Misplaced Pages

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'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'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

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

• 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

--Lulusuke 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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.

• Photo album of world's folkways(Sekai fuuzoku syashin-cyo)

--Lulusuke 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• A study group reseraching Queen Min

--Dan 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• A Japanese reference on war history

--Dan 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Review of problematic Japanese history book

--Dan 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

• McKENZIE, Frederick Arthur(1869-1931), was journalist for the. Daily Mail.

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)

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)

The precious data in the study of history.( the first source)

1. Declaration of beginning the trial
   

South Korea official document( The history of the Kyujanggak Royal Library ,Seoul National University, South Korea)

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)

True or Fake ? Myeongseong's photo (old topic restored)

I am putting this back up because I find the topic of interest and would like other editors to help me out. Last time this was up someone contributed some more recently discovered photos. I don't see those here and hope they can be put up again. --Dan 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See the newspaper. http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501130035.html

I agree. It's actually never known whether it's really her or not. mirageinred 22:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting problem. The argument against it being a photo of her comes mostly from Queen Min of Korea: Coming to Power) Simbertseva's research, but seems weak to me. It almost all hinges on whether she would have her image portrayed, certainly something that was done by Kojong, by Lady Om, by Sunjong, and Queen Yun. There's even a photo out there of the whole royal family taken when the last child, Princess Deokhye, was about three or four. Deokhye, Princess of Korea. So that argument is not very strong. The other point is that some historians feel a Queen would never sit with her feet apart as in the picture. To me, that doesn't make much sense either, because Koreans back then didn't use chairs often and likely didn't have any particular way of sitting in them. Finally, the question is, if the photo is not the Queen, who is it? Considering how she's dressed, if she's not the queen, she's wearing royal clothes. That would be inappropriate, true? It's an interesting mystery. There are members of the Min family alive today, though, who look a lot like that photo. --Dan 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It could have been one of the ladies in waiting. Maybe. mirageinred 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, folks, take a look at these. Here's the Queen Min photo under discussion above. But, some old Japanese travel books also claim this and this are Queen Min. What do the rest of you think? Do any of these look particularly like Min women today? --Dan 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really difficult to determine what is genuine or fake. I can't and shouldn't make a statement about such matters. I came across File:Empress Myeongseong3.jpg also from a Japanese book 《朝鮮風俗風景写真帖》 though it was published in 1911 (明治44年). I thought the woman looked similar to the "court lady" photo but there might be a problem with both. In the KBS news clip, an expert on photography had guessed the "court lady" photo to have been taken around 1910 or 1920. This new photo was in the 1911 issue of the Japanese photobook. Both dates are at least a decade after Queen Min's death. If they are not the same person, then this new photo should have used a caption "明成皇后陛下" (Her majesty empress Myeongseong) and not "李王妃殿下" (Her highness Princess Yi). OK, Dan just mentioned this new photo looks like Queen Yun. I got the photo from this blog page which put this picture as Queen Min. — Nrtm81 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that picture is definitely Empress Sunjeong. I can see the clearer photo. I was thinking her face wasn't as long as the "court lady". I was too quick to use the picture because another website had used it as Queen Min. — Nrtm81 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There's certainly variety in their appearances, isn't there? I think the original source for the photos you saw on the blog, Nrtm81, is probably here . I saw the news account - I wonder what made the expert think the photo dates from 1910 or later? This is a fun puzzle, I must admit. Maybe we should put up some photos of modern Min women who are descendants of Queen Min's father. My mother-in-law, who was such a person, claimed that Queen Min was "moot sengyesa" (unattractive). Since my mother-in-law wasn't born until 1914, I don't know how she knew this, but there it is ;-) --Dan 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked Nrtm81, but anyone else who's reading this, see if you can interpret the date on , most likely using the Japanese calendar but no guarantee. It's in the lower left corner and clipped off a bit. --Dan 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I asked my wife to see what she could make out - the main inscription in the bottom right uses the term "bi" indicating this is the highest-ranking royal woman, ie the queen, but her family name is not included. The date in the lower left is clipped, but there is a "17" there. That could be 1917, or it might be a Japanese date - Meiji 17? - but if it's 1917 the woman could only be Queen Yun, King Sunjong's wife. That was my wife's first reaction on seeing the photo, before reading the inscription - she said, "Oh, that's Queen Yun", and since she knew the lady, albeit in the 50s and 60s, I tend to trust her. --Dan 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And finally, user Appleby, I think, posted a link to this article (Korean language) which has recently discovered German photos that could very well be Queen Min. See what you think, and be sure to look at the photo where they compare Sunjong as a child to the photo that could be Queen Min, his mother. --Dan 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know her name. She is NOT Empress Myeongseong.

The report in the the newspaper HanKooki is fake. See Fig. 20, 世界風俗写真帖(1901) , Tokyo TOYO Co. LTD..

--Lulusuke 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, why do you think the photo is fake and if you know the woman's name please tell me. --Dan 04:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look my answer section.--Lulusuke 09:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see it there. This woman is certainly not Lady Om - she's too young, for one thing. If you could answer here it would help. I have seen fuller accounts pointing to some early collections where that photo is labelled (in German) as a Korean court singer. That appears to be a mislabelling, however. Scholars have not positively concluded that the woman is Myoungsong, but the fact that she is sitting in the same studion where Taewonggun, in the photo below her, had his photo taken, makes a very strong argument. It is also known that Myoungsong was an educated, intelligent, and curious woman who was interested in western technology. --Dan 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Dan

Please compare the two photos

1. http://photo.hankooki.com/gisaphoto/inews/2006/07/25/0725110103840.jpg
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Gen2.PNG

The two are same. !!!

You can get the second photo at National Digital Library

Thus the article is fake.

The reason is simple, I think the writer of the article did not know the book, since he is a amateur . And the authorities on Korean history cannot read ,exactly and correctly, OLD Japanse documents.(Even if modern Japanese, it is very difficult to read old Japanese documents. Only about 1% or less than 1% of Japanese may read them. hahahahahah....)

--Lulusuke 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still skeptical. The photo was taken by German, as explained in the book from which the photo comes. It was taken in 1894; that is known for sure. It seems to be easy for a Japanese who label the photograph to make a mistake. I don't have time right now, but I will post links to the book these photos come from, an interview with the man who assembled the book, and I have a photo of Lady Om which I can upload. One quick question...how old was Lady Om compared to Taewongun, since they appear photographed together? --Dan 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, take a look at this article. It gives more of the debate and includes an interview with the man who published the photos. If he is accurate that the photo was taken in 1894, and that seems to be the case, since we see that it was published in the two European magazines in 1894, then it would have been unlikely to be Lady Om, since Kojong did not marry Lady Om until after Myoungsong's death. See this site: The Royal Ark..". m. (fifth) at the Russian Legation, Seoul, 1897, Lady Om (b. 5th November 1854; d. from enteric fever, at Toksu Palace, Seoul, 20th July 1911, bur. Yonghwi-won, Ch'ongnyang-ni)". Furthermore, the Taewongun, who was also in the picture (as 'minister'), was in ill health by 1897, and died the next year. I'll post photos later. --Dan 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are photos of both Lady Om (mother of Yi Kang) and Kwi-in Yang, mother of Princess Dokhye, Kojong's last child. . To me, that photo of Lady Om does not look like either the usual photo supposed to be Queen Min, , nor the more recent photo, at . Here's a detail from that photo comparing the woman labelled as Queen Min with Sunjong: . That woman looks nothing like Lady Om. --Dan 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Look at the captions written in Japanese. These photos are well-known to competent historians. But I don't upload these, since I cannot confirm a photographer and shooting date, respectively.

--Lulusuke 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC) --Lulusuke 02:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) --Lulusuke 08:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, can you read the date on Queen Yun's photo? Would it be 1917 or a different, maybe Japanese, calendar? --Dan 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I recognize very clearly that the book was PRINTED, on the Japanse year , Syowa 7(19221932), although she was killed 1895. Additionally we cannot confirm the the photo shooter and shooting date. We must't write this issue, since there is no concrete evidence and no internatiol historical society doesn't recognize the photo. Thank you. --Lulusuke 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lulusuke, if you can, please get a little help with your English - reading and posting - we are not communicating very well; I have difficulty understanding you and I think you have difficulty understanding me. On the left-hand photo, in the lower left, there is a caption which includes the Chinese characters for 17. Is that part of a date? If so, what date? --Dan 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your advice.　

Well, this left book wriitenn in Japanese was printed before　1944, since the style is based on OLD Japanese. Note that the bellows are NOT "full and complete sentences".

I'll show and interpret the right caption as followings

故　李王坧 妃殿下（勲一等）

”故” means ”The deceased”.　"李王坧" means King Gojong(고종 광무제).

"妃殿下" means "Their Royal Highnesses"(That is Gojong's daughter.)

"勲一等" means "She got the Grand Cordon of the Order" or "She got the first class medal."

Therefore I identify her as "순정효황후(純貞孝皇后)". It is not so easy, because Korean king has many wives and kids.

Please look "KOREANDB and compare the two photos.

The left Chinese characters( 한자,漢字)) for 17 are a part of Japanese written in vertical direction.

故李王 ..."The deceased King Gojong"

は侯爵　... "is(or become)a marquis ....

は第一女　..."is the first daughter ...

し、御...

十七年,,, .."17 years..."

日。........

:-).--Lulusuke 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay - Queen Yun's father was a marquis. The woman you refer to at KOREANDB is Lady Om, consort of Kojong and the mother of the prince who succeeded Sunjong. --Dan 04:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You are right. I show her photo above. Please see the photo and compare the two.--Lulusuke 08:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me look at the photos...

• First photo:...is this Queen Yun??...or another/any of Sunjong's wives???
• Second photo: placed in the article, in line with "End of an Era" (describing King Choljong's death without an heir)
• Third photo:...I saw this photo in the Chosun Ilbo online article (referring to the German who collected pictures in Korea) (with the photos of Gojong, Sunjong, and the Daewon-gun) with the legend underneath her (in the collection) as "The Assasinated Empress", leading her as Myeongseong...but, as translated above, the label reads above as "Lady Om"... (bit confusing for this photo...)
• Fourth photo (again with this!!): the purported picture again of Myeongseong...Heran et Sang'gres 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the "Assasinated Empress" thing I mentioned...: The legend reads as "Die Ermordete Königin" (is that German?), meaning "The Assassinated Queen"...does that help??Heran et Sang'gres 13:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow answering, Herean. The first photo is Queen Yun, not so much by her appearance but more by the caption, which includes the bit about first daughter of a marquis. Which, now that I think of it, is wrong because Queen Yun had an older sister. The second photo is a mystery. The third photo has been discussed extensively - for my money, that's Queen Min. The fourth photo - the one that's been known for a while, and argued over. I think that could be Queen Min as well, but am less confident about it. --Dan 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...But I'm wondering why the above above statements up there argued that the second is not Min...I wonder why is that...one website illustrated the first as Queen Min!!!! (http://www.oldkorea.henny-savenije.pe.kr) The fourth will remain a mystery...

That website clearly got it wrong - you can see in the royal family pictures adjoining the mis-labelled one, the same woman standing next to Sunjong - it's Queen Yun. I'm having difficulty finding firm statements in the jumble above about the second picture. It is from one of those old Japanese travel books, and who knows what the source is......and if I recall correctly, does not have the character 'bi' - denoting the queen - in the caption immediately under the photo, but is labeled more as wife of the Yi King. Still, that one's a mystery - if she's not Queen Min, who is she - and there're a number of possibilities, as you know. --Dan 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I visited a website where originally I was gonna get some pics of kisaeng women, then when I got to the part of sketches made by some french guys, I made a (startling?) discovery. There are some pics there that resemble Min's alleged photo. Here are the links:

http://www.women.or.kr/herstory/WomenArt/frillust/image/illust11.jpg - a colored sketch of a court lady who is in the sitting position similar to her alleged photo http://www.women.or.kr/herstory/WomenArt/frillust/image/illust10.jpg - very similar sketch to her alleged photo http://www.women.or.kr/herstory/WomenArt/frillust/image/illust12.jpg - does this portray Min's assassination??? Heran et Sang'gres 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the third picture, it says that

The illustrations by foreigners: The assassination of Queen of Joseon (외국인이 그린 삽화: 조선 왕비의 살해)

Etching drawn by 리온 르와이에. However I don't know who is the painter, so searched the transliterated Korean name (리온 르와이에) with the google engine, and then I found out a link. http://nanet.empas.com/search/nanet_detail.html?vt=A&i=620974813&sn=KDMT1200615373&q=&q2=

It is a Ph.D thesis on "Portraits of Gojong of Korea: The introduces of modern visual media and transformations of eojin (고종 황제의 초상 : 근대 시각매체의 유입과 어진의 변용 과정). Eojin refers to portrait paintings of Kings in Joseon dyansty. This thesis has the etching illustration and is likely to describe it in detail but I couldn't reach it with my Mac. Korean people with PC could solve the problem. Btw the name of the painter is LionesRoyer in alphabet without blank. ---Appletrees 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, here's a pic about the Eulmi Incident... http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Queen_Min_Eulmi_Incident.jpg Can anyone analyze? Thanks... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I can read Cantonese(a little Chinese) , Japanese, and Korean.

Cantonese is a diffent language from Chinese!

Cantonese:我對你唔起 Bejin: 我對不起你

If you can read Korean, I recommend to visit to http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/ to get the first source. But a little of resource is not available to the public.--Lulusuke 03:29, 5 October 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 Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources... as that makes clear, Misplaced Pages relies principally on secondary sources, since the unsupported use of primary sources would violate Misplaced Pages:No original research. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding... but the above discussion contains extensive research from primary sources, which is not generally appropriate on Misplaced Pages. -- 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)

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 ?

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'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'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'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'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'gres 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I added some useful bits about Min. Look here:

• - look at the following quote
• - about Min's birthhouse

Heran et Sang'gres 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Min's Imperial 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 (?), Misplaced Pages (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'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'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

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.

• Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)'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/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

reference

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.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ko:대비 (Daebi) or ko: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

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

Bukubku (talk · contribs), 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 Misplaced Pages--Caspian blue 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removals of Miura Goro's name

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)