Revision as of 01:24, 1 July 2013 edit71.171.103.178 (talk) →Not assassinated?: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:29, 6 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,766,201 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(84 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes |
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|archive = Talk:Empress Myeongseong/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Empress Myeongseong/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} | |||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-10-08|oldid1=6486377 |date2=2005-10-08|oldid2=25078099 }} | {{OnThisDay|date1=2004-10-08|oldid1=6486377 |date2=2005-10-08|oldid2=25078099 }} | ||
{{controversial }} | {{controversial }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Myeongseong Of Korea|blp=no|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Korea |
{{WikiProject Korea|importance=High |history=yes }} | ||
{{WikiProject Biography | {{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes}} | ||
⚫ | {{WikiProject Women's History|importance=high}} | ||
|living=no | |||
|class=B | |||
|royalty-work-group=yes | |||
|listas=Myeongseong Of Korea | |||
}} | |||
⚫ | {{WikiProject Women's History |
||
}} | }} | ||
{{Copied|from=Empress Myeongseong|from_oldid=1164811936|to=Assassination of Empress Myeongseong|to_diff=1164977461|date=12 July 2023}} | |||
== When did she become queen? == | |||
⚫ | == Eulmi Incident grammar and style issues == | ||
The article points out on several occasions, that she did not have the title of Queen for years after her marriage, but it does not say when she received the title. I know that it is not the same thing as in Europe, when a woman automatically becomes queen when she marries a king. So, when during the marriage was she given the title? In the 1880s? --] (]) 22:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | There are numerous grammatical errors and style issues in the Eulmi Incident section. A bit of it will require familiarity with Misplaced Pages style standards, which I don't have. | ||
Hi. Nice question. | |||
Actually, at that time, when a Korean lady (15-16 years old) marries a King of Joseon, she automatically becomes his Queen Consort through a ceremony called "chaekbi" (冊妃 책비). | |||
So, summary, Myeongseong became Gojong's "Queen Consort" (mind the actual title, since "Queen" can also be mistakenly & confusingly mean "Queen Regnant", as with Elzabeth II) when she got married. | |||
I hope this satisfies you... | |||
] (]) 08:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
== anachronism == | |||
:Thank you for the interesting information. It seems that at the time the question above was made, the article seemed to claim that she did not have the title of queen for some time, and that she was given it later during her marriage. But perhaps that was due to some misunderstanding, and it does seem as if that article has been corrected now. So it was similar to Europe in this case. Did the king have several wives, but only one queen? --] (]) 02:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
There seems to be some unacknowledged time-travel involved here: | |||
::Hi again. A Korean king (like any other kings of the world) can have several wives '''as concubines''', but can only have '''one primary & legal wife as Queen Consort'''. | |||
"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. 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." | |||
::For some interesting information (on your part), concubines in the past (during the Joseon Dynasty) were sometimes given the special honor of being the King's primary wife (the Queen Consort; if the King wishes it so, and if he had a male son (in most cases the first-born) with her); there were 3 noted cases before 1700. The last one (died in 1701 by execution thru poisoning) was the worst case; so much, that in 1701, ] (the king at that time) decreed that no concubine should ever be a Queen Consort. | |||
::Hope this satisfies you. ] (]) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
⚫ | == 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 Misplaced Pages style standards, which I don't have. | ||
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? | |||
== Korea was unnamed in the small country. == | |||
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. | |||
The assassination of the Korean Empress ignited diplomatic protest abroad. To appease growing international criticism. | |||
== Item for reclaim with reference == | |||
I think that this description is self-conceit. Other countries were not interested in Korea. ] (]) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
:It's referenced. Please review ]] (]) 21:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
::Saying "self-conceit" and "not interested in Korea" is just typical IP bluster, but I checked the reference (a short column from ]) and it doesn't say anything about "diplomatic protest" and "growing international criticism" (or anything related to international opinion). Maybe the assassination of the Queen/Empress ''did'' ignite diplomatic protest (I don't know), but the criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is "]," so we need to verify this claim with a ]. I tried to find a source, but I couldn't. Maybe someone else can find a supporting source, but if not, I propose we delete these phrases. Thanks! ] (]) 02:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
She once allegedly remarked to a close friend, "He disgusts me." ] (]) 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. | |||
Hi everybody. Would anyone object to changing the subtitle "'''Eulmi Incident'''" to "'''Assassination'''"? Reason: a reader who looks at the table of contents wouldn't know that the Queen/Empress was assassinated or that there is a section about her death. The retitled section would start like this: "The assassination of Empress Myeongseong, which in Korea is known as the Eulmi Incident (을미사변, 乙未事變), occurred in the early hours of 8 October 1895..." Comments? ] (]) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Does anyone have a contrary view? ] (]) 11:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
== WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary == | |||
:Agreed to removing the citation needed and tone ones; I added a lead too long one, I think that stands. See ]; {{tq|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 ] (]) 22:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
The article was assessed C-class, for insufficient number of in-line citations. ] (]) 16:33, 18 February 2012 (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? ] (]) 10:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, please go ahead. No need to apologize, thanks for your hard work ] (]) 10:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Item for reclaim if referenced == | |||
== Contemporary account of political shennanigans concerning Queen Min == | |||
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. ] (]) 09:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
MURDER OF THE COREAN QUEEN. (From The Times.) Our Tokio correspondent, writing on October 18, says that the coup d'Etat of October 8 in Seoul was an indirect out- come of the long struggle between the Min faction, headed by the Queen, and the faction under the leadership of the King's father, the Tai Won-kun, and a direct result of the Queen's attempts to restore her own party to power and to reintroduce all the abuses of pre-reform days. The fortunes of both of these factions were recently at the lowest ebb. The Tai Wen-kun, while at the head of the Government, where he had been placed by Japanese influence, was convicted of hav- ing conspired with the Chinese generals. He has since remained in seclusion at his country residence some miles from Seoul. Meanwhile, the Japanese programme of reform was pur- sued steadily, and the Queen submitted with what grace she could command to changes that effaced the old order more and more completely, and put an end to abuses by which her kith and kin had largely profited. All the principal offices of state came into the occupation of Inde- pendents—that is to say, Liberals ; the Court was excluded from any share in the administration ; the finances were organized so as to check wholesale mis- appropriation of state funds, and two battalions of troops, drilled and equipped in foreign style, were placed beyond the reach of the Queen's orders. Such was the state of affairs at the end of September, on the eve of Count Inouye's withdrawal from Seoul and re- placement by a new Japanese representa- tive, Lieutenant-General Viscount Miura. Japan has been attempting to direct Corean affairs without authoritatively in- terfering in them. The slightest exercise of control involved imminent risk of international complications, in view of Russia's attitude and her support by Germany and France. The Queen per- ceived this; and between the Russian Legation and the Palace the wife of the Russian Charge d'Affaires constituted a unique channel of communication. Count Inouye possesses the rare faculty of exercising authority without openly wielding it. But on his withdrawal the Queen flouted the authority of the Min- isters, made appointments and removals without reference to the Cabinet, the personnel of the household was raised from 600 to over 2000, and the new fin- ance system was dislocated to provide funds for this crowd of Min partisans. The sale of official ranks was recom- menced. Class distinctions were restored. The King once more began to exercise his puppet authority at the bidding of his clever wife. Two of the Ministers found themselves compelled to resign, and even the Premier, despite a promise given to Count Inouye that he should never quit office except under irresistable pressure, showed plain signs of yielding. The Independents in their extremity formed a coalition with Tai Wen-kun, and the immediate instrument employed was a battalion of the newly-organised troops. These it had always been the Queen's wish to disband, and when the time seemed favourable collisions were contrived between them and the Palace Guards, a pretext being thus furnished to charge the troops with insubordination and dis- loyalty. Their disbandment and the punishment of their officers would have speedily followed, but intelligence of the peril having been conveyed to them, they were easily persuaded to avert it by recourse to violence. The Palace Guards offered a de- sultory resistance, but dispersed after one or two casualties. The Tai Wen-kun obtained audience of the King, and the coup d'Etat was an accomplished fact. Then ensued an incident that is still wrapped in some obscurity. Three ladies, one of them apparently the Queen, were dragged from their chambers, their throats cut, and corpses carried out and burned. The perpetrators of this atrocity are strongly suspected to have been Japanese. They wore foreign costume and wielded Japanese swords. Many of the Soshi class, the curse of modern Japan, have flocked to Corea in search of adventure, and are prepared to use their swords in any cause that seems to make for their country's benefit. The Tai Wen-kun may have employed a band of them—for they are mercenaries as well as cut-throats; the official con- spirators may have employed them; or they may have acted solely on their own impulse, believing the Queen to be a fatal obstacle in the path of Corea's progress. At all events, the evidence now available goes to show that the assassination of the Queen was perpetrated by Japanese Soshi, acting in collusion with the Corean soldiers. The King immediately on the outbreak of the emeute sent word to the Japanese Legation, and Viscount Miura, the new Japanese representative, hastened to the Palace escorted by a small force. Order was speedily restored. There remained nothing to fight about. The Queen had disappeared ; the persons of the King and the Crown Prince were in the hands of the conspirators; the Min faction were utterly broken; the Tai Wen-kun and the Independents remained absolute masters of the situation. Three days later the King issued an edict that takes rank as one of the most extraordinary state docu- ments on record. It ran thus :— Our reign has already lasted 32 years, and yet it grieves us to think that the country has not been sufficiently benefited under our sway. Our Queen, of the Min family, collecting around our throne a large number of her relations and par- tisans, has obscured our intelligence, robbed the people, confused our orders, bartered official rank, and practised all sorts of extortion in the provincial localties. Bands of lawless robbers roamed in all parts of the country, and the dynasty was placed in a perilous situation. That we have not punished her, though knowing her wickedness, may perhaps be ascribed to our lack of wisdom, but it is principally owing to the fact that she surrounded us with her partisans. In order to impose restraints upon the evil, we made a vow to the spirits of our ancestors in December last, to the effect that the Queen and all her blood relations should henceforth be pro- hibited from meddling with state affairs. It was our hope that the Queen would | |||
== Gallery == | |||
repent of her errors. But instead of repenting, she continued to favour her followers and to keep at a distance those of our own family. She also pre- vented the Ministers of State from directly approaching the throne. She further conspired to cause a distur- bance by falsely making it known that it was our wish to disband our troops,and when the disturbance arose she left our side, and following the method pursued by her in 1882, she hid herself beyond the reach of Our search. Such conduct is not only inconsistent with her rank as Queen, but is the acme of crime and heinousness. We therefore, in pursuance of our family precedents, are compelled to depose our Queen and to degrade her to the level of the common people. This wretched Monarch's naive confes- sion that, although aware of his spouse's wickedness, he had for years been unable to shake off her thraldom, is worthily capped by his charging the Queen with "leaving his side" when she had been dragged from it by assassins, and de- nouncing her for concealing her where- abouts when her charred corpse was lying outside the city walls. Were old-time methods pursued, the death of the Queen would be followed by a sanguinary perse- cution of her relatives. But the King has issued an edict promising that no con- siderations of party shall influence the distribution of rewards or punishments. The Japanese are intensely chagrined to find their countrymen figuring conspicu- ously in such a barbarous page of history. The vernacular press calls loudly for a strict inquiry and the infliction of drastic penalties; the Emperor has issued an ordinance forbidding any of his subjects to visit Corea without official permission. But all this touches only the sur- face of the affair. Japan has her Soshi just as Russia has her Nihi- lists, France her dynamitards, and Great Britain her Fenians. The fair fame of a nation is not seriously impaired because a few of its fanatical units sometimes elude the means provided for their restraint. What appears really disquieting is that the self-effacement imposed on Japan by the intervention of Russia, Germany, and France has incapacitated her for the role she undertook to play in the peninsula. It is a plainly unpractical situation. A Shanghai telegram dated December 4 says :— "The news that Li Han Shin, the Corean Minister, who for months past has been in hiding in the Russian Legation in Seoul, had organised a conspiracy to seize the King in the Royal Palace is confirmed. An attempt to carry out the plot was made on November 28 by 300 followers of Li Han Shin and a portion of the palace guard. The conspirators intended to possess themselves of the person of the King and simultaneously to assassinate the Cabinet Ministers, but their plans were divulged by some Corean officials and were completely frustrated. Li Han Shin took refuge on the Russian gunboat Otvajni, which at once left for an un- known destination."_ | |||
@] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 14:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Not assassinated? == | |||
:Hi there | |||
Korean news reported today that she was not assassinated, but survived the attempt. Has anyone seen anything on that? ] (]) 01:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
: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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] though, at the very least the size of it is very large. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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.. | |||
:::] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ] (]) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:29, 6 January 2025
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Empress Myeongseong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 8, 2004 and October 8, 2005. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Empress Myeongseong was copied or moved into Assassination of Empress Myeongseong with this edit on 12 July 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
- C-Class vital articles in People
- C-Class Korea-related articles
- High-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- High-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles