Talk:Namdaemun

message: I think someone should mention that the building has burned down to the grown february 10 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.251.107 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yup, jaja (198.82.118.124 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It clearly hasn't been totally destroyed, though. The article should say 'partially destroyed', rather than 'destroyed'. Gunstar hero (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing. Not only was there surviving parts of the wooden structure, the stone structure was clearly still standing. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude. Uncool. I've heard nothing until now, and I have a bet the Koreans are frothing at the mouth over this, some historians may even call for blood. :o :P In any case a sad, sad story for a prized monument and classic wooden architecture. It seems like almost the entire history of Korea's architectural achievement is just one story after another about a burned-out shell-of-a-monument.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to cry seeing that 610 years old building was burned down. Cry cry seoul. Tourists will be very dissapointed when visiting Seoul.back to goguryeo (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burned Down 

message: Considering that the gate was almost destroyed during the war, I wonder if the claim that it was the oldest wooden building in Korea is really accurate.  Does any-one know how much of the pre-fire building was original? Kdammers (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From sources I've read, as well as signs at the site, I think that basically the structure that was burned down had been there since the 1960s (when it was "renovated"), with only a few pieces of stone/wood remaining from the earlier gate. Keep in mind, the current "renovation and restoration" of Gwanghwamun means that if you go there right now you'll find nothing but a big empty lot - the entire gate has been torn down. So when they say "renovation" in Korea, it seems they mean a complete rebuilding. Otebig (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, following Your argument, I see no justification for the claim that it was thee oldest wooden building in Korea in Jan. 2008.  So the article should be changed unless we find evidence showing that the gate's wood WAS in fact intact.Kdammers (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would call for these sources to be properly cited before we adopt it within this text. We follow what is published by authoritative souces, not by personal judgements or hearsay, even if the later may be technically more accurate.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily, Otebig: renovation sometimes requires the complete removal of all artifacts for conservation and restoration, checking the site for additional artifacts, present or potential problems, then returning the artifacts to the exact same location they were taken from. They may just be doing the job thoroughly. Shir-El too 13:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyone can suggest anything. Given Korean reverence for their heritage shaveing such a site seems highly unlikely. However I pointed out above that common knowledge and fact are not the same things: does anyone have a certified, authoritative source to quote - or is this all speculation? Cheers, Shir-El too 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm in agreement with your above statement, and was not referring to your post as being prejudice. Cheers! --Bentonia School (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that, Bentonia School: it was an attempt to politely curb... uninformed conclusions, let us say. Thank you, Shir-El too 03:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest surviving wooden structure 

message: Why was the Korea Times ref. replaced with a CNN source?  KT would seem to me to be a better  source for Korean stuff than CNN. Kdammers (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't know why CNN is considered an authoritative source for any story. --Bentonia School (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regretfully CNN is one of many un-reliable news purveyors. I personally witnessed a breaking news story held up for 3 days, then broadcast with a later, unrelated incident in such a way as to make it appear that the former was the result of the later! Shir-El too 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to be fair, the Korea Times is not a perfect sources. Besides their pro-Korea bias (which can effect their articles, especially when it seems they try to "soften" embarrassing stories), they tend to not always have their facts in order. For example, on the same day (Feb. 11) one article said "When the last major restoration took place in 1961, only a few parts of the structure were replaced", while another said, "Namdaemun's wooden superstructure was seriously damaged during the Korean War, and had to be restored." The day before they wrote "Namdaemun...was originally built in 1398 and then renovated in 1962, following its destruction during the Korean War." Today (12th) the said that the gate has "surviv[ed] a series of historical catastrophes from the Japanese invasions of the 16th century to the 1950-53 Korean War." Destroyed to seriously damaged to simple repairs to survival - CNN isn't the only one needing fact-checking. Otebig (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever your personal experiences, CNN meets the criteria for WP:RS. Please dispute specific inaccuracies with another source, i.e. "According to CNN, X, but according to the Korean Times, Y." --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is about some-thing that happened in Korea.   I think, barring mitigating factors, local sources should be preferred to distant summarizers.  That's certainly the way it works in normal paper scholarship.  I assume there are now a lot of good sources, but I'd like to mention one:  한국일보 from 2008-2-12 has four pages with timed photos of the fire - p. 1, 3-5.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of source 

message: I noticed the Korean Wikipedia has two pages. One for the gate itself (숭례문), and one for the fire (2008년 숭례문 화재 사고). Is there any way we can link to both?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otebig (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Korean Pages

message: How sad.  May it be restored speedily and well. Shir-El too 13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I visited the site today. Very solemn. It's surreal to see it like it is now.--Bentonia School (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't matter if they replace it with another of modern construction; the original historical version is irreplaceable. Yet another Korean monument up in smoke; such is the poor history of Korean architecture.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly true. The ideas and culture for which the monument represented haven't gone up in smoke. --Bentonia School (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thing of great beauty... 

message: i recall yesterday seeing images here of the structure in flames.. why are they no longer here? i believe it was very well recorded, so there should be tons of photos available..  131.111.8.102 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: nevermind.. it's there now. 131.111.8.102 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  image of flames 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support, 'Nandaemun' is clearly the more widely-used name in English language sources, judging from the list below. We don't call locations by their official names when the unofficial name is considerably better-known. Terraxos (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
:Comment: You make the same and duplicate thread as the above. The editors who moved the title never had any discussion with other editors. Recent news headlines mostly use the official title of the gate, "Sungnyemun" (I retract my comment becasue using the official title for headline seems to be limited in Korean media and East Asian countries). I don't think the title with parenthesis is necessary as I said the above. But disambiguation page is needed, because sometimes people abbreviate the market as Namdaemum. For the record, I don't disagree with the opinion for changing the title as Namdaemun, but couldn't move it due to double redirect.--Appletrees (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point.  However, a disambiguation page is not necessary for Namdaemun market.  All that is needed is a hatnote at the top of the article reading: "For the market, see Namdaemun market."  —  AjaxSmack  20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should've mentioned it before. According to Korean wikipedia, North Korea has two more Namdaemun. So the existence of the disambiguation page is justified.--Appletrees (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if there are no articles at Wikipedia and/or if they're not notable.  —  AjaxSmack  20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not a duplicate thread. This is a formal area for discussing a requested move. Please read that page for more information. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *The same material is repeated in their guide to Seoul.
* Geography of Travel & Tourism lists it as "The Great South Gate of Seoul (Namdaemum)". (Is the final "m" just a typo?)
* Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary lists is as "NAMDAE-MUN ('Great South Gate')"
* A Concise History of Korea uses "South Gate (Namdaemun)".
* Fletcher's History of Architecture uses "The Namdaemun (South Gate)".
* Google News Archive shows few results for Sungnyemun except those stories related to the reopening and the fire. A few note that it is the official name of the site, others use it for the plaza/square, and a few have "South Gate" in English as well. There are a total of 14 stories using this term.
* Google News Archive shows many results for Namdaemun: 468 results through 2007. The majority of the fire stories use Namdaemun alone, or in combination with "South Gate" and "Great South Gate". A fair number of these are primarily about the market, but only Chosunilbo (and a couple of wire stories) gives both Korean names.[example http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200602/200602280023.html]. 
* A number of English-language sources give "Greath South Gate" by itself, without any Korean name. [WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001438_pf.html] [IHT http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/08/business/wbspot09.php] 
* A distinct minority use "Nam Dae Mun" or "Namdae Mun". This can be dismissed as a variation.
So, if we are to use English per project guidelines, we should prefer Great South Gate. But in any case Namdaemun is far and away the more common name compared with Sungnyemun. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In this article,Sungnyemun was designated as National Treasure in December 20, 1962.<BR>But in the page of Joongang Ilbo say that, it was designated in 1934, during the Japanese annexation period, the colonial government issued an ordinance to preserve the major Joseon Dynasty cultural properties.<BR>
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2482709 <BR>
Which is accurate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.124.98.90 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original designation was indeed in 1934 during the Occupation by the Govenor-General of Korea, that is, the Japanese government. In fact, Japan made an entire list of national treasures in Korea based on the Japanese model. Korea then made its own list of national treasures in 1962, though the artifacts and sites on the updated list were basically the same as the Japanese list. The point of revamping the list in '62 was part of the movement to revitalize and control Korean culture by Korean people. And rightfully so. --Bentonia School (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designation of National Treasure 

message: From some of the pictures, you can see that yes, the damage is very very bad, but the structure hasn't been completely destroyed. Some angles, especially aerial shots, show the roof part collapsed, but a lot of the structure of the first floor, and who knows how much of the fallen and charred beams of the second floor, possibly salvageable. It's too early to talk of it in the past tense, or flatly label the gate "destroyed." Especially since the actual stone gate part is undamaged. Drop the soap! (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  destroyed/damaged 

message: Hello,
I'm trying to not be pedantic, but on this article, it should be "an historic gate" not "a historic gate" according to the page on a and an. I have made the change, and if anyone has any vies about it please just write on my talk page
Andypandy2020 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a minor point 

message: Hello. I'm Korean wikipedia user with ID :ko:User:Bart0278. and I'm en-1. I think the article's name would be Sungnyemun. Because name namdaemun is name by japanese in Korea under Japanese rule. So i think name should be Sungnyemun. Thank you for reading this :)--Bart0278 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is a Nationalist and prescriptivist POV. --Kjoonlee 13:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it doesn't matter who invented the name or when. What matters is how common the name is now. And Namdaemun is easily the most common name for the gate, in English AND Korean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namdaemun? or Sungnyemun. 

message: This article states Namdaemun is a 24-hour market but it's not. The market closes at approximately 10:00 PM each evening. Perhaps the author is confusing Namdaemun with Dongdaemun? HardyandTiny 01:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  24-hour market 

message: As requested in the revision history of Namdaemun by IP Address 147.46.57.248, my reason is written on talk.
I would like to request the infobox image to be changed from image 'Sungnyemun restored.jpg ' to 'Sungnyemun Gate, front, 2013.jpg'. The reason is a landmark is usually identified in front, not the back of a landmark. More so, the new file is a more recent image available of Sungnyemun. 
DoulosCore (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. It's a better picture, anyway. Either the one you're advocating, or the "whole view" picture at the bottom. Either would be good in the infobox. Thanks for discussing. 147.47.240.156 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of infobox picture 

message: 문교부장관 (29 December 1962). "문교부고시제169호. 《문화재보호법에의한국보지정》". 관보 (in Korean). 공보부.
: same ref cheak on :ko:숭례문 (연혁, 1962-12-29)
: 동일한 각주를 한국어 위키백과에서 확인 가능합니다. -- 메이 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Namdaemun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215120645/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4cfjlM7LVtJSzek6TNEkGbO61KA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4cfjlM7LVtJSzek6TNEkGbO61KA
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Throughout this article there are unfounded and unsupported claims. For example, in the naming section there is a poorly written portion with no supporting citation that looks almost entirely like nationalist argumentation. While it may well be true it isn’t supported by citation and the inadequate writing seems to support the idea that this contribution isn’t of professional quality.  Tstanfield3 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspect claims  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Namdaemun Fire-2.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I just added "old" to the short desc, making it "Old south gate of Seoul, South Korea". Reasoning for the addition is that Seoul has extended beyond Namdaemun for probably over a hundred years now. I made similar changes for the other 7 gates of Seoul. toobigtokale (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short desc