This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||
|
Hey, (ocn.ne.jp) user, at this time, I know you're Brionies (talk · contribs) or another editor who contributed to making disruptive edit warrings on Namdaemun article in the whole Wiki. We met just 2 minutes ago. Just log in and talk with me. Logout edit is not prohibited here but using it to avoid scrutiny is bad, very bad. You already saw Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia(ウィキペディア)捏造に対抗せよ 21, Japanese meatpuppetry plots and wikistalking and harassment on me. I'm so tired of this gaming, but if you keep doing that, will see at ANI. --Appletrees (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Should merge - more or less the same term, in which the definitions can be merged, and both Korean and other explanations can be placed together. All content can be maintained as-is, with information from both articles placed into one. Two articles is redundant. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Tenmei (talk · contribs), you divide the stub article into "two articles" as if those are totally different terms from each other. Sadaejuui is a direct transliteration of Korean (사대주의) to avoid disambiguous meanings of Sadae. Either Sadaejuui or Sadae is not an established English translation term as well because any of Sadaejuui, Sadae sasang, Sadae policy, or just Sadae or collectively grouping "Saedae-Gyorin" are used in academics to describe the Joseon diplomatic policy in regards to China. Moreover, http://www.bookrags.com/research/sadaejuui-ema-05/ this site is not a reliable source and you don't know whether the author of the page actually cited his writing from the "further reading". According to http://www.bookrags.com/about/, the site is hardly a reliable source. Even if the content that you inserted to the intro "South/North Korean propaganda battles" would be true, that sounds more like "the site author's own analysis" on the contemporary trend of North and South Korea. If that turns out to be true, that could go under a section. However, given the site's character and the fact that the site link was originally inserted by some SPI, I doubt its reliability. Regardless of the reliability, I've left out the book list even though you did not actually cite them from the books from WP:AGF.--Caspian blue 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
See illustration at right. Is there a valid reason why the format proposed in this sample is inappropriate or unhelpful in the context of this article? Perhaps this will help clarify the non-controversial nature of the format issues? --Tenmei (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Tenmei, could you tell me why you repeatedly insert the unreliable source without any explanation? I asked you above, but you did not give me any answer.[3] The listed books could be found from libraries to which you can access, so please read and cite directly from the books, not from the unreliable site. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sadaejuui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Much of the two articles overlap. You can cover the difference between the two concepts in one article. toobigtokale (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)