Talk:Empress Myeongseong/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Empress Myeongseong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

True or Fake ? Myeongseong's photo (old topic restored)

I am putting this back up because I find the topic of interest and would like other editors to help me out. Last time this was up someone contributed some more recently discovered photos. I don't see those here and hope they can be put up again. --Dan 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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 [1]. 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)

Okay, I asked my wife to see what she could make out - the main inscription in the bottom right uses the term "bi" indicating this is the highest-ranking royal woman, ie the queen, but her family name is not included. The date in the lower left is clipped, but there is a "17" there. That could be 1917, or it might be a Japanese date - Meiji 17? - but if it's 1917 the woman could only be Queen Yun, King Sunjong's wife. That was my wife's first reaction on seeing the photo, before reading the inscription - she said, "Oh, that's Queen Yun", and since she knew the lady, albeit in the 50s and 60s, I tend to trust her. --Dan 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The date has to be Japanese, as the rest of the legend. "17th year of Showa", the woman IS Queen Yun, and must be 40~50.81.57.148.99 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And finally, user Appleby, I think, posted a link to this article (Korean language) [2] which has recently discovered German photos that could very well be Queen Min. See what you think, and be sure to look at the photo where they compare Sunjong as a child to the photo that could be Queen Min, his mother. --Dan 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know her name. She is NOT Empress Myeongseong.

The report in the the newspaper HanKooki is fake. See Fig. 20, 世界風俗写真帖(1901) , Tokyo TOYO Co. LTD..

--Lulusuke 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, why do you think the photo is fake and if you know the woman's name please tell me. --Dan 04:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look my answer section.--Lulusuke 09:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see it there. This woman is certainly not Lady Om - she's too young, for one thing. If you could answer here it would help. I have seen fuller accounts pointing to some early collections where that photo is labelled (in German) as a Korean court singer. That appears to be a mislabelling, however. Scholars have not positively concluded that the woman is Myoungsong, but the fact that she is sitting in the same studion where Taewonggun, in the photo below her, had his photo taken, makes a very strong argument. It is also known that Myoungsong was an educated, intelligent, and curious woman who was interested in western technology. --Dan 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Dan

Please compare the two photos

The two are same. !!!

You can get the second photo at National Digital Library

Thus the article is fake.

The reason is simple, I think the writer of the article did not know the book, since he is a amateur . And the authorities on Korean history cannot read ,exactly and correctly, OLD Japanse documents.(Even if modern Japanese, it is very difficult to read old Japanese documents. Only about 1% or less than 1% of Japanese may read them. hahahahahah....)

--Lulusuke 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still skeptical. The photo was taken by German, as explained in the book from which the photo comes. It was taken in 1894; that is known for sure. It seems to be easy for a Japanese who label the photograph to make a mistake. I don't have time right now, but I will post links to the book these photos come from, an interview with the man who assembled the book, and I have a photo of Lady Om which I can upload. One quick question...how old was Lady Om compared to Taewongun, since they appear photographed together? --Dan 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, take a look at this article. It gives more of the debate and includes an interview with the man who published the photos. If he is accurate that the photo was taken in 1894, and that seems to be the case, since we see that it was published in the two European magazines in 1894, then it would have been unlikely to be Lady Om, since Kojong did not marry Lady Om until after Myoungsong's death. See this site: The Royal Ark..". m. (fifth) at the Russian Legation, Seoul, 1897, Lady Om [Sunhon Hwang-kwi-bi] (b. 5th November 1854; d. from enteric fever, at Toksu Palace, Seoul, 20th July 1911, bur. Yonghwi-won, Ch'ongnyang-ni)". Furthermore, the Taewongun, who was also in the picture (as 'minister'), was in ill health by 1897, and died the next year. I'll post photos later. --Dan 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are photos of both Lady Om (mother of Yi Kang) and Kwi-in Yang, mother of Princess Dokhye, Kojong's last child. . To me, that photo of Lady Om does not look like either the usual photo supposed to be Queen Min, , nor the more recent photo, at [3]. Here's a detail from that photo comparing the woman labelled as Queen Min with Sunjong: . That woman looks nothing like Lady Om. --Dan 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Look at the captions written in Japanese. These photos are well-known to competent historians. But I don't upload these, since I cannot confirm a photographer and shooting date, respectively.

純貞孝皇后尹氏: One of King Sunjong's(純宗) wives	明成皇后(明成王后): One of King Gojong's(高宗) wives This photo was published as a supplement book "Who's who in Modern Korea" ~~1922~~1932 in Japan. Ref.--Lulusuke 03:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)	One of Gojong's wives. According to the label this is Ombi （嚴妃)(?--1911). 世界風俗写真帖　第１集(Sekaifuzoku Syashin-cho No.1,) Syogoro Tsuboi and Raisuke Numata 1901. National Digital Library Ref. YDM2735.	Labelled as "a Lady's maid in Korean emperor's court" but also thought by many to be Myoungseong, Queen Min 世界風俗写真帖　第１集(Sekaifuzoku Syashin-cho No.1,) Syogoro Tsuboi and Raisuke Numata 1901. National Digital Library Ref. YDM2735.

--Lulusuke 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC) --Lulusuke 02:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) --Lulusuke 08:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, can you read the date on Queen Yun's photo? Would it be 1917 or a different, maybe Japanese, calendar? --Dan 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I recognize very clearly that the book was PRINTED, on the Japanse year , Syowa 7(~~1922~~1932), although she was killed 1895. Additionally we cannot confirm the the photo shooter and shooting date. We must't write this issue, since there is no concrete evidence and no internatiol historical society doesn't recognize the photo. Thank you. --Lulusuke 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, if you can, please get a little help with your English - reading and posting - we are not communicating very well; I have difficulty understanding you and I think you have difficulty understanding me. On the left-hand photo, in the lower left, there is a caption which includes the Chinese characters for 17. Is that part of a date? If so, what date? --Dan 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your advice.　

Well, this left book wriitenn in Japanese was printed before　1944, since the style is based on OLD Japanese. Note that the bellows are NOT "full and complete sentences".

I'll show and interpret the right caption as followings

故　李王坧妃殿下（勲一等）

”故” means ”The deceased”.　"李王坧" means King Gojong(고종 광무제).

* which it does not. 李王坧 is King Sojeon.81.57.148.99 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"妃殿下" means "Their Royal Highnesses"(That is Gojong's daughter.)

* no way that 妃 could refer to a daughter. It refers to the King's wife 81.57.148.99 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"勲一等" means "She got the Grand Cordon of the Order" or "She got the first class medal."

Therefore I identify her as "순정효황후(純貞孝皇后)". It is not so easy, because Korean king has many wives and kids.

Please look "KOREANDB and compare the two photos.

The left Chinese characters( 한자,漢字)) for 17 are a part of Japanese written in vertical direction.

故李王 ..."The deceased King Gojong"

は侯爵　... "is(or become)a marquis ....

* I don't see は there. Looks like 遠 or some other kanji, too blurry to say 81.57.148.99 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

は第一女　..."is the first daughter ...

し、御...

十七年,,, .."17 years..."

* Showa 17th year looks like the only possibility. "1917" is unlikely to appear in a Japanese publication of the time. Also the date must be posterior to 1926 (Sojeon's death), and the woman looks more fourtyish than twentyish 81.57.148.99 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

日。........

:-).--Lulusuke 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay - Queen Yun's father was a marquis. The woman you refer to at KOREANDB is Lady Om, consort of Kojong and the mother of the prince who succeeded Sunjong. --Dan 04:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You are right. I show her photo above. Please see the photo and compare the two.--Lulusuke 08:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me look at the photos...

First photo:...is this Queen Yun??...or another/any of Sunjong's wives???
Second photo: placed in the article, in line with "End of an Era" (describing King Choljong's death without an heir)
Third photo:...I saw this photo in the Chosun Ilbo online article (referring to the German who collected pictures in Korea) (with the photos of Gojong, Sunjong, and the Daewon-gun) with the legend underneath her (in the collection) as "The Assasinated Empress", leading her as Myeongseong...but, as translated above, the label reads above as "Lady Om"... (bit confusing for this photo...)
Fourth photo (again with this!!): the purported picture again of Myeongseong...Heran et Sang'gres 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the "Assasinated Empress" thing I mentioned...: The legend reads as "Die Ermordete Königin" (is that German?), meaning "The Assassinated Queen"...does that help??Heran et Sang'gres 13:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow answering, Herean. The first photo is Queen Yun, not so much by her appearance but more by the caption, which includes the bit about first daughter of a marquis. Which, now that I think of it, is wrong because Queen Yun had an older sister. The second photo is a mystery. The third photo has been discussed extensively - for my money, that's Queen Min. The fourth photo - the one that's been known for a while, and argued over. I think that could be Queen Min as well, but am less confident about it. --Dan 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...But I'm wondering why the above above statements up there argued that the second is not Min...I wonder why is that...one website illustrated the first as Queen Min!!!! (http://www.oldkorea.henny-savenije.pe.kr) The fourth will remain a mystery...

That website clearly got it wrong - you can see in the royal family pictures adjoining the mis-labelled one, the same woman standing next to Sunjong - it's Queen Yun. I'm having difficulty finding firm statements in the jumble above about the second picture. It is from one of those old Japanese travel books, and who knows what the source is......and if I recall correctly, does not have the character 'bi' - denoting the queen - in the caption immediately under the photo, but is labeled more as wife of the Yi King. Still, that one's a mystery - if she's not Queen Min, who is she - and there're a number of possibilities, as you know. --Dan 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I visited a website where originally I was gonna get some pics of kisaeng women, then when I got to the part of sketches made by some french guys, I made a (startling?) discovery. There are some pics there that resemble Min's alleged photo. Here are the links:

http://www.women.or.kr/herstory/WomenArt/frillust/image/illust11.jpg - a colored sketch of a court lady who is in the sitting position similar to her alleged photo http://www.women.or.kr/herstory/WomenArt/frillust/image/illust10.jpg - very similar sketch to her alleged photo http://www.women.or.kr/herstory/WomenArt/frillust/image/illust12.jpg - does this portray Min's assassination??? Heran et Sang'gres 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the third picture, it says that

The illustrations by foreigners: The assassination of Queen of Joseon (외국인이 그린 삽화: 조선 왕비의 살해)

Etching drawn by 리온 르와이에. However I don't know who is the painter, so searched the transliterated Korean name (리온 르와이에) with the google engine, and then I found out a link. http://nanet.empas.com/search/nanet_detail.html?vt=A&i=620974813&sn=KDMT1200615373&q=&q2=

It is a Ph.D thesis on "Portraits of Gojong of Korea: The introduces of modern visual media and transformations of eojin (고종 황제의 초상 : 근대 시각매체의 유입과 어진의 변용 과정). Eojin refers to portrait paintings of Kings in Joseon dyansty. This thesis has the etching illustration and is likely to describe it in detail but I couldn't reach it with my Mac. Korean people with PC could solve the problem. Btw the name of the painter is LionesRoyer in alphabet without blank. ---Appletrees 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, here's a pic about the Eulmi Incident... http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Queen_Min_Eulmi_Incident.jpg Can anyone analyze? Thanks... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I can read Cantonese(a little Chinese) , Japanese, and Korean.

Cantonese is a diffent language from Chinese!

Cantonese:我對你唔起 Bejin: 我對不起你

If you can read Korean, I recommend to visit to http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/ to get the first source. But a little of resource is not available to the public.--Lulusuke 03:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

my edit

After all the current drama, I was a little reluctant to edit this article again however it needed it.

I have made an edit based mainly, but not entirely on grammar issues.

If anyone has a problem with the text ie. use of Queen Min instead of Empress Myeongseong, or any other choice of word that could be considered POV, leading, undue weight etc - then please edit that section instead of just reverting it - if you change minor wording, I will consider the change - I don't really care if you wish to use Empress Myeongseong instead of Queen Min, as both as currently in use in the article, however if you just revert and go back to the previous section, I will consider this to be disruptive and I will undo your revert as it will go back to the state that had major English grammar issues. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Her royal seal

Is it possible to display in to the article her royal seal? I saw a pic in flickr displaying her royal seal, which had the first 4 characters "Empress Myeongseong"... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Regent ?

"Efforts to remove her from the political arena, orchestrated through failed rebellions prompted by the father of King Gojong, Heungseon Daewongun"

How can this be right ? How can the King's father be regent ? Would he not be the king ? Usually a regent is the King's uncle of some kind.122.106.255.204 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Regent is correct. Koreans do not follow strict patrilineal succession, but prefer to select the best person for the job at the time, so to speak. Daewongun was emphatic in promoting his son as a good choice, but a lot of that was because he would be in actual power himself, and Kojong would be easily manipulated. A good part of Daewongun's falling-out with Myeongseong was because she helped Kojong grow a backbone. --Snow (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When did she become queen?

The article points out on several occasions, that she did not have the title of Queen for years after her marriage, but it does not say when she received the title. I know that it is not the same thing as in Europe, when a woman automatically becomes queen when she marries a king. So, when during the marriage was she given the title? In the 1880s? --85.226.41.65 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Nice question. Actually, at that time, when a Korean lady (15-16 years old) marries a King of Joseon, she automatically becomes his Queen Consort through a ceremony called "chaekbi" (冊妃 책비). So, summary, Myeongseong became Gojong's "Queen Consort" (mind the actual title, since "Queen" can also be mistakenly & confusingly mean "Queen Regnant", as with Elzabeth II) when she got married. I hope this satisfies you... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting information. It seems that at the time the question above was made, the article seemed to claim that she did not have the title of queen for some time, and that she was given it later during her marriage. But perhaps that was due to some misunderstanding, and it does seem as if that article has been corrected now. So it was similar to Europe in this case. Did the king have several wives, but only one queen? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. A Korean king (like any other kings of the world) can have several wives as concubines, but can only have one primary & legal wife as Queen Consort.

For some interesting information (on your part), concubines in the past (during the Joseon Dynasty) were sometimes given the special honor of being the King's primary wife (the Queen Consort; if the King wishes it so, and if he had a male son (in most cases the first-born) with her); there were 3 noted cases before 1700. The last one (died in 1701 by execution thru poisoning) was the worst case; so much, that in 1701, Sukjong (the king at that time) decreed that no concubine should ever be a Queen Consort.

Hope this satisfies you. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Korea was unnamed in the small country.

The assassination of the Korean Empress ignited diplomatic protest abroad. To appease growing international criticism.

I think that this description is self-conceit. Other countries were not interested in Korea. 61.199.1.102 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's referenced. Please review WP:CITE Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying "self-conceit" and "not interested in Korea" is just typical IP bluster, but I checked the reference (a short column from Choson Ilbo) and it doesn't say anything about "diplomatic protest" and "growing international criticism" (or anything related to international opinion). Maybe the assassination of the Queen/Empress did ignite diplomatic protest (I don't know), but the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth," so we need to verify this claim with a reliable source. I tried to find a source, but I couldn't. Maybe someone else can find a supporting source, but if not, I propose we delete these phrases. Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I found a reference. Case solved. Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Change a subtitle?

Hi everybody. Would anyone object to changing the subtitle "Eulmi Incident" to "Assassination"? Reason: a reader who looks at the table of contents wouldn't know that the Queen/Empress was assassinated or that there is a section about her death. The retitled section would start like this: "The assassination of Empress Myeongseong, which in Korea is known as the Eulmi Incident (을미사변, 乙未事變), occurred in the early hours of 8 October 1895..." Comments? Madalibi (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed C-class, for insufficient number of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary account of political shennanigans concerning Queen Min

MURDER OF THE COREAN QUEEN. (From The Times.) Our Tokio correspondent, writing on October 18, says... - added 22 August 2012‎ by User:Eregli bob - but no add date or User listing or IP listing was on this addition. Strange. Anyway, I have slimmed this down as we cannot copy/paster verbatim huge chunks of copyrighted text. Next time add a referring link, please. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not assassinated?

Korean news reported today that she was not assassinated, but survived the attempt. Has anyone seen anything on that? 71.171.103.178 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Have not seen that; do you have a link? Such rumors were spread by the Japanese after her assassination to mitigate the effects of her martyrdom. --Snow (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Role of Hoonryeondae

Ignored in the incident is the role of Hoonryeondae Regiment, a 1000 men strong Korean Army unit, trained by the Japanese, but officered by Koreans in the incident. It was this Regiment that had surrounded the Palace without incurring suspicion, opening the gate, and allowing the Ronin to enter and assassinate. Lieutenant Colonel U Beomseon, one of the three Battalion Commanders participated in the burning of the empress' body, and soon escaped to Japan along with other commanders of the unit. King Gojong soon sent assassins to Japan, where Lieutenant Colonel U, who by then had married a Japanese woman and sired a son, was tracked down and assassinated. This significant event is ignored by Koreans as it shows how much of a role Koreans had in the assassination of their own Empress. I added this little bit in the body, fully expecting some Korean nationalist to start an edit war... Let it begin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.33.238.132 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see edit wars haven't started, as this entire article has improved much over its previous condition. Mr. 124.33.238.132|124.33.238.132, your remark noting that Koreans were involved in the assassination is disingenuous. Whenever a country is occupied, one of the more tragic effects is that there will be those who choose to collaborate with the invaders. It does not reduce the criminality of the occupation. --Snow (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Regent ?

In the desinfobox, Myeongseong is depicted as "Regent". Of her husband ? And this surprising assertion is sustained by nothing, not even by a mention in the body of the article. Like ever, desinfoboxes are the worst part of any article. Pldx1 (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible Photos

A new section was added in the article for possible photos of Empress Min, however, no picture is actually posted. It would be better if people actually posted the possible photographs described.

Also, I would suggest paying no attention to Lulusuke if he trolls this topic. I speak Chinese and learned Japanese in college, now I read Chinese and Japanese texts on a regular basis. I can say for certain that he is nowhere as fluent in the languages as he claims. The fact that he makes glaring oversights translating the caption beneath one of the photographs brought up in the last thread should clearly demonstrate his level of skill. He also cites an inaccurately labelled website as his primary source and is fanatical that only one proposed photograph could be Queen Min. I think he should be ignored and the other proposed photographs added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.168.185 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Empress Myeongseong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Empress Myeongseong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/queenmin.txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/queenmin.txt
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060322153749/http://www.pathfinder.com/asiaweek/98/1218/feat3.html to http://www.pathfinder.com/asiaweek/98/1218/feat3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Empress Myeongseong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Split proposed

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

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

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

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

But I have more arguments beyond size:

It seems like a separate-enough topic to me, and the Korea wiki agrees [4]. The assassination itself is surrounded by additional significant controversy that could/should be discussed in greater detail in a separate article, and not on the article for the Empress.
- Anecdotal, but I've when I've written on Korea-related pages, I've needed to refer to the assassination specifically on a number of occasions, but not the Empress herself.
The current article has a lot of issues; fixing them is honestly daunting even for me because of its sheer length (especially if you include the assassination portion). The full article is probably a 20-40 minute read; I'm betting the vast majority of people don't read much of the body because they're put off by the length and mixed quality.
- The assassination portion I'd argue is somewhat better off; if it's split into its own article, that article wouldn't be so rough.
- In other words, splitting could help compartmentalize areas that need fixing and make it less daunting of a task. People would actually read more of each article, so potentially more fixes

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

Almost forgot: Title.

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

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

Research

Google ngrams (case insensitive)

Google Scholar (exact string match, case insensitive):

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

Google Books (exact string match, case insensitive):

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming article

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

Reasoning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title

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

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

Image in infobox?

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

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

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

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

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

Peer reviewed:

[5]
[6] (abstract only in English)

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

[7]

[8]

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

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

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

Direct quotes needing references

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

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

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

Removed unreferenced item available for reinstatement if referenced CANCEL

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

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

I have now discovered that this is a reference to the plot to seat Prince Imperial Waneun on the throne, so I will introduce a reinstatement and modification of this entry. (21 October 2023)