Talk:House of Yi

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Move.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Removed Fix Notices===
The first was requiring citation which has since come to pass.  The second was regarding recentism, but it was from 2012.  The issues of controversy have cleared themselves up.  The US Ambassador to Korea recognizes Yi Seok as the Kinghttps://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m as does korea.net, the Republic of Korea owned websitehttp://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Society/view?articleId=73211.  Finally, he's appeared on many recent talk shows as the Crown which is titled King as it was demoted from Emperor after the Korean Empire endedhttps://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=559332&cid=46623&categoryId=46623.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneyihistorian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support. Olessi 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The first was requiring citation which has since come to pass.  The second was regarding recentism, but it was from 2012.  The issues of controversy have cleared themselves up.  The US Ambassador to Korea recognizes Yi Seok as the Kinghttps://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m as does korea.net, the Republic of Korea owned websitehttp://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Society/view?articleId=73211.  Finally, he's appeared on many recent talk shows as the Crown which is titled King as it was demoted from Emperor after the Korean Empire endedhttps://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=559332&cid=46623&categoryId=46623.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneyihistorian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Fix Notices

message: Good luck with that, Gangists. Gojong himself was not first in line by male primogeniture, and that is not a rule that has been used to select Korean rulers historically - just as well, or Korea might have ended up like certain European monarchies, with a string of incompetent corrupt rulers. Those did occur, of course, but there are also allowances in the Korean system for selecting the most competent or most appropriate for the times monarch. Gojong's selection certainly helped diminish the power of certain noble clans who had become overly influential and corrupt. --Dan (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male primogeniture? 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Support: This is POV. although it is during short period, Korean Imperial is Imperial in East Asia.  Thus, re-change name to 'Korean Imperial Household'. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Excuse me, sir. I objection for result of the up-talk. On what basis do you make such a statement?(For "the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME"). 'House of Yi' is Japan notation, for demotion the meaning of the Korean Imperial family. This name little use the other language, except for Japan. How do you think about this? Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that was what the consensus was. The result was not move, not too hard to understand is it? It doesn't matter why its the common name, what matters it that it is. If reliable sources all started to called the the KKK the Murder League, we would probably rename it after a few years of that. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand. "House of Yi" is not meant 'the Jeonju Yi clan' in Korea. --210.108.110.35 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  Umm.. Sorry. "House of Yi" is not common name, except in Japan. And 'Korean Imperial Household' is unlike the 'KKK', no comparison with 'Korean Imperial Household'. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection! 

message: In this page, four dates are given for each of the 26 rulers of the Joseon Dynasty : birth, enthronement, retirement, death. These data are missing in some of the 26 individual pages "xxx_of_Joseon". Obviously, anyone can modify these pages to add the missing material, and I can do that technical job. But before, I would prefer to be sure of these data: citations would be great to secure the information ! Pldx1 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock-solid datation ? 

message: Prince Yi Seok has been covered as the Korean pretender by BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times. This article puts WP:UNDUE focus on three other pretenders, none of whom have received any international press coverage whatsoever. Kauffner (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one of these sources calls him the 'Pretender', or the 'Last pretender' to be precise whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't even know on what basis Yi Seok claims he is the heir. - dwc lr (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the stories? The BBC story says, "But among all the men who could be living the life of a king, the most colourful career path belongs to Yi Seok". Chosun Ilbo called him "last prince". Literally speaking, there are other surviving Yi princes. So this phrase must be understand as a euphemism for pretender. Kauffner (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So it does. Yi Seok receives more (English) press I imagine because of his 'colourful career path' as the BBC puts it; when compared to Yi Won. But this does not make him the legitimate claimant. Yi Won was appointed by members of the Family Foundation and was the chief mourner at Yi Ku's funeral. I have no idea how Yi Seok regards himself as the rightful claimant. - dwc lr (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not our place to interpret the succession rules. The sources present Yi Seok as the pretender, so that is what should be presented here. Here is another source. Kauffner (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources present Yi Won as claimant as well so we have a dispute which should be noted not suppressed. We have no idea what Korean sources say and who is more active and so on. - dwc lr (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are defiantly Korean sources on Yi Won. Look for 황사손 이원. - dwc lr (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The current pretender

message: Hi. I am improving The Arabic article of Joseon and I Just miss the sources to write a small paragraph about the Royalty. Could someone please notes some English sources about the royal family, its origin, sub-clans, and General information? Thank you.--Sayom (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on adding sources. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request sources  

message: The current heir is Yi Seokhttps://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m.  The explanation is all available via public sources.  Here is the breakdown:
* Yi Gu (death 2005) is the undisputed heir from Yi Un (death 1970).
** Upon the death fo Yi Gu, the next in-line would have been Yi Gap, who did not take a position.
** Yi Cheung is not a candidate as Yi Wu had passed long before Yi Gang (Prince Ui).
** Yi Won was not born to a Lady/Wife and thus ruling him out of the crown.
*** Yi Won attempted to state he was adopted posthumously by Yi Gu, but this was in 2005 and was already illegal by Korean Law.
** Thus, either Yi Gap would be considered from 2005-2014 and Yi Seok from 2014-present or Yi Seok from 2005-present.
*** Considering Yi Gap did not take any position, he effectively was not involved so the correct answer is Yi Seok from 2005-present.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneyihistorian (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this thread is old, I find it necessary to object this one for obvious mistakes, also because this is "pinned" top despite not the oldest thread. According to the tradition, if a Korean king had no son, he could choose one of his nephews to be the heir, or his line would die out and endangered the legitimacy of his successors (even if he were to be succeeded by his brother). Unless, if queen dowagers interfered, who could adopt any royal members as the next king as long as the generation is suitable.
* "Upon the death fo Yi Gu, the next in-line would have been Yi Gap, who did not take a position." "Yi Cheung is not a candidate as Yi Wu had passed long before Yi Gang" - Seriously, Yi Gap had eight elder half-brothers, even that they passed away already, the descendants of these brothers would have priority to succeed if there were no adoption.
* "Yi Won was not born to a Lady/Wife and thus ruling him out of the crown..." - Sure, neither Yi Won or Yi Seok could be the successor because they are junior members, but as Yi Won was adopted, the line of succession changed. According to the Korean news around the date of death of Yi Kuhttps://m.chosun.com/svc/article.html?sname=news&contid=2005081870331https://m.chosun.com/svc/article.html?sname=news&contid=2005072170015, it was shown that the adoption were officially authorized by Yi Ku when he was alive. Few news could be found about Yi Won because his activities are mainly in Korea, unlike his half-uncle, who are more famous outside Korea. - George6VI (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Please review my response below regarding Yi Won's 2012 formed Family Associationhttp://imperialhouse.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=1_ih_02.  I respect the city of Jeonju's decisionhttps://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/asia/19iht-profile.html, Daum, a large news network in Korea's decisionhttps://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m as do the Korean people.  The "Crown" the US Ambassador to Korea visited is the most recognized one.  That is Yi Seok.Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Given our back and forth, I think that makes 'disputed' factual for Yi Seok as well.  I'll add all of the disputed members into the article for factual accuracy given this conversation. Thanks. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

text: About the association, Jeonju Lee Royal Family Association was founded and recognized by the Korean government in 1957, and the association already had recognition when Yi Un and Yi Ku were still alive. So that should add enough weight about Yi Won being the legitimate leader of the clan, much more reliable than those claims came after. - George6VI (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining the current heir 

message: The Constitution, since 1948 (and since 1919) has always recognized the Imperial Family.  The 1919 Charter states specifically to "favor" the Imperial Family.  The most recent 1987 form of the Constitution states that the Provisional Charter of 1919 serves as foundation of the Constitution.Theoneyihistorian (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how "more or less considered as the legitimate" is defined by a company formed in 2012http://imperialhouse.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=1_ih_02.  The Provisional Charter serves as the base of the Constitution.  It does not supersede it.  It IS A PART of the Constitution of South Korea#Spirit of Provisional Charter of Korea..  Meanwhile, if you are speaking of organizations, the 2006 formed Imperial Grandsons Association with the city of Jeonjuhttps://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/asia/19iht-profile.html, home of the Imperial House of Yi, would be a more recognized pick, and considers Yiseok the legitimate 황손.  당연하지요, 한국사람이니까. 당신은? Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining the Recognition of the Imperial Family

message: See, as I read some of the references in the article, I still can't understand why Yi Seok is referred as "king", "emperor" and the pretender; from what I can understand in them, Yi Seok is active on monarchy restoration but he doesn't necessarily self-proclaimed as emperor like Yi Hae-won, so I just removed all of those related contents. If there's any article explaining why Yi Seok is so-called emperor or leader of the family, please give the reference, especially Korean ones. - George6VI (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you erased my comments on the talk page. That said, I provided ample sources whereas you provided none.  For clarity, here's some: https://1boon.daum.net/ziptoss/5fdb137f7407513e6466fc15, https://n.news.naver.com/article/052/0001521990 Theoneyihistorian (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yi Seok 

message: User:George6VI appears to be rewriting history and disclaiming sources in the process. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims are baseless comparing with other references. Also please discuss the latest talk thread in the bottom of the page next time. Also it has been so long since I made these edits, and apparently my versions already gain consensus, it is ridiculous to accuse any of my edits are vandalism or rewriting history. I would cease the edit now in case this is engaging in an edit war, but this doesn't mean that I agree what is made in the article. There are some things I want to point out to be false:
The statement is not approved by Jeonju Lee Royal Family Association, and so this is a self claim and falsely used in news. - George6VI (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't know what this company you are referring to is as my understanding as a historian has been focused primarily on factual references rather than statements from a random company. https://1boon.daum.net/ziptoss/5fdb137f7407513e6466fc15 Theoneyihistorian (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the association is not a company, but an association that has been widely recognized long before the dispute happened. 1957 and 2005, there has been 5 decades. There are scholar researches and more publication more than online websites that can be used as references. e.g.:
* 
*  (p. 41, 43)
I think your references can still be used, nevertheless, the statement can be like "this is how the media recognize Yi Seok and Andrew as last royalties". If you want to say how they are regarded as royalties, this Jeonju Lee Association can't be ignored or you'd be responsible of be biased. 
In addition, "was officially named heir apparent as [the late] Crown Princess Yi Bangja (the mother of Yi Ku and the wife of Yi Un) wrote a will, naming him as the 'first successor'”. and "He was the final heir." are a disputed statement; in my previous revision, I added "claimed" to make it clear that this is more of a dispute, same as "emperor" "king" "crown prince" because of these are self-claimed and neither US of Korea officially recognize these titles. - George6VI (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalization 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: House of Yi →  – Koreans typically refer to the royal clan as "Jeonju Yi" to distinguish it from other clans named Yi/Lee. About 15 percent of Koreans are surnamed Yi/Lee, while 6 percent are members of the royal clan. The Jeonju Yi is not even the largest of the fourteen Yi clans. For the stats, see "Lee (Korean surname)." On the clan's website, there is a "History of the Jeonju Lee family." They certainly don't call themselves "House of Yi." 99to99 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 July 2021 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: House of Jeonju Yi →  – The name of the article should be moved back to the House of Yi. The original move was requested by a now-banned 99to99, a sockpuppet of Kauffner, and the article was moved without discussion. In English usage, the House of "[insert surname]" indicates that the surname of the ruling house was [insert surname], sometimes with a nobiliary particle. For example, the surname of the House of Romanov is Romanov. Titling the article, House of Jeonju Yi, makes most readers think that the surname of the house was Jeonju Yi, when it was only Yi. For example, the name of one of the current pretenders is Yi Seok, not Jeonju Yi Seok. There are also no references at all in English to a "House of Jeonju Yi" except from Wikipedia clones. In contrast, the term "House of Yi" is sometimes used in English-using Korean media. This article from the Korea Times and this opinion piece from the Korea Herald, both use the terminology "House of Yi".  99to99 seems to have conflated this article (which is solely about the ruling house descended from a branch of the Jeonju Yi clan) with the Jeonju Yi clan, which already has an article. There also has only been one Yi family in Korea that became a ruling house, meaning readers are not likely to confuse the House of Yi with a different Yi family in Korea. The article for the ruling house of the Tang dynasty simply uses House of Li, despite the existence of Li families in China not from Longxi. -- CountHacker (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 October 2021 

message: Minor note. Per MOS:KO, my gnomework usually involves putting the Korean term for the title in the lead. However, "House of Yi" seems to mostly be an English term; I've not seen an equivalent Korean term for it. Most people say "the Joseon/Korean Empire Royal Family" in Korean. toobigtokale (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  KO name in lead