Talk:Sejong the Great

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)

I'm not sure what happened to Sejong's corpse, but if it still exists and modern doctors theorize (this is just a hypothetical, I don't know what he died of) "he didn't die of 학질/malaria/etc, he died of some completely separate disease", that's worthy of inclusion. See Napoleon#Death; old reports used to think completely different things about his death. Studies have continued even until the past few years about what he died of. This is an example of why modern scholarship is needed.

I'll think of more examples of the benefits of modern scholarship (need to eat breakfast), but I'd argue the examples I've provided are already sufficient to warrant at least a sizeable (>=15%) inclusion of non-VR sources. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against including non-VR sources. However, given that this part of Korean history occurred 600 years ago, anyone seeking to understand what happened in the Joseon royal court will inevitably need to consult the Veritable Records. Ultimately, we both agree that the Veritable Records provide firsthand accounts with some commentary, while modern scholarly articles offer educated guesses to fill in the gaps in those stories.

• I don't agree that modern historians have somehow developed a historiographic methodology to uncover historical facts out of thin air. What happened is a historical fact; why it happened is a narrative. There are no new records being created for events 600 years ago. When recounting an event, modern "scholarly" work is supportive at best. To verify if the scholarly work provides a good-faith narration, one would need to consult the Veritable Records. To avoid unnecessary verification of the cited sources, it's best to directly cite the relevant parts of the Veritable Records.
• You and I also define "scholarly" differently—and . History books for the general audience in the west are often grounded in someone else's PhD dissertation. I find Korean general-audience history books not to be as rigorous.
• I don't see any substantive difference between the Veritable Records and the autopsy reports of Napoleon, as they are both firsthand accounts (i.e., those who saw it report it). I also don't have any objection to citing modern medical papers that examine the Veritable Records and try to figure out how Sejong died. These are educated guesses, but they are interesting scholarly work, but again, I would cite the original paper, not a book that cites the paper, to minimize work that's required for verification.

Jourdy345 (talk) 16:52, 30 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 do not advocate for prioritizing speculation. If we do include the theorizing of modern scholars, that should be with WP:INTEXT attribution to make clear it's theorizing. E.g. "Scholar x argues that y". We should be selective about what theorizing to include, but I'd argue the selectiveness threshold is not near 0%. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:05, 30 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)

Thanks for pointing this out; I'll do a second pass with the Veritable Records to hash this out. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:02, 30 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)

Organized points:

1. 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. Both of us agree on this: the Veritable Records (VR) should be weighed highly. But I weigh modern analysis relatively higher than you do. I'm not saying the majority of the future article should be modern sources, but it should certainly be at least as high as 15%, possibly higher given that entire books have been written about Sejong's legacy.
   • For clearly differentiating modern analysis, that's handled by WP:INTEXT.
   • We also don't want to run into WP:ONESOURCE, not just because of WP:NOTABILITY issues, but also for the fact that the VR is just one perspective from a limited set of historians 500+ years ago. Those historians were human and can/should be challenged.
2. There isn't really such a thing as "historical fact" imo. Everything written is interpreted when written and when read. In most cases, the fewer layers of interpretation there are, the better. But it is impossible for that to be a 100% guarantee; the Veritable Records will be clearly wrong in some parts, even if those parts are minor details. That's enough to warrant reading modern sources to see what is challenged/missing. The historians who wrote the VR are human and capable of speculation, just as humans in 2024 are.
   • If they attribute something to pseudoscience/magic (e.g. "this person died because of a curse/because of evil spirits"), we should really repeat verbatim what they say, otherwise we risk WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH/WP:CHERRYPICKING. Modern scholars do the job of dismissing that kind of information for us.

211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably okay to cite the Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty in isolated cases, like how the featured article Cai Lun cites the Book of the Later Han a few times, but the majority of citations should be to relatively modern scholarship. Ming dynasty, another featured article, rightly doesn't cite the Ming Veritable Records or the History of Ming directly.

I wasn't able to find too many scholarly books about Sejong, but here's what I got:

In English:

• King Sejong the Great: The Light of Fifteenth Century Korea [1], revised ed. (1997), originally published in 1992, edited by Young-Key Kim-Renaud [2] (already mentioned in the article): this has a positive review [3]; it's not strictly a biography, but it contains essays by different authors discussing Sejong's achievements. See [4] and its table of contents [5] for more information.
• King Seijong the Great: A Biography of Korea's Most Famous King [6] (1970) by the King Sejong Memorial Society (ko:세종대왕기념사업회): its website (click "1970's") [7] says that one of the writers was Choe Hyeon-bae (최현배), who served as the fifth president of this organization [8]. His name is romanized as "Choi Hyon Pae" in the book [9].

In Korean:

• 세종대왕 [Sejong the Great] [10], revised ed. (2011), originally published in 1971, by Hong I-seop [11] (홍이섭): this is a pretty detailed biography by a prominent historian. It's also listed on the King Sejong Memorial Society's website (click "1970's"): [12].

There are other biographies as well, but I feel they're a bit less reliable:

• 성군 세종대왕 [Wise King Sejong the Great] [13] (2015) by 조남욱 [14]: this book appears to focus on his youth. The author isn't a historian, but an ethics professor at Pusan National University. The appendix contains evaluations of Sejong by ko:서거정, ko:조광조, ko:이이, ko:조헌, and ko:이수광.
• 한 권으로 읽는 세종대왕실록 [Veritable Records of Sejong the Great in One Volume] [15] (2008) by 박영규 [16]: this book not only contains a biography of Sejong but also has related information; see its table of contents. However, the author appears to be a popular historian.

I'm not sure how accessible these books are, but they seem to be available in some libraries.

I see that the article is currently citing 나는 조선이다 [I Am Joseon] [17] (2007) by 이한, which I guess is okay to use, but it appears to be a popular history work, and the author doesn't seem to be notable. Malerisch (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I saw the same top three sources, but have been debating whether we want to use sources from societies dedicated to memorializing Sejong. Appears somewhat POV. The first source I really wanted to use but I'd have to buy a copy of the book; doesn't seem to be sold as an ebook.

I may put a pause on using 나는 조선이다. I started with it because it's easily available as a cheap ebook. I try to move fast when editing pages, but this page deserves more care.

May also try to track down a copy of the Hong I-seop book. It's still hard for me to believe that there aren't more recent English-language biographies of Sejong. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, my understanding is that per WP:BIASED, biased sources are fine to use as long as they meet the normal criteria for reliable sources (editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering). I think these sources still meet these criteria (Choe and Hong appear to have been reputable scholars, and Sejong's been dead for a while), so I guess if there aren't any significantly better sources and one sticks to the facts and attributes opinions, it should be fine? Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. I don't suspect the books will be significantly biased in meaningful ways, just being careful. I'll use the Hong book for now, but will keep an eye out for other books. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You have a more liberal definition of who qualifies as a "historian." While I'm not trying to write off Lee Han, he presents himself as a history communicator and writer online. I will review your rewrite carefully once you're finished and might remove references to 'Historian Lee Han argues.'

Also, please be mindful of your word choices. As you said, word choice itself can imply a particular narrative and support one interpretation over others. I don't have access to Lee Han's book in the United States so there's no way for me to verify the statement, but whether Sejong "dutifully consented" to his father-in-law's execution is one possibility among many others, and the degree to which Sejong agreed with it is unclear—and likely unverifiable. There's a lot more context to be considered to interpret the incident to the point that Shim On's execution and its many interpretations could easily be a standalone article. Nevertheless, for this article, we should avoid language that implies how Sejong felt about it one way or another. Jourdy345 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I welcome scrutiny on my writing. Please yourself be mindful of tone in our discussions; it's been a little personally piercing towards me on a number of occasions. We're on the same team. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I came across as critical and strident. I didn't mean my comments to be directed at you. Jourdy345 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It's ok, thanks. I actually do really appreciate this feedback; I'm often alone when writing so help has felt like a luxury lol 61.85.17.104 (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, 이한 should be romanized as "Yi Han", not "Lee Han", based on her X handle (yihanhistory) and WorldCat listings of her books [18]. She's also a regular guest on KBS Radio 1 [19], where she does indeed call herself a "history communicator" (역사 커뮤니케이터). Malerisch (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; although I may remove stuff from her text altogether in near future. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that this article and especially this article (which includes two of the above-mentioned books) in the 세종신문 list some other books about Sejong that may be of interest. This 2006 article in The Chosun Ilbo lists only two comprehensive biographies of Sejong (a 1950s biography [20] by ko:김도태, and the 1970s Hong biography), so we're probably not missing too many biographies... Malerisch (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Related, after browsing FA/GA history articles I agree that we should be relying mostly on modern scholarship. This is the first time I've worked seriously on an article of this kind (pre 19th century, with reasonable quality sourcing from the time period).

I've ordered the Hong book; will get started once it arrives. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we break out "References" into two headings:

1. "Historical Sources", such as the Veritable Records
2. "Modern Secondary Sources" such as some of the works referenced above (I have a copy of Sejong the Great (세종대왕) Written by Hong Yi-Seop (홍이섭) which I'll be working through when I have time).

In support of this approach, see for instance how the classical references are organized on the page for Pythagorus. These classical sources are usually (but not always) crossed-referenced by by latter academic writing: both are important and add value to the reader or researcher. Commentary on the sources themselves might be appropriate too but would recommend this goes in footnotes. Nonabelian (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the distinction is fine. Any work you can do on the article would be appreciated. I'd ideally like to be a backup here and not the main driver; I'm a novice to this time period and also am delaying working on my perennial projects Kim Ku and Park Chung Hee. This article was just in such a rough state without momentum for significant change that I wanted to get the ball rolling. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

Resolved

 – non-free image added here. Nonabelian (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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: [21][22]. 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 for now then; but we'd need to do the Enwiki only upload process. As I don't have an account, I can't do this; could you?

For the longer term, it'd be nice to have a photo other Wikis can use too. Is there some posthumous drawing from like the 1600s onwards that survived? Those will be out of copyright. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As I disclaimer, I don't know too much about Wikipedia's file guidelines other than the basics (no non-commercial use only, etc.). I did tag the commons file with {{NoFoP-South Korea}} per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea [23] and added a discussion for deletion on the talk section. I considered uploading the same file in a different name for enwiki only, but I'm not sure whether I should just use the old corresponding enwiki file. Are enwiki file pages also deleted when its corresponding commons file is deleted?

Also, as far as I know, I'm pretty sure there aren't any surviving portraits of Sejong which are old enough to be considered public domain. If there are any, those would be paintings from either really, really old history books or Confucianist shrines. I'll leave a message on your talk page if I manage to find any. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Just fyi, there are very few royal portraits of Korean monarchs which still remain to this day.[24] Only 5 of them are fully intact, with most completely lost during the Imjin War and the Qing invasion of Joseon. Around 40 royal portraits remained around the time of the Korean War, but most were lost or heavily damaged during a 1954 fire in Busan[25] along with approximately 3400 artifacts.

Although the kowiki doesn't have an article for it, I feel like the 1954 fire might deserve a separate Wikipedia article of its own. That would be helpful to readers who would wonder why so many pages about Korean kings lack a page image. 00101984hjw (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure on what happens for Commons -> Enwiki deletions. May need to ask the Wikpedia Discord or post and ask on Commons for suggestions. Discord is pretty good for these kinds of questions.

I strongly suspect old history books in English and Japanese have pictures of Sejong. See my old Commons upload page; I've uploaded tons of pictures from these kinds of books.

Edit: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea#Images for a list I wrote of where to find images. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@00101984hjw I submitted a draft for the fire btw, Draft:1954 Busan Yongdusan fire 211.43.120.242 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Nice. I'll work on it more when I have the time. 00101984hjw (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just a note to say the current undelete request for Statue of King Sejong.jpg seems relevant. Will let you know how it goes. Nonabelian (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I've placed the King Sejong file on a deletion request for now. I guess this issue of whether certain NoFoP-SK-related photos have been given governmental permission is getting pretty contested, per @Nonabelian's input. 00101984hjw (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@00101984hjw: I have not had time to investigate this particular statue properly, but it looks like there are pictures of the same statue (perhaps even the same photo?) that are properly licensed for use in Korea that are suitable for Wikipedia. See for instance this photo. We would need to check the statue's copyright is controlled by the Korean government and therefore can permit free use. But the fact some images have a UCI (a national identification standard in Korea) and are indexed by Korea Copyright Commission is a good sign. For such images FOP would not be needed. Nonabelian (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say I have uploaded King Sejong's Standard Portrait for this article under the non-free use rational for the english Wikipedia here. Nonabelian (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have also valued reading your writings on the copyright issues for this portrait and the statue. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Article still needs work

As title. I may get around to working on it eventually. seefooddiet (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)