Talk:List of monarchs of Korea

message: I removed Tondemo theories. Those who believe Hwandangogi or other  apocryphal books added them. I think I removed all of them but maybe some are left. --Nanshu 02:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I could find only one reference to it in English. Here - Caffelice 13:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: An anonymous contributor made major changes and additions to this article on 14-15 July 2004.  Unfortunately, the changes fall wholly into 2 categories:
#Replacing the existing and perfectly fine lists of rulers for various kingdoms and dynasties with slightly different lists that had inexplicable misspellings in them (for example, the kings and queens of Silla);
#Inserting quasi-mythical lists of rulers.
Over the last month, other contributors have tried to make piecemeal corections to these changes, but more drastic action had to be taken:
*For (1), I reverted the affected sections back to gdr's edit of 30 June 2004, since article titles are tied to that version.
*For (2), I accept that somewhere in the history of Go-Joseon, that kingdom moved from myth into reality, so I have kept the list of rulers for Go-Joseon, and for the historically more recent Buyeo, Bukbuyeo, and Dongbuyeo.  But I have removed the section on Paedal, unless someone can find a good reason for putting it back in.  As for the section on Barhae, the list that this contributor inserted bears absolutely no relationship to the Korean names of the list of rulers on the Bohai page—unless those names were in the native language of Barhae....
I am the most diligent and prolific contributor on Korean topics on Wikipedia, but this article in its current state was frankly unacceptable. -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 22:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of July edits

message: any thoughts on merging Korean era name with this article? maybe make the former an explanatory article, with the actual list being integrated with the rulers list here? that would mean creating proper tables.  Appleby 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the inclusion of the modern presidents here has always seemed a little odd to me... I think a "see also" link would suffice.  And though I don't have an authoritative text at hand, I'm almost certain that the Provisional Government was always a relatively right-wing element of the independence movement, and thus would not be recognized by the North. -- Visviva 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: korean era name article

message: i had extensively edited the kings list when i moved them here from the goguryeo article. goguryeo is considered korean, not chinese, not chinese/korean, by virtually all, if not all, authoritative publishers outside of korea/china. it's simply not a serious dispute outside of china's political program. even balhae, which is arguably less completely "korean" is described as korean by britannica, columbia, encyc of world history, etc etc. the controversy is properly discussed in a paragraph at the goguryeo article, but the extreme minority position need not be reflected in "rulers of korea" list. Appleby 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Deleting the Chinese pronunciations is just a loss of information, and the sources for these names are all written in classical Chinese. —Babelfisch 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: goguryeo list

message: any thoughts on 환단고기, 규원사화, 태원선우씨세보 lists for gojoseon? i bring this up because wiman's usurpation of jun's throne is generally accepted as history, but jun's lineage back to gija is not. i've recently created Jun of Gojoseon & wanted to add to this list, but it brings up some messy issues. Appleby 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gojoseon list 

message: I notice that the Goryeo emperors, in the box to the right, have temple names, birth names, and courtesy names.  But the boxes for the Joseon rulers often list only temple names and birth names.  Is it because Joseon didn't have courtesy names or just because the boxes didn't include these?  Badagnani 09:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Joseon rulers certainly had courtesy names; however I think we might question whether it is necessary to include such information here for either Goryeo or Joseon, since it should already be present in the individual rulers' articles. -- Visviva 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtesy names? 

message: please see    Appleby 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chadae

message: List of Rulers of Korea → List of Korean monarchs – This is the standard form for articles of this nature; see :Category:Lists of monarchs.  Since the list includes kings, monarchs, and others whose status is not perfectly clear, the hypernym "monarchs" is most appropriate.  In fact, this was the title of this page for some time.  The page was moved away  from this title on 18 June without any comprehensible justification, and later moved to the current capitalization-challenged version.  Visviva 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - Just to make sure everyone is aware what a monarch is--by definition all kings and queens are monarchs.  See Encarta's definition, for example, "1. supreme ruler: somebody, especially a king or queen, who rules a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right" —LactoseTIT 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just leaving a note that in English, monarch is a general term that refers to "king and queens".  It is commonly used, and has the added benefit of being gender neutral. —LactoseTIT 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to the question:  mostly I would like people to stop moving pages around for no apparent reason.  "List of rulers of Korea" (note the small "r") would be acceptable, and in fact this page was at that title for a long time.  However, I think that using the term "rulers" can give rise to issues of inclusion (Daewon-gun was arguably a ruler, though not a monarch) as well as POV (see Talk:Kim Jong Il for amusingly tedious discussions of this).  For that reason, I think Appleby was correct to move this page from "rulers" to "monarchs."  With the title "List of Korean monarchs" (or "List of monarchs of Korea"), the inclusion criteria are reasonably clear and non-controversial.  -- Visviva 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ruler" does not make a specific gender reference. And if "ruler" is such a bad title, then whats with the sudden "lets move it move it"? The article was moved quite a long time ago and nobody complained about it after the move. Good friend100 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And "Imjin War" is an English name. Good friend100 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of rulers of Tahiti? If the word monarch should be used, then why isn't this article not moved? This article seems very stable, as a talk page has not even been started. To the Tahiti talk page at once! Good friend100 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you were being facetious--I would suggest moving that stub of a page now directly, as I doubt it will be controversial.  —LactoseTIT 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then move it. You want monarch right? Good friend100 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add any additional comments
*Oppose Its not a "monarch". Where did you come up with that? Japan and China both use the title "emperor" for the royal line and Korea uses "king". I don't understand why "monarch" should be used. A monarch is a lower status than king and I have never seen "monarch" used to describe a Korean ruler. King Sejong is not called Monarch Sejong. I support "List of Rulers of Korea" because it best and clearly represents what they are: rulers. Good friend100 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - Just to make sure everyone is aware what a monarch is--by definition all kings and queens are monarchs.  See Encarta's definition, for example, "1. supreme ruler: somebody, especially a king or queen, who rules a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right" —LactoseTIT 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just leaving a note that in English, monarch is a general term that refers to "king and queens".  It is commonly used, and has the added benefit of being gender neutral. —LactoseTIT 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to the question:  mostly I would like people to stop moving pages around for no apparent reason.  "List of rulers of Korea" (note the small "r") would be acceptable, and in fact this page was at that title for a long time.  However, I think that using the term "rulers" can give rise to issues of inclusion (Daewon-gun was arguably a ruler, though not a monarch) as well as POV (see Talk:Kim Jong Il for amusingly tedious discussions of this).  For that reason, I think Appleby was correct to move this page from "rulers" to "monarchs."  With the title "List of Korean monarchs" (or "List of monarchs of Korea"), the inclusion criteria are reasonably clear and non-controversial.  -- Visviva 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ruler" does not make a specific gender reference. And if "ruler" is such a bad title, then whats with the sudden "lets move it move it"? The article was moved quite a long time ago and nobody complained about it after the move. Good friend100 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And "Imjin War" is an English name. Good friend100 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of rulers of Tahiti? If the word monarch should be used, then why isn't this article not moved? This article seems very stable, as a talk page has not even been started. To the Tahiti talk page at once! Good friend100 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you were being facetious--I would suggest moving that stub of a page now directly, as I doubt it will be controversial.  —LactoseTIT 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then move it. You want monarch right? Good friend100 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I made the move. I decided that List of Monarchs of Korea would best fit MoS. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, can you explain the capitalization?  Seems like it should be "List of monarchs of Korea" at least.  -- Visviva 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree; probably just an oversight? —LactoseTIT 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As "List of Monarchs of Korea" is not a proper noun, "monarchs" should not be capitalized per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words. --Kusunose 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as to "Korean monarchs" vs "monarchs of Korea", the latter is preferable per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Country-specific topics. --Kusunose 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Is it possible to remove the move tag off this talk page? It says when full consensus has been reached and I think it has been now. Good friend100 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tag

message: Anybody against moving the Gojoseon monarchs to List of legendary monarchs of Korea? It is presented here in a matter-of-fact style with dubious sources, which is very misleading for uninformed readers. Wikipeditor 12:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers are apprised of their legendary/controversial nature, so I don't think it's necessary. Cydevil 04:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to revisit this thread. I think it would be better to put all the rulers from Gojoseon to Mahan in the List of legendary monarchs of Korea exclusively. As things stand there is some repetition. I think it is beside the point that readers know of their legendary nature. Check out the two equivalent articles for British monarchs -- they keep things straight. Articles need to be to-the-point overviews. I think that we need to develop History of Korea articles just as we need to develop Mythology of Korea articles. For the sake of Korean mythology articles, why not keep things straight? For the sake of consistency and developing a smokin' encyclopædia, it is necessary to keep things in their correct categories. No slight intended, but not to keep things straight is a little sloppy, no? Thoughts? Mumun 無文 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gojoseon 

message: NO mention of Kim Jung Il, current dictator of North Korea? What is the difference between a dictator and an absolute monarch? --69.234.209.204 16:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Jung Il 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jeongjo of Joseon.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: *
:"The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."
*
:"Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."
*
:"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
*
:"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
*
:"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
*
:"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
*
:"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."
First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.--219.111.108.11 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Disclaimer: the above message was originally posted by me here. The anom user (who uses many different IPs) has reposted my message on several talk pages without proper attribution. I have absolutely no connection with this user. -Zanhe (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic consensus

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of monarchs of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060708220629/http://kdaq.empas.com:80/koreandb/history/koreanking/html/person/koguryeo_king.html to http://kdaq.empas.com/koreandb/history/koreanking/html/person/koguryeo_king.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: thumb|right|250px|Sejong, with a book. It seems that another Dangun edit war is on the verge of being launched. If this Dangun was really an historical figure, it would be interesting to use him and replace the picture
: Sunjong of the Korean Empire.jpg
in the desinfobox. Indeed, this picture resumes all the dynasties by someone that personified a temporary failure rather than anything else. On the contrary, who, better than a founding guy, can personify the Korean dynasties ?  
And here, we have a problem. This portrait of the famous Dangun was not painted in 2332 BCE by some of his retainers, but by Chae Yong-sin (who died in 1941). Some more probing traces should be used, if any.
Of course, Queen Seondeok would be a better candidate to personify historicity, power and success. Pldx1 (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ~
*Have not found any portrait of Seondeok. But Sejong is a second great choice: an Hall of Encyclopedia, whaow !!! Pldx1 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is another Dangun war ready to be launched ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of monarchs of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060708220629/http://kdaq.empas.com:80/koreandb/history/koreanking/html/person/koguryeo_king.html to http://kdaq.empas.com/koreandb/history/koreanking/html/person/koguryeo_king.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi. Someone added succession boxes to all korean monarchs articles. I find very odd the use of the ,,King/Queen of Korea" title and the use of the syntagm ,,Titles in pretence" for kings of pre-Goryeo periods. Does this monarchs realy used and pretended the title King/Queen of Korea, and to pretended rule all the koreans/Korean Peninsula ?! From what I read, I doubt. Shouldn't this be modified? Here are some examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5. Or at the Balhae monarchs, do we know for sure that they were Goguryeo claimants and pretended the same King of Korea title? Ex: 1; 2. Could a connoisseur of history check this? --Daduxing (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. You are totally right. Jumong was not a ruler of Korea in any possible meaning. Describing him as a ruler somewhere south of the Sungari would be better (but perhaps seen as controversial by several sides...). Anyway, these boxes are not here to convey any balanced description of the facts, so that you better be prepared to face a strong opposition from the boxers.  Pldx1 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchs succession boxes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of monarchs of Korea. 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/20031006023320/http://www.rootsinfo.co.kr/index_sub02.html to http://www.rootsinfo.co.kr/index_sub02.html
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) 04:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Yi Seok is the recognized kinghttps://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m.  Furthermore, the Imperial Family is constitutionally recognized in the latest 1987 Constitution.  Yi Won is not in line to receive the crown. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Korean Empire

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion