Talk:Crown Princess Gonghoe

Necromance
"At the time of the King's return in 1593, the Crown Princess' coffin was missing; he considered a necromance to resume the funeral, which was objected by the officials."

This needs better explanation, especially since none of the cited sources are in English. Firstly, "necromance" is not in any major dictionary. Shouldn't it be necromancy or necromancer? Secondly, what exactly does it mean here? Was the intention to communicate with the Princess's spirit in order to locate her body? I presume it's not to re-animate corpses, but that should be clarified as the latter meaning is quite commonly known from fantasy games. Also, the term today implies a connection to black or evil magic. Was this also the case then, hence the officials' objection? This should also be clarified either way, as the reader can't be presumed to know how Joseon Korea viewed necromancy, whichever form of it is being referred to. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:George6VI, in case you missed this. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, let me explain. English is not my first language but Chinese, and sometimes I don't know how to describe a precise concept properly, especially like Sillok, written in Classical Chinese. The relevant part in that Sillok page, it's basically like this:
 * The King said, "I don't want to mention the disaser happened to the Priness again. In ancient times, people might summon souls of the dead by ritual for funerals (if the body being absent, no body would be buried in the tomb, and a ritual would do). At the time the official had yet do it, and I consider to do so, but I don't know how. Should I just let it be, or summon the soul for the funeral? ..." Some officials said, "Such funearl is inappropriate." ... "... if the case wouldn't be too far from the moral, then it may be acceptable." The King said, "it seems that it is indeed inappropriate, and if there exists remaining clothes, it may work. And what are those empty tomb you said earlier?"...
 * The original paragraph is like that, and what word would you describe this? And the original text 招魂 is about the ritual, but there is no English page about it in Wikipedia. - George6VI (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would write it as, "he considered a ritual to summon her soul for the funeral, which was objected by the officials as inappropriate." It provides a basic description quite directly matching the translated passage, which more clearly explains the idea to the reader. I don't think linking to the Necromancy article is necessary, as it's a very broad overview that doesn't really provide greater understanding than the description. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The article makes for a fascinating read but I am disappointed that Piotrus and Lightburst overlooked its grammar, style, and orthography issues. I do not think it was quite ready for the Main Page. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Surtsicna I am not a native speaker and I am used to less than perfect texts on Wikipedia. AFAIK some minor problems with grammar etc. are allowed in article body for DYKs. That said, I did note problems with the term necromancy and like during my review. I don't see grammar, style and ortography mentioned in Did_you_know/Guidelines or elsewhere in that guideline? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I am surprised to learn that the guideline contains no such requirement. I have asked here whether this omission is deliberate. Surtsicna (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll reply there. I am surprised too, actually. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)