Talk:Founding legends of the Goryeo royal family

Regarding recent edits by 180.43.140.57

This post will be explaining my changes to this edit by 180.43.140.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That edit itself is copied from this edit by Daboda 55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

First, here is Daboda 55's edit in its entirety:

According to Choe Wansu (Hangul:최완수), a general manager of Gansong Art Museum, those theories have strong narrative elements. He reinterpreted reasonably and reorganize the situation at that time. In his theory, ancestral family of King Uijo of Goryeo was one of wealthy merchants in Kaesong. They made direct trade with Chinese merchants and built huge wealth. Therefore, father of King Uijo of Goryeo who interpreted as the royal family of Tang dynasty was actually Chinese merchant who visited Kaesong for commercial transactions. So, King Uijo of Goryeo was a child who born between Chinese merchant and Gang Sin-ui. In Goryeosa and Goryeosa jeolyo, Emperor Suzong of Tang is father of King Uijo of Goryeo, however, it was probably just an estimation from Goryeo side. In any cases, it is certain that King Uijo of Goryeo was a son of Chinese merchant and at Songag County, there are lots of Chinese merchants visited for their business. In addition, King Uijo of Goryeo tried to find his father and visited Tang with merchant vessel when he was 16. It can be reinterpreted as above.

Here is my edit that replaced the previous one:

However, there are no records of Emperor Suzong traveling to the east, and there is a time difference of more than 100 years. Choe Wansu, the research director of the Kansong Art Museum, has speculated that the father was a wealthy Chinese merchant who came to trade with Wang Geon's ancestral family, which had established itself in Songak, a center of commercial activity, accumulating great wealth through maritime commerce and engaging in direct trade with Chinese merchants by Boyuk's generation.

Note that I removed the citations for formatting reasons in this post.

I'll go through each sentence to explain my changes:

"According to Choe Wansu (Hangul:최완수), a general manager of Gansong Art Museum, those theories have strong narrative elements."

First, he is not a "general manager". Second, "those theories" are not specified.

"He reinterpreted reasonably and reorganize the situation at that time."

"He reinterpreted reasonably" is an opinion, not a fact. The sole purpose of this sentence is to add credence to the proposed argument.

"In his theory, ancestral family of King Uijo of Goryeo was one of wealthy merchants in Kaesong. They made direct trade with Chinese merchants and built huge wealth."

This is now covered in the second sentence of my edit. Regarding "They made direct trade with Chinese merchants and built huge wealth", the source states "그래서 강충의 아들대에 가서는 3대째 축적해 놓은 재력으로 중국 거상과 직접 교역하는", which translates to "Therefore, going into the generation of Gang Chung's son [Boyuk], the three generations of accumulated wealth were used to trade directly with Chinese merchants", which is why I added "by Boyuk's generation".

"Therefore, father of King Uijo of Goryeo who interpreted as the royal family of Tang dynasty was actually Chinese merchant who visited Kaesong for commercial transactions."

This is covered in the second sentence of my edit.

"So, King Uijo of Goryeo was a child who born between Chinese merchant and Gang Sin-ui."

This is essentially a repeat of the previous sentence.

"In Goryeosa and Goryeosa jeolyo, Emperor Suzong of Tang is father of King Uijo of Goryeo, however, it was probably just an estimation from Goryeo side."

The first part of the sentence is already mentioned in the third paragraph of the article. I found the second part unnecessary to include considering "there are no records of Emperor Suzong traveling to the east, and there is a time difference of more than 100 years" (which is directly from Daboda 55's cited source). It should be apparent that the father is not Emperor Suzong.

"In any cases, it is certain that King Uijo of Goryeo was a son of Chinese merchant and at Songag County, there are lots of Chinese merchants visited for their business."

"In any cases, it is certain" is not neutral language and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The theory about the Chinese merchant has now been brought up three times in the same paragraph. This is POV pushing.

I added a mention that Songak was a center of commercial activity, which is how it's described in the source. Furthermore, "there are lots of Chinese merchants visited for their business" is not stated in the source. I hope its removal is uncontested considering that 180.43.140.57 is strict about literal accuracy to the source material. diff diff diff

"In addition, King Uijo of Goryeo tried to find his father and visited Tang with merchant vessel when he was 16."

This is covered in the fourth paragraph of the article.

"It can be reinterpreted as above."

This sentence doesn't provide any new information.

Bamnamu (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

180.43.140.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again completely replaced my edit with Daboda 55's edit, also ignoring my request to discuss this on the talk page. The IP left "WP:OVERSIMPLIFY" in the edit summary. I would like to know how my edit is an oversimplification. I explained the reasons for my edits above. The reason for removing redundant content should be apparent. But I also removed language and content that is solely meant to persuade and advocate, such as "those theories have strong narrative elements", "He reinterpreted reasonably", and "In any cases, it is certain that". It's not necessary to bring up the theory about the Chinese merchant three times. Once you trim all those things, then you're not left with much content. I will make a dummy edit on this article to again attempt to get the IP to discuss this on the talk page.

Bamnamu (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

180.43.140.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), do you have any other ideas on how to integrate your edit into the article, or are you dead set on copy-pasting it into the article as it is? I'm open to suggestions.

Bamnamu (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to apologize for this edit in which I reverted your edit based on WP:COPYWITHIN. Now that some time has passed, I realized that was very douchey of me. I'm sorry.

Regarding your edit, we still need to discuss it and come to a resolution. Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to revert your edit. Please, let's discuss this. Bamnamu (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)