Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 26 August 2008

Joseon tongsinsa

Joseon tongsinsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Proposed for deletion because of edit history and unverifiable content. (1) More time, effort and care were invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than originator invested in text draft, and (2) there have been no other editors willing or able to address substantive problems which remain in this stagnant article. Tenmei (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Joseon tongsinsa. It is ridiculous to have both. I suspect this is based on info that was on tongsinsa.org, back when it existed. The Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations, and commemorated in an annual festival. I think the subject is notable, especially given the festival, but some actual refs should be found. If no refs can be found, it could be reduced to a stub. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At first blush, the merge of Joseon tongsinsa and Joseon Tongsinsa would seem obvious; but combining two separately-created unsourced articles produces only a larger problem -- a systems-focused solution which only appears to be a constructive step towards something better, but which does nothing to resolve the content issues -- see Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Deletion.

This article was created by an anonymous contributor who also abandoned a similarly-composed article about tomb mounds near Pyeongyang. I wonder if there is some kind of hidden POV-driven agenda which makes sense in some sort of skewed Pyeongyang-informed analysis? I certainly hope that there are other, better and more innocent explanations for this ..., but without more, even this kind of extreme possibility can't be ruled out.

The first line at WP:V is on-point in this context:

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

This posting may be an impossible-to-unsnarl mixture of fact and fiction or it may be crucially flawed or misleading or contrived in a manner inconsistent with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view -- we just don't know ...?

I foresee problems in what you modestly suggest, "If no refs can be found, it could be reduced to a stub." The problem is implicit in your verb -- "reduce." The critical editing you propose would inevitably involve parsing the text: What to leave in? What to edit out?

Even with strict adherence to WP:V, that task quickly becomes an impossible-to-navigate, ever-changing mine field of objections, indignation, misunderstandings. I don't have the temerity to broach a Sisyphean struggle without looking for alternatives ....

I was hoping that by listing this article here, it might be pulled within the ambit of Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron? --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is too bad that we can't find a Korean or Japanese editor to work on this. There was supposedly a book published in 2006 on the Tongsinsas. That also may be where this came from. But, largely I agree with you - based solely on the sources available on the web, the stub would be fairly short. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect To Korean missions to Edo. And leave a note at wikiproject history, wikiproject Korea and wikiproject Japan to get someone with knowledge to look at how much should be merged. There are sources at Korean missions to Edo, and text at Joseon tongsinsa. This does not seem like a good thing, but it is a thing that ought to be fixable. Taemyr (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This nomination really should not have happened this soon. It's only 3 days since the merge discussion was started, and there are sources at Korean missions to Edo. Taemyr (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr -- No, yours seems not to have been a constructive comment in my view. Both Joseon tongsinsa and Joseon Tongsinsa are unsourced, but some or all of the material may be valuable or may be mere propoganda ... -- we just don't know. I wrote Korean missions to Edo and without more, my research can't resolve the problems in these articles with Korean titles; and it appears impossible even to discuss changing the titles to something consistent with WP:Use English. Something beyond my ability is needed. I was bold even to attempt this ... IF I was wrong, then I'm sorry; but this was necessary in order to attract help from the rescue squadron ... which seemed promising. --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brianyoumans -- Yes, yours was a helpful and welcome comment. This article comes to my attention because a Korean editor experienced in the harsh melée flowing from Ilbongun wianbu proposed merging Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo.

The article I wrote about the 12 Joseon missions to the Tokugawa court in Edo is fully cited with links embedded in some of the citations; but the rough-draft text was created using only Japanese-, French- and English-language sources. In this instance, I was personally very eager for this to work out because I looked for collaboration in resolving pre-Hepburn romanizations of Korean names in reports of Joseon missions as recorded in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. Instead, the myriad perceived causes for acrimony were too subtle, too intractable, too omni-present for me to have done more than is shown here; but I hope that an oblique approach may achieve different results. In my view, the subject justifies putting in a little extra effort .... --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I was not aware that you wrote the Edo article. If you read WP:Use English you will note that it specifically states that rd's should be left in place. The example used is Sverige as a redirect to Sweden. My negative attitude stems from the fact that AfD is a decision of wether or not a topic should be covered by wikipedia. It is not, and can not be, a decision of how such content should be presented. Articles should only be deleted when the issues are not repairable. In this case that would mean that the failure of an article to comfort with WP:V is something that is impossible to fix, ie. no sources exists. What content to merge is governed by WP:V but is fundamentally a content decision. Taemyr (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the creator of Joseon tongsinsa made several contributions in mid-April and then vanished, so we can't ask them what sources they used. The articles seem very good, for novice efforts, like they were written by a grad student or prof. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Close and let continue discussion on merging. This is a bad move skipping discussions and normal procedures. AfD should not be abused and should be the final method for editors. The three articles are on the way of merging and right now. However it is so apparent that the nominator has a strong bias against me (. This article comes to my attention because a Korean editor experienced in the harsh melée flowing from Ilbongun wianbu proposed merging Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo.) --> I consider this comment is highly inappropriate. Tenmi, didn't you ever expect me to participate in the AFD? The comment is very unwise and reckless. Besides, you want to keep the newest article for your credit. WP:OWNnership is bothering a lot. What's with Comfort women and the article????? So the reason why you nominate the article is because me? I have tried to have good faith on him, but got a uncivil analysis on my usage of one word and continued come. This AfD is really not necessary and wasting people's time. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- the most constructive thing which could be done in the face of posturing is this AfD combined with the message I posted at the Rescue Squadron page. Yes, I can agree with the phrase "waste of time." Yes, it's a meaningful combination of words, but the phrase doesn't apply in this instance -- not to this AfD.

In this express context, let's make sure we are on the same page -- specifically in terms of WP:BEFORE and the sentence highlighted in bold:

• "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

It was specifically that sentence which informed my decision -- and in light of what has happened since, I think that assessment and judgment is born by what has developed since ... including the gravamen of that paragraph Caspian blue has crafted.

Let me also assert clearly that my AfD nomination was explicitly informed by WP:ATD -- both by the "Editing" sub-section and by the "Merging" sub-section; and I would have thought that this becomes worth pondering further.

In the context of this page, consider "speedy" and imagine what comes next and why.Posturing is fascinating, but ultimately unhelpful. Tiresome, tedious -- yes. Offensive -- yes, often. But there is little which can be called constructive here except for the AfD itself.

This represents nothing which can be addressed by a speedy solution. --Tenmei (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  What are you opposing to? My statement? You already addressed to delete "the contents" without even merging. The article is getting sourced and in turn the creator wrote the article very accurately after I checked on it a with reliable source. The article actually has more contents than yours and you got help from Joseon Tongsinsa for fixing your wrong info. Your AFD has many problems in manner. I don't see why you're doing this. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete due to the shortage of references or sources which are required by the verifiability policy. See also WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  Didn't you see the a "reliable reference" attached to the article? WP:V turns out to be already not a good rationale for your claim.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates