Talk:Empress Myeongseong/Archive 2

"burned alive" is not true.
By political motivation, we can find a lot of historical informations about this article, and some of them has a  some commmon error s. (Maybe copy and paste makes the fact.) We must write from view point of wikipolicies. And, at least, we should confirm the first resource. For example, we'll show the declaration of beginning the judicial trial related to　the Eulmi Incident.This is the South Korea official document( The history of the Kyujanggak Royal Library ,Seoul National University, South Korea)(Ref. 奎17289)

"burned alive" is not true.
The Japanese report[9] states, the last Queen of Korea was stripped naked, her genitals fondled, raped , and then burned alive.[10]
 * 9: Japanese Document Sheds New Light on Korean Queen's Murder ( The Chosun Ilbo & Digital Chosun Ilbo,Updated Jan.12,2005 19:23 KST)
 * 10: Japanese Raped the Last Queen of Korea Before Burning Her Alive! by Lee Wha Rang, Kimsoft.com(http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/jp-rape.htm )



I'll tranlate Old Korean characters as That is ,the right document says,　There's the witness, His name is "李萬成" (下士:petty officer). Thus the "burned alive" is not true.--Lulusuke 02:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC) --Lulusuke 03:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 屍體 means "(Queen's) corpse"
 * 燒燬 means "burnout"

"stripped naked, her genitals fondled," is true.
See Ishizuka Eizou's report. ( 「法制局参事官石塚英蔵傭聘ニ付朝鮮政府ヨリ依頼ノ件」朝鮮問題5（公信類） 陸奥宗光関係文書 [http://www.ndl.go.jp/en/service/oversea/index.html 国会図書館(International Services , National Diet Library)]憲政資料室　 Ref. 77-2 Fax: +81-3-3508-2934 ）

Who ?　If  you can read and understand Old Japanese document completely, the answer is easy. But I think it may be belong to original research. --Lulusuke 03:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"raped" is true or not true.
Mr. Lee Wha Rang asserted that she was raped by Japanese '' on his web site http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/jp-rape.htm, and he showed 5 lines  of "Eijoh's Report" as below. (this may be copied and pasted from a newspaper), I'll translate it into English. --Lulusuke 08:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

--Lulusuke 03:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke - This seems like a very minor point to spend so much emphatic discussion upon. The Queen was assassinated, and quite brutally at that. I, for one, am willing to forego the gory details. Second, your logic fails - if a document or observer says something happened, then to the extent that you trust that document or observer you can call that "truth". However, if a document or observer fails to say something happened (as opposed to actually saying "this did not happen") than this does not constitute logical proof, since there could be many reasons that the particular event was left out of the narrative. See Karl Popper Karl Popper for a better explanation of the reasoning I'm using. --Dan 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi.Dan
 * Your wrote> a very minor point
 * Yes, I know. But the description in detail  is  false statement. The reason is ver simple, I believe that he didn't read the first resouces or ignore them. I showed one of immediately apparent mistakes, as example. I think dispassionate scholarly research is needed for purpose in science and Wiki.
 * Your wrote> "this did not happen"
 * Yes I know. But assertors must saddle with the burden of proof.
 * His assert is "burn alive and raped", is it ?
 * Does he show the proof based on scientific evidence? My question is very simple.
 * I welcome your advice as to read Karl Popper's. Thank you. --Lulusuke 02:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulusuke - Kimsoft does not prove his case, but, the point I was making, neither do you. You cannot say she was dead based upon the omission of any statement saying she was alive from the documents. In my opinion, it's possible she was stil alive, but not really worth spending any time over, since I do not see that it can be proven either way. --Dan 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have liberty to assert that "She was still alive", if you can show the evidence. I showed the two evidence, One is Korean official  document(Fig. 0, 1989.11.15) and other is Japanese official  report (See red lines  at the bottom of this page. This is the, widely known, secret report from  Japanese ambassador to Japanese minister of foreign affairs. It is a graphic account of the murder.) And there is a widespread agreement among experts that she was killed and her   corpse was  burnout. Please show the academic evidence against the fact. If you can show  it, it is one of "historic accomplishments".
 * You misunderstand me. I did not assert that she was still alive. I stated that, in my opinion, there was insufficient evidence to prove anything. That's an opinion, not a statement of fact. I did also say that it's possible she was still alive without anyone there realizing it. That's also just my opinion. Let's leave this topic, please; it's pointless. --Dan 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is "A late 19th century hand sketch" she ?
Please compare the two.

See also http://japanese.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2004/08/12/200408120000381minbi.jpg This is a stamped postcard labeled "An Old Waman in the Corean Court".


 * I think they are the same, with the hand sketch a simplified headshot of the photograph. The legend "La reine de Corée" (French for "Queen of Korea") is also a (purported) reference for Myeongseong, as this hand sketch was based on the purported photo. Heran et Sang&#39;gres 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to the traditional painting of Myeongseong to the article?? I know it's unverified, but who the heck placed it there, and how/when/where did he/she get it? Heran et Sang&#39;gres 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Day (Eulmi Incident)
The Map
 * 1) The map of the royal palace
 * 2) The secret telegram No.51(This is a welknown. )

The Witnesses
 * 1)  Aleksey Seredin  Sabatin (in Архив внешней политики Российской империи 113093, г. Москва, ул. Б. Серпуховская, 15)

After the Day
table 1

--Lulusuke 08:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

table 2

Why was she become a regular people ?

 * 1895's Imperial rescript King Lee's official apology for people. http://147.46.103.182/OIS/GAN/VIEWER.jsp?xmlfilename=GK17289_00I0003_0024&tablename=KYS_GAN_Y_TBL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lulusuke (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Additional sites for researchers and writers
Advanced --Lulusuke 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Annals of  Emperor Gojong  (高宗太皇帝實錄)
 * Maechonyarok(매천야록,梅泉野錄), Author Hwang-Hyon(황현 黃玹), GS42775_00
 * Ilseongnok 日省錄 (Records of Daily Reflections), 1982～1996, 86 volumes.
 * The history of the Kyujanggak Royal Library
 * Center for Asian Historical Record

Groups and etc. --Lulusuke 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) --Dan 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) --Dan 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) --Dan 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Photo album of world's folkways(Sekai fuuzoku syashin-cyo)
 * A study group reseraching Queen Min
 * A Japanese reference on war history
 * Review of problematic Japanese history book
 * uumm Are these academic sites? I think those sites are not academic.
 * I want to show academic resource to verfy the document,  WP:VERIFY
 * because Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable.
 * For example
 * # http://e-kyujanggak.snu.ac.kr/
 * # http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html ( http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html)
 * --Lulusuke 02:22, 13 October 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)

have you seen the recent articles on a newly discovered photo? 

i think the image now used in the article is a bit problematic, as to accuracy, source & licensing. Appleby 17:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I came across those pics the other day . Are they legit?  At least they are old enough to use as pd art?  Tortfeasor 06:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. Should be PD, more than 100 years old.  However, I don't know one way or the other about legit-ness.  -- Visviva 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Those don't look like the same photos that the Min family recently came across. It'll be interesting to see a comparison. What do you all think of the Queen's outfit in this new photo? That's one of the main criticisms of the old controversial photo, that the clothing wasn't suited to the Queen. --Dan 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2 famous and widely known books.

 * Isabella Bird
 * Isabella Bird's Korea and Her Neighbours (1898), shows a cityscape of tiled roofs in northwestern Seoul. Isabella Bird visited  Korea four times and met the King and Queen. Her last visit was in 1897 and she described Korea in detail.

These books are very famous and filled with truth fact.--Lulusuke 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC). And it includes some errors which I checked  the accuracy of the intelligence. --Lulusuke 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * McKENZIE, Frederick Arthur(1869-1931), was journalist for the. Daily Mail.
 * You might be overstating the "truth" of the books a bit Lulusuke. They are filled mostly with the viewpoints of the writers, who are representive of their particular cultures and times. As such, they tended to be judgemental and biased in their regard of Korean culture, without truly understanding. The books are interesting, but Ms. Bird's observations in particular should be taken with care. Both of these books have been used by apologists for the Japanese occupation to show the backwardness of the Korean country and government. --Dan 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear a bit Dan bit ←Are you well-behaved?
 * Yes. I know the above fact. The authors, however, saw and wrote the "KOREA" at that time.
 * Disregarding them lacks the balance and hides from the fact.
 * Did the other authors look and write the "KOREA" at that time ?
 * If you disregard them,
 *  Please show concrete evidence and source, excluding newspaper articles, that showed the descriptions are not true.
 * Facts are facts. This is my motto. Thank you.--Lulusuke 06:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulusuke, I suspect you know the problems with these books as well as I do, since many of us have had extensive debates about sources on these pages. You are misrepresenting what I said. You presented those books as "filled with truth". I cautioned that the books are heavily laden with opinion, and with bias. That's not to say the descriptions are false, but that the observations they present are selected and colored by the background and agenda of the observers. That's okay at the time, but in this day, as you know, those particular books and a couple of others are, as I said, used by those who wish to justify the very unjust Japanese violation of Korea. I would recommend you look through the archived discussion of this page for a thorough, documented debate on this matter. --Dan 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I know these have some error representations and misunderstandings.
 * We have, however, no 1st resource written in English. Other books maybe 3rd and more than resources.
 * The seens that they saw may be consistent with the photos, which Australian photographer George Rose (1861-1942) took.
 * Please look --Lulusuke 11:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Deiaemeth was deleted the above references  05:48, 29 September 2006.
 * I revered them. --Lulusuke 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I revered them. --Lulusuke 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The precious data in the study of history.( the first source)
South Korea official document( The history of the Kyujanggak Royal Library ,Seoul National University, South Korea)
 * 1) Declaration of beginning the trial
 * declaration of beginning the trial (Ref Code  GK17289_00I0006)
 * Three persons, disguised as Japanese outlook,  were arrested and prosecuted 14, Dec. 1985.

--Lulusuke 05:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

missing citations and/or footnotes.
Her name was said to be Min Ja-yeong (민자영; 閔紫英), since there is no evidence except as explained in "the TV drama" and musical. Please show the first source. --Lulusuke 12:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who Keeps Deleting The Citations?
A while back I put in citations for the sections that people are asking for citations on. I had an article from the Chosun Ilbo, I had an article from Japan times. Also there was a citation for the Japanese Diet Library and other history websites. I come back to this article after a few months and now I see that these same sections are requesting citations. I had a reference for Miura's trial, where due the citations go. Who keeps deleteing the citations? I really don't want to go through the History section to look them up again.--Tyler 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll begin to confirm them by the first resources. See the above .--Lulusuke 08:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding that and the above discussions, please note Reliable sources... as that makes clear, Wikipedia relies principally on secondary sources, since the unsupported use of primary sources would violate No original research. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding... but the above discussion contains extensive research from primary sources, which is not generally appropriate on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 08:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I know what you say. But, the some of documents in the citations are unauthorized
 * by internatiol historical societies.
 * For example,  http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/jp-rape.htm include some errors, since it isn't   published  in a　scientific journal, which 　is a refereed.
 * I would certainly not want to research extensively and originally.
 * Do you believe history reports by newspapers and homepages?
 * For example,
 * 1. XINHAU news ?, Accoring to this, Goguryeo's history is belong to China's.
 * 2. Official Homepage - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea), According this, people in DPRK is very happy.!!
 * Do you believe the above?
 * Again, I would certainly not want to research extensively and originally.
 * Thanks --Lulusuke 12:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Were you perhaps logged in under a different ID? Or is it possible that you were unable to save the changes at the time (maybe due to a server outage)?  Reviewing the history back to 2004, I don't see your name prior to October 2 2006.  Of course, it may just be that I missed it.  Cheers, -- Visviva 08:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Were you perhaps logged in under a different ID? Or is it possible that you were unable to save the changes at the time (maybe due to a server outage)?  Reviewing the history back to 2004, I don't see your name prior to October 2 2006.  Of course, it may just be that I missed it.  Cheers, -- Visviva 08:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Visviva, I think Lulusuke is simply new to the English Wiki - his Japanese user page shows a longer history. --Dan 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that question was directed to Tyler111 (hence the separate indentation) -- I couldn't find the revision of which he spoke. -- Visviva 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OLD Japanese document
Source address ? 一行ノ者共ハソノ後ニ従ヒ或ハ剣ヲ振ヒ或ハ銃ヲ放チスコブル混雑ヲ極メツツアタカモ百姓一揆ト同様ナル勢ヲモッテドット後宮マデ押寄セタリ. コノ時宮闕内ノ処々ニ集リイタル侍衛隊ノ兵士ハ非常ニ狼狽シ悉クソノ制服ヲ脱ギステ蜘蛛ノ子ヲ散ラスゴトク何レヘカ逃ゲ失セテ片影ヲ止メズ. 後宮ニ押寄セタル一群ノ日本人等ハ外ヨリ戸ヲコジアケテ内部ヲ伺フニ数名ノ宮女ソノ内ニヒソミ居ルコトヲ発見セシカバコレゾ王妃ノ居間ナリト心得直チニ白刃ヲ振ッテ室内ニ乱入シ周章狼狽シテ泣キ叫ビ逃ゲ隠レントスル婦人ヲバ容赦モアラバコソミナヒツ捕ヘ其ノ中服装容貌等優美ニシテ王妃ト思ハレルモノハ直チニ剣ヲ以ッテ殺戮スルコト三名ニ及ベリ. スデニ殺害セラレタル婦人ノ死骸ヲ一々点検スルニソノ年齢ミナ若キニ過ギカネテ聞キ及ビタル王妃ノ年齢ト符合セザルヲモッテ、コレ必定王妃ヲ取リ逃シタルナラント思ヒ国友ノ如キハ残リ居ル一婦人ヲ捕ヘ白刃ヲ以テソノ胸部ニ擬シ王妃ハ何処ニアリヤナドト邦語ヲモッテシキリニ怒号スレドモ邦語ニ通ゼザル宮女ノ事ナレバ何ヲ云フノカ知ラザルニツキタダ号泣シテ哀ヲ乞フノミナリ. 他ノ壮士輩ハ王妃ヲ逃シタルト聞キ処々捜索ヲ始メツイニ国王ノ居室ニマデ踏ミコマントセシガ、萩原ハ狂ヒヒシメク壮士輩ニ向ヒ大手ヲ張ッテ大ノ字形ヲナシソノ乱入ヲ制止シタリシカバカネテ大院君ヨリ国王及世子ダケハ必ズ助命シクレルベシト依頼アリタルトカニテ一同異議ナク其場ヲ立退キタリ. 乱入者ハ処々ニ王妃ノ所在ヲ検索中アル宮女ノ言ニヨリ王妃ハ頬ノ上部ニ一点ノ禿跡アリキトノ事ヲ聞キ、スデニ 殺害セル婦人ノ屍 ヲ検スルニソノ内一名ハ果シテ米カミト称スル部分ニ禿跡ノ存スルモノアルヲ発見セルニヨリコレヲ宮女ラニ示シタルニ 皆王妃ニ相違ナシト云ヒ 、後コレヲ 大院君 ニ告ゲタルニ同君モ亦必ズ王妃ナルヲ信ジ手ヲ拍ツテスコブル満足ナル意ヲ表サレタリ. They showed the woman's corpse to the maids, All of the maids answered "This is the queen" ,... We reported  the incident to the Daewon-gun, ...

Found it!!  Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is This Person?


Can anyone identify this person? QueenHenrietta 18:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's Queen Yun (Sunjeong of Korea), about the time she got married to Sunjong. I think I put that very photo on her wikipedia article. --Dan 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's Queen Yun's picture, who entitled the image as Myeongseong?? Heran et Sang&#39;gres 12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The original enquirer, user QueenHenrietta put the mistaken label on it. Trust me, it is Queen Yun - she's my wife's great aunt and we recognize her. --Dan 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Min's early life?
ANNYEONGHASHIMNIKKA!!!

Can I put Min's early life here??? 'Coz it's really a bummer if all we read is her birth and her marriage to Myeongbok...don't you think that's a bit dull?!

There's a website mention way way above there... by Simbirtseva...I dunno if anyone can trust that site...

So can I?

I just have one doubt...what is really Min's birthdate?? Simbirtseva mentions September 25, 1851, but wiki mentioned October 19, 1851!!! And they all mention Min's name as Ja-young!! Who put it there anyway?! (I mean at "A New Queen". I added the "citation needed" there. And Dan, CHOISOHONGMIDA if I tried (unconsciously (no, honest)) to prove something...but what's really the term of her killing??? And you mentioned that there are "several points" with which you found yourself "in disagreement". Please elaborate, so that I will know. Thanks Heran et Sang&#39;gres 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Simbirtseva's a solid scholar who did that paper as part of, I think, her doctoral dissertation. She published that article in the Royal Asiatic Society/Korea Quarterly. Insofar as you can trust any scholar, you can trust her. That LA Korean site has other interesting discussions as well, and we have corresponded with Simbirtseva. I don't agree with her analysis of the famous Min photo - who cares how she sits or places her feet? - but her scholarship is careful.


 * Mostly what bothered me about your posts was that you made extensive changes without discussing them here. And the deletion of the word asssassinated raised my POV antenna. She was a political figure, killed for political reasons - that's an assassination, and to describe it otherwise is a common tactic by apologists for the Japanese actions. I'll go back later & look to see what else I was concerned about.
 * Regarding the lady's birthdate - differences are most likely due to calendar differences - one place will cite the western calender while another will use the Korean calendar. I have not heard her name mentioned anywhere other than in that TV drama series, and I've never found out where they got it from. Koreans don't make as big a deal over names as we westerners - it's not their identity, and I've know plenty of Koreans with more than one name, even come across the occassional farmer who can't remember his wife's name. That's a little odd, but it happens. Even my mother-in-law, who was a Min, had a korean name she was born with and a Japanese-style name she also used. --Dan 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, other bits - the title you use for the Taewongun, "Grand Internal Prince", doesn't make much sense in English. What's an "internal prince"? Queen min was not wangbi, but taebi - vz Queen. I didn't know it was the Japanese who referred to her as "Queen Min". And that's really about it - Go ahead, by the way, and put your bit on Queen Min's early life here, so we can all have a look at it. Let us know where you found it, too, that could be interesting. Kamsahamnida, soogo mansumnida. --Dan 17:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is what I will say...


 * Thank you I will personally see to it that Min's early life will be dunzo...


 * I think that was at the infobox...I dunno because her date of death doesn't appear. Maybe there's a better term for there?? I dunno...wiki only knows what the term is...


 * About Daewongun...I only saw that at the Joseon Dynasty page here at wiki...I only copied what I saw...but anyways...what's the better term for that??? And for the Wangbi, also at the same page; that's because the term Daebi meant "Queen Mother"...Anyways, thanks for the encouragement... Heran et Sang&#39;gres 13:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * FINISHED!!! You can view it here: []. Please review!! I dunno if my edit's acceptable or not...analyze first then comments later... Heran et Sang&#39;gres 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I added some useful bits about Min. Look here: Heran et Sang&#39;gres 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - look at the following quote
 * - about Min's birthhouse

Min's Official Portrait
ANNYEONGHASHIMNIKKA!!!...again...

I remembered when our class (take note: at that time I was still a 4th year high school student) was at the Computer Lab (I think that was the first week of March, current year), I saw two photos: one at the infobox (entitled "Empress_Myeong_Seong.jpg") and one referred to as "The Imperial Photograph of Empress Myeongseong by Palace Painters" (entitled "Empress_Myeong_Seong.PNG"), both one and the same photo. Unfortunately, last May 27 (?), Wikipedia (and succedingly Commons) deleted the two photos as unverified. (I was very disappointed)

And now just yesterday (also take note: I am a Filipino, and the "yesterday" pertains to Sunday, 01 July), I saw via flickr.com (I searched "myeongseong", hehehe....nothing to do, just killing time) 14 photos (with 3 unrealted photos), within them are:


 * 7 photos showing (I think) the Empress Myeongseong Memorial (does that exist??? and if it does, where???) by user uselessnanhai. The ff. are within the 7 photos:
 * 1 photo showing 2 manequins (w/c I think) portrays Myeongseong and Gojong, seated (with Myeongseong in the pose of at the imperial photo I mentioned).
 * 1 photo showing the general layout of the Memorial center.
 * 1 photo showing two swords (which killed Min????)
 * 1 photo showing a statue of Min seated (like in the imperial photo)
 * 2 photos showing Min's birthplace, which I'd be happy to upload here, provided I have permission by user SuzÿQuzÿ.
 * also, 1 photo by SuzÿQuzÿ showing 2 imperial portraits: one showing Gojong's; and one showing Min's, which I think matches the one (formerly) uploaded here!!! (SuzÿQuzÿ entitled the photo as "Empress Myeongseong Memorial", and so I think that was taken at the aforementioned memorial...)

Have you (or anyone) got my point???

Can anyone contact the uploader of those two photos to verify how he/she got that, and where he/she got that? It'll be useful for everyone...


 * Heran, you forgot to sign - anyway, not sure, what is your point? I frankly don't know anything about flickr.com, other than the vague sense that it's one of these photo upload services. Regarding your specific questions, yes, there is an Empress Myeongseong memorial, maybe two - one on the spot where she was killed, and one on her tomb. Other than that, go for it; upload those photos, and if they aren't copyrighted or you have permission, we're set. Out of curiosity, since you're Filipino, where does your interest in late Chosun royalty come from? --Dan 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

--Dan 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My main point is that we should contact (thru email) that user who uploaded those deleted photos of Min (seated, in royal attire) and we should upload it back here in the Myeongseong page.


 * hahaha!!! I didn't notice that I forgot to sign. So dumb of me....


 * Well, since you asked, my interest in the late Joseon royalty came from our dear empress herself!! I was a bit mystified about those imperial photos of herself when I came to visit the page...


 * Heran et Sang&#39;gres 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you talking about the photos I think you're talking about, copies of them are still here - just that I uploaded them. I have some others as well - but look up at the discussions here on the talk page, and you'll see thumbs of the photos. You can place them on the main page by pointing to those. --Dan 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as seeing all those photos here on this talk page...actually neither any of these are what I'm talking about (I mean the photo)...


 * If you want to know what I'm talking about...visit the history page and view "March 5" (I think...) and there you'll see at the infobox the (extinct) picture of what I'm talking about...look further down and you'll see another (extinct) photo captioned "The Imperial Portrait of Empress Myeongseong by Palace Painters" (or something like that...)...I have that photo on my files, but the other is just a smaller version (I think by file-naming it...350px-...) of the original version.


 * Fine, I'll post that link from flickr.com of what I'm talking about (the imperial photo of Min which I'm talking about...)...[].Heran et Sang&#39;gres 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh by the way...I saw that imperial photo again (much, much smaller : in the Korean page of Myeongseong, here in wiki. Please look. thanks.
 * ~Heran et Sang'gres

(There's a reason why sometimes I hate my internet connection.)

Hi Dan! Here I am again...Now I'm enlightened about her official portrait (which, by the way, I've renamed this section). Highshines uploaded 2 versions of the portrait:
 * The original official portrait, which probably was painted either after her death or during her lifetime. The link is in your talk page, you can view anytime. It's sad that it's not uploaded in this artcle, but I'm also in a doubt if I can upload it, since I can be driven with guilt if that one will also disappear.
 * The modern official portrait, painted in 1995 by Hwabaek Kwon Oh-chang, entitled "Empress Myeongseong's Real/Actual/Genuine/True Portrait" (明成皇后真影 명성황후진영). That version was the one uplaoded around 2007, and got deleted sometime after. Here is a copy, but unfortunately has a watermark.

By the way, why is she the only one with an official portrait? What of the other Queens Consort during the Dynasty?

(I'm excited if there were portraits of Queen Munjeong, Queen Jeheon (if hers exist, since she was deposed, right???), Queen Inhyeon, and Jang hui-bin (if hers also exist, since she ALMOST became Queen...)

Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is overly positive.
I am not a historian, but from what I've heard, she was NOT a benevolent queen who tried to modernize Korea. It's sad that she was killed that way, but while she was alive, she wasted whatever slim chance Korea had of autonomous modernization, instead engaging in corruption and political scheming. Corruption by her and her Min family was said to be staggering. (Well, perhaps that was the norm at that time of the faltering dynasty, but still that's no excuse.)

I heard that the recent musical "The Last Empress (명성황후)" depicted a rather historically inaccurate (and overly nationalistic) portrait of hers. And we all know what popular arts can do to people's (mis)perception of history.

I'd have to say, this article doesn't represent a consensus among Korean historians. If anybody is interested, I'll try to dig up some more references. (But I wish there be some real historian who can clarify these matter...) Yongjik 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is a lot of work that has gone into this to present a balanced picture of the queen. She was much maligned by the Japanese in part to justify their takeover, and what you have stated is a part of that. It's unfortunate that a lot of that story is still floating around. I'm interested by your statement that you're not a historian but that you nevertheless are able to say this article does not represent a consensus among Korean historians. If you do have references for that, those would be useful. We did use Sembirtseva's study quite a bit, and she wrote what seemed a pretty objective set of papers. We did not refer to either the opera or the TV series to write the article other than to mention them and point out the reason for those viewpoints, i.e. the changing viewpoint about the queen and the sense that she had been portrayed unfairly. That the popular media portrayals may have gone to far in the other direction is possible, understandable, and irrelevant to this article.


 * In summary, there are cited references that contradict every statement in your first paragraph. To call her 'benevolent' would be too simple - she was complex, and walking a knife's edge diplomatically. She was interested in modernizations; indeed that got her into trouble on several occassions. To say that she and her family engaged in 'staggering' corruption is simply not true; that's a bit of Japanese propaganda. There was what westerners would regard as nepotism, there certainly were politics, some of it dirty, but the monarchy was a political organization. Queen Min was in the position of supporting Kojong who was placed originally as a weak monarch who could be easily manipulated, principally by the Andong Kims - and there your charge of staggering corruption might find a home. But Queen Min was killed because she stood in the way of Japanese colonization, and stood for autonomous Korean development. The Japanese even brought the corruption story to US president Theodore Roosevelt, in seeking his approval for the invasion (which he gave). --Dan 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... (shrug) guess I'll have to dig up references. (It will take time.)  I vaguely remember that history-related websites (which usually writes trustable articles) having a very low opinion of Empress Min, or almost any royalty of that time, in fact.


 * Well... Forgive me if I sound rude, but I've seen too many times when the "Japanese propaganda" argument was used to justify utter nonsense. Yes, sometimes the Japanese did terrible things, but also many times, Koreans later invented a whole set of "Japanese did this! We've been fooled!" argument that has no factual ground.  (For example, there's the infamous "Japanese put iron stick into mountain tops" urban legend.)


 * Anyway, the burden of proof is on me. :( I heard Hwang Hyeon's Maecheon Yarok(매천야록), written by a contemporary scholar, contained some (not-too-kind) reference to her.  Guess I'll have to buy the book... Hmm... BTW, who the hell is Sembirtseva? Yongjik 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll be waiting to see what you come up with - thanks. Sembirtseva is a russian historian who spent some time in Korea a while back doing a lot of research on different topics, including Queen Min - her Royal Asiatic Society Korea article is cited at the end of main page, and points to a pdf of that - here's a link, though, if you need it...off this page..http://www.gkn-la.net/history_resources/queen_min.htm...go to http://www.gkn-la.net/history_resources/Queen_Min_of_Korea_1996.pdf
 * I agree that to some extent the pendulum has swung to the other side of making a saint out of the queen, in an excess of patriotic fervor - however, on this board and in other places I have seen pretty egregious examples of vilification stemming originally from Japanese propaganda. What I'm hoping for is a well-balanced presentation of a very complex woman. --Dan 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Queen Min's assasination was directly ordered by Japanese military officials in Korea (in fact the direct orders of Miura Goro) this is a well documented fact acknowledged by historians in both Japan and Korea. It is not "generally accepted" that Korean men hired by Daewon-gun were responsible for the Empress's assasination.  That is blatant pervarication.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.7.137 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Min's Descendant??
Guys, I saw this article http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/05/11/tragic-coincidence/ talking about Min and her supposed descendant's tragic demise.

The article: http://www.chosun.com/national/news/200505/200505100178.html If anyone can, can anyone please translate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heran et Sang'gres (talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi's blanking of cited information.

 * 's blanking of the mention of Miura Goro, who pulled the assassination at back should be explained. The Korean times citation clearly states his name. So his claim of "uncited" is false. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any non-biased sources? that sources seems biased to me. Anything a little more reliable? Perhaps a non-Korean source would be best? Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sennen, don't play a game. That is your job to implement citations for supporting your claim as long as you edit the article. Nevertheless you lied about the cited information. You must restore it. If you keep continues such disruption, User:Theresa knott, our meditator and admin should know your behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Caspian, perhaps it would be better if we could both edit the same articles. Regarding that I have put the following message on the relevant talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theresa_knott#Caspian.2FMyself - oh and maybe you are right about this article, I don't think the citation is so reliable, but it is correctly cited, so I will revert myself, in the spirit of compromise and to show that interaction is better than segregation. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock user
Multiple sock accounts user edit multiple participating.
 * Daialone
 * Bukubku

1. In early morning of October 8, 1895, sword-bearing assassins under the orders from Military Minister of Korea Cho Hee Yeon[3]
 * reference [3]
 * The contents of the referral links is not mean cho participating in the assassination.

2. On October 24, King Gojong ordered selection of his new wives among the age of 15 to 20 virgins[7].
 * This is nothing to do with article. Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Korean Army was under the order from Korean commissioned officer. Moreover, King said Cho Hee Yeon was criminal.Official Gazette of Korea, Feb. 12, 1896 (韓国官報 建陽元年二月十二日 號外)1

2. This is very close day. The day was period of respect for a deceased in ordinary.

3. Don't delete others. Like On December 28, some Korean Army and Palace Guard officers were sentenced to death for treason in superior court, then they were executed. and On October 10, 1895 King Gojong divested Queen Min of her peerage and busted to plebeian by his royal decree.

I am nothing to do with Daialone. Are you Multiple sock accounts user, Kao no Nai Tsuki? --Bukubku (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kao no Nai Tsuki has not answered my reply for more than a week. So I recover the article from his deletion.--Bukubku (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Emperess or Queen?
We should decide on one or the other. If the article is at Empress Myeongseong, then she should be called Empress Myeongseong or the Empress. If we call her the Queen or Queen Min, then the article should be moved—pending discussion, of course. I have no idea which term is more common in English, but that's probably what we should go on. kwami (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is the English Wikipedia, I think that it is important how she be called in the Anglosphere.--NAZONAZO (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She received the posthumous name Empress Myeongseong. Thus it is not wrong the title is Empress Myeongseon. But when she died, she was Queen. So the sentences about when she was Queen should write Queen, not Empress. Some sentences confuse Queen with Empress. For example, “... Empress Min advocated stronger ties between Korea and Russia in...”, “The assassination of the Korean Empress ignited diplomatic protest abroad.”, “The Eulmi Incident (을미사변, 乙未事變) is the term used for the assassination of Empress Myeongseong...” and so on. These sentences should be converted Empress to Queen. --Bukubku (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked Google Scholar and Google Books. While "Queen Min" (quoted) gets 199 and 575 hits respectively, "Empress Myeongseong" (also quoted) gets 6 and 3 hits. With Google Web Search, difference becomes smaller but "Queen Min" still outnumbers "Empress Myeongseong"; 7720 vs 3270 (English pages only; removed "wikipedia"). It seems she is more commonly referred to by her living name(?) than by her posthumous name in English. --Kusunose 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Google research is not a reliable source. "Queen Min" is how Japanese call her. The name is very disgraceful defamation for her.--Caspian blue 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure of current usage, Caspian Blue, but in Korean my relatives at least use the term "TaeBi" (sorry, no hangul on this computer) when speaking of her - so, "Min TaeBi". And for that matter, "Yun DaeBi" as well. Not quite sure how to translate that into western terms - "Great Dowager Queen"? Hmm. --Dan (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ??????What do you mean by calling her "Min Taebi"? That calling (should be)is only used by the royal household related to her. Are you the member of the house of Yi?????--Caspian blue 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! Really? Well, that's how my wife's family refers to her and to Queen Yun. You might want to check and see if your restriction really is correct, in which case we're probably not strictly correct. My wife's mother's younger brother married Yun DaeBi's younger sister's daughter (and, I believe, only niece), so there's one connection. Second, my mother-in-law's family are not the royal Yi's, but they are Mins and descended from Mihn Yong-hwan. --Dan (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're related to the household! although your family tree sounds a bit complex to me. Well, I think you used McCune-Reischauer referring to 대비 (Daebi) or 대왕대비. --Caspian blue 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So that's why my relatives use that term? *chuckle* Also, I'm not good at inserting hangul from my usual computer, and I tend to romanize hangul according to what my ear hears and how I think an American English speaker would be most likely to pronounce it correctly. Got an interesting story for you. While she was college, my wife did volunteer work at an orphanage/children's hospital, and at the time, because her English was quite good, she became friends with an older woman who also volunteered there, Julia Mullock. Julia did not know of my wife's connection with Yun DaeBi or Min DaeBi, but her father-in-law, Crown Prince Euimin was in the hospital next door to the orphanage, and of course had been for some time. Julia's Korean was not up to the task of the hospital visits with the family, so she asked my wife to come along and be her translator. So my wife did that a number of times, and she doesn't think they were ever aware of her family background. It was a little tricky since some of the family were better in Japanese than Korean, and my wife didn't speak Japanese. --Dan (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected this for two weeks while the editors sort out the problems.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Looks like a sock puppet just did some more editing. --Dan (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference
Hmm the upper title says it is required to add references.. but I guess current situation made the administrators decide not to edit. Hmm,,, I just got the feeling some people have biased views just to put into citation mark quite often here and :(... Anyway I found kinds of newspapers and papers... are there anyone who can answer me? Pju0353 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove the article without consensus
removed article without cousensus. Caspian blue, Don't repeat again.--Bukubku (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

, did I remove your content? That is relocation. And please do not blanking massive information cited by reliable sources and do not ever falsify the sources that you did. (here is your admission of such wrongdoings.) Moreover, do not resort to personal attacks based on lies. That is harmful to Wikipedia--Caspian blue 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removals of Miura Goro's name
has been repeatedly removing "properly cited" info regarding the assassination order by Miura Goro from not only here but also related articles as insisting that "Please use unbiased sources", "Undue weight", "NPOV". The assassination order is a widely well known fact and properly cited, so his repeated removal and alteration of the information is very disruptive. Besides, you numerously changed the link of an image of the assassins posed in front of a newspaper building before they carried out their plan. If you can edit Wikipedia constructively, well, here is not a right place for you.--Caspian blue 15:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Caspian, I am not about to get into yet another drawn out argument with you. Show me an unbiased citation proving (not alleging) who ordered the killing please. I have no desire to distort facts. On a side note, I would be happy if we could remain civil even when we disagree about an edit, please don't say things such as "here is not a right place for you" in relation to my editing of wikipedia, there is no need for such a comment, the only possible outcome is that it will cause offence. thanks friend, Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sennen, prove or convince that your removal of the cited source and the labeling are valid claims. Unbiased source? Given the history, whenever you find something you don't like, you always call "biased", "or", "unreliable" just like this example.Boston Newspaper You also attacked me at the latest edit summary, so please please show me some civility and respect toward Wiki policies. Well, you seem unhappy with the rules, so the suggestion is practical for your own sake. However, regretfully, my suggestion is misinterpreted like this; that is also another disappointment--Caspian blue 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not attack you, I took offence to your edit summary "What's wrong with you?" and the suggestion the I am not fit to edit wikipedia. But whatever, I am in a good mood, so I have no desire to complain any more about that. More importantly, I don't feel the burden is mine to provide anything to support the removal of someones name, the burden is yours to provide a reliable cite. To be honest, there is either a cite supporting your opinion or there isnt - if there is a cite, point it out to me and I will happily revert my last edit, if there isnt, then the information should not be on the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The repeated disruption is wrong. I took offense at your attack at the edit summary. Since the information is properly cited, to prove your belief over "the source being biased" is your burden.--Caspian blue 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to say that there is a citation supporting the inclusion of Miura Goro's name, but you are unwilling to point out to me where the citation is - then I no longer find this discussion to be constructive, I have already stated that I will self-revert when I see a citation supporting your opinion - I am here to edit articles, not to play tit for tat games. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall you removed "KBS citation" regarding Miura Goro's order as labeling "biased" because it is an English source from South Korea. However, I could be more patient at your behaviors as providing this book source which would suffice you.. I do not imagine that you can deny the book written by an Anglo author.--Caspian blue 18:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't mean to make more work for you, but on that link I see no mention of Queen Min, Miura Goro or the killing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The google book generally provides a "browsing function" in case my link was not helpful for your finding. P. 519, Miura, the chief architect of the assassination, was in disgrace.--Caspian blue 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was unable to browse to that page, however as an act of good faith I will trust you and assume that you would not lie about the contents of page 519 - therefore I will self-revert, thank you Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is easily verifiable by yourself, so do not even mention about such outrageous allegation of "lie" and the checking the source has nothing to do with your "good faith". As you know, the same thread to dedicate your previous game over the removal of "Miura Goro" above.--Caspian blue 15:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To CB - I am sorry that you consider the suggestion that I do not consider you to be a liar to be an "outrageous allegation" - Maybe I am thick-skinned, but I would probably not take offence if someone suggested that I was an honest and trustworthy person. I apologise for any offence caused. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems quite simple. English language wikipedia, should reflect terms used by English speakers.

There are far more results for Queen Min, than for Empress Myeongseong

Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Evidence please? Research, evidences and plausible rationales should have presented first for your claim in any RM. English Wikipedia reflect terms used by English speakers, but this title is the name of the Korean figure, not "terms". Moreover, there were four Queen Min during the Joseon Dynasty. According to an admin, DGG, -the english Wikipedia is a universal world wide encyclopedia, just written in English. There has only a few cases that queen of Korea referred to as "Queen X (her family name)" is she did terrible things to the royal household. Each article of Wikipedia reflects and respect the history and convention of the pertinent country. That's why naming convention and infobox differ from each project. --Caspian blue 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Queen Min 10,900,000 results and Empress Myeongseong 5,650 results. The words Queen and Empress are both English, I am assuming that in Korea you have your own words for Queen Min, as most references online call her Queen Min, it seems rather simple to me.Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Link please? Besides, you seem to forget that the Romanization is not the only one to refer to her in Latin.--Caspian blue 19:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sennen, you're way inflating the number of Google hits. You should have used "" when searching since Chinese and Vietnamese use surname, "Min". This is a very common knowledge on googling. This google result shows only 12,700 for "Queen Min" So 12,700, not 10,900,000, which means that you inflate over 858 times This shows how your googling is seriously flawed. (bonus eg.1,020,000 for Queen Min Vietnam--Caspian blue 22:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As it stands, unless someone has a more commonly used name for Queen Min than Queen Min in the English language, then I see no reason as to why this move should not go ahead as soon as possible. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Empress was used for Empress Myeongseong (TV series) and The Last Empress. Queen was used for academe. I think Einglish Wikipedia should not be used for advertisement.--Bukubku (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It has bee said (including comments from Korean academic), the labeling of Queen Min is a result of Japanese propaganda. Your original research on the murder of her is also noteworthy for the RM.--Caspian blue 22:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A reviews of The Last Empress on International Herald Tribune refers her as Queen Min, not Empress: The musical, "The Last Empress," is about the legendary Queen Min. She is also referred to as Queen Min in Asia Week and LA Weekly review. --Kusunose 17:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Selectively chosen links for your POV does not sound credible, Kusunose. That is a cultural critic regarding the musical, not her "biography" nor analysis on her.--Caspian blue 22:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not selectively chosen links, they all linked linked from The Last Empress and accessible (some of them via Internet Archives). The point is that even when the topic is about the last Korean empress, none of them address her as Empress. As for they are not "biography" nor analysis on her, I think they strengthen the assertion of WP:COMMONNAME. --Kusunose 09:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. As I commented in the section, Queen Min is more commonly used than Empress Myeongseong in scholarly works and published books. Britannica also uses Queen Min to refer her in article history of Korea. There is no doubt she is commonly referred to by her posthumous name in South Korea but apparently not in the West. I think this case is similar to Hirohito. While they are referred to by their posthumous names in their respective countries, they are more commonly known by names used during their lifetime in English speaking countries. --Kusunose 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the title of Hirohito, go ahead to the article. Besides, the example is also not even comparable. Hirohito is in charge of Japanese war crimes (although US saved him from the charge for their interests), and had long lived (died 1989), so his posthumous name is not as much as known to the world yet. Besides, according to your logic, Encarta Encyclopedia, one of reputable encyclopedia posts "Sea of Japan" along with "East Sea", so I'm so curious as to why our article ignore the valuable Encyclopedia. Each article follows each project's convention. Well, her posthumous name is not unknown to the West unlike your insertion. FYI, English Wikipedia is not for the West./--Caspian blue 22:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, where did I say I have a problem with the title of Hirohito? I mentioned it as an example that follows WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME instead of a common local usage. Second, I don't see the point of your argument about Wikipedia ignoring Encarta. Encarta's article about the Sea of Japan currently has the article title Sea of Japan same as the Wikipedia and mentions East Sea in the first paragraph as does the Wikipedia article. What you linked seems an index entry to their atlas and we also have a redirect Sea of Japan (East Sea). Back to her name, Encarta also refers to her as Queen Min. For your comment about "my insertion", I did not say "her posthumous name is unknown to the West", I said "Queen Min is more commonly used than Empress Myeongseong". Links you provided are insufficient to refute my assertion. Additionally, two of books you linked uses "Queen Min" more often then "Empress Myeongseong". Please also note one of the other books is an English translation of a Japanese book published by a Japanese press. As for the last part, sorry I should have said "outside of South Korea" instead of "in the West". But I think my point still stands. --Kusunose 09:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose User:Caspian blue said "Moreover, there were four Queen Min during the Joseon Dynasty". It is true and Empress was not first used for drama and musical. Empress was first used in 1897. --Historiographer (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support well obviously as I made the proposal. I still see no arguments showing that Queen Min is not the most popular term for this person. I would suggest that the opposing arguments have no weight and the change should be made as soon as possible to reduce the amount of drama be created. I think we should follow the example of the Hirohito article, he was Japanese, within Japan he is refered to as Emperor Showa - however the English speaking world uses Hirohito, as does the article - it seems that due to that article Wikipedia has consensus on this type of article name. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Most people has person with the same family and personal name. If same name person's page do not exist, there is no disambiguation. And If other Queen Min page exist, this Queen Min page name should be Queen Min (wife of Gojong).--Bukubku (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support She's never been in the position of empress in her life. Oda Mari (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because she was a wife of the Korean Emperor who never gained another new wife after the brutal murder of her by Japanese mobs. Think about why even lengendary Mikado or Tenno are styled as "emperor" or empress" in English speaking world? Except Meiji, Taisho, Hirohito, there was no empeor until late the 19th century (to the mid 20th). I wonder why even legendary Mikados are labeled as "emperor"s. Because that is a conventional title for them even though many of them did not even actually rule Japan. Likewise, she has been referred to as "Empress Myeongseong" in Korea, so the article regarding her follows the Korean covention, and title. That is enough.
 * Support I have two reasons. 1, She was called "Queen Min" in her life time. "Empress Myeongseong" is Posthumous name. 2, I think that "Queen Min" is more commonly used than "Empress Myeongseong" in the Anglosphere, as far as I research .--NAZONAZO (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the other language wikipedia, She is called Empress Myeongseong except Japanese wikipedia. Hence, Her's International name as Queen Min is Not right.--Historiographer (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Historiographer you cannot cite wikipedia as a source. If you have any reliable sources that state she is called Empress everywhere apart from Japan, please put the sources here as it would bring an abrupt end to the page move process - if you don't have any sources then I think we are going around in circles - English lang wikipedia - English lang name. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Disclaimer for the people above, stop Japanese propaganda.StormDaebak (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with Japan or Japanese propaganda - this is about a Korean woman and the name she is known by in the English language - if you have a valid reason for opposing please give it Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong posthumously name priority. There are multiples of Queen Min that each is equally notable.StormDaebak (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the posthumous name is not common in the English language, if you want to have a disambiguation page from Queen Min with Queen Min the 1st 2nd then feel free, the term empress is only common in Korea, perhaps in Korean wikipedia it is suitable, but in English lang wikipedia we should use the term common in English. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Queen Min is not prevailing over Empress Myeongseong according to the Google hit, and you waaay inflated it. Therefore, your assertion of the common name of her is not credible. English Wikipedia is not only about native English speakers, and you seems to forget that. If so, we should delete all foreign language sources from the site, With Chinese characters (both Chinese and Japanese websites), Empress Myeongseong is dominant over Queen Min. This should be noted for the article as well since she is more notable figure in East Asia than the West. --Caspian blue 18:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see which name is more popular for China or Japan being relevant in English language wikipedia. I just did a google search for both names - Empress Myeongseong got 5500 hits Queen Min got 11600 - more than double. I do not edit Japanese, Chinese or Korean wikipedia and I do not feel qualified to advise which name to use in non-English language wikipedia - however in English language wikipedia we should go by the most popular name in the English language - I don't care about the political views of people regarding which name is best, that is not what wikipedia is about, if there are some political reasons for the use of either name, they are not relevant, English wikipedia - English name. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because she was a Korean figure in the center of political conflicts between China, Japan, and Russia. You seem to ignore the fact that Empress Myeongseong is the English name also used by academics in English speaking world as I provided the links above. Moreover, there are other Romanizion on her which are about 1200 hits. Obviously, you're cared the political views of people per your history as blanking cited materials, and removing Miura Goro's direct order. I'm very amusing about your mention of the political view".--Caspian blue 18:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Is this a joke? There is no sane reason for moving this article from its current title.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose I see no valid reason for the move. Kbarends (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Empress Myeongseong is written in Korean History text book(National Institute of Korean History, 國史編纂委員會, 국사편찬위원회 - Government's Korean history agency), not Queen Min. And, National Institute of Korean History announced that Empress Myeongseong's offical name is 'Empress Myeongseong', not Queen Min. --Kys951 (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for the opinions on both sides...well thanks at least to the people who contributed more than "is this a joke?" or "i see no sane reasons" (hardly constructive comments) - it seems that despite a few errors with the google results, the facts are as follows: she was known as queen min during her life - there are more google hits for queen min - what she is known as in Japanese/Chinese or whatever are not really relevant - what she is known as in English is however very relevant. Political comments are not relevant, if it scores some points for someone with an obscure historical interest does not matter, we should not shy away from following wikipedia guidelines, just because someone is going to get upset due to an incident over 100 years ago.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nonsense. National Institute of Korean History's comments are not 'Political comments.' It is 'Official and Public comments.' About Korean Histroy, National Institute of Korean History have supreme public trust. In this point of view, Queen Min is wrong expression. So, Wikipedia require right expression. Right expression is only Empress Myeongseong. --Kys951 (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Stop POV Pushing, All Of You This is almost past the point of no return. Please stop trying to solve your ethnic strife on Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed, the choice to move the article or not should have nothing to do with POV or ethnic differences - it should be based on wikipedia guidelines and concentrate on which name is the best for an article in English lang wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * POT! You are most certainly black! Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That made me laugh, I like your sense of humour. I don't like it that you are ignoring the fact that I am totally correct, but I will overlook that minor lapse due to the smile on my eternally cute face. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose and I insist Sennen goroshi should commit a JAPANESE POV. He must not know what a POV is. BongGon (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Empress Myeongseong is the proper title, she was not called 'Queen Min' by anybody during her life; that's a western conceit - and Sennen, if you wish to contest that please tell me what the Japanese phrasing of 'Queen Min' is - and finally, if it's consideration for the pervasiveness of the term 'Queen Min' that drives the effort, then it's a straightforward matter to have a redirect for 'Queen Min' to this article. --Dan (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Aren't we talking about what is the most appropriate/widely used title in English? Please see these. Korean National Commision for UNESCO, Korea Tourism Org., JoongAng Daily,, The Korea Society, Encyclopedia.com, Stanford.edu, Britanica online. Oda Mari (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Kindly dismiss the typical routines of overly Korea-obsessed Japanese users. Thanks. Kuebie (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Though it is true Empress Myeongseong is the standard Korean term, this is not Korean wikipedia. This was a posthumous title conferred on Queen Min and in fact she was never an "empress" in her lifetime. Why then not make the main entry for King Gojong be Emperor Gwangmu? It is clear that Queen Min is the mostly widely promulgated title for her in the English speaking world. All of this seems only a minor point since redirect will easily do just that. However, for the record, I think "Queen Min" is the reasonable and obvious choice for the anchor page.Straitgate (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Even though I'm not Korean (I'm a Filipino) and my interest in Her Majesty started when I was at the last month of my 4th year high school, I strongly oppose with the following (to quote the above ones):
 * "There were 4 Queen Min's during the Joseon Dynasty" (by Caspian blue) - Why would you confuse her with the other 4? I mean, there were Queens Wongyeong, Inhyeon, Sunmyeong, and Myeongseong herself. So why would you confuse her with the 3?!!
 * "The labeling of Queen Min is a result of Japanese propaganda." (by Caspian blue) Though I am unaware much of the nearly 35-year Japanese domination over Korea, I am against of her being called as "Queen Min" as that is too informal; to justify, no one called her "Queen Min" even in the Palace, as that is too disrespectful for a person of her rank. Like Diana. She was never properly called "Diana, Princess of Wales"; she is always called "Princess Diana", when she in reality she never held the title "Princess" (as she was never a Princess by birth (but she is certainly descended from the royals)).
 * "She's never been in the position of empress in her life." (by Oda Mari) - While that is true (she only held the title "Queen"), Gojong still gave her the posthumous title of "Empress". Think of Ci Xi. Was she called the "Empress Dowager Yehe-Nara"??? No. Like Myeongseong, she only used her clan name when she entered the Palace ("The daughter of Min Chi-rok")
 * Even though "Queen" and "Empress" are like both the same titles for a main wife of a king/emperor, "Empress" is still higher than "Queen" since an empire is larger than a kingdom. And what was the status of Korea in 1897? The "Great Han Empire", commonly as the "Korean Empire", isn't it? And when was she divested of her posthumous title? 1902!!
 * "The National Institute of Korean History announced that (her) offical name is 'Empress Myeongseong', not Queen Min" (by Kys951) - SELF-EXPLANATORY
 * Please, Sennen goroshi, stop using figures in search engines. What is the main point? Not all peoples of the world know of her.
 * "I see no valid reason for the move." (by Kbarends) - Exactly also my main point. WHY?
 * And please, re-moving and re-naming consumes so much effort.

(I have my suspicions of that Sennen goroshi guy. Please check, OK?) Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do Encarta and Britanica use 'Queen Min' for her? How do you explain it? They are reliable encyclopedias in English on the web. And this is English encyclopedia too. 2. The article titel of Empress Dowager Cixi on Korean Wikipedia is not Empress Dowager Cixi, but West Dowager Empress. How do you explain it? Isn't it the same example as Hirohito on en. Wiki? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions


 * Support I am by far no expert, however I have heard of the term "Queen Min" far more than I have ever heard of "Empress Myeongseong" (wouldn't even know how to pronounce it). Either way, in this case Wiki rule of most commonly used name would apply. Gryffindor (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Since Bukubku privately notified the RM to, I would also do to the people who have engaged in editing this article. If somebody also needs to notify others about this, feel free to do so except 2channel and stalking sites about me. http://www3.atwiki.jp/apple-tree/ http://wikinews.blog.shinobi.jp/ Since "open WP:Canvassing" is allowed per the policy, Sennen gosorhi, do not make anther personal attacks to me.--Caspian blue 17:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not made any personal attacks against you, we are discussing the proposed article move, and nothing else - if you wish to address me on another topic, feel free to do so on my talk page - if you think I have made a personal attack, feel free to make a report on the relevant admin page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You did to WT:KO as well as your failed removal to some anon's comment. I would expect you behave civil and logical for this RM.--Caspian blue


 * I notified editors who previously edited the talk page of the article except admins (who protected the article), banned users, editors who left the project or takes a long break. There would be more, but this is a note so far.--Caspian blue 18:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also notified editors about this RM who previously edited the article except editors fixing minor spelling or grammar.--Caspian blue 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the move and I see no sane reasons being given for this proposition. More importantly than the move proposal is the disruptive 2ch trolls stalking Caspian blue. Perhaps an incidents report should be filed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Text Inquiry
There is a problematic text(pasted below) in the opening section that is written in broken English with citations from Kyungjanggak that are all broken links. The text also is out of place and has no relevance to the text preceding and proceeding. Are these references working for anyone?

"On October 10, King Gojong divested Queen Min of her peerage and busted to plebeian by his royal decree[6]. On October 11, 1895 King Gojong confered a peerage of Court Lady on Min for the reason of dutiful Dauphin’s petition by his royal decree [7]. On October 24, King Gojong ordered selection of his new wives among the age of 15 to 20 virgins[8]. On December 28, Employee of Japanese Park Seon (朴銑), Korean Army Officer Lee Ju Hoe(李周會) and Korean Palace Guard Officer Yun Seok U (尹錫禹) were sentenced to death for treason in superior court, then they were executed[9]. On February 11, 1896, King Gojong refuged in the Russian Legation. Then King Gojong said the criminals were Military Minister of Korea Jo Hui Yeon (趙羲淵)[10], Yu Kil-chun (兪吉濬), Zhang Park (張博), Gwon Yeong Jin (權濚鎭), Lee Du Hwang (李斗璜), U Beom Seon (禹範善), Lee Beom Rae (李範來), Lee Jin Ho (李軫鎬) and others. And King Gojong ordered that cutting their heads off and bringing their heads to the Russian Legation[11]."Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and some Japanese mesh anon have inserted the contents regardless of its dubious contents. According to book sources (in Korean and English), the order of selecting his new wives are lies by Japanese assassins, and divest from her peerage was also forceful and the king never granted. (he never married after her death). That's why diplomats of other countries did not believe Miura Goro's lying over the assassin. Also, her honor was restored after the incident, but Bukubku displayed that she did terrible thing to the king. That is original research. So he should translate all contents into English that he has used for confirmation.--Caspian blue 01:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the text should be removed. It's illegible and citations given are nonexistent.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not broken links. You can see them by installing Viewpoint Media Player.--NAZONAZO (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're still primary sources. Please refer to WP:CIT and WP:OR for why they're not allowed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I requested, you're responsible for translating all primary sources and present each by each for editors who can not read Chinese characters. --17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

crappy English
I am tired of trying to improve the crappy English in this article, just to have someone revert me because of some lame political viewpoint. If you have something you want to change and you cannot be bothered to sort out the grammar, then instead of a revert, just edit the article - don't revert grammar improvements.

I understand that many people who are editing this article are not native speakers of English, if you have a point you really want to make, why not put it on the talk page and let someone help you with the edit, rather than making a point that is important to you, but is full of grammatical mistakes.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summaris
I wonder why blanked out the cited information from a reputable professor regarding the incident. He is also dishonest about his edit as falsely saying the list is not referenced. Unlike his trying falsely to display that the main charge for the assassination was in Koreans as using unreliable Gojong sillok and adding Korean collaborators, his blanking of the list is contradictory. Also, although you heared that the sillok is regarded unreliable by academics, you keep using the source without translation and confirmation as claiming that "this is from Official Gazette of Korea". The contents of the gazette is almost same or duplicated with those of Gojong sillok. Your constant misusages of primary sources are disruptive and should get attention from people.--Caspian blue 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

, you have failed to answer my question regarding your constant blanking of the cited list. You try to divert the main point to grammar errors of Bukubku. I'm bemused at your above statement.--Caspian blue 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Misusage of primary sources by User:Bukubku
Since his register to English Wikipedia on September 15, has taken over edits[ of disruptive [[BIGLOBE|mesh]] anons,, , and inserted many "primary sources" as references to this article as well as to related Korean articles without any translation until I requested him several days ago. He presented a translation only on one record among 6 documents that he has used. He ignored his obligation to provide the rest of translation, but rather chose to edit war and added more contents without any source. He claims that his sources are from Official Gazette of Korea which are essentially same as Gojong sillok (annals of King Gojong).

Bukubku's violations

 * WP:Primary source and WP:V The Gojong sillok that he used as reference is regarded unreliable by academics, so that's why the annals are not even a part of Annals of Joseon Dynasty unlike other annals of other kings of Korea. It was written by the Office of the Yi Dynasty under the Japanese supervision as opposed to the basic policy on recording history for annals of kings. Another funnier thing is that one of Japanese assassins, Kikuchi Kenzo (菊池謙讓) participated in fabricating and compiling the Gojong and Sunjong sillok. A National Institute of Korean History researcher says Kikuchi is the one who started the theory that the late of Korea in turmoil was a result of conflicts between the Empress and Daewongun.


 * WP:Original research: Bukubku has known that the contents of Official Gazette of Korea is same as Gojong sillok. However, when his original research on Jo Hui-yeon was contested, he seemingly followed admin Kwami and my suggestion to delete WP:Original research regarding Jo Hui-yeon and the unreliable source. In such edits, he tried to share the blame of the assassination of her with Jo Hui-yeon and Miura Goro as inserting totally his own thought.


 * WP:SYNTHESIS and Fringe theories Likewise, Bukubku selectively has chosen such sources to make WP:POINT such as missing the very important fact that the royal edit about the deprivation of her rank that was announced on the next day of the assassination was never ratified by the King. The life of the king was also in danger and the deprivation was forcibly done by the Japanese agents and pro-Japanese new formed cabinet. Her rank was restored 2 months after the incident by strong opposition of foreign diplomats and Koreans. However, Bukubku's story, that was totally missed.


 * Contradictory blanking of contents. Whenever he finds disadvantage for Japanese side, he blanks out anything even though such contents are properly referenced from books or news.


 * WP:GAME and abuse of people's WP:AGF: When the original research on Jo Hui-yeon was contested, he seemingly deleted all reliable sources from the article. However, at first he used three different links from Gojong sillok and Gazette of Korea all of which contain essentially same contents, but he only removed "links from sillok site". He admitted usage of Gojong sillok is not good, but leaves other links from Official Gazette of Korea? This is a clearly gaming the system and abusing WP:AGF faith as disguising himself to listen to rebuttals on his misusage of the primary source.
 * '2008-10-09T03:13:56 Empress Myeongseong ‎ (Delete the citation from Annals of Gojong. I'm sorry, I don't know UNESCO do not designate it as the master piece unlike other annals. Administrator regards order of Jo is my OR, so I delete it, too.)


 * WP:Edit warring He scarcely comes to discuss disputes that he initiated with his dubious contents, but rather tends to edit war. He was blocked for 3RR violation for 48 hours due to edit war on this article just after 3RR violation on Korea under Japanese rule


 * WP:Harassment and WP:Personal attack, examples regarding these violations are too many. Whenever his dubious edits are reverted, he attacked me and editors as falsely accusing and lying like below.
 * 2008-10-25T00:44:11 Empress Myeongseong ‎ (STOP Vandalism, Caspian! I warned you and posted your page, but you are vandalising. It's a pity. Even if your falesely citation source in "Korea under Japanese rule" wrie also Min as Queen.)
 * 2008-10-25T00:28:11 Empress Myeongseong ‎ (STOP Vandalism, Caspian! You calm down. Even if your falesely citation source in "Korea under Japanese rule" wrie also Min as Queen. Recover from Caspian and Sennen edition war.) 
 * How come unifying the style of her as Empress Myeongseong, the current title constitutes "false citing"? On the other hand, this user blanked out properly cited news source.

Bukubku's response on his talk page
I strongly urged him to provide English translation since his edits have caused many problems to Korea related articles. He said like belowon Dec. 27;
 * Read Annals of Joseon Dynasty, same contents, citing from National Institute of Korean History. There is present Korean translation.
 * On October 10, King Gojong divested Queen Min of her peerage and busted to plebeian by his royal decree . On October 11, 1895 King Gojong confered a peerage of Court Lady on Min for the reason of dutiful Dauphin’s petition by his royal decree . On October 24, King Gojong ordered selection of his new wives among the age of 15 to 20 virgins . On December 28, Employee of Japanese Park Seon (朴銑), Korean Army Officer Lee Ju Hoe(李周會) and Korean Palace Guard Officer Yun Seok U (尹錫禹) were sentenced to death for treason in superior court, then they were executed . On February 11, 1896, King Gojong refuged in the Russian Legation. Then King Gojong said the criminals were Military Minister of Korea Jo Hui Yeon (趙羲淵), Yu Kil-chun (兪吉濬) , Zhang Park (張博), Gwon Yeong Jin (權濚鎭), Lee Du Hwang (李斗璜), U Beom Seon (禹範善), Lee Beom Rae (李範來),  Lee Jin Ho (李軫鎬) and others. And King Gojong ordered that cutting their heads off and bringing their heads to the Russian Legation.

Source 1 on the next day she died
After my repeated suggestion, he only provided this one on Dec. 28. Let's look into this. Original text/mordern Korean text

Interpretation of the source 1
Now we can see how the edict describes why Gojong should divest her rank to commoners because she left the palace on the day she died as forgetting her position as the queen consort. The assassins just forged the document as if she was just missing by her own leaving. Her death is not mentioned. Moreover, the edict was never ratified by his husband.

''The Japanese made up a story as if the queen escaped from the palace, and announced the royal edict which was not signed by Gojong and intimidated the King and ministers. 왕후가 궁궐을 탈출한 것처럼 꾸며 고종이 서명하지 않은 폐서인조칙을 내리게 하고 왕과 대신들을 협박했다.''

A funny thing is the document of the Gojong sillok and Official Gazette of Korea recorded on the day she died clearly states her death like below.

Well, we have to talk more about other 5 untranslated documents from the unreliable source written under the Japanese supervision.--Caspian blue 10:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the Caspian blue's opinions. Korean History national textbook said 'Annals of Joseon Dynasty was written in Cheoljong of Joseon starting from Taejo of Joseon.'(2006, National Insitute of Korean History(compilation), Ministry of education and science technology(certification), pp.11) In other words, Gojong and Sunjong Annals is not Annals. It is a mere record, not official record. So, I don't believe Gojong and Sunjong Annals perfectly. We have to talk more about this problems. --Kys951 (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, there is such background. Certainly, the orders were suspicious. I agree to move sources related King’s order from the incident day to the preceding day of moving Russian legation.--Bukubku (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not quite understand your above comment. So you agree to not to use your primary source?--Caspian blue 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but others are not suspicious.--Bukubku (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you have not provided it yet, so please present your English translation here. I have a lot of materials to rebut your primary source. Basically, you do not intent to stop using the unreliable source, don't you?--Caspian blue 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)