Talk:Order of Culture

Status: notability?

Does it make sense to limit new additions to this list?

Is it appropriate at this stage of the article's development to initiate a standard limiting names on this select list to

(a) those who already have Wikipedia articles

and

(b) those who are notable for something other than being honored with this Imperial decoration -- see, e.g., US Navy Cross edit history?

This diff is a first step in seeking consensus opinion. In a context informed by practices which seem to have worked out well at Navy Cross, all new additions who aren't already featured in an article are re-redirected to this talk page section with the following edit history explanation:

people listed here must have articles on Wikipedia and be notable for something other than receiving this Japanese honor -- see "Status: Notability" on talk page

The names of those recipients whose award is confirmed by a reliable source, but who do not have an article yet are listed below:

• Hironoshin Furuhashi. --?
• Tetsuo Nozoe (1902-1996). --?

• Seiko Tanabe. --?

In due course, perhaps all of these can be restored to the article. --Tenmei (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Order of Culture → Order of Culture (Japan) — South Korea's national merit awarded to people who significantly contribute to Korean culture is also named "Order of Culture"[1] and uses the same Chinese character with the Japanese one. I'm not sure as to whether the name is applied to PRC or POC or other countries'. The article for the Korean national merit is not created yet, but there are many articles on recipients such as Patti Kim. This request also applies to Category:Order of Culture recipients So the title and article at Order of Culture should remain as a disamibugation page. Since Medals of Honour (Japan) and Military Medals of Honor (Japan) use "(Japan)" instead of "of Japan", this request is consistent with the Japanese naming convention.--Caspian blue 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. Preemptive disambiguation is deprecated. When an article is created on another order that could reasonably use this title, the issue can be revisited. Dekimasuよ! 05:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an article Medals of Honor. If this article should be renamed to Order of Culture (Japan), then it should be renamed to Medals of Honour (USA).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the name of Korean order Order of Cultural Merit? See List of prizes, medals, and awards#Korea. Already Order of Military Merit (Korea) and Order of National Security Merit (Korea) exist. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my request is based on the same Chinese characters of the two states' national order, and if you look into other disamibiguation pages, "not exactly" same entries are shared. I'm standing by my request.Caspian blue 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reason expressed succinctly by Dekimasu: Preemptive disambiguation is deprecated. In addition, the following points are relevant:

A. This non-issue is most easily resolved by relying on the explicit expression of the Korean government website which elaborates on the national system of orders, decorations and medals. See, e.g., 문화훈장(文化勳章, Order of Culture Merit.

B. This non-issue was contrived by Caspian blue without foundation or merit. Indeed, even the link proffered in ostensible support fails in this too-facile gambit. See, e.g., Han Sang-hee. "Bae Receives National Order of Culture Merit," Korea Times. October 19, 2008.

C. With regret, I feel compelled to note that the community has ill-served Caspian blue in the past by validating this confrontational tactic; but perhaps instead, this thread can evolve into a teachable moment with unanticipated consequences? --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei, I'm sorry, haven't you been under the WP:ARBCOM probation because of "your ill-served behaviors" recognized by ArbCom? Judging by your "current" violation of your [[WP:ARBCOM] probation again in regard to commenting about me here, I guess you don't get your teachable moment yet regardless of your active sanction. Your WP:Bad faith, and personal attacks are out of line. Comments about edit or the request are fine just like the others, but if you do not stop making personal attacks against me and strike the comments, I would make formally make WP:AE report on your violation as well as the others for the past months in which you've violated a lot. This is my last generosity on your violations. When you made made incorrect edits to articles, I did not play such low blow.--Caspian blue 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue -- Rejecting this too-facile gambit and the muddied prose above: Who's kidding who?

I retract no words posted in this thread. This problem-which-doesn't-need-to-be-a-problem remains a non-issue.

The edit history of Order of Cultural Merit (Korea) includes no contributions from Caspian blue. The following citations support a select list of Korean recipients; and each of these reliable Korean sources support the moderate views expressed by Dekimasu and Phoenix7777:

• Bae Yong-joon, 2006.<:ref>Han Sang-hee. "Bae Receives National Order of Culture Merit," Korea Times. October 19, 2008.</ref>
• Choi Min-sik, 2004.<:ref> "'Old Boy' Returns Medal in Screen Quota Protest." Chosun Ilbun. Feburary 7, 2006.</ref>
• Helen Kim., 1963.<:ref>Yrigoyen, Charles et al. (2005). Historical dictionary of Methodism, p. 176.</ref>
• Samuel Martin, 1994.<:ref>Martin, Samuel Elmo. ( 1996). Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question, back cover.</ref>
• Paik Nam-june, 2000.<:ref>Korea, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism: "Nation honors late video artist Paik Nam-june a year after death," February 1, 2007.</ref>
• Young-Key Kim-Renaud, 2006.<:ref>George Washington University: "President Rho Confers the Order of Merit on the Korean Alphabet Day," November 11, 2006.</ref>
• Yu Hyeon-mok, 2009.<:ref>Lee Hyo-won. "Late Film Director Yu to Get National Order of Culture Merit," Korea Times. June 29, 2009.</ref>

In the service of deliberately redundant pedagogicial emphasis, one simple sentence deserves repeating: PREEMPTIVE DISAMBIGUATION IS DEPRECIATED.

Caspian blue -- This thread's hollow proposal illustrates a too-familiar tactic which you have used again and again. A corollary question needs to be asked: To what purpose? What is the objective? the goal? the outcome?

Caspian blue -- On the basis of your comments above, the opportunity to whine about WP:Bad faith and personal attacks is at the top of an not-very-obscure agenda. Your sentences admit no possibility of constructive engagement; and more importantly, they address nothing to do with the stated purpose of this thread.

In the narrow context of this thread, yes -- you do appear to have been misguided by other well-meaning members of this community. If I understand correctly, you are convinced that the "victimized tactic" or the "righteous indignation tactic" or some other tactic will be effective in this venue. As I see it, your belief is informed by serial disputes in the past. These experiences appear to have taught you that the aggrieved, plaintive and exaggerated prose conventionally overwhelms rational review and calm discourse.

Despite Dekimasu's terse formulation of policy, your experiences appear to have demonstrated to your satisfaction that preemptive disambiguation is a cost-effective, low-risk wager.

I say "No."

The most important thing here is what you don't manage to find time to write about -- 문화훈장(文化勳章, Order of Culture Merit. The government of the Republic of South Korea does not support the frail presumptions your position relies on. From what I can tell from a review of your past experiences, the community is not likely to give even superficial scrutiny to this flimsy foundation, focusing instead on the structure of complaints you erect. With astonishment, this has been among the lessons learned the hard way as I've seen this scenario play out again and again.

Bottom line: You have been poorly served by those members of this community who have unwittingly taught you that unsourced assertions are more persuasive than anything else. You've learned the wrong lessons. You've been taught the wrong lessons. This newest conflict becomes an unwanted and unwelcome consequence of past failures. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Restatement

My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predicatbly escalating drama:

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?

• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?

• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?

• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)