Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Heffernan

Terry Heffernan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

perennial candidate never got elected and never lead his party; mildly interesting, not notable unless every third party candidate who came second at some point is plan 8 (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —plan 8 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —plan 8 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —plan 8 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with caveat. IIRC, Heffernan was leader of Social Credit at about the time it became the Democrat Party - therefore, though not an MP, he was the political leader of historically a significant party in NZ. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say anything about this - but if my memory's not playing tricks and this info can be confirmed and added in, I think he'd pass notability standards. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - and edge case as he is fairly well known from years as deputy leader and spokesperson on many portfolios for Social Credit. Had Proportional representation been introduced a few years earlier he would certainly have been an MP. I would bee happy if 4-5 references demonstrating the scope of his political activity could be found. dramatic (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bentley

Tom Bentley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

delete. interesting, but not notable. plan 8 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete non notable as article currently stands. Maybe could find something more interesting about him and his role at Demos? Jenafalt (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Google News archive and Google Books searches find hundreds of sources that show obvious notability. I've put some of them in the article.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep in the light of the sources that were added.
  talk) 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Muirhead and Nolan, keep Power. Mangojuice^talk 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Muirhead (Eidos)

Bruce Muirhead (Eidos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mark Nolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Colin Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree with all three noms and strongly suggest the Eidos page be rewritten to read less like it was written by the company. plan 8 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that Mark Nolan and Colin Power whould be deleted as they fail WP:BIO as non notable. Bruce Muirhead I would class as a weak delete. He seems to have done much more than the others, but still fails WP:PROF. Jenafalt (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Powell notable on the basis of the honorary degree as part of the distinguished career "In 1978 he was appointed as Professor of Education at Flinders University of South Australia, Professor Emeritus of that University, Hon. D.Litt, University of Sydney, 2002"

Possibly keep the others The other two I have some doubts about, because of the lack of solid evidence in the articles. This is basically questioning of the people associated with the Eidos Institute; it would seem likely that there is material to be found, but it needs to be--in this case, by someone other than me. I would like to know what sources the nominator has tried and failed to find information with. Presumably he has looked, for I assume he wants to keep the articles if possible, per Deletion Policy. DGG (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep prof. muirhead is notable and has a distinguished career serving queensland and greater australia. we need to be careful about systemic bias here. his notability is non-american, but still verifiable based on his current page, which could use improvement. if there are 'no reliable sources, go find some' it takes but a few minutes to dig up material in google. --Buridan (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Jenafant. To Buridan: it is for those who seek to have material included to provide sources, not for those who seek to have it removed to show there are none.
  talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

actually it is up to the proposer to make every effort to improve the article before proposing deletion. in this case, it looks like they forgot that part. needing improvement is not a reason for afd. quick google search shows there is material. --Buridan (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mark Nolan and Colin Power - no opinion on Bruce Muirhead (Eidos) --T-rex 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nolan and Muirhead, Keep Power as follows:

- Nolan fails the

notability guidelines

for biographies, having no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, no notable awards or honours and no evidence of a widely recognised contribution to his field. Delete.

- Muirhead also has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but has been unsucessfully nominated for Australian awards for university teaching. On balance this seems too little to justify an article - it can always be recreated if/when he finally wins. The Goodna Project cite in the article is a red herring - it doesn't mention Muirhead at all, and notability is not conferred from association with a notable project. As with Nolan, no sources and no apparent evidence of an enduring contribution to the historical record in his chosen field. On balance, delete.

- Power is the exception, with reasonable coverage in external sources, some notable positions (eg. 12 years running UNESCO's education programs, one of the highest UN positions held by an Australian), 13 books and 250 published works on eucation. This provides a better summary of his achievements than our article does. I can't determine what the "Moscow medal" is (there was a "Defense of Moscow" medal in WWII but I doubt that Colin Power has one, and the Clarenced MacNamara Award is equally obscure. Still, on balance there's enough here to keep this one. Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge to
  talk) 06:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Nolan and Muirhead, Keep Power for Euryalus' extensive analysis. --
  Tikiwont (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Willoughby-Brown

Peregrine Willoughby-Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet guidelines wrt WP:BIO. Article is about a non-notable member of minor aristocracy. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He isn't listed as the direct heir of the title, and the title is fairly minor. I would agree - out! Brianyoumans (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bordering on a speedy — no assertion of why he even might be notable, other than being a possible heir to some title.
  talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nate & The Bloodhounds

Nate & The Bloodhounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm 99% sure that this is a

• Delete as hoax. No verifiable sources found. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per db-band. No assertion of notability here folks. JuJube (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I saw this a couple days ago and meant to nominate for deletion. I'm 100% sure it is a hoax given, as noted, the creator's history of creating articles for hoax bands and that a google search turns up only this page. CAVincent (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC) p.s. I checked the creator's history, and I'm pretty sure this is the last of his hoax creations. CAVincent (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Morrison (Footballer)

Scott Morrison (Footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One sentence article about a footballer who plays in the

N.B. This a different person to the more notable Scott Morrison (footballer). Bush shep (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Bush shep (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails
  WP:Athlete as never having played in a fully professional league. Smile a While (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment; adding Stevie George (Footballer), Martyn Farquhar (Footballer), Colin Burry (Footballer), Arron Christie (Footballer) to the nomination. Smile a While (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One more: Robbie Ross (Football manager) Bush shep (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as they all fail notability at
  WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. REDIRECT Scott Morrison (Footballer) to Scott Morrison (footballer). --Jimbo^[online] 12:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete All as they fail notability. Second Jimbo's redirection motion. GauchoDude (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. No notability (Quentin X (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Schuym1 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow (2004 film)

Snow (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show the movie's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I created this article a while back when I was cleaning up Snow (disambiguation), and I ought to have added reliable sources at the time. Sources do exist, as seen in this search, and I will add some later on, unless someone else would like to go ahead in the meantime. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw: I would like to withdraw per Paul Erik's comment. Schuym1 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farmbot

Farmbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like a hoax, unsourced for a year, and lacks any google news hits.

• Delete Found some chatter in the blogosphere, but nobody serious taking it seriously. Controversy over the old mascot is notable enough, but we need a
  notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Looks more like an excuse to stick a youtube link in Wikipedia than a serious attempt at an article, and in any case the subject just isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mule school

Mule school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a

• Strong Delete appears to be a vanity article with much gushing over the cartoon's creator and not much in the way of asserting any kind of notoriety. JuJube (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Delete
  WP:COI « PuTTY^SchOOL 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Self-promotion by non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam about non-notable flash animation with no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

Estonian athletes of the year 2006-2007

Estonian athletes of the year 2006-2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this even an official award? Seems like an indiscriminate collection of various sporting achievements put together by the author. BanRay 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think it's official, as it reads like some kid's homework. From the article: "Incredibly great things happened" Wowie wow wow! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Either that or a rough translation of some magazine article (presumably from Estonian). BanRay 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Source and merge to 2006 in sports and/or 2007 in sports as appropriate. Some might be (are) puzzled by my de-PRODing the article. I don't think that poor writing is a reason for deletion; there are plenty of people for whom English is a (distant) second language. Content should be looked at from a what can be kept/recycled and properly sourced not from a phew, that sounds like a pre-teen writing - let's delete it stance. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have you read the nom? BanRay 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems a very indiscriminate selection of athletes, either the authors own thoughts, a magazine article or a combination of the two. Is very much not written from a
  NPOV either. Basement12 (T.C) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Toyne

Abigail Toyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable erotic model. See WP:PORNBIO. Playboy Special Editions and Men's World are not mainstream (non-pornographic) media. Notability in question since June 2007. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to pass BIO or PORNBIO, only references are to a tabloid and a British porno database. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO. Although I previously removed the notability tag on that article, she has only been on one Taiwanese Playboy Cover and there's no other indication of notability. Keep-!votes in previous AfD don't seem to conform to current notability guidelines. --Amalthea^Talk 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Dial Communications

Just Dial Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable company, no references or sources. No updates in over 6 months. All external links point to their own websites. ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No
  reliable sources to justify coverage in Wikipedia. Google search doesn't reveal anything of great interest, just advertisements for the service. I note that the G4 speedy deletion of this article was endorsed on December 12, 2006. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I added a reference and the location of the head office. --Eastmain (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reference does not establish notability though.. I can't find anything on this company in a basic Google search that does -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see any indication that this company meets
  WP:CORP guidelines. As noted above, there are no notable mentions of this company to be seen. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Notability not established. looks like
  WP:SPAM Michellecrisp (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet
  WP:CORP benjicharlton (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Maxim (☎) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of software companies in Poland

List of software companies in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Visor - What part of the first paragraphs of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is unclear? The presence of a similar category is not a valid reason for deletion. Additionally, each of the entries must have some notability since they are all valid WP articles. It is interesting that there is a Unreferenced template on the list! -- Where does one go about finding 3rd party sources that discusses Lists of Software Companies in Poland? You can find my expanded thoughts on that at: Here. This list could indeed be improved with a good lead-in paragraph and some descriptions of each entry, but its doesn't deserve deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, lists are not redundant to categories, but another, often more handy way of navigating. --
  talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable intersection of country and business type. The existence of a category leaves nothing to merge --T-rex 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per T-Rex - non-notable intersection. The category will be sufficient. It also has the advantage of being self-maintaining and naturally reducing the chance of irrelevant or non-notable items being added.
  talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, after discounting comments that are unsigned or from unregistered or very new users, as is customary.

SB Alliance

• academic, non-profit, sponsored by the UN...where's the problem? KEEP

• I have carefully read this article and do not see any reason for deletion. I agree with the comment below concerning the absence of references in Google and the fact that this should not be used as proof of non-notability, specially when dealing with scientific/academic issues, this is stated in wikipedia guidelines, and also with the fact that being supported by the UN makes this non-profit a notable initiative. I also agree with the fact that this article provides more information from a non commercial and international perspective and think this is valuable. The article will improve with time, this is often the case with wiki articles: KEEP

The green building article in wikipedia does not mention any of the international initiatives led by the UNITED NATIONS or the international works ISO and CEN. The only fully developed assessment tool is the north American LEED. LEED is a comercial product that refers to american standards. I think that wikipedia should allow some space for other initiatives specially. I would say do not delete. Is the fact of being in the first page of Google synonymous of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margauxmeunier (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing the Reasons for deletion on Wikipedia Deletion policy page I do not find notability as a criterion. In any case notability should not be solely based on Google findings, if they are supported by the UNITED NATIONS aren?t they enough notable? do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.164.7 (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC) The absence of references in Google should not be used as proof of non-notability, specially when dealing with scientific/academic issues. In the English Wikipedia notability guideline (which is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow) this is clearly stated. Scientific and academic content is obviously less quoted in Google than commercial content, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.55.217 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the green building article in Wikipedia, while the american comercial product LEED is very well described, UNEP and [iiSBE](http://www.iisbe.org)(both non profit and international) are not even mentionned, probably because they are not enough "notable". iiSBE is a network of more than 300 individuals from universities in more than 30 different countries, and it is a very notable non-profit organization in the scientific community that exist for more than 15 years. UNEP is the voice for the environment in the United Nations system. Both are part of the SB Alliance. Is it fair to remove an article with such credentials on the sole criterion of "notability" ? Other alternatives such as editing should be explored first. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.64 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying the arguments posted by the other above and copying them below:

• The green building article in wikipedia does not mention any of the international initiatives led by the UNITED NATIONS or the international works ISO and CEN. The only fully developed assessment tool is the north American LEED. LEED is a comercial product that refers to american standards. I think that wikipedia should allow some space for other initiatives specially. I would say do not delete. Is the fact of being in the first page of Google synonymous of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margauxmeunier (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• When reviewing the Reasons for deletion on Wikipedia Deletion policy page I do not find notability as a criterion. In any case notability should not be solely based on Google findings, if they are supported by the UNITED NATIONS aren?t they enough notable? do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.164.7 (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The absence of references in Google should not be used as proof of non-notability, specially when dealing with scientific/academic issues. In the English Wikipedia notability guideline (which is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow) this is clearly stated. Scientific and academic content is obviously less quoted in Google than commercial content, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.55.217 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at the green building article in Wikipedia, while the american comercial product LEED is very well described, UNEP and [iiSBE](http://www.iisbe.org)(both non profit and international) are not even mentionned, probably because they are not enough "notable". iiSBE is a network of more than 300 individuals from universities in more than 30 different countries, and it is a very notable non-profit organization in the scientific community that exist for more than 15 years. UNEP is the voice for the environment in the United Nations system. Both are part of the SB Alliance. Is it fair to remove an article with such credentials on the sole criterion of "notability" ? Other alternatives such as editing should be explored first. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.64 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

SB Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• A newly launched organisation. Written up here by user:Alfonsoponce who is presumably Alfonso Ponce mentioned at the bottom of this page as a contact for the organisation. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk
• SB Alliance is a network that gathers UNEP, UNESCO, the UK BRE, the french CSTB and other well known organizations...that makes it notable from my point of view. It is a non-profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.198.127 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello I am Alfonso Ponce, I have erased my name from the article, the network is a non profit international association for the promotion of research in the field of sustainability. The network is sponsored by UNEP and UNESCO but also by the WFTAO and the french Government. In terms of coverage, the SB Alliance is composed of several important countries in Europe such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Finland. All this represented by public (expect for the UK) research organizations. You will find more information about the SB Alliance in the official website. I hope this will help clarifying the situation and again sorry it is my first wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.198.127 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bit of a challenging one. While it's apparent that the organization is backed by some big groups in Europe, it doesn't appear that anyone noticed its launch enough to cover it, and it gets very minimal Google and Google News response. I'm not sure that it's notable - yet... if it picks up steam in its development and gets more notice, then perhaps it will be notable enough for an article. Tough call, though, so weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete A mention of this should go into Green building. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

Robert O'Connor (singer)

Robert O'Connor (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged {{

• • Comment - The article was not created by an established user, it was moved by an established user.
    talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Ah, thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. After numerous creations, this still isn't notable. -
  talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no independent sources provided or found which discuss this artist. Doesn't meet
  WP:BAND -Hunting dog (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I just spent a fair amount of time investigating this, and have to say that while someone's doing a pretty reasonable job of making Mr. o'Connor look good on the web, I can't find a thing that would indicate he meets
  WP:MUSIC at this time. His record distribution place indicates that he's an indie artist, he's got the one album and a bit of buzz (not much) about some of the singles he's released, but hasn't made the charts taht I can find, and the coverage is pretty slim all around. Delete unless someone comes up with proof that he's all his bios claim. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability information and several references have been added to the article since it's nomination. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 14:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under a War-Torn Sky

Under a War-Torn Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion on creative but incorrect grounds; DGG removed the speedy tag before I could but the nominator has a point - a book by a redlinked author with no indication of importance and zero independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sorry my Speedy attempt was misguided but thank you for bringing this to AfD. With the exception of the vague "won a number of awards " (from the author's mom and her friends perhaps) there's no hint of notability. - SpockMonkey (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some awards listed here. The first checks out. Zagalejo^^^ 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a few refs. The book isn't Red Badge of Courage, but it's notable enough for me. It's also in at least 890 libraries, which is a respectable showing. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Got reviewed, major publisher, a few minor awards... I'm not sure there is a reason to pitch this. It isn't the least notable book in Wikipedia. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Award-winning and widely-reviewed. Looks like it was a Washington Post Book of the Week too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Got reviewed and won awards. Schuym1 (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the reviews and awards. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has improved significantly since AFD nom with references to reviews and awards. SashaNein (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustraetit

Illustraetit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

ThaddeusB (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ". Fails
  WP:BIO either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong delete Fails
  WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to estalish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - per all of the above. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Surrey

Gay Surrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local organization. Gsearch turns up one brief mention [3]. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can find more than that. There seem to be a number of articles in the Woking News, including some on a run-in with a local shopping center. Article needs work, but I see signs of notability. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just a reminder that WP:ORG says "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failure to meet WP:ORG as per SatyrTN. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

Michael Pyshnov

Michael Pyshnov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

rather definitively non-notable, no reliable sources - apparently his academic career never took off because of a dispute with his PhD supervisor Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He may be notable, although most likely not notable under
  WP:PROF. See here: http://ca.geocities.com/UofTfraud/. Depending on how much trouble he has stirred up over the past 25 years, he might be notable under some other category. Crieff (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• DeleteSee also: http://www.famousplagiarists.com/scienceandmedicine.htm#larsen. I imagine this would all be very hard to sort out, and from what I see it looks more like a squabble that, while very serious for Pyshnov, is not very serious or notable to the broader community (rightly or wrongly). If there were some significant media references to the debate or if there were some reasonably serious academic consequences for the subject's former supervisor, that might make the case notable. But most references to the controversy online are authored by Pyshnov, who himself acknowledges that has been no singificant media uptake of the story (http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=a25b7ce5-a1bf-48ba-8acf-352caa6226b2). Crieff (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject is not notable as an academic. As far as I can tell, he published (almost) nothing and there do not to be appear any citations of his scientific work in academic publications, let alone wide citability, as required by
  WP:BLP guidance even in the context of an article on a larger subject. All in all, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. The deletion debate has evolved into

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

)

• 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)[reply
  ]

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

.

The first line at

WP:V

is on-point in this context:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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

talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• Redirect To
  Taemyr (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Taemyr (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Korean missions to Edo

.

• Ilbongun wianbu redirects to Comfort women; and see Talk:Comfort women
  with the following templates at the head of the page:

{:{medcabbox|2008-07-25_Comfort_women}} -- This article, Comfort women, is currently the subject of informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. Please read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes, and respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.

{:{calm talk}} -- Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

{:{Controversial-issues}} -- This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.

Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of

edit summary

.

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-

talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah. I was not aware that you wrote the Edo article. If you read

Taemyr (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]

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. --

talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

  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)[reply]

• Delete due to the shortage of references or sources which are required by the
  talk) 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  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)[reply

  ]

References

I felt encouraged when I saw references had been added to

Joseon tongsinsa, but this newest cause for dismay is bitter. The following in-line citations refer to an inaccessible article in a Korean on-line encyclopedia 통신사 (通信使).

• 1. Following the establishment of diplomatic ties between Joseon and Japan in 1404 (4th year of King Taejong's reign in Joseon), the two countries began to dispatch envoys to handle diplomatic issues.^[1]

• 2. The word "tongsin" means diplomatic exchange between two countries based on good faith. The envoys dispatched by Joseon were not singularly referred to as tongsinsa, however, and a variety of titles were used, including bobingsa (보빙사, 報聘使), hoeryesa (회례사, 回禮使), hoeryegwan (회례관, 回禮官), tongsingwan (통신관, 通信官) and gyeongchagwan (경차관, 敬差官).^[1]

• 3. It was in 1413 (13th year of
  King Sejong's reign) when the delegation, led by Bak Seo-saeng (박서생, 朴瑞生), arrived in Kyoto.^[1]

• 4. In the years before the 1592
  waegu, or Japanese marauders, plundering Joseon’s coastline.^[1]

The following is a Babelfish translation of that on-line Korean text. In the narrow context established by these four citations, I don't see how it is possible to construe the following as verification or validation -- setting aside for the moment what is explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. There isn't a match between the source cited and the sentences which are the object of the citation exercise.

I muddled through the onerous task of creating the machine-translated text below; and I carefully read the prose as best I could, highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates in bold font. What I found was troubling when re-evaluated in the following relevant contexts:

• Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Merge
• Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge
• Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Deletion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa
• Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Needing diplomacy and finesse

Despite

WP:PA. In the world outside Wikipedia's consensus reality

, this would be a blunt demonstration of "bad faith." To describe this travesty as "disingenuous" is too mild, but I'd begin there.

The prescient sense of alarm which impelled me to post an AfD listing now seems justified, even if it is the case, as

Taemyr argues here

, that some other strategy would have been better than listing an AfD while hoping that the Article Rescue Squadron step in.

At

Taemyr

construes this sentence to mean that I should withdraw my AfD nomination. If that recommendation still stands, then I need to re-evaluate my understanding of what "normal editing" means.

In light of this "References" sub-section, if withdrawal still remains a better way to proceed, I have the capacity to listen and to act on good advice. Before I began trying to decipher the Korean encyclopedia text, I felt almost persuaded that there might be a way forward in

Taemyr

cited:

"Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."

When I began to work with the Korean text, I thought that finally we'd arrived at the threshold of a something sufficiently specific that "normal editing" could commence. Now what?

Now I'm convinced anew that AfD was always the right thing to do, and that it was foolish to try to figure out how to salvage a situation which was hopeless to begin with. I'm puzzled by this newest gambit. --

talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Dog tube ( 개 관 )

Korea communication buy altitude does generally. 1403 Korea ([thay] bell 3) from the life country received the book seal, that next year Japan they knew and the car was formed (as many as) General justice should have received the book seal, to China * Korea * Japan between serves the powerful * diplomatic relation of relation of neighboring countries. And then Korea and the Japanese two countries became the relation of neighboring countries country of the situation which is equal, with the Korea king the department head army as the highest power person of the both nations the trade name dispatched the embassador just. This time the embassador whom the Korea king sends with the Japanese king (naming) the department head army just the news agency and just the department head army send to the Korea king embassador the Japanese king company (day) as. As a result of general the communication saran terminology enemy [lyey] (in the equal (equal) one nation between of the position which is) enemies providence (justice), () bears the meaning which is an embassador whom does.

To Korea electricity the embassador traffic of Japan and Japanese dispatch of the Korea embassador accomplishes to 18 times many, the Japanese king resignation Korea dispatch accomplishes to 71 times. The embassador whom the Korea king dispatches but does not have the title of all news agency not to be, the thing is only 8 times in General [i cwung]. For example also the name bought the round of visits company (round of visits) * the round of visits tube (round of visits officialdom) * step round () * the variation tube (officialdoms) * the news agency * the communication tube (officialdoms) the politics which will be etc. not to be, also the goal and organization were various.

The news agency which Korea dispatches from like this point with afterwords same must equip a condition and goal.

• First, the Japanese market army (the king) is dispatched from the Korea king.
• Second, good or bad luck of the Japanese king () or has the goal which solves the problem which the both nations between is urgent.
• Three, the Korea king brings the Japanese king (the credential which the department head army) sends just (books) comes example only ().
• Four, the delegation the high rank administrator of the center three four (organizes at) below.
• Fifth, also the king resignation designation has.

Japan just sweeping the title of the news agency initially in the delegation whom dispatches to the department head army 1375 nothing Rome is a consideration time (why the fact that dispatches the embassador who requests nine prohibitions the beginning in General) just bringing up for discussion. But only name the news agency only will be, does not equip the condition and a goal could not.

Came in into a Korea time and the name of the news agency appearing initially 1413 ([thay] bell 13) was, but this meandering political affairs Pak minute (in order from) these moderations for the bottle to be born was discontinued. Has the name of the news agency after that and meandering which is dispatched to Japan 1428 (Sejong 10) the political affairs Pak student (lifestyles) as the delegation below, these dispatch goal general [sup] position sacrifice () was about congratulation and the battlefield army. The dispatch of the after that news agency became regulations and in trillion * one both nations between with symbol of amicable relation of neighboring countries extended in Korea periodic electricity between and total 20 times (Korea electricity 8 time, Korea postscript 12 time) became accomplished. The news agency which is dispatched to Korea periodic Japan (ticket 1) with is same.

일반적으로 조선통신사라고도 한다. 조선이 1403년(태종 3)에 명나라로부터 책봉을 받고, 그 이듬해 일본의 아시카가(足利義滿) 장군도 책봉을 받자, 중국·조선·일본 간에는 사대·교린의 외교관계가 성립되었다. 그러자 조선과 일본 두 나라는 대등한 처지의 교린국이 되고, 조선국왕과 막부장군은 양국의 최고권력자로서 상호간에 사절을 파견하였다. 이때 조선 국왕이 막부장군(일본국왕으로 칭함)에게 보내는 사절을 통신사, 막부장군이 조선 국왕에게 보내는 사절을 일본 국왕사(日本國王使)라고 하였다. 일반적으로 통신사란 용어는 적례(敵禮)적인 입장의 대등(對等)한 국가간에 신의(信義)를 통(通)하는 사절이라는 의미를 지닌다. 조선 전기에는 일본과의 사절 왕래가 많아 조선 사절의 일본 파견이 18회에 달하였고, 일본국왕사의 조선 파견이 71회에 달한다. 그러나 조선 국왕이 파견한 사절이 모두 통신사의 호칭을 갖지는 않았으며, 이 중 장군에게 간 것은 8회 뿐이다. 예를 들면 명칭도 회례사(回禮使)·회례관(回禮官)·보빙사(報聘使)·경차관(敬差官)·통신사·통신관(通信官) 등 일정치 않았고, 목적과 편성도 다양했다. 이러한 점에서 조선이 파견한 통신사는 다음과 같은 조건과 목적을 갖추어야 한다. 첫째, 조선 국왕으로부터 일본 장군(국왕)에게 파견된다. 둘째, 일본 국왕의 길흉(吉凶) 또는 양국간의 긴급한 문제를 해결하는 목적을 갖는다. 셋째, 조선 국왕이 일본 국왕(막부장군)에게 보내는 국서(國書)와 예단(禮單)을 지참한다. 넷째, 사절단은 중앙의 고위관리인 삼사(三使) 이하로 편성한다. 다섯째, 국왕사의 칭호도 갖는다. 일본의 막부장군에게 파견한 사절단에 통신사의 호칭을 처음 쓴 것은 고려시대인 1375년 무로마치(室町) 막부의 장군에게 왜구 금지를 요청하는 사절을 파견한 것이 시초이다. 그러나 명칭만 통신사였을 뿐, 그 조건과 목적을 갖추지는 못하였다. 조선시대에 들어와 통신사의 명칭이 처음 나타난 것은 1413년(태종 13)이었으나, 이 사행도 정사 박분(朴賁)이 중도에서 병이 났기 때문에 중지되었다. 그 뒤 통신사의 명칭을 가지고 일본에 파견된 사행은 1428년(세종 10) 정사 박서생(朴瑞生) 이하의 사절단으로, 이들의 파견 목적은 장군습직의 축하와 전장군에 대한 치제(致祭)였다. 이후 통신사의 파견은 정례화되어 조·일 양국간에 우호교린의 상징으로 조선시대 전기간에 걸쳐 총 20회(조선 전기 8회, 조선 후기 12회)가 이루어졌다. 조선시대 일본에 파견된 통신사는 〔표 1〕과 같다.

Dispatch reason and intension ( 파견이유와 목적 )

Dispatch reason of the news agency the goal Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 and around there is some difference. There was to case Japanese relationship of Korea electricity and the high stake why was old story system as well, in order to solve this problem dispatched the news agency to the department head army just from Korea. Consequently the surface area reason of news agency dispatch why general for the request and a amicable relationship maintenance of nine gold pressures [sup] position congratulation etc. mainly politics * was from the goal which is diplomatic. This piece the Japanese king company which is dispatched to Korea brings east () from Japan and the rice which is a substitution essential goods * the bean * the cotton buys and is a goal which is economic, or the adenoma () on a large scale with the point which is cultural takes Buddhist Sutras of popularity flaw Korea and the pan bell contrasts with from Japan. Meantime the case of Korea postscript immediately after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592, the [sway] annularity which is a peace negotiations and a fatigue for a state of war conclusion (people) (: Got accompanied by the compatriot who is drifting from the foreign nation and returning), [sup] position congratulation etc. of state search and just the department head army as well politics * dispatched the news agency from the goal which is diplomatic. The Japanese king resignation Korea dispatch was forbidden from the other side Korea postscript Japan. Being the course at Korea electric Japanese king resignation, the etc. damage which is used with aggression of at that time Japanese army which is core flaw, from Korea does not allow Japanese king resignation coming up to the capital, was because not being. The Japanese king resignation dispatch after that is discontinued, substitution about the department head army rises just and difference why () to make substitute becomes. By the way the delegation who is dispatched at 1607 is immediately after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 * 1617 * 1624 the designation which is did not do the news agency not to be, `reply and also [sway] annular companies (reply) 'wrote. The reason from Korea only this time does but the [khwu] does not recognize and (virtue) just department with the communication country () which is the possibility of leading a providence, because not being is. The title of the news agency being used again, starting from 1636 rises, to like this background is operating with the cause to which the fluctuation of East Asia international situation is principal. Namely, influence shift of life * blue and the collapse of the neutralization order () which follows in him with the new regiment feeling did to make the relation of neighboring countries relationship of the neutralization construct () which burns in trillion * one both nations. The news agency of Korea postscript blue excludes one book seal setup consequently in the center, there is meaning which is a diplomatic privacy which is an establishment of the equal diplomacy which is an indigenous of trillion * one both nations. From like this international environmental inside goal of the news agency and stand orgin * example only * were to the itinerary etc. contents and the format and the news agency became regulations. And the hemp helped to one side and as a result of with line () above the substantial was and for [kyo] a system door sells lawsuit () and why () established. After that the news agency dispatch becomes regulations, dispatch goal ostensibly the most general [sup] position was congratulation. Put out but with every that time different had a reason and object. For example, 1636 regiment feeling establishment of Japan which follows in influence shift of life * blue and, support and state search of credential rehash event after that Tsu Island week, 1643 institutional after that of restraint and also unit () even with Korean fiddle policy () of abridgment negotiation and Japan of the trade volume which extends about the primeval arm (abiogenesis) were state search about pressure of the blue country. 1655 after that the news agency did Japan `highway Korea ' () confirms information respecting, to be, 1682 helped the hemp and they were 7 mourning morning fair promises (morning fair promise) for a trade control. 1711 the news agency Oh the relationship of the friendship which with honor maintenance and Japan of the nation is continuous was goal about diplomatic formal opening a court of [khwu] three meal (white) under this. 1719 difference why (people) 'treaty contracting etc. they are `tickets from diplomatic policy delivery and hemp degree of Korea had the pending issue of the both nations which is concrete about diplomatic formal return. Came in into a 18th century but the situation of the continent should have been stabilized became more formal the pending question where also the news agency dispatch is diplomatic. Consequently 1748 and 1764 the news agency general [sup] position the congratulation and relation of neighboring countries relationship confirmation became main purpose. Like this tendency will come in into a 19th century and meaning which news agency dispatch is diplomatic will be lost, 1811 news agency will change an itinerary and with `reverse communications () which are formal exchanges a credential from Tsu Island 'will close there was not a news agency which after that regulations to get off, had become. Even after that of course general [sup] every when controlling directly `agency reverse communications () 'or `hemp reverse communication () 'this was decided, was not enforced. When already became this time and the both nations did not have the will which is active about news agency dispatch. 19th century middles, the East Asia world was made to receive the threat of Western influence in addition and from trillion * one both nations the amicable relation of neighboring countries which leads the news agency to dispose in compliance with the foreign recognition which is contrary each other in Western influence, became, the destruction of the relation of neighboring countries setup which is unilateral in compliance with Japan with the lung paragraph of the news agency brought the end of relation of neighboring countries relationship together.

통 신사의 파견 이유나 목적은 임진왜란을 전후하여 다소 차이가 있다. 조선 전기의 경우 일본관계에 있어 가장 큰 관심사는 역시 왜구문제였고, 조선에서는 이 문제를 해결하기 위하여 막부장군에게 통신사를 파견했다. 따라서 통신사 파견의 표면적 이유는 왜구 금압의 요청과 우호관계 유지를 위한 장군습직 축하 등 주로 정치·외교적인 목적에서였다. 이 점은 일본으로부터 조선에 파견되는 일본 국왕사가 동(銅)을 가져와 대신 생필품인 쌀·콩·목면을 구해가는 경제적인 목적이거나, 아니면 일본에서 선종(禪宗)이 크게 유행하자 조선의 대장경과 범종을 가져가는 문화적이었던 점과 대조를 이룬다. 한편 조선 후기의 경우는 임진왜란 직후, 전쟁상태 종결을 위한 강화교섭, 피로인(被擄人) 쇄환(刷還：외국에서 떠돌고 있는 동포를 데리고 돌아옴), 국정탐색, 막부장군의 습직 축하 등 역시 정치·외교적인 목적에서 통신사를 파견했다. 반면 조선 후기 일본으로부터 일본 국왕사의 조선파견은 금지되었다. 조선 전기 일본 국왕사의 상경로가 임란 당시 일본군의 침략로로 이용되는 등 피해가 심하자, 조선에서는 일본 국왕사의 상경을 허락하지 않았기 때문이었다.그 뒤 일본국왕사의 파견은 중단되고, 대신 막부장군에 관한 일은 차왜(差倭)가 대신하게 된다. 그런데 임진왜란 직후인 1607년·1617년·1624년에 파견된 사절단은 통신사라 하지 않고, ‘회답겸쇄환사(回答兼刷還使)’라는 칭호를 썼다. 그 이유는 조선에서는 이 시기만 하더라도 도쿠가와(德川) 막부를 신의를 통할 수 있는 통신국(通信國)으로 인정하지 않았기 때문이다. 통신사의 호칭이 다시 사용되기 시작한 것은 1636년부터인데, 이러한 배경에는 동아시아 국제정세의 변동이 주된 원인으로 작용하고 있다. 즉, 명·청의 세력 교체와 그에 따른 중화질서(中華秩序)의 붕괴는 조·일 양국에 새로운 연대감과 탈중화(脫中華)의 교린관계를 구축하게 했다. 따라서 조선 후기의 통신사는 청을 중심으로 한 책봉체제를 배제하고, 조·일 양국의 독자적인 대등외교의 수립이라는 외교사적인 의미가 있다. 이러한 국제환경 속에서 통신사의 목적과 서계·예단·여정 등 내용과 형식에 있어서 통신사가 정례화되었다. 그리고 한편으로 대마도와의 실질적인 통교를 위하여 문위행(問慰行)과 팔송사(八送使) 및 차왜(差倭)제도를 확립하였다. 통신사 파견이 정례화된 이후, 파견 목적은 표면적으로는 대부분이 장군습직의 축하였다. 그러나 내면적으로는 그때마다 다른 이유와 목적을 가지고 있었다. 예를 들면, 1636년은 명·청의 세력 교체에 따른 일본과의 연대감 확립, 국서개작사건 이후 대마도주의 옹호와 국정탐색, 1643년은 청나라의 압력에 대한 견제와 겸대(兼帶)의 제도 이후 늘어나는 무역량의 축소 교섭, 일본의 해금정책(海禁政策)과 도원생변(島原生變)에 대한 국정탐색이었다. 그 뒤 1655년의 통신사는 일본이 ‘가도조선’(假道朝鮮)한다는 정보를 확인하기 위함이었고, 1682년은 대마도와의 무역통제를 위한 7개 조의 조시약정(朝市約定)이었다. 1711년의 통신사는 아라이 하쿠세끼(新井白石)의 외교의례 개정에 대한 국가의 체면 유지와 일본과의 계속적인 우호관계가 목적이었다. 1719년은 외교의례 복귀에 대한 조선의 외교방침 전달 및 대마도에서의 ‘표인차왜(漂人差倭)’의 조약체결 등 구체적인 양국의 현안문제가 있었다. 그러나 18세기에 들어와 대륙의 정세가 안정되자 통신사 파견도 외교적인 현안보다는 의례적이 되었다. 따라서 1748년과 1764년의 통신사는 장군습직 축하와 교린관계 확인이 주목적이 되었다. 이러한 경향은 19세기에 들어와 통신사 파견의 외교적인 의미가 상실되면서, 1811년 통신사는 여정을 바꾸어 대마도에서 국서를 교환하는 의례적인 ‘역지통신(易地通信)’으로 막을 내리며, 이후 정례화된 통신사는 없었다. 물론 그 뒤에도 장군이 습직할 때마다 ‘대판역지통신(大阪易地通信)’ 또는 ‘대마역지통신(對馬易地通信)’이 결정되었지만 시행되지 않았다. 이미 이 시기가 되면 양국은 통신사 파견에 대한 적극적인 의지가 없었다. 더구나 19세기 중반, 동아시아세계가 서구세력의 위협을 받게 되면서부터 조·일 양국은 통신사를 통한 우호교린보다는 서로 상반된 대외인식에 의해 서구세력에 대처해 나가게 되었고, 일본에 의한 일방적인 교린체제의 파괴는 통신사의 폐절과 함께 교린관계의 종말을 가져왔다.

Dispatch process and member ( 파견절차와 구성원 )

The dispatch process of the news agency with afterwords is same. When the monk of the department head army [sup] this is decided just is new first from Japan, the Tsu Island week just hundred win `tubes [sup] distressed circumstance why in bringing up for discussion order (white: ) 'dispatches to Korea from Japan and informs comes the fact. Immediately afterward again `news agency blue [lay] which request a news agency dispatch why () () 'dispatches. Consequently when the example elegy proposes a pending question, after discussing from regulation, this fact to Waegwan () news agency dispatch is decided from Korea, informs. That rear Tsu Island week the difference which again in order to discuss the various branch problem which in Japanese visit (Japanese visit) of the news agency company follows Korea side and `gentleman brilliant people sells why () 'dispatches to Pusan Waegwan. When consequently the contents which news agency dispatch is concrete is discussed, informs to this regulation from example trillion. After when consulting from regulation, the decision is born and the news agency company is composed. These people departs one sheep and when arrives to east [lay] department, `gentlemen zero who again are dispatched from Tsu Island receives a justice difference why () 'humanity round and after arriving to Tsu Island the guidance of Tsu Island week and even to until Japanese domestic (), receives reciprocates. These people finishes a task and returns until Pusan `gentleman [song] justice differences which again the Tsu Island week nominates why () 'this good line * guides toward Tsu Island and from that place. About news agency composition, the turning point per 1802 employment won from upper tube of force Kim case (Friday) * the director worker () * in compliance with general affairs () etc. being ≪ presentation relation of neighboring countries ≫ volume 5 compiles in detail, is being recorded. The organization contents comes (ticket 2). (Ticket 2) at 1682 ([swuk] bell 8) opened a court and was maintained and the news agency total personnel accomplished to 577 people in the form which is completed. About personnel organization before the tool (systems), about the horse () of meandering inclusion the E door (systems) and clothing with the fact that is provided in that outside and until early there is an awe Roh possibility () of recording a meandering preparation, to here in the travel money () below political affairs, the Imperial gift being instructed is, to end part example grade in the Japanese each cow is provided. Namely, the Japanese king * is shrewd () * to the place of Tsu Island obeying orders () etc. below governing () will live and buys example () ginseng 49 muscle and the good blood () 16 chapters (), the grass-cloth bleached white gun (white) 62 will bloom only, the black hemp (black) 109 will bloom, the Hwang writing brush (writing brushes) 202 bottles (), the position jelly () 360 hall () and lotus direction () 310 (), the cow important mission () 5 bottles () and three phosphorus () 14 muscles, blue profundity () they are 109 annular () etc. Meantime, the news agency company burnt and the boat prepared from naval forces control private operation and minor injury left investigation zero. The steam ship where the person whom conceives burns () 3 ships, the burden the double track which loads () organized with 3 etc. all 6 ships. And the news agency company who is composed of 3 divisions () of political affairs * adverb * the work tube organized at 3 tips (). To first tip including the political affairs which lifts a credential (books) and from that accomplishment causal officer * the communication company * my alcoholic beverage tube until the standing army burnt, the adverb which lifts a political affairs to second tip including and the attendant burnt, to 3rd tip that attendant including the work tube. Like this the delegation who is composed stand orgin is an official diplomatic document and brought a special width (). Just the credential (books) which becomes with name of the Korea king was drawn up in the department head army. And in that outside hemp escape the example trillion truth sold just in bringing up for discussion managements and or the example trillion truth * according to left and position of etc. facing each other stands taking count of crosses was drawn up in the title which corresponds in him. Specially, credential size the rule was coming to decide in case, certainly did to defend the format. Is a special width from here and says the item of the futures which will decrease. Records the goal and a business matter of the embassador in the document of the stand orgin, that this as special width, the type and a water content of futures which sends with the gift in document end or the appendix writes and is in order to draw up with the document which is complete. Special width according to position of the counterpart the sheep of the item and that item came to decide differently. If and special width futures contents or water content from had the character of donation trade (trades).

통 신사의 파견절차는 다음과 같다. 먼저 일본에서 새로운 막부장군의 승습이 결정되면, 대마도주는 막부의 명령으로 ‘관백승습고경차왜(關白承襲告慶差倭：일본에서는 大慶參判使)’를 조선에 파견하여 그 사실을 알려 온다. 곧이어 다시 통신사 파견을 요청하는 ‘통신사청래차왜(通信使請來差倭)〔修聘參判使〕’를 파견한다. 이에 따라 조선에서는 예조가 이 현안을 건의하면 조정에서 논의한 뒤 통신사 파견이 결정되고, 이 사실을 왜관(倭館)에 알린다. 그 뒤 대마도주는 조선측과 통신사 일행의 도일(渡日)에 따른 여러 가지 문제를 협의하기 위하여 또다시 ‘신사영재판차왜(信使迎裁判差倭)’를 부산왜관에 파견한다. 이에 따라 통신사 파견의 구체적인 내용이 협의되면, 예조에서는 이를 조정에 알린다. 조정에서 의논한 뒤 결정이 나면 통신사 일행이 구성된다. 이들이 한양을 출발하여 동래부에 도착하면 다시 대마도에서 파견된 ‘신사영빙재판차왜(信使迎聘裁判差倭)’의 인도를 받아 대마도에 도착한 뒤, 대마도주의 안내를 받아 일본 국내 에도(江戶)까지 왕복한다. 이들이 임무를 마치고 대마도로 돌아오면 그 곳에서 부산까지는 다시 대마도주가 임명하는 ‘신사송재판차왜(信使送裁判差倭)’가 이를 호행·안내한다. 통신사 구성에 관한 절목은 1802년 사역원당상역관 김건서(金健瑞)·이사공(李思恭)·임서무(林瑞茂) 등에 의하여 편찬된 ≪증정교린지 增正交隣志≫ 권5에 상세하게 실려 있다. 그 편성내용은 〔표 2〕와 같다. 〔표 2〕는 1682년(숙종 8)에 개정, 정비되어 완결된 형태로 통신사 총인원이 577인에 달했다. 그 밖에 규정된 것으로 인원편성에 관한 도구전식(都口傳式), 사행의 마필(馬匹)에 관한 마문식(馬文式), 의복을 포함하여 사행준비를 기록한 경외노수(京外路需)가 있는데, 여기에는 정사 이하 노자(奴子)에 이르기까지의 하사품이 지시되어 있고, 끝부분에는 일본 각소에의 예단이 규정되어 있다. 즉, 일본 국왕·약군(若君)·집정(執政) 이하 대마도봉행(對馬島奉行) 등의 처소에는 사신 사예단(私禮單)으로 인삼 49근, 호피(虎皮) 16장(張), 백저포(白苧布) 62필, 흑마포(黑麻布) 109필, 황모필(黃毛筆) 202병(柄), 진묵(眞墨) 360홀(笏), 부용향(芙蓉香) 310지(枝), 소은장도(小銀粧刀) 5병(柄), 석린(石鱗) 14근, 청심원(淸心元) 109환(丸) 등이다. 한편, 통신사 일행이 타고 가는 배는 수군통제사영과 경상좌수사영에서 준비하였다. 이 배는 사람이 타는 기선(騎船) 3척, 짐 싣는 복선(卜船) 3척 등 모두 6척으로 편성하였다. 그리고 정사·부사·종사관의 3사단(使團)으로 구성된 통신사 일행은 3선단(船團)으로 편성하였다. 제1선단에는 국서(國書)를 받드는 정사를 비롯하여 그 수행원인 군관·상통사·제술관에서부터 격군까지 타고, 제2선단에는 정사를 받드는 부사를 비롯하여 수행원이, 제3선단에는 종사관을 비롯한 그 수행원이 탔다. 이와 같이 구성된 사절단은 공식외교문서인 서계와 별폭(別幅)을 지참하였다. 막부장군에게는 조선국왕의 명의로 된 국서(國書)가 작성되었다. 그리고 그 밖에 대마도주나 막부의 관리들에게는 예조참판 또는 예조참의·좌랑 등 상대의 지위에 따라 그에 상응하는 직명으로 서계가 작성되었다. 특히, 국서의 경우에는 규모나 격식이 정해져 있어서 그 형식을 반드시 지켜야 하였다. 여기에서 별폭이란 줄 선물의 품목을 말한다. 이것을 별폭이라고 한 것은 서계의 문서에 사절의 목적과 용건을 기재하고, 문서 끝이나 별지에 예물로 보내는 선물의 종류와 수량을 적어 완전한 문서로 작성하였기 때문이다. 별폭은 상대방의 지위에 따라 품목과 그 품목의 양이 달리 정하여졌다. 그리고 별폭은 선물내용이나 수량면에서 증여무역(贈與貿易)의 성격을 지니고 있었다.

Dispatch distance ( 파견 노정 )

As a result of the gentleman company departed one sheep and the 2 month degree which arrives to Pusan became disturbance. To these people the yearly direction comes to hold on moderation, but to initially comes to hold from 4 cows of Ch'ungju * Andong * race * Pusan but to hold from only Pusan one place came to postscript and because of public harm came. These people arrived to Pusan and the spiritual unit () from the Neptune system (Neptune) lived. This Neptune system did (day) [thayk] propitious day and that day was carried out rightly the news agency company leaves toward Japan from Pusan. The Neptune system the news agency ≪ soups dozes ≫ antidotes of the [lyey] () gave with the ceremony which immediately before the direction which will dance is essential and to do was carried out. Namely, the spiritual unit prepares the altar to the high place and sacrifice and the lung hundred () prepares and puts and the deacon () social lower part seriously, was advanced. My intention to fight contents new grudge () in ≪ year type rock ≫ in detail, is recorded. The spiritual unit with this place at the scenic spot of Pusan where the news agency company and karma are deep, they left toward Japan from this place and they returned. 1614 after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 (storehouse navy 6) patrolling company volume half () in this place the nail makes the wave crest lake and battleship but mooring (mooring) at the place where does, it the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 harrowing experience is mirror making character one measure. And about 10 became shot in that side and made emission of semen of the style of architecture which is typical () built the high hill. Spiritual () as does this emission of semen, but this `Andong which is a main building of volume half ' in old days spiritual adopting the name in order to do does. The trace of the spiritual large lake which moors the battleship did and until only 1906 [wan] year remains, but filling up the Japanese after that (: The seashore filled up the riverside and one which makes with the land) with disappeared. Meantime, from the spiritual unit the Neptune system the news agency which lives lifted a credential and 3 and in steam ships divided burnt and that departed day by day and escorts and in the hemp tip which was guided the hemp and [ni] right () after entering port, vice-in () with entered and double track 3 ship. After receiving the yearly direction of escape from hemp vice-middle, the mileage cancer () elders (the senior) receives 2 humanity and justice guidances and also this height passes by () from the Hukuoka present (luck), Oh car E three height (: Under) took on route and three toe age did and went against and ascended. After that each changing mind entertainment and received a good line and the citron which is waiting () * the follower (people) with the sea route and the wall chorus which will bloom (choruses) did and followed agency () after reaching, the tear glands () with transferred and landed and east * stands the long-cherished desire company (long-cherished desires) entered. After that 6 ships Oh as various unit people to leave only the soup line and some name expense staff () this times which provides burns and urethra right () lands. Rose next and E (person) to receive a help [kyo] toes () with headed on the land route. Nothing Rome (at the time) just department, here was terminus, but just department to time, excepted 1617 and all went until a degree. The [khwu] the company () departed and 1620's `Korean highway which constructs especially (people) 'passed and also the chi passed by (). To the moderation the pontoon bridge () was, but 1682 news agency company this route from the mask “places the bridge the doubling which is used as many as became 300 ships.” “The heat rays () expense and season chromatic fortune sold and () the expense about thousands reached to the gold.”As is descriptive. Meantime, five car person height () arrives and the lion which department sends from just (: ) received greeting and on the land route entered into a degree in the destination person. The quarters from 1682 time does with the long-cherished desire company but the eastern long-cherished desire company (long-cherished desires) with changed after. Interchange from the visitor company which the news agency company passes as the wall chorus which one poetry and prose * science will bloom the cultural coat interchange which does did characteristic. And was gorgeous follows hereupon and buys, one entertainment did finally one cause which gets stringent the finance of Japan becoming. Specially, Japanese scholar Oh [khwu] three meal under this (white) criticizes this situation and system attempts the visibility of provision about news agency reception, did. The inside of the visibility which he presents 5 places (* * *, to the return route only) with limits an entertainment place with to the king, to provide only the food from the place which is different. Like this reform bill ended finally at once and went back continued again in form heretofore and a good brazier fortune entertainment. 1636 * 1643 * the news agency companies silver which is dispatched at 1655 the [khwu] and the graveyard of general (day) enforcement receiving a worship, did while stays in degree. Also, 1636 vice-in compliance with a bringing up for discussion request just the circus troupe () there was public performance, but 1680 vice-this for horseback re-(at) the dispatch became common usage. Department [thayk] came to do from just, propitious day there was permission and credential and passed over a special width and reply of General after several days * the commodity and the gold and silver came to give with a return below special width and political affairs, again to the return route the route which comes with a Tsu Island week together they turned away and they rose. When the entertainment and reception of the feudal loads come initially and came to do with the same, the hemp gentleman [song] justice difference why went with back and after entering port into Pusan, toward one sheep returned. To traffic schedule of the news agencies there being some difference, one most part 8 months became disturbance from 5 months. To the distance duration which but sultry the summer or severe winter puts meandering which extends at about 2 years was. 1428 (Sejong 10) general [sup] position from congratulation 1811 news agencies which are started deteriorated, (favorable condition 11) the reverse communication which exchanges a credential from Tsu Island this last from history () with they disappeared. The news agency Kim paganism company 334 person arrived to Tsu Island last first and department general sent just and came and lived held, that waits, the both nations which follows in the rules and which comes to decide buys the new publication monotonous event, Japan just with bringing up for discussion prohibition the fact that forbids the contact of the news agency company and with before was different features in the Japanese people. About the news agency the reaction of the Japanese not only the political charge people until being early in the follower including a general safety, * the jelly visitor * the populace in order to call forth a huge interest is. The news agency every the place which they visit the painting and writing * poetry and prose * leaves letter etc. plentifully, it comes to make the folding screen * sliced raw fish volume * in form of line engraving etc., becomes popular widely, like this things come and until currently electrolysis they are descending. Meantime, the news agencies returned with domestic and leaving the knowledge rock which undergoes from Japan, they did. These records record the facts which the people which participate to at that time news agency experience from Japan in diary format and they leave and with the fact that puts, observes a at that time civilization interchange becomes the good data. The news agency not only meaning which is diplomatic is a relationship maintenance with Japan is science * ideology * technique * artistic coat cultural exchange from like this side and will say that also has the meaning which one is cultural.

• ≪ bibliography ≫
• ≪ bibliography ≫
• ≪ bibliography ≫ correspondence
• ≪ bibliography ≫
• ≪ bibliography ≫
• ≪ bibliography ≫ (books, 1982)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ vestiges (justice and cultures, 1985)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ day (, universities department and 1987)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ day (, literature and 1987)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ day (, book stores, 1989)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ modern age Korean-Japanese relations matter nine (hand monk season reverse and theoretical fruit thousand and 1991) (and 1991)
• ≪ the bibliography ≫ Japanese (lifestyles, 1992)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ day peninsulas (, day 1993)
• ≪ the bibliography ≫ Korea news agency (the new star pure * this nature and the Jung Ang Daily News company, 1994)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ times th (, the spring of sincerity, 1994)
• ≪ the bibliography ≫ Korea news agency and Japan (Kim tax the outside which pushes, the spring of sincerity, 1996)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ day (, university theses for a degree, 1996)
• ≪ bibliography ≫ * day (characteristic virtues, university theses for a degree, 1998) Encyclopedia category Korean national culture large all branches of knowledge >

통 신사 일행이 한양을 출발하여 부산에 도착하는 데 2개월 정도가 소요되었다. 이들에게는 중도에 연향이 베풀어졌는데, 처음에는 충주·안동·경주·부산의 4개 소에서 베풀어졌으나 후기에 와서는 민폐 때문에 부산 한곳에서만 베풀어졌다. 이들은 부산에 도착하여 영가대(永嘉臺)에서 해신제(海神祭)를 지냈다. 이 해신제는 길일(吉日)을 택하여 통신사 일행이 부산에서 일본으로 떠나는 바로 그날 거행되었다. 해신제는 통신사 출향 직전의 필수적인 의식으로 ≪국조오례의 國朝五禮儀≫의 해독제(海瀆祭)에 준하여 거행되었다. 즉, 영가대 높은 곳에 제단을 마련하여 희생과 폐백(幣帛)을 차려 놓고 집사(執事)의 사회 아래 엄숙하게 진행되었다. 이 제전의 내용은 신유한(申維翰)의 ≪해유록 海游錄≫에 상세하게 기록되어 있다. 영가대는 통신사 일행과 인연이 깊은 부산의 명승지로, 그들은 이곳에서 일본으로 떠나고 이곳으로 돌아왔다. 임진왜란 뒤 1614년(광해군 6) 순찰사 권반(權盼)은 이곳에 못을 파고 호수를 만들어 전함을 계류(繫留)하는 장소로 하였는데, 그것은 임진왜란의 쓰라린 경험을 거울삼고자 한 시책이었다 한다. 그리고 그 옆에 10여 발 되는 높은 언덕을 만들어 전형적인 건축양식의 누정(樓亭)을 세웠다. 이 누정을 영가(永嘉)라고 하였는데, 이것은 권반의 본관인 ‘안동’을 옛날에 영가라 하였기 때문에 그 이름을 딴 것이라 한다. 전함을 계류하였던 영가대 호수의 흔적은 1906년까지만 하여도 완연히 남아 있었으나, 그 뒤 일본인들의 매축(埋築：바닷가나 강가를 메워 뭍으로 만드는 일)으로 사라지고 말았다. 한편, 영가대에서 해신제를 지낸 통신사는 국서를 받들고 기선 3척과 복선 3척에 나누어 타고 그 날로 출발하여 호위하는 대마선단에 선도되어 대마 와니우라(鰐浦)에 입항한 뒤 부중(府中)으로 들어갔다. 대마 부중에서 도주의 연향을 받은 다음, 이정암(以酊庵) 장로(長老) 2인의 안내를 받아 이키도(壹岐島)에서 후쿠오카현(福岡縣粕屋郡 相島)을 거쳐 아카마세키(赤間關：下關)를 항로로 취하여 세토나이해를 거슬러 올라갔다. 이후 각 번의 향응과 호행을 받으면서 기다리고 있던 유자(儒者)·문인(文人)과의 필담창화(筆談唱和)를 하면서 해로를 따라 대판(大阪)에 이른 뒤 누선(樓船)으로 갈아타고 상륙하여 동·서본원사(東西本願寺)에 들어갔다. 그 뒤 6척의 아국선과 몇 명의 경비요원만을 남겨둔 채 여러 대명(大名)이 제공한 배를 타고 요도우라(淀浦)에 상륙한다. 이어 인마(人馬)의 도움을 받아 육로로 교토(京都)로 향했다. 무로마치(室町) 막부 때에는 여기가 종점이었지만, 에도 막부 때에는 1617년을 제외하고는 모두 에도까지 갔다. 쿠사(草津)를 출발하여 1620년대 특별히 건설하였던 ‘조선인가도(朝鮮人街道)’를 지나 도카이도(東海道)를 지나갔다. 그 중도에는 배다리〔船橋〕가 있었는데, 1682년 통신사 일행은 이 길을 가면서 “다리를 놓는 데 쓰인 배가 무려 300척이나 되었다.” “열선(列船)의 비용과 철색운판(鐵索運板)의 비용이 수천여 금에 이르렀다.”라고 기술하고 있다. 한편, 오카자키(岡崎)에 도착하여서는 막부에서 보낸 사자(使者：問安使)의 출영을 받으면서 육로로 목적지인 에도에 들어갔다. 숙사는 1682년 무렵부터 본원사로 하였으나 뒤에 동본원사(東本願寺)로 바꾸었다. 통신사 일행이 통과하는 객사에서의 교류는 한시문·학술의 필담창화라고 하는 문화상의 교류가 성하였다. 그리고 이에 따른 화려하고 사치한 향응은 결국 일본의 재정을 핍박하는 하나의 원인이 되기도 했다. 특히, 일본학자 아라이 하쿠세끼(新井白石)는 이 상황을 비판하여 통신사 접대에 대한 제 규정의 시정을 시도하기도 하였다. 그가 제시한 시정안은 향응장소를 5개소(大阪·京都·名古屋·駿府, 왕로에는 赤間關, 귀로에는 牛窓)만으로 한정하고, 다른 곳에서는 음식만을 제공하는 것이었다. 이러한 개혁안은 결국 한번으로 끝나고 또다시 종전의 형태로 돌아가 호화로운 향응을 계속하였다. 에도에 체류하는 동안에 1636·1643·1655년에 파견된 통신사 일행들은 도쿠가와 장군의 묘소〔日光東照宮〕의 참배를 강요받기도 하였다. 또, 1636년부터는 막부의 요청에 의하여 곡마단(曲馬團)의 공연이 있었는데, 1680년부터는 이를 위하여 마상재(馬上才)의 파견이 항례화되었다. 막부로부터 길일이 택하여져 허락이 있으면 국서와 별폭을 건네주고는 며칠 뒤 장군의 회답·별폭, 그리고 정사 이하에게 물품과 금은이 답례로 주어지고, 다시 대마도주와 함께 왔던 길을 돌아서 귀로에 올랐다. 제후들의 향응과 접대가 처음 올 때와 마찬가지로 행하여졌으며, 대마도로부터는 신사송재판차왜가 동행하여 부산에 입항한 뒤 한양으로 돌아왔다. 통신사들의 왕래 일정에는 다소 차이가 있기는 하나 대개는 5개월에서 8개월이 소요되었다. 그러나 무더운 여름이나 엄동이 낀 노정기간에는 2년 여에 걸친 사행도 있었다. 1428년(세종 10) 장군습직 축하로부터 시작된 통신사는 1811년(순조 11) 대마도에서 국서를 교환하는 역지통신(易地通信)으로 변질되었고, 이것을 마지막으로 역사에서 사라졌다. 마지막 통신사 김이교 일행 334인이 대마도에 먼저 도착하여 막부 장군이 보내 오는 사신을 기다린 것이라든가, 정하여진 규례에 따른 양국 사신간의 단조로운 행사, 일본 막부의 금령으로 일본 백성에게 통신사 일행과의 접촉을 금한 것은 이전과는 다른 모습이었다. 통신사에 대한 일본인의 반응은 정치담당자들뿐만 아니라 일반 무사를 비롯한 문인·묵객·서민에 이르기까지 커다란 관심을 불러일으켰기 때문이다. 통신사는 그들이 방문한 곳마다 서화·시문·글씨 등을 많이 남겼으며, 그것은 병풍·회권·판화 등의 형태로 만들어져 널리 유행되었으며, 이러한 것들이 현재까지 전해져 내려오고 있다. 한편, 통신사들은 국내로 돌아와 일본에서 겪은 견문록을 남기기도 하였다. 이 기록들은 당시 통신사에 참여한 인물들이 일본에서 경험한 사실들을 일기형식으로 기록하여 남겨 놓은 것으로, 당시 문물교류를 살피는 데 좋은 자료가 된다. 이러한 측면에서 통신사는 일본과의 관계 유지라는 외교적인 의미뿐만 아니라 학술·사상·기술·예술상의 문화교류라는 또 하나의 문화적인 의미를 가진다고 할 것이다.

• ≪참고문헌≫ 朝鮮王朝實錄
• ≪참고문헌≫ 通信使謄錄
• ≪참고문헌≫ 通文館志
• ≪참고문헌≫ 增正交隣志
• ≪참고문헌≫ 海行叢載
• ≪참고문헌≫ 朝鮮通信使(東湖書館, 1982)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 朝鮮通信使의 발자취(金義煥, 正音文化社, 1985)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 近世韓日關係史(孫承喆, 江原大學校 出版部, 1987)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 近世日朝關係史の硏究(三宅英利, 文獻出版, 1987)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 前近代の日本と朝鮮(仲尾宏, 明石書店, 1989)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 근세한일관계사연구(손승철 역, 이론과실천, 1991) 朝鮮通信使(李元植, 民音社, 1991)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 朝鮮通信使と日本人(學生社, 1992)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 近世アジアの日本と朝鮮半島(三宅英利, 日朝新聞社, 1993)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 조선통신사(신성순·이근성, 중앙일보사, 1994)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 朝鮮時代 韓日關係史硏究(孫承喆, 지성의 샘, 1994) ≪참고문헌≫ 조선통신사와 일본(김세민 외, 지성의 샘, 1996)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 朝鮮前期 對日外交政策硏究(韓文鍾, 全北大學校 博士學位論文, 1996)
• ≪참고문헌≫ 十七世紀 朝·日外交使行硏究 (洪性德, 全北大學校 博士學位論文, 1998) 백과사전 카테고리 한국민족문화대백과 > 제도 위로

Withdrawal

Taemyr

counsels me to withdraw the AfD listing. If advised again to do so, I will comply with good adice ... but then what?

In re-visiting

Joseon tongsinsa? The citations look like bad faith to me, but the reference source is real. Caspian blue

counsels me to keep focused on the potential of this article.

Frankly, I don't quite understand what this would achieve ... but it could be construed as a recognition of the importance of Korean contributions, especially in the process of developing further articles which flow from

Foreign relations of Imperial China

.

Both

Joseon Dynasty

, and Korean scholarship will continue to be important as this subject evolves over time.

This could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. Just because this seems to have started off badly doesn't mean that more constructive alternatives can't be imagined. --

talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Then continue the merge discussion of

Taemyr (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Taemyr

-- I have some questions, please.

How will this work? Does withdrawing the AfD mean that the following will happen:

• 1a. I or someone substitutes the following wiki-commands for the current text:

                  # REDIRECT 
Korean missions to Edo
                  # {:{R from alternative language}}

• 1b. Then sentence-by-sentence or paragraph-by-paragraph the relevant information can be copied to
  Korean missions to Edo or to Joseon Tongsinsa
  as long as it has adequate verifying support? In essence, the "normal editing" process unfolds in an unremarkable and familiar manner?
• 1c. And the entire page stays in place just as it is today -- remaining as an archived history which can be accessed by by anyone simply by returning to it via the edit history?

Are you counseling me to recognize that, in this setting, the fundamental significance of the following trumps any valid issue or concern I might have had:

• 2a. You continue to urge me to withdraw the AfD because the following sentence -- understood correctly -- leads inexorably to one conclusion and no other?

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

• 2b. You want me to appreciate that the substance of the "References" sub-section above is inapposite in the context of AfD; and I need to expand my view of what "normal editing" means.

• 2c. You counsel me to withdraw the AfD because -- understood correctly -- "AfD is a decision of whether 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
  but is fundamentally a content decision."

Is this restatement fundamentally accurate? If so, then what?

FIRST -- Do I put a note at the top of this page? I'll just say, "Please withdraw this AfD nomination?"

SECOND -- At

Joseon tongsinsa

to a redirect?

THIRD -- At

Korean missions to Edo

.

Is that all there is to it except for thanking those who've participated here on this page? --

talk) 03:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• 1 No, none of this will happen as a direct consenquence of this AfD. A Merge result from an AfD discussion is not at the moment not a binding result.

• 1c Yes. This is important if any content is merged because attribution history, ie. who contributed what, is required for GFDL compliance.
• 1b Procedures for merging is at Help:Merging and moving pages. It involves a lot of work, especially when the sources are not English.
• 1a Yes, although normally this is not done until the merging is carried our.

• 2 Yes. I understand "normal editing" to mean edits that any user can perform. Ie. edits that does not require admin privileges.

• 2c. Sort of, the fact that a merger discussion was under way was the actual reason that I wanted you to withdraw this nom.

to your point the FIRST; This is a discussion, it is sufficient to note that you no longer believe it to be best that the page

Joseon tongsinsa be deleted. The fact that User:Stifle

votes for deletion means that you changing your mind is insufficient to speedy close the discussion.

to your point the SECOND; yes, if you considering that it is likely that Caspian blue, or someone else, might object. If you feel that no one will object then simply create the redirect.

To your point the THIRD; yes, but make sure you note your reservations against the sources currently provided. (I am not sure I agree with that reservation, babelfish is not very reliable. To take an example 1404 is indeed the year after 1403)

You might also want to request help with the merging at

Taemyr (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Addressing Stifle

In response to

Taemyr

's help, I've begun to think I may see another way to handle what seemed like an intractable problem, but I truly don't know what's best.

Fundamentally, the impeccable posture of

Taemyr

as I acknowledge his thoughtful assistance in helping me begin to re-evaluate a small problem from a broader perspective.

There is no reason for

Liancourt rocks, also known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, , literally "bamboo island") in Japanese,[5][6][7][8] which is currently move and semi-protected. There is no cause for complaint if Stifle

was entirely unaware of the following not-"normal editing" notice which has been posted by administrators on this not-unique page:

----This is a controversial topic. Before making substantial changes, please

----read the talk page and make sure to edit only in a spirit of cooperation.

----This article is currently under special administrative surveillance and

----absolutely no edit-warring will be tolerated.

----Users who make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked.

----Incivility and edit-warring will not be put up with, and all reverts must be discussed fully

----on the talk page before you revert. Not after! Thank you.

Although

Dokdo class amphibious assault ship[9][10] and about ROK naval manoevers last month [11][12], there was no obvious reason to acknowledge that current events might impact an AfD concerning a 17th-19th century subject. Indeed, Brianyoumans

constructively noted that "the Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations."

I did know about something about these subjects -- enough to be scrupulously concerned in crafting

WP:V

-- and my efforts were for naught. Two specific sentences informed this AfD nomination; and to both my response was a clear, unequivocal, disgusted NO -- NOT POSSIBLE:

1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." -- NO, CAN'T BE FIXED

2. "Articles should only be deleted when the issues are not repairable." -- NO, NOT REPAIRABLE

The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue is joined by other like-minded tag team editors who similarly feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. In the face of what seems like adolescent nationalistic ardour, any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place.

Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at

Taemyr asks "What is best?" Stifle

thinks deletion is a better course of action. I myself don't know, but I would invite consideration of the following:

ONE: It is frustrating that the following fell on deaf ears in this AfD venue:

"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-

talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

TWO::It is frustrating that it would take hours to respond to just one paragraph

Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge#Opposition to Merge

, and in all probability the questions were merely rhetorical -- which means that any misguided attempt to respond calmly, rationally, critically will only become fodder for yet another perverse escalation of angry accusations:

Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading

WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Fostering scholarly collaboration -- analysis, text and source development

It is entirely likely that

Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic has its roots in the same Neo-Confucianism (성리학) which profoundly affected Japan's Yushima Seidō (湯島聖堂) and the Hayashi clan

(林氏, Hayashi-shi).

Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know or allow me to explain that the 19th century version of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which has been so profoundly disparaged is, in fact, the first non-European history text compiled by a Japanese author and published in the West.

An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives, it is amongst the earliest to be widely disseminated in the West.

In the diatribe above, the mere fact that a Japanese source did mention a relevant

WP:V

becomes utterly irrelevant in such circumstances.

Caspian blue points out that the Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Yes, but that complaint overlooks the fact that Hangul was disfavoured even in the 17th century Joseon court; and what else was Hayashi Gahō, the 17th century author to do but to record the transliterations of Korean names in 17th century Japanese and Chinese? Julius Klaproth, the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre-Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article.

My plausibly constructive action and my potentially collaborative initiative in incorporating un-sourced modern

Korean missions to Edo

could have been construed as a cooperative gesture rather than as a further cause for offense -- but no. NO -- that's not how it played out.

No, no -- perhaps only an impractical optimism underpins my hopes for anything better.

No, no -- this doesn't bode well. Perhaps Stifle is correct. Maybe deleting the article is best after all.

Perhaps the only practical way forward is to address close scrutiny to sentence-by-sentence edits to

talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Tenmei, do not make such

personal attacks

You're so out of line with such disdainful personal attacks. I warned you two times, but enough is enough. Look at your own writing. How disgraceful for yourself, please do not taint the page with such behaviors. You stated that you nominated this for deletion (not merging just deleting the valuable content) is because of me with your absurd bias. Your continued incivility and personal attack make thing that your reasoning sounds implausible even more, and I doubt that you have even intention to collaborate with other people. If you can't stop yourself, formal procedure would be suitable. Do not drag irrelevant matters to here for seeking your own excuse for the poor AfD nomination. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC) -- Be specific, precise, exact. NO, we aren't going down this path. --

talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Do not pretend to know nothing. You did not realize what you're doing here? Look through your own wording again. You were very sensitive at my choice of "against" to merge under "Korean mission to Edo" and then denounced it as "premature, unhelpful, discouraging" by your own definition. Then your word choices and make drama is not even surprising. Don't make a play with me, you know what your poor analysis on my contribution history, editing habits, and intention for merging the three articles are referring to and going to be. That is called "personal attacks".--Caspian blue (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian blue -- Nope. Not having the affect you seek.

FACT: You are offensive -- stop it. You've been offensive for some time; and I've been trying to figure out how to contrive an alchemy which will allow me to focus on the scholarly issues which interest me. It's taken a while to sort through my thoughts, but ignoring you isn't esaclty the answer. NO -- you and your ilk require a quite different strategy. Do us all a favor -- just stop.

FACT: You perversely aim to construe anything and everything as a new cause for argument -- stop it.

FACT: Your claimed distress is a mere sham. My advice to you -- Find someone else to trouble.

FACT: This arguing gambit is a kind of fraud, and it really can't withstand close scrutiny.

Instead of bothering me, why don't you focus attention on something constructive, anything.

On the other hand, if you're determined to try to make a fuss, you'll have to be more specific. I've done nothing, written nothing, contributed nothing for which I have any regrets except that it took so long for me to figure out a tentative strategy for handling the problems you present. You've managed to feed your appetite for argument in other settings, but maybe all I need to do is to demand you abandon innuendo and instead that you make your complaints specific.

Then it's my challenge to figure out how to divert a rambling rant into anything to do with credible source.

That's my plan -- not much really. Kinda simple. Alchemy turning dross to gold.

Speaking of gold -- what about that Korean baseball team? Olympic gold. There is only one explanation for that victory -- hard work, practice and teamwork. A good lesson worth learning in any number of contexts. --

talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• It is clear that your rudeness and offensiveness do not stop yourself tainting the page. Instead of bothering me as making personal attacks and ruining the page, why don't you keep cool and focus for the AFD? --Caspian blue (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goddamnit. This is *precisely* the kind of stupid, pointless bickering that caused me to leave Wikipedia in the first place. I came back under the mistaken assumption that I could somehow avoid it this time around. Well, I refuse to have any part in this nonsense. You guys have fun. LordAmeth (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.