Talk:Taejo of Joseon

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

Korea High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Untitled

I moved this article back to King Taejo of Joseon, to keep in line with the naming of other articles about Korean monarchs. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). (I had to manually move the article by cutting and pasting, since I couldn't use the "Move this page" feature) --Sewing 22:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Foreign relations

FIRST unexplained revert

The following revert needs further discussion:

diff 12:06, 29 August 2009 Historiographer (13,911 bytes) (diplomatic envoys were dispatched to China at first. However, It is not written, therefore, relationship with Japan is also unnecessary.)
diff 16:09, 30 August 2009 Tenmei (14,754 bytes) (Undid revision 310703098 by Historiographer ... removed sole inline citation and bibliogrphic reference; see talk)

For years, this article has had a {{Unreferenced|date=August 2007}}-headnote; nevertheless, in an article with no inline citations and no bibliographic reference source citations, Historiographer deleted both. The rationale for this edit is not transparent; and therefore, it needs to be explained.

I do not immediately recognize any relationship between the edit summary and the actions which this edit accomplished. In the context suggested by Historiographer's edit summary, the following may be relevant steps in a constructive direction:

This small misunderstanding doesn't need to become a bigger problem. --Tenmei

SECOND unexplained revert

Historiographer -- This revert needs amplification:

diff 14:18, 31 August 2009 Historiographer (14,885 bytes) (→Reign: superfluous words.)
diff 17:10, 31 August 2009 Tenmei (15,340 bytes) (Undid revision 311083766 by Historiographer ... See talk page)

Two unexplained deletions of the same text is difficult to understand, don't you think? As you know, this is my second revert; and in both instances, my "undo" was accompanied by an edit summary which pointed to further comments in this talk page context. Does this need to become a bigger issue? --Tenmei (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The following seems relevant in this context. --Tenmei (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa

Hi, can you please come to discuss disputes on the talk page of Taejo of Joseon, and Joseon Tongsinsa? I deleted some unnecessary information in Taejo of Joseon about relationships with Japan added by User:Tenmei. But the user readded it and placed He did the same to Joseon Tongsinsa. He deleted arbitrary about diplomatic mission (Tongsinsa) of Joseon Dynasty before Japanese invasions of Korea, and changed their name as old romanization. Those are history articles that need more opinion from editors who know Korean history. Please join the discussions. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not "a lot of talks on Talk that I can not understand." Without any evidence of trying to understand, this page only shows a one-sided effort. --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIRD unexplained revert

This third unexplained revert is not unexpected; but more is required. The rationale which informs it is not obvious, not easy-to-understand.

diff 14:37, 17 September 2009 Historiographer (14,510 bytes) (Undid revision 311083766 by Tenmei ... See talk page)

This revert does not illustrate collaboration. --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of King

I'm not sure why a red robed-portrait is used. It's clearly a modern, photoshopped version of the actual, surviving blue-robed one from the Joseon period. I've reverted the image to the blue image.

Please refer to the Korean site on King Taejo's royal portrait: https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%A0_%ED%83%9C%EC%A1%B0_%EC%96%B4%EC%A7%84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.16.80 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Yi Seong Gae

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is currently a edit war about the following text in the first sentence:

Taejo of Joseon (October 27, 1335 – May 24, 1408), born Yi Seong-gye, whose changed name is Yi Dan, was the founder and the first king of the Joseon dynasty of Korea.

I think the text is misleading because Yi was not the correct romanization of 李 during the Joseon era.

Please take a look at these historical records..

The transition process of 李's standard spelling in Korea.

1. First attested in the Bullyu dugongbu si eonhae (分類杜工部詩諺解 / 분류두공부시언해), 1481, as Middle Korean 니 (Yale: ni).

2. Also attested in the Hunmong jahoe (訓蒙字會 / 훈몽자회), 1527, as Middle Korean 니 (Yale: ni).

Also attested in the Gyechuk ilgi (癸丑日記 / 계축일기), c. 1600, as Middle Korean 니 (Yale: ni).

Also attested in the Dongguk sinsok samgang haengsildo (東國新續三綱行實圖 / 동국신속삼강행실도), 1617, as Middle Korean 니 (Yale: ni).

Also attested in the Namhun taepyeongga (南薰太平歌 / 남훈태평가), 1863, as Modern Korean 니 (ni).

Also attested in the F. C. Ridel's Grammaire Coréenne, 1881, as Modern Korean 니 (ni).

Also attested in the Dongnip sinmun (獨立新聞 / 독립신문), 1896, as Modern Korean 니 (ni).

The Yale romanization of Korean, developed by Samuel Elmo Martin and his colleagues at Yale University assigns 李's Middle Korean as 니(Ni).

杜詩諺解初刊本 (성종 12년 : 1481)“셩이 니가 (姓李的)”
訓蒙字會 [중종 22년(1527). 아동에게 한자의 音과 뜻을 정확하게 가르치기 위해 지은 책] 李’ 자의 音과 뜻을 ‘외엿니’ 라고 했음. [참고로 ‘柳’ 자는 ‘버들류’로 되어 있음.)
東國新續三綱行實 [광해군 9년(1617)에 왕명에 의하여 국가 사업으로 편찬된 孝子, 忠臣, 烈女의 기록집] 李壽慶(니슈경), 李慶男(니경남), 李宅仁(니?인) 등 ‘李’자는 모두 ‘니’로 표기됨.
癸丑日記 (光海君 때, 仁穆大妃內人) 니이첨(李爾瞻) 니덕형(李德馨) 니?복(李恒福)
古時調集南薰太平歌 [純祖 때에 편찬된 것으로 추정됨. 作者未詳의 時調]“옛날에 니??도”“그곳에 니젹선(李謫仙) 소동파
한글로 된 小說에 있는 ‘니’씨 姓 표기 春香傳 : “젼나도 남원부? 니등이 ? 아?을 두어스니 ”九雲夢 : “니쇼화(李蕭和)은 황졔의 ?이니”意幽堂集 : “니번은 뉼곡 형이라 파쥐예 잇더니 서울 드러와“니탁 - 니상국 탁은 셩묘됴 명신이라.
獨立新聞 창간호 [1896년 4월 7일 창간. 최초의 한글 전용 신문] 관찰사 니건하. 문쳔 군슈 니한용. 회계원 출납과장 니용교” 등 모두 ‘니’로 표기됨.

B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You used {{edit semi-protected}}, but I'm guessing you meant to suggest semiprotecting the article? If so, you can go to WP:RFPP. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Þjarkur and Thjarkur: Yeap. Thanks for help. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the standard convention in English language is to use either modern Revised Romanization or McCune Reischauer for rendering Korean names; Yale is useful for historical pronunciation, but that's a different convention that should not be applied here.Haedongchong (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@B2V22BHARAT: Not convincing because names of historical people are usually romanized according to modern pronunciation. Should the names of ancient Chinese people be romanized according to Old Chinese pronunciation? 220.99.219.75 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death dates

Most of the dates concerning Joseon, and Korea in general prior to the 20th century, are only available in the lunar calendar. While birth and death dates of the more important people might be found in the solar calendar too, using them in the article leads to confusion as every other date is in a different calendar. I think mentioning the solar calendar dates in a note is enough. Maria0215 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maria0215, this is an English-language Wikipedia not the Joseon-era Wikipedia. Changing the dates from the Julian calendar to the Korean lunar calendar is completely unhelpful. If every culture used their historical calendars for medieval-era articles that would be completely unhelpful to the common reader. I do not think there is a consensus to use lunar dates here. It should be lunar dates mentioned in a hatnote, not the other way around. Tip: If you want to convert lunar dates into lunisolar calendar, you can use this tool from the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute. [1] ⁂CountHacker (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: the problem is that dates in the solar calendar are unsually only available for the births and deaths of the most important people (and sometimes it's unclear if it's the julian or the gregorian calendar). Solar calendar birth and death dates aren't available for small figures, neither are dates of reigns/tenures in government offices, wars or other important eventz so this creates confusion in the article. Until someone can convert ALL dates to the gregorian calendar, the lunar calendar should be maintained. Maria0215 (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: the lunar dates can be easily converted to lunisolar dates with the right knowledge. ALL the dates should be converted to the right format. We shouldn't keep it in the wrong format just because it is a hassle to change it. In fact, even the Korean Wikipedia choses to use the "Western" lunisolar dates instead of the Korean lunar calendar for those dates. Per MOS:ERA, "Other era systems may be appropriate in an article. In such cases, dates should be followed by a conversion to Anno Domini or Common Era, and the first instance linked: Qasr-al-Khalifa was built in 221 AH (836 CE), or in 836 AD (221 AH)." This suggests that the era system used should be either Julian or Gregorian then followed by the alternative era system such as the lunar calendar. This is also WP:CONSISTENT with other countries using the lunar calendar such as Japan or China. Taejo's contemporaries in Japan and China, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu and Hongwu Emperor both use the Julian calendar rather than the lunar calendar. Also we aren't even properly using the lunar calendar either. Taejo was not born in the lunar year 1335, but rather the 3rd year of Yuantong. The Ssangseong Province was definitely not counting the years based on Jesus' birth year. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with using the solar (preferably the gregorian) calendar as long as ALL dates in the article are also converted. I don't have to knowledge to do it so until someone who has the knowledge can do it, I suggest to maintain the lunar calendar with the appropriate notes for the article's cohesiveness. Maria0215 (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to convert all the dates to the lunisolar calendar. For all dates before October 1582, the solar calendar used should be Julian as it makes no sense to use the Gregorian calendar prior to the time it was invented. And of course hatnotes should be required to cross-reference with Korean primary sources. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]