Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 11 September 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Empress Myeongseong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 8, 2004 and October 8, 2005.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Empress Myeongseong was copied or moved into Assassination of Empress Myeongseong with this edit on 12 July 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Eulmi Incident grammar and style issues

There are numerous grammatical errors and style issues in the Eulmi Incident section. A bit of it will require familiarity with Misplaced Pages style standards, which I don't have.

anachronism

There seems to be some unacknowledged time-travel involved here: "By age 20, the queen consort began to wander outside her apartments at Changgyeong Palace and play an active part in politics in spite of the Daewongun and various high officials who viewed her as becoming meddlesome. The political struggle between the queen consort and Heungseon Daewongun became public when the son she bore died prematurely 4 days after birth. Heungseon Daewongun publicly accused her of being unable to bear a healthy male child, while she suspected her father-in-law of foulplay through the ginseng emetic treatment he had brought her. The Daewongun then directed Gojong to conceive through a concubine, Lee Gwi-in from the Yeongbo Hall (영보당귀인 이씨), and on 16 April 1868, she gave birth to Prince Wanhwa (완화군), whom the Daewongun entitled as crown prince."

When Queen Min was 20, it would have been 1871. The "concieve-an-heir-via-a-concubine" directive must have happened no later than early 1867.

When did QMin give birth to her son? - it could have been no later than early 1867, within two years of the marriage, when she could have been no more than just turned 17. Was father-in-law on her case already at that stage?

Much further down the page, we find: "Her first pregnancy five years after marriage ended in despair and humiliation when her infant son died shortly after birth." This would have been 1871 or 1872. If this is the case, then dad-in-law's directive could not have been in response to the death of Min's first son.

Title

Our article on the Korean Empire implies it was established in 1897, and this person seems to have died before that. This leads me to suspect most English-language reliable sources probably call her "Queen Min" (Donald Keene's Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852–1912 definitely does). Is there any reason we don't? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Late reply, but based on old talk posts I think it's part confusion about wikipedia policies (assuming last official title is prioritized) and part nationalism (wanting her to be elevated and assuming anyone who doesn't is a Japanese nationalist). I agree that it probably should be "Queen Min" toobigtokale (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Split proposed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to be bold and split toobigtokale (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I propose that we split off the Assassination section into a separate article.

For size, the current article is pretty long (as indicated by template on page as of 10 July 2023). As per XTools, the number of bytes of readable prose in the article is 55,665. It fits in the "May need to be divided" category of WP:SIZESPLIT.

But I have more arguments beyond size:

• It seems like a separate-enough topic to me, and the Korea wiki agrees . The assassination itself is surrounded by additional significant controversy that could/should be discussed in greater detail in a separate article, and not on the article for the Empress.
  • Anecdotal, but I've when I've written on Korea-related pages, I've needed to refer to the assassination specifically on a number of occasions, but not the Empress herself.
• The current article has a lot of issues; fixing them is honestly daunting even for me because of its sheer length (especially if you include the assassination portion). The full article is probably a 20-40 minute read; I'm betting the vast majority of people don't read much of the body because they're put off by the length and mixed quality.
  • The assassination portion I'd argue is somewhat better off; if it's split into its own article, that article wouldn't be so rough.
  • In other words, splitting could help compartmentalize areas that need fixing and make it less daunting of a task. People would actually read more of each article, so potentially more fixes

Thanks! First time doing a split proposal like this, lmk if I did something wrong toobigtokale (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Almost forgot: Title.

I'm open to ideas, but will explain my reasoning below:

For the title of the new article, I think either "Assassination of Empress Myeongseong" or "Eulmi Incident" could work. An alternative is "Assassination of Queen Min", which but I think consistency with the title of this article is important.

Research

Google ngrams (case insensitive)

Google Scholar (exact string match, case insensitive):

• Assassination of Empress Myeongseong: 46 results
• Eulmi Incident: 69 results
• Assassination of Queen Min: 258 results

Google Books (exact string match, case insensitive):

• Assassination of Empress Myeongseong: 539 results
• Eulmi Incident: 313 results
• Assassination of Queen Min: 1930 results

If anything, "Assassination of Queen Min" seems most common. Anecdotally, this fits what I've seen too. However, as per WP:CONSUB, if we assume the title "Empress Myeongseong" for this article is appropriate (idk, haven't researched this) then we should do "Assassination of Empress Myeongseong".

I personally prefer "Assassination of Empress Myeongseong". It's more descriptive; "Eulmi Incident" is jargony even in Korean. toobigtokale (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Tbh I don't think you're gonna get much resistance (or much discussion here at all). I would suggest that you be WP:BOLD and do it. As for the title, I generally believe it's important that it be consistent with the article title here, though that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. :3 F4U (they/it) 05:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as always for the input. This is a relatively more popular article than the Kim Gu one so wanted to play it safe. I'll go ahead and make the change. toobigtokale (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Renaming article

Hi, I did some research and I think the article should be named "Queen Min" instead of "Empress Myeongseong".

Reasoning:

See WP:TITLE. The most WP:COMMONNAME in reliable English publications is "Queen Min" on Google Ngram, Google Books (12,100 vs 489), and Google Scholar (1,420 vs 242). It also matches the common title formats for other Joseon queens.

I'll go ahead and make the change, but please respond if disagree. toobigtokale (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok actually nvm, I just saw the dumpster fire that is Talk:Empress_Myeongseong/Archive_2#Requested_move

I disagree with most of the oppose arguments made in there, but think the point about name overlap is a valid concern. Anecdotal but I still think "Queen Min" is way more common than "Empress Myeongseong" in Eng lang literature. I'll hold back, not really looking to dive into the weeds of that rn.

Complicates things a little for the upcoming assassination section split. "Assassination of Queen Min" genuinely seems to be more common than "Assassination of Empress Myeongseong", although maybe some other "Queen Min" has been assassinated before (googling doesn't seem to show that). Based on WP:COMMONNAME and the Volgograd part of WP:CONSUB I think there's a reasonably strong argument to use "Queen Min" for that article. But there's some wiggle room.

I'm going to name it "Empress Myeongseong" for now, but I'm very much on the fence. I think not making it consistent will just make it confusing to the average reader who doesn't know/care about Misplaced Pages policies. And there hasn't been much momentum to rename this article to "Queen Min" in recent years, idk if that'll change and I'm not looking to be the changer. toobigtokale (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Image in infobox?

Afaik there's hot debate on whether an image of her exists; even the kowiki refrains from having an image. I'm not an expert on the topic though. Does anyone know if we should have the image? toobigtokale (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

See this archived post for reference: Talk:Empress Myeongseong/Archive 3#True or Fake ? Myeongseong's photo (old topic restored) toobigtokale (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I just added an image without seeing this section. I also didn't notice at first that the image I added seems to be based on the photo of dispute authenticity. Yet, the drawing is from 1898 and the photo is from a 1901 publication... You can see a scan of the original 1898 page here. The actual version of the file is not the original French version... Srnec (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should refrain from having an image. It's still heavily debated even in academic circles toobigtokale (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there any debate in English to which you could point me? The source certainly seems good enough on its own to support the picture currently there. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Peer reviewed:

note that the conclusion of the paper is merely that it's complicated and uncertain

I don't think we should rely on a single source to make this judgement call. This topic has been debated over for decades, with no clear conclusion. toobigtokale (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Korea-related articles
• High-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• High-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles