Talk:Yeonsangun of Joseon

Article needs...

needs: consistent romanization, other proofreading, references. -- Visviva 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Portrayal in media...

the link to King Seongjong seems to have been incorrectly pointing to an earlier king of the same name from the kingdom of Goryeo. i have re-linked it to Seongjong of Joseon.

also, a statement about the recent movie King and the Clown was added.

Should there be a change?

Reading the article on "Yeonsangun of Joseon" seems like some of its content should have been referenced with (concerning) the previous king to Yeonsangun (Seongjong), especially regarding his second wife "Lady Yun", of whom was the mother of Yeonsangun. Some of the events shown in Yeonsangun's article occurred during the previous King's rule, and seemingly attributes some of the nastier aspects of Seongjong's rule to Yeonsangun.

Though Seongjong was not near (according to history) the tyrannical ruler Yeonsangun was, leaving out what occurred during Seongjong's reign and placing in his successor's makes it seem out of place.

Comments, changes?

Seems fair. -- Visviva 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article about Yeonsangun lacks objectivity and neutrality.

One major problem with this article about Yeonsangun is that it lacks objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality. This is due to the following three factors: (1) Use of subjective expressions in describing Yeonsangun and his reign, (2) Exclusion of the historical, political, and ideological conflicts of his time, and (3) Lack of an objective evaluation of the king.

First, subjective expressions were used in this article to describe Yeonsangun, his decisions and actions, and some historical events. Such words as "cruel", "licentious", "massive", "despotic", and "worst" reflect the prejudice against Yeonsangun. Verbs like "seized", "appropriated", "shocked", "killed", and "insulted" evoke emotions and exaggerate the significance of certain events explained in the article. This kind of rhetoric cannot be measured objectively, and they only appeal to emotions and feelings rather than reason and logic.

Second, when addressing the two literati purges, this article neglects to examine the political and ideological conflicts preceding the purges. By focusing only on the roles of the individual figures in Yeonsangun’s personal life, the article ascribes the political strife between Yeonsangun and a group of Neo-Confucian faction entirely to personal matters and relationships. An objective analysis of the purges is not achieved in the article.

Third, this article fails to find the reasons for the decisions Yeonsangun made and the factors contributing to his actions. The article overly stresses the outcome of such decisions and actions, and implies disapproval of Yeonsangun. An objective assessment of the king is not achieved in the article.

In conclusion, emotion-evoking expressions, exclusion of the long-standing political and ideological strife during the reign of Yeonsangun, implied prejudice against the king, and some statements made without convincing evidence compromise the objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALOGIN (talk • contribs)

Welcome! Thanks for those well-made and thoughtful points. Regarding the 1st point, I think we can agree that any such claims should be clearly attributed, in a way that preserves an overall neutral point of view. There is work that needs to be done here. On the other hand, we should include this information in some form, since the language that Korean history has typically used to discuss Yeonsangun (폭군, 무도한 짓을 많이 하여 폐위되었다, etc. etc.) is not exactly neutral either. Readers need to understand, at the very least, that Yeonsangun has generally been viewed as cruel/murderous/licentious/insane, and that he is still often portrayed this way. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points, if you have sources which you feel will address these points, please feel free to be bold and improve the article. We need all the help we can get... :-) Cheers, -- Visviva 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive feedback and encouragement. For the 2nd and 3rd points, I will look for sources and will post them here. What should be noted about historical records on Yeonsangun are (1) Many of those records were edited and compiled by Yeonsan-gun's opponents (Neo-Confucian scholars and historians) who had no motivation to make an objective and fair assessment of the dethroned king, and (2) The contents of such records were subject to the opinions of the scholars and historians.

When examining historical events and figures, it is critical to explore different perspectives of different parties involved to maintain objectivity. In a way, Korean history has failed to do this, especially for Yeonsangun and his reign. Your comment that "Yeonsangun has generally been viewed as... and he is still often portrayed this way" is thought-provoking. Premature criticism about Yeonsangun and sensationalization of his life have prevailed over finding facts. This makes it more important to examine the political and ideological context of his time to gain insight into Yeonsangun's decisions and actions.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALOGIN (talk • contribs)

You have some good ideas for the article above and I suggest that you be bold and implement them. Antonrojo 12:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Hiya, I am not an active editor in this topic, but am just stopping by as a wandering admin. I see that this article has been tagged as disputed for over a year, but there doesn't seem to be active discussion about the dispute. I recommend either moving forward on resolving the dispute, deleting the disputed information, or removing the tag. --Elonka 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing tag cleanup lately. It seems to me that this article is fine, and my suspicion is that the issues that prompted the tag have been fixed. I'm removing it on those terms - of course it can be returned if there's a specific reason. Many tags are left because people think they are "untouchable things". Jjdon (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jongmyo

I see that Yeonsangun's memorial tablet was not worshipped in the Jongmyo ancestral shrine with one of the queen. Who was the queen? Was she Yeonsangun's wife? Thanks02Wahyudi (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

---

• Yeonsangun of Joseon → Prince Yeonsan
• Gwanghaegun of Joseon → Prince Gwanghae

– The -gun (군, 君) and -daegun (대군, 大君), literally "Prince" (but sometimes it is used as officers name appointed by the king), is one of royal titles in East Asia, like the -ongju (옹주, 翁主; e.g. Princess Deokhye Deokhyeongju), literally "Princess" as daughter of royal concubine. The case of Yeonsan and Gwanghae (Yeonsangun and Gwanghaegun is names when they was a prince) is although the king who did not get a posthumous name unlike other kings of Joseon, because they was discarded from king by lieges (for Gwanghae, see the Injo coup). For why not add the "of Joseon", see the Talk:Sejong the Great#Requested move. Thanks. Garam (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment this is as common in books as King Yŏnsan / Prince Yŏnsan and Yŏnsan'gun ? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @In ictu oculi: Sorry, I don't understand the point of your question. But this means translated name as historical facts. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Gwanghaegun was not a simple prince, but a reigning ruler, the 15th of the Joseon Period. During his reign, his name was "don't name the King" ! Therefore, King Gwanghae would be slightly anachronic (see nevertheless http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aId=2959509 and others), but Prince Gwanghae would be only misleading. Moreover, Gwhanghaegun is the most used English name of this King. Pldx1 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pldx1: Whether the name is -wang (King) or -gun(Prince) in Joseon is a political issue, not linguistic issue. For example, Danjong also did not get a posthumous name before Jungjong. So he was called "Nosangun" (Prince Nosan; he was king) as name when he was a prince, like Yeonsan and Gwanghae. But after Jungjong, Nosan did get a posthumous name. So now he is called Danjong. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: They were finally kings, not princes. Sawol (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sawol: Already I said it why not "king" above. This is political issue, not linguistic issue. And Korean name is also "Prince" (-gun). Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Crowned Clown

Can this be updated with media info on 2029's The Crowned Clown? It's a new rendition of The King and The Clown. I happened upon this as I was trying to get a better understanding of the real history that inspired the series. 2600:1700:9599:630:646F:D793:4372:BF2F (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)