Talk:Jang-geum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact vs. Fiction[edit]

I made some grammatical edits that I feel are clearly reliable within their limited scope. Accidentally I said they were in the 2nd paragraph, but they're actually in the current 3rd paragraph.

My main topic: This article could use attention from a subject matter expert, given the various back-and-forths seen over time (notably in 2021), and given the persistent ability of fiction (such as Dae Jang Geum) to influence Wikipedia content in areas outside the usual Euro / American topics.

I haven't tagged the article with that "needs attention" warning, in case a comment here will get it done less obtrusively. Not to dismiss Dae Jang Geum as entertainment, in case it has Stans reading this; I quite enjoy it, it's just not a reliable source. CF Dong Yi vs. historical records of Choi Suk-bin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codexor (talkcontribs) 00:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never give up[edit]

you know,when i'm watching the korean drama dae jang geum,the story tells me something.The story told me that one should not give up when he or she falls.There's always a second chance to change everything.What about you,mr wikipedia???

hailey thomas,Malaysia.

Name[edit]

Is 'Seo' really her surname? The Korean article on Dae Jang Geum states her real name is unknown. Maybe this article should be moved to Jang Geum. --KJ 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I can't figure out where the "Seo" came from. -- Visviva 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its assumed from whoever posted the translated paragraphs from the annals (assuming its legit) that the surname is supposedly Suh/Seo or whatever. BTW which korean article on Dae Jang Geum was referenced that stated "surname unknown"? Roy
대장금 at the Korean Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 08:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mythos[edit]

Jang Geum Seo (jang Gyum Sho) is a cooking wizard that is consisted to become the nurse of the king.. at the end jang geum seo wants by the king to be his queen.. but jang geum dont want because she love her Husband(in the end) jung ho Min... jang Geum become a nurse... because of the destruction done by Lady Choi(madam Choi) to Jang Geum and Madam Han (lady Han).. in that Story: Jang Geum Seo (Jang Geum Min- in the End) Became the National Hero of Korea... but i Think on that story..China and Korea are Known as One Country.and She bacame the Special Nurse of The KIng because of her best friend Yon-Sang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.1.4 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

I'm assuming that the if Jungjong's reign started in 1506 then the 18th year of it corresponds to about to 1524-1525? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu America (talkcontribs) 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent expansion[edit]

I see that this article has recently undergone a large expansion which has many problems, both in terms of content and in terms of presentation. I'm left scratching my head over some of the specific claims the author of the expansion made. For example, the author asserts that "Jang Geum was an exception as he recognized her skill as a doctor and her unique talent in making medicine into a delicacy (by combining it into everyday food so to make it easier to consume)", a claim which fits the fictionalized account given in Dae Jang Geum, but which appears utterly unsupported by the primary documents pertaining to this person. (edit: one document, improperly cited, and which seems not to be a primary source, does say that she "[treated] illness with food", but that doesn't support any of the characterization the Wikipedia editor added to that notion.) At first, I tagged the article with a number of problem templates, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that this can't be easily fixed, and the current state of the article is simply unacceptable. It pains me to do this, but I'm reverting the article to an earlier state. —Bill Price (nyb) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]