Talk:Empress Myeongseong

Eulmi Incident grammar and style issues

There are numerous grammatical errors and style issues in the Eulmi Incident section. A bit of it will require familiarity with Wikipedia style standards, which I don't have.

anachronism

There seems to be some unacknowledged time-travel involved here: "By age 20, the queen consort began to wander outside her apartments at Changgyeong Palace and play an active part in politics in spite of the Daewongun and various high officials who viewed her as becoming meddlesome. The political struggle between the queen consort and Heungseon Daewongun became public when the son she bore died prematurely 4 days after birth. Heungseon Daewongun publicly accused her of being unable to bear a healthy male child, while she suspected her father-in-law of foulplay through the ginseng emetic treatment he had brought her.[19] The Daewongun then directed Gojong to conceive through a concubine, Lee Gwi-in from the Yeongbo Hall (영보당귀인 이씨), and on 16 April 1868, she gave birth to Prince Wanhwa (완화군), whom the Daewongun entitled as crown prince."

When Queen Min was 20, it would have been 1871. The "concieve-an-heir-via-a-concubine" directive must have happened no later than early 1867.

When did QMin give birth to her son? - it could have been no later than early 1867, within two years of the marriage, when she could have been no more than just turned 17. Was father-in-law on her case already at that stage?

Much further down the page, we find: "Her first pregnancy five years after marriage ended in despair and humiliation when her infant son died shortly after birth." This would have been 1871 or 1872. If this is the case, then dad-in-law's directive could not have been in response to the death of Min's first son.

Item for reclaim with reference

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

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

Removal of template

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

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

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

Thanks for your Reply.

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

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

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

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

Item for reclaim if referenced

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

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

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

Gallery

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

Hi there

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:

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

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

3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's much better yes. If you can find a way to weave these into the article body without using a gallery section that'd be ideal, but this is acceptable toobigtokale (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Russian Legation photo to the separate site for Gojong's exile; Japanese Legation and all remnant photos taken into text. Gallery gone.

Regards PineappleDolly (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)