Talk:Lady Hyegyŏng

Slight doubts

• 혜경궁 홍씨, also known as Lady Hyegyeong, died in 1815. Therefore [[Category:1795 deaths]] is not so clear.
• The article in the gachonherald is about Joseon Princesses. The article lists:

1. Princess Jeongseon : Daughter of King Teajong (1404~1424)
2. Princess Kyunghye : daughter of King Moonjong (1436~1473)
3. Princess Hyomyung : daughter of King Injo (1637~1700)
4. Princess Uisun : daughter of King Hyojong (1635~1662)
5. Princess Hwawan : daughter of King Youngjo (1737~1808)
6. Princess Duckhye : daughter of Emperor Gojong (1912~1989)

But, as her name states it clearly, 혜경궁 홍씨 was the daughter of a Hong, not the daughter of a King. Therefore, she was not a Princess. She was the Consort of Crown Prince Jang-heon. And this Prince became the Regent of his father from 1749 to 1762... when he was ousted from his titles, put to death in a rice chest, and given the temple name 'Crown Prince Sado'.

• Therefore, reign 1744–1762 seems surprising. Yes, 혜경궁 홍씨 consorted the Prince Regent. But (1) this was 1749-1762 and (2) the *ruler* was Yeongjo, who *reigned* 1724–1776.
• Concerning the last reference, a Google translation gives:

Information about this so far in academia, Professor <hanjungrok> was used as a basis to discredit the information through different feed recently confirmed by the fact that both are refuted dwaetdamyeo. Earlier this year, he Naver cafe <hanjungrok> and related to series <current meat> from the Yasawa Yeongjo Crown Prince of the Apostles, written by the prestigious (铭文), Crown Prince of the Apostles, and other feed via letter <hanjungrok> have pointed misconceptions about.

In the first broadcast 20 days 'hanjungrok, history is a record of the history or false?', 21 a 'want to play Winter Palace, the apostle Crown Prince' lectures on the subject. Following three rivers' human Yeongjo, Who is he? '(27), four river' apostles Crown Prince, he did the really? '(28), five rivers' apostles Crown Prince, Why is he dead? "(July 4) , 6 River 'attack of virtue "(5 days), subject lectures are broadcast.

Information on the inner workings of politics in the late Joseon Professor <hanjungrok> lesson of the highest wage unusual mental powers, but lonely world, surrounding the royal power, also look at the composition and Machiavellian.

So what ?

• When Lady Hyegyeong died in 1815, she was buried in the same grave as her husband (remember: her grandson, King Sunjo (r. 1800–1834), was the receiver of the 1805 Memoir). In 1899, for various reasons, Prince Sado and Lady Hyegyeong were posthumously elevated in status and given the titles Emperor Yangjo and Empress Heonyeong. Their tomb was upgraded accordingly and renamed Yungneung. Therefore 혜경궁 홍씨 was never ever a 'Posthumous Queen of Joseon', but became a 'Posthumous Empress of Korea'... six years before Korea became 'Posthumous' for some time.

Pldx1 (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Lady Hyegyeong → Lady Hyegyŏng – This uses McCune–Reischauer and appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME per this ngram. Also, McCune–Reischauer abides by WP:KOREANNAME. seefooddiet (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics, transliterations into English from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet likewise should not contain any marks that are not part of English. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  We've had this discussion verbatim numerous times before 1, 2, 3, 4. Not only is this opinion against the main Wikipedia MOS (WP:DIACRITIC), it is against MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. I've asked you multiple times to stop making this disruptive argument at local levels; you openly admitted to doing this as a tactic to shift the site's current practice in order to get your way. Frankly I'm tired of this. This is not your battleground; if you want to change the policy, propose a change directly. If you try this again with Korea-related articles, I'm reporting you at WP:ANI. seefooddiet (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your strongly-held views regarding this matter and likewise appreciate your helpful research in providing links to previous such discussions. My original languages are Ukrainian, Russian and Polish, which uses the Latin alphabet with the addition of several diacritics and I keep track in ascertaining that those diacritics are properly included. Ukrainian and Russian, on the other hand, use the Cyrillic alphabet and are transliterated into English without the aid of accents and diacritics which, I feel, is proper since, as mentioned in the nomination, English does not use such marks.

The helpfully-linked discussions provide more detail, but one previously-mentioned point should be emphasized — MOS:DIACRITICS neither encourages nor discourages their use in non-English words. This may, of course, result in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS preventing the use of diacritics in one nomination, while allowing use in a similar nomination, with such dissimilarity possibly providing topics for other discussions. If this matter is listed at ANI, I will defend my position and if my "oppose" votes are ultimately found to be disruptive, I will abstain from any future WP:RMs regarding addition of diacritics to transliterations from Korean or Japanese. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The local consensus has already been established in MOS:KO, which asks for diacritics. You had the opportunity to speak up when it was being rewritten, but you didn't. You had the opportunity to propose changes to either this MOS or the main MOS but you didn't. Instead you attempt to circumvent both MOS's by blocking local moves, ignoring community consensuses.

Again, if you try this again we will immediately go to ANI. This goes beyond ideas, this goes to behavior and your attempts to disruptively undermine consensus through side tactics. seefooddiet (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that by submitting to WP:RM one or more transliterations into English replete with diacritics, you acknowledge that consensus may accept or reject your position.

Otherwise, if the use of diacritics in such transliterations was an edict, not subject to discussion or voting, there would be no need for RM and you would be legitimately entitled to simply make the move or, in case of a technical problem, list it under "Uncontroversial technical requests" with a note stating that "local consensus has already been established in MOS:KO, which asks for diacritics". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Not my position, it's the community consensus in MOS:KO. The reason I made a move request is because WP:COMMONNAME is a subjective factor.

If you keep pushing this even on this thread, may be best to go to ANI directly. You've already had enough chances and clearly you don't understand why this behavior is disruptive and underhanded. seefooddiet (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Posted on WP:ANI#User:Roman Spinner circumventing MOS seefooddiet (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, albeit not quite for the reason stated. The 2013 translation by Haboush appears to be the most significant reference to this person and it uses the diacritical form, so should be preferred. (Although as a side note, I hope we're quoting from the analysis sections and not the direct autobiography parts in the citations...) SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Enhances understanding and accuracy for those who know what the diacritic represents, and does not hinder legibility for other readers. (It is not the case that English never includes diacritics, and the "oppose" comment is worded strictly as an opinion: it is unclear why diacritics "should not" be used when they are used by reliable English-language sources and their use is supported by the MOS. Additional interaction including comments from me regarding the Japanese case can be found at Talk:Shūkan Shinchō.) Dekimasuよ! 12:16, 11 October 2024 (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.