Talk:Empress Myeongseong/Archive 1

message: The date is October 8 in the gregorian calendar. "August 20" is in Chinese calendar. When writing the date in east asian history, you have to check that the calendar system. -- ChongDae 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the assassion date. 

message: regarding the title of this article, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Names of monarchs would indicate this article should be called "Myeongseong of Korea." of course there can be exceptions for especially well-known individuals, but there's also a case to be made for consistency too. i don't feel strongly either way, just fyi. Appleby 08:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that's somewhat of a standard on Wikipedia right now, but adding " of Korea" in my opinion only elongates the article title unnecessarily. If Myeongseong was a Christian name, and many European monarchs were named Myeongseong, then yeah, specifying the country makes sense. But seriously, how many European monarchs ever have a Korean name? This seems to be an article naming standard for Western monarchs that doesn't apply well for Korea. Having said that, I have no opinion on whether the title "Empress" should be removed or kept. --MangoCurry 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: can you show me a reference where that was a title made up by the japanese?  i'm fully willing to believe you (although i'd think it would be sometime before "WW2" maybe even pre-annexation, well before ito's assassination) if you can provide sources.  i suggested "yi joseon" for clarity and did not know whether or not it had a precedent.  also, is that "wapanese" comment a reference to me or just some random tourrete-ism?  if you are attempting to imply that i'm "white" then you are dumb.  if you are intimating that i have more than common knowledge about japanese history then let me know when you're free and i'll explain about this thing called a "college education."  --Umetaro 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, "Yi Joseon" is not uncommon in Korean histories either -- or at least was not uncommon until recently.  For instance, I have at hand an encyclopedia of Korean history published in Seoul in 1983, which uses the term 이씨 조선. -- Visviva 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title 

message: I'm protecting this briefly; I'd like to see some talking here rather than just going back and forth reversions.  Is this vandalism or a dispute? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, they won't answer me! - CobaltBlueTony 18:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I've changed this to semi-protection pending the user's initiation of discussion. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  As far as I know, this is repeated vandalism by ONE user who was deleting information out of the article and kept inserting the POV template. There has been no discussion over the matters of the article itself for months, and the vandal keeps inserting Japan-centric POV without proper citations and such. This is a case of vandalism originating from someone's own POV. The vandal has also been inserting POV template on other Korea-related articles without giving any reasons too. (See Yi Sun-shin page)Deiaemeth 18:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sounds good.  I'll remove the semi-protection shortly if he doesn't start talking, and then we can block if he starts vandalizing again. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotecting.  Admins, block  immediately if he adds the POV template or makes other malicious edits without discussion here first. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: See the newspaper.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501130035.html
:I agree. It's actually never known whether it's really her or not. mirageinred 22:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting problem. The argument against it being a photo of her comes mostly from Queen Min of Korea: Coming to Power) Simbertseva's research, but seems weak to me. It almost all hinges on whether she would have her image portrayed, certainly something that was done by Kojong, by Lady Om, by Sunjong, and Queen Yun. There's even a photo out there of the whole royal family taken when the last child, Princess Deokhye, was about three or four. Deokhye, Princess of Korea. So that argument is not very strong. The other point is that some historians feel a Queen would never sit with her feet apart as in the picture. To me, that doesn't make much sense either, because Koreans back then didn't use chairs often and likely didn't have any particular way of sitting in them. Finally, the question is, if the photo is not the Queen, who is it? Considering how she's dressed, if she's not the queen, she's wearing royal clothes. That would be inappropriate, true? It's an interesting mystery. There are members of the Min family alive today, though, who look a lot like that photo. --Dan 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could have been one of the ladies in waiting. Maybe. mirageinred 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Alrighty, folks, take a look at these. Here's  the Queen Min photo under discussion above. But, some old Japanese travel books also claim this  and this  are Queen Min. What do the rest of you think? Do any of these look particularly like Min women today? --Dan 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, that picture is definitely Empress Sunjeong. I can see the clearer photo. I was thinking her face wasn't as long as the "court lady". I was too quick to use the picture because another website had used it as Queen Min. — Nrtm81 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True or Fake ? Myeongseong's photo 

message: Some things just can't be totally English and that is an online encyclopedia.
If everything has to be in English, then do you call Admiral Yi Sun-shin something of English translation of the Chinese characters?
What would you call Hangul? Would you call it "Han-people's writing"? (that is the Chinese characters' meaning) What about Sushi? It's an English word. Just because "Eul-mi Sa-byun" sounds foreign does not mean that it shouldn't be used. Additionally, this is an article about a Korean person. Why are Japanese Wikipedians here? A Korean biography should have Korean words unchanged. I don't want any interference.
Therefore, I ask for permission (which I see no need of) to change the title of the section concerning her death to "Eul-mi Sa-byun". (Wikimachine 14:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no google hits for . Using uncommon Korean without explanation and/or translation is not helpful to English readers. With this regard, "Assasination" or "Death" is better in my opinion.  If I were to use Korean, I would title the section "Eulmi incident" and explain Eulmi (乙未) is the name of the year in sexagenary cycle used in Korea. And then I would put untranslated Korean in parens. --Kusunose 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Death or Eul-mi Sa-byun 

message: ...it is undeniable that his version is stylistically superior to the other.
I mean, things like
: Like with all historical figures associated with a downfall of a regime (such as Marie Antoinette, Alexandra Fyodorovna), there exists a celebratory, tragic story of their reigns that is often heavily sugarcoated, but at its polar opposite stands the harsh, often cruel and partially made of truth distorted into fiction lores of their lives. It is often difficult to see these tragic figures in a neutral viewpoint because these historical figures that had powerful influences over politics and yielded the ability to condem (sic) or to forgive were also at one point in their lives, daughters, sisters, lovers, wives, and lastly, human.
would disgrace a high-school essay. They have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article. It doesn't even make sense: is the writer really intending to say that these people were only human "at one point in their lives"?
It seems to me that the editors need to stop this pointless revert war, stop the futile personal attacks, and work on actually writing a decent article here.  And note that a "decent article" will be sourced from both Korean and Japanese histories.  That's what NPOV means, isn't it? 81.178.65.121 15:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even when Japanese government is known for white washing its history? No. (Wikimachine 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether you agree with Objectman or not... 

message: While it's good to see that the article has an extensive references section, it would be very helpful if the various claims within the body of the text could be backed up with individual citations specifically identifying the parts of those books which are being used as sources for each section. This would enable readers to verify facts for themselves more easily. — Haeleth Talk 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which regard, I'll add that the reason I put a  tag on the Japanese textbooks thing is not that I doubt it or hold any particular POV in relation to it, but simply that I don't know exactly what the textbooks in question actually say, so I have no way of knowing whether that point is accurate or not. Hence the need for a citation, so anyone who wants to can easily find out which textbooks are being discussed and can read them for themselves. — Haeleth Talk 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I finished writing the biography today which took some time. It covered her Personal Life (Early and Late), International Rivalries, Donghak Uprising, Sino-Japanese War, the Kato Reforms, and her assassination. However, my computer decided to be just completely mean and shut down on me. I lost all of it except for a page of sources I wrote to citate everything in the bio so far which is a good thing. But I was still upset and fuming for awhile. It just took a lot of time to read all the sources and write it out. 
It's going to take me awhile to finish this again and I can't spend a lot of time tommorow. I will get it done soon though.
--Thepowederoom 04:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost 

message: Substituted at 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment