manchu hair style) but korea was not. they keep their culuture and goverment.

also, manchu and korean are family race. Qing's former founder was korean. this proved by history of jin (金史). Jin is former dynasty of Qing. 金之始祖諱函普，初從高麗來，年已六十余矣[2]) (Jin's founder was korean, he leaved korea at age 60.)Replayamong23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Replayamong23 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored a link above comment, because it was modified to [3] by Referloose (talk · contribs) at 03:48, 4 October 2007. The just reason of this edit is here.[4] --Nightshadow28 13:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Korea had been a vassal state of China for hundreds years as everyone knows. If korea was a independent country, why Koreans built the gate named INDEPENDECE Gate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.214.86.199 (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

IP 85.214.86.199 is proxy IP in german. and no one can prove this fabrication. Cause5stage (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Change log

I found the description of Yeongeunmun Gate in the "Independence Gate" article which is more accurate. So I used the words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Gate "... Treaty of Shimonoseki. After that, Korea demolished the Yeongeunmun Gate, which had been the symbol of prevailing submissive diplomatic policy towards China, and built the Independence Gate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.146.187.249 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ae you retarded? Dongnipmun Gate (Independence Gate) was constructed in 1898 through the initiative of Dr. So Jae-pil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutyterms (talk • contribs) 13:53:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Totally Fiction Edit

I find This edit[5] by Nightshadow28. It's Totally Fiction. also I can't find this souce anywhere. 774townsclear

This article is on 2channel's watchlist

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on the watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets related to the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

• Relevant articles.
  • Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets (in WP:ANI archive380)
  • Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21 (diff 1diff 2)
  • Special:Whatlinkshere(see the RFCU and SSP files)

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring

P.S This article, Yeongeunmun Gate was "sincerely' discussed on Japanese 2channel, so if you want to know what they talked, visit the this link. I translated some. --Appletrees (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Appletrees, can't you present arguments logically? You placed the POV tag. It is not meant to express, "I don't like this article," but to mark a NPOV dispute. You have to explain your reasons on the talk page. But you haven't.

What you have to do is to clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. As always, the stuff you put on this talk page is simply irrelevant to the supposed content dispute of the current revision. --Nanshu (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vice versa, your removing the tag and the above comment seem to like "I don't like the tage being stuck to the article to which I dedicated."

Nanshu, why are you so emotional? It is not a logical way for us who has different standpoint to cooperate. I tell you the reason. First, the page is totally written from Japanese point of view, you who tend to make wonderful edits to Korean related articles such as Hoe (dish). There is no analysis from Korean or Chinese scholars. You try to emphasize that Joseon dynasty was not an independent nation which also has been pushed by Japanese editors here. Thus, It lacks of neutral point of view and needs more expansion by other than you. Once the article is contested by someone, you can't remove the tag whether you don't like it or not. Plus, don't resort to personal attacks. My notice on 2channel here is quite appropriate because the disruptions by your frineds are ongoing and you proved that your saying "I'm not related to the board" proved wrong. So your "as always" is a false accusation on me. If you wish to discuss on this article with me, please be civil as possible.--Appletrees (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not vice versa. It's you who put the POV tag. As Wikipedia:NPOV dispute clearly says, the burden of proof is on you, not me. It's no wonder that the policy goes that way as long as you intend to improve articles. The tag alone does not give any substantial information about the problem to be resolved.

It's really hard to understand your logic. While guessing whay you trying to say, I made a hypothesis: the policy is not obvious to you because you do not aim to improve articles. In other words, you just try to degrade the article you don't like. This assumption explains your baffling remark.

Finally you seem to give an explanation, but as always, it doesn't make sense. I assumed that we were discussing the gate. But most of your comment is simply irrelevant. I searched for something constructive and this effort is near-worthless. Finally I found a sentence: "the page is totally written from Japanese point of view." Too obscure to discuss. The rest seems an outpouring of emotion. Maybe you try to bring a new idea to Wikipedia that reliability is secured by personal qualities rather than citation. If so, this is not the right place. --Nanshu (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nanshu, welcome back? Finally, you might have your summer vacation. That is good for you. (your 2channel people started being re-active recently) As always, you're putting irrelevant things on Korean related talk pages like personal attacks or biased information. Please refrain yourself from committing such behaviors if you wish to discuss with other editors. Well, we're always judged by our past behaviors and I've trying to be neutral on this article. Even I defended it to be deleted or restored from massive blanking as you might miss it. The theory of "What I don't like it" seems only apply you, "I don't like the tag attached to this that I wrote." The POV tag is not necessarily needed for immediate proof. I thought you agreed to the article is biased, because you've been very clam for months, so to me, you finally acknowledged your logical flaws. Since the overall tone of the article written by you is assertive without recent secondary sources (your souce is very outdated) and weighs WP:Undue, so anyone thinks that the article is biased, he or she can put the tag. Moreover, someone challenged your source already and you intentionally styled Joseon kings to Korean king and illustrated all kings did the ceremony. The lead written by you misleads the contents and readers, that is disruptive. Unless you're a well-known academic in the history of Korea, your bare hyperthis not can be introduced to the article because here is not your blog.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not unusual that people initially do something without deep thought[6]. But once it goes wrong[7], such naiveness[8][9][10] is no longer accepted. Again, something concrete is required. And the burden of proof is on you.

You changed your argument as if you have had no specific reason. Is my source outdated? Hey, exactly who is challenging it? We stand on the shoulders of giants. We sometimes overturn previous work but it cannot be without clear evidence. For example, I explained at Talk:Kangnido#Gari Ledyard's paper why Ledyard's paper is outdated. I pointed to a newly discovered map and cited a recent paper that overturned it in concrete form. I expect you to do the same thing.

And the new second point. The Joseon/Korea stuff. Does it really matter? I assume that no one questions the identification of Joseon as Korea, unlike, say, Goguryeo. So Korea is basically preferred to the unfamiliar word of Joseon. And I explained the date of the construction of gate, the clear pointer even if you don't know when the Joseon Dynasty founded. Lastly, I now added "the Joseon Dynasty" to the leading section.

And the third point. I've already pointed out below why 61.39.55.2's edits are wrong. But you reinserted the error. It's nothing but vandalism!

BTW, I suspect that you regard discussion as a game in which whoever leaves a comment at the end wins. I advice you to refrain yourself until you organize your thoughts. Dealing your random thoughts is just a waste of time. --Nanshu (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nanshu (talk · contribs), you really need to refrain yourself from committing such disruptive comments. Your usual calling people who object to your biased information and attitude vandalism is nothing but all personal attacks. You've been pointed out on such the behavior by many people here and there. As for naiveness and the links, well, so? I just confirm that you have not shown your so-called intelligence yet so far. As for the Joseon/Korea, it does matter in style. If it does not matter much, why your friends were so sensitive to how people call Wa or Nippon, Occupied Japan to articles. Or people would not gather to discuss for RPC moving to China. Your last paragraph is nonsense. Blame your frequent absence, or take a deep breath to refresh your mind. Different point of view is not vandalism. Besides, I said that the NPOV tag has nothing to do with immediate burden of proof. If so, I would put {{OR}} or {{Unreferences}}, but is related to your writing tone and unbalanced info unsuited to Encyclopedia which should be always neutral.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now it's too clear that the discussion with you cannot make constructive progress. I will ask for a third opinion. --Nanshu (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, a third opinion was requested, and I came here to provide one. First of all, I have read through the article, and tried making improvements were I could. It was very hard for me to get a good idea about how neutral this article is, all sources are in Korean language. And the only language I do speak having the subject is Dutch, but being a very small article without sources.

The reasons for using the template were stated to be "at least two people think this biased, and you styled Joseon to Korean King." I believe the latter has been resolved, it's not in the current version. An argument is stated to be that the article is written from "Japanese point of view", I have no idea if this is true, but think it's a good plan to give User:Appletrees some time to back it up in one clear entry. Including references to reliable sources in English or translated to English. Pending that there is not much against having the template a bit longer.

When you want to make controversial changes to the article, try to discuss them on the talk page first. Don't editwar. Species8473 (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Species8473. Several months has passed since I've posted a complete rewrite of this article, and Appletrees can hardly be expected to bring substantial improvement. But OK, I give him some time.

PS. The main source Keijō-fu shi is written in Japanese. It's concise but doesn't cite primary or secondary sources. So for convenience of reference, I added Classical Chinese documents written in Korea, which Keijō-fu shi is based on. There is little hope of getting any good English source. And I've never seen a scholarly dispute over this gate. --Nanshu (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I give Caspian blue, aka Appletrees, "some time" to back it up in one clear entry, but no improvement was made by him. Besides, he ignored the discussion below, and inserted a factual error again[11].

I'm really tired of wasting time for Appletrees. He spends tremendous time in unproductive activity. As his edtis on this talk page clearly demonstrate, his activity doesn't lead to improvement of the article. I think we need help from administration guys, to tackle with this kind of useless hard workers. --Nanshu (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nanshu, you have the very disruptive tendency of falsely accusing opponents of vandals as well as personal attacks. That appears to be one of your fixed bad habits. Besides, when did you wait for me to improve the article? The initial objection was not by me, I've trying to be as neutral as possible. You just went off from Wikipedia and starts your bad habits again. I don't need to improve the the article in urgent by your definition. There are many articles that I'm interested in, and you deliberately denounce me as "useless hard worker". That is way more that personal attacks. I would not condone your disruption any more. Will see.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not owned by you and your accumulated history of Japan-Korea related articles full of biases. I will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs)

You are tilting at windmills. I guess your baffling remarks on me come from yourself. You reflect yourself in me, creating an imaginary enemy. For example, you tend to think that you own articles, so you come to have a weird belief that I'm trying to own this article.

Personal Attacks? I have nothing else to do but point out your disruptive behavior because you don't present any constructive opinion. As an aggressive revert warrior, you reverted even when you don't know what we are talking about[12]. When are you going to stop? Do you need third party intervention again[13]? --Nanshu (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

61.39.55.2's edits

61.39.55.2 added a new claim that <sic>since 1634, stopped this kowtow performance.</sic>, citing the article of the 戊辰 day, the 6th month, Injo 12, of the Injo Sillok. If s/he'd read that page and the next (of the printed edition), s/he would have learnt the actual consequence. The article of the 戊辰 day just records a discussion in the court. The article of the 癸酉 day reports a counterargument given by the Chinese ambassador. And the king did do the rite of wu bai san koutou as described in the article of the 甲戌 day:

上曉出郊外迎勅. 行五拜三叩頭禮.

--Nanshu (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion continued

Since your past disruptive activities on Hoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (your disruption on it actually constitutes perfect vandalism) and many aggressive and ownership behaviors have strongly impressed me, I have little belief that you're constructive editor to Wikipedia. Besides, phonemic orthography was contested by Cypoet who has been editing article with sources and been regarded a fair editor, I trusted his edit. However, I did not convince it, so I sought my question from an expert in linguistics. Is it a big problem for you? There is no imaginative enemy. 2channel's disruptions have been reported for its anti-Korean sentiment by media, and I spot you there, and collusion which is unfortunately still ongoing. Mmeatpupeting on this gate was also recorded. You can express your concern at WP:AN#User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So you finally admitted that you reverted phonemic orthography without knowing what we were discussing. Before making multiple reverts, consider discussing the disputed changes on the other editor's user talk page or yours, you aggressive revert warrior. --Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you said you're absolutely no relation with linguistics, and history, but an engineering student and your long-term disruption and vandalism such as Baekje and Hoe (dish) has been exposed. Therefore, I only can trust sensible editors and you're just not only an aggressively rude person but also disruptive user who should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeongeunmun_Gate&diff=228498695&oldid=228213594

Nanshu, I implemented the article with perfectly good and reliable sources since you made personal attacks against me like useless hard worker. Then what is it? When the gate was named "Yeonghwangeunmun" (영황은문, 迎皇恩門)? If the gate held the word pertaining to emperor or empire 皇 (황), then you can say the gate means "gate of welcoming imperial favors" as you allege. However, there is no such hanja in the title, so it is perfect original research. Besides, summary is what article would illustrate the main content. The kowtowing was several time happening after Qing China invaded Joseon Dynasty, not usually done. So your edit on that is also original research. You should stop this disruption. Who is really doing vandalism? --Caspian blue (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the previous posts, You demonstrated that you are unfamiliar with this topic (and revert without knowing what we are talking about). And this comment reinforces this observation. You would find it difficult to read Classical Chinese, but when translating a short Chinese phrase in English, it's fairly common to supply some words in order to make the translation understandable to readers. And as in the case of 迎恩門, many Chinese compounds containing 恩 carry a connotation of a monarch's favor, unlike English "favor." So "gate of welcoming imperial favors" is a perfect translation. I don't want to spent time teaching you the ABCs. Don't forget that our purpose is to write articles. If you don't know what we are discussing, don't revert. If you only post a question to talk, some of us may kindly answer it however stupid it is.

PS. It's good for everyone to start with an encyclopedia article when knowing nothing about the topic. But such introductory stuff cannot replace specialized information. --Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, both of you, stop bickering about each other's perceived motives and (lack of) qualifications. Talk about what you want changed in the article and why. You've been slowly revert-warring over months here, and I for one have no idea what the dispute is even about. Next time anybody feels the need to undo the other's edits, I expect a simple, brief, matter-of-fact explanation here in terms of content. So far, I only see that tiny detail about the proper translation of one single term, but that obviously isn't the justification for reverts [14] that are effectively complete rewrites of the whole article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nanshu (talk · contribs), you're so typically rude as always and dishonest about your edits. You've been pointed out for making disruptions to admins (including SlimVirgin) and Korean articles by many editors for a long time. The translation is not from academics but your "own" interpretation to make the article to favor your Japanese POV. The article is about Korea and China relation, and you have tried to push that Korea became free from China because Japanese won over China at the war, so you tried to insert Japan saved Korea just like biased nationalistic people. I read the exact same comment as your statement at 2channel and you lied about your involvement in the shameless nationalistic forum. I don't understand why you're still active here. Besides, your source is extremely biased one published from Korea History Compilation Committee who had published distorted Korean history books by Japanese order. You're the one who should learn ABC of what editors have to do when they write articles. Here is to write Encyclopedia not to push your ego. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue, I think you mean the Korean History Compilation Committee. It seems we are debating between Nanshu's "gate of welcoming imperial favors" and Caspian's "welcoming gate for charity." Does anyone know of an English-language source that provides a translation? Caspian's version does not appear consistent with the History section, which implies that the gate was named for welcoming things of an imperial nature (decrees, gifts, favors, whatever). This suggests that the name refers to imperial things, not charity in general. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I only revised a tiny portion of the history section. The rest is written by Nanshu. Every time, Nanshu's wrongdoing was reported to ANI, he always became inactive, so the reports on him went "stale". That is how he plays games. The translation of the meaning of the gate is literal translation. If you click each Chinese character, you can confirm the meanings on Wiktionary and who is right. I could not find any English source on the literal translation.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consider if this article should be deleted

This article has been mentioned (above) as being on 2chan's watch list. When articles are disputed, sometimes they can be strengthened and made neutral by adding good sourcing. Regrettably, we have nothing to work with here that can be read by most editors of the English Wikipedia, since the only sources are in Eastern languages. Sometimes we can work around that by having people supply translations of various relevant passages, but we are even worse off because the names of the sources are so unfamiliar. We don't know if we should trust them to be reliable sources or not.

Occasionally an inter-wiki link will increase our confidence, if another language has an article that is well-referenced (even if most of us can't read it). Unfortunately (a) I see no link to a Korean article, (b) the link to the Japanese wikipedia reveals a much shorter article than this one. Please reply if you have an opinion on deleting the article, or an idea of how we can raise the level of sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your meditation on this. Although this article has been disgracefully tainted by Japanese 2channel's meatpuppetry, I don't think the article should be deleted just because of the lack of English citations or their disruption on the article. Although it is not my favorable subject in Korean history, history is history. This article is unbalanced and has little information except the emphasis on kowtow by Nanshu, but it can be fixed if more neutral people (not 2channel people) participate in editing the article. Nanshu uses a very old Japanese citation (not verifiable with ISBN or weblink since it looks like a pamphlet published during Korea under Japanese rule) for his edit, and I use two Korean sources because using sources written in each other's language is easy for me or him to start the article. I would add English source if available, however, Korean studies outside of Korea are not much active like Chinese and Japanese studies, so I wonder whether the subject have many English sources. However, I believe Nanshu's disruptive behaviors should be fixed first, so we can work together in a peaceful and cooperative spirit. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue might get more attention from admins if there were something we could obviously do. One option would be a rangeblock that would exclude all the 2chan editors from Wikipedia, but that would be a drastic step and would have to be justified. Another option is to gather input from senior content editors who might be able to strengthen the articles, and could help us tell which editors are making silly changes. At present the references seem weak, or at least, unlikely to convince English speakers. Here is the current reference section. Who can explain why we should trust these sources?

1. "영은문 (迎恩門)" (in Korean). Empas / EncyKorea. Retrieved on 2008-07-28.
2. "모화관 (慕華館)" (in Korean). Empas / EncyKorea. Retrieved on 2008-07-28.
3. To be precise, this routine was established during the Manchu Qing Dynasty[citation needed]. Before the Hongjewon was constructed, the nearest station was the Byeokjegwan in modern-day Goyang. Due to its great distance from the capital, the envoys of Ming arrival at the capital was often delayed until night. Fore more information, see Tongmungwan-ji 通文館志, Vol. 5, Sadae 事大, Gyoyeongui 郊迎儀.
4. Jungjong Sillok 中宗實錄: the dingwei (10th) day of the 4th month, Jungjong 34
5. Injo Sillok 仁祖實錄 仁祖 29卷, 12年(1634 甲戌 / 명 숭정(崇禎) 7年) 6月 14日(戊辰) 예조가 아뢰기를 "그러나 이것은 외국에서 응당 행하여야 할 예는 아닙니다." 하니, 왕이 이를 따랐다.(Korean)
6. Taejong Sillok 太宗實錄: the guimao (22nd) day of the 8th month, Taejong 34
7. Sejong Sillok 世宗實錄: the yiyou (15th) day of the 12nd month, Sejong 12
8. Jungjong Sillok 中宗實錄: the renwu (2nd) day of the 1st month, Jungjong 32
9. Ŏ Sook-kwon 魚叔權: Folkloristic Notes (P'ae-kwan Chap-ki 稗官雜記), Im Dong-kwun et al ed. Joseon Folklore Texts in Chinese Characters, pp. 98-99, Taipei, 1971.

Excuse the lack of formatting. Please explain what the heck all these things are, what the full names of the publications are (including ISBNs), and why we should trust them. Thanks for looking over this, and giving any ideas you can provide. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. Clearly, you are not familiar with this topic. And apparently you have some serious misunderstandings. I don't know where to start.

To begin with, the most fundamental fact we need to share is that, as far as I know, there is no scholarly dispute over this gate. Articles on territorial disputes, wars, etc have real disputes behind them, and it takes so much trouble to reflect them to the article from the NPOV. But this is NOT that kind of article.

The second point to be noted is that an article is an iceberg above water. It's not unrealistic to explain all the remainder under the water so that every unfamiliar reader can verify it. As I wrote above[15], there is little hope of getting any good English source as this gate is not a matter of debate.

Given these facts, the problem is: what is actually disputed here? At the very beginning, I asked it to Caspian blue, who reverted for some obscure reason[16]. But his comments are quite illogical. Most of his lengthy comments are simply irrelevant to the supposed content dispute. Maybe he cannot stick to the subject. Consequently, the most basic question remains unanswered (or did you manage to decipher his comments, EdJohnston?). --Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if native editors of English who can read both Korean and Japanese come here, there would be great help for understanding the content like Bendono (talk · contribs) (although his main interests are history, he's been inactive recently) or BorgQueen (talk · contribs) (however, this admin does not seem to be interested in history), or Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) (he can read multi languages, but his interests are only in linguistics). However, I really appreciate your meditation and concerns about the article and 2channel people.

• First of all, my sources are the first two and comes from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture written by Academy of Korean Studies. This is regarded a top-school and research center for Korean studies in South Korea along with Seoul National University which has Kyujanggak Library, former royal library of Joseon Dynasty. Thus, my sources are regarded credible one and I refer to the encyclopedia a lot whenever I can't find English sources. BorgQueen confirmed the sources whenever I nominated WP:DYK. Sillok is an abbreviation of "Joseon Wangjo Sillok" (Annals of Joseon Dynasty) which means annals of kings that ruled Joseon Dynasty. Taejong Sillok refers to the annal of King Taejong as same as the others.

1. refers to Yeongeunmun (mun is a gate in Korean, but for English speaker, Gate is attached to the title of the article) Annals of Joseon Dynasty
2. refers to Mohwagwan that served for guess house for Chinese envoys.
3. Nanshu inserted it without ISBN and the third one seems missing citation. From the third to the end, except Injo sillok (annals of King Injo), this reference was published during Korea under Japanese occupation. I don't think the source is a neutral one based on the history of the Japanese genocide to Korean culture.

--Caspian blue (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Is there a problem that keeps editors from supplying ISBNs?
2. There are inline citations, but none of them go go page numbers.
3. The Annals of the Joseon Dynasty sounds like a primary source. Is there no secondary source that can be cited instead? (For the difference, see WP:PSTS).
4. If any facts in the article are contested, and if a source is available to confirm the fact, it would be helpful to have a sentence or two translated into English, and included in the note.
5. Does anyone reading this discussion have easy access to these books? EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The [[Encyclopedia of Korean Culture] provides online encyclopedia, so you can confirm the first two inline citations via weblinks if you can read Korean.[17][18].

Annals of the Joseon Dynasty is a primary source, however, it can be reached with modern translation with notes via online. Technically, I don't know what kind of source 京城府: 京城府史, Vol. 1, pp. 375-376, 1934. is that Nanshu uses. It looks like a pamphlet. If it is a book, it can be considered as a secondary source, but Nanshu should provide ISBN.

<To be precise, this routine was established during the Manchu Qing Dynasty[citation needed]. Before the Hongjewon was constructed, the nearest station was the Byeokjegwan in modern-day Goyang. Due to its great distance from the capital, the envoys of Ming arrival at the capital was often delayed until night. Fore more information, see Tongmungwan-ji 通文館志, Vol. 5, Sadae 事大, Gyoyeongui 郊迎儀.> --This is a note inserted by Nanshu. Tongmungwan-ji 通文館志, Sadae 事大, Gyoyeongui 郊迎儀 seem like a primary sources and he should note note that why he inserted this. This note seems like his own interpretation without exact inline sourcing.

There are English translation on Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, but I don't think how to attain them. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not familiar with the topic. I saw Caspian blue's message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and came here.
京城府史 is a series books first published in 1934 until 1941 by the Keijo-fu(the city of Keijo). Japanese local government sometimes publishes history book of the city. 京城府史 sounds like such books (there are three volumes). Of course, in those days, ISBN was not used. These books were re-published in Japan in 1982 by 湘南堂書店(Shonando Shoten) and in South Korea in 1994 by 景仁文化社. Many Universities in Japan own the original books, or re-published books. I hope my information help somebody to find the books.--Mochi (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure yet if this article should be deleted

I see that some of the former debates have resumed again. An editor has just taken away the POV and Refimprove tags, but in my opinion the article is badly in need of reference improvements. If anyone expects English-speaking editors to believe the material included here, there should be some citations to English-language references. Failing that, we might accept references in Eastern languages if (a) someone here who knows the language has the books on their shelf or can find them in a library, (b) relevant passages could be translated to substantiate what is being claimed. If the material can't be properly sourced after such a long time, I think deletion should be considered.

In the past, it seems that Nanshu and Caspian Blue have had differences of opinion about the article content, and often accuse each other of vandalism. It's hard for the rest of us to know who is right, in the absence of any sources that we can read. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can any Korean speakers read what Encyclopedia of Korean Culture says about this gate?

Footnote 1 for this article has "영은문 (迎恩門)" (in Korean). Empas / EncyKorea. Retrieved on 2008-07-28. The link is [19]. Since I don't read Korean all I can tell is this article seems to be about the Yeongeunmun gate, based on the Hanja characters. Since the reference is available on line, do we have any Korean speakers who can summarize what the encyclopedia entry says? It seems to be only about one paragraph long. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)