This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kangwon Province, North Korea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 6 January 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved to Kangwon Province. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I don't know much about McCune-Reischauer, but I would transliterate 강원도 as Kangwon and not as Kangwŏn. Is there a special rule or is it just a mistake? -- IGEL 03:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kangwon Province (North Korea). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am posting this to discuss the removal of information by Osomite. The user made four edits to the Kangwon Province article on January 27, 2018. I will address these changes one at a time.
I am posting this on the talk page for the Kangwon Province article. However, I welcome any and all Wikipedia editors to help me achieve true consensus on this article. U B Prudent ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's "not mandated" it's not a rule. But where is the rule that it is forbidden to revert an edit without first discussing it fully on the talk page? There is no such rule. Instead, users tend to rely on BRD when a disagreement arises.
The assertion that the Multi Fest sources are "repellent, and would never qualify as reliable sources." is a violation of the importance of context in determining reliability.In what way is it a violation? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." How many people are engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing of Multifest.org, and what qualifications does Charles Black have, to be considered an authority on the subject of defection from North Korea? If in doubt, you can ask at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard whether Multifest qualifies as a reliable source. I have no doubt that the answer will be "no".
Also, your use of the word "repellent" is an admission to the violation of the neutrality policy.Eh, no. WP:NPOV says that "all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view". It does not apply to edit summaries or talk page comments. Reverting your edit did not introduce any bias into the article, and you cannot construe bias just on the basis that the reverting editor, or another editor agreeing with him or her, showed a dislike of the cited source.
My edit qualifies for a Relevance level A.Leaving aside the fact that WP:Relevance – like WP:BRD – is an essay, not a policy, this is simply not true. WP:Relevance gives the example "John Smith is a member of the XYZ organization" for Relevance level A. The equivalent, in this article, would have been "In 2018, the new year saw a surge in defections from Kangwon Province", Kangwon Province being the subject of this article. An example of Relevance level B – information that is "one step removed" – would be "In 2018, Charles Black claimed the new year saw a surge in defections from Kangwon Province". The sentence in your edit was, "In 2018, the new year saw a surge in defections from North Korea." That is "two steps removed", i.e. Kangwon Province is in North Korea, and there were also defections from North Korea. Exactly the same applies to NK sending athletes to the Olympics. WP:Relevance calls this Relevance level C, and says that it should not be included.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gangwon Province, South Korea which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The redirect
Kogen Province, North Korea has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 23 § Kogen Province, North Korea until a consensus is reached.
Jay
💬
12:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kangwon Province, North Korea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 6 January 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved to Kangwon Province. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I don't know much about McCune-Reischauer, but I would transliterate 강원도 as Kangwon and not as Kangwŏn. Is there a special rule or is it just a mistake? -- IGEL 03:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kangwon Province (North Korea). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am posting this to discuss the removal of information by Osomite. The user made four edits to the Kangwon Province article on January 27, 2018. I will address these changes one at a time.
I am posting this on the talk page for the Kangwon Province article. However, I welcome any and all Wikipedia editors to help me achieve true consensus on this article. U B Prudent ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's "not mandated" it's not a rule. But where is the rule that it is forbidden to revert an edit without first discussing it fully on the talk page? There is no such rule. Instead, users tend to rely on BRD when a disagreement arises.
The assertion that the Multi Fest sources are "repellent, and would never qualify as reliable sources." is a violation of the importance of context in determining reliability.In what way is it a violation? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." How many people are engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing of Multifest.org, and what qualifications does Charles Black have, to be considered an authority on the subject of defection from North Korea? If in doubt, you can ask at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard whether Multifest qualifies as a reliable source. I have no doubt that the answer will be "no".
Also, your use of the word "repellent" is an admission to the violation of the neutrality policy.Eh, no. WP:NPOV says that "all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view". It does not apply to edit summaries or talk page comments. Reverting your edit did not introduce any bias into the article, and you cannot construe bias just on the basis that the reverting editor, or another editor agreeing with him or her, showed a dislike of the cited source.
My edit qualifies for a Relevance level A.Leaving aside the fact that WP:Relevance – like WP:BRD – is an essay, not a policy, this is simply not true. WP:Relevance gives the example "John Smith is a member of the XYZ organization" for Relevance level A. The equivalent, in this article, would have been "In 2018, the new year saw a surge in defections from Kangwon Province", Kangwon Province being the subject of this article. An example of Relevance level B – information that is "one step removed" – would be "In 2018, Charles Black claimed the new year saw a surge in defections from Kangwon Province". The sentence in your edit was, "In 2018, the new year saw a surge in defections from North Korea." That is "two steps removed", i.e. Kangwon Province is in North Korea, and there were also defections from North Korea. Exactly the same applies to NK sending athletes to the Olympics. WP:Relevance calls this Relevance level C, and says that it should not be included.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gangwon Province, South Korea which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The redirect
Kogen Province, North Korea has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 23 § Kogen Province, North Korea until a consensus is reached.
Jay
💬
12:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)