Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:23, 18 October 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)

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:

• (abstract only in English)

note that the conclusions of both papers is that it's complicated and uncertain whether any photos are actually of her.

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)

Just to be clear, you are saying that the sketch is based on the photo and the photo was, even in 1898, mistakenly believed to be of the queen? Srnec (talk)

Not quite, I have no opinion on the sketch or photo, or even any on the entire topic. My point is that it's consensus that whether any photos exist of her at all is controversial. I don't know much about the sketch. I'd try to research thoroughly whether the sketch is considered an accurate likeness of her. Ideally that research should cover the Korean lang consensus as well. But until you're reasonably certain I'd hold back from having it in the infobox, as people seem to be opinionated on the topic. Body with caveats is definitely fine though. toobigtokale (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Direct quotes needing references

I removed the following words from the Aftermath section ie after the queen's assassination. "Gojong, a man who had always been used by others and never used his own voice for his own causes, was noted by scholars as having said, "I would rather slit my wrists and let them bleed than disgrace the woman who saved this kingdom." There is a need for two references, one for the King's previous attitude on non-interference; one for the words themselves. If anyone can reference these, that part of the removed words can be reinstated/ adapted. I hesitate to remove material but this really does need referencing, not least because the words may come from one of the many subsequent dramatic representations of the events in question. I am trying to reduce the narrative to referenced factual content and would welcome back the quote if it can be traced properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PineappleDolly (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with your choice; to you and others, please don't hesitate to remove text that is unsourced and has multiple issues. Non-neutral POV, poor grammar/prose, etc.

It's better to have an article with some holes in it that's well-written and well-cited, than a bloated, poorly-written, and unsourced article that never gets sourced/improved significantly. Many Korea-related articles have huge chunks of poorly-written text that have gone unsourced for 10+ years. toobigtokale (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced item available for reinstatement if referenced

Item: The special treatment of the new training unit caused resentment among the other troops. In September 1881, a plot was uncovered to overthrow the queen consort's faction, depose the King, and place Heungseon Daewongun's illegitimate (third) son, Yi Jae-seon on the throne. The plot was frustrated by the queen consort, but Heungseon Daewongun was unharmed because he was the father of the King.

Reason: I have checked various texts and found no trace of this. I think it may be intended to refer to the ensuing 1882 uprising. PineappleDolly (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Item for reclaim with reference

I removed this direct quote because there is no reference. Please return it if one is available. It came from Early years in the Personal section.

She once allegedly remarked to a close friend, "He disgusts me." PineappleDolly (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of template

I am minded to remove the template regarding multiple issues. Though, like all articles, it could benefit from more citations, the template now seems to me to be satisfied for the most part.

Does anyone have a contrary view? PineappleDolly (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed to removing the citation needed and tone ones; I added a lead too long one, I think that stands. See MOS:LEAD; The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs. I think the shorter paragraphs can be merged into longer ones toobigtokale (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your Reply.

I have edited the Summary down to 4 paras, the first being quite short.

Apologies for overlooking the Summary editing earlier. I hope the edit is satisfactory.

Do you think the template can now be removed? PineappleDolly (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead. No need to apologize, thanks for your hard work toobigtokale (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Item for reclaim if referenced

I removed sentence "The queen consort summoned Chinese envoys and persuaded them to keep 2,000 Chinese soldiers disguised as Joseon police or merchants."

Reason: The item relates to 1885 and the post-treaty behaviour of the Chinese/Koreans. I have not been able to verify this using Hulbert's detailed chronicle Chapters 16 and 17 or elsewhere.

Please reinstate/ modify if referenced. PineappleDolly (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Gallery

@PineappleDolly Hey, sorry just a headsup that I deleted the gallery. I feel bad about it; I know it must have been a chunk of time/work, so please discuss if disagree. The decision had to do with WP:GALLERY and also with general policies around images in articles. Generally the link between images and article content is expected to be very direct I think. toobigtokale (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there

I think that this particular biography is almost completely inaccessible to many readers without quite a lot of visual input. The more so in that most of the photos are contemporary.

Of course it was a lot of work to source these, and I had chosen the pictures as directly things that were an inescapable part of the narrative in the biography.

However, I daresay it would not have been removed if you had not been more or less convinced.

Interpreting how far one should go is something that editors will vary with.

It would be helpful to me if you could discuss with one or two of the other editors that input to the page before making your final choice. Thanks

Regards PineappleDolly (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

2:

If you are decided to remove the entire Gallery, I do suggest that the burial/cremation sketch and the Queen's memorial should be retained somewhere, possibly the Assassination site.

The same is probably true for the Japanese Legation building photo and the Russian Legation building. PineappleDolly (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

3:

In the above by "inaccessible" I mean that it is a lost world that is hard to imagine: no photo of the subject, most of the buildings lost, a politics centred round foreign colonial powers. An independent, opulent monarchy also soon to disappear.

No criticism of the biography at all, which is such an important one. PineappleDolly (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We can undo the decision for now until a discussion is had. I'll request for comment about it. I'm reasonably certain that it does not apply by WP:GALLERY though, at the very least the size of it is very large. toobigtokale (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that it could usefully be cut back somewhat. I will do this to see if that makes it more acceptable.

Regards PineappleDolly (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2: as cut back, the following survived the cull:

• Japanese and Russian Legations, both integral to various parts of the narrative and both to the events of 1995-7
• the cremation site of the queen
• the monument to the queen by her husband (later pulled down)
• the wooden hair support that features in the photographs of the queen debate. It is an object of fascination including because seeing it worn makes it hard to tell what it in fact is. This is an item from the palace's own collection..

PineappleDolly (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's much better yes. If you can find a way to weave these into the article body without using a gallery section that'd be the most ideal, but this is acceptable toobigtokale (talk) 01:23, 18 October 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