Talk:Empress Gi

message: Last March, I added quite a bit of material here based on the book A History of Korea by Hwang Kyung Moon who is a respected historian. Much of what I have done has been undo by an IP who complains about "distortions" of history. One can only base what's edits on a reliable source. I believe Hwang is a RS. If he is wrong, please cite a RS saying so. Deleting material that is cited because an editor and not even a registered editor thinks it is a "distortion" without so much as providing a single RS backing his or her edits is vandalism. It is also a little disturbing that the reference to the harem system as "gloried sexual slavery" was removed. The women in the Emperor's harem were his slaves and were there for his sexual use. I don't mean to sound anti-Asian, but all this business of vacuuming up young women to serve as concubines in the Emperor's harem (who not allowed to leave nor were asked if they wanted to join the harem) does reflect a view of women that is extremely sexist. Nobody asked Lady Gi if she wanted to go to China, and she didn't want to go; she was taken and that was that. I am going to revert the edits of this IP; if he or she wants to discuss the issue, please do so here. --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But why use subjective adjectives like "gloried"? If you insist on citing reliable sources, you should also insist on being objective and factual and not sound like an anti-propaganda page. It's not neutral point of view to write things like "in effect the Emperor's harem was glorified sexual slavery". Concubines were high ranking officials and many of them had power. There are two sides of a coin, always. Yet you insist on showing only one side of it, that you deem "sexist". Those were the times, none of the states in those times were feminist or equalist, not just in Asia. Europe was none the better in treating women in the Middle Ages. yet you kind of make it look like only Asian kingdoms were "sexist". You need a better understanding of the era.  Teemeah  편지 (letter)  08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The rules

message: 1. This history is only in goryeo, not in entire Korea. 2. 기 is Gi not Ki. 3. drama <Empress Ki> distorted real Empress Gi. and korean historist told she is only betrayer, not good woman. you have no idea in korean history you aren't Korean, but I know real Korean history because I'm Korean.
4.making her the object of enduring fascination in Korea? no. she is only betrayer, not a enduring fascination! 5. goryeo style? she is only one of thousands of human tribute. human tribute spreaded goryeo style not her. she devoted human tribute as a bribe. Trust Me, please! I'm very upset because of rollback. It's real history. she is worst case of betrayer. Please refer to Korean Wikipedia if you want to know source. 
more source : http://premium.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/03/04/2014030404668.html, http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201308292016531&code=960801, http://www.encykorea.com/enc/ency_012375.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.150.235.19 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: do you know real history?

message: The treatment of women in this article is problematic and sexist with a likely Han-chinese chauvanist bias.  It needs editing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaiyahle (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexist language