Talk:Sejong the Great

message: The title should be "King X of Joseon". Sejong is no problem with Korea, but collisions would occur at Taejo and Gojong. -- Nanshu 12:28 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
:In the first place, isn't there convension about naming of rulers? In fact, all of Japanese emperors are named in the format "Emperor (name) of Japan" except some exception like Hirohito even though in the case there is no ambigousness. Shouldn't we simply use convension? -- Taku 16:22 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
::I don't know. If not, we should make and apply a convention to avoid needless confusion. -- Nanshu 11:53 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
:::I have renamed the article "King Sejong the Great of Joseon" to conform to such a convention.  I have tried to set up a model for the convention by posting lists of rulers (see Rulers of Korea).  --Sewing 21:04, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Inventing a convention is unnessesary.  The hangul script on the monuments to him literally translated read "Sejong great king." 
Japanese conventions for naming emperors have nothing to do with how Koreans name kings. It would probably be best to refer to him as Sejong the great (it has worked good for every single Korean I know and I know a lot.)209.193.14.56 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's just say we leave Peter the Great as "Peter the Great" as how we leave King Sejong the Great as "King Sejong the Great". King Sejong is the heart and soul of Korean culture. As a peace loving nation, cultural and technological advancements under him are deeply honored by Koreans instead of kings that wanted conquest after conquest. Hence personally, I don't think it's appropriate to label him just like any other Kings of Korea. 
I don't really get what confusion can be produced by labeling him as "King Sejong the Great of Joseon". The convension for naming Japanese rulers has nothing to do with how we name Korean Kings. It is not the question of simplifying the names, but that of history, cultural significance. He is the one who created the written "Korean" language which enables his people to express their own thoughts in written language (and note that until then the written language was the privilege for nobility), who framed the most important cultural policies and who obtained a staggering academic achievement even supported by the very grass-root level at that time. I think this fact shows enough why his title should stay as it is. He is one of the nation's soul-that deserves such title "King Sejong THE GREAT of Joseon"
- btw personally I'd like to ask Nanshu what he/she means by "Sejong is no problem with Korea" ; considering Nanshu doesn't seem to be a Korean name, it is somewhat thoughtless to judge other people's cultureHappyshannon 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion with no headers

message: Last time I saw this article on Sejong, there was lot more information on him then now. What happend? Did someone erase them all? Jameslim88 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone with the IP address of 68.5.231.253 seemed to have erased most of the article. I have restored the article. Wookie919 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wtf... the article seems to have shrunk. 

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.
*Glad to be able to Support. {Name} of {Dynasty} may not be helpful for Korean articles in the first place; WP:NCNT does not apply to Far Eastern monarchs. Even if it did, it would oppose this form, which is utterly unnecessary as Alfred the Great of England would be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: That bit is interesting, but does it belong here?  Seems bit odd sitting there.  Was it a big scandal?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.70.127 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesbian incident... ?? 

message: It says:
That's the spelling according to modern South Korean dialect. But back when he lived, it was slightly different:
Additionally, that spelling is still in use in North Korea. Shouldn't we use that spelling on this page instead? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one uses NK spelling except in NK and by North Koreans in Japan. Korean all around the world uses the South Korean standard spelling which is phonetically more accurate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually 리도 is the "correct" way to read it.... in 15c Josun. At that time, 이 was written as 리, which is why NK likes to keep the ㄹ: its more traditionally accurate. -175.196.124.82 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name 

message: According to this site http://www.koreanhero.net/kingsejong/index.html# King Sejong the Great was born on the 15th of May 1397. I would like to know which is correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.119 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The Wiki article also contradicts itself on Sejong's age at death. The sidebar says he died at 53 while the main body of the article says he died aged 54.Muzilon (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: Sejong's appearance on the won bills released in 2007 might be worth mentioning:
*
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  10k won 

message: Was King Sejong's new calendar based on the latitude Seoul, or on its longitude?  The latter seems more plausible astronomically, as it would directly affect hours and sometimes dates, and is implied by the mention of the Seoul meridian in the Korean calendar article.  Pending a definite resolution, I have changed latitude to longitude in the article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean calendar 

message: The file :File:King Sejong.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at :File:King Sejong.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use candidate from Commons: [[:File:King Sejong.jpg]] 

message: The image currently used for the Sejong the Great article on Commons has no English descriptions, is improperly licensed and has no source ("own work"), and was uncategorized (I fixed that, at least). It may be related to also badly described/licensed :File:세종대왕 어진.JPG. Can someone add the missing information? I'd hate for this to be deleted, and we don't really have any other images of this figure. But if there image cannot be confirmed as PD, it will have to go - and we won't have any illustration for this. PS. I am a bit shocked how poor of an article Sejong the Great is, considering he is, it seems to me, the most prominent Korean historical figure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be pretty nice if we knew where the picture was taken exactly, so that it could be retaken if ever possible. The current quality of the photograph is sadly rather bad. Either way, if this painting was created in the 15th century, I have a very hard time imagining it still being copyrighted in any manner. I don't see any reason to believe that this photograph isn't created by the person who uploaded it. Adding a kind of PD-template stating that the work depicted is over five-hundred year old may be appropriate. ~Mable (chat) 13:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Picture :File:세종대왕 어진.JPG already says 김기창. And Google (김기창) says http://blog.moneta.co.kr/pk0711/4844750/3405176. By the way, Talk:Sejong_the_Great#File:King_Sejong.jpg_Nominated_for_speedy_Deletion was not saying otherwise.  Pldx1 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So someone simply grabbed the photograph from Google? In that case, it's indeed a copyright violation and it has to go. If someone could go to the place where this painting is located and take a photograph of it themselves, it could still be replaced. That's simply how it works. I suppose you could try to use a non-free rationale, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I don't actually know anything about the painting: was it created while Sejong was alive, and based on his actual likeness? If that is the case, the painting would be as useful as the painting we use for Napoleon. If it's not actually based on him, then I agree that it isn't entirely appropriate for the infobox. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:조선 세종.jpg]] 

message: There is a sentence under "Literature" that looks like a remnant from a previous organization of the article: "Although most government officials and aristocrats opposed usage of hangul, lower classes embraced it, became literate, and were able to communicate with one another in writing." It is out of context in that location, but appears important. Should it be relocated further down in the "Hangul" subheading? Thanks. Kyrieo (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature/Hangul 

message: In the section "Name", it states: "Although the appellation 'the Great' (대왕；大王) was given posthumously to almost every ruler of Goryeo and Joseon, this title is usually associated with Gwanggaeto and Sejong."
However, there seems to be a misunderstanding of 대왕 daewang ('the Great'). The 대왕 in 장헌영문예무인성명효대왕 and in 세종대왕 are not the same. The former one is traditional Korean culture. However, the letter one comes from the way history is retold by Western standards. It is based on the way Alexander is called "the Great". The Korean kings that carry that attribute in history are Sejong, Gwanggaeto and Munmu. Therefore, the statement above is not a contrast. It is just two different concepts that coincidentally use the same word. --Christian140 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding