Talk:Jeonggamnok

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Korea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The "Jeonggamnok manuscripts" section of the 3/28/2021 version of this article mentions "secret" texts and uses Pratt et al. (1999) as a reference. I may be missing something, but the Pratt et al. dictionary entry (a single paragraph) does not mention anything about "secret" texts. On the other hand, the translation by Jorgensen (2018) includes many "secret" works which is why I used his book as the reference concerning this topic rather than Pratt et al.

However, based on the review by 한 승 훈 (Han Seung-hoon) what texts are included in what version of the Jeonggamnok is an enormously complicated topic. Why not just drop statements about secret texts and say something simple to that effect and then cite Han Seung-hoon as the reference ? I would not be in a position to do that myself - help from a native Korean reader would be much appreciated.

Also, I notice from this review that Kim Tak, a leading authority, has two works on this topic. The one cited by Jorgensen (and the version in the 3/28/2021 version of the Wikipedia article) is referred to as the 2005 “popular” account. It seems he wrote a two volume technical account in 2016.

Here is a link to the Han Seung-hoon review Han Seung-hoon review

Notropis procne (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Pratt was a reference for "many additions in XX° century", and the list of some secrets was EncyKor. By the way, I'm reading the Han Seung-hoon review. Thanks for this link. Pldx1 (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good - Thanks. This review seems important. I hope it can be cited. Notropis procne (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems difficult to understand how a work so influential to Korean History and Culture (which is very well documented) can be tagged as “Low Importance”. Can one or both of such tags be appealed? Notropis procne (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Notropis procne. Let us revert the the paradigm: these tags are of low importance, and can be hidden at will. I was working on Yi Ji-ham, but I will come back here soon. Pldx1 (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Pldx1 I am sure that you know much more about what should be done than I do. Please let me know if I can help in some way. Notropis procne (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this section be quickly removed to avoid it being viewed as a markup. The text will be still accessible from the page archive. Perhaps a new article could written on the topic Pungsu. There are certainly ample sources for that including those in English (e.g., the book edited by Hong-key Yoon). I like the inclusion of the map for that even if the labels are in Korean. An English caption could be added to note the main features of shown on the map. There is also an interesting section in the Doseon article which could be linked.

Yes, Yoon Hong-key wrote a great book. Here, for the moment, the article Pungsu is only a redirect to the article Feng Shui, while this later article is in a pitiful state, quite-owned by people so proud to yell "pseudo-science" ... and so ignorant about what they are talking about. They are even ignoring how fierce Cao Xueqin was on the topic! Better follow the 36th stratagem: 走為上策. Pldx1 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pldx1 (or anybody else who would like to pick this up), one of your recent edits added the third volume of the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty to the reference list twice. I've tried to fix this by substituting the second volume, but could you please check and fix the "title" parameter in the citation template? I don't read Korean so I'm totally at sea here. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Wham2001. Indeed, one of the three entries was only an useless duplicate. This is fixed now. Thanks for the advice! Pldx1 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]