Talk:List of monarchs of Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Community: General discussion - Notice board Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions Navigation: Key topics - Browse - Portal
	This article: B quality , High priority.
	Korea-related editing tasks you can help with: purge Create North Korea South Korea North Korean Cities Hyundai Electronics South Korea-China relations South Korea-India relations National Institute of Korean Language Districts of Seoul Improve North-South relations Korean people Poch'ongyo Jeung San Do Donghak Peasant Revolution Righteous army Independence movement Art Dance Gardens Literature Philosophy Mythology Calligraphy see also Pages needing attention and Stubs North Korea South Korea Sports Tourism Communications Kilchu Law Culture Politics Nat'l Assembly South Korea-U.S. relations Images Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) History of Korea Dangun Korean pottery North Korea South Korea North Korean famine Kim Tschang Yeul Japanese General Government Building, Seoul Jirisan Translate Korean Wikipedia articles: Japanese Wikipedia articles: 第一次日韓協約 第三次日韓協約 Discuss Portal nominations Votes Dokdo Complete List (edit)

---

I removed Tondemo theories. Those who believe Hwandangogi or other apocryphal books added them. I think I removed all of them but maybe some are left. --Nanshu 02:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to Dangi Gosa, five planets appeared in the same palce(五星聚婁) in fiftieth year of Dangun Heuldal, BC 1733. Modern astronomers figured out that this event really happened in July 13, BC 1734. That one year error is because of different counting of years. There is no chance authors could use this modern astronomical devices before 1979, and no other Chinese records describe this astronomical event in 1734 BC. At least Dangi Gosa cannot be a forgery. -- Caffelice 17:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could find only one reference to it in English. Here - Caffelice 13:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reversion of July edits 2 korean era name article 3 goguryeo list 4 gojoseon list 5 Courtesy names? 6 Chadae 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion 8 Move 9 tag

[edit] Reversion of July edits

An anonymous contributor made major changes and additions to this article on 14-15 July 2004. Unfortunately, the changes fall wholly into 2 categories:

1. Replacing the existing and perfectly fine lists of rulers for various kingdoms and dynasties with slightly different lists that had inexplicable misspellings in them (for example, the kings and queens of Silla);
2. Inserting quasi-mythical lists of rulers.

Over the last month, other contributors have tried to make piecemeal corections to these changes, but more drastic action had to be taken:

• For (1), I reverted the affected sections back to gdr's edit of 30 June 2004, since article titles are tied to that version.

• For (2), I accept that somewhere in the history of Go-Joseon, that kingdom moved from myth into reality, so I have kept the list of rulers for Go-Joseon, and for the historically more recent Buyeo, Bukbuyeo, and Dongbuyeo. But I have removed the section on Paedal, unless someone can find a good reason for putting it back in. As for the section on Barhae, the list that this contributor inserted bears absolutely no relationship to the Korean names of the list of rulers on the Bohai page—unless those names were in the native language of Barhae....

I am the most diligent and prolific contributor on Korean topics on Wikipedia, but this article in its current state was frankly unacceptable. -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 22:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Baedal section should be deleted. Not even "Apocrypal" books have detailed records of Baedal rulers. - Caffelice 13:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] korean era name article

any thoughts on merging Korean era name with this article? maybe make the former an explanatory article, with the actual list being integrated with the rulers list here? that would mean creating proper tables. Appleby 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

also, there's already a President of South Korea that pretty much duplicates part of this list. does anyone know if north korea considers the provisional gov't to be legitimate gov't, so that it belongs in "korea," or does it belong only in "south korea"? i was going to suggest renaming this article to be consistent with List of German monarchs & Table of Chinese monarchs, but obviously only if post-monarchy leaders are covered elsewhere. Appleby 03:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the inclusion of the modern presidents here has always seemed a little odd to me... I think a "see also" link would suffice. And though I don't have an authoritative text at hand, I'm almost certain that the Provisional Government was always a relatively right-wing element of the independence movement, and thus would not be recognized by the North. -- Visviva 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goguryeo list

i had extensively edited the kings list when i moved them here from the goguryeo article. goguryeo is considered korean, not chinese, not chinese/korean, by virtually all, if not all, authoritative publishers outside of korea/china. it's simply not a serious dispute outside of china's political program. even balhae, which is arguably less completely "korean" is described as korean by britannica, columbia, encyc of world history, etc etc. the controversy is properly discussed in a paragraph at the goguryeo article, but the extreme minority position need not be reflected in "rulers of korea" list. Appleby 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Deleting the Chinese pronunciations is just a loss of information, and the sources for these names are all written in classical Chinese. —Babelfisch 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

the list of japanese emperors does not contain chinese pronunciations. adding information in itself is not necessarily a good thing for an encyclopedia. other reference works treat goguryeo as korean, and we should be consistent. Appleby 07:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gojoseon list

any thoughts on 환단고기, 규원사화, 태원선우씨세보 lists for gojoseon? i bring this up because wiman's usurpation of jun's throne is generally accepted as history, but jun's lineage back to gija is not. i've recently created Jun of Gojoseon & wanted to add to this list, but it brings up some messy issues. Appleby 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

it's not easy getting to the bottom of this. can anyone help out with some credible sources for more info? i'm still not quite sure how to place Jun of Gojoseon in this conflicting list of lists. Appleby 07:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy names?

I notice that the Goryeo emperors, in the box to the right, have temple names, birth names, and courtesy names. But the boxes for the Joseon rulers often list only temple names and birth names. Is it because Joseon didn't have courtesy names or just because the boxes didn't include these? Badagnani 09:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Joseon rulers certainly had courtesy names; however I think we might question whether it is necessary to include such information here for either Goryeo or Joseon, since it should already be present in the individual rulers' articles. -- Visviva 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chadae

please see [1] [2] [3] Appleby 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

List of Rulers of Korea → List of Korean monarchs – This is the standard form for articles of this nature; see Category:Lists of monarchs. Since the list includes kings, monarchs, and others whose status is not perfectly clear, the hypernym "monarchs" is most appropriate. In fact, this was the title of this page for some time. The page was moved away from this title on 18 June without any comprehensible justification, and later moved to the current capitalization-challenged version. Visviva 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Oppose Its not a "monarch". Where did you come up with that? Japan and China both use the title "emperor" for the royal line and Korea uses "king". I don't understand why "monarch" should be used. A monarch is a lower status than king and I have never seen "monarch" used to describe a Korean ruler. King Sejong is not called Monarch Sejong. I support "List of Rulers of Korea" because it best and clearly represents what they are: rulers. Good friend100 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Just to make sure everyone is aware what a monarch is--by definition all kings and queens are monarchs. See Encarta's definition, for example, "1. supreme ruler: somebody, especially a king or queen, who rules a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right" —LactoseTI^T 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But its not neccescarily used and outside people will most likely refer to as kings or emperors when searching for Korean rulers. "Monarch" is not commonly used. Also, "ruler" is perfectly fine; theres nothing wrong with it.

Here you want the best definition even though its less used and at the Imjin War talk page you insist the "most commonly used title". What is it that you really want? Good friend100 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just leaving a note that in English, monarch is a general term that refers to "king and queens". It is commonly used, and has the added benefit of being gender neutral. —LactoseTI^T 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to the question: mostly I would like people to stop moving pages around for no apparent reason. "List of rulers of Korea" (note the small "r") would be acceptable, and in fact this page was at that title for a long time. However, I think that using the term "rulers" can give rise to issues of inclusion (Daewon-gun was arguably a ruler, though not a monarch) as well as POV (see Talk:Kim Jong Il for amusingly tedious discussions of this). For that reason, I think Appleby was correct to move this page from "rulers" to "monarchs." With the title "List of Korean monarchs" (or "List of monarchs of Korea"), the inclusion criteria are reasonably clear and non-controversial. -- Visviva 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support as long as the list only includes monrachs. And Good friend100, you need to check the definition of monarch as it includes kings and emperors. -  AjaxSmack  05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. (thanks to AjaxSmack for the reminder). -- Visviva 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. "Monarchs" is a more precise term for ancient rulers, and is preferred. Also, it is correct English, despite some of the comments above.--Endroit 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ruler" does not make a specific gender reference. And if "ruler" is such a bad title, then whats with the sudden "lets move it move it"? The article was moved quite a long time ago and nobody complained about it after the move. Good friend100 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And "Imjin War" is an English name. Good friend100 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nominator and others. There is no real reason to have different wording for this group of monarchs. —LactoseTI^T 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If "monarch" is the best word, then why is "ruler" not? "Ruler" includes both Kings and Queens so it is not sexist. Also, some leaders of Korea were not monarchs because they didn't rule Korea as a country, like Dangun. And is ruler not an English word? Ruler has the most broad definition. It doesn't neccesarily reference a king and can mean any type of leader of Korea. Good friend100 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

List of rulers of Tahiti? If the word monarch should be used, then why isn't this article not moved? This article seems very stable, as a talk page has not even been started. To the Tahiti talk page at once! Good friend100 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you were being facetious--I would suggest moving that stub of a page now directly, as I doubt it will be controversial. —LactoseTI^T 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then move it. You want monarch right? Good friend100 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article still uses "ruler" and not "monarch". If using monarch is important, then why don't you change it? Good friend100 22:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer List of monarchs of Korea over List of Korean monarchs on the grounds that the latter sounds a bit like ‘List of monarchs who were Koreans’ rather than ‘List of monarchs who reigned over Korea’. Just out of curiosity – would “List of sovereigns” exclude (I guess so) or include Daewongun? Wikipeditor 04:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What about List of monarchs in the British Isles and List of monarchs of the United Kingdom? They are not of the form List of fooian monarchs. Guy 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I made the move. I decided that List of Monarchs of Korea would best fit MoS. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, can you explain the capitalization? Seems like it should be "List of monarchs of Korea" at least. -- Visviva 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; probably just an oversight? —LactoseTI^T 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. Good friend100 02:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As "List of Monarchs of Korea" is not a proper noun, "monarchs" should not be capitalized per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words. --Kusunose 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And as to "Korean monarchs" vs "monarchs of Korea", the latter is preferable per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Country-specific topics. --Kusunose 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tag

Is it possible to remove the move tag off this talk page? It says when full consensus has been reached and I think it has been now. Good friend100 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)