Jump to content

Talk:Sejong the Great/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old discussion with no headers

The title should be "King X of Joseon". Sejong is no problem with Korea, but collisions would occur at Taejo and Gojong. -- Nanshu 12:28 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

In the first place, isn't there convension about naming of rulers? In fact, all of Japanese emperors are named in the format "Emperor (name) of Japan" except some exception like Hirohito even though in the case there is no ambigousness. Shouldn't we simply use convension? -- Taku 16:22 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
I don't know. If not, we should make and apply a convention to avoid needless confusion. -- Nanshu 11:53 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
I have renamed the article "King Sejong the Great of Joseon" to conform to such a convention. I have tried to set up a model for the convention by posting lists of rulers (see Rulers of Korea). --Sewing 21:04, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Inventing a convention is unnessesary. The hangul script on the monuments to him literally translated read "Sejong great king."

Japanese conventions for naming emperors have nothing to do with how Koreans name kings. It would probably be best to refer to him as Sejong the great (it has worked good for every single Korean I know and I know a lot.)209.193.14.56 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Sejong or King Sejong of Korea? And where's mav when ya need him? --Uncle Ed 21:06, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let's just say we leave Peter the Great as "Peter the Great" as how we leave King Sejong the Great as "King Sejong the Great". King Sejong is the heart and soul of Korean culture. As a peace loving nation, cultural and technological advancements under him are deeply honored by Koreans instead of kings that wanted conquest after conquest. Hence personally, I don't think it's appropriate to label him just like any other Kings of Korea.

I don't really get what confusion can be produced by labeling him as "King Sejong the Great of Joseon". The convension for naming Japanese rulers has nothing to do with how we name Korean Kings. It is not the question of simplifying the names, but that of history, cultural significance. He is the one who created the written "Korean" language which enables his people to express their own thoughts in written language (and note that until then the written language was the privilege for nobility), who framed the most important cultural policies and who obtained a staggering academic achievement even supported by the very grass-root level at that time. I think this fact shows enough why his title should stay as it is. He is one of the nation's soul-that deserves such title "King Sejong THE GREAT of Joseon" - btw personally I'd like to ask Nanshu what he/she means by "Sejong is no problem with Korea" ; considering Nanshu doesn't seem to be a Korean name, it is somewhat thoughtless to judge other people's cultureHappyshannon 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has several grammatical errors, especially in the "Technology" section. It's quite a shame actually... Ajcmksq 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a verification-needed tag to the un-sourced last paragraph on Hangul. Saying that Sejong was involved but didn't invent Hangul conflicts with the statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul#History that Sejong apparently invented the script alone; since the archives record the Hall of Scholars complaining that he hadn't consulted them. (The Choson archives were uniquely-reliable for ancient times; since the court couldn't read and thus influence the accounts of the current reign, according to the biography below -- I'll try to get the citation.)

I read a similar account at more length in a short biography of Sejong that my son bought at a Seoul museum: Hangul was Sejong's invention, and most of his interaction with his think tank was trying to overcome their Chinese-character-steeped opposition. To be fair, the biography also said that the labor had affected Sejong's health, which might coincide with this paragraph's claim that a scholar found him passed out at his desk from exhaustion. However, the story about Mongol scripts and cave inscriptions I haven't heard anywhere before, and I think it is right to ask for sources -- there is nothing I see, unless it's in the Korean characters my browser doesn't handle. Again, to be fair to the claim, I read that Sejong did send scholars far and wide for projects like the vast medical encyclopedia and astronomical almanac printed during his reign. So while it's conceivable that this paragraph is true, we really need to see at least one credible source. --Howie Goodell 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wtf... the article seems to have shrunk.

Last time I saw this article on Sejong, there was lot more information on him then now. What happend? Did someone erase them all? Jameslim88 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone with the IP address of 68.5.231.253 seemed to have erased most of the article. I have restored the article. Wookie919 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sejong the Great of Joseon → Sejong the Great — The "of Joseon" is entirely redundant. He is the only Sejong the Great and that is the name by which he is predominantly known. — Srnec (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


10k won

Sejong's appearance on the won bills released in 2007 might be worth mentioning:

  • Zimmer, Benjamin (18 June 2009). "More linguistic numismatics". Language Log. Retrieved 19 June 2009.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Korean calendar

Was King Sejong's new calendar based on the latitude Seoul, or on its longitude? The latter seems more plausible astronomically, as it would directly affect hours and sometimes dates, and is implied by the mention of the Seoul meridian in the Korean calendar article. Pending a definite resolution, I have changed latitude to longitude in the article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Birth name

It says:

Birth name
Hangul
이도
Hanja
李裪
Revised RomanizationI Do
McCune–ReischauerI To

That's the spelling according to modern South Korean dialect. But back when he lived, it was slightly different:

Birth name
Hangul
리도
Hanja
李裪
Revised RomanizationRi Do
McCune–ReischauerRi To

Additionally, that spelling is still in use in North Korea. Shouldn't we use that spelling on this page instead? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

No one uses NK spelling except in NK and by North Koreans in Japan. Korean all around the world uses the South Korean standard spelling which is phonetically more accurate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually 리도 is the "correct" way to read it.... in 15c Josun. At that time, 이 was written as 리, which is why NK likes to keep the ㄹ: its more traditionally accurate. -175.196.124.82 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

According to this site http://www.koreanhero.net/kingsejong/index.html# King Sejong the Great was born on the 15th of May 1397. I would like to know which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.119 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The Wiki article also contradicts itself on Sejong's age at death. The sidebar says he died at 53 while the main body of the article says he died aged 54.Muzilon (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian incident... ??

That bit is interesting, but does it belong here? Seems bit odd sitting there. Was it a big scandal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.70.127 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC) It was a big incident before.. at it really happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.151.7.79 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This section, an excerpt from the referenced link, is presented here without its context and does not fit with the rest of the article. I propose its removal.

Since no objection is registered for more than a week, I'm deleting the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.63.232 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:King Sejong.jpg

The file File:King Sejong.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:King Sejong.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:조선 세종.jpg

The image currently used for the Sejong the Great article on Commons has no English descriptions, is improperly licensed and has no source ("own work"), and was uncategorized (I fixed that, at least). It may be related to also badly described/licensed File:세종대왕 어진.JPG. Can someone add the missing information? I'd hate for this to be deleted, and we don't really have any other images of this figure. But if there image cannot be confirmed as PD, it will have to go - and we won't have any illustration for this. PS. I am a bit shocked how poor of an article Sejong the Great is, considering he is, it seems to me, the most prominent Korean historical figure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be pretty nice if we knew where the picture was taken exactly, so that it could be retaken if ever possible. The current quality of the photograph is sadly rather bad. Either way, if this painting was created in the 15th century, I have a very hard time imagining it still being copyrighted in any manner. I don't see any reason to believe that this photograph isn't created by the person who uploaded it. Adding a kind of PD-template stating that the work depicted is over five-hundred year old may be appropriate. ~Mable (chat) 13:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Picture File:세종대왕 어진.JPG already says 김기창. And Google (김기창) says http://blog.moneta.co.kr/pk0711/4844750/3405176. By the way, Talk:Sejong_the_Great#File:King_Sejong.jpg_Nominated_for_speedy_Deletion was not saying otherwise. Pldx1 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
So someone simply grabbed the photograph from Google? In that case, it's indeed a copyright violation and it has to go. If someone could go to the place where this painting is located and take a photograph of it themselves, it could still be replaced. That's simply how it works. I suppose you could try to use a non-free rationale, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
two sitting people

The first picture could be used to specify Henry DeWitt Hamilton among all the Adjutants General of New York. The second one cannot be used to specify any Joseon King, and could be used to fill the desinfobox of any other King of Joseon. This is the main reason to oust this picture from the 세종 article: any picture from Dae Wang Sejong would probably have a better historicity. Copyright here is only an ancillary problem. Pldx1 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually know anything about the painting: was it created while Sejong was alive, and based on his actual likeness? If that is the case, the painting would be as useful as the painting we use for Napoleon. If it's not actually based on him, then I agree that it isn't entirely appropriate for the infobox. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Literature/Hangul

There is a sentence under "Literature" that looks like a remnant from a previous organization of the article: "Although most government officials and aristocrats opposed usage of hangul, lower classes embraced it, became literate, and were able to communicate with one another in writing." It is out of context in that location, but appears important. Should it be relocated further down in the "Hangul" subheading? Thanks. Kyrieo (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

In the section "Name", it states: "Although the appellation 'the Great' (대왕；大王) was given posthumously to almost every ruler of Goryeo and Joseon, this title is usually associated with Gwanggaeto and Sejong."

However, there seems to be a misunderstanding of 대왕 daewang ('the Great'). The 대왕 in 장헌영문예무인성명효대왕 and in 세종대왕 are not the same. The former one is traditional Korean culture. However, the letter one comes from the way history is retold by Western standards. It is based on the way Alexander is called "the Great". The Korean kings that carry that attribute in history are Sejong, Gwanggaeto and Munmu. Therefore, the statement above is not a contrast. It is just two different concepts that coincidentally use the same word. --Christian140 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sejong_the_Great/Archive_1&oldid=1256546684"