Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom harrison (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 14 July 2006 (Reverted edits by Ronnie Gozo (talk) to last version by Profsnow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

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.

The cause of a coup d'etat (about Discord with Daewon-gun)

Does my description have misconception? (Not thinking the mistake of grammar)

At first, she cooperated with the Independence Party. But, she wasted the national budget for herself. The rices which should be paid to the soldiers stagnated for 13 months. Daewon-gun had used soldier's dissatisfaction. Daewon-gun regained power in July 23, 1882.

She requested assistance from Yuan Shikai, who suppressed the rebellion and captured Daewon-gun. From this incident, she turned to cooperate with the Conservatism Wing and to depend on China. Because she thought Japan was undependable.

The Independence Party cooperated with Japan. They tried a coup d'etat in December 1884. But she regained power immediately with the help of China. The coup d'etat was failed.

Objectman 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for asking. If you look at our discussion below in NPOV, the regular soldiers weren't paid because Kojong was favoring the Special Skills Forces. Read over that.

By Independence Party do you mean "Enlightenment Party", with Philip Jaisohn? And what do you mean, she cooperated with them? Their coup was in 1884, after the soldiers' rebellion.

You should provide detail for statement "But, she wasted the national budget for herself."

Rice that should have been paid to soldiers didn't "stagnate", which means sit in storage somewhere, for 13 months - it wasn't paid. It's not clear unless you have citation that this was Queen Min's doing. The "rice" came from Cholla province, the richest agricultural area, esepcially around Kimjae - but since it was July, it was probably barley, not rice, unless it was rice left from last fall's harvest. Would people store rice that long? It seems unlikely - too many hungry people.

Taewongun had been in exile in China, right? And the soldiers' rebellion brought him back into power because he helped them with access to weapons and so forth. So I'm confused about when Taewongung was captured again.

We're making good progress, here, Objectman - let's keep at it. --Dan 03:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"but since it was July, it was probably barley, not rice, unless it was rice left from last fall's harvest." ---　Please do not talk by your guess.

Watch your tone of voice, here, friend. I said 'probably', so what's the problem? How do you know it was rice? Have you lived in Korean farming country, transplanted rice, fertilized barley fields, gleaned the grain? I have. Rice is harvested in fall; barley in spring. That's why I said it was probably barley. And don't forget to sign your comment. --Dan 03:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Min depended for all worries on superstition, and solved them. She requested to China to accept that her son, who is 2yo, shall be next king. China answer. "We can not accept, because Yi's son is older." So, she offered a bribe of 20,000 ryang silvers to China. Objectman 04:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, can you use Japanese? I have not capability of enough to use English. Especially, it is difficult for me to translate a historical word.Objectman 04:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I speak good Korean, rusty Malay, and really bad Spanish - but I can read some Chinese characters. Tell me the word and I'll see what I can do with Chinese dictionary.

By the way, most Koreans back then and often even today will use fortune-tellers and astrologers. Is that what you mean by 'superstition'? Many Westerners use astrology also even today, so Queen Min was not special in that respect. She was typical of her times. I didn't know about China's comment about Yi's son being older. Where did you find that? If by "Yi" you mean Kojong's second partner, she was styled "kwi-in", 3rd rank concubine, and not of high enough rank to produce first heir to throne. --Dan 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

閔妃는 王子拓을 世子로서 冊封 하기 위해서 막대한 자금을 소비했다. 거기에 더하고, 閔妃는世子의 건강과 왕실의 안녕을 빌기 위해서,「巫女ノリ」를 매일 행하게 했다.「巫女ノリ」는 무녀(shaman)들이 미친것처럼 춤추어, 비는 주술이다. そのかたわら, 금강산의 12,000의 峰 마다, 1峰당 1,000両의 현금과, 1石의 米와 1疋의 직물을 기부 했다. 즉, 합계해 12,000,000両의 현금과 12,000石의 白米, 직물 12,000疋을 布施했다. 당시의 국가의 재정상태는, 1,500,000両, 米 200,000石, 직포 2,000疋을 비축하고 있던 only이니까, 閔妃가 금강산에 공양한 액은, 국고의 6배 이상에 해당되는 것으로, 도저히 견딜 만하는 것이 아니었다. 이것은 불합리한 낭비였다.궁정의 요로(중직)의 고관들은, 민중으로부터 착취하고, 겨루어 민비에 뇌물을 주어, 왕비에게 아첨해 「巫女ノリ」에 적극적으로 참가해, 무녀들과 함께 춤추었다.민비는, 광기의 궁정에 군림하는 여왕이었다.또, 민비는 음악을 좋아했으므로, 매일 밤, 배우나 가수를 궁중에 불러 연주시켜, 노래하게 했다.그리고 자신도 노래했다.배우나 가수들에게 아낌없이 금전을 뿌리고, 유흥 했다.-- 「韓国　堕落の2000年史」　崔基鎬　平成13年　詳伝社

Please allow, when there is a translation mistake.Objectman 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

世子 = inheritor of king

王子拓 = her son, and be 純宗 at future.

Objectman 05:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

그러나 이 왕비는, 머리는 좋았지만 조선의 옥좌에조차 恥가 되는 만큼 가장 잔혹한 인물의 한 사람으로, 몇년 쭉 국왕의 아버지大院君과 정쟁을 계속하고 있어. 이間의 양쪽의 파벌의 살인은 마치 매년의 인사 교환과 같이 행해져 온 것이다.

(NEW YORK TIMES April 5, 1908 written by Dr.George Trumbull Ladd)Objectman 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

명성황후에 대한 평가는, 20여년에 이르는 그녀의 집권기에 시행된 정책과 그 결과에 근거하고, 냉정하게 되지 않으면 안 된다. 명성황후를 정점으로서 閔氏일족이 집권 한 1873년부터 1895년까지는, 우리 나라에 있어서 매우 중요한 시기였다. 밀려 들어 오는 서양 열강, 근간으로부터 요동하는 봉건 체제, 새로운 변화를 요구하는 움직임, 이러한 다양한 세력이 복잡하게 관련되어 임오군란, 갑신정변, 동학 농민 혁명등의 사건이 일어났다.

(중략)

결과는 어떻게 저것, 문호 개방한 조선의 당시의 당면과제는 자주적인 근대화를 완수하는 것이었다. 서양의 선진 문물을 도입해 부국 강병과 산업진흥을 목표로 하는 것과 동시에, 오래된 봉건 제도를 버리고 가 새로운 질서를 수립하지 않으면 안 되었다. 명성황후와 閔氏정권은, 이 중 어떤 것 하나도 만족하게 할 수 없었다. 그 결과, 어느 세력으로부터도 지지를 얻을 수 없었다. 개화 반대를 외쳐 임오군란에 참가한 군중은, 명성황후를 공격 목표로 해, 갑신정변을 일으킨 개화파도 동학 농민군도 모두 명성황후와 閔氏 일족의 타도를 외쳤다. 누구로부터도 지지를 얻어낼 수 없었던 명성황후는, 외국 세력에 의지했다.임오군란과 갑신정변을 무력으로 진압해, 명성황후가 다시 집권 할 수 있도록 한 것은 清다. 동학 농민 혁명이 일어나 清에 원군을 신청해 일본군상륙의 구실을 제공해, 그 결과, 우리 땅을 청일 전쟁의 전장으로 한 장본인은, 확실히 명성황후였다.

「わかりやすい朝鮮社会の歴史」　朴垠鳳　石坂浩一・清水由希子訳　1999年　明石書店Objectman 08:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, Objectman - you're asking me to translate all that? I hope you don't mind a long wait!

Your two phrases:

世子 = inheritor of king - usual term is heir to the throne. Or Crown Prince/Princess

王子拓 = her son, and be 純宗 at future.

Let's see - 1st sentence of 1st paragraph:

閔妃는 王子拓을 世子로서 冊封 하기 위해서 막대한 자금을 소비했다. 거기에 더하고, 閔妃는世子의 건강과 왕실의 안녕을 빌기 위해서,「巫女ノリ」를 매일 행하게 했다.「巫女ノリ」는 무녀(shaman)들이 미친것처럼 춤추어, 비는 주술이다.

Hmmm. In order for Minbi to ensure that her son became heir to the throne, she spent enormous sums. Above and beyond that, to ensure the health of her son she took many daily measures. (Japanese language) she engaged the services of a moodang (shaman, Korean traditional healer).

How's that for a first try? (Minbi is Queen Min)

--Dan 17:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks. But I have not requested translation to you. Since the argument in English was difficult for me, I argued in Korean. I think that your translation is excellent. 감사합니다.Objectman 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Whew, I'm glad you Let's try this - I see where you're going with your thoughts. Part of what we have going on is the disparities amongst the various viewpoints, and the two most polar viewpoints are those who think it was the right thing to do for Japan to take over Korea vs those who think it was absolutely wrong and that Korea was capable of self-government and modernization. So the histories you see will often be slanted towards one or the other of these views. This topic, Queen Min, to some degree represents a microcosm of that broader discussion. It can be rephrased as "Queen Min was a corrupt wasteful cruel tyrant, therefore it's reasonable that Japan eventually took over" versus "Queen Min was a patriotic heroine who did her best to keep the country independent, and had Japan stayed out of Korea, she would have been able to bring modernism along." Those are simplifications of the two opposing views, and regardless of where I stand, I think most of us discussing this now can agree that sovereign countries should be left to remain independent and set their own course, provided of course, they intend no harm to other countries. Objectman, if you haven't already, please read Simbertseva's fascinating article: Queen Min of Korea: Coming to Power

and I recommend also the discussion on this blog: http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2006/03/badly-defended-apologist-views.html there's a good intial article, some very interesting links, some fascinating photos, and the article is followed by some fiery discussion on the Japanese imperialist position vs. the Korean independence position. It's very educational. --Dan 18:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My disappointing is having perverted history in order that a Korean may worsen Japan. Homicide is not justified however no matter how Queen was injustice and tyranny. However, Koreans who understand that An Junggeun who killed Ito Hirobumi is a hero maybe cannot understand this logic. Koreans say wrong about Japan in order to idealize themselves. Koreans don't believe historical records of Japan. And Koreans also don't believe Korean historical materials at the reason for colonial rule by Japan. What do they believe on earth?

I think the leadership of Pak Chunghee was like the Japanese colony age. Surely he oppressed people. However, if he was not the president, South Korea would be still poor. The suppression was needed for developing of South Korea in short times. I think he has imitated the method of Empire of Japan. Because he studied in Empire of Japan when he was young. Which is more sinfully as suppression or still poor? the opinions may be branched off. I think who think that suppression is more sinfully are not facing reality. It is stance of many South Koreans.Objectman 03:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't like the Japanese position because I'm American and the American attitude often is that the US should go in, take over a country that is being run poorly - so we say - and fix things for the poor country. It's a cover for some American policies that are really very selfish. So, on the matter of this Misplaced Pages page, I think we can work on content so that we're balanced - you don't go too strong one way, calling Queen Min wasteful, for example, and I won't say too many bad things about Japan. We can do it; I have (some) confidence. --Dan 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dan, our talk is step by step going irrelevant on this article. Don't we talk individually on USER TALK? Objectman 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we are digressing, but I think we're to the point where we can do rewrites. I'll get to work on it. Apologies; I'm a fairly new wikipedian & don't know about user talk. --Dan 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2004 and early threads

• There is a clear anti-assassin bias in this article. It makes it sound like its a bad thing to murder people for political reasons. We all know from the glorious American CIA that nothing is more noble or freedom-loving than to assassinate heads of state that you dont like. i mean, this article almost would make the CIA look bad. clearly an anti-american bias.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 8 selected anniversary.

I've listed this article on Misplaced Pages:Cleanup. There are several things that should be fixed:

• There is a clear anti-Japanese bias in the article. It needs to be written from a neutral point of view.
• The title of the article doesn't have any apparent relation to the person the article is about. If Queen Min and Empress Myeoung-Song are two names for the same person, this should be made clear in the article (and perhaps there should be a redirect).
• There seem to be some missing facts. e.g. The article says Queen Min "did many things to save" her country... but only one thing is specifically mentioned. A more inclusive list would be better.

-- Ortonmc 04:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is a clear anti-Japanese bias in the article.

Please identify what anti-Japanese bias is present, so it can be neutralised. -- Caffelice 17:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A picture would be nice.

There are pictures available - I believe two paintings and a controversial photo - see the citation at the end of the article, --Dan 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't quite follow what you mean by anti-Japanese bias. The Japanese really did have her assasinated since she attempted to normalize and strengthen ties with Russia, western nations.

The 'samurai' who are said to have assassinated Queen Min were as a class abolished by Imperial Decree well before 1895. How was it 'brilliance' in foreign affairs for her to court Russia and China, two other foreign powers with their own designs on Korea? I also find it doubtful that the Meiji Emperor of Japan personally 'viewed her as an obstacle'. This does not fit with what we generally know about Meiji and his government: the tendency in Japan of leaders to 'reign not rule'. I would want to see some documentary evidence to support such a conclusion. The article is stylistically awkward. I would not say that the article shows an 'anti-Japanese bias' as much as a pro-Queen Min bias.

The samurai mentioned in the article are the ones who were specially hired to threaten the Korean court. Meiji was also directly involved in the empress's assassination since he was the one who also forced Emperor Gojong to abdicate later on. Historical records all back up the article's conclusions. You can't argue against it becuase it's based on solid proof, despite what Japanese nationalists claim.

My point was that no such thing as 'samurai' existed at the time in question. Perhaps you should say 'former samurai' if that is indeed what they were. Or, just say 'assassins' as the page says currently. I don't doubt that terrible things were done in the name of the Meiji Emperor (cf. 'at the command of'), but saying he was directly involved in these decisions or in giving these orders, saying he was the individual who 'forced' the later abdication, goes against the weight of established knowledge of not only Meiji but also the Japanese imperial system. See the Misplaced Pages article on Meiji or the works of Hane, Reischauer, and just about any other established name in modern Japanese history.

Please produce some proof that

Meiji Emperor considered her an obstacle before going on a "Nationalist! Nationalist!" routine. As you probably know, Japan had a constitution and a whole set of laws that determined what the emperor can do. All records from that time are stored and can be viewed at Japan's National Library. Give the exact date, the exact name of law or order, the exact chain of command from Meiji Emperor to those who actually committed, and any proof beside those by "nationalists" from Korea. Revth 04:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's exactly at times like these that I feel shame as a Japanese. Not only does Revth up there try to dispute the factual truth of this article, he tries to make it less critical of Japan. I've checked many Internet sources (all Korean, of course, since Japanese records cover up any relations between the Queen Min incident and the Japanese government), and although they do not give "give the exact date, the exact name of law or order, the exact chain of command from Meiji Emperor to those who actually committed," it's quite obvious, except for dumb Japanese historians, that the whole incident was schemed by Japan's imperial court and Japanese officials in Tokyo. While Meiji may have not been directly involved in the incident, it is evidently undisputable that he desired the icorporation of Korea as part of Japan. That's why he later requested to the Governer-general of Korea in 1910, after the annexation of Korea as part of Imperial Japan, to have all royal family members of the Joseon Dynasty be married into the Japanese imperial line (Note: this fact is clearly recorded, so do not dispute 'less you want be humiliated). He even made Sunjong, last emperor of Korea, marry a Japanese princess who was barren.

Ooops - that wasn't Sunjong - Sunjong married first one of Min clan, who died young, then Queen Yun - ] and it was the crown prince who was infertile, because of the poisoning in the "coffee plot". Sunjong was succeeded by his nephew, Yi Eun, ] who was married to a member of the Japanese royalty who was thought to be infertile, Yi Pangja. Turns out she wasn't, and had two children. Her autobiographical book "The World is One", is a fascinating story. --Dan 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, it is impossible to "give the exact date, the exact name of law or order, the exact chain of command from Meiji Emperor to those who actually committed," because this incident was done in top secret. I'm sure that Japanese officials in charge of Japan's government at the time weren't stupid enough to leave evidence behind, eh?

---

I find this sentence near the end of the article to be a bit odd: "She is the only empress enshrined in Jongmyo; all other females are queens." It is not incorrect, of course, but it is odd because it would seem (at least to me) to imply that there may have been other Korean empresses, but they weren't enshrined in Jongmyo. In fact, Empress Myeongseong was the only Korean empress in history, making the quoted sentence not only unnecessary but also possibly misleading.

Also, it is probably misleading to say that Empress Myeongseong was enshrined in Jongmyo, especially for Western readers who are not familiar with Jongmyo. Is it possible that some readers might understand "enshrined" to mean "buried"? After all, it is only her spirit (or ancestral) tablet (위패) that is enshrined in Jongmyo. As the article mentions, her body was burned and was never entombed. - Suho1004

--- No, I don't think there's any problem with the word "enshrined", as it does not equate "buried", and I think it's clear enough that she is not physically buried in Jongmyo.

However, the article mentions that the name Myeongseong means "bright and shiny star". Does it? The "Seong" here is not the same word as "star" to my knowledge, or is there some hidden etymology at play? Uly 19:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I just wonder about the obviously completely lacking security at the palace - weren't there any guards ? Is there more information to shed light on this ? Besides that i dont see anti-japanese bias in the article. The change to "empress of Korea" also makes IMHO sense.

Chris

---

While it is debatable that the Emperor Meiji did force Queen Min's assassination, he did view her as a obstacle, building stronger ties with Russia. He did want to unite the Korean peninsula, as a part of his greater scheme to build a stronger Asia to confront the West, and Queen Min's actions in turning for aid from a Western power (which she too disliked, but she was upset with China's defeat in 1895...) was a serious threat to his goals. It is for certain that the Japanese minister to Korea, Miura Goro (spelling maybe wrong), did hire ronin (i.e. fallen samurai, since samurai weren't even around in 1895 since its abolition in the Restoration) to assassinate Queen Min, with the coordination of the Taewongun (Emperor Gojong's father). How much the Japanese and the Taewongun collaborated is also debatable, but they both desired Queen Min's removal (for their own reasons however - the Taewongun was anti-Japanese, but he was more anti-Queen Min).

In reference to the guards, there were palace guards around when the attack began. The Russian Sabatin and the American Dye were present at the time and tried to mount some defense, but the guards all scattered against the Japanese and Korean soldiers (the Koreans were part of the fresh Japanese conscripts following the Sino-Japanese War). It is possible that the Taewongun helped discourage the palace guards or not, but that again is debatable. After the initial skirmish (no one died), the guards fled and General Dye and Sabatin scattered (Sabatin was captured and later wrote eyewitness accounts of the assassination - Dye spent the rest of the night/day somewhere else...). The ronin then seized Queen Min after having killed three other women (they didn't know who to kill) and thereupon took her outside, raped her, mutilated her, and burned her. They then took her burned corpse away to some discrete location, which I have not found in any record (if it exists).

And to clarify why some people say "Queen Min" and others "Empress MyoengSeong", Emperor Gojong didn't establish the DaeHan Empire until 1897 (two years after Queen Min's death). She was posthumously granted the title Emperor MyoengSeong, as a demonstration of his love for her and a remonstration against the Japanese brutality. Therefore, in the traditional sense, Queen Min is the only Empress in Korean history (before that, it was merely a tributary kingdom bordering China). --DaeHanJeiGuk

And btw, there exists a single record (in theory, however) of a Japanese resident in Korea, who filed a report to the government in protest of Miura's actions, which perhaps prompted the Meiji court to remove him (more likely, it was the international scandal that arose from the incident). I do not know where you can find it, but the name of the person is "Isujuka". There is also a relatively good account in the Russian Federation Archives by Sabatin, who also protested to his government, although access to it is limited and perhaps unavailable in English.

I also think that this article is very pro-Queen Min and anti-Japanese. I think this article needs to have it said that Queen Min was appointed the position because her husband was too friendly with the Japanese. He was replaced by Queen Min because of her Neo-Confucian values and ultimately turned the country inwards at a time of change. She also caused the Sino-Japanese War by sending Qing troops to Korea in 1894 after the Tonghak Rebellion which was a violation of the Convention of Tientsin of 1885. She was a reactionary that ultimately help lead to the colonization of Korea. She was a patriot in some regards, but in truth Queen Min was a reactionary whos orthodox thinking led to her and her country's downfall.

Micah

To say she was a reactionary does not jibe with her bringing western technology, nor her willingness to expand relations with Russia and China. --Dan 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Queen Min was not exactly a patriot. Quite frankly, the Koreans hated her at that time, and she cared more about her political power. The Japanese killed her because she was trying to create alliance with Russia. Although this could have prevented them from forcefully annexing Korea, she did this so she could have all the power. This article never mentions the obvious flaws of Queen Min, but there is no way to justify this gory assasination of Queen Min. And her husband was not friendly with the Japanese. He would have stopped Japan from annexing Korea if he actually had a choice! This article is a bit pro-Queen Min, but is it possible to justify the fact that the Japanese had murdered an empress of Korea? Iloveayu 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying "the Koreans hated her" is way too sweeping, and not something that would hold up under serious scrutiny. The view that the dynasty was corrupt and incompetent and unpopular was promoted heavily by the Japanese at the time to people such as Theodore Roosevelt as a rationale for taking over the country. The Japanese killed her because she stood in the way of their takeover. SHe did indeed play politics, but she was in rough company - the Taewongun in paritcular. While her husband was not friendly with the Japanease and stood against the takeover, he was by no means an absolute ruler. The clan that caused particular problems was the Andong Kim family, who were enemies of both the Min and Cho families, and did what they could to undermine them. --Dan 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Queen Min WAS unpopular, and I didn't say the monarchy was corrupt. Whether her unpopualarity was heavily used as a way to justify assasination, you have to admit that she didn't make whole lot of achievements for the Korean people. There were strong unrest in Korean monarchy, and that's not entirely the king and the queen's fault. I don't think King Kojong(is this how I spell his name?) was a bad man, really. There were just a lot of 친일파s at the time out there hungry for wealth. And while I do admit that Chosun was declining, what made them really incompetent was the forceful Japanese annexation, indeed. Just throwing my opinion out there. mirageinred 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And yeah, I guess the word "hate" is not meant to be used lightly, but I claim my heritage in Korea. I wouldn't say anything to justify her assasination. Even looking from a neutral point of view, I just don't think there's a way to justify it. It was one of those many Japanese attempts to forcefully take over Korea. mirageinred 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

About the assassion date.

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)

Very interesting to observe

Isn't it interesting to observe that the people who are claiming anti-Japanese bias here, who have presumably only learned from the heavily-edited Japanese history books, seem to speak with an air of denial that is probably not unlike that of people who have lived under a third-world dictatorship, like North Korea? It's surprising that for such a technologically advanced country like Japan, their education of history is about what you would expect would come from a Stalinist state that is concerned with hiding the truth and cleaning-up history. --Atrahasis 02:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese government wasn't accused of whitewashing history, Japan was accused of not censoring a textbook that was perceived to be "whitewashing" history. However, the problematic publishing company has been censored before by the government because textbooks are banned from adding lies. After the publisher cleared up the problem points the government raised, they were free to publish under the protection of press freedom. The company's textbook only reached a few classes in less than 0.3 percent of all schools.

To believe that ANYONE who can write English and can raise an anti-Japanese bias concern in any article MUST have read only these rare textbooks that you don't like and encountered no other sources of information is verging on nonsensical parnoia of conspiracy theorists and pals. Japan is being accused of NOT censoring, which is the complete opposite of the complaint against Stalin and the press during the Soviet era.

Sorry if I shattered your "Japan is Still And Always Will Be Evil" belief a little, however I completely agree with your "Japan WAS Evil Back Then" historical perspective. In other words, I agree with the history, but not the racist stereotype that has spawned from it. The latter is a dead end. But Stalin, eh? That ALMOST touches Godwin's Law...--MangoCurry 13:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how there is an "anti-Japanese" bias. The article is factually accurate. The unrefuted fact is that Japan's imperial government (either with or without the explicit instruction of the Japanese Emperor) did cause the assassination of a foreign head of state, cannot be in itself deemed to be "anti-Japanese". With respect to the suggestion that soliciting Chinese and Russian assistance was of no difference - let's get something straight - there is a BIG difference between being invited into Korea by the Empress, and seeking to annex the pennisula through underhanded methods like assassination. Example, the Kuwaiti's INVITED the Americans and the rest of the allies into Kuwait after they were threatened/invaded by the Iraqis in 1991, the Soviet Union INVADED Afganistan in 1978 without provocation... Perhaps a distinction which is lost on our Japanese friends... --UNSIGNED

Absolutely (Wikimachine 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

A neutral POV

Coming from outside either of the Koreas or Japan, I think that the first thing that must be done is for the article to be expanded. Of course she was killed, but at the moment there is a bias in as far as the page seems to focus so much on her death. If this really is a tribute then her accomplishments should be discussed in detail. I am sure that there is more than enough material available on this. However if the entire point of this article is to say that she was killed by the Japanese, then her memory is being just being used for nationalistic reasons - which is not fair on her. So I would like to ask historians on wiki with knowledge of this area to get to work on this. If we can tidy this up then perhaps we can remove the POV tag.

Also I checked the sources and couldn't find anything to suggest that the Emperor Meiji had it in for her. Thus I will re-word the allegation to make it more ambiguous, as I am sure that some people did see her as a "problem". Unless someone has the Emperor Meiji's diary that says "I wanted her gone", then perhaps it's best not to speculate so much.

On a side-note, I thought that the whole thing needs to be moved - the "Korea" bit is not necessary. How many Empress Myeongseongs were there?

please clarify what you mean by "the "Korea" bit is not necessary." It's kinda hard for me to understand what you mean. And there was only one Empress Myeongseong if you really wanted to know. 68.46.133.206 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please can someone clarify the statements "Many Japanese found her and obstacle" and "The Japanese"? This suggests that the feelings towards her as representative of the the Japanese nation and is why this article appears biased. If the Japanese government found her an obstacle please state this.

Anti-Japanese bias? Japan's purpose was to take over Korea with no interference from other countries, because they wanted to be powerful like the western powers like the United States. They saw her as an obstacle, because she was leaning towards Russia's side, clearly making her a stubborn obstacle in Japan's view. And I do not see any anti-Japanese bias. mirageinred 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a vote or some sort to decide whether this is really NPOV or not? That tag in front of the article can't stay there forever. mirageinred 21:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

She was a waster. It is a cause of the coup d'etat in 1882 that she did not pay pay. It is not neutrality that conceals these fact by intention. "Because Japan is bad, she is a good." This is wrong interpretations. The assassination is not vindicable. But, the assassination doesn't become a reason to praise her, too. This article beautifies her. I object to the neutrality of this article. 220.150.117.118 18 May 2006

Yes, I know that. While this article has no anti-Japanese bias, this article is very Queen Min. Whether President Roosevelt tried to justify what he did by saying she was not the best ruler or not, it's true that her goal was not strengthening her country. It was really her power she cared about. mirageinred 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to call both of you on those statements "she was a waster" and "it was really her power she cared about". I'd need to see citations to support her wastefulness for the first statement, and the second statement, mirageinred, is mind-reading. You cannot know what she really cared about. You're both trying to reduce a complex woman of mixed motives to something more simple.

Fine, fine, fine. What I said was a bit extreme. But I think this article needs to focus on her criticisms too, or how Korea felt about her at that time. mirageinred 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mirage, the problem is for the longest time the fading years of the Yi dynasty were painted as this total morass of corruption and venality, with Queen Min's power hunger, ruthlessness and nepotism being at the center of it. The difficulty is that a lot of this was a deliberate effort to discredit her and by contrast show what good guys they were by the occupying government. When you try and dig out actual contemporary descriptions of her flaws, they're not nearly so strong. Granted, she played power politics, but that was the environment. And sometimes some of us go to the other extreme, making her over into Joan of Arc, when the truth is she was a complex woman. My take is that she was a patriot in the sense that she tried - and to some degree succeeded - to play Japan, Russia, and China off against each other to keep her country from being taken over. Taewongun, meanwhile, had been collaborating with Japan pretty actively - although I don't have a citation to hand, I recollect reading that he was offered the job of king by Japan (I believe I read that in Carter Eckhardt's book). So in a real sense her power politics had a goal other than her own self-aggrandizement, something that would be difficult to argue about the Andong Kims. I have difficulty figuring out what the general public felt about her at the time, too - I'd be interested to see what you have on that. It can be difficult decades later for someone to give a reliable account of what people were feeling at the time. Granted, there was the DOnghak rebellion and so on going on, but those sorts of things were happening across the region, and had as much to do with the attempts by western powers to invade as anything. And don't forget, the Japanese takeover took place against the backdrop of the Russo-Japanese War, which was the result of Japan's idea that they should be running things in East Asia, something they did achieve for a number of decades. In respect to Queen Min's nepotism, she did appoint relatives to important posts, but they too often acted to preserve, protect the country. One nephew was a leader of the resistance, another was an important ambassador who attempted numerous times to persuade the US and Europe to intervene and stop the occupation. I'm getting pretty long-winded, so I'll stop here, but I would like to know where your negative take on the Queen comes from. Dan

It is your imagination that she is a patriot. Nobody can affirm. And nobody can deny. Patriotism is not set as the object of evaluation. The motive of her power struggle -- most of it was a successor problem. This article is not wrote in detail about many coups d'etat which she experienced. This article is not written in detail about many coups d'etat which she experienced. However, only the murder case is written in detail. I think that this report has bad balance. It is a cause of the coup d'etat in 1882 that she did not pay soldiers' salary for one year. Was she incompetent? Or, was she merciless? The public had a grudge against her politics --Heavy tax, Dealing of a government post, Aggravation of the peace,etc... Isabella Bird, F.A.Mckenzie, W.A.son Grebst, Bishop St Daveluy, etc... In those days, all the foreigners that visited Korea were criticizing Korean politics. Objectman 19:19, 28 May 2006

Objectman, You mean my imagination, or the person who replied back? Well anyways I agree with you. I think everyone had various bias towards her I guess including myself. I guess my views were a bit too negative and other people had different views. And my negative view comes from the fact that she contributed to the chaos in Korea at that time, like how she paid the soldiers. After delays and delays of their salaries, they finally got their pays, which was supposed to be rice. When they opened the bag, which was supposed to contain rice, they found it mixed with sand. And they wore old uniforms and had outdated(?) weapons. While her reasons for doing so probably wasn't entirely her fault, she did stir chaos. And when a country is experiencing internal chaos, it leaves itself vulnerable to the rest of the world, like the imperialism going on at that time. What Korea needed at that time was to become westernized and become more advanced technologically, and do away with the old. She accomplished neither of the goals. I'm not saying it's entirely her fault, of course. Korea itself at that time was weak. However, it is true that what she did didn't do a whole lot of good to Korea. mirageinred 22:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, guys/gals, let's talk this out a bit. Objectman, you make the point about my referring to Queen Min as a patriot, that I couldn't know any more than Mirage could know about Queen Min's power hunger. True enough, but I did say this was my take. You comment on your profile that your English isn't so good, so to explain, "my take" means it's my opinion. And in my opinion, she was trying her best to keep the country independent. I think patriotism can be judged from behavior, and that's what my opinion is based on. Let me explain as best I can.

Objectman, you believe that a successor problem was at the root of her power struggle. I had not thought of that, and I frankly doubt it. I think she was struggling with the Taewongun for control of her husband, with the Enlightenment Party for control of the government (remember, they did actually take over government for a little time in the early 1900s), the Donghak movement for control of the countryside, and Japan, China, and Russia for control of the nation. According to Tatania Sirmbetseva,in "Queen Min of Korea: Coming to Power" (see the reference on the main article page,

• Queen Min of Korea: Coming to Power), Kojong had no children by any other women while Queen Min was alive. That may have been motivated by succession concerns, but it does not seem to me that this was her major motivation. Korean succession, as I'm sure you know, was not a matter of strict rules and lines as in some countries, but the next ruler was chosen on potential and competency - and sometimes to build someone else's power base, as in the case of Kojong and the Taewongun. Look how the most recent crown prince of Korea was selected - on the basis of suitability much more than on strict lines of descent.Dan 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kojong had a son that his lover was delivered.Objectman 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

By whom, and when? I think you're mistaken. I don't think he had children by any other women while married to Queen Min. See the reference (Queen Min of Korea: Coming to Power)--Dan 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You mention the numerous coup attempts, and lay the blame on Queen Min for this. I am not sure how many coup attempts happened. I looked in "Korea - Old and New, A History" by Carter Eckert, Ki-baik Lee, Young Ick Lee, Michael RObinson, and Edward Wagner, mostly chapter 13. These authors are widely respected; Carter and Ed I knew in the Peace Corps and they both still speak excellent Korean. They note the Soldier's revolt of 1882 as having roots in something further back, in 1881, when Kojong had 80 cadet soldiers trained by a Japanese officer as a Special Skills Force. This group was to form the foundation of a new army, and the existing army was neglected, to the point that indeed they weren't paid for 13 months. However, grain arrived from Cholla provinces, and the soldiers were to be paid first. The clerks of the Tribute Bureau were looking for some personal profit, and cut the grain with chaff. When this was discovered, the soldiers attacked the clerks, and the director of the Tribute Bureau, Min Kyomho, ahd the leaders arrested and condemned to death.This led to more anger, and the soldiers attacked Min Kyomho's house on July 23. The date leads me to think that the grain was most likely barley, not rice since barley is harvested in late spring and rice in the late fall. Anyway, Min fled to the palace, for his older brother was Queen Min's adoptive brother. The soldiers appealed to Taewongun, who supported them. The soldiers seized weapons from a government armory and freed their leaders, and killed the Japanese officer who trained the Special Skills Force. They then attacked the Japanese legation and burned it, following that by an attack the next day on the palace, where Min Kyomho was slain, but Queen Min fled, dressed in peasant's clothes.This was what brought about Taewongun's return to power.

The next coup attempt was the Kapsin Chongbyon of 1884, by the Enlightenment Party including Philip Jaisohn (So Chaepil), a group of Japan-educated reformers who wanted a more egalitarian society, with western reforms and so forth. They were a part of the Silhak (Practical Learning) movement that had drawn intellectual progressive thinkers since about 1800. They also wanted the Taewongun back in power. They were defeated by the Chinese troops already in the capital. It might be noted that these reformers were yangbans who could not rise in government because the Mins blocked them, and chungin who likewise were denied power. The coup lasted about three days.

The Tonghak rebellion was more of a peasant uprising than a coup, and reached its peak in 1894. It seems the Min family's taxes and high-handed oligarchy had much to do with the uprising, but there was also a revolt against opening up to the outside world and against the progressive Silhak movement and christianity. With some reason, since some of the early missionaries, Allen and Underwood, for example, were involved in obtaining concessions for things such as mining rights.

Objectman, you refer to the foreign visitor's opinions, and I'm not inclined to give much respect to those. They came from very isolated cultures that regarded themselves as superior to everyone else, and tended to bring that attitude to their observations. Not always, but often.

Mirageinred, I disagree strongly that Queen Min was the creator of the chaos of the times. The times were complicated; there were pressures from imperialistic western nations, Japan was redefining itself with the Meiji reformation, China was undergoing enormous stresses. Further, this matter of rule by the king's in-laws had been going on for some time - first the Andong Kims, then the Pungyang Chos. The Mins came into that, true, and some of them doubtless did abuse their power, but there had been peasant uprisings for decades before Kojong and Queen Min. Furthermore, some of Queen Min's relatives acted very much in the interest of the country as leaders of the resistance - Min Chongsik and Min Kungho (known as the "Fighting Prince") were nephews of the Queen, and led large forces. So the family was a mixed crew, from venal to heroic, and to paint Queen Min as responsible for the corruption of her kin, or to paint her as either heroine or corrupt incompetent villainess is way too simple. In the latter case, most likely incorrect. By all accounts she was a very intelligent, very clever woman. And her behavior does not match with someone who is lookingout only for her own interests, but it does fit the behavior of someone trying to protect the nation, a patriot. --Dan 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that some of Min's relatives were patriots. I think one of them's name was Min Young-Hwan(probably wrong spelling), who killed himself after the 을사조약 because he hated to see Korea annexed by Japan. So what? What exactly was her behavior? Smart and clever? I know she was highly intelligent, but anyone can be smart and clever and be corrupt at the same time. And I know she didn't just drain the whole entire country away, but she did cause some of the chaos. And I know the times were complicated. Japan, China, Russia were only some of Korea's predators at that time. mirageinred 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the point I was trying for with that was simply that while some of the Min clan were doubtless greedy scoundrels who took advantage of having a queen in the family, they weren't all bad or even neutral, some of them were indeed quite admirable. The one you mention was, I believe, the first Korean ambassador to the US. But regarding your dislike for the queen herself, and your contention that she was pwoer hungry and corrupt, so far all you've offered is your opinion. I don't see where you're getting that from, in other words what causes you to think that way about her. With some solid citations, and some balance. For example, what did she do to "cause some of the chaos"? --Dan 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I already admitted that my excessively negative view towards her was a bit extreme before, and my view is not affected by her relatives. The "corrupt" part was meant towards the government not just her. What caused the chaos in Korea? It was mainly inviting foreign powers like Russia and China into Korea, and causing the uprising by the Korean soldiers. While I know what she did definitely prevented Japanese annexation for some time, the power game can be very tricky and sometimes get out of hand, and increases foreign influence. And while Taewongun and she fought each other, Koreans suffered. I must admit my views toward her was too solid. I guess she falls into shades of gray. mirageinred 20:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, mirageinred. I'm glad you're able to see the complexity of the situation and the people. I tend to be too harsh myself on the Taewongun - I hope he thought he was doing what was best for the country. Somewhere else recently I was talking about Pak Chunghee, someone I'm very familiar with both because I lived in Korea while he was ruling and because my wife is friends with his daughter. At the time I was there I tended to think of him as an evil brutal dictator. Now in retrospect I respect him more - I think he believed he was the best person for the country at that time, up till the point he tried to quit and his hangers-on forced him to stay on. And certainly he was a man in despair from the time his wife was killed till his own death. Perhaps Taewongun was like that, rather than like Noh Taewoo or Chun Doohwan. Anyway, I've been asking you a question for a while, and it's not to put down your opinion but because I'm curious - where did you get your opinions about Queen Min? I'd really like to know. --Dan 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, all the books I read about Korea and Queen Min never portrayed her as a patriot. The Korean TV drama based on her have been criticized by some (being Koreans) for allegedly making her look like a tragic martyr who really tried to go the distance to make Korea prosperous. And by the way if you lived in Korea when Park Chung-hee ruled, whoa. Didn't he become a dictator during the 60s to 70s? By "his daughter" do you mean that female politician in Korea? I don't know if she was his only child. mirageinred 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Chun Doo Hwan was way worse than Park Chung-hee, although I'm not too fond of him either. What do you mean by "despair"? Severe poverty in Korea maybe? Well going back to the original topic, I still wonder whether her portrayal of the Queen was accurate. She was a very complex figure after all. With historical documents' accuracy sometimes being questioned, it's really difficult to accurately portray her. mirageinred 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to be careful - histories and biographies are often written in self-defense. There's a saying, "history is written by the winners". There are certainly mixed feelings about her among Koreans, but I think that reflects the mixed story that the older generation in particular heard.

I did live in Korea while Pak Chunghee ruled, and he was pretty much a dictator the whole time he was in power. Secret police, no dissent, all that. "His daughter" is currently a very active politician; you're correct. However, Pak Chunghee had three children - the politician whom my wife knows is the oldest. The other two have had some life problems. By 'despair' I meant Pak himself felt trapped in his situation and traumatized by his wife's death. He was a tragic figure, really, although I think he did a lot for the country, and maybe he was right; that was what Korea needed at the time. I agree absolutely that Chun Doohwan and Noh Taewoo were evil, greedy, brutal men, much worse than Pak.

And, going back to the original topic, yes, it is difficult to figure out someone so controversial 120 years later. That's why a variety of sources are valuable. For my money, Queen Yun was also an unrecognized heroic figure, in her attempt to resist the Japanese, in her actions during the Korean War (see Yi Pangja's book) and in her standing up to Syngman Rhee. In Queen Min's case, I think there was a lot of lies told about her by the Japanese, and I think a lot of historians took these at face value and recorded them without checking. So if we come at her from many different directions, we can figure out what was really going on. --Dan 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But aren't the "variety sources" based on the primary sources, which may not be always accurate? It may have been exaggerated or downplayed depending on the nature of the event, especially on a cruel event like Min's assasination. And yes, the Japanese probably lied. Like the fake picture of Ahn Joong Geun arrested by the police after the assasination. Well I guess they are the most reliable sources available I must agree. And who's queen yun? I never heard of her associated with Syngman Rhee. Wasn't the monarchy put to an end by Japanese annexation? And I didn't know Park Chung-hee married more than once.. I thought he and his wife were assasinated together, which, also, is being disputed today. mirageinred 04:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the primary sources differ - and you have to sort of blend them together to get a full picture, then even at that it'll be incomplete. The Russian who saw the assassination is usually accepted as an accurate source, but Russia was really in competition with Japan at that time, so maybe not.

Queen Yun was an aristocratic woman who married Sunjong, who was king after Kojong abdicated. The Japanese didn't put an end to the monarchy, they just took away most of their power. After the end of the occupation, 1945, Queen Yun was the ranking royal still alive, and Syngman Rhee was intimidated by her popularity. He was afraid she would come back into power, so he put her in one of his "vacation" houses after the Korean War was over, in effect jailing her. She was only allowed to return to the royal palace, Naksonjae, by Pak Chunghee. Pak Chunghee was only married once; you're correct. I didn't say he married twice, did I? If I did, I didn't mean it. But his wife was killed earlier - hold on - there's a good wipikepdia article on him. His wife wsa killed in 1974, he was killed in 1979. --Dan 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mirageinred, look up "Sunjeong of Korea" for the wikipedia article on Queen Yun. She was quite a woman - intimidating, strong-willed, intelligent. Worth a bit more attention than she usually gets. And she certainly lived through turbulent times. --Dan 05:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I said I thought Park married twice because I thought he was killed with his wife. Guess I was wrong. His wife was quite popular wasn't she? mirageinred 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I read the wikipedia article about Queen Yun. I thought I heard of her name somewhere. I heard that during the time when dictators ruled Korea, the First Ladies would try to banish(?) whoever their husband seemed to have admired too much. Is that true? mirageinred 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Yun was indeed quite something. I should post some pictures. Regarding your question about the First Ladies, I asked my wife and she says while that might've happened and was possible, she never heard of it. So, who knows. --Dan 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

article title

regarding the title of this article, Misplaced Pages: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)

I know that's somewhat of a standard on Misplaced Pages 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)

i wish we could get the few korean editors to focus on this problem. it needs to be thought out much more than i've had time to do so far, but it's my understanding that "of korea" is not to distinguish the names from europeans, but to distinguish similar or same names among different kingdoms/periods of korea. "of korea" specifies that it is the korean empire period. being consistent helps editors link to articles habitually, without having to search for actual titles every time some monarch should be wikified. that's also the reason "king" "emperor" "maripgan" "queen" "empress" etc is left out. Appleby 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

gojong didn't investiture korea as "the great han empire" until after the sino-japanese war... also, maybe a more accurate title would be "myeongseong of joseon?" "myeongseong of yi joseon" would actually be more accurate to differentiate yi joseon from old joseon. Umetaro 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

haha 'yi' joseon is a title made up by the japanese during the WW2 its proper to call it just 'Joseon' and old Joseon as Go-Joseon man, i can see a lot of 'wapanese' on wikipedia! haha 202.37.68.150 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

it is true even in korea 'Joseon' is sometimes referred to as 'yi Joseon', but then again, it is influenced by japanese colonial rule period. it is proper to use 'Joseon', it is just like some older Koreans use japanese loan words such as tamanegi for onions (instead yangpa in korean), takuan for pickled radish (danmuji in korean), kopu for cup (just keop or cup in korean), toraku for truck (in korean Treok) etc and visviva, you say it was published in 1983? its VERY out of date, there has been several reforms in korea over spelling of names, proper definitions etc back in 80's, koreans used to call salad as sarada, now it is known as simply salad 139.80.123.40 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

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 (háblame) 18:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, they won't answer me! - CobaltBlueTony 18:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I've changed this to semi-protection pending the user's initiation of discussion. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 (háblame) 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting. Admins, block 220.150.117.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) immediately if he adds the POV template or makes other malicious edits without discussion here first. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote my opinion at "A neutral POV". It is clear that this article is not neutrality. 220.150.117.118 23 May 2006

I know she is thought heroines in Korea. But, it is a novel. If this item has treated the novel, I admit neutrality. I don't think the inclination to Japan about her bad side. 220.150.117.118 23 May 2006

Is the fiction of Kim Jinmyeong appropriate to the dictionary?

The South Korean wrote the article based on the report of novelist Kim Jinmyeong. Kim used Ishizuka-Report for the source in this report.http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/eijoh1.jpg]

Content of Ishizuka-Report.

入城シ実行ノ任ニ当シテ守備隊ノ将校兵卒ノ四門警衛止マタズ門内ニ侵入セリ殊ニ弥次馬達ハ深ク内部ニ入込ミ王妃ヲ引キ出シ二三ヶ処刃傷ニ及ヒ且ツ裸体トシ局部検査（可笑又可怒）ヲ為シ最後ニ油ヲ注キ焼失セル等誠ニ之ヲ筆ニスルニ忍ヒサルナリ其他宮内大臣ハ頗ル残酷ナル方法ヲ以テ殺害シタリト云フ右ハ士官モ（日本 国立 国会図書館憲政資料室蔵 憲政史編纂会収集文書 外交問題主要事件資料 546 朝鮮王妃事件 関係資料 546-1 標題）

The people in Korea enter the court, and made empress's corpse a stark-naked and jeered. Oil was poured and her corpse was burnt. It was a cruel scene.

A Japanese assassin raped. This is an episode of novel "Crown Princess kidnapping of Japan (2001)" that Kim wrote.--Kamosuke 04:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

kamosuke, please please please read WP:V for the concept of citing reputable sources for wikipedia content. yes, the article now has pov & sourcing problems, but the answer is not to replace them with unreliable pov sources. thanks. Appleby 04:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But I think Kim's is a famous homepage as anti-Japanese propaganda.

Let's arrange the problem.

1.The source of your insistence is Kim.

2.Kim is a novelist in South Korea.

3.His source is Eizo-Report.

4.EIZHO-REPORT is being written that the Korea people insulted empress's corpse.

5.The rape did the assassin the woman in the court. This is an episode of the novel on Kim.

Can this part agree?　--Kamosuke 09:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Mr.(Ms) Appleby! I read WP:V and The policy 1 'Articles should contain only material that has been published by' reputable sources. Are Kim's reputable sources? :-) Kamosuke showed more reputable and credibility　sources.　They are smoking-gun evidences. --Lulusuke 08:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look and read the whole pages of Kim's.

http://www.kimsoft.com/kr-hist.htm

And you can find a lot of exclusionist nationalism and propaganda.

I think "Neutral point of view" is very important", and you ?

--Lulusuke 08:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

True or Fake ? Myeongseong's photo

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)

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)

It could have been one of the ladies in waiting. Maybe. mirageinred 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

It's really difficult to determine what is genuine or fake. I can't and shouldn't make a statement about such matters. I came across File:Empress Myeongseong3.jpg also from a Japanese book 《朝鮮風俗風景写真帖》 though it was published in 1911 (明治44年). I thought the woman looked similar to the "court lady" photo but there might be a problem with both. In the KBS news clip, an expert on photography had guessed the "court lady" photo to have been taken around 1910 or 1920. This new photo was in the 1911 issue of the Japanese photobook. Both dates are at least a decade after Queen Min's death. If they are not the same person, then this new photo should have used a caption "明成皇后陛下" (Her majesty empress Myeongseong) and not "李王妃殿下" (Her highness Princess Yi). OK, Dan just mentioned this new photo looks like Queen Yun. I got the photo from this blog page which put this picture as Queen Min. — Nrtm81 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

There's certainly variety in their appearances, isn't there? I think the original source for the photos you saw on the blog, Nrtm81, is probably here . I saw the news account - I wonder what made the expert think the photo dates from 1910 or later? This is a fun puzzle, I must admit. Maybe we should put up some photos of modern Min women who are descendants of Queen Min's father. My mother-in-law, who was such a person, claimed that Queen Min was "moot sengyesa" (unattractive). Since my mother-in-law wasn't born until 1914, I don't know how she knew this, but there it is ;-) --Dan 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked Nrtm81, but anyone else who's reading this, see if you can interpret the date on , most likely using the Japanese calendar but no guarantee. It's in the lower left corner and clipped off a bit. --Dan 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Death or Eul-mi Sa-byun

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))

There is no google hits for "Eul-mi Sa-byun". 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)

Revision of the Myeongseong page

This page is about the last Empress of Joseon, who in the eyes of many Koreans is a national heroine. She not only serves simply as a patriotic symbol of Korean independance and struggle against the atrocious Japanese colonoism, but she also serves a personal saint towards those that have struggled to find a voice in a world where people's leaderships are taken for granted. In the original text, it said she could be compared to Joan of Arc, a French national heroine that was savagely comdemned to death by the English. Empress Myeongseong is not any more different, having been brutally assinated and raped by Japanese assasins commissioned by the Japanese Imperial Government.

To even DARE saying that this article will be written based on information of Japanese textbooks is an insult, a slap in the face to any true historian/scholar/history lover.

Yes, our duty for Wiki is to have a fairly neutral viewpoint. And I will do my best to write a neutral viewpoint of the Empress but respect must be shown. Controversies about the accuracies and BIASED attitude of Japanese textbooks is infamously known throughout the world. Massive demonstrations and protests have been held in Japan, S. Korea, and China over the issue of the completely distortion of truth in Japanese history textbooks concerning the colonial period, the Rape of Nanjing, and the Empress Myeongseong. These textbooks do not even begin to acknowledge the atrocities the Japanese committed. The Asian Holocaust has been largely ignored due to the massive cover up of the Japanese. Don't you dare even think of writing this article based upon flimsy textbooks that have caused anger throughout the world. It's an issue that has been raised in international debates around the world.

This article, I repeat, will be NEUTRAL. However, how neutral can any article, even at Wiki, be? George Washington is a national hero of the U.S. but do you see the British trying to distort the truth on his military victories? Napoleon was a powerful Emperor and at times cruel but do you see the British trying to distort the truth on his strong capabilites and charm as a general in the battlefield? Do you see Germans trying to cover up the horror of Hitler?

It's time for the Japanese government to acknowledge their mistakes in the past. People MAKE mistakes. It's fine. It's called civilization. All nations committ a horror at one point in their history. I am in NO WAY justifying what ANY nation does that is at an international criminal offense level such as Germany and Japan during WWII, but I am saying that forgiveness must be shown by the victims and the afflicters must show remorse.

So be content and don't fear. Once again, this article will be AS neutral as it can be. But don't you dare write an article based upon Japanese textbooks. I will personally bring this up with the Misplaced Pages Adminastration if done so. If you think the previous article was biased and anti-Japanese, what makes you think you can write an article that is anti-Korean on a Korean figure from the notorious Japanese textbooks, internationally known to distort the truth?

Think again.

- the//powederoom//

I agree. powederoom, why don't you look at the above talk section about whether to use the term "death" or "Eul-mi Sa-byun"? Since this is about a Korean historical figure, and, since her assassination (rather than death) has been named "Eul-mi Sa-byun", shouldn't it be called so?

Just because this is English Misplaced Pages doesn't mean that Sushi is not called so. (Wikimachine 14:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

I agree up to a point, Wikimachine. The problem with writing a Korean word like "Eul-mi Sa-byun" in Roman alphabet is that it can be hard to figure out what the word is, especially for someone like me who is not a native speaker. Perhaps also providing the Hangul or better the Hancha would be more informative. This is, after all, the English section of Misplaced Pages, and there is a Korean section. Kamsahago soogo mansumnida. --Dan 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree up to a point. I think it should be titled "Assassination" for her death section but I also believe "Eul-mi Sa-byun" in hangul text and in romanization be mentioned because it is an integral part of Min's death history. However, the titling of the section would be best in clear, simple terms such as "Assassination." It's to the point and makes the reader understand quickly that she dies. I'm using the logic in naming other sections in her bio like "The Background," "The Innovator," etc., to emphasize major points. If I named "The Background" a certain term used in Korean textbooks, it might get confusing to a Western reader. But I totally agree with you wikimachine! We'll defineatly use that term when describing her assassination. =) --User:thepowderoom 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Queen Min. We should not relate her appraisal with Japanese control. If one side is wrong, the other side is not necessarily right. We should not beautify Queen Min.

Appleby - while your efforts to clean up Objectman's submissions are well-intentioned, I really think Thepowderoom's submission is much better than what went before, and we should ask 1) Thepowderoom to put that version back up. 2) objectman to please not pull it but ask questions here about concerns. objectman, if that's your comment above about beatifying Queen Min, I really don't think that's what's going on. You people who are working from Japanese histories need to be aware of the distortions that are often included. Don't get defensive about it or claim to have sole possession of the truth; the distortions are a major problem with American history texts as well. --Dan 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The viewpoints of South Korean histories almost have distortion. South Korea takes precedence over the politics than the fact when South Korea writes its histories. It cannot see the fact to see the histories at viewpoints of the politics. In South Korea, It is persecuted like Keum WanSeob if it talks the fact. You are the victims of Anti-Japanese Propaganda.Objectman 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that this is an article on the life of Empress Myeongseong, I believe that anything important that occured in her reign should be included. Including her relations with the Japanese. It's not like some covered up mystery we're showing to the world all of a sudden. Her relations have been well documented by Korean and Western historians alike in recent years and just because history has shown that the relationship was indeed manipulative by the Japanese doesn't mean anyone is beautifing her. A comprehensive study on the relations between Korea and Japan was even published that I have read and am using currently to write this article. This article has numerous credible sources, from Korean historians (both, books written in English and books written in Korean) and Western historians. - the powderoom

Don't write what you believe. Please write only the reliable fact. The politics of Queen Min was wrong, it is proved by of the Western history records in those days.Objectman 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly objectman, don't try to piss me off. Secondly, don't want to be rude but you need to write better English. I could hardly understand your point other than the main theme of "It's wrong. It's biased." The truth is, she's a Korean historical figure. You saying Western history records of her day said her politics were wrong. Western history records back then considered Japan as a barbarous nation unfit for Western nations to do business with. They accused of the Chinese aristocracy of excessive incest, beastiality, etc. Western history records back then are almost as unreliable as you. What I wrote is not what I personally believe. If I was going to write about her based on my beliefs, I would have made her sound like a complete saint, no mistakes ever made and deny there's a controversy. The records I have used are incredibly reliable sources, all of them having been published in the last fifteen years. One of them was published by Harvard University Press as well. So please do your research first before criticizing. Also, please, share you sources on these mysterious Western history records you have mentioned... - the powederoom

Yes, she is a Korean historical figure. So, Korean cannot write neutrally. For example, can a trial record written by a defendant of the trial be neutrally? Can you believe the Japanese records? Why can you believe the Korean records? I want to show the Japanese records. However I think you will reject it. However, the viewpoint of the other country's persons who they visited Korea in those days will be neutrally.Objectman 10:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, if you have a translated version of the trial records against the assassins of Myeongseong, share them. Please, go right ahead. The validility of those trial records, however, came under question, by the international community, not the Koreans originally. Look at it rationally. One day you have an Empress who walks, talks, and breaths. The next day, she's no where in sight and hundreds of Japanese legations troops are surrounding private quarters of Korean royalty. She doesn't show up for days and a palace normally has hundreds of staff members to run the place. Meaning there were defineatly people who saw the incident. Missing Empress? People saw people dragging people from the Empress' chambers? And killed them? Oh my.. no.. it can't be. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Why would you ever think the Empress was assassinated? Oh please. That's so biased. Just because there were eyewitness accounts, detailed reports by the assassins themselves that were given to the Japanese Minister to Seoul about the assassination, and just because the Empress has gone missing for like weeks doesn't mean at all she may have been killed. Not to mention the ravagd chambers of the Empress and burnt sections of her apartments. That's just out of the question. That's so anti-Japanese to admit a fact. Facts that are negative associated with the Japanese are all biased. Biased!

The trial was conducted and all assassins associated with the murder were tried in Japan. Not even in Joseon where the crime occurred but by the Japanese in a Japanese court. Yes, they are Japanese citizens but if the crim happened to be associated with a head of state of another country on their soul, normally it shouldn't be the responsibility of the home country of the assassins to try them. That in itself was biased, objectman. Modern international laws state that if you committ a crime in a foreign country, you are under the foreign country's laws and you are entitled to be tried in their court, not at your home country's. And yes objectman, especially if you kill the head of state.

Another thing is, there were non-Korean non-Japanese eyewitness acounts of the assassination. A Russian diplomat saw the whole thing and was so shocked, didn't know what to do. The next day, he rushed to the Russian embassy to inform his superiors but his superiors told him they had found out that morning. But confrontation between the Russians and the Japanese was not something they were looking for. They hushed him not to tell people of his version of events but in the end, he did. At the 1907 Hague Peace Conference. And ta-da! Soon afterwards, the international community demanded for a trial. A trial took place, but I've gone this over. It took place in Japan, etc.

Another problem with all of these assassins being innocent is that recently, descendants of some of the main assassins came to the tomb of Myeongseong in South Korea and publicly apologized for the assassination their ancestors had committed. Descendants themselves have admitted their crime. But the crime is a known fact throughout the world, but something that some Japanese just can't accept. Like also how they simply cannot accept the facts that they indeed committ genocide, they did indeed used comfort women, they did indeed use germ experimentation, and they did committ atrocoties. Those trial records you claim to have, show them.

One more thing. Miura Goro, the Japanese Minister to Seoul, published the official Japanese version of events fifteen years after the trial, of the assassination of Myeongseong. Even the man who ordered for the assassination admits they killed the Empress. So why can't you? It's like defending a rapist who admitted that they raped your relative. Why in the world would you do that? The evidence is there. Testimony from the supposed assasin says "We killed her." But yet you still turn a blind eye? That's not pride for one's country, that's simply stupidity.

Oh and by the way, some things can't be neutral objectman. Can you neutrally tell the events of WWII and Adolf Hitler? Can you in any shape and form tell the horror stories of the concentration camps "neutrally"? "Oh yes, and there were these homes for the Jews established in Eastern Europe. They killed them but it wasn't out of hate. But it wasn't out of love." When events in history show themselves as testimonys of evil, neutrality does not exist anymore. At that point, its a matter of morales and the sense of whats wrong and whats right. You can't neutrally discuss the genocide of Hitler and you can't neutrally discuss the genocide of the Japanese. You can't neutrally discuss the Rape of Nanjing and you can't neutrally discuss Southern slavery in the U.S. You can't neutrally discuss the burning of Joan of Arc and you can't neutrally discuss the assassination of Myeongseong. You can't neutrally discuss the brutal murders of the Romanovs. And if you're telling me right now that you can't admit historical facts about notorious events in world history, then be ashamed to even call yourself human. Because it's innate within all of us to sense whats right and whats wrong. Pride for one's country shouldn't overshadow the natural emotions and sense of judgement we are all born with in this world. After all, pride is an artificial emotion created by ourselves but to feel emotions of sad and happiness are gifts from something beyond understanding.

This is utter bullshit. Yes, you can tell anything neutrally. Or rather, other people can. Maybe you can't. If you can't, then you should not be editing Misplaced Pages.

It is trivial to discuss Hitler's acts neutrally. You merely describe what happened. You don't have to deny the facts, but you do have to avoid judging them. The facts speak for themselves: you do not have to say that they were evil, because it is obvious. That's what "neutrality" means, letting the facts speak for themselves. 81.178.65.121 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

--Thepowederoom 11:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your English is so difficult. Korean criminals were tried in Korea By Joseon government. Joseon government executed three suspects. You make a mistake. Are not there these records in Korea? Koreans distort their histories so much.Objectman 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If my English is too difficult, you shouldn't be editing articles here. It's as simple as that. A certain fluency in the language should be achieved before attempting to write an entire article on someone's life history. Language is key in writing and you clearly do not have the basic capabilities in the English language to do so. And what are you talking about? Korean criminals? What are you referring too? I don't understand a thing you say and you always end every one of your not understandable arguments with Koreans distorting history or Koreans being biased. That seems to me the only thing you can properly communicate. And I simply love how you ignored my entire response to you and all you can supply with me is random rubbish about Korean criminals. Yes, ok. Korean criminals. Established that, now what? What are you trying to say? It's like I'm arguing with a wall. What's the use? I've already reported you, I just have to wait. The only thing I'm doing now is reverting the article back because you keep changing it.

WP:NPA, please. 81.178.65.121 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be like me going to the Spanish wiki and trying to write an entire article about the Reconquista in Spanish, trying to justify the killings and extortion of thousands of Jews and Muslims. It just wouldn't work. --Thepowederoom 12:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing. I am NOT Korean. I'm a French political science student on an exchange program from the Science Po here in Los Angeles. I'm a completely non-Korean, non-Japanese person. You happen to be Japanese. I believe that in this case, I am the "neutral" aspect, no? The thing you've been arguing for, for a very long time? --Thepowederoom 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are not Korean, you will be insufficiency studying, or you will be poisoned Anti-Japanese ideology. You have to study not reference books but materials.Objectman 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can use fluent English, but you shall not write unreliable. This article was written by many persons. It shall not be destroied by only you.Objectman 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't you understand "Korean criminals"? It means the persons who killed Queen Min. Three Koreans who killed Queen Min were executed by Joseon Government. Japan did not try them.Objectman 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, back off, dammit! We have a beginning of a good article here, but your constant reversions are not a help. If you truly have an interest in Queen Min rather than in trying to defend the old Japanese Empire, join us in the editting. But if you do that you need to provide solid citations and balanced statements. Simply loading your own version is rude and unaccepatable. I've tried to work with you before, but I am now feeling you are not open-minded enough to be a part of this. And as thepowderoom says, if your English is not good enough to follow the discussion, then you should not be trying to edit pages here. Just as I am not trying to edit pages in the Korean wikipedia because my Korean is not good enough for that. --Dan 16:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I loading your own version? Please see well. My editing last version The present version To be sure, my English is inadequate. However, my version is already corrected by those who can do English. It is not right that the person who can write in English edits the wrong knowledge. It needs not only the writable in English, but also the right knowledge.Objectman 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are loading your own version. Your comment "the right knowledge" is revealing. It implies you have "the right knowledge" while myself and thepowderoom and others do not. Either work together with us or stop. --Dan 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

you almost should stop. You should not upload a novel without sources or with unreliable sources.Objectman 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether you agree with Objectman or not...

...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)

I'm working with Thepowderoom on the grammar, spelling, phrasing and the like. I think your critique of his style has some merit but is overstated, especially in comparison with Objectman's style, which needed much more editting to be comprehensible, let alone to be somewhat balanced. On the balance, I prefer working with thepowderoom's material. --Dan 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Even when Japanese government is known for white washing its history? No. (Wikimachine 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Clear Outline of Revision of the Myeongsong page"

Here are the various arguments presented, and I'll clarify who's winning on each argument.

• Japanese sources are known wordlwide to be inaccurate and POV. Objectman did not refute this argument.
• Korean sources are distorted. This makes no impact in this argument. All sources can be distorted up to some points, and we're using other sources such as French & Russian as well. Japanese sources are empirically proven to be whitewashed and inaccurate.
• "Don't write what you believe" -Objectman. That applies to all. It makes no impact in this argument. powederoom has already stated that his arguments have sources, and are not his beliefs.
• Koreans assassinated Empress Min. This is absolutely wrong, as even a Russian working in the Russian Embassy was among the eyewitnesses of the assassination.
• 3 Koreans suspected as responsible for the assassination of Empress Min were executed by the Korean government. It's clear that this is part of the internal political struggles, in which blames are shifted on each other and many deaths and assassinations happen.
• Japanese admitted their mobilization and active participation in the assassination of Queen Min. Objectman has not refuted this argument.
• WP:NPA please. Even those who have terrible English should be allowed to write on Misplaced Pages. If you are talented in English, good for you, and you should help in improving the articles with your talent.

However, those with terrible English should take care about arguing against others when they have said they cannot understand the langauge. --Dan 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Powederoom is French, not Korean; therefore, he has not studied enough on this issue. This presumption has no basis. S/he might be a French deeply interested in Japanese-Korean issues, and have taken much time into studying it. Even more, there is no basis for assuming that all Koreans have studied this issue: a 1st grader Korean could not have studied this issue in manners such as reading encyclopedias and indepth researches in prominent libraries around the globe.

(Wikimachine 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

To Dan.

Japanese sources are known wordlwide to be inaccurate and POV.

You just have to prove.

and we're using other sources such as French & Russian as well.

I used not Japanese sources but Korean and American sources "in those days".

Japanese sources are empirically proven to be whitewashed and inaccurate.

It is prejudice without a basis. Although it cannot explain in detail, the distortion of present South Korea is almost severe. However, we cannot argue, if you assert one-sided view. Your attitude is very ugly.

powederoom has already stated that his arguments have sources, and are not his beliefs.

Where was the source? He does not show it.

Koreans assassinated Empress Min. This is absolutely wrong, as even a Russian working in the Russian Embassy was among the eyewitnesses of the assassination.

The Russian eyewitnesses testified that Koreans had assassinated. For example, Karneyev(Russia General Staff Office lieutenant colonel) said, "Daewongun had related deeply to assassination of Min.

It's clear that this is part of the internal political struggles, in which blames are shifted on each other.

Please prove.

Japanese admitted their mobilization and active participation in the assassination of Queen Min. Objectman has not refuted this argument.

I have admitted Japanese participated. However, they only participated. it is not neutrality to hide intentionally the fact that Koreans participated in assassination, and to emphasize only that she was assassinated to Japanese. 218.248.20.20 07:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor point of clarification - most of the comments you're responding to are not mine, they're Wikimachine. I signed jsut that one line about needing good English skills to argue effectively. A point I believe you've just proven. --Dan 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

fresh start

ok, now that objectman has been blocked temporarily, editors interested in the topic can get serious about improving it. i'm no expert in this area, so i hope others take up the work.

but i just want to remind everyone, especially relatively new editors, that the article must be built from reliable sources, not personal knowledge or original research. for each potentially controversial sentence (think, would objectman dispute this wording?), try to provide a reputable, preferrably engligh-language, source of your information. this will help prevent later revert wars. a non-negotiable rule at wikipedia is WP:NPOV, which can be satisfied by sticking to reliable unbiased sources.

also, please note that this is not a general background article on korean history during the period. there are other specific articles that could really use some of the details now in this article. this article should be a biography of the subject, with a short pointers to the broader context.

i will be editing mainly for copyediting, flow, and brevity, but i hope others continue the work that was so rudely interrupted. Appleby 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir or madam - I'm happy to get back to work on this. --Dan 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

it looks like not just spellchecking, but some drastic pruning may be needed in parts, and/or chunks moved over to Joseon dynasty, Korea under Japanese rule, Treaty of Ganghwa, Donghak Peasant Revolution, etc. Appleby 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Insurrection of 1882

There was some more detail on this insurrection from earlier revisions that some of our Japanese viewpoint editors thought important and that I'm willing to consider including since I can source it to Eckhardt. This includes the back pay, what Min Kyumho's position was, that sort of thing. Interest? --Dan 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

please do. Appleby 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Appleby, here's the older material. It's actually from the discussion page; I don't think it ever got into the actual article. Opinions, please, everyone:

I am not sure how many coup attempts happened. I looked in "Korea - Old and New, A History" by Carter Eckert, Ki-baik Lee, Young Ick Lee, Michael RObinson, and Edward Wagner, mostly chapter 13. These authors are widely respected; Carter and Ed I knew in the Peace Corps and they both still speak excellent Korean. They note the Soldier's revolt of 1882 as having roots in something further back, in 1881, when Kojong had 80 cadet soldiers trained by a Japanese officer as a Special Skills Force. This group was to form the foundation of a new army, and the existing army was neglected, to the point that indeed they weren't paid for 13 months. However, grain arrived from Cholla provinces, and the soldiers were to be paid first. The clerks of the Tribute Bureau were looking for some personal profit, and cut the grain with chaff. When this was discovered, the soldiers attacked the clerks, and the director of the Tribute Bureau, Min Kyomho, had the leaders arrested and condemned to death.This led to more anger, and the soldiers attacked Min Kyomho's house on July 23. The date leads me to think that the grain was most likely barley, not rice since barley is harvested in late spring and rice in the late fall. Anyway, Min fled to the palace, for his older brother was Queen Min's adoptive brother. The soldiers appealed to Taewongun, who supported them. The soldiers seized weapons from a government armory and freed their leaders, and killed the Japanese officer who trained the Special Skills Force. They then attacked the Japanese legation and burned it, following that by an attack the next day on the palace, where Min Kyomho was slain, but Queen Min fled, dressed in peasant's clothes.This was what brought about Taewongun's return to power.

The next coup attempt was the Kapsin Chongbyon of 1884, by the Enlightenment Party including Philip Jaisohn (So Chaepil), a group of Japan-educated reformers who wanted a more egalitarian society, with western reforms and so forth. They were a part of the Silhak (Practical Learning) movement that had drawn intellectual progressive thinkers since about 1800. They also wanted the Taewongun back in power. They were defeated by the Chinese troops already in the capital. It might be noted that these reformers were yangbans who could not rise in government because the Mins blocked them, and chungin who likewise were denied power. The coup lasted about three days.

The Tonghak rebellion was more of a peasant uprising than a coup, and reached its peak in 1894. It seems the Min family's taxes and high-handed oligarchy had much to do with the uprising, but there was also a revolt against opening up to the outside world and against the progressive Silhak movement and christianity. With some reason, since some of the early missionaries, Allen and Underwood, for example, were involved in obtaining concessions for things such as mining rights. Note that the Tonghak movement had as a large part of its raison d'etre opposition to the Silhak movement. --Dan 22:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

wow, are you sure you know how much work you're proposing? :-) i know i'm repeating myself, but really, there are many other articles that need information like this added, besides the ones i listed above, see also Silhak, Philip Jaisohn, Daewon-gun. many more still need to be created for the late joseon dynasty period.

one thing, though, is that wikipedia convention is to use Revised romanization of Korean instead of MR, so that Kapsin Chongbyon would be Gapsin Jeongbyeon, for example. take a look at the very top of this page, in the rectangle template, for links to korea-related guides, manual of style, requests for help, etc.

i sincerely hope that you stick around, and enrich various korean-history related articles. please feel free to be bold in editing the articles, you don't have to discuss every edit beforehand if you have the valid references to back you up. please provide citation info in brackets within the article text, if you don't know the formatting, others will help you. let me know if i can be of any help, don't let this experience with objectman deter you. Appleby 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to stick around and help in an honest cooperative effort, and it looks as though we're heading that way. I dislike all the romanizations, my tendency is to write things the way they sound so that an English speaker would pronounce them correctly. For example, try Jeonra Bug Do versus Cholla Pook Doh. Which sounds closer to the actual Korean? Or the common western spelling of the Korean family name "Choi" - which does not rhyme with "boy". Having said that, your point about using a standard convention is well-taken, and I'll do my best. I have a great deal of interest not only because of my Peace Corps experience and my friends who are Asian Studies scholars, but because my (unfortunately deceased) mother-in-law (Prof. Min Pyoungsoon) knew a lot of the people and the history and loved to talk about it, as does my wife still. My immediate help that I need is uploading images of Queen Yun to the Queen Yun page - I tried to make a link on the discussion page, but it looks like it didn't work. I'll learn, I guess. --Dan 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

i responded on that page, but wikipedia image policy has a steep learning curve, i've found. start with WP:IUP. Appleby 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

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)

In which regard, I'll add that the reason I put a {{fact}} 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)

Preface

This text has an important mistake.

1.Unlike South Korea and communist nations, the Japanese government has not published the textbook.

2.Japanese textbook does not criticize her. For example, the textbooks of the junior high school in Japan are not written at all about Queen Min. It is the same reason as a Korean textbook is not written about Takamori Saigo's war.

3.A controversial textbook by your opinion.

This editor is writing his daydream without so much as consulting a source. 216.11.0.254 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

She was viewed as a major obstacle against Japanese imperialistic ambitions.

This paragraph is not neutral, and it should be deleted.

1. Japanese emperor has not politics power. Therefore, Japanese policy changed with the occasional men of power. Japan is not consistent and was not necessarily going to invade Korea.

2.Queen Min was viewed as an obstacle against Japan only when she asked Russia into Korea. Can not you imagine how much fear Japan felt against Russia in those days?

3.The South Korean well-informed person also accepts that Korea side proposed annexation first.216.11.0.254 23:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(She) had an ambitious plan to modernize Korea.

This editor has written his conjecture without a reliable source. 216.11.0.254 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Viewed as the last hope against Japanese invasion into the Asian mainland,

This is a too much modern viewpoint. Even Ann Jung-geun who killed Hitrobumi Ito was pleased with the victory of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.

(He wrote the "Oriental peace (東洋平和論)" in prison. It was not completed. However, there is his incomplete text., He had written his feeling about a Japanese victory in that description.

) 216.11.0.254 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to refute every single one of your claims. Hope you don't mind.

1) You're right, the Japanese government does not create their own textbooks. However, Japan's Ministry of Education must approve all textbooks used for all courses, including history. They create the standard curriculum from elementary to high school. On April 5, 2005, the Ministry of Education approved a revised version of their history textbooks directed towards junior high and high school that completely ignores huge segments of their history during WWII including comfort women, genocide, germ warfare, invasion of Joseon, invasion of China, etc. It has caused international controversy as it also whitewashes Japan's militaristic past. It has been vehemently condemned by people from all Asian countries that have been victimized by Japan.

2) Exactly, they don't mention Min whatsoever. Min had a major role in Asian history. And yes, she was the last hope against Japanese invasion to the Asian mainland. More details on this later but to also refute your argument that Korean textbooks do not mention Saigo Takamori is a complete lie. He is mentioned to have been one of the key figures in the Meiji Restoration and also the one who wanted to go to war with Joseon immediatly for not having recognized Meiji's new role as an Emperor with actual power. The Meiji Restoration completely gave the Emperor power he did not have before. Japan was not a unified nation before him. Shoguns ran the government and numerous people violently battled to become the shogun. The Emperor was weak and was simply a symbolic figurehead that did not play any role whatsoever in the politics of Japan. The Meiji Restoration completely changed that. So yes, Korean textbooks do mention him because he did play a role in Asian history. But nothing as big as Min who was indeed one of the last hopes before Japanese imperialistic invasion of Asia.

3) What do you mean? If masses of people are shocked and don't agree with something that is officially sanctioned by someone else, it's considered controversy. It's not a matter of opinion when it comes to correctly telling history. In the end, what needs to be said is that the textbooks are wrong, biased sources that are not reliable. If you don't think telling the truth is controversial, then you don't have a good sense of what's right and what's wrong.

1) COMPLETE lie. I recently finished writing the Myeongseong bio. Read the endings on the invasion of Joseon. The Emperor after the Meiji Restoration had considerable amounts of power. Yes, there were men who ran the government but they were sanctioned by him and all major orders were done by the Emperor, including issuing war. The other issue that Hirohito was not aware of Pearl Harbor is such complete B.S. made by the Japanese government. Please, think logically. Such large orders against independant nations cannot go by without official approval from the very top. Japan has also consitently tried to invade Korea. Korea is the gateway to Asia. Controlling the peninsula enables control over Asian mainland. Read history to find out all the numerous attempts. I'm not a history book thats going to recall every freaking event. There are simply too many that record Japan's imperialistic ambitions.

2) Queen Min was a threat from day one. She never was interested in securing Japan as the sole nation that would aid Joseon. She played Joseon off in a game of politics and Japanese intentions then were to invade Joseon. Without invading the Korean peninsula, it would be nearly impossible to invade the Asian mainland. Without a secure base that's other than the targeted nation, it would have been extremely difficult for Japant to invade the massive Chinese Empire. And with Min constantly blockading the Japanese, it became a frusteration for them. Min was also a skilled diplomat and secured Western powers. Japan was becoming furious at the prospect that they were losing in the war of securing Joseon and her death was simply the only way to achieve completely dominance over the kingdom. The Russians were just one of many incidents that Japan recognized were becoming problems.

3) Lee Wan-young is a controversial figure. One has to remember that he was one of the Progressives. The Progressives were supported by Min, up to a point. They were lated defeated with the aid of the Chinese by Min and the leaders of the Progressives fled to Japan. Japan protected them and used them to get connections within Joseon. The July 23rd invasion of the royal palaces by the Japanese forced the King under death to sign numerous documents ensuring Japan's right into running Joseon's government. By force, by military force, Japan was already in control of the government that day after threatning the King. Otori, the Japanese Minister to Seoul, replaced the current prime minister who was a relative of the Queen with Lee Wan-young, the disgraced Progressive who was banished from Joseon after causing war against the Chinese. He was a puppet used by the Japanese to gain independant proposal of annexation. So yes, technically, Joseon gave herself up. But under what circumstances? And by who? The legit King and Queen and by the legit Prime Minister or a puppet installed by the Japanese? The Japanese who invaded Joseon and paraded it as an independant nation when really it wasn't? Far as I'm concerned, the author who wrote that article said that Lee Wan-young was not born a Japanese sympathizer, but he defineatly became one at the prospect of control and power in his home nation that exiled him.

4) Ahn Jeun-geun was of course happy that Japan won! Most Koreans were, but that doesn't mean that the Koreans were supporting Japan. He supported neither countries but for him, either country getting beat was good for Joseon. He didn't believe Joseon needed either Japanese or Russian aid, but rather the U.S. So when the Japanese beat the Russians, eliminating Russian influence in Joseon, he was of course pleased. The Japanese then became a problem to be dealt with and the majority of Koreans hoped another Western power would take the Japanese on and defeat them. Also, it is true historical opinions change with time. Our modern perception of Marie Antoinette is quite different from the hate-filled perception during the French Revolution. Perceptions change, and normally for a better, non-biased, much clearer view.

So, please. Bring them on. Any more to refute? --Thepowederoom 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1) You have refuted without reading that textbook. Why don't you read it? At any rate, your refuting has not become the refuting. Japanese government don't publish it. You have to choose an other word.

2) You have not understood the fact at all. However, since it is subject unrelated to this article, I don't refute it.

3) "(She) had an ambitious plan to modernize Korea." You have to state clearly a reliable source of this paragraph.

4) I have not said that Korea supported Japan. However, a too much modern viewpoint is not neutrally. Why many Koreans (and Chinese) were gladly to Japanese victory against Russia? If Min was viewed to the last hope against Japanese, though they were hateful against Japan, why they were glad?

216.11.0.254 04:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

many Koreans believe that Emperor Meiji secretly ordered Miura Goro, the Japanese minister to Korea, to commission assassins to murder the Empress.

The Japanese Emperor did not participate in politics. Therefore, it can not think that Emperor gave a command. It is malignant impression operation to mention this text. This paragraph has to be deleted no matter how truly many Koreans think so. 216.11.0.254 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm you seriously don't read everything do you? I'm not going to waste my time refuting that one. That was already refuted in the answers I have you earlier. It's your laziness and your error not to read what someone writes you. If you're going to take the time to try to disprove something, read the other persons side thoroughly.

--Thepowederoom 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This refuting was written before my reading your refuting. This is new topics. If you think an argument is useless, you should not edit.216.11.0.254 04:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There are only four minutes differences from the counterargument of your beginning to this counterargument of mine. I cannot have read it. This refuting is my fifth.If you thought a little, you must have understood. However, you blamed me on your misapprehension. 216.11.0.254 05:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost

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)

Thanks, thepowderoom. I'll watch for it. Bummer about the loss. Japanese kid from Oakland Schools ISPN, put a lid on it. --Dan 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Princess - errr - Queen's Diary

Fellow contributors - I just saw on Korean TV news the other day that a diary of Queen Min's has been discovered, from the year 1883 if I recall correctly. Keep your eyes open for the translation; we should post it here. Maybe we can get an image of the diary - from what I could see on the TV report it was beautiful. --Dan 15:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics