Talk:Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty

Korea High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Copy destroyed by Kanto earthquake[edit]

Now we have: "In Japanese Colonial Period, the Japanese moved the Odae-san copy to Tokyo University, but the copy was soon lost in the Great Kantō earthquake of 1923." But this [1] (Asahi.com) news story says: "many volumes in the annals were destroyed by fire during the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. Only 74 volumes that had been taken out of the library survived. Of that number, 27 volumes were moved to Keijo Imperial University, in what is now Seoul, in 1932 when it was still under Japanese control." Also, a KBS story [2] says: "The University of Tokyo says the return of Joseon Dynasty royal records to South Korea will take a long time. In a meeting with visiting members of a South Korean committee for the annals' return, the university's library said Monday that considerable time is needed for a decision on the return of 47 volumes of the annals." Whogue 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of joseon dynasty listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Annals of joseon dynasty. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

Gave most of the article a revision, with particular focus on proper sourcing. It's still missing tons of information; please feel free to add (just with reliable sourcing please; don't need a repeat of the previous situation). 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur? Delete?[edit]

There are sentences of questionable credibility under Section Compilation process: "Only the historians were allowed to read the sacho; if any historian disclosed or altered its contents, they were subject to severe punishment." If only the historians were allowed to read the sacho and they were guaranteed editorial independence, who was capable of discovering alterations and why were the historians punished for exercising editorial freedom? The sentence after the semicolon does not logically follow from the one before, and the sources don't make such a claim.

Moreover, it logically doesn't make sense for there to have been punishment for disclosing the sacho, because the lives of the historians themselves would have been at risk if the king had found out about their commentary that often contained negative evaluations of the deceased king. Those skeptical are encouraged to search "사신은 논한다" on the Veritable Records website and see how much of the commentary would have constituted lèse-majesté and resulted in execution if the records had been disclosed. There was one king (italicized because his kingship was revoked posthumously), Yeonsangun, who got ahold of the sacho. Surely, there was no need for additional punishment. Motjustescribe (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sillok: proper noun or common noun?[edit]

We should reach agreement on how to treat the word "sillok." It really depends on the style guide, but the common noun used alone as a substitute for the name of a place or thing is typically not capitalized (Exhibit A under Section Common nouns and adjectives in proper names). The word sillok itself is not a proper noun, as it is used for various veritable records, like the Ming Veritable Records, Qing Veritable Records, or Nihon Sandai Jitsuroku. Of course, they're pronounced differently in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, but even if we acknowledge the different pronunciations, the word sillok in Korean may mean different veritable records depending on the context—it doesn't always mean Joseon's sillok. It just so happens to be that it most commonly refers to the Joseon Veritable Records in Korean because it is part of Korean history.

The aforementioned rule is often overridden for organized bodies (e.g., the Department, the Administration, the Agency, et cetera). The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage still does not capitalize common-noun substitutes for organized bodies (e.g., the department, the administration, the agency, et cetera). I rest my case. Motjustescribe (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]