Talk:Inhyeon wanghu jeon

Copyvio issue

Moved from User talk:Primefac § re: Deletion of Inhyeon wanghu jeon (permalink)

You did not ping me back in [1], so I never realized you replied (please ECHO me back if you reply here, or leave me a {{talkback}} in the future, if you could). Anyway, I am afraid I don't understand your question. What is 'a physical book'? The deleted article, yes, was an article about an actual novel. I don't see what it has to do with the issue discussed, i.e. my argument that it was incorrectly labelled as a copyvio? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I generally assume that people asking me questions will be either watching or pop back in to see a reply, but I'll do my best to remember next time to ping you if necessary. By "physical book" I mean, simply, that it's a real book that it exists. The website/URL itself was not a copyright violation, but the report from the user who G12'd it implied that the content of the book itself was being copied onto the article, which is why I deleted it as a G12; the URL simply gave a link to the source material (even if the content was contained on the website itself). Primefac (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for the ping! Since I do many things on wiki, I often forget about some of the messages I sent, so without a ping/talkback things can get delayed. Anyway, thanks for the ping again. As for the article, can we restore it? I didn't see any copyvio in it, and I don't think it has any extensive quotations. So unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't think this is a copyvio issue? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

​ Fair enough. As much as I dislike decentralized discussion, I'll ping Pldx1 (who nominated the article) as they can likely do a better job of explaining why they nominated it. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, restore also the talk page, since this talk page is surely the best place to discuss the issue. Pldx1 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The above was copied from my talk page regarding the potential copyvios of this page. We should probably continue the discussion here as suggested. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Primefac, thanks for this move. To summarize the whole process, I will recall that a large discussion has occurred at Major_AFC_failure:_Korean_literature about a series of 90 drafts dealing with Korean Literature. At the time, quite all of them were in the rejected status for various (wrong) reasons. In this context, I have asserted that these articles are worth a publication in an English speaking Encyclopedia, see action_is_needed,_now. Specifically, I targeted the Inhyeon_wanghu_jeon with the comment endorse and publish.

I was so convinced of the quality of all these articles, that I was surprised by the lack of reaction of their alleged authors. A simple search on the Internet lead to the following result: all these articles are so worth a publication in an English speaking Encyclopedia that they are already published, the en:wp articles being an exact copy of the LTI ones. The Inhyeon wanghu jeon model is https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/node/41638. It is rather amusing that such an obvious fact was not perceived by all these AfC reviewers, but it would be too cruel to insist on such a disaster.

And now: what to do with Queen Inhyeon ? As soon as I don't appear as having endorsed such a copyvio, I have no other objection to keep this article here. And the same applies to the rest of this whole set of 90 articles.Pldx1 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's a copyvio (i.e. it's been written by someone else and published somewhere else) then we need to delete the articles. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about this article but all of the articles [[2]] in my random checks are definitely reverse copyvios down to the WP formatting. Praxidicae (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I was asked by Primefac (and Praxidicae) to have a look at this page. (I was about to sleep (4AM here) so please forgive my brevity on skimming and correct me if I skipped something) I was originally thinking 'compare the enwiki with terms.naver?' but while it had some similarity, not enough similarity level I would delete if it were on the project where I am sysop. (Both article is dealing with Public Domain book (pre-1900 work) so that level of story similarity is acceptable to me) Then I was thinking 'hmm, talkpage has library.lti so maybe there?' then it was mere copypaste of it so thought 'call them when I wake up tomorrow?' then seems like someone already got in touch with them. What is the source page you are alleging copyvio on? LTI? Naver? — regards, Revi 19:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the the source page for this article is [3], but I also agree with Praxidicae that this is 'reverse copyvio' - as in, that site copied Wikipedia content. Or, perhaps, the same author, perhaps affiliated with the other site, submitted content to both Wikipedia and Ltikorea at the same time. PS. See WT:KOREA for more related drafts I am slowly reviewing, several others also have the same issue, and at least one was very clearly a reverse copyvio, as it had copied Wikipedia formatting [1][2][3] etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think that anyone here should avoid the term "reverse copyvio". This sounds as a legal term, claiming for property, and threatening of some legal action. This contradict the general policy WP:No legal threats. And also the general rule WP:Don't be so stupid. This article was rejected by User:GeneralPoxter under the pretense that this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The sources used were the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, a Korean language encyclopedia published by the Academy of Korean Studies. Even facebook has heard about Inhyeon but, you know, this Inhyeon wasn't even candidate for an Iowa senator seat. And therefore, the article was send to deletion by User:UnitedStatesian with the comment In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. And the same occurred to quite all of the other articles of this series of 90. In this context, claiming any right to any property after such an abrupt rejection... is top and foremost ridiculous. Are you also claiming to be the legal owner of the Korean version of all these articles, as published at LTI ? Pldx1 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The article was declined because at the time of submission, the body contained no inline citations, the article had only one reference (the encyclopedia article), and a great deal of content in the "Features and Significance" and "Text" sections were in no way supported by information from the encyclopedia article. I did not decline the article on notability reasons, so please stop trying to spin Inhyeon wanghu jeon as a good article (which it still is far from being) that was bullied by an insensitive AfC reviewer. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

According to User:GeneralPoxter, the following quotation 필사본으로는 국립중앙도서관본·가람문고본 등 10여종이 있다. ‘인현왕후민씨덕행록(仁顯王后閔氏德行錄)’·‘민즁뎐덕imagefont녹(閔中殿德行錄)’·‘민즁전긔(閔中殿記)’ 등의 이칭으로도 불린다. 이본간의 차이점은 분량과 내용에서 두드러진다. 내용은 민유중(閔維重)의 딸인 주인공 민비가 출생하는 데서부터 숙종의 계비(繼妃)로 입궐하게 되어, 숙종과 장희빈(張禧嬪) 사이에서 겪은 파란만장한 사건들을 작품화한 것이다. [네이버 지식백과] 인현왕후전 [仁顯王后傳] (한국민족문화대백과, 한국학중앙연구원) from Encyclopedia of Korean National Culture is in no way supporting the corresponding paragraph in the present article, namely There are nineteen manuscripts and one text printed with a letterpress printer of the old times. They are all written in Hangul and do not vary largely in content. The oldest, privately owned by Yu Gu-sang, is estimated to have been published in 1836 or 1786, because the year "byeong-o" of the sexagenary cycle is imprinted on the manuscript. The one in the best condition, Inhyeon syeongmo minsi deokhaengnok 63 jangbon (Garambon), was published in the journal Munjang in 1940 by Lee Byeong-gi, styled Garam, who introduced the manuscript with his own comments. It excels in quality, because of the detailed descriptions, elaborate story structure, coherent sentences, and elegant prose. It is in possession of Garam-mungo, Seoul University Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies.. Perhaps GeneralPoxter should provide us with his own translation Korean -> English of this quote... or with a translation Poxter -> English of is in no way supporting.

By the way, the very existence of Garam is supported by Upright-Korean-poet-Lee-Byeong-ki. Pldx1 (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If you would like to provide your own translation, I would be very happy to see it. But as far as a crude translation through Google Translate shows, there is no instance of "19 manuscripts", no mention of a "Yu Gu-sang", no mention of the year 1940 or this Lee Byeong-gi character, and no mention of "63 jangbon" - just to name a few. I know Google Translate is not the best, but so far what comes out is completely different from the passage I see here. GeneralPoxter (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

When someone says Garam, she is saying Lee Byeong-gi source: Garam strikes again.Pldx1 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You have still failed to address a majority of my concerns. Furthermore, the only reference to Garam is in "가람문고" ("Garammungo", translates to "Garam Bookstore"), which in no way relates Lee Byeong-Gi as a publisher of a copy of the text. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Better use papago, and obtain Library, not bookstore. And in this Library, one can find all the treasures that were collected by Garam Lee Byeong-gi. Who will be kind enough to go there and collect dates and issue numbers? Jan 1940 was the last slice of Hanjungnok, thus one can expect Feb or Mar 1940 for the first slice of Inhyeon wanghu jeon in the Munjang journal. Pldx1 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, you still have not shown how the passage in question supports the information claimed in the article. The reasoning you made above is not obvious from the sources and does not constitute reliably sourced evidence. This is why I declined the submission at the time, and I hope you understand why now. GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• As a summary, this article was rejected because Yu Gu-sang was not granted an inline citation! And this despite the facts that (1) Queen Inhyeon was obviously notable (2) Inhyeon wanghu jeon (인현성모 민씨 덕행록) was clearly notable by itself (3) it's publication in 1940 by the Munjang journal was part of a notable resistance act against the Japanese occupation (4) Many Korean dramas are using this document as their top historical reference, from Queen In-Hyeon's Man to Dong Yi. Even Wikipedia knows that: her life has been portrayed in many Korean historical dramas. But this is not the focus point of the present discussion. This article is so publishable... that it is already published somewhere else, at Literature Translation Institute of Korea. And thus: do we have here a copyvio or not a copyvio (in the Wikipedia Letter Soup meaning of this word)? Hint: both texts are saying minsi instead of minssi (민씨). Pldx1 (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)