Talk:House of Yi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Yi Dynasty)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Korean Imperial Household → House of Yi — This article should be moved to House of Yi similarly as other royal families(see Category:Royal families). Additionaly, Yi family are not an imperial family in most years, they are an imperial family just only in 1897-1910. Mochi 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

  • I'm kind of neutral on this one; the KIH is arguably just a subset of the House of Yi (namely, the post-1907 House of Yi), which therefore maybe should have its own article. The current article really only deals with the KIH; for this to sit comfortably at "House of Yi," it would need considerable expansion. Perhaps even better would be a general article on the Jeonju Yi embracing both the royal and non-royal branches of that lineage. Also, Category:House of Yi notwithstanding, the suggested name is very unusual. Given the general divergence between Eastern and Western naming conventions WRT monarchy, it might be better to find a name that is more suited to the Korean context. -- Visviva 08:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Removed Fix Notices[edit]

The first was requiring citation which has since come to pass. The second was regarding recentism, but it was from 2012. The issues of controversy have cleared themselves up. The US Ambassador to Korea recognizes Yi Seok as the King[1] as does korea.net, the Republic of Korea owned website[2]. Finally, he's appeared on many recent talk shows as the Crown which is titled King as it was demoted from Emperor after the Korean Empire ended[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneyihistorian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m
  2. ^ http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Society/view?articleId=73211
  3. ^ https://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=559332&cid=46623&categoryId=46623

Male primogeniture?[edit]

Good luck with that, Gangists. Gojong himself was not first in line by male primogeniture, and that is not a rule that has been used to select Korean rulers historically - just as well, or Korea might have ended up like certain European monarchies, with a string of incompetent corrupt rulers. Those did occur, of course, but there are also allowances in the Korean system for selecting the most competent or most appropriate for the times monarch. Gojong's selection certainly helped diminish the power of certain noble clans who had become overly influential and corrupt. --Dan (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the section on known descendants would be helped if it were clarified that Prince Imperial Ui is Yi Gang, referred to in the "Gangist" section, and three of the pretenders (Yi Seok, Yi Chung, and Yi Haewon, who conducted an odd crowning ceremony for herself shortly after the old Crown Prince died) are Yi Gang descendants. --Dan (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The descendants of Yi Gang have another slight problem as well, according to Christopher Buyers (see Royal Ark), which is ignored in the article. To wit, "All but the two eldest sons of Prince Ui were considered illegitimate, and their names not recorded in the Yi Family Register (Chonju Yi-ssi chokpo) (see Jokbo) when born. Princess Consort Yonwon subsequently arranged for their adoption by collateral relatives of the Yi clan. The princess could have adopted one or more of these sons herself, thereby retaining them within the Imperial Family and conferring certain rights of succession to the throne. However, and for her own reasons, she seems to have avoided this option entirely. The consequence of the adoptions is that the natural children of Prince Ui belong to their adopted families and not to the Imperial line. They do not enjoy rights of succession to the throne. They are also ineligible for adoption again during their own lifetimes, and cannot regain entry into the Imperial line by such means. This effectively rules out any legitimate claim to the throne by Yi Seok or his siblings. On the other hand, their children and descendants remain eligible for adoption into the principal Imperial family line, so long as they have also not previously been adopted once during their own lifetimes. Prince Yi Kang may also have had additional natural issue to those listed here. Included amongst them, possibly two sons born to an American woman, while he was a student at the Ohio Wesleyan University. The mother and sons arrived in Tokyo ca. 1919 claiming his paternity, but their subsequent history remains unknown." --Dan (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, again[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not Moved The proposed title is indeed the official name, but the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME Alpha Quadrant talk 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


House of Yi → Korean Imperial Household — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC) There's no reason for making title of this article as same form as other articles in Category:Royal families. Because every Imperial Households have its own characteristics. And its own name is 황실(literally, Imperial Household). So it is called 대한제국의 황실(literally, Korean Imperial Household or Imperial Household of the Korean Empire) generally, not 이왕가(literally, House of Yi), which is a word from Japanese Empire. --Alphanis (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Support: This is POV. although it is during short period, Korean Imperial is Imperial in East Asia. Thus, re-change name to 'Korean Imperial Household'. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "English is what we speak"; we do not title articles because such-and-such is "correct in Korean"; any more than we move articles on the Korean Wikipedia about English or Australian cities to "what is correct in English". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - House of Yi follows general naming. WikiManOne 23:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, sir. What is the rationale behind your opinion? House is not mean that 'Imperial Household' or 'Royal Household'. Never 'House of Yi' is not general mean. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm Japanese, that's how its mentioned in textbooks there. :) WikiManOne 17:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry? Is 'textbook' mean in japan? If this is right, I am able to rebut your opinion. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It absolutely does. If that was a rebut of my opinion, that's fine, wasn't very convincing, and I don't particularly like being badgered. I note that your proposal is currently failing in votes so it might just be useless anyway. WikiManOne 16:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Japanese textbook cannot be a source to prove its general naming. It can be a source for local naming of Japan only. --Alphanis (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support House of Yi was just used in Japanese colonial period. After the independence from Japan, They restored their name as the "Korean Imperial Household".--Historiographer (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "House" is the extended family. "Household" is the palace administration, e.g. Imperial Household Agency. From looking at the hits, this is the common rule for Korea as well. Although not every source does it this way, we are, after all, making fine distinctions here. The other royal and imperial families are all done as "House of XXXXX" on Wiki. To put the word "imperial" in the title gives them a status as pretenders, which IMO lends credibility to a strictly crank POV. Kauffner (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not appropriate to generalize this title as other imperial families, because of particularity of statistic of Korean surnames. You can see there are only few surnames in Korea, and over 6 million people have surname "Yi". --Alphanis (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seeing the Korean Wikipedia. They adopted term as the Korean Imperial Household in place of House of Yi, which is used by Japanese wikipedia.--Aocduio (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

I have doubts about this one. The two terms are not synonymous, and the better topic appears to be the one reflected by the current name. No vote as yet, interested to see what arguments emerge. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Septentrionalis' opinion, I want to say that it is not appropriate to title this article House of Yi, in English (not in Korean sense), because there are SO many Houses of Yi that it is confusing with other Yis. --Alphanis (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to The Second Annual Report on Reforms and Progress in Korea (1908-9). You can see the preview on google. --Alphanis (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'House of Yi' is same 'Yi(Lee) Family'. This is meant 'surname Yi'. This is not meant 'the Jeonju Yi clan'. --Knight2000 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My House is 'House of Yi', not 'the Jeonju Yi clan'. My House is 'the Gyeongju Yi clan'. 'the Jeonju Yi clan' is similar to 'Yi de/von Jeonju'. For example, 'Yi Seong-gye' is similar to 'Seong-gye Yi de/von Jeonju'. OK? --Knight2000 (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Objection![edit]

Excuse me, sir. I objection for result of the up-talk. On what basis do you make such a statement?(For "the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME"). 'House of Yi' is Japan notation, for demotion the meaning of the Korean Imperial family. This name little use the other language, except for Japan. How do you think about this? Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was what the consensus was. The result was not move, not too hard to understand is it? It doesn't matter why its the common name, what matters it that it is. If reliable sources all started to called the the KKK the Murder League, we would probably rename it after a few years of that. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. "House of Yi" is not meant 'the Jeonju Yi clan' in Korea. --210.108.110.35 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.. Sorry. "House of Yi" is not common name, except in Japan. And 'Korean Imperial Household' is unlike the 'KKK', no comparison with 'Korean Imperial Household'. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock-solid datation ?[edit]

In this page, four dates are given for each of the 26 rulers of the Joseon Dynasty : birth, enthronement, retirement, death. These data are missing in some of the 26 individual pages "xxx_of_Joseon". Obviously, anyone can modify these pages to add the missing material, and I can do that technical job. But before, I would prefer to be sure of these data: citations would be great to secure the information ! Pldx1 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current pretender[edit]

Prince Yi Seok has been covered as the Korean pretender by BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times. This article puts WP:UNDUE focus on three other pretenders, none of whom have received any international press coverage whatsoever. Kauffner (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of these sources calls him the 'Pretender', or the 'Last pretender' to be precise whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't even know on what basis Yi Seok claims he is the heir. - dwc lr (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the stories? The BBC story says, "But among all the men who could be living the life of a king, the most colourful career path belongs to Yi Seok". Chosun Ilbo called him "last prince".[1] Literally speaking, there are other surviving Yi princes. So this phrase must be understand as a euphemism for pretender. Kauffner (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it does. Yi Seok receives more (English) press I imagine because of his 'colourful career path' as the BBC puts it; when compared to Yi Won. But this does not make him the legitimate claimant. Yi Won was appointed by members of the Family Foundation and was the chief mourner at Yi Ku's funeral. I have no idea how Yi Seok regards himself as the rightful claimant. - dwc lr (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our place to interpret the succession rules. The sources present Yi Seok as the pretender, so that is what should be presented here. Here is another source. Kauffner (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources present Yi Won as claimant as well so we have a dispute which should be noted not suppressed. We have no idea what Korean sources say and who is more active and so on. - dwc lr (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are defiantly Korean sources on Yi Won. Look for 황사손 이원. - dwc lr (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of hits, isn't it? As I understand it, the man goes around to the palaces, puts on a mortarboard, sits in a little yellow tent, and holds court.[2]. Looks pretty silly to me, but for Koreans he is obviously a more plausible pretender than Yi Seok. I guess The New York Times was out of its depth on this one. Kauffner (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think Yi Seok has ever claimed to be a pretender. He is a titular prince and that is all. As for Yi Won, whatever the disputes with the succession with Yi Haewon, he was appointed as head of the royal household and theoretically titular emperor/crown prince/pretender or whatever you wish to call it. His activities therefore relate to that, including the annual Royal Ancestral Rites where he takes the place of the emperor (his 'mortarboard' that you are referring to is a crown in the Chinese pattern that has evolved in form, etc but that's a whole new topic in itself) which is appropriate given that he is legitimately performing sacrifices to his real ancestors and not some actor hired in to do so. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 13:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues about Yi Chung[edit]

As we accept the rules of genealogy in Joseon dynasty, Yi Chung cannot be the genealogical heir of the Imperial household. King Gojong rose to the throne by posthumous adoption to Prince Hyomyung at 1863, so by de jure genealogical tree his real father Heungseon Daewongun is second cousin (Daewongun's father Namyeongun was posthumously adopted as son of Eunsingun, half-brother of King Jeongjo.) of him. Mintz0223 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were certainly people who questioned the idea of posthumous adoption at the time. See JoongAng Daily. When the monarchy was in place, such adoptions could be validated by the king. In modern times, we have only the clan genealogy to go by. What would happen if we were to reject Yi Won's posthumous adoption by Yi Gu? Yi Gang had two legitimate children, Yi Geon (1909-1990) and Yi U (1912-1945), who was killed in the Hiroshima bombing.
Two of Yi Geon sons were accepted as legitimate by the clan council, namely Yi Chung/이충/Tadahisa Matsudaira (1932-2006) and Yi Gi/이기/Kinya Matsudaira (b. 1935). Yi Geon divorced his first wife in 1951 because he thought Tadahisa was another man's son. Meanwhile, Kinyi was adopted by his step maternal grandfather, according to Korean Wiki. The council contacted Tadahisa about the succession in 2005. He told them, 'It has nothing to do with me.' Since Yi Geon disinherited Tadahisa, this property in Seoul presumably went to Kinyi and Yi Geon's other offspring. It was auctioned off in 2015.
As for Yi U, he was the legitimate second son of Yi Gang. But he was adopted by Prince Yi Jun-yong. His eldest son was Yi Cheong (이청, b. 1936). In contrast, Yi Seok (이석, b. 1941), the prince who gets so much publicity, was the illegitimate tenth son of Yi Gang and was also adopted into another line.
In short, no one has a valid claim to succeed at this point, although Yi Cheong is the closest thing to a dynastic heir that exists. 99to99 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request sources[edit]

Hi. I am improving The Arabic article of Joseon and I Just miss the sources to write a small paragraph about the Royalty. Could someone please notes some English sources about the royal family, its origin, sub-clans, and General information? Thank you.--Sayom (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on adding sources. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the current heir[edit]

The current heir is Yi Seok[1]. The explanation is all available via public sources. Here is the breakdown:

  • Yi Gu (death 2005) is the undisputed heir from Yi Un (death 1970).
    • Upon the death fo Yi Gu, the next in-line would have been Yi Gap, who did not take a position.
    • Yi Cheung is not a candidate as Yi Wu had passed long before Yi Gang (Prince Ui).
    • Yi Won was not born to a Lady/Wife and thus ruling him out of the crown.
      • Yi Won attempted to state he was adopted posthumously by Yi Gu, but this was in 2005 and was already illegal by Korean Law.
    • Thus, either Yi Gap would be considered from 2005-2014 and Yi Seok from 2014-present or Yi Seok from 2005-present.
      • Considering Yi Gap did not take any position, he effectively was not involved so the correct answer is Yi Seok from 2005-present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneyihistorian (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yi Haewon could not be considered since she is female and Korean goes by Confucian rules. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although this thread is old, I find it necessary to object this one for obvious mistakes, also because this is "pinned" top despite not the oldest thread. According to the tradition, if a Korean king had no son, he could choose one of his nephews to be the heir, or his line would die out and endangered the legitimacy of his successors (even if he were to be succeeded by his brother). Unless, if queen dowagers interfered, who could adopt any royal members as the next king as long as the generation is suitable.
  • "Upon the death fo Yi Gu, the next in-line would have been Yi Gap, who did not take a position." "Yi Cheung is not a candidate as Yi Wu had passed long before Yi Gang" - Seriously, Yi Gap had eight elder half-brothers, even that they passed away already, the descendants of these brothers would have priority to succeed if there were no adoption.
  • "Yi Won was not born to a Lady/Wife and thus ruling him out of the crown..." - Sure, neither Yi Won or Yi Seok could be the successor because they are junior members, but as Yi Won was adopted, the line of succession changed. According to the Korean news around the date of death of Yi Ku[2][3], it was shown that the adoption were officially authorized by Yi Ku when he was alive. Few news could be found about Yi Won because his activities are mainly in Korea, unlike his half-uncle, who are more famous outside Korea. - George6VI (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, really does not matter. The South Korean law is not relevant here, because South Korea does not recognize any title of nobility. The government doesn't give a rat's ass whether Yi Won or Yi Seok claims whatever title of nobility that they want to claim for themselves. The ultimate arbiter of such title - head of the household- as a such is at the hand of the private family association, which in this case would be the 전주이씨대동종약원. Nevertheless, since the title has no legal recognition, at the eye of the Korean law, Yi Hae-won's claim of emperorship is about as recognized as Yi Won's claim to be a "Hereditary Prince Imperial". In this case, we should probably respect the Family Association's decision. You can see the similar discussion that happened a couple years ago precisely in this page.

Also, what in god's name is "Confucian Rules"? The succession of Joseon monarch didn't follow strict -western- rules such as primogeniture. The king chose the crown prince, and when the line broke, the elder royals "chose" the next successor, who were often not the closest living relatives. Prime examples being the successions of Cheoljong of Joseon and Gojong of Joseon. Nevertheless, this discussion is meaningless, as I repeatedly said, Korean law doesn't have any jurisdiction over the private family business, and the monarchy of Korea simply doesn't exist in any form. Aixaurinoko (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my response below regarding Yi Won's 2012 formed Family Association[4]. I respect the city of Jeonju's decision[5], Daum, a large news network in Korea's decision[6] as do the Korean people. The "Crown" the US Ambassador to Korea visited is the most recognized one. That is Yi Seok.Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given our back and forth, I think that makes 'disputed' factual for Yi Seok as well. I'll add all of the disputed members into the article for factual accuracy given this conversation. Thanks. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About the association, Jeonju Lee Royal Family Association was founded and recognized by the Korean government in 1957, and the association already had recognition when Yi Un and Yi Ku were still alive. So that should add enough weight about Yi Won being the legitimate leader of the clan, much more reliable than those claims came after. - George6VI (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m
  2. ^ https://m.chosun.com/svc/article.html?sname=news&contid=2005081870331
  3. ^ https://m.chosun.com/svc/article.html?sname=news&contid=2005072170015
  4. ^ http://imperialhouse.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=1_ih_02
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/asia/19iht-profile.html
  6. ^ https://news.v.daum.net/v/20180808000216161?f=m

Explaining the Recognition of the Imperial Family[edit]

The Constitution, since 1948 (and since 1919) has always recognized the Imperial Family. The 1919 Charter states specifically to "favor" the Imperial Family. The most recent 1987 form of the Constitution states that the Provisional Charter of 1919 serves as foundation of the Constitution.Theoneyihistorian (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they don't. 1919 Provisional Charter does not supersede the modern Korean constitution. The 11th article of the Korean constitution clearly states that it doesn't acknowledge any form of nobility. Imperial claimants do not receive any form of recognition from the Korean government, nor do they hold any form of hereditary title recognized by the Korean government. Also, Yi Seok's claim to the throne is backed by nothing except for his self-claimed title and Yi Won is more or less considered as the legitimate 황세손. You can read the relevant discussion in the talk page as well. Are you a Korean/can read Korean documents perchance? Aixaurinoko (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how "more or less considered as the legitimate" is defined by a company formed in 2012[1]. The Provisional Charter serves as the base of the Constitution. It does not supersede it. It IS A PART of the Constitution of South Korea#Spirit of Provisional Charter of Korea.. Meanwhile, if you are speaking of organizations, the 2006 formed Imperial Grandsons Association with the city of Jeonju[2], home of the Imperial House of Yi, would be a more recognized pick, and considers Yiseok the legitimate 황손. 당연하지요, 한국사람이니까. 당신은? Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://imperialhouse.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=1_ih_02
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/asia/19iht-profile.html

Yi Seok[edit]

See, as I read some of the references in the article, I still can't understand why Yi Seok is referred as "king", "emperor" and the pretender; from what I can understand in them, Yi Seok is active on monarchy restoration but he doesn't necessarily self-proclaimed as emperor like Yi Hae-won, so I just removed all of those related contents. If there's any article explaining why Yi Seok is so-called emperor or leader of the family, please give the reference, especially Korean ones. - George6VI (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Theoneyihistorian added back Yi Seok and Andrew as "leader", so I reverted them all. Since his claims are poor and there are less references, it is clear that Yi Seok is self-claimed leader and is not recognized by the royal house, and what Theoneyihistorian edited are original research. - George6VI (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you erased my comments on the talk page. That said, I provided ample sources whereas you provided none. For clarity, here's some: https://1boon.daum.net/ziptoss/5fdb137f7407513e6466fc15, https://n.news.naver.com/article/052/0001521990 Theoneyihistorian (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalization[edit]

User:George6VI appears to be rewriting history and disclaiming sources in the process. Theoneyihistorian (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are baseless comparing with other references. Also please discuss the latest talk thread in the bottom of the page next time. Also it has been so long since I made these edits, and apparently my versions already gain consensus, it is ridiculous to accuse any of my edits are vandalism or rewriting history. I would cease the edit now in case this is engaging in an edit war, but this doesn't mean that I agree what is made in the article. There are some things I want to point out to be false:

... officially named heir apparent as [the late] Crown Princess Yi Bangja (the mother of Yi Ku and the wife of Yi Un) wrote a will, naming him as the 'first successor'”. He was the final heir. American Internet entrepreneur Andrew Lee, accepted a nomination by Yi Seok, on 6 October 2018, to become the Crown Prince of Korea.

The statement is not approved by Jeonju Lee Royal Family Association, and so this is a self claim and falsely used in news. - George6VI (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this company you are referring to is as my understanding as a historian has been focused primarily on factual references rather than statements from a random company. https://1boon.daum.net/ziptoss/5fdb137f7407513e6466fc15 Theoneyihistorian (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the association is not a company, but an association that has been widely recognized long before the dispute happened. 1957 and 2005, there has been 5 decades. There are scholar researches and more publication more than online websites that can be used as references. e.g.:
  • 노부자(魯富子) (1997). "韓国の都市における同姓組織の全体構造 - ソウル市の「全州李氏大同宗約院」を事例にして". ソシオロジ. 41 (3): 41–43. doi:10.14959/soshioroji.41.3_37. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
  • "全州李氏大同宗約院三十年史". 全州李氏大同宗約院. Retrieved 2020-06-18. (p. 41, 43)

I think your references can still be used, nevertheless, the statement can be like "this is how the media recognize Yi Seok and Andrew as last royalties". If you want to say how they are regarded as royalties, this Jeonju Lee Association can't be ignored or you'd be responsible of be biased.

In addition, "was officially named heir apparent as [the late] Crown Princess Yi Bangja (the mother of Yi Ku and the wife of Yi Un) wrote a will, naming him as the 'first successor'”. and "He was the final heir." are a disputed statement; in my previous revision, I added "claimed" to make it clear that this is more of a dispute, same as "emperor" "king" "crown prince" because of these are self-claimed and neither US of Korea officially recognize these titles. - George6VI (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 July 2021[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Yi → House of Jeonju Yi – Koreans typically refer to the royal clan as "Jeonju Yi" to distinguish it from other clans named Yi/Lee. About 15 percent of Koreans are surnamed Yi/Lee, while 6 percent are members of the royal clan. The Jeonju Yi is not even the largest of the fourteen Yi clans. For the stats, see "Lee (Korean surname)." On the clan's website, there is a "History of the Jeonju Lee family." They certainly don't call themselves "House of Yi." 99to99 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 October 2021[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Jeonju Yi → House of Yi – The name of the article should be moved back to the House of Yi. The original move was requested by a now-banned 99to99, a sockpuppet of Kauffner, and the article was moved without discussion. In English usage, the House of "[insert surname]" indicates that the surname of the ruling house was [insert surname], sometimes with a nobiliary particle. For example, the surname of the House of Romanov is Romanov. Titling the article, House of Jeonju Yi, makes most readers think that the surname of the house was Jeonju Yi, when it was only Yi. For example, the name of one of the current pretenders is Yi Seok, not Jeonju Yi Seok. There are also no references at all in English to a "House of Jeonju Yi" except from Wikipedia clones. In contrast, the term "House of Yi" is sometimes used in English-using Korean media. This article from the Korea Times and this opinion piece from the Korea Herald, both use the terminology "House of Yi". 99to99 seems to have conflated this article (which is solely about the ruling house descended from a branch of the Jeonju Yi clan) with the Jeonju Yi clan, which already has an article. There also has only been one Yi family in Korea that became a ruling house, meaning readers are not likely to confuse the House of Yi with a different Yi family in Korea. The article for the ruling house of the Tang dynasty simply uses House of Li, despite the existence of Li families in China not from Longxi. -- CountHacker (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I would indeed assume that the family name of the House was 'Jeonju Yi'. I agree that it is evident from the July RM that the now-banned proposer was conflating House of Yi and Jeonju Yi clan. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:UCN. The previous move on the basis of "no opposition" with no policy basis and one piece of external evidence should not have been conducted. —  AjaxSmack  04:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KO name in lead[edit]

Minor note. Per MOS:KO, my gnomework usually involves putting the Korean term for the title in the lead. However, "House of Yi" seems to mostly be an English term; I've not seen an equivalent Korean term for it. Most people say "the Joseon/Korean Empire Royal Family" in Korean. toobigtokale (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Yi&oldid=1208415361"