Talk:Sejong the Great

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)

Article needs work

Mid-quality sourcing (non–peer-reviewed casual websites), poor grammar, poor completion, lot of unsourced information. He's one of the most important people in Korean history, deserves better than this. toobigtokale (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This is toobigtokale on an IP; why are all the dates in the lunar calendar? We should convert to Gregorian; that's what the rest of Wikipedia is in.

I may take a quick pass at some point in near future to convert dates and source everything. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The date changes were done back in September by a (good faith) user, although from what I could tell it was WP:OR. By any chance do Korean scholarly sources use lunar dates? I suspect not but just wondering if that’s where the user got the idea. Dantus21 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I'm not sure about what Korean scholarly sources do; sometimes I've run into sources about late Joseon–era people where it's not explicitly stated which calendar system was being used, and it turned out it was lunar. Based on that I think there's possibly a mix of both lunar and gregorian, unfortunately. I'll possibly post again later when I begin revision 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a good idea, the lunar calendar point is an issue that needs to be fixed Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Please stop citing other encyclopedias (circular citation) and use primary sources. The Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty are available for free online. Jourdy345 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A mild counterpoint: WP:TERTIARY. I think there's a role for other non-Wikipedia encyclopedias being cited. They are less preferred over secondary sources though 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Koreans, verify your stories

Many Koreans may not realize they're posting wrong information. There are lots of made-up stories about Sejong because he's famous and loved, and people use him to tell nationalistic stories. No, there's no evidence that Hyoryeong became a monk, even though many Koreans believe this story; no, there's no evidence that Yangnyeong willingly yielded his position as crown prince, because he believed Chungnyeong deserved to be king. To avoid spreading wrong information, ALWAYS give sources for what you write—preferably primary sources, like the Veritable Records. Wikipedia isn't a place to share personal opinions. Every fact should be something you can prove. Jourdy345 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is toobigtokale, wondering if the Veritable Records are actually primary sources? They're written by court historians who had (afaik) reasonable editorial independence. I think they're possibly secondary sources.

Per WP:SECONDARY, I think secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia over WP:PRIMARY too. Primary sources are of course nice to ground our work. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right—they're secondary. In my defense, I used primary in the sense that the Veritable Records are the closest thing we have to watching live footage in the 15th century. Court historians record every second of the king's movement (of course, not all of them; only the ones they deemed important as all historians do), and once the king dies, the historians are sequestered in a hall to compile the late king's veritable records. So all Veritable Records have been processed at least once and therefore are secondary sources at best.

Side note: I found another example where there's no supporting evidence of a statement in the article. The account that Sejong asked scholars to look after his grandson, Danjong, specifically on his deathbed is an unnecessary embellishment—unless 2 months before one's death is considered on the deathbed. And when I say "no evidence", the ultimate authority is the Veritable Records or the Journal of the Royal Secretariat. There are little bits of such misinformation that would be prevented if the Wikipedian cited their sources. Jourdy345 (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Fyi, I'm considering doing a sweeping revision of the article imminently, and scrapping a lot of the old writing entirely. Just need to find a good source... 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

For anyone reading, I'm still having trouble finding an authoritative biography on Sejong. I'm looking in Korean but can't seem to find a consensus on what modern books on Sejong are considered "the best". Encyclopedias and the kowiki just cite the Veritable Records... 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That's because the Veritable Records are his biography. The Veritable Records are essentially biographies of the Joseon kings. And the Veritable Records are the original sources. Any other biographies of Sejong will eventually have to cite them, because what we know about Sejong today comes from the Records (or the Journal of the Royal Secretariat). Jourdy345 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the Veritable Records aren't 100% of the information available on him, although they're certainly >80%. The synthesis of other sources and information, like developments in our understanding of medicine and science (especially what diseases killed him), are important. Another example: information about foreign policy. The Joseon court didn't know everything going on in China and Japan at the time; modern historians can access a lot of information now that they presumably couldn't. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue with modern medical diagnosis has little to do with medical advancements. It has more to do with the fact that diseases were not clearly defined when the Veritable Records were compiled, and the names of the diseases do not align with diseases that we know today. For example, 학질 (瘧疾) was used in the Joseon dynasty for any diseases that caused a fever. After Joseon increasingly came into contact with western powers and western medicine became the mainstay, the word 학질 started being used for malaria, specifically. So people today reading the Veritable Records may see the word 학질 and associate it with malaria, but that would be an error.

Also I must ask: what other information can modern historians access that they couldn't? Jourdy345 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Other examples of things offered by modern scholarship:

• Evaluation of legacy. Sejong's Veritable Records were written in the 15th century; we've had a whole 500+ years since then.
• Analysis of what's not included in the Veritable Records. This book I'm using has some of that and I've found those bits interesting and useful

I feel this is similar to other situations where ancient sources are used. Records from Josephus are sometimes the only known sources on some really important topics about the ancient world. However, Josephus's work has a lot of gaps that are themselves interesting, and he himself as an unreliable narrator is worthy of analysis. I'm pretty confident the Veritable Records sometimes treat some now debunked things about science as fact. That means we'd need to tiptoe around those bits, which leans towards WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Better to use analysis that's more consistently solid. And either way, since objectivity is functionally impossible I think there'll always be more room for useful analysis.

211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Historiography will inevitably carry a narrative, but that doesn't mean subjective analyses and evaluations should be prioritized. We could create a section for appraisals and curate some scholarly work that views Sejong's life and achievements as king from different perspectives. Jourdy345 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should rewrite sections of the article but recommend improving, instead of scrapping, the old writing unless it's a straight-up falsehood that deserves scrapping. What do you think? Jourdy345 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the article relies on low quality sources at present. Those portions tends to have poor prose. I don't mean to implicate you in this; your additions with the Veritable Records are consistently solid. Regardless, based on my experience with March First Movement, Kim Ku, and Park Chung Hee, an article of this importance should probably be expanded 2-4x, which will inevitably result in most of the writing being replaced or rearranged to fit in with the new information. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edits about Sim On contain misinformation. Shim On didn't die because he "criticized the system." His son-in-law had been charged with and incarcerated for treason (which was political), and Taejong tortured him until Shim On's name came out of his mouth. The prevailing view is that Taejong had already intended to kill Shim On, considering Taejong's mistrust of queens' relatives, and Shim On had shown political ambitions and made Taejong see him as a potential political force that should be nipped in the bud. So yes, Taejong manufactured a pretext to execute Shim On, but no, "criticism of the system" was not the pretext. Jourdy345 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Another thought: we should also prioritize recent scholarship in general. While the Veritable Records are great for grounding things, they're just one perspective that's particular to the time they were in. Probably more recent scholarship has discovered things about Sejong that not even the court historians knew. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The "not even the court historians knew" part seems like a long shot, though if someone's found something like that and we can cite it, I don't object. Most original sources are from Joseon court historians and officials, and some other sources are from documentation in the Chinese dynasties. Additionally, some court officials, or royal family members and their wives left some private writings (i.e., 야사; 野史)—most notably the Memoirs of Lady Hyegyeong. These unofficial sources have different angles than the Veritable Records, and they are good sources, too. Jourdy345 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

One of my replies above, "My point is that the biographies aren't 100%", relevant here 211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're arguing for. If you're advocating for making Sejong's Wikipedia page primarily about modern scholarship's evaluations and analyses, I find that to be inappropriate. The Veritable Records are as close as it gets to a primary source, and they are the object of modern scholarship, complemented by external sources to create a narrative and identify potential biases in the Veritable Records. I would like to see what modern scholarly work that should be considered more authoritative than the Veritable Records.

My point is, evaluations and analyses should be clearly differentiated from sections that contain historical facts. Organizationally, it's confusing just to slip in someone's analysis and cite something, because there's a chance a reader will take that analysis as historically factual. Jourdy345 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

We need a different infobox image. The previous one is of a statue in South Korea, apparently one in Yeouido Park. It was installed in 1999. Note that South Korea does not have freedom of panorama laws, so statues even in public spaces are copyrighted, unless they're sufficiently old.

There's a drawing on Commons, but this one is also probably copyrighted (I researched it; it's a 1973 painting).

Can someone find and upload another suitable replacement that's firmly out of copyright? I'd try to find a drawing myself, but I don't have an account so can't upload pics.

Here's a few good sites for searching: [1][2]. Also, some South Korean museum websites have pictures of paintings; if there are any photos of old paintings, we can probably get away with using their photos. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

According to this Hankyoreh article there are currently no surviving portraits of Sejong which were drawn during his lifetime. The last ones were lost when Gyeongbokgung Palace was burned down in 1592, during the Imjin War. The best replacement I can think of would be a photo of his tomb. I don't know too much about FOP laws but apparently its ok to use photo files of sculptures that are from countries that have no FOP on the English Wikipedia as long as the photo is not uploaded to commons. (see here) 00101984hjw (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh you're right, I forgot about that technicality. We could use the statue photo then 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)