Jump to content

Talk:Woo Jang-choon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help With Translation

[edit]

Anybody skilled in translating Korean please help me. LOL LMAO

"우장춘이 일하고 있던 유채 씨앗 연구실의 주요 과제는 바로 유채 씨앗의 품종 개량이었습니다. 우장춘이 맡은 일이란 십자화과 십물의 종간 교배를 통하여 새로운 종자를 만들어 내는 것이었습니다.

우장춘은 연구를 거듭하여 마침내 조선종 유채와 일본종의 유채를 교배하여 전혀 새로운 종을 만들어 낸는 데 선공했습니다. 조선종과 일본종은 서로 종이 달라서 보통의 방법으로는 서로 교배가 되지 않았습니다. 그러나 우장춘은 염색체를 분석하여 어떠한 방법으로든 반드시 교배가 가능하다는 확신을 가졌습니다." (Wikimachine 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"A significant observation was that, does evolution happen not only through buildup of beneficial mutations that lead to speciation, but also through exchange of genes between different species." This is what I got out of

"서로 다른 종의 생물이 합쳐져서 새로운 잡종을 만들어 내어 진화하기도 한다."

Correct? (Wikimachine 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The description on Samurai should be erased

[edit]

On Early life,the phrase the Japanese had hired gangsters or so-called Samurais appears.That will impose an impression that a samurai equalls or is very similar to a gangster upon readers. On the other day I pointed out that to the writer.I hope the description will be modified or erased by his/her courtesy. --Trilozengy 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To think about it, you are right. (Wikimachine 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I've protected this for two weeks while the editors sort out the problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete " {"{fact}"}" and "<"references /">" .

[edit]

There is my report in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User: Caspian blue. Don't delete " {"{fact}"}" and "<"references /">", again.--Bukubku (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You forgot to mention about your massive blanking, lying, personal attacks and harassment.
  2. At the top of the page has "{{Unreferenced}} template, and you only tagged the [citation needed] to contents that you dislike and then blanked out massively. The article has reference section and you said the article with no inline resources is not references. Then, according to your logic, the whole content of the article should be blanked out with your disliking contents.
  3. Moreover, you keep lying that my restoration from your massive "blanking" to the original status as "insertion". Those are called not only "personal attacks" and "harassment", but also "dishonesty" to nibble away your thin credibility (your attempt to falsify sources and contents was already proven at Empress Myeongseong)
  4. You also did not mention about your deletion of info related to Empress Myeongseong when you went for forum shopping to admins and editors.
  5. You lied that I rejected formal meditation suggested by admin and you. You're the one who has been rejecting my suggestion to open a discussion for your claim.
  6. However, all you have said are continuous personal attacks based on your lies. You said at ANI page, "Expel the shameless vandal who are bashing Japanese" I can't believe your sources because it is written by South Koreans". On WP:JA, people said that they could not find any racism that you allege and I did "insert such things". Then you resumed the forum shopping to get a favorable answer for you instead of opening a discussion.
  7. You rather made the racist attacks at the page that should be reviewed.
  8. Given your mistake on Empress Myeongseong and blanking of the name of a Russian eye-witness from Korea under Japanese rule, your mockery proves that you are only heard that "causing massive disruption since you appeared"
  9. You're spreading "false info" to people that "my source" is just one link. Well, why did you forget to mention about the book attacked to the reference section and I referred to.
  10. Of course, your assuming WP:bad faith, WP:Incivility, WP:Harassment, WP:Dishonesty and denials to have a discussion with me are "being recorded" per your contribution.--Caspian blue 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1.I don't lie. Caspian, don't harass Admin Kwamikagami, moreover.[1][2][3][4]
2.Don't tell choplogic.
3.I don't harass anyone.
4.8.Because you disguised Korean Army. You wrote a group of Japanese agents entered the Imperial palace in Seoul, which was under Japanese guard. And your e-mail source was suspicious. Thereafter I searched your source, I found your source was administered by Victoria University of Wellington. Your source is acceptable. I will rewrite your sentence after protection expired.
5.I don't lie. You distort your source. There is a report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#User: Caspian blue (second)).
6.I don't lie. Because WP:JA people didn't know your distortion.
7.?
9.Caspian blue's words I already provided him links that back up the mistreatment that Dr.Woo suffered and Bukubku ignored the "fact".[5]Caspian blue's link.--Bukubku (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1)You lied ~so many times, 2) you lied 3) you have harassed me enough just like the false ANI reports instead of opening a discussion. I opened the discussion and you never filed the meditation and lied that I rejected your offer (So when did you open a meditation or discussion?) 4) You did. 5) You distorted sources and my comments, so you have to apologize for your wrong behaviors. 6) Oh, you distorted my comments and JA people are in a good standing and you're not. 7.?? 8. You forgot to mention about my previous comment regarding the book and others. You distorted information so many times. So it it the time to check the book source. Your only way to communicate with people is making a false reports and forum shpopping based on lies? You attacked me "I'm a shameless person to be expelled". Well, according to your allegation, you should not have a privilige to edit English Wikipedia.--Caspian blue 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bukubku's blanked contents / requested inline citations

[edit]

This diff is about the contents that Bukubku (talk · contribs) tried to blank out and lied that I "inserted" as accusing me of being a racist and sockpuppet of Wikimachine (talk · contribs) who created the article. I've never heard such absurd allegation. You just made the hoax report to link everyone to defame me. I've wondered how you figured out my former name and some indef.blocked user unlike your experience for just one and half month. Anyway, I post Korean "quotes" first, and then you can use "translation tool" or ask somebody who can read Korean since you can't believe my translation at all. FYI, %% mark indicates to be not a new reference added by me, but already attached citations to the article. If you insist that who the hell of the book's author is and you can't trust him, well, he is a current president of the Publishing Association of South Korea.[6] and a former president of a university. The book is out of print.Baek Sukgi (백석기), Woongjin Wiinjeongi #30 Woo Jang-Choon (C) Woongjin Publishing Co., Ltd. 1987 It is not in Public Domain, so as to avoid copyright violation, the quotes are hidden in the collapsible table.--Caspian blue 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Besides, Woo Beom-seon's condoning of the assassination of the Empress Myeongseong and the Japanese assassins who stabbed her violently are different.
  • You replaced that Korea was liberated in 1948 with no reference. In light of your claim for "references", that is your shame. You also altered a similar content from House of Yi which should be fixed as well.--Caspian blue 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Caspian blue 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Official Gazette of Korea, Feb. 12, 1896 (韓国官報 建陽元年二月十二日 號外)1. Kyujanggak

medcab

[edit]

Hey, Roux left the project so I'm picking up this case. Can each party tell me what the problem is (brevity and keeping the discussion to content is much appreciated) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC) bonus points if you don't mention other parties ;-)[reply]

I have no idea what we should proceed with the meditation because the person who accused me of rejecting his offer for meditation did not say anything about what is his claim for over 10 days after his bogus ANI report on Nov. 5th. This is not only abuse of Wiki system but also his tactic to look me bad to people who do not know what is really going on.--Caspian blue 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Are there any problems with content? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the right above thread and diff. That is ABOUT everything about our DISPUTE of the article. And I provided sources to the contested content that Bukubku who falsely accused me of being a vandal "inserting racist contents" (actually Bukubku's blanking the contents) to AIV, ANI and WT:JA and several admins's talk page instead of my suggestion to him to open a discussion here and address his concern, has been very quite for over 10 days. He did not reject my insertion of the provided sources.[7]. Therefore, here has nothing to resolve further, so I've demand Bukubku's alleged "dispute", but he did not even say anything about his claim after his ANI reports.--Caspian blue 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, I'll need to be convinced by Bukubku that this isn't something an admin should take care of :-/ Xavexgoem (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I'm somewhat under the impression that it's not; I always give the benefit of the doubt :-)[reply]

I don't trust Caspian blue.

Fist of all, he wrote anti-Japanese articles without source. so I tagged fact and wrote sourced oppositinal article. But Caspian blue deleted again again.. Please, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User: Caspian blue.

Then he provieded his new source. Then he also told WikiProject Japan's people like that I already provided him links that back up the mistreatment that Dr.Woo suffered and Bukubku ignored the "fact".[8]Caspian blue's source link. However his new link didn't explain his articles. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#User: Caspian blue (second). Curiously, his link source has never been cited by him from now on.

After my accusation, he provided some sources.

1."History revew > Continued falsification on history by Japan (역사 재조명 > 일본의 계속되는 역사 왜곡), Sisa Magazine. 2004-04-19, http://www.sisamagazine.co.kr/news/quickViewArticleView.html?idxno=331. Retrieved on 27 October 2008." quote:이 외에도 사바틴의 보고서는 일본군이 치밀하게 만행을 저질렀으며 그 후 제물포 항에 정박해 있던 일본군함이 황급히 일본으로 떠났다고도 보고하고 있다. 그는 분명 일본 정부가 시해 사건에 개입한 증거라고 결론짓고 있다. 또한 사건의 주요 무력 기반이 일본군이었음도 한국사 연구자 야마베 겐타로에 의해 밝혀졌다. 따라서 남은 문제는 이 사건의 배후 구도가 어떠했는지를 규명하는 것이다. 그런데도 일본은 이 사건을 왜곡하는 데에만 치중하고 있다.

(Translation)Sabatin reported Japanese army finely carried out brutality, then anchored Japanese naval ship left toward Japan in a hurry. He concluded this was the evidence of Japanese government involvement in the assassination. Also Korean history researcher 야마베 겐타로 explained the main military force was based on Japanese army. Consequently, the problem which remains is bringing out the behind of the incident. However Japan is attaching importance to only distorting the incident.

Caspian blue wrote "it is apparent that the Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans."

His coment is not sourced.

2."Baek Sukgi"

This source is very susupicious. There is apparent evidence.

Caspian blue wrote from this source like that "The policy was aiming to hinder Koreans from obtaining technological knowledge and to profit from selling the seeds to Koreans at a high price."

But Japan was ruled by the United States. Japan had no her own policy at the time.

So I propose his suspicious comments should be deleted.--Bukubku (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is that (including the personal attacks) all you got as having me waited you for over 10 days? Then, you also have to wait me for 11 days because I have waited more than enough, so I have no time spending with your constant harassment and dishonesty. I don't understand your "new" insistence. My sources are reliable and you again are dishonest about my edits and comments.
  2. You intentionally have missed "the book source" and I provide the text above and you did not obviously read the text at all.
  3. With your already proven "two" falsification cases to Empress Myeongseong, and Korea under Japanese rule, we can guess about your intention with the MED that you did not even file: You want to make my reputation go bad just like your hoax ANI and your forum shoppings
  4. You must know some recent case in which somebody who constantly files bad faith files to ANI in order to his opponent to have a bad reputation, got blocked for 3 weeks. The opponent is our initial meditator.
  5. That passage is initially referenced by the "book" source as you see the end of the passage and the link is a supplement because of your constant lying about my edits. You obviously did not even read my thread above.
  6. I have no idea what your second paragraph even means. The policy was during the Japanese occupation period and what on earth United States has to do with your insistent?
  7. As for the author, you can confirm yourself via email to the author about the book. You're contesting to sourced written by the current president of Publishing Association of South Korea.
  8. You have been dishonest about my edits and source and still the habit is going on.

As a conclusion, meditator, I think you can close the case because Bukubku's "newly invented disputes" are already referenced and Bukubku should have presented "clearly" his claim in the due time which he fails.--Caspian blue 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Point #8 - I can't handle behavioral disputes, but this looks like a good way to move to content. Perhaps you could explain to me the honest intent behind your edits? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written by Wikimachine (talk · contribs) 2 years ago and at that time, providing "inline source" is not prerequisite. I said so and the article is referenced by "a Korean book" and links. The contents Bukbuk tried to blank out are labeled like "Caspian blue inserted the racist contents (nobody at ANI and WT:JA agree that the article has "racist contents") to the article. In fact, Bukubku is the one "blanking the contents" and I restored them. Then, the newbie who already did several falsifications on sources to other articles went busy for forum shopping as calling me a sockpupet of Wikimachine and liar to be expelled. However, the suspicious newbie (he said "don't template me" in his first month and took over IP sock's edits) still lies about my comments "Caspian's links are not referenced" as intentionally missing to mention "the book". I will make a summary about the situation as to why Bukubku are doing this.--Caspian blue 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme get one thing straight - I am not interested in disputes between editors. I only want a good article. Obviously, you two disagree on many things, but you edit the same article. You both have two choices: escalate to RfC/U or Rfar (not a good idea), or talk only about content. What right now in the article is the problem you both want solved? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC) If you can refrain from mentioning each other in this discussion, this might actually work[reply]
My point is, that Bukubku's insistence is about WP:V and WP:RS of the referenced contents which perfectly follow the guideline and the evidences are already presented in the right above thread. Therefore, the only reason that Bukubku wants the mediation is the addressed reason above.--Caspian blue 17:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't want to be a party to this mediation? This mediation will only work if we talk about the specific violations of V & RS (etc)... diffs, stuff like that. What part of the article do you want addressed first? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but did you read the thread, Talk:Woo Jang-choon#Bukubku's blanked contents / requested inline citations? This diff is all about our "past" dispute and the "new dispute" that Bukubku posted here is also within the same past one. I would participate in meditation if "we" had something to be resolved in the article. However, during 10 days, Bukubku was very quite about my provided sources and did not even answer what we should do with the MED. The only reason I would agree to participate in the MED is that I could not be tolerate about Bukubku's constant lying to ANI/admins/and many editors' pages that "I" have refused to go to meditation to resolve the dispute and is a shameless liar distorting sources". (which was done by Bukubku more than twice and he admitted that) If you want me to provide diffs for all fiasco, sure I can do that, but later.--Caspian blue 17:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read the thread. Here is the stuff in the diff:

the assassination of the empress- in 1895. The Japanese government was allegedly involved in the assassination of Empress Myeongseong, who had carried out policies against the Japanese, and, although there are controversial viewpoints on the subject, it is apparent that the Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans.

1. This has no citation. Is it relevant to the subject matter?

Yet, they all continued up the ranks; Dr. Woo, however, had to stay in the Japan's Ministry of Agriculture's examination room because the Japanese policy during the occupation of Korea was to fetter Koreans from achieving high status.

2. This doesn't have a citation, either. Is there a source that says Dr. Woo was made to stay in the ministry as a result of Japanese policy towards Koreans?

Koreans were forcibly drafted into the army.

This doesn't have a citation, either.
Can we start here? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. The contents are cited by the Korean book and attached links to the article with additional links.Look at the diff You seem unable to read Korean per your answer. What translation tool did you use? The tool seems like crappy.
1. The assassination of Empress Myeongseong deeply affected Woo Jang-choon's father and his family, and the incident was a pavement to Korea under Japanese rule, so it should be addressed. Bukubku also falsely displayed that the main charge of the assassination was "Koreans" to Empress Myeongseong and Korea under Japanese rule with falsifying his sources, so that should be fixed as well. Besides, the content is referenced.
  • 개화파였던 그는 1895년에 일본에 의해 저질러진 을미 사변, 즉 '왕비 민씨 살해' 사건으로 인하여 쫓기는 몸이 되었습니다. 그렁다고 그가 직접 고종 임금의 비인 민씨의 살해에 참여한 것은 아니었습니다. 일본은 조선 사람들에게 왕비 살애 계흭을 숨기고 마치 조선사람들이 저지른 것처럼 꾸몄던 것입니다.(Baek Sukgi)
  • 1895년 8월 20일 명성황후가 일제에 의해 시해된 을미사변이 발생하였다. 일제는 갑오변란 이후 조선을 장악하고 개화를 구실로 한 침략정책을 수행 중 삼국간섭을 계기로 조선에 서의 우월권이 러시아에 의해 저지 당하였다. 따라서 조선지배정책에 타격을 입게 된 일제는 친러정책의 핵심인물인 명성황후를 제거하고자 한 것이다. 이는 국제적 범죄행위로 조선을 식민지화하려는 침략행위의 일환으로 취해진 것이 분명하다.[9]
  • 이 외에도 사바틴의 보고서는 일본군이 치밀하게 만행을 저질렀으며 그 후 제물포 항에 정박해 있던 일본군함이 황급히 일본으로 떠났다고도 보고하고 있다. 그는 분명 일본 정부가 시해 사건에 개입한 증거라고 결론짓고 있다. 또한 사건의 주요 무력 기반이 일본군이었음도 한국사 연구자 야마베 겐타로에 의해 밝혀졌다. 따라서 남은 문제는 이 사건의 배후 구도가 어떠했는지를 규명하는 것이다. 그런데도 일본은 이 사건을 왜곡하는 데에만 치중하고 있다[10]
2. It is also referenced by the book.
우장춘은 농사 시험장에서 박사 학위를 딴 후에도 그대로 기수로 머물러 있었습니다. 그가 일하고 있는 농림성 고노스 시험장의 각 분과 주임은 모두 기사직이었지만, 우장춘만이 기수였던 것입니다....후배들이 먼저 승진하는데도 우장춘은 만년 기수로 남아 있어야 했습니다....것마저도 일본 농림성의 거부로 이루어지지 않았습니다.이것은 일본 정부의 조선인에 대한 차별 정책 때문이었습니다. ...
3. It is also reference by the book!
일본은 전세가 불리해지자, 병역법을 고쳐 조선 청년들을 징용이라는 미명하에 강제로 전쟁터로 끌고 갔습니다. 그리고 동남 이시아나 만주 등의 전쟁터에 총알받이로 내세우거나 강제 노역 시켰습니다. 심지어 밭에서 일하고 있는 사람들을 마구 붙잡아가기도 했습니다.
-_-, so if you can not read Korean, please tell me. I will translate any content for you.--Caspian blue 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baek Sukgi seems exist certainly. However your citation is ridiculous.

Caspian blue didn't reply below

1."History revew > Continued falsification on history by Japan (역사 재조명 > 일본의 계속되는 역사 왜곡), Sisa Magazine. 2004-04-19, http://www.sisamagazine.co.kr/news/quickViewArticleView.html?idxno=331. Retrieved on 27 October 2008." quote:이 외에도 사바틴의 보고서는 일본군이 치밀하게 만행을 저질렀으며 그 후 제물포 항에 정박해 있던 일본군함이 황급히 일본으로 떠났다고도 보고하고 있다. 그는 분명 일본 정부가 시해 사건에 개입한 증거라고 결론짓고 있다. 또한 사건의 주요 무력 기반이 일본군이었음도 한국사 연구자 야마베 겐타로에 의해 밝혀졌다. 따라서 남은 문제는 이 사건의 배후 구도가 어떠했는지를 규명하는 것이다. 그런데도 일본은 이 사건을 왜곡하는 데에만 치중하고 있다.

(Translation)Sabatin reported Japanese army finely carried out brutality, then anchored Japanese naval ship left toward Japan in a hurry. He concluded this was the evidence of Japanese government involvement in the assassination. Also Korean history researcher 야마베 겐타로 explained the main military force was based on Japanese army. Consequently, the problem which remains is bringing out the behind of the incident. However Japan is attaching importance to only distorting the incident.

Caspian blue wrote "it is apparent that the Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans."

His coment is not sourced.

2.Caspian blue worte "In Korea, farmers were left no seeds to plant because trade between Korea and Japan ceased, and the seeds were produced only in Japan. The policy was aiming to hinder Koreans from obtaining technological knowledge and to profit from selling the seeds to Koreans at a high price."

I controverted him like that "But Japan was ruled by the United States. Japan had no her own policy at the time."[11]

Caspian blue replyed "I have no idea what your second paragraph even means. The policy was during the Japanese occupation period and what on earth United States has to do with your insistent?"[12]

This is lie. This sentence was writen after the sentence "In August 15, 1945, Korea earned its independence; Dr. Woo resigned from his positions at the Takiyi research farm and Tokyo University, and prepared his own place near a Buddhist temple."

And Caspian blue's former source is writen like below.(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User: Caspian blue)

하지만 배추나 무 등 채소의 씨를 만들 수 있는 사람과 회사는 없었습니다. 일제 강점기 동안 일본으로부터 채소 씨앗을 들여왔기 때문이었습니다. 그런데, 광복 후 우리 나라는 일본과 교류를 단절했기 때문에 채소 씨를 일본으로부터 수입할 수가 없었습니다.

(Translation)However there was no people and no company which had the skill of making the seed by their own ability. Because the chinese cabbage seeds were imported from Japan when Korea was under the Japanese rule.　After independence, our country severed the relation of Japan, our country was not able to import the vegetable seed from Japan.

This source also show the sentence is about after Japanese rule.

3.Caspian blue didn't show these source contents. Baek Sukgi, p. 6-7, Baek Sukgi, p. 11-12 Baek Sukgi, p. 16 Baek Sukgi, p. 36-38 Baek Sukgi, p. 43 --Bukubku (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per #2 and the lie - is there a miscommunication here? I rarely -- even in the worst disputes -- have editors who outright lie to each other. As for #3, can you explain the significance of those pages and how they'd fit into the article? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bukubku, stop lying. Did you even check the Korean book source? The questioned contents are referenced by the book and the links and I already provided the inline sources one-by-one comparison in the above thread. Well, your disruptive behaviors are all being recorded in the history, then, you're wholly responsible for your behaviors.--Caspian blue 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, enough with the "lies"; I doubt anyone is 100% certain. If they are, they need to cool down a bit. You two need to communicate without slinging mud at each other. Just for now. What can we agree on, folks? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False accusation constitutes WP:Harassment. So I hope Bukubku behave better.--Caspian blue 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry my rough words. I have been searching the book "Baek Sukgi (백석기), Woongjin Wiinjeongi #30 Woo Jang-Choon (C) Woongjin Publishing Co., Ltd. 1987" for weeks. I asked many specialty Korean bookstore managers to import the book from South Korea. However the book is out of print years ago. And they also told me secondhand book is not available even in South Korea. The book is not exist in market. So this book is not verifiable. This book should not be the sources. See WP:V. Please reply #1 #2 also--Bukubku (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have clearly and repeatedly said the article written by Wikimachine is referenced by "the Korean book" and links. The only reason I try to provide the inline-sources from the book is you have been falsely accusing that my "restoration" from your blanking is my insertion of "lies". Well, your comments are not "rough words", but WP:Personal attack and WP:Harassment. Besides, did you even read the above thread!!!! I said the book was out of order and you even repeatedly doubted the author's existence regardless of my provided information about him and the book with links. Well, in order to follow your logic, every book sources that you don't like and could not access should be deleted? Not only nonsense, but also bad faith.
  • On the other hand, according to a web result, most of current biographies on Dr. Woo published in South Korea are based on the book, "My Country" (『わが祖國－禹博士の運命の種, 新潮社, 1990, ISBN 4103258071) written by a Japanese biographer, "Ssunoda Husako" (ja:角田房子) and I looked through accessible book reviews from on-line book stores. Although the translated book in Korean is also out of order but which seems to hold almost similar contents with Baek's book. So there are several ways to verify the contents by yourself. 1)email to the Mr. Baek 2) borrow the Ssunoda's book from a library or buy it from Amazon.jp. Or I will provide other additional sources (there are plenty of sources).
  • As for the no. 1, Korean Wikipedia has a book source which can verify that passage. "일본은 기록을 조작하여 황후 살해 책임을 흥선대원군과 조선인 훈련대에게 돌리려 했다." The book titled "Empress Myeongseong and Korean Empire" (명성황후와 대한제국) and the page number is from 42 to 45. It was written by a former Seoul National University professor and the president of Kyujanggak.
  • As for the no.2, your denial to look at the table in the above table is proven again. See, 해방이 되어 우리 나라의 농업을 주도하고 있던 일본의 기술자들이 돌아가 버리자, 우리 나라에서는 종자를 구할 길조차 막막했습니다. 그 동안 일본은 식민지 정책에 따라 농작물의 종자를 한국에서는 전혀 생산하지 않고, 일본에서만 생산하여 한국 농민들에게 엄청난 값으로 팔아 왔습니다. 그러다 보니 해방이 되어 일본과의 교역이 끊기자 우리 나라의 농민들은 씨앗을 구할 수가 없었습니다. 따라서 우량 종자를 만들 수 있는 지식과 기술을 가진 사람이 절설히 필요했습니다. I asked you as to what is the reason to insert "the irrelevant info regarding Occupied Japan. Say anything aside this? --Caspian blue 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will provide other additional sources (there are plenty of sources).　Caspian, it is good proposal.
  • no.1 By what means? Please show the evidence. The book converts russian witness from Japanese and Korean to only Japanese. The book is writen by full of hostility.
  • no.2 high price on what grounds?
Every racial attack articles have no foundation. I suspect the authors are racist, maybe or not.
I propose once remove suspicious articles, next Caspian rewrite with other additional sources. There is no accusation and personal attack. Bring this dispute to an end. OK?--Bukubku (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You're pulling a string again and again. I provided another book source and all you're saying is to defame the book having full of hostility? Good move. Besides, what ground you're insisting from the addressed passage? Say clearly. As I recall you again at the talk of WT:JA, NOBODY agreed with your false accusation. Now, you're accusing the author of racists? Huh!!!!! You know what? That is very very serious accusation that you must take a strong responsibility.--Caspian blue 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← How long have you been at each others throats? More than a year? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose once remove unverifiable articles, next Caspian rewrite with other additional sources. Caspian, you provide new sources, it is good. You write from your new verifiable sources. Let's bring this dispute to an end. OK?--Bukubku (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than 11 days past, I carry out. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blank out the properly cited sources above. Your blanking is not warranted. What did you do for the 11 days? I provided sources and offered alternative options for you: obtainment of a Japanese authographer's book or emailed to the author. You did not do anything.--Caspian blue 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I will provide other additional sources (there are plenty of sources)." You will write from your additional sources. It is good. The author's e-mail is unknwon. And Japanese authographer's book is on order.--Bukubku (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Providing additional sources is not equal to mean that you "blank" the existent sources". Besides, why you even blanked out "cleared sources" from your standard? You said you tried to get the rare used book, so I assumed you easily could find out his email, since he is an important figure in South Korea. Could you tell me why you kept inserting the irrelevant "Occupied Japan" to the article? --Caspian blue 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You blank the citation again. This repeated blanking is highly disruptive.--Caspian blue 06:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to get his e-mail, sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to answer my question for over 11 days, and inserted erroneous and irrelevant contents to the article. When will the book be arrived to you since your order past over 11 days.--Caspian blue 18:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? Now I'm reading book.--Bukubku (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Woo Jang-choon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woo_Jang-choon&oldid=1207901384"