Talk:Joseon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There are no sources that describe this as "Kingdom of Joseon"

either "Joseon Dynasty" or "Joseon" should be used. It should be noted that the move was not discussed. Good friend100 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

Comment

The Joseon (Chosŏn) dynasty lasted so long, and was so culturally distinctive, that Korea and Joseon are sometimes used interchangeably for the 15th-19th centuries. Old maps do refer to it as "Choson," as do historians -- when they get careless, at any rate. Examples: Kim SJ (2007:10), Jun & Lewis (2004), both using the phrase "Chosŏn nation." Certainly it was a very different country than Goryeo (Koryŏ), which preceded it, or the Japanese colony which followed it. This is a judgment call.

I may make a number of revisions in the near future. Looking at other editorial comments, I'm particularly concerned about my tendency to excessive wordiness. Tell me to shut up if this becomes a concern.

Refs: Kim SJ (2007), Marginality and Subversion in Korea: The Hong Kyŏngnae Rebellion of 1812. Univ. Wash. Press, 194 pp.

Jun SH & JB Lewis (2004), On double-entry bookkeeping in Eighteenth-century Korea: A consideration of the account books from two clan associations and a private academy. [unpublished draft] Posted by authors at [1]

Augwhite (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit removed all mention of the cheonmin class. Please explain? Jpatokal (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm-m. The cheonmin article claims that they're the lowest class, but Caste disagrees and puts them several rungs above baekjeong. This should be sorted out... Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. My understanding (could be wrong) is that cheonmin was not an inherited status. For example, as Yu Hyeongweong (17th century) said ""Shamans, actors, monks, and such types ... [W]hat you detest about them is that they do the work of shamans, actors, and monks. If they were to abandon these practices and as a matter of course become commoners, what would there be about them to hate?"" So, cheonmin didn't represent a social caste -- just a number of disfavored occupations. It also depends on the observer's position. To a member of an old yangban family, having a mudang relative probably would be an inheritable taint; but ordinary people would not have seen it that way. The yangban did most of the writing, but we aren't required to see Joseon Korea only through their eyes. Augwhite (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to link to this image resource available for Joseon art at http://artabase.net/exhibition/924-korean-dreams Artabase (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty → Joseon — Analogously to Goryeo, because the usage of the term "Joseon" throughout is confusing with a title like "Joseon Dynasty" (to English speakers), and Joseon redirects here. — Srnec (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Neutral I don't see why it is overly confusing to use "dynasty", as an English speaker myself. Perhaps some more info on dynastic succession in Korea should be added to the article. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I agree with the above statement. Although I think it is important to come to a standard. So if we leave Joseon dynasty, we should move Goryeo to Goryeo dynastie. Kbarends (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Sorry to see polling going this way, but I too am confused as to precisely what "Joseon" is. I think this reflect a wider problem than just what to call this article, but also how to represent Joseon throughout Wikipedia. I recognize that in Korean and other East Asian languages there is not nearly as strict a conceptual division between dynasties and nations, and indeed our usage in English is likewise confused... Joseon is listed as a "dynasty" in numerous lists on Wikipedia (see for example, Dynasty#Korea) but is often represented as a distinct sovereign state. As User:Srnec points out below, there are numerous contradictions within this article; Joseon tongsinsa, just to pick another one dealing with Joseon (or Joseon dynasty Korea, your choice), shows equal inconsistencies and confusion of terms. The word "Korea" is hardly used at all, presenting great confusion to the average reader unfamiliar with the term "Joseon"; "Joseon" is represented here as a sovereign state, even though the term "Joseon Dynasty" (implying "Joseon period of Korea" or "Joseon ruling family of Korea") is used. Click on "Japanese invasion of Joseon" and it brings you to "Japanese invasions of Korea", that is, Japanese invasions of Korea during the Joseon period, i.e. Korea under the Joseon Dynasty, meaning that "Korea", not "Joseon" is the name of the country, and Joseon is merely the historical period or the ruling dynasty. So, which is it? LordAmeth (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (but not very loudly). All Chinese dynasties are at "X Dynasty", and even the cited counterexample of Goryeo actually starts with The Goryeo Dynasty, established in 918, and all Korean "dynastic kingdoms" (for lack of a better term) certainly fit the definition of A succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. Jpatokal (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A "succession of rulers" is not a "kingdom". Joseon is not a Chinese dynasty. The proposed title must not be read as implying that Joseon is not a dynasty. Srnec (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even Chinese dynasties could be better thought of as "X Empire." They certainly referred to themselves that way. I think Joseon would be fine for this article but I have no huge problem with the current title either. (We like things to neatly be either a "state" or a "dynasty" but in pre-modern East Asia, the two were conflated.) — AjaxSmack 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

From the lead:

• Joseon ... was a sovereign state. . . Can a dynasty be a sovereign state? Not in normal English usage, but maybe in Korean historiography. Either way, the re-title I suggest would cause less initial confusion.
• Joseon was the last royal and later imperial dynasty. . . So it is a dynasty...
• During its reign, Joseon consolidated its absolute rule over Korea. . . Can't tell if it's talking about a dynasty or a kingdom, but I notice it doesn't use the definite article ("the Joseaon"). I don't know what that implies.
• The Joseon's rule has left a substantial legacy. . ." Here we have a definite article and I'm not sure why the two different usages appear in the same lead. Also, Joseon here is singular.

Also in the lead Goryeo is described both as a kingdom and a dynasty. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

History of Joseon Dynasty

This article has exceeded the appropriate size. History of Joseon Dynasty has been created for the History section. A summary is also left on Joseon article. ADKTE (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You, one-day-old Wikipedian, can show me a pertinent policy of "what is appropriate size for articles in Wiki. This is nothing but your declaration (by my request) for what you're unilaterally doing. Since your edits are not a "consensus version", your calling my edits "vandalism" is WP:Personal attack. As long as you do not get a consensus from editors here, your edits should be reverted to the previous version. I'm obviously objecting to your idea of spliting.--Caspian blue 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the policy: Wikipedia:Article size. ADKTE (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote it and I remind you Wikipedia:Consensus, newbie--Caspian blue 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also this policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. ADKTE (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a wonderful policy; Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I'm sorry, but nobody believe that your miraculous Wiki knowledge can be seen from ordinary and real new comers--Caspian blue 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The important thing here is that I was improving the quality of the article according to the Wiki rule. On the other hand, preventing other people's contructive contribution is vandalsm. ADKTE (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your edits without discussion nor consensus is viewed as constructive. Preventing further damages is not vandalism, newbie. Keep deliberately saying as such is WP:Personal attack. You don't WP:Own the article. Present reasons why we should have two separate articles on the same subject. I don't think the article in original status is too long.--Caspian blue 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty deals with everything of Joseon Dynasty not just its history. History of Joseon Dynasty deals only with the history. These are two seperate subjects. ADKTE (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty itself is a history article and a part of History of Korea.--Caspian blue 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So what? A part of an article can't have its own parts? Joseon Dynasty also deals with politics, economy, culture and a bunch of them. ADKTE (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you have exercised your POV without any attempt to notify your intention and we do not know who you're and how you would edit. All you have done is "cut-and-past" edits and reverting and making false accusation. Moreover, the article seriously lacks of "inline sources", and your naming is false in English as well (if kept separately, the title should History of the Joseon Dynasty, not History of Joseon Dynasty). I do not agree with your simply cut-and-paste unless the main article is implemented with "many" additional source. Besides, when Ming Dynasty was chosen as featured article[2], the size was 110,043 bytes. If you insist that it has a separate article like History of the Ming Dynasty which was only created recently without any tough to the article of Ming Dynasty (current size is 136,947 bytes). I can't see any precedent discussion at its talk either though)--Caspian blue 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Joseon Dynasty was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.ADKTE (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment and advice

Since this made it to WP:AN3, I suppose I'd better comment. I take it that this [3] is the dispute in question: whether text from this page should be moved into a sub page History of Joseon Dynasty. To make my prejudices clear: I don't care if you do this or not.

However:

History of Joseon Dynasty was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. - this won't do. The nominator wanted delete or make-redirect, ADKTE wanted keep, so those balance out. That leaves 2 redirect votes, which means remove the article content back to here.

ADTKE is at fault because his only talk page comment appears to be to note on various page the keep decision [4]. CB is at fault for incivility.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You totally missed to mention his blind reverts more than 3 times, and incivility. This note should've been much better at his talk page than here.--Caspian blue 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Merger with History of Joseon Dynasty

Two days ago, the article of History of Joseon Dynasty was created by ADKTE (talk · contribs) who claim this article of Joseon Dynasty is too long. The newly created article is not based on a consensus, so that several editors have requested "Prod"[5], "merger"[6], and AfD[7]. Since the closing admin of the AfD on History of Joseon Dynasty suggested to involved editors to discuss for merging, redirecting, and others within the talk page, I put the template of the merger on the article. The unilateral split by ADKTE was not a consensus version, so we need to continue discussion rather than blind reverting. I think the article should go back to the big change because of the following reasons.

• First, the article is barely inline-sourced, so until it is sourced to a certain degree that we feel okay to take out the template of "{{refimprove}}", the idea of splitting this article into two is not a good idea. That means editors here have to take care of the two articles on the same subject in mess.
• Second, when splitting, the current article should hold skeletons of every important contents. So summarizing the removed contents should be carefully done. However, mere relocating contents from here to the other just produces lack of "flows". Readers could have a hard time to properly understand the article, and would soon lose interest in reading it.

However, ADKTE has not been properly summarizing contents nor sourcing, so his claim as a person improving the articles are not convincing. When the article of Ming Dynasty was titled as a featured article, its size was over 100,000 kbyte, so ADKTE must resent his reason except the size matter.--Caspian blue 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per the above reason.--Caspian blue 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• OpposeThis administrator User:Tone didn't suggest merger or redirect. It was one of the participants who suggested. Please be aware of Manul of Style. A good article doesn't mean it is good in all aspects. There is also Song Dynasty for you to look at. ADKTE (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  let me remind you I wrote like the closing admin suggested to involved editors to discuss for merging, redirecting, and others within the talk page,.--Caspian blue 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see improvements in the quality of this article with History of Joseon Dynasty. Limeisneom (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC) — Limeisneom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge It's a over the transom edit version by ADKTE --Historiographer (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an article about a 500 year old dynasty. There's more than enough history out there to justify a separate article. Rather than merging this article with another one, I think significant attempts should be made to improve this article. Sima Yi (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Sima Yi. Joseon is in the article List of longest-lasting empires, listed as having survived for 518 years. (As an aside comment: for most of that time, I'm not sure it could be considered an "empire" in its own right, regardless of its eventual name as the Korean Empire...) None of its history falls into prehistoric or preliterate times, so there is an incredible wealth of information which could be recounted in an article specific to the history of this dynasty. I see no reason to kill off the present article in a quibble over its current quality. Wikipedia has no deadline, and I think it's indisputable that the scope of the topic is broad enough to warrant a full article; so my vote is to let this article improve over time. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku and ADKTE's disruptive edits

Here is a table to comare edits on the article and History of Joseon Dynasty

The original content

Bukubku's and ADKTE's edits

Assassination of Empress Myeongseong Main article: Empress Myeongseong The empress had attempted to counter Japanese interference in Korea and was considering turning to Russia or China for support. In 1895, Empress Myeongseong was assassinated by Japanese agents. The Japanese minister to Korea, Miura Goro orchestrated the plot against her. A group of Japanese agents entered the Imperial palace in Seoul, which was under Japanese guard, and Empress Myeongseong (referred to as "Queen Min" by the Japanese) was killed and her body desecrated in the North wing of the palace.

Eulmi Incident Main article: Eulmi Incident In 1895, Empress Myeongseong (referred to as "Queen Min" by the United States, Japan and so on) was assassinated by Japanese agents with the aid of with the aid of several hundreds Korean Army.. The Japanese minister to Korea, Miura Goro orchestrated the plot against her. A group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army. entered the Royal palace in Seoul, which was under Japanese and Koreans guard, and Japanese agent was directly kill a Empress Myeongseong and her body desecrated in the North wing of the palace. The empress had attempted to counter Japanese interference in Korea and was considering turning to Russia or China for support. After the assassination of his consort.

Bukubku's edits

Bukubku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

1. POV Pushing
   1. Without any consensus, Bukubku has tried to change every links referring to Empress Myeongseong to "Queen Min". Since the result of the renaming discussion was settled, whether you like or not, the title should follow the current title of the article for consistency. However, he styled like "The empress/queen" here and other articles, which behaviors clearly constitute pov pushing.
2. WP:Undue and POV Pushing
   1. The Korean Army called "Hullyondae" (훈련대) was trained by the Japanese and under the Japanese assassins' direction. They are referred to as "Hullyondae" and scholars mention that they're under the direct Japanese order. Therefore, scholars conclude that the main charge of the assassination falls upon the Japanese, not Koreans. How do I know of it? Due to Bukubku, I ordered 5 books regarding the incidents (all English books written by Anglo scholars specializing in Japan and Korean studies) and they say the Empress was murdered by the Japanese not says Japanese and Koreans.
   2. Of course, there were Korean collaborators, but the incident was plotted by the Japanese. However, Bukubku has tried to share the whole blame of the crime with Koreans without even mentioning of the character of the Korean Army.
   3. Scholars also point out that the Japanese assassins tried to disguise as if the murder was carried by the Korean army just like Bukubku has done here.
3. WP:Point: Bukubku changed to the sub-header from Assassination of Empress Myeongseong to Eulmi Incident. However, Eulmi Incident is a "redirect age" and he intended it go to Queen Min which makes double-redirect to Empress Myeongseong. The change seems like an attempt to minimize the attention to the article.
4. WP:Original research: The 1895 NYT source only said about "Queen of Corea", not "by Queen Min". Thus, Bukubku's insistence that she is referred to as Queen Min by the United States is his "original research". Moreover, the preposition by means she became to be called as such by Americans. It is also original research.
5. WP:CITE: Moreover, he has not provided that she is referred to as "Queen Min in Japan and so on".
6. WP:English: English Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, but this wrong grammar is beyond the principle of Wikipedia.
   1. e.g. "with the aid of with the aid of several hundreds Korean Army"
   2. A group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army.... was directly kill a Empress Myeongseong. --> ?? In your sentence, a group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army was (not were?) killed instead of the Empress? Besides, where is another Empress Myeongseong since he said "a Empress Myeongseong"?
   3. After the assassination of his consort -why this meaningless sentence should be addressed?
7. WP:Disruptive editing: I clearly sad the above reason in the edit summary twice, but he has just pushed to include his referred version without any attempt to explain his edits to the talk page.
8. Blatant Disregard to Consensus In site of repeated suggestion for opening discussion on the talk, he has refused to gain a consensus. That is very harmful for building articles constructively and for resolving dispute.
9. WP:GAME:It's ironic that Bukubku who tried to delete the source regarding the Russian eye-witness report from Empress Myeongseong and Korea under Japanese rule is currently using the same source. This double play can be considered "gaming" for his POV.--Caspian blue 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ADKTE's edit

ADKTE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

1. POV Pushing ADKTE has been disrupting not only to the two articles with his unilateral split of this article, but also blindly reverted 8 times in total for his pov.
2. WP:MEAT Then he suddenly appeared to revert the article in support for Bukubku's edits without examining the sources and edits.
3. WP:Harassment and WP:Personal attack
   1. Currently he is the only one who reverted 3 times in 24 hours (more accurately in 9 hours), but threaten Historiographer who reverted 2 times in 24 hours. If Historiographer reverted ADKTE's edits, he would be "blocked" by his report. However, he is neighter an admin who can speak and Bukubku reverted as much as Historiographer.
   2. When I gave him 3RR warnings because he reverted 3 times unlike any of three editors, however, he gave me a hoax 3RR warning as a retaliation.
   3. Due to his harassing behaviors, I gave him No Personal attack warning, and then he also gave me a threat to report. Those are all harassment.
   4. False allegation He lied that I attacked him based on his age. I'm sorry, where? Diff lease.
4. WP:GAME and BAD FAITH
   1. Again, he falsely accused Historiographer of violating 3RR and then made a hoax 3RR report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in order to harass him. This based on bad faith to block his opponent with the false charge is "gaming the system".
   2. Moreover, the one that is close to 3RR violation is ADKTE. The consequence of the hoax report would go to his responsibility.--Caspian blue 05:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please explain your edits and behaviors, thanks.--Caspian blue 05:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty

Whether Joseon was "sovereign" or not, and to what degree, seems like grounds for an intractable edit war -- but it is beyond dispute that Joseon became a Qing protectorate in 1636. (Cf. Samjeondo Monument.) I've thus revised the lead to omit that word entirely, and note the dependency on Qing instead. Jpatokal (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good edit. Whoever put "sovereign" right at the top of the article was being intellectually dishonest, because there is quite a bit of nuance to the 500-year history of the dynasty, and there were certainly periods during which the government was overwhelmed and virtually powerless. On the other hand, I also think that it is utterly indisputable that—during certain periods—Joseon was a fully-sovereign state. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong edit with CPOV. Former days, It is not debate section. therefore, It must be revert to none confrontation version. Also Joseon was not protectorate utill 1905. The word as "Protectorate" is only modern notion and Chinese Dynasties didn't interference in the Korean affairs. --Historiographer (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Historiographer, two simple questions: was Joseon sovereign after losing the war in 1637? And was it sovereign after 1905?

Also, while Chinese and Korean distinguish between 付庸国 and 保護国, they can both be translated "protectorate" in English. But I'm happy to change that to vassal state if you want. Jpatokal (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jpatokal, You should have contrary to CPOV. Joseon was just defeated in two manchurian invasions, not become as protectorate.--Historiographer (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the word to "vassal state" and noted the original term "屬國". Jpatokal (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You want edit warring instead of improving the article based on history. You are are mostly editing Japanese and Chinese articles and have a strong pro-Japanese, Chinese biases and wrong historical facts. You are interested in Japanese subject, so you know that Japan was a vassal state of China and paid tributes to China.

The first historical record on Japan was to kick out from Chinese court even though they pleaded to pay tribute to China in 1402. The information was erased from the article throught the time. But why have not you prevent or inserted the accurate information on "vassal state" to the intro to Japan article too? Modern Western scholars and Chinese scholars consider Japan a Chinese vassal state for a long time. Your unreliable source even states that Japan was a vassal state of China. Choson and Japan established trade relations with China as vassal states and each other as equals based on the Chinese tribute system.

However, it is very hypocritical of you that you only inserted the information to the article, not to Japan. Perhaps because of your faithfulness to Japan. The political ideology of Korea differs from your biased mind. The tributes sent to China was for better trade deals for Joseon with China. More importantly, you inserted a unreliable source from a unreliable site for your bias.--Historiographer (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The only one pulling Japan into all this is you. The actual question is "was Joseon vassal state of China", and the answer to that is, undisputably, "yes":

First was the mutual acceptance of a hierarchical relationship in which China (or more properly, the Ming and Qing Empires) was clearly superior. This relationship was usually articulated in Confucian familial terms (father to son or elder brother to younger brother) and was expressed by annual Korean tribute missions to China, the occasional visit of a Chinese envoy to Korea (usually to grant investiture to a new Korean king), and the Korean willingness to adopt the Chinese imperial calendar (at least in its correspondence with China). When in Beijing, Korean envoys would present tribute to the Son of Heaven, receive gifts in return and make a bundle trading on the side. When Chinese envoys visited Korea, they would be met by the Korean king at the “Welcoming Imperial Grace Gate” (Yongûnmun) where the king would prostrate himself on the ground while the envoy read the message from the Chinese emperor. [8]

Are you claiming the above is factually wrong? In other words, do you claim that a) Joseon did not give tribute to China, and that b) the Joseon king did not prostrate himself in submission when the Chinese envoys arrived? Jpatokal (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And oh, here's one more "strong pro-Japanese, Chinese biases and wrong historical facts" source for you: the Office of the President, Republic of Korea. Jpatokal (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon King Injo's (r.1623-1649) refusal to acknowledge a suzerain-vassal relationship in 1636, the Manchu ruler, now enthroned as the Qing Emperor of China, invaded Joseon. King Injo fled to Namhansanseong fortress, then capitulated to the invaders on a bank of the Hangang river. He agreed to break relations with the defeated Ming and to send princes as hostages. This personal surrender of King Injo was a double blow to the monarchy and yangban, as the nation had to acknowledge subservience to the "pagan" tribes of the Manchu. [9]

I don't know why you're trying to insert your POV to the article. You never edited the article for improvement. I'm very interested in history (my name tells it) so I'm trying to understand your attitude may come from wrong comparisons of East Asian historiography and European one. As I told you, your notion on rules by foreign states or vassal states is different from each ideology of East Asian countries.

I told you that the perception of vassal state in Joseon was different from your biased view. I mentioned about Japan because the intro summarizes the complex and long relationship between Joseon and its neighbors, China and Japan. Your exaggeration as "Joseon was a vassal state" without proper context misleads the article. The concept can not be simply added to the article without close examination from many scholars. You suddenly came here and made edit wars and then even taunted me several time as if you deliberately wanted me to be angry. That acts were immature and bad faith. Your first inserted information is from a unreliable site for your POV. Do not deny your behavior.

If you study more about tributary system of East Asia, the concept of vassal states in Asia differs from Western view. According to your user page, you came from Finland, so let me put it this way. Korea was a colony of Japan for about 35 years just like Finland was under Russian rule for about 110 years after Swedish rule for 650 years. However Joseon managed its own political system and freedom unlike Finland which did not even have its own monarchy system. Also that can not be naively compared without context. If a state did not join an established order, then it did not get any trade deal with the world. Joseon was part of the order, and Japan was too. However, Japan rather "chose" not join the order when Qing dominated the continent.

However as you're so eager to insert the biased view, I thought the similar information that Japan was also another vassal state of China should be mentioned to Japan. It is a fact that you're editing Japan articles very much according to your user page and contribution. So what's wrong with my suggestion? If your goal is to upset editors in dispute, you're just disrupting the article for your agenda.--Historiographer (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Once more: do you claim that a) Joseon did not give tribute to China, and that b) the Joseon king did not prostrate himself in submission when the Chinese envoys arrived? Jpatokal (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The tribute of China was only over the transom to chinese view, it is not same to your view.--Historiographer (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please answer the questions. Did Joseon give tribute to China? Did the Joseon king prostrate himself in submission when the Chinese envoys arrived? Jpatokal (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I already answered your questions but you do not answere mine.--Historiographer (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not answered my questions. A simple "yes" or "no" to both, please.

Also, what questions do you want me to answer? If you mean "what's wrong with my suggestion?", please explain what your suggestion is, because it's not very clear. Jpatokal (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've told you, and you do not try to find my answer in my opinion. Yes or No? That attitude is uncivil. Please do not treat me that way. Your demand sounds like I must follow your order. I told you many times that the tributary system of Asia is complex, so it should be examined carefully. I said Joseon's instance about tributes for better trade deals with China. I asked you why you did not insert the same information to Japan that "Japan was a vassal state of China". Why do you suddenly appear to the article and have an strong interest in adding the information to only Korean article? Do you think that the concept of vassal state is same in both East and West? You did not read my message in detail.--Historiographer (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the Joseon Dynasty, not Japan, and we're talking about the vassal states of China, not vassal states in the West. And as you can see from the history, I've been contributing to this article since 2006. Jpatokal (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

More edit warring

I have undone this edit and blocked Historiographer for 31 hours because this is clear continuation of edit warring, less than 24 hours after the page was unprotected, and with no consensus at the talk page. If my protection rationale was not clear enough already, I think both Historiographer and Jpatokal need to stay out of this article (other than minor/MOS edits and reverting vandalism) and stick to the talk page. Any further reverts—especially changes to the disputed section—will result in blocks, like this one did. It is you guys' responsibility to find outside opinions, bring them here, and reach an acceptable consensus/compromise; until that is done, neither of you should be editing the disputed text directly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please limit your remarks to the person actually doing the edit warring; I haven't touched the article since June 25th, and have no intention of doing so. Jpatokal (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were edit warring; I just was clarifying that I think both of you should stay at the talk page. You haven't done anything wrong, I just didn't want to look like I was singling one editor out. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

FYI, I have filed a case for this page at the Mediation Cabal → Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-09/Joseon Dynasty. Jpatokal (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone, why don't you talk in the mediation cabal but still make edit-warring? --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Now User:蘇州宇文宙武 has been blocked 31h for the same reason as Historiographer was: unexplained reverting in the middle of a content dispute. If this continues I will have to protect the page again, and for a longer time before; I won't care which version is protected. I will also file an RFC or an RfAR to request that this article be put on article probation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of immediate protection, so we can try to work out something on the Talk page instead of continuing the pointless edit war. Jpatokal (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Let's all step back and stop editing this article when there is an ongoing dispute. I haven't read the discussion at this talk page (I've just noticed it popping up on my watchlist a lot), but it is clear that no one here has consensus for the edits they are making. Just in the past 3 days (ie, not counting the tons of reverting on June 16), I see these reverts, most of which have no real rationale given in the edit summary and thus are just edit warring:

• Historiographer
  • It is only your assert, don't revert your subjective.
  • rv per talk page

• Jpatokal
  • rv, but change protectorate into more accurate "vassal state"
  • rv once again, see Talk
  • rv harder

• 218.94.93.254
  • histographor used extremely rude words in the talk page

Clearly, most of these are just hard reverts and don't provide any reason. That's a clear sign that you should not be editing the article directly, and should be dealing with this using the talk page, dispute resolution, or outside opinions (from, for example, WikiProject Korea) rather than edit warring. I don't want to have to lock this page down, but as an uninvolved editor (who has no political feelings either way about this dispute) I will protect it if edit warring continues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much involved in this article (it's on my watchlist from when I did some minor copyediting) but to my recollection, Jpatokal (talk · contribs) TheoTheobald (talk · contribs) made some major revisions to the article, essentially claiming that Joseon was not an independent political entity or in any way a sovereign state. This was done without establishing consensus and reflects a view of history which holds little currency in Korean, European, and American views of Korean history—Chinese and Japanese scholars have made such claims (especially when Japan colonized Korea to "save" the Koreans from their "stagnation"), but my professor of Korean history asserted that those views are tainted by nationalism and reflect a misunderstanding of the political systems of the time and a misrepresentation of the historical evidence. Jpatokal (talk · contribs) has followed the POV of TheoTheobald (talk · contribs) in his edits, using the term vassal state for Joseon's status. I am not an expert myself, and so I have refrained from getting involved in the editing dispute. However, everything I have been taught and everything I have read points away from the point of view Jpatokal (talk · contribs) has inserted into the article, and I believe the original contested revisions in question ought not to have been made without an attempt to establish consensus. Historiographer (talk · contribs) has been doing a good job of trying to negotiate the positions and insert nuance into the article prose where appropriate, but to my perspective, Jpatokal (talk · contribs) has not reached out to match those good-faith efforts. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a third opinion on this would be welcome, and solicited outside opinions from WP:KOREA several days ago, but none have been forthcoming so far.

Regarding the disputed terminology, it was originally "protectorate", but when User:Historiographer objected, I changed this to the more accurate "vassal state", which is backed up by several reliable sources [10] [11].

Finally, Notyourbroom's comments above are completely inaccurate, as can be seen by a cursory review of the history. To wit, this little kerfuffle started when User:TheoTheobald added a note on 7 June 2009 to the article's original claim of Joseon being "sovereign", which was reverted repeatedly by User:Historiographer. My first edit, which removed the disputed word "sovereign" and noted the dependency on Qing — in other words, said the same thing as Theo in different words — came later. Jpatokal (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that I conflated the two—I apologize for that. TheoTheobald (talk · contribs) did start the dispute, but he was a bit of a drive-by editor in this situation, and from my perspective, it seems that you are carrying on his point of view, but with different wording. I apologize that I did not take sufficient time to re-read the revision histories to get that point correct. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been two nights since I posted the above message, and edit warring continues. Therefore, I have fully protected the article until the dispute is resolved. Please continue to seek dispute resolution; if a previous post at WP:KOREA has gone unanswered, try contacting editors directly (for example, just off the top of my head, I know that Caspian blue, Baeksu, and Mtd2006 are active in editing Korea-related pages), or posting at other relevant project pages or at EA. If someone needs to edit the page for something non-controversial (typo fixes, cleanup, additions that are unrelated to the content dispute, etc.) you may do so by placing the {{editprotected}} template on this talk page, with a description of the edit to be made. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, admin, thank you for the intervention. Yes, we need more neutral and knowledgeable editors of Korean history. I hope Jpatokal should stop his biased POV based on Chinese and Japanese view. He followed the SPI's insistence and his edits are not helpful for the article.

Jpatokal, your notion can not naively pushed to the article without consensus and close examinaiton. There are many opposite sources against your POV, but you ignored my opinion again. Also the Korea Project source is not reliable, so please do not insist on that.--Historiographer (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide your opposing sources then. Also, can you tell us what part of WP:RS the following sources fail to meet? Jpatokal (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Cheong Wa Dae: Office of the President, Republic of Korea [12], in turn sourced from the Ministry of Culture & Tourism, Republic of Korea

(Note: Fake. Cheong Wa Dae content is not match with such claim) Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Daniel Moran: The Reader's Companion to Military History, p. 246

(Note: Can't verify source) Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Song Shi Yeol's Discussions about Enshrinement Policies(廟制論) -Influenced by Ju Hi's Discussions of the Issue, by 이현진(Lee Hyun-Jin). The Joseon dynasty maintained the policy of 5 Main shrines in the National Shrine, keeping its position as a subordinate Vassal state to China in terms of protocols. [13]

(Note: "protocols" mean diplomatic relation, so, it mean external forign relation) Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Contemporary Chinese Narratives on Korean Culture, JS Hyun - Korea Journal, 2003. The tribute system defined the formal political relationship between China and its neighboring peoples in East Asia—such as Korea ... The rulers of these non-Chinese states sent missions to the imperial court to perform appropriate ceremonies as vassals (fan) and to present local products and other gifts as tribute. ... The Sino-Korean political relationship was an exemplary case of the tribute system. Except for certain transitional periods of dynastic change or the military conquest of China by outside peoples, Korean states earnestly fulfilled their tributary duties and adhered to the position of a political subordinate... [14]

(Note: This document explain tribute system, Japan, Ryukyu were also tribute to China "as vassal". It is not says, "joseon was not sovereign state") Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. History up to the Korean War, AC NAHM, The Far East and Australasia, 1969. He established the Yi dynasty and renamed the kingdom Choson, with Seoul as the ... Korea became increasingly Confucianized as a vassal to China [15]

(Note: This book is an about the Korean war. and can't verify that content) Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. North Korea through the looking glass, KD Oh, RC Hassig - 2000 - books.google.com. throughout most of its existence Choson maintained a vassal relationship with its powerful neighbor, China... [16]

(Note: Japan, Ryukyu were same. It was a diplomatic relation. It is not western concept "vassal". also this book is not says, "joseon was not sovereign state") Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is regretful that you protected the article with the wrong version. Before Jpatocal and some sock push their POV to the article, the article was quiet and stable for a while. But the article suddenly gets a lot of POV attention from new users, socks, or IPs. I suspect this may come from outside. I asked help to several editors as you told us. --Historiographer (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. That means you are admitting that your insistence is wrong; Korea Project site is not a reliable source. I did not check the reference that is really reliable or not. I'm very busy for my works in real life these days, but I'll say after I review the source.--Historiographer (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping Korea Project and replacing any of the six sources above. Jpatokal (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you just accuse me of using sock puppets? I suggest you retract that and apologize. And by the way — articles are always protected on the Wrong Version.

In the meantime, we're still waiting for you to tell us why those sources fail to meet WP:RS, or provide sources of your own. Jpatokal (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you did not read my comment carefully again. I did not accuse you of sock and I said socks and ips, the suspicious editors suddenly came here insert biased information. You're unfortunately following their POV. That is already said by Notyourbroom. You should get rid of your false accusation and apolosize to me.--Historiographer (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So who are you accusing of using sock puppets? What are these "suspicious" editors? Jpatokal (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseon was Ming's vassal state

according to both Chinese and Korean source, all of Joseon kings got Cefeng(册封) and they tributed to Ming every year after A.D 1403.

even dynasty's name 'Joseon' also permited by Ming's Emperor. those facts not show Joseon was vassal state of Ming？ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.99.38.227 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Joseon was Ming and Qing's vassal state before 1897. Some Korean nationalists refused to accept it, but it's still an unchangeable truth. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...Maybe. But Joseon's kings still were sovereign in Joseon. And, 蘇州宇文宙武, treating us as a 'Korean nationalist' is uncivil. You can have your opinions, and I can have mine. And my opinion is and was that even though Joseon was a half-buffer state, Joseon was a sovereign state. --Kfc18645 talk 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign state? This phrase didn't exist until 1815 (see Constitutive theory of statehood), and it has nothing to do with vassal state. See tribute and List of tributaries of Imperial China. Meanwhile, I didn't treat you as 'Korean nationalist', so don't confess without being pressed. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So can we agree that Joseon had internal sovereignty (within its borders), but not external (foreign affairs)? Jpatokal (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Various IP editors from China, Korea and United States but all shared same POV for Japan and China, you claim that Joseon is a vassal state of Ming China in your view and ignore Korean view and Western view. And according to various English sources, Japan was a vassal state of China and paid tribute. Toyotomi Hideyoshi caused the Imjin War because he did not like pay tributes to China, but he later kowtowed to China anyway. This is notable information, so please add this to article of the introduction of Japan too.--Historiographer (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the list of six (6) sources above. Three (3) are Korean sources (Office of the President ROK, JS Hyun, Lee Hyun-Jin) and three (3) are Western sources (Daniel Moran, AC Nahm, KD Oh; I presume Messrs Nahm and Oh are of Korean descent). There are zero (0) sources from Japan or China.

By the way, we are still waiting for you to present any sources to support your point of view. Jpatokal (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Toyotomi declined Chinese Cefeng(册封) proposal(for stop Japanese invasions of Korea) and resume the attack Korea. as I know, Toyotomi didn't kotow to China. and, tribute way between Korea and Japan/European countries were different; Korea tributed to China by way of sending governmental official to Nanjing or Beijing. Japan and European countries described as "tributary" in Chinese old manuscripts but actually, they does private Trade(日明貿易(for Japan)/勘合貿易) with Trader fleets made-up by private merchants. not sent bureaucrat to Chinese imperial city for tribute. 61.99.38.227 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Joseon Kingdom was tributary relation with Ming because of the "trade" and then it became Vassal after Qing invaded Joseon Kingdom. Japan was also tributary relation with Joseon and Ming as well. Then Toyotomi broke this relations, but Japan still paid tributes to both Joseon and Ming during Edo period.--Korsentry 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

• • • 조선왕조실록(the annals of Joseon dynasty)
• 태종 11년(1411년) 12월 9일 을미 :“본국에서 금은이 나지 않은데, 해마다 중국(中國)에 바치는 것이 모두 7백여 냥쭝[兩]이나 되니, 매우 염려된다. 수안(遂安)·단주(端州)·안변(安邊) 등지에서 정련(精鍊)하라.”(A.D 1411 : we annually tribute 20kg(700yang) of gold and silver to China but in Korea, their is only few amount of gold and silver.)

• 세종 11년(1429년) 8월 18일 임진 : 임금이 왕세자와 백관(百官)을 거느리고, 금·은 세공(歲貢)의 면제를 주청(奏請)하는 표·전문(表箋文)을 배송(拜送)하였다. (A.D 1429 : Joseon's King sent official text which requests diminish amount of gold and silver tribute to Ming.)

• 선조 26년(1593년) 11월 12일 임진 : 중국 사신이 칙서를 받들고 잇따라 이르니, 상이 뜰에서 무릎꿇고 맞이하여 사배(四拜)하였다. (A.D 1593 : Joseon's king four times kotowed to Chinese missionary.)

• 영조 68년(1748년) 7월 30일 임오 : 사행(使行)이 강호(江戶)에 도착했는데, 이곳은 곧 관백(關白)이 거처하는 곳으로 지리(地理)가 매우 험하였고 경유한 곳의 성호(城濠)는 견고하고 완벽하여 포석(砲石)으로 분쇄할 수 있는 정도가 아니었다... 길가에는 전사(廛肆)가 벌려 있었고 여리(閭里)는 모두 조리 있게 구획되어 문란하지 않았다... 여염(閭閻)의 성대함은 중국(中國)보다 더 나았다...사신이 그 나라에 도착하게 되면 제도(諸島)에 호령하는 패문(牌文)에 ‘조선(朝鮮)에서 조공을 바치러 들어온다.'고 하기에까지 이르러 국가의 수욕(羞辱)이 막심하였다.(A.D 1748 : Joseon's missionaries arrived Edo, which is residence place of Japan's Shogun. this place's geography is rough; and Guard wall looked tough. inner city was well-prepared and dwelling site was richer than China's. when Joseon's missionary arrived Japan, their set up tablet text which says 'Joseon's tributary missionaries coming'.)

Joseon's tribute was 'NOT' trade. you think what is 'trade'？ sent scarce thing and gain nothing is not trade in my opinion. and Japan was sent tributary missionaries to neither China nor Korea.61.99.38.182 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked above source, but, it is your own made source? I check anal of joseon dynasty record, but actually, your records is not exist.

* 선조 26년(1593년) 11월 12일 임진. <- this record is not exist. And your traslation was wrong. first of all, King rite performed kowtow only 2 times in all of Joseon history (Japan, rykyu's kings were also kowtowed to China), 2nd, but it was not Chinese missionary direction, It was Ming emperor palace direction. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

no. that exists. that is from 선조 45권, 26년(1593 계사 / 명 만력(萬曆) 21년) 윤11월 12일(임진) 3번째기사. and, their is no 'King' in Japan. that is maybe your original research. 61.99.38.196 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not original research. Ryukyu King kowtowed to China, Japanese Kampaku kowtowed to China. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Japan's Kampuku didn't so, in fact, they invade Korea again and occured 정유재란. but, Joseon's king wanted keep his land in help of Ming, so he did kotowed to Chinese missionary. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseon gets trade rights and access to scholastic resources that something like special relation with USA as today. Japan did sent tributes to Joseon and Ming & Qing, you check their records.--Korsentry 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

No. Ming doesn't specially treated Korea but Dai Viet, Ryukyu are more well-treated than Korea like today's USA doesn't has 'special relationship' with Korea. if you want to say Joseon's King was sovereign or Japan didn't consider 조선통신사(朝鮮通信使) as tributary missionary, just bring the source. 61.99.38.182 (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

and, i think Ming's mild treat toward Joseon is reasonable because Joseon tributed large amount of gold and silver and other elses without get return. btw, you has sources which say(or you think) that period's Joseon has enough national power or prestige for get foreign tribute？ 61.99.38.182 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

that is the your own original research. Japan and ryukyu were also vassal state of China. and Ryukyu was sent tribute to Joseon. In that time, Grade of intra asia, China > Joseon > Ryukyu > Japan. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

their was no Japan's represent during Japan's civil war period. so, also their was no Japan's official missonaries. then, how tribute to other land as 'Japan'？ your states can't make a sense. thus, Korea was way weaker than United Japan and Ryukyu didn't tribute to Korea, that is Korean Sinocentric(소중화주의 小中華主義) view of international trade. 61.99.38.196 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the your own orginal research. and typical fabrication. if korea was way weaker than other, how can korea keep independence for 5000 years?

Joseon's 500years longevity can't prove it's mighty. in fact, San marino kept their independency for 2,000years. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ryukyu Tributed to Joseon

太祖 2卷, 1年(1392 壬申 / 명 홍무(洪武) 25年) 閏12月 28日(甲辰)

是年, 琉球國中山王察度稱臣奉書, 遣通事李善等, 進貢禮物, 幷送還被虜男女八口。

(King of Ryukyu call themselves as "vassal of Joseon". and sent tribute gifts)

Here is the gift from Ryukyu.[17]

• Japan Tributed to Joseon

成宗 58卷, 6年(1475 乙未)

日本國肥前州田平寓鎭彈正少弼弘、長門州三島尉貞成、對馬州太守宗貞國、越中守宗盛弘、上津郡追浦泊耆守宗茂次遣人來, 獻土宜, 倭護軍信盈等二人來朝。

(Japan king's emissary, 前州田平 send tribute(朝貢) to joseon)

日本國王源義持, 遣使獻象。 象, 我國未嘗有也。 命司僕養之, 日費豆四五斗。

(Japan tribute elephant to Joseon)

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ignorant data. in AD 1475, their was no United Japan also Emperor doesn't has actual power. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign state? Please look at Draft History of Qing([18]):

二十一年三月，马关条约成，其第一款中国确认朝鲜为完全无缺独立自主之国，凡前此贡献等典礼皆废之。盖自崇德二年李倧归附，朝鲜为清属国者凡二百五十有八年，至是遂为独立自主国云。

It says that Joseon didn't become a sovereign state until the signature of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. But actually after that, Joseon became a vassal state then a colony of Japan. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

That is the your own original research and lie.

1. Not Only Joseon, But also Japan, Rykyu, Vietnam were also Tributaries of China.

2. Draft History of Qing is a Qing Dynasty record. It is foreign source, it recorded as biased Sinocentrism manner.

3. According to your favored source, Draft History of Qing,

• [光緖]三年(1877), 朝鮮以天主敎事與法國有違言

略曰: 「而政令則歸其自理. 天下皆知, 卽其爲自主之國, 亦天下皆知, 日本豈得獨拒?」

Qing dynasty says, "Joseon governed by their own, All world know Joseon is a 自主國(Indepedence country). Why Japan refuse them? ”

• 淸史稿 卷 526 朝鮮列傳 第 313

答以: 「而内政外交听其自主, 我朝向不预闻.」

Qing dynasty says, "(Joseon's) 政外(internal administration) 交听(diplomacy ; foreign policy) 其自主( are independence decision by Joseon dynasty) , 我朝向不预闻.(Our country never interfere with them)" Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

You are liar, don't you see this:

“朝鲜久隶中国 (Joseon has belonged to China for a long time)，而政令则归其自理。其为中国所属，天下皆知 (All world know Joseon belongs to China)，即其为自主之国，亦天下皆知，日本岂得独拒？” and ““朝鲜虽藩属 (Although Joseon is our vassal state),而内政外交听其自主,我朝向不预闻。””

Why did you lost them? 自主之国 doesn't mean sovereign state. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Wow. belong to china? how can interpret like that?

1. Draft History of Qing is a Qing Dynasty record. It is foreign source to Joseon, it recorded as biased Sinocentrism manner. It is not regard as authentic history source of Joseon.

2. Your translation is Wrong. and You forked only your convenience source. According to your mentioned sentence,

：“朝鲜久隶中国，而政令则归其自理。其为中国所属，天下皆知，即其为自主之国，亦天下皆知，日本岂得独拒？”

朝鲜久隶中国 (Even if Joseon is attached to China) (Note:隶 (attached to / scribe)[19])

而政令则归其自理 (Joseon governed by their own goverment)

其为中国所属 (All world know Joseon connect with China) (Note: this is biased view of qing. it is not recognized by Joseon)

即其为自主之国 (Joseon is a Indepedence country) (Note: 自主之国 mean "Independence soverign country")

亦天下皆知 (All world know it)

日本岂得独拒？ (Why only japan refuse it?)

3. Like above metioned,

「而内政外交听其自主, 我朝向不预闻.」

Qing dynasty says, "(Joseon's) 政外(internal administration) 交听(diplomacy ; foreign policy) 其自主( are independence decision by Joseon dynasty) , 我朝向不预闻.(Our country never interfere with them)"

China never interfere Joseon's Sovereignty. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

1. “Draft History of Qing is a Qing Dynasty record. It is foreign source to Joseon, it recorded as biased Sinocentrism manner. It is not regard as authentic history source of Joseon.” Who said that? Give me some evidence.

2. My translation was wrong? You meant yours was correct, but how can you prove it?

3. “自主之国 mean "Independence soverign country"”? Who said that? Give me some evidence. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

You are perhaps chinese, but, you can't read this basic chinese character?

自主 : (verb) make decisions by oneself[20]

国 : (noun) country Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I can't read this basic chinese character?! Hahahahaha... I can't, but you can?! Hahahahaha... Country like Greenland also can make ecisions by itself, but it isn't a sovereign state. In my opinion, Joseon was just like Greenland. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

THAT is a your own baseless original research. Please stop your own POV pushing.

Like Chinese history record metioned, Joseon's foreign policy and internal administration wholly governed by Joseon. China was nothing relation with Joseon's own Sovereignty.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can say that what you said is also your own basless original research. Sovereignty is not included internal administration and diplomacy only. Don't you forget Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, Joseon must have been conquered by Japan without China's help. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseon fully sufficient necessary conditions of Sovereignty. Foreign policy, internal administration, if foreigner commited a crime in Joseon, foreigner punished by Joseon's law. Joseon fulfill necessacry conditions of full Sovereignty. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In a word, I need your evidence about it. I need evidence which says that Joseon is a sovereign state clearly. We can't make original research. If there isn't any evidence, all what you said here is useless, understand? --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

nah.... repeat, repeat again. I already prove evidence by official Qing dynasty history source. Qing offically says, Joseon was "Independence soverign country" which have own foreign policy, own internal administration. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can say what you translated was wrong. I can say Joseon was a autonomous country within China. You have to find a book says Joseon is a sovreign state in English, or else anything you said is useless. On the other hand, I can find many books say that Joseon wasn't a sovereign state but a vassal state of China until the signature of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and you can say they're recorded as biased Sinocentrism manner, but you can't say they're wrong. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to go to bed now, and see you tomorrow. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is your book, But, according to my books, Joseon was a full sovereign country. This is no dispute fact. I first heard this disupte from you. I know they treated china as big brother(like nowdays north korea), but it is not mean Joseon was not sovereign country. My point is clear, 1. Official China history record says, Joseon was "Independence soverign country" which have own foreign policy, own internal administration(and Acutally Joseon was). 2. Joseon fulfill necessacry conditions of full Sovereignty. You can't deny it.

According to CIA fact book[21], "An independent Korean state or collection of states has existed almost continuously for several millennia. Between its initial unification in the 7th century - from three predecessor Korean states - until the 20th century, Korea existed as a single independent country....". OK? I prove english source by your request. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Blossom OK, do you know China-Korea Treaty of Merchant and Commerce(조청상민수륙무역장정)？ it is mistranslated as treaty/조약(條約) but 장정(章程) should be translated as 'bill'. bill/장정(章程) is NOT Treaty but it is regulation applicate in one country or sphere.

btw, this Bill featuring following articles.

• Article 1 : 청국 상무위원의 파견 및 이들의 처우, 북양대신과 조선국왕이 대등한 위치임을 규정(regulate about Chinese director's sending and treat; also regulate Chinese Beiyang minister and Korean King has equal status.)
• Article 2 : 조선내에서의 청 상무위원의 치외법권을 인정(regulate Chinese director's extraterritoriality in Korea)

and more 6 Articles. this treaty shows relationship between Qing and Joseon is absolutely not equal but Korea regarded as one of province of China. 61.99.38.196 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, That is your own POV pushing and original research, I already said, Joseon treated China as Big Brother, Rykukyu, Japan, Vietnam were absolutely not equal with China. Korea regarded as one of province of China? Well, That is the Completely ridiculous, your own POV pushing and lie. According to your logic, Ryukyu, Japan were Chinese provnce, Aren't you? if Joeseon was province, How could Joseon made Treaty with England, Russia, US? How could these foreign countries made their embassies in Joseon? Joseon was Independence country, have full foreign policy their own, but I agree Joseon and China relation was not equal. However, Joseon fulfill necessacry conditions of full Sovereignty.

According to Treaty of Ganghwa (1876), "Joseon is full Sovereignty country, Japan and Joseon are equal right counties"

whenever what Japan does, it clearly saying China didn't recognize Korea as 'equal country'. Korea's head were treated as same status with Chinese one minister. thus, it is 조청상민수륙무역장정 is regulation/bill. that shows Korea treated as part of China or Chinese sphere. 61.99.38.214 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They are equal countries. So, According to your logic, Japan was Chinese province?

According to Treaty of Shimonoseki(1895), "China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence of Korea".

This mean is not "Joseon become independence", Just recognize again. (This treaty mean, China must not involve with Joseon)

(1877) Draft History of Qing, "答以: 「而内政外交听其自主, 我朝向不预闻.」 Qing dynasty says, "(Joseon's) 政外(internal administration) 交听(diplomacy ; foreign policy) 其自主(are independence decision by Joseon dynasty) , 我朝向不预闻.(Our country never interfere with them)"

Before Treaty of Shimonoseki, Joseon was already full Sovereignty country.

And Treaty is a only 'Country : Country' agreement.

"A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations." Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1. From Treaty of Ganghwa, I don't see the phrases you said Joseon is full Sovereignty country, Japan and Joseon are equal right counties. Can you write it in Chinese?
2. Just recognize again?! That's your original research.
3. All what you said is your own opinion, and you must find a book says Joseon is a sovereign state to prove it. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• 1. (1876) Treaty of Ganghwa (Joseon-Japan treaty) "條約『第一款：朝鮮國自主之邦與. 日本國保有平等之權嗣後兩國欲表和親之實必而彼此同等"[22] 34p

No.1: Joseon is a 自主之邦(Independence sovereign country), 日本國保有平等之權(Joseon have euqal authority with Japan.)

• 2. (1877) Draft History of Qing, "答以: 「而内政外交听其自主, 我朝向不预闻.」 Qing dynasty says, "(Joseon's) 政外(internal administration) 交听(diplomacy ; foreign policy) 其自主(are independence decision by Joseon dynasty) , 我朝向不预闻.(Our country never interfere with them)"
• 3. No. Even Japan and China contemporary documents show that Joseon was full Sovereignty country.

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

自主 can also mean autonomous. You must find the phrase says that Joseon is a sovereign state in English or German or French or Spanish etc.. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you lost 朝鲜虽藩属 (Although Joseon is our vassal state) again and again? --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"國" mean Country, Not region. 邦 mean Country, Not region.[23]

CIA fact book is not enough? until the 20th century, Korea existed as a single independent country....". OK? And, I already prove by contemporary documents.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Greenland is also a country but not a sovereign state. CIA fact book isn't a historical book. You still can't deny that Joseon is a 藩属 (vassal state) of China. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Wow, you really stuborn and keep your POV pushing. Greenland example is your own oiriginal research. Greenland is very difference case with Joseon. for example, If foreigner want travel to greeland, They must recieve permission from denmark goverment, need denmark VISA. Joseon and China were two independence countries, But, Joseon treated China as Big brother, It was a purely diplomatic relation. here is the another treaty [24] before 1895. i already mentioned, Treaty is Country : Country agreement. Joseon was equal relation with US.

(1882) TREATY OF AMITY AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND COREA

The United States of America and the Kingdom of Chosen, being sincerely desirous of establishing permanent relations of amity and friendship between their respective peoples, have to this end appointed, that is to say: the President of the United States, R. W. SHUFELDT, Commodore, U. S. Navy, as his Commissioner Plenipotentiary; and His Majesty the King of Chosen, SHIN CHEN, President of the Royal Cabinet, CHIN HONG-CHI, Member of the Royal Cabinet as his Commissioners Plenipotentiary; who, having reciprocally examined their respective full powers, which have been found to be in due form, have agreed upon the several following Articles[...] Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You still can't show me the phrase says Joseon is a sovereign state. All what you said here is totally your own opinion and original research. You still can't deny what the historical book was recorded that Joseon is a 藩属 (vassal state) of China. So don't entangle and involve me any more. I don't have enough time to listen to your original research. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I also don't have enough time to listen to your original research. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

...You still can't deny that Joseon is a 藩属 (vassal state) of China.

If tributaries are 藩属. Then, Japan (before Qing), Vietnam, Ryukyu were also 藩属 (vassal state) of China. But, why you did not change Vietnam, Ryukyu, Japan article? Are you double standard? And I personally think Ryukyu was Chinese Kingdom. Go to ryukyu article, and play there. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about others. Give me your evidence to deny 藩属. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I already prove evidences. Qing record, Japan treaty, US Treaty. And East Asia 藩属 and Western "Vassal State" concepts are cleary difference. Even This Korean source prove that.[25](in Korean) 1. Joseon governed by Korean Kingdom. 2. Joseon ruled by Korean's law. 3. Joseon have their own forein policy 4. Joseon made "Treaty" with many countries. 5. Several East Asia official goverment contemporary documents (Qing record, Japan treaty, US Treaty) proves it.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseon (July 1392 – August 1910) (also Chosŏn, Choson, Chosun), was a Korean sovereign state[2] founded by Taejo Yi Seong-gye that lasted for approximately five centuries.

if 'sovereign state' word is still disputed, How about change as "single independence Kingdom"? Qing dynasty history book, Japan treaty, US Treaty, CIA Fact Books backing up this. 藩属 or not, Joseon was 'single independence Kingdom', this sentence is not dispute. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

East Asia 藩属 and Western "Vassal State" concepts are cleary difference?! Your research?! I'm sorry but just look at vassal state, it's a totally east asian historical term translated into English. single independence Kingdom?! Your research? Show me your evidence. Which book says so? --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeat Again? Not my research. Check source.[26](in Korean)] Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia Article itself can't be a reliable source.

Wikipedia:Reliable source examples

Are wikis reliable sources?

Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't speak Korean. Even if you had source, but you still can't deny what Chinese historical books say that Joseon was a vassal state of China. So we can say Some think Joseon was a vassal state of China, but others think it was a single independence country. That'll be better. I know wiki isn't a reliable source, so we can add what Chinese or Korean nationalist historians said here. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Then, That is the Chinese book's own problem. I already prove several documents that Joseon was fully independence kingdom, Even CIA Fact book support this claim.

And I already point out that Western "Vassal state" and Chinese 藩属 are difference concepts.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought[27]

POV forks[28]

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you think it's Korean books' problem? According to POV, we have to add both of the opinions. Thank you. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia don't need your own orginal research.

OK. I think delete dubious content is better.

"was a Korean sovereign state"(X) -> was a Korean Kingdom (O)

No problem, OK? Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have reliable sources. If mine is original reasearch, so is yours. Wiki doesn't need your own original research, either. The original edition said that Joseon was a Korean state. Kingdom is the same. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have also reliable sources. Besdie, I prove by primitive source. but, you can't. Joseon history is Korean history, It is not Chinese history, So, Chinese historian POV is not acceptable. It must obey mainstrewam view of Korean scholar. others are just fringe theory.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time to show my primitive sources here, but actally I have them. If Chinese historians' POV on Joseon history is not acceptable, either is western historians' POV on eastern history such as Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, etc. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

see it. Korean wiki {{|(in Korean)}}

as you know, King of Joseon surrendered and kotowed with head bleed to Qing's Emperor in 삼전도(三田渡/Samjeondo) in AD 1637.

in consequnce, Qing regulated Joseon as vassal state and Joseon unconditionally accepted it. it saying Korea become vassal state of Qing in 17th century.

• 조선은 청나라에게 군신(君臣)의 예를 지킬 것(Joseon must keep vassal's manner to Qing.). 61.99.38.214 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I've been an occasional participant in this debate, but I'm now taking this article off of my watchlist and withdrawing from further editing for the time being. I think things have reached an impasse, everyone is accusing everyone else of edit-warring, someone's already received a block, and I don't want to risk my ability to participate in other projects by being similarly blocked in the crossfire. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseon was fully independent and sovereign state

According to the book, the sovereignty of Joseon was clearly defined. This book's copyright is in public domain. Please do not push the biased the view, especially IP users.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PP15&dq=Korea&ei=jedPSu-vEI2WzgTz_-jyAg&client=firefox-a&id=BwMMAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&output=text

Korea is one of the oldest and yet, perhaps, the least known nation—once a nation—in the world. She had preserved her distinct national identity during the four thousand years of her history until Japan established the protectorate over her at the point of the sword in 1905, and subsequently annexed her to the Japanese Empire in 1910.

The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China, China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895. Yet, Korea had made her treaties with the leading Western Powers before this date, as an independent nation. In the Kang-hua treaty of February 26, 1876, between Korea and Japan, the first article reads: "Chosen being an independent state enjoys the same sovereign rights as does Japan." In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered." Again, in 1882, the King of Korea wrote to the President of the United States saying: "Now as the Governments of the United States and Korea are about to enter into treaty relations, the intercourse between the two nations shall be carried on in every respect on terms of equality and courtesy, and the King of Korea clearly assents that all of the Articles of the Treaty shall be acknowledged and carried into effect according to the laws of independent states."

The true relation between Korea and China has been that of "big nation" and "small nation," as the Korean used to say. Westerners were told that though Korea was "a tributary state of China, it was entirely independent as far as her government, religion, and intercourse with foreign states were concerned, a condition of things hardly compatible with our ideas of either absolute dependence or complete independence," as has been stated by one Western observer. Indeed, W. W. RockiiiLi,, the great American scholar of Eastern history and politics admirably summarizes the historical relationship between Korea and China as follows :

"Korean traditions point to Ki-tzu, or Viscount of Ki, a noble of China during the reign of Chou-hsin of the Whang Dynasty (B. C. 1154-1122), as the founder of the present civilization of Korea in B. C. 1122, and through him Korea claims relationship to China, to which country Koreans say they stand in the same relation of subjection as a younger brother does to an elder one and head of the family. This peculiar form of subservience, based as it is on Confucian theories, which have shaped all Chinese and Korean society and made the people of those countries what they are, must never be lost sight of in studying Korea's relations with and to China."

The present Japanese régime in Korea is doing everything in its power to suppress Korean nationality. The Government not only forbade the study of Korean language and history in schools, but went so far as to make a systematic collection of all works of Korean history and literature in public archives and private homes and burned them.

Such records as the treaties contained in this volume, are extremely difficult to find in Korea. The present writer's wishes will be highly gratified if this volume serves as a contribution, even in a small way, toward preserving the nationality among the Koreans and aiding students of Oriental history in their search for the past records of the Korean Nation.

--Historiographer (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a direct descendant of the first leader of Joseon (Choson)and it was a completely independent state of Korea.--Euge246 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is a genetic fallacy. And I am a descendant of Shennong. Should I call your argument Bulverism or an Argument from ignorance? Your false attribution of the correlation between your ancestry and the content of this article is irrelevant and leads to resembling an Ad nauseam claim. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to nip this in the bud

The discussions are going in circles here and it's clear no one is ever going to agree whether to call Joseon a "sovereign state" or a "vassal state". I'm sick of seeing the reverts and the way everyone is digging their heels in, so it's time for a compromise. This is the suggestion I made at User talk:蘇州宇文宙武:

My two cents: replace "sovereign state" with 'kingdom' or whatnot in the lede, and add a new section near the beginning saying something along the lines of "whether Joseon was a sovereign state or not is disputed" and then summarizing the arguments, along with sources, that have been discussed at the talk page.

In short, we need to stop worrying about who's right and who's wrong, and start worrying about how to accomodate both sides in the article. It's clear that the edit warring will never end if we're forced to choose one term or the other, so the only acceptable solution is to include both and summarize the arguments. Based on the lengthy discussions that have already happened at this talk page, it seems clear that there are enough sources and research on this to write an entire new section on the debate over whether Joseon was sovereign or not. So let's all start talking about how to write that, rather than reverting one another. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this from a distance for a while... I am not into East Asian History, I have no clue about the who-is-who and all that. Imagine someone like me comes to this article just to get the gist of the whole thing. It would be very helpful to explain to someone like me why this tiny word sparks such a fury, who could possibly have a stake in this on either side, and then simply put that into the article. That would be more educational than any click-and-rant agendas. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My two won -- the bizarre thing here is that the actual facts of the case are not really in dispute. As far as I can see, nobody contests that Joseon had pretty much full control over what happened within its borders, and nobody contests that Joseon lost several wars against Qing, paid tribute to them afterwards and toed the Chinese line on foreign policy. It's just that one side thinks that Joseon was still "sovereign" in practice, and one side (including me) thinks that using a word that means "One who is not a subject to a ruler or nation" is not a suitable description of this state of affairs. Jpatokal (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. So put that whole thesis into the present (And again, I'm neutral here, just trying to make sense of it): Does the fact that Liechtenstein would collapse outside the Swiss financial system make it "not sovereign"? Does the fact that Israel would be overrun without U.S. military aid make it "not sovereign"? Does the fact that Lesotho wouldn't have a chance in a confrontation with South Africa make it "not sovereign"? In the end, it might be wise to omit the word altogether... Seb az86556 (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but attempting to remove that word is precisely what triggered this edit war. Jpatokal (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So here's an idea: Instead of having the wikilink lead to sovereign state, why not link the word sovereign? That article gives an extensive history of the word, how it came about, what it used to mean, and what it's come to mean. Readers can then make up their own minds. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ri Dynasty

this kingdom was called Korea at that time. 'The country was officially called Korea at that time, but is often referred to in history as the Ri Dynasty.' Gzhao (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That link does not work. And what are you trying to suggest with this comment? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ri Dynasty is the historical name used by Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) 조선민주주의인민공화국. i tried this link just a moment ago. http://www.kcckp.net/en/news/news_view.php?23+663 Gzhao (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see what you're trying to say. Are you saying you think this article's title should be changed? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

there is no evidence that 'Kingdom of Great Joseon' is used at that time. Ri Dynasty is the historical name,and korea(joseon) is the official name at that time. Gzhao (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

please checkkr wiki, use 조선 (Joseon); ja wikiuse 李氏朝鮮(Ri Dynasty) or Joseon Dynasty;zh wiki,use 李氏朝鲜(Ri Dynasty) or 'kingdom of Joseon'(조선국). thanks. Gzhao (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the very links you gave, Joseon (Chaoxian) is the more commonly used name. I don't speak Korean, but I know 조선 in hangul is cho sŏn. ko-wiki uses that, and zh-wiki lists it as both the Korean name and Hanja name of 李. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Chosŏn" is the Wade-Giles romanization of 조선, used (in a modified version) in North Korea. "Joseon" is the same in Revised Romanization of Korean, used in South Korea. Jpatokal (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

so both "Chosŏn" and "Joseon" are different Transliteration words or Loanwords. is 'Ri Dynasty of Korea' the best name for both north and south? Gzhao (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chosŏn and Joseon are different spellings of the same word. As for your second question, no, Ri Dynasty is far less commonly used than the other ones. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

yes,i agree with Rjanag,조선왕조 (朝鮮王朝)used more often than 李氏朝鮮(Ri Dynasty) in Korea today, but i want to know where is 대조선국 （大朝鮮國) 'Kingdom of Great Joseon' come from? it seems someone modified this in may 2007. [29] Gzhao (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The three different Wikipedias may possibly serve as a POV fork, where JP Wiki and ZH Wiki both refer to the dynasty in question as 李氏朝鮮, while also mentioning the other names 朝鮮王朝 and 朝鮮國, but never uses the term 大朝鮮國, which is the case on the KR Wiki. To avoid any argument over what the dynasty should actually be called, would we be able to compare the frequency of the names in external texts? Oh, and I hope someone hasn't brought the Joseon Dynasty into confusion with the 大韓帝国, which occurs much later. I don't recall that all had the 大- prefix, only the 大韓帝国 did. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The literal translation of the agreed English name, Joseon Dynasty, is obviously 朝鮮 (Joseon) 王朝 (Dynasty). Other names like 李氏朝鮮 may be worth mentioning in the content though. Jpatokal (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One note pertaining to romanization practices: I don't think I've seen "Ri" used before as a romanization of 李. I've always seen Lee, Rhee, or Yi, with the latter seeming to be the most popular one based on Google searches. I suppose there are historical reasons to preserve certain romanizations (in proper names like Syngman Rhee vs. Yi Seungman, &c) but I would prefer to use Yi rather than Ri if it's mentioned at all in the article. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-09/Joseon Dynasty

Hello, this is to inform all that a Mediation Cabal case has been opened regarding a recent dispute on this article. As you may know, the MEDCAB process is informal and strictly voluntary; we have neither the power to compel participation or impose any resolution. Our goal is to act as a neutral third-party in helping to reach a compromise acceptable to all. To begin the process, I would ask that all interested/listed parties to please visit the case page and signify their acceptance of mediation, and me as mediator, by signing. Thank you, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It's been about a month since this mediation case was opened, and so far only one participant has accepted. If there are others who still wish to participate, please let me know by signing your acceptance on the case page. Otherwise, I will be closing the case in a few days. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseon was not part of Qing

It said, "In 1895, The Joseon Dynasty was forced to write a document of independence from the Qing Dynasty after the Japanese victory in the First Sino-Japanese War and its peace treaty, the Treaty of Shimonoseki. From 1897 to 1910, Korea was formally known as the Korean Empire to signify a sovereign nation no longer a tributary of the Qing Dynasty. The Joseon Dynasty came to an end in 1910, when the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was enforced by the Empire of Japan." But it was a completely independent dynasty. I think that we should get rid of that controversial section.

It had not been giving tributes to China as much at the time. It does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.254.239 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Knock off the bold. We can read text, thank you. And it does make sense - "independence" in this context means being free from the tributary relationship; it does not necessarily mean that JS was part of Q. And given by the historical sources, JS was tributary to Q at that time. If you can provide WP:RS, then be WP:BOLD and change it. If not, well there's not much you can do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"List of countries in 1708"

What purpose does this edit serve? I stopped just short of reverting it, and decided to bring it up on the talk page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I found it pretty silly, too, and to be honest I'm tempted to put that list article up for AfD. Have you notified the editor of this discussion? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

At your suggestion, I've just notified the editor with a link to this thread. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of kingdom

South Korea is 大韓民國 but we don't translate that "Great Republic of Korea", so likewise, 大朝鮮國 is just "Kingdom of Joseon". (Although, literally, that should be "Country of Joseon" and only 朝鮮王朝 is Kingdom...) Jpatokal (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular preference over one way or the other. However, your induction is unfortunately "original research" without source nor does not match the literal meaning of the hanja. Let me compare one example. If you see the top of the infobox in the intro of Ming Dynasty, the "autonym is stated "Great Ming" "大明" even though the article title is "Ming Dynasty". Please tell me why the Chinese characters of "大明" is not just "Ming". The article is a Featured article, so I think this standard is more stable than your own WP:OR. I'm not sure whether you're a native English speaker, but I've never seen that Joseon is styled as "Country of Joseon" so are even other states or dynasties. I easily found many reliable source for the native name, 大朝鮮國, so I'm gonna insert the source and revert your edit. Thanks.--Caspian blue 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here. First, the Ming dynasty article is very clear that there are two names, 明朝 and 大明(国), with different literal translations: the first is "Ming Dynasty", the second is "Great Ming (Empire)". This is also true for Joseon, since 大朝鮮國 uses just 國 ("nation, country, nation-state" -- not kingdom, not dynasty) while 朝鮮王朝 is an explicit and literal translation of "Joseon Dynasty".

The second issue, though, is your claim that 大朝鮮國 is "correct" and 朝鮮國 is not. Both the Chinese and the Japanese Wikipedias assert that the legal name (正式的国号/正式の国号) is simply 朝鮮國, without the 大 in front, with only the Korean WP using the 大朝鮮國 form. At the very least, both forms should be mentioned. Jpatokal (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your logic have many problems on the own. The first raised contest could be very simply resolved once we add "Kingdom of Great Joseon" to the intro with the hanja. I provided an "analysis" that Joseon Dynasty is a common name referring to the state and "大朝鮮國" was an officially used name. The conventional long name refers to "the official name" called by Koreans, not by foreigners. We won't have any problem if we just add "朝鮮國" ("Joseon Kingdom") to the intro or create a naming section that include the name.

I think you know very little about Korean history or Korean culture since ""Joseon Kingdom" (Chosun or Choson Kingdom) or "Kingdom of Joseon" is also commonly used in academic sources or news. "Kingdom" is translated to "王國", a form of state rule by king. Therefore, I don't see why you insist on removing the "great". Your comparison with "大韓民國" with the modern concept is WP:POINTy and unfit to the case. In fact, "Great Republic of Korea" is indeed sometimes used, and 大韓民國 itself is the abbreviation of 大韓民主共和國 (Great Democratic Republic of Korea). So please don't rely on Wikipedia. On the other hand, South Korean government "chooses" the "Republic of Korea" for diplomatic usages, but our article is at South Korea which is translated into hanja as 南韓 but this is not in the infobox.

I never said that 朝鮮國 is incorrect. I restored the previous edit because tThe required parameters are for its "native name" and "conventional long name. , not "conventional name". As I've emphasized, you must provide reliable sources for your claim; that the state is commonly called "Country of Joseon". Not to mention, Wikitionary also is not a reliable source. We are talking about Korean state, not Chinese nor Japanese one.--Caspian blue 06:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Life expectancy

This sentence is continually getting edited out:

"By the early 1900s, at the close of the Joseon Dynasty, the average life expectancy for Korean males was 24 and for females 26 years."

Scary-looking figures, but what are your grounds for objecting to this? Do you have contradictory evidence? Jpatokal (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jpatokal, you're misquoting WP:AGF over WP:RS and did not assume good faith on my edit and other(s). You missed to follow the update. I'm not sure about another editor's revert, but he/she seemed to think the doubt over the source was not resolved yet. Yeah, so please WP:AGF. Regardless, I don't think the sentence should be in the first paragraph of the thread, since Joseon Dynasty had lasted about 500 years, so the end of the era should be also mentioned in the end of the thread whose topic is not about its life expectancy.--Caspian blue 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to suspect the validity of the reference provided by Gavinhudson. If you think it is incorrect, the correct response is to tag the reference with {{dubious}} and raise the issue here, not revert it. (You did not do this.) And if you think the information is correct but in the wrong place, then you should suggest a better place for it, not revert it. (You did not do this.) Jpatokal (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to follow your perspective regarding how to deal with WP:V and WP:RS since the reference with the commercial link not showing the book at all raised my concern enough at that time. I checked the link while you didn't. That is your part of not assuming good faith on an experienced editor like me over the new user. I did not want to give you a wrong impression that I engaged in edit warring as you did to the article by relocating the paragraph because you labeled that the statistics from "one sources" as "scary looking figures" here. Not to mention, the original editor did not restore his edit here, so I had no reason to relocate the non-existent new info until you reverted. Anyway, I will revise the sentence later with "According to Andrei Lankov" (the book author) and a comparison with the life expectancy of a neigbbor like Japan (average 20.3 years by 1900) and an example from the West such as U.S (average 35 years by 1900) as well as additional references. Figures of statistics can be manipulated or incorrect depending on who conducted and when it was held. For the reason only one source can not secure the assertion.--Caspian blue 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about Korea, why is a comparison with Japan relevant? Or do you also want to note that the average life expectancy in the USA in 1900 was 49.2? Jpatokal (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jpatokal, your harassment of me at my and the new user's pages for whatever reason is noted, but please do not resort to such personal attack for the content dispute (?). The statistics is restored, and I have no objection to the inclusion since only minor issues need to be clarified such as where it should be located and others. While none forgets the article being Korean, any relevant context can be mentioned as a comparison for saccuracy. This source from Gachon University Gill Hospital/ Chosun Ilbo says, according to the December issue of an American woman's monthly magazine published in 1900, the average expectancy of Americans was 35 years. Another news from Biology Recearch Information Center of Korea written by an 40 year-experienced medical professor in Canada and U.S. says that the Korean expectancy during the Joseon period is a speculated number after a comparison with Japan's expectancy. What I said above is based on the two sources. So as I said, statistics can be incorrect or different from source.--Caspian blue 15:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again...

I'm particularly annoyed that the present edit war is reverting all changes wholesale. One by one:

1) Whether or not Joseon was a "sovereign" state. The conclusion -- I can't exactly call it a concensus -- from last time was that Joseon could really be only called sovereign at times, so dubbing the entire 500-year dynasty as unqualifiedly 'sovereign' seems inappropriate. Also, the sole reference given, a bare URL to OhMyNews, is broken and missing from the Wayback Machine.

2) Whether Joseon was a tributary state of the Qing. There isn't really any dispute on this: as a historical fact, this is very well referenced and even prime reverter Historiographer admits it. So, uhh, why is it being removed?

3) My rewrite of the near-unreadably messy "Decline" section into chronological order and native English. As far as I'm aware, my edits neither introduced any new claims (other than a few names and dates taken directly from Donghak Peasant Revolution) nor changed any meanings, but if I did change something unintentionally, I'm all ears. Jpatokal (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue here—in my mind—is a combination of the following:

1. East Asian history is infamously contentious, with China, Japan, and Korea in particular disagreeing about both what the facts are and what the most objective interpretation of those facts is. Depending on which sources a scholar uses, he or she can reach enormously different conclusions.
2. The political and social systems in place in East Asia during the period of the Joseon Dynasty were very different from those in Europe. We are on the English wikipedia, so we're using a Western language. Using Western terms to describe Korean political and social history is thus problematic on a number of topics. It's tempting to call the yangban "the aristocracy" or perhaps "the upper-class", for example, but coming from a Eurocentric understanding of history, it's easy to misunderstand how those terms are being used and how they relate to the realities of Joseon social and political life. Similarly, the question of what "sovereign" means—or what "tributary" means—are hard to answer in a way that doesn't carry in too much baggage from the language being used. Readers unfamiliar with Confucian ideals and philosophy are at a particular disadvantage.

So I don't believe there are any easy solutions. From point 1, I know that the "facts" will never be in agreement because there simply is no coherent body of work to cite; and in addition, anyone sympathetic to one school of East Asian history will find the other schools to be counterfactual and POV-pushing, leading to eternal disputes. And from point 2, even if a "correct" interpretation could be synthesized, there's no particularly good way to express it in the English language, leading to the same problems of accused inaccuracy and POV-pushing.

All true, but I'm not sure how you relate this to the issue at hand? There are obviously different points of view over whether or not Joseon was "sovereign state", although few historians would even use the term in a binary true-or-false sense. That's why I think it makes sense to describe it as the one thing everybody can agree on, namely a "state", which already (accurately) implies a considerable level of sovereignty, and then the article can (and does) describe the waxing and waning of its fortunes. Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal view is that it is much, much too easy to downplay the Joseon dynasty because rival schools of history exist to downplay it (for example, the infamous "Stagnation Theory" used to justify Japan's colonization of Korea) and because English terms like "tributary" have implications which don't hold true in the former political systems of East Asia. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Bill Price. As for my opinion on the matter, please see my posts at here. I'd like to know your comment on the article one. If you are not happy about the word tributary, WP is not the place to talk about it. The term has been used for years by historians. Oda Mari (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Again, I'm not sure what you're driving at -- are you contesting the use of the word "tributary state" to translate 属国 shuguo? This seems to be the standard label and is used elsewhere on Wikipedia, eg. at List of tributaries of Imperial China, which notes (with a reference) that Joseon did, indeed, send 435 (!) tributes to the Qing. The tributary state article also describes quite well what the term means in the Chinese context. Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Joseon is not considered to a "Sovereign state" in the English speaking world regardless whether it was a tributary state of China. According to the Google Book search, It is clear that "Joseon" is not referred to "Sovereign state". Please compare with "South Korea".

• "Joseon" "sovereign state" -Wikipedia -"Books, LLC": 3 results (all are spurious)
• "South Korea" "sovereign state" -Wikipedia -"Books, LLC": 2,310 results

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:KoreanSentry repeatedly added "Sovereign state" without participating this ongoing discussion. I request the user to provide a reliable English source except for the Korean author that support Joseon was a "sovereign state". Unless a reliable source is provided, any addition of "Sovereign state" in the lead will be reverted and subject to WP:ANI. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Those in the Japan camp are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too focused on the technicalities. You'd be hard pressed to find any book that introduces "Joseon was a tributary of China" or "Joseon was a sovereign country/nation/state." No, it'd more like "Joseon was a country in Korea" the end. So that whole google book page hit is irrelevant. And Bill Price is right, the English terms are a sort of cop out. I mean surely you wouldn't call the British Empire a tributary of China prior to the Opium Wars. Despite this denomination, Joseon was and acted as a independent sovereign nation. This excerpt explains more about the relationship and how such terms may be confusing.[30] Kuebie (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Korea is one of the oldest and yet, perhaps, the least known nation—once a nation—in the world. She had preserved her distinct national identity during the four thousand years of her history until Japan established the protectorate over her at the point of the sword in 1905, and subsequently annexed her to the Japanese Empire in 1910.

The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China, China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895. Yet, Korea had made her treaties with the leading Western Powers before this date, as an independent nation. In the Kang-hua treaty of February 26, 1876, between Korea and Japan, the first article reads: "Chosen being an independent state enjoys the same sovereign rights as does Japan." In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered." Again, in 1882, the King of Korea wrote to the President of the United States saying: "Now as the Governments of the United States and Korea are about to enter into treaty relations, the intercourse between the two nations shall be carried on in every respect on terms of equality and courtesy, and the King of Korea clearly assents that all of the Articles of the Treaty shall be acknowledged and carried into effect according to the laws of independent states."

The true relation between Korea and China has been that of "big nation" and "small nation," as the Korean used to say. Westerners were told that though Korea was "a tributary state of China, it was entirely independent as far as her government, religion, and intercourse with foreign states were concerned, a condition of things hardly compatible with our ideas of either absolute dependence or complete independence," as has been stated by one Western observer. Indeed, W. W. RockiiiLi,, the great American scholar of Eastern history and politics admirably summarizes the historical relationship between Korea and China as follows :

"Korean traditions point to Ki-tzu, or Viscount of Ki, a noble of China during the reign of Chou-hsin of the Whang Dynasty (B. C. 1154-1122), as the founder of the present civilization of Korea in B. C. 1122, and through him Korea claims relationship to China, to which country Koreans say they stand in the same relation of subjection as a younger brother does to an elder one and head of the family. This peculiar form of subservience, based as it is on Confucian theories, which have shaped all Chinese and Korean society and made the people of those countries what they are, must never be lost sight of in studying Korea's relations with and to China." - H. S. Nichols

You found a good book, however I asked "to provide a reliable English source except for the Korean author that support Joseon was a "sovereign state"". The book you cited was edited by a Korean independent activist "Henry Chung" who was a member of Korean National Association and published in 1919 during the Japanese rule. He worked with Syngman Rhee for independence of Korea.[31] The book is an extreme of Korean POV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Korean source: Rockhill 1905

Stress has been laid on the expression, used alike by Chinese and Koreans in official documents, of speaking of Korea as a shu kuo, a term usually translated 'vassal kingdom, fief,' but these terms are misleading, for the character shu carries with it the idea of relationship, which, as stated, is the keynote to the whole question. Even the investiture by the Emperor of China of the King of Korea, which was for many centuries the most important act of suzerainty exercised by China over Korea, should, to a certain extent, be interpreted in the light of the relationship in which the two countries have ever stood to each other. We find in both Korean and Chinese works, and hear among the Korean people, frequent allusion to the relationship of the two countries. The Emperors of the Ming Dynasty were "fathers to Korea"; the Manchu Emperors have been "elder brothers "; and the present Emperor of China in an edict in 1882 spoke of the reigning family of Korea as his "near kindred."

As to the custom of Korean kings submitting to the Emperor of China for his approval the names of the heirs to their throne, of their consorts, of informing him of deaths in the Royal Family, these again are strictly ceremonial relations bearing with them no idea of subordination, other than that of respect and deference on the part of a younger member of a family to its recognized head.

Twice, at least, during the Ming Dynasty of China (a.d. 1368-1644) the people of Korea chose their sovereign without consulting China, and the latter power only entered a mild protest. So far as I can learn, there is no case recorded in which the Emperor of China has disapproved of the choice the King of Korea has made of his successor or his consort. In 1699, the King had his son by a concubine recognized as his heir, the Queen having no children. In 1722 and in 1724 he asked for the recognition of his younger brother as his heir. In 1763 the grandson of the then reigning king was recognized as heir to the throne, the Peking Board of Rites quoting the Book of Rites (Li Ki, T'ao ktiny, i) to show that a grandson is the natural heir to the throne, if the son dies during the father's lifetime. In 1691 the King of Korea asked the Emperor's approval of his again taking as his consort a person whom he had previously put away in favour of a concubine, and of reducing the latter to her former rank. All these requests, and every other one recorded, were granted.

What did the investiture by China of the kings of Siam, Burmah, Annam, Korea, etc., amount to? To nothing more than the recognition of a weak sovereign by the most powerful state in Asia.

—Rockhill, William Woodville (1905). China's intercourse with Korea from the XVth century to 1895. London: Luzac & co.

—Bill Price (nyb) 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You also found a good book. However the tone of this book is clearly a counterargument to a common recognition of Joseon's status. If you cite this book, the description should be something like "Joseon was almost a sovereign state according to a book published in 1905." per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As I explained above, "Joseon was a sovereign states" is not widely accepted. Anyway I just dropped in this discussion, I will not comment on this topic anymore. Lastly just for reference, among the G20 countries, the countries describe themselves as "sovereign state" in the first sentence are United Kingdom and South Korea. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Sovereignty doesn't preclude tributary relationships. The fact that the Korean court was able to negotiate these relationships with China instead of being subsumed into whichever Chinese dynasty for thousands of years like the dozens of other Chinese kingdoms proves sovereignty in and of itself.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What are the article one in the Treaty of Shimonoseki and the first sentence of ko:개화당? I'd like to know why should it be emphasized "a sovereign state" in the lead when other country articles do not use the word and the dynasty was not 100% sovereign as Phoenix7777 pointed our above. Please clarify. Oda Mari (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again the concept of sovereignty doesn't preclude tributary relationships. Matter of fact, the ability to enter into such foreign policy agreements with foreign nations proves 'sovereignty'. The fact that the Japanese posters have been exclusively complaining about this proves necessity of clarification in text on this point in my opinion with proper reference according to WP:CITE which has been provided.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Joseon Dynasty was sovereign state, if we going to paint Joseon as tributary state then, we have covert Japan, Vietnam, Mongolia, Tibet etc.. as tributary states of China, also Qing wasn't Chinese dynasty anyway. Chinese had no sovereign state after 16th century. Even Qing and Japan paid tributes to Joseon, so does it mean Qing & Japan wasn't sovereign states? For these people who doesn't understand how tribute works go and read some books before making ridiculous assumption. Joseon Dynasty had it's own Korean ruling elites, own language, own culture, own laws never have governors from foreign countries. Oda mari must be day dreaming thinking Joseon was not sovereign state, this person doesn't know anything about Korean history therefore can not be included in this discussion. Case over.--KSentry(talk) 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected

There appears to be edit warring from multiple editors here. I've protected the article for 3 days or until a consensus is reached. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair there's only one editor here who is engaging in these unilateral edits and reverting multiple editor who are expressing dissent. I propose we refrain from unilateral edits and make discussion in talk page mandatory.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And which editor would that be? Jpatokal (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent) All of relationship with the Imperial China was regared as a tributary. Japan also send the tributary missions to Imperial China. Why did you only emphasized this facts to Korea?--Historiographer (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Joseon Dynasty in Korea. You are welcome to go edit articles about Japan. Jpatokal (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So laughable.--Historiographer (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, seriously. This is about the Korean kingdom of Joseon, not Japan. Jpatokal (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal save the one-liners for bulletin boards and keep things courteous so we can have a constructive discussion please.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to have a constructive discussion about the Joseon Dynasty article here, but there's exactly one editor who keeps bringing Japan into this, and it's not me. Maybe you can tell me what the relevance of Japan is here? Jpatokal (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Japan was mentioned in passing and your reaction is more suspect. Assume good faith and stop the one-liners and sarcasm. If you have an opinion state it plainly and directly.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, sovereign state have capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. Joseon Dynasty established diplomatic relations with other sovereign states such as Japan, United States, and the other western states without Chinese interference. Whenever King of Joseon Korea changed, they just notified these facts to China, not appointed their throne by China. It is showed that Korea's status with Imperial China was just formal, not practical.--Historiographer (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Japan was tributary state during Joseon dynasty as well, not too mentioned Tsushima clans were all Pro-Joseon.--KSentry(talk) 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected again (2 weeks)

The edit warring going on at this page (again) is unacceptable. There are numerous editors involved so I think protection is more appropriate than blocking for the time being. While the page is protected, please take this time to discuss the specifics of the particular edits in question, rather than just attacking one another and arguing over general issues like what happened the last time I warned editors here about edit warring. If you guys work out an acceptable consensus and I can trust that you won't edit war again, I'll be willing to lift the page protection before 2 weeks pass.

I hate to be a grump, but please consider this message an edit warring warning for all the editors involved in this dispute--Baptisan4, Jpatokal, Historiographer, Melonbarmonster2, Oda Mari. Any edit warring on this issue after the page protection ends will be blockable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in past disputes but please refer to the discussion above for the current spat. There are 3 editors who have made various edits and there is one editor who is revert warring all of these edits. While I understand edits may be disputed, single editor abandoning talk page and revert warring all editors who are making good faith edits is fairly disruptive to the editing process.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you intend to blame individual editors, please give their names, so they can defend their actions. If you do not intend to, then please stop making vague accusations. Jpatokal (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit history page is there for all of us to see what I wrote is plain as day. Let me assume good faith and answer your question. Here are the edits that you wholesale reverted.

• Anon user added the word "fleet" in describing the Japanese forces that Admiral Yi fought. I have no idea what your problem with this would be other than the mere fact that it was a change to the article.[32]

• Baptisan4 made around 20 different edits[33] ranging from mundane grammar corrections, removing of redundant and self-published reference, sentence structure corrections to adding of substantive text. You wholesale reverted them all. It's fine to have edit disagreements but you need to explain which of Baptisan4's edits you find problematic and why. Your wholesale revert of this was flagrantly disruptive behavior.

• Historiographer added a wikilink to "Hunminjeongeum" which is the formal name for promulgation of Hangul. Again, totally mundane edit which you reverted wholesale without explanation.[34]

These series of edits made by 3 different users contain edits made for well over dozen different reasons. Please assume good faith and explain your reasons for why you want to dispute these edits in the talk page. Do not just click on the version you last edited and revert everyone's contribution. Come on dude.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought I already said that insulting one another is not constructive. If you guys want to work out a consensus then you need to be posting word-for-word suggestions for how the article text should be edited and discussing those edits on their own merits, not arguing over who is disruptive or who is edit warring. (To be honest, all the editors in this dispute are.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"who is disruptive or who is edit warring" is what you're accusing editors when you place this block and leave template warnings on their talk pages -_- You can't expect people to not respond or attempt to defend themselves.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal, you're not allowed alter my signed comment with personal injections. Feel free to give your response but leave signed comments of other editors alone.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You raised three points, I addressed them with three separate replies, with indentation and signatures to make it sparkling clear that they were added by me.

Now, would you actually like to address the content of my replies, instead of quibbling about their formatting? Jpatokal (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal, please moderate your tone and try to be more mindful of basic editing norms. When an editor signs their comment other editors cannot modify or alter that. It's not my edits that you're wholesale reverting. I suggest you go through the edits I've pointed out above and break down the 20 or so different edits and why you find them objectionable. I'd gladly give my input but if you want to challenge other editors edits, you need to address them individually rather than reverting them all in one fell swoop by undoing to the last version which you've edited and then demanding that a third party defend everyone's edits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already gone through the edits in detail and provided my objections. You have replied twice already to complain about my formatting, but I am still waiting for you to address the actual content of my reply. Third time's the charm? Jpatokal (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't. I counted over 20 edits and you've provided explanations for only a few of them. Go through and list out your issues in a logical manner so we can discuss. What you have done is to just revert back to the last version of the article that you edited without bothering to engage in consensus building. I suggest you begin by throwing out the most flagrant reverts like basic grammar and sentence structure stuff as well as self-published references that are not allowed as use for reference according to WP:CITE. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have replied above in detail. If you do not like my reply, you may choose to continue to ignore it, and this discussion will go nowhere. This meta-discussion, on the other hand, is over. Jpatokal (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

All you've done is revert wholesale over 20 edits made by 3 different editors. Your response covered only a few of them. It would serve your purpose to address your disagreements with ALL the edits that you are attempting to revert. I don't know why you're resisting on this. I'm waiting to see if the editors who made the edits will defend their edits from your reversions.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag has asked us to discuss the specifics of the particular edits in question, and most of the discussion has signally failed to do so, so I have taken the liberty of placing the unconstructive sniping in a collapse block (above) and pulling out a) Melonbarmonster's handy links to the edits in question and b) my rationale for why I reverted the edits in question (below). So, can we get the discussion back on track, please? Jpatokal (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussing "particular edits in question" would involve commenting on why you disagree with "particular edits in question" by listing them out.

Regarding your altering and hiding above comments, please stop changing my comments. You need to request for permission if you want to move comments of other editors around and alter their contents. This is the second time that you have violated WP:TPO by changing my comments to distort this talk page: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request." Please abide basic editing courtesy. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster, we all understand that you are upset about Jpatokal's interspersing his own comments with yours. You don't need to repeat yourself over and over; we get it. Please limit your contributions to this discussion to comments addressing the specific content issues, as Jpatokal has done above, rather than distracting everyone with irrelevant arguments about editors' behavior. If you continue beating a dead horse over the altering comments issue, I will roll up your comments myself. Furthermore, if you continue to refuse to respond to the content issues in the discussion, you will have no right to revert those edits if/when they are implemented in the article (to make a long story short, if you start edit-warring over some edits after having ignored the opportunity to discuss those same edits, I will block you). The purpose of this discussion is to work out an acceptable compromise over the wording of the article, not to point fingers at one another until the discussion is in a quagmire. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you not aware that Jpatokal moved around my edits for the second time after the incident that you're talking about?[35][36].

The reason this issue has come up again was bc Jpatokal moved around my comments for the second time and reordered the sequence of comments with out permission[[37]] so I addressed the issue and hyperlinked WP:TPO for reference[38]. THat's hardly a dead horse.

The dead horse would be my repeated request that specific edit content issues be discussed rather than wholesale reverting 20 different edits. Now that my dead horse request has been met, as I've already stated I'm waiting to see if the initial editors of the edits that Jpatokal is trying to revert will defend their comments. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to wait. Since you reverted twice to restore the changes, I can only presume you support them, so I would be interested in hearing your rationale for preferring them over the previous version. Jpatokal (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give my own breakdown of edits and your reversions. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed, the protection has expired, and we're still waiting for Melonbarmonster2's breakdown of edits, or for any comments at all by Historiographer or Baptisan. I rest my case. Jpatokal (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of content changes

Gentlemen, let's try to stay on topic. Here is my own commentary on the changes. Jpatokal (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Anon edit: Yes, my fault, this edit should have stayed. Jpatokal (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Baptisan's edits, among other things, removed all mention of Joseon's tributary relationship to Qing, changed "inability to assess Japanese military capability" with "inability to assess Korean military capability" (huh?), removed mention of Ming assistance in defeating the Japanese invasion of 1597, removed mention of Joseon's surrender to the Qing in 1637, removed mention of Western influence on late Korean painting (in an image caption demonstrating this influence, at that!), replaced the entire Painting section with text that smells suspiciously like a copyvio, replaced a mention of "Chinese" with "Confucian", replaced a mention of "Confucian influence" with "Korean Confucian influence" (Korea influenced itself?!). Can you, with a straight face, tell me that any of these changes improved the article? Jpatokal (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Historiographer's edit: At present, the Hunminjeongeum article is in terrible shape, and Hangul covers the topic much better. If it's fixed up (and I'll take a stab right now), I'd be happy to link to it. Jpatokal (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster has requested that I comment on all edits by Baptisan, so I will do so.

[39] removed referenced mention of Joseon's tributary relationship to Qing, renamed "Chinese" influence as "Confucian" influence (but isn't the Confucian influence from China?)

[40] removed mention of Joseon's surrender to the Qing in 1637

[41] removed an entire paragraph of text without explanation

[42] removed mention of Western influence on late Korean painting (in an image caption demonstrating this influence, at that!), added potential copyvio? (No proof, the English just sounds far more academic and professional than the rest of Baptisan's contributions.)

[43] removed mention of Ming assistance in defeating the Japanese invasion of 1597, changed "inability to assess Japanese military capability" to "inability to assess Korean military capability" (huh?)

[44] renamed 'Early Japanese invasions' as "Seven Year War" (sp) for no obvious reason; Seven Years' War usually refers to the European conflict, not the Korean one

[45] changed "Seven Year War" to "Seven Years War" (sp, should be Seven Years')

[46] renamed "Confucian" scholar as "Seonbi" scholar; however, the artwork does not identify the person in question specifically as a Seonbi scholar.

[47] restored space lost in previous edit

That's it. So, in my opinion, every single edit by Baptisan either removed content or introduced errors. Jpatokal (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that no one has responded to this discussion in over 2 weeks and the page protection has expired, I will take it that this version in which Baptisan's edits were undone is now the consensus version. Anyone wanting them restored will need to rejoin the discussion; Melonbarmonster, reverting that edit again will result in a block. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject China

Please use this space to discuss whether or not to add a WikiProject China banner on this talk page. Edit-warring on a talk page when the article is protected (edits such as these) is quite inappropriate. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject China banner is unjust to label in this talk page. If this banner is proper in this, it is available into the article of Asikaga Shogunate's that.--Historiographer (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagging an article for a WikiProject does not always categorize the subject of an article in obvious ways. For example, placing a WikiProject LGBT studies banner on a talk page is not Wikipedia's judgment that the subject is gay; it just means that the article is of interest to that WikiProject. Consequently, as Notyourbroom pointed out, it is a serious faux pas to remove a WikiProject banner from a talk page, on grounds of nationalistic ownership of an article. A more appropriate place to raise the question of WikiProject China's scope in this case would be the talk page for WikiProject China.

It is clear, however, that this article falls under the scope of China-related articles because the Joseon Dynasty was considered a subsovereign tributary to Qing China by the relevant international actors at the time, and because control over that hitherto Chinese vassal was a major cause of the First Sino-Japanese War. All of the arguments against this line of reasoning, I'm afraid, have been original research ("Korea had its own language and culture, therefore it was sovereign!") or fringe theories ("The Chinese had no sovereign state after the 16th century!"). Even if these preposterous claims were true, they wouldn't matter, because the fact that orthodox studies of Chinese history consider the Joseon Dynasty so important to understanding Imperial China's decline is enough for the banner. Quigley (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Quigley that there is no harm in adding a project tag to the talkpage, and that in any case the project tag is legitimate if the article is of relevance to WikiProject China. The presence of a project tag on the article's talk page isn't making any claims about nationalism or anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since when was Joseon (or the whole of Korean history for that matter) ever part of China? Kuebie (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As Quigley already explained above, adding a WikiProject China tag to the talk page doesn't mean anyone is claiming it is "part of China"; it just means the article is of interest to that WikiProject. And if Joseon was actually a "Qing tributary state", then the relationship is pretty clear. While the people in power during the Qing dynasty were not ethnically Han, the Qing dynasty is still part of Chinese history. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how ridiculous this reasoning sounds? The British Empire paid so-called tributes to Qing court, it doesn't mean anything dude. The only time Korea had its sovereignty taken away was during the Mongol invasions (Goryeo) and the Japanese occupation (Joseon). Kuebie (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But, as has been mentioned three times above, whether or not Joseon was sovereign is immaterial to the issue of whether or not to add a project tag. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one placing over-importance to tributary relations. Kuebie (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we say that the dispute is resolved, and the tag be restored now? Quigley (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

lol no. The tag is not relevant to the article. At all. Kuebie (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not? You have not yet made any attempt to respond to the arguments Quigley raised (the fact that not being part of China doesn't preclude the addition of a tag); rather, you have just insisted on changing the subject. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean why not? Why is the Joseon article being associated with another country's wikiproject? I mean you already have the Korea and the East Asia tag on the talk page, so why is there a need for a Chinese one? Kuebie (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no "need" to have any WikiProjects at all, but they facilitate collaborative editing, and this article could benefit from editors (like, for a recent example, NickDupree) who have a breadth of knowledge about Imperial China topics. I remind you that the WikiProjects don't belong to any country, and you can join WikiProject China if you want. Quigley (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, having the Joseon article under Wikiproject Korea makes sense because it was a Korean country. It's also logical and completely understandable of having this article be part of wikiproject east asia because Joseon was situated in a region people refer to as east asia. Kuebie (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not about Joseon being "under" any grouping, but about WikiProjects having a certain interest in the article. I already explained the rationale for WikiProject China's interest. You may disagree with it, but each WikiProject decides their own scope. Quigley (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa wait. Wikiprojects are very loosely moderated and organized. Just because you feel like the Joseon article should associated with China of places, don't expect people to not take your template off. Kuebie (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If your rationale is as flimsy as that; as fundamentally based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of WikiProjects as that, then don't expect people not to put the template back on. Quigley (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really, because the present templates are actually relevant to the topic. Kuebie (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So is the proposed template, whether you like it or not. Quigley (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How? Kuebie (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Refer to my first edit in this subsection. Quigley (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer: Your reason is because Joseon paid tributes to Qing. Mine: a very petty reason to tag the talk page with wpchina, which ultimately doesn't mean anything. Kuebie (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's more than the tributes; it's the fact that, regardless of the terminology we want to use, Joseon was treated internationally like a Chinese possession, and the war China fought and lost to keep Joseon was a watershed moment for China. And if the talk page tag "doesn't mean anything", then you don't need to continue to object to it. Quigley (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See your views do not correlate with the modern view that Joseon was all-in-all an independent nation. Now if you want go into Sino-Japanese wars, Qing only sent its army into Korea under the pretense of protecting its citizens from a local rebellion (same as Japan). Qing proposed to Japan that they both withdraw from Korea, Japan didn't, and now you have a war. wpchina is not relevant to Joseon. Kuebie (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And this brings us back to "since when was Joseon ever part of China?" It wasn't, despite your claims that it was "treated internationally like a Chinese possession". Kuebie (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The modern view of which states were "all-in-all independent" do not disregard completely the views of contemporary international actors, and modern historiography has a better grasp of Joseon's significance for the Qing than did the Qing emissaries themselves. Joseon is a relevant article of interest to WikiProject China. There is absolutely no policy stating that WikiProject China can only tag the talk pages of articles whose subjects are or were "part of China". Quigley (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No just it's the fact that wpchina is about as relevant to Joseon just as wplgbt studies is to cuttle fish. Kuebie (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about WikiProject LGBT Studies; we're talking about WikiProject China. And we're not talking about Champa, the Asikaga Shogunate, the British Empire, or cuttlefish; we're talking about the Joseon Dynasty. Please stay on topic. Quigley (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was on topic. I was using an analogy to show how desperately you're trying to associate Joseon with china. Kuebie (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have demonstrated more connection than is necessary for this tag, and the core rationale for the tag has not yet been refuted. The "analogies" are getting silly; can we please move on and restore the tag? Quigley (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want. This article is about as relevant to China as percussions are to tennis games. Kuebie (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject China ≠ China. But to put it more accurately, this article is as relevant to China as tennis balls are to tennis games. Quigley (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad analogy. You actually need tennis balls to play tennis. Unless you're saying Joseon or Qing can't exist without the other, which is insane. Kuebie (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidently the Joseon Dynasty did not last for long without Qing protection. Quigley (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to make this clear; Qing armies were never stationed in Joseon. Ever. Joseon lost its power long before when the Americans took mining rights from the country and everything went downhill. Kuebie (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the veracity of that assertion, Qing boots on the ground are not necessary for a WikiProject China tag. Quigley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm saying the wpchina tag isn't necessary at all. Kuebie (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a decision for WikiProject China to make. Quigley (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's you who tagged this article. Even I can be part of wpchina, it doesn't mean anything. You choose to put the template and now you're the one defending it. Kuebie (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who has objected to the tag's removal. It simply doesn't signify what you think it does, namely that Joseon was "part of China". It just means that WikiProject China has an interest in this China-related article. Quigley (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Usually wikiprojects have interests to topics that have relevance to their project titles/goals. Kuebie (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely why the Joseon Dynasty talkpage was tagged. Quigley (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reason is because "Joseon Dynasty was considered a subsovereign tributary to Qing China-". I already said it was a weak argument, punctuated by several analogies (others included). Kuebie (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, my argument cannot be reduced into one pithy sentence like that. Your analogies miss the point. Even if, as you say, mainstream scholarship is wrong and Korea was "all-in-all independent", the Joseon Dynasty's central place in orthodox Chinese historiography necessitates tagging. Quigley (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Joseon Dynasty's central place in orthodox Chinese historiography necessitates tagging." Yeah explain. We're talking about two different countries here with two different historiography that are totally independent from each other. Really not a complex idea to grasp. Kuebie (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I already did explain, look back at my comments about the First Sino-Japanese War and Imperial China's decline. This might be a complex idea to grasp if you insist on denying history ("two different countries... that are totally independent from each other"), but you don't need to understand to acquiesce to the tag's placement. Quigley (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay from the way I understand it, you think Joseon is inexplicably tied to China by some magical force that is beyond paying tributes to a Manchu dynasty. Good, fine. You are free to think that way. Kuebie (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeating "Manchu dynasty" over and over will not change the fact that the Qing Dynasty was China. Similarly, you can call the Joseon's role in Chinese history "magical" if you want; just don't remove the tag when it gets added again. Thanks. Quigley (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I only said Manchu dynasty once. And just to show you that I'm not prejudice to solely one wikiproject, I will remove any tag is not relevant to the article. Kuebie (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerns do not come from which WikiProjects are relevant to the article; they come from which articles are of interest to each WikiProject. WikiProjects Korea, Former Countries, East Asia, and China all have legitimate stakes in building this article to be as comprehensive and accurate as possible. Quigley (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, most of the article is in a stable state. Second, Joseon is not relevant to wp CHINA (I'm repeating myself here). Perhaps if there was some quasi-Korea/multicultural country that involved China, it would be appropriate to place that template on its talk page. Kuebie (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is emphatically not stable; the recent edit-warring (in the sections above) relating to Joseon's relationship with China cries out for expertise from WPCHINA editors. And in fact, the Qing Dynasty that lorded over China and Korea was very multicultural. Were there a WikiProject Qing, it would be on this talk page, but since there isn't, WikiProject China will have to do. Quigley (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No I think most of it is stable and members of wpchina are free to edit the article. Sure China was multicultural, because the Manchus took it over (although it wasn't for that reason alone). Joseon was pretty much a Korean country from day one, hence the wpkorea template above. So why would a supposed Qing dynasty template be here? Kuebie (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, why not remove all of the WikiProject tags, since members of WikiProjects Korea, Former Countries, and East Asia could also spontaneously migrate to this article. Your argument is essentially an argument against the idea of the WikiProject itself. If you want to go down that route, then this talk page is not the place to do it.

A WikiProject Qing would be here for the same reasons outlined above for WikiProject China being here; similar reasons abound for WikiProject Japan on the talk page for Korea under Japanese rule. Whether Korean submission to Japan was legal by modern standards, or whether Joseon submission to China was legal by modern standards, they are both facts of history that are of interest to diverse WikiProjects, and no national WikiProject may claim sole ownership over an article. Quigley (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But Japan actually took over/annexed Korea. Korea was part of the Japanese empire at one point. There is such a huge gap between those two scenarios. Kuebie (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That Korea was "annexed" is only one viewpoint, contrasted with the viewpoint of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea that did not recognize the annexation. The point is that Wikipedia should recognize the spectrum of legitimate views, which includes the view (which happens to be the predominant view in this case) that the Joseon Dynasty was a non-sovereign vassal to the Qing. Quigley (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhh no. It is very clear that Korea was then governed by Imperial Japan. And you can keep saying the mainstream academia supports your views, but until you can actually back that up, yeah it's not convincing. Kuebie (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you're the one agitating for a change in the status quo, you're the one who needs to provide sources for your novel views. My mainstream views that the Qing was China and that Joseon was a tributary are already represented in most of the topical articles on Wikipedia. Quigley (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

...and what exactly are my "novel" views? Because I said Joseon acted as sovereign nation? It's true isn't it? Joseon was independent of all of its military and political functions. Had that taken away during the Japanese colonial period. You insist Joseon was in directly or indirectly part of China, you even go as far as to say it's the predominant view (several times). Kuebie (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your novel views are that because, based on your original interpretation, Joseon "acted as sovereign nation", that it is appropriate to describe Joseon as a "sovereign state" in the article text. No, I have never said that Joseon is a part of China. No, Joseon does not have to be a part of China to have the WikiProject China banner on its article's talk page. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hence why Joseon is a sovereign state, 'cause it acted like one! Kuebie (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Such "acting" sovereignty means nothing if other states don't recognize it. Quigley (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Other states such as...? The Joseon dynasty and the US conducted their diplomacy under mutual relations between two sovereign countries. Kuebie (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

United States–Korea Treaty of 1882 was negotiated between US and China and signed Ma Jianzhong in attendance. And as a compromise, King of Korea wrote a letter to the President of the United States in May 29, 1882, "Korea is a dependency of China, but the management of her governmental affairs, home and foreign, have always been vested in the Sovereign." This proves Joseon was hardly a sovereign state at that time. See detail at User talk:Tenmei#United States–Korea Treaty of 1882 ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you've also conveniently left out the other part he wrote, "Now as the Governments of the United States and Korea are about to enter into treaty relations, the intercourse between the two nations shall be carried on in every respect on terms of equality and courtesy, and the King of Korea clearly assents that all of the Articles of the Treaty shall be acknowledged and carried into effect according to the laws of independent states." Kuebie (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Korea suffered from two invasions by the Manchus, in 1627 (see the First Manchu invasion of Korea) and 1637 (see the Second Manchu invasion of Korea). Korea surrendered to the Manchus and became a tributary state of the Qing dynasty. Please read Joseon_dynasty#Manchu_invasions NickDupree (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The history writing about this subject on Wikipedia is dubious to say the least, considering the long blockade we see continued here against WikiProject China and its editors on Korea-related articles. Quigley (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit wars being perpetrated by the POV Warriors here are getting increasingly ridiculous and more and more unjustifiable. Let's keep it NPOV; affiliated to Imperial China as part of the tributary trade system, Joseon dynasty is just as related to WikiProject China as the Champa Kingdom in Vietnam and any historical tributaries in China's tributary trade network are! Affiliated or related doesn't imply lack of sovereignty and, for the love of The FSM, has nothing to do with the heated debates over sovereignty! --NickDupree (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not about sovereignty, it's about whether or not a project tag should be added to the article's talk page. As described above, these are separate issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been following the Joseon talk page war as an uninvolved editor and am increasingly discouraged that any consensus will be possible. Several nationalist POV warriors will never be able to see Joseon in a broader historical framework that includes a realistic view of the Imperial tributary trade system, Korean-Qing dynasty relations, nor comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. We may need to protect Joseon dynasty for weeks or months more until the conflict dies down. NickDupree (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not conflate this WikiProject issue with the earlier content dispute. Protection of the article for the latter has expired, and many of the disputatious editors have disappeared. As for the WikiProject tags, it is fundamentally a matter of respect for each project's autonomy in deciding their own scope. Nationalist claims one way or another are a diversion. Quigley (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No I think Nick has the right idea. You emphasize Joseon's tributary relations with the Qing as something that is close to "Chinese possession" thus your reason of adding wpchina to the talk page. Simple. Kuebie (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have the wrong idea about the reason for WikiProject China's addition to the talk page. It does not have to do with Joseon being part of China or a Chinese posession, true as that may be. It is the fact that WikiProject China, and more specifically its history workgroup, has an interest in this article that necessitates its tagging. If it were completely obvious that Joseon had nothing to do with the Qing, as you tried to argue with not much sense, then the interest would be irrational, but there is clearly a very vigorous debate about the nature and implications of this relationship within and without Wikipedia, so the interest is self-evident. Quigley (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your edit summary. What exactly have I misinterpreted? Clearly this is your slant of having the template added. Kuebie (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my edit summary before I the ensuing edit war prompted me to explicate all of the different reasons, technical and practical, for why the banner is legitimate. You have only chosen to repeat and (poorly) address select aspects of that argument, ignoring the etiquette that separates WikiProject banners from categories on the main article. Quigley (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So you're now disowning your original rationale for... ? Kuebie (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I never disowned my original rationale. I simply explained, in addition to the historical facts of the matter, that WikiProject tags are not necessarily a direct judgment on the subject, and should not be removed lightly. Quigley (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then it means I understand you clearly. Kuebie (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in discussion

There is no need to discuss this WikiProject banner issue- all that a banner communicates is something along the lines of "People interested in (topic of WikiProject) may find this article to be relevant to that interest." There is no reasonable argument to exclude a banner from an article, and frankly, there's no reason to dignify the opposing position. I'm all for discussion and consensus-building under normal circumstances, but this "controversy" is as bizarre as it is artificial. Kuebie (talk · contribs) is utterly out of line here, and his or her actions in edit-warring on this talk page are simply disruptive. I say this as an editor who does wish for the article to give fair treatment to the issue of Joseon's internal sovereignty. —Bill Price (nyb) 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edit-warred at all. I'm merely in the same position of the editors who have removed Quigley's wpchina template. Kuebie (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please revert the edit you have just made here, before you get blocked a sixth time for edit warring. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa that sounded like a threat. Thought it was pretty rude of Bill to add it back when we were discussing the very exact thing. Kuebie (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We can have legitimate discussions about matters of content, but not about WikiProject banners, which are autonomous to their projects. What you're doing is obstruction at this point, if not all along. Quigley (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Says who? You? We were just in an hour long back and forth. Suddenly we can't talk about why you put wpchina's banner up there? Bullshit. Kuebie (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't be obstinate. Did you tagging this banner into the other tributary state's pages including Japan?--Historiographer (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. If you want to discuss Japan, there's the Japan-related topics notice board. Quigley (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

May be you don't understand my mind. I just compared Korean position with those of other tributaries.--Historiographer (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason for adding the banner tag is not simply because Joseon was a tributary; it is ultimately because Joseon's varied impact on Chinese history leads the article to be a subject of interest to WikiProject China. Every WikiProject decides its own scope, which may or may not be limited to obvious interpretations of the title. Additionally, since you were already warned about edit-warring before your latest revert, your actions have the appearance of gaming the system—if you did this by mistake, you should self-revert by restoring the banner. Quigley (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is clear by now that editors are just talking in circles around one another here. As Kuebie and Historiographer have repeatedly changed the subject to insist on an irrelevant argument over Joseon's sovereignty, have ignored the actual issue and not made any attempt to address the arguments raised at the very beginning of this section, it's time to restore the tag. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No really, that's Quigley actual reason put wpchina here. And Rjanag, this isn't the first time me and Historiographer had butt heads with you, so please stop acting like some impartial viewer. Kuebie (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are two possible explanations for that:

1. Rjanag is biased, and is acting against you because he secretly hates Korea and loves Japan.

2. Rjanag is impartial, and is acting against you because both you and Historiographer are out of line.

What do you think? Jpatokal (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your projecting yourself on to me. Especially that whole secretly hating x country and loving x country bit. Also, his background is Chinese - it wouldn't make sense. All I was saying is that me and this dude have history. Fairly innocent I think. Kuebie (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My background is Chinese? what does that mean? As for our having a "history", I don't recall ever having interacted with you before. I just looked through your talkpage history and the only thing I could find was a {{talkback}} I left you regarding a message on Historiographer's talk page.

As for my being biased, when then did I intercede and stop the edit warring when it was Historiographer's version that was up? This whole tangent is an irrelevant distraction, please discuss the actual issue at hand. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We haven't interacted through each other's talkpages no, but you were a mediator of sorts during another dispute that involved me, Historiographer, and a few others. I proposed a new 'mediator', someone that was not actually involved in the article. I guess you took it as an offense, I don't know. Moving on... Kuebie (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, this might be nitpicking, but while you were reformatting the section above (to make easier to read) I noticed you left out my latest reply while re-adding Nick's (an edit that was made after mine). Thought it was a bit weird. Most likely a mistake but it's easier to notice these while looking at the big picture. Kuebie (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this? That was a mistake, which I was not even aware of until just now. If it bothered you so much, you could have restored the message 4 days ago instead of waiting until now to make veiled suggestions that I am somehow trying to suppress your opinions. Anyone looking at that edit can see that it was a large edit and your comment wasn't the only one I accidentally did something to. Once again, this issue is irrelevant to the point at hand and I see no need to pursue it further; if you want to make accusations about my behavior you are free to do so at a more appropriate venue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No really, Rjanag should think about why Kuebie and Historiographer said that. Inserting WPCHINA banner is connected with Joseon's sovereignty. Isn't it?--Aocduio (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_best_practices#Article_tagging, I'd say it should not be tagged. Gerardw (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw, how are you using that policy? I see nothing which suggests this article ought not be tagged. WikiProjects set their own scopes, and if a project member gives a valid rationale for including an article within that WikiProject, what is the rationale for denying that? Are you using the prose regarding "articles about a city"? That's the only vaguely plausible bit of prose which would seem to count against WikiProject China, but obviously, we're not talking about a city. A historical dynasty—a state which does not exist, and which is not "possessed" by anyone in the modern world—is not the same as a city, which is physical, concrete, and tangible. —Bill Price (nyb) 15:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note, Qing wasn't Chinese dynasty, China was just one of the provinces/state under Manchu Dynasty. People should realize, sovereignty belonged to ruling elites not peasants and commoners.--KSentry(talk) edited. 08:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)--KSentry(talk) 08:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said at the top of this discussion, the Qing dynasty was part of Chinese history. Just because the rulers during the Qing dynasty wasn't Han doesn't mean China wasn't China. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the word "sovereign" be included in the lead or not? Oda Mari (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter all that much but it's referenced good faith edit by a editor of good standing. There's no reason to be so fanatic in trying to impart anti-Korean spin and delete referenced information.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not inspired with confidence by the reference provided for the "sovereign" part. Melonbarmonster2's personal attack upon the RfC nominator is unnecessary and irrelevant and should be struck out. Quigley (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not inspired by most references but for purposes of discussion we should limit our concerns to weather the naver article meets criteria set out by WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. It does so with flying colors. Aside from the substantive discussion, I would like to also submit that Quigley's personal attack on me should be struck down for reasons of lack of necessity and relevance. Hopefully we can set aside the petty gamesmanship and WP:GF so we can have a productive discussion.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going about this the wrong way. The issue is not whether we can find one source (or even a few) that describe Joseon as "sovereign", because there's obviously a contingent of Koreans, including many of the esteemed members of this edit war, who are firmly of the opinion that it is -- and that's fine as one point of view. The issue is that, by describing Joseon as "sovereign", we completely ignore the other point of view (and, dare I say, the majority view), which is that Joseon was (at times) more or less under the control of the Qing and thus, at the very least, not externally sovereign. For example, the UK defines a sovereign state as one "which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government"; I think we would all agree that Joseon fulfills the first half of that, but Joseon was ritually subordinate to Qing for lengthy periods and, at times, practically subordinate as well.

Thus, we should remove the misleading blanket label of "sovereign" from the lead, and instead devote a paragraph or so elsewhere to covering both these views. Jpatokal (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion on what definition of sovereignty applies or not but it's irrelevant to the discussion. We're supposed to refer to published references for determining whether mention of sovereignty is appropriate or not. Your or my position on the actual substantive, academic discussion is irrelevant and injecting your opinion in the article would be considered synthesis.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell that out for you more simply: there are plenty of substantive, academic references already in the article stating that Joseon was a tributary state of Qing. From this point of view, Joseon was not fully sovereign, because being a tributary state (= subordinate to another state) and being fully sovereign (= not subordinate to any other state) are incompatible. Jpatokal (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, please answer my questions. What is the article one in the Treaty of Shimonoseki? Why do you think there was such an article in the treaty? What is the first sentence of ko:개화당? Why do you think there was such people? What did they want? Oda Mari (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if English is a second language for you but I'm having trouble understanding your post? Are you asking me a question about a particular reference?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, you said "Sovereignty doesn't preclude tributary relationships", but did not provide RS. It would be your personal interpretation/definition unless you provide RS. I didn't deny the Korean court conducted diplomacy. But that doesn't necessarily mean the dynasty was a sovereign state. As for the ref. currently used on the article, I don't think it's a RS. It is a news story about a recently published book with an interpretation of tributary. Please provide historical records that say the dynasty was a sovereign state. And please answer my questions above and a new question here. Why do you think the Independence Gate was built in 1896? Oda Mari (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What's RS? In any case, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of of what constitutes citation for disputable claims in text of wikipedia articles. You are not supposed to engage in qualitative assessment of historical records to determine soveriegnty of Chosun dynasty. That is considered WP:SYN and you are engaging in WP:OR and the 'historical record' you are asking for is WP:PRIMARY which you would not able to use: " All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Surprised that you don't know this???Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, one point I've been wondering about for a while: as far as I can tell, excluding a few wannabe states that had "Sovereign" in their formal name (eg. Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina), Joseon is the only country in Wikipedia where the lead explicitly proclaims it to be a sovereign state. Why does Joseon alone require this description? Jpatokal (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. But if some editor wants to include that by providing proper references that's well within assumption of good faith and reason.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this helpful at all? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all since Treaty of Shimonoseki was between China and Japan and precludes Korea as party. Contracts 101. That aside however, your or my personal interpretation and opinion on primary historical documents is considered WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTHESIS and not fit for injection in article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

the following two messages were moved up from #Review of content changes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In former days, I said why relationship between Imperial China and Joseon Dynasty was specific case. "In addition, sovereign state have capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. Joseon Dynasty established diplomatic relations with other sovereign states such as Japan, United States, and the other western states without Chinese interference. Whenever King of Joseon Korea changed, they just notified these facts to China, not appointed their throne by China. It is showed that Korea's status with Imperial China was just formal, not practical." However, Jpatokal was not made any rebuttal. Why didn't you explained about this?--Historiographer (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this in the RFC section above? This particular series of edits did not even mention sovereignty. Jpatokal (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If Joseon wasn't sovereign state then how come Japan was sovereign state?--KSentry(talk) 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@KSentry. how come Japan was a sovereign state? Because Japan was in a vassal relationship with Ming in Muromachi period, but not with Qing from Azuchi–Momoyama period through Edo period.
Looking at this pdf file, there is a sentence on page 30 ...Gustav Boissonnade expressed his opinion that Korea was neither a complete vassal of China nor was it entirely independent, but was positioned somewhere in between . And there's another sentence:Later realizing its blunder, the Qing stated that it is widely known that Korea was in fact a part of China. Not everyone thought Joseon dynasty was a sovereign state. It is incorrect to say that the dynasty was a sovereign state. The file is more reliable than the current news story used as a reference. Oda Mari (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note Joseon Dynasty existed period of Ming to ROC, Joseon was sovereign state when it was founded and forced to become vassal of Ming & Qing under specific terms, it was never full vassal state. Please note Qing wasn't Chinese dynasty, also Japan was once vassal state under various Chinese to Korean states never listed as vassal to Chinese, Koreans etc.. care to explain this Mari?--KSentry(talk) 08:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether forced or not or if it was not full, it was a tributary state, wasn't it? That is why I am asking not to use "sovereign" in the lead. The ref. above says it was not a fully independent state. What's wrong with a sentence like "Joseon was a Korean state founded by Taejo Yi Seong-gye..." as the first sentence of the lead? I didn't say it should be included that " The Joseon dynasy was a tributary state". Why should it be described as "sovereign state" when some ref. say it was not. It is in conflict with the article one in the treaty of Shimonoseki. As for Japan, it was mentioned on the pages like these. List of tributaries of Imperial China, Muromachi period#Economic and cultural developments, Sō clan, and maybe more. Oda Mari (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well then we should list Japan as tributary state under various Chinese and Korean states too. Yamatai/Yamato was basically vassal state of Baekje but Japanese fabricated evidence to disassociate themselves from this.--KSentry(talk) 12:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Japan is listed on List of tributaries of Imperial China. What is Japanese fabricated evidence? You mean Nihon Shoki? Or Kojiki? How about Book of Sui? Do you deny the book too? But those things are irrelevant at here. If you think the article Yamato period or Kofun period are incorrect, use their talk page. This is Joseon Dynasty's talk page and I'm talking about the Joseon Dynasty. Please answer my questions above. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Big lesson for you is not to believe face value from written history but to learn to read behind history. Using both 3rd party sources and archeology etc.. In your case, Tsushima never was part of Japan at early Joseon dynasty period and even japan paid tributes to Joseon. --KSentry(talk) 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No more refutation? As I wrote above, the sovereignty of the dynasty is controversial. I'll remove the word "sovereign" from the lead in a week. Oda Mari (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• History should be written as if "written from afar". Therefore, the pages named Silla, Baekje and Goguryeo should be taken as a reference when writting the page named Joseon. An historical fact is that King and Country are not the same things. And therefore, we have, as it should be, a page dealing with the Silla Kingdom, and another page dealing with the Silla Dynasty. You can say that the "Star Gazing Tower" (cheomseongdae, 첨성대) was constructed by Silla Kingdom in 647. You can say that it was build by order of Queen Seondeok of Silla in 647. But you cannot say that it was built *by* Queen Seondeok, In fact, nobody uses the last phrasing... as long as the old Silla Kingdom is involved. When Joseon is involved, there are no reasons either to merge the Joseon Dynasty and the Joseon State. One can choose to merge the "Joseon Kingdom (1392-1897)" and the "Korean Empire (1897-1910)" pages into a single page. But naming that page "Joseon Dynasty" is pissing on the heads of all these millions of farmers, soldiers, and even ministers that were the flesh and bones of the Joseon State. In the same vein, the name chosen for the page Joseon Dynasty politics is surprising since that page is largely about strife between dynasty and ministers. IMO, the wording "Joseon sovereign State" was at first an attempt to merge Kingdom and Empire into a single concept. This has been criticized since the 24 Goryeo *jong were sovereign, the 6 Goryeo Chun* were tributary, the remaining 4 four Goryeo kings were in a "don't ask, don't tell" status and the following Joseon Kingdom remained in this "don't tell you are sovereign" status. Why not. But this is nothing but another argument to simply use Joseon to name the page devoted to the Joseon State. Pldx1 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Inserting a relevant source on Korea and other Qing tributary states

Though I haven't been editing in Korean history articles, I've long been involved in adding information to articles on Chinese emperors, the voyages of Zheng He, and especially off-site compiling of sources on the history of the Ming and Qing dynasties for later possible inclusion.

If I may, I'd like to propose this relevant source on Qing tributary states be inserted into the discussion and possibly in the article. This is from the Prentice Hall textbook China's Path to Modernization: A Historical Review from 1800 to the Present, a history text often used in college and high school surveys of China and Asian history, and given the hot-button topic of Korean sovereignty throughout history and the festering historical grievances involved, you would be hard pressed to find a more neutral point of view than this.

It emphasizes the economic/trade focus of the Qing dynasty tributary network...

pg23

Since Asian states wanting to trade with China continued to pay regular tribute to Beijing, there was little reason for the Chinese to doubt their predominance in the world order. Even the Europeans, who had first entered the Chinese waters as early as the sixteenth century, had submitted to trade within the highly restrictive Chinese system.

The tribute system of international relations was, however, not so uniform as ideology would have it. Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet, although outside China proper, were considered within the pale, and Beijing you the right to post agents and armed forces there. Korea, the Ryukyu Islands, Annam (present-day Vietnam), Siam (Thailand), Burma (new name Myanmar), and Nepal were “tributary states,” which sent regular tribute missions.

Because Korean sovereignty is such a contentious issue (and has been for centuries) I think this, or related material, should be somehow incorporated into the article. As the article on suzerainty puts it, "it is a concept that is very difficult to describe using 20th- or 21st-century theories of international law, in which sovereignty either exists or does not." The best way I would describe it to a beginner is, the big dog eats first, and the little dogs know if they don't give the big dog his due, the big dog could try and bite the little dogs and then they will get nothing. Over the years letting the big dog eat first becomes so routinized and expected, it's like a daily ritual and it's weird and foreign to think of another arrangement. This is how China has been in East Asia for the better part of 5,000 years. the Korean Joseon state always ritualistically let the big dog eat first, but had sovereignty over domestic affairs nearly in total depending on which historical era you're talking about. That makes it murky and hard to understand, so it definitely deserves more in-depth treatment in the Joseon dynasty article. --NickDupree (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As the quote's relevance to Joseon is only tangential, it might make more sense in the Tributary state article, or perhaps a new article on specifically the Chinese tributary system? This could then be linked in from Joseon, Annam, Siam, etc. Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to add Japan as tributary state of China and Korea.--KSentry(talk) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the Joseon Dynasty article? Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It does matter when Japan did paid tributes to Joseon.--KSentry(talk) 03:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Japan paid tributes to Joseon!? Jpatokal (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The feudal lords So clan in Tsushima made a tributary trade with Joseon. So clan was a Japanese Daimyo and participated in Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598). We should distinguish a "tributary state" in Korea with a "tributary trade" in Tsushima. "Tributary trade" is something like a bribe to Joseon court in order to facilitate the trade between Tsushima and Joseon.. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Sō were vassals of Joseon from 1443 to 1587, and then switched sides to ally with Hideyoshi. It's an interesting historical footnotes, but hardly the same as "Japan" (that is, the imperial or shogunate court) as a whole paying tribute. Jpatokal (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fyi, Tsushima remained vassal of Joseon until it was annexed by imperial Japan in 19th century. Seoul still have original Tsushima clan membership and family tree books. Also, various Daimyo did paid tributes to Joseon court in return for trade.--KSentry(talk) 08:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe an article on the Chinese imperial tributary trade system is needed and would benefit Wikipedia's coverage of East Asian history. Would you, or anyone, collaborate with me on that? No one affiliated with WikiProject Chinese history will respond to me... I really want collaborators for this and the creation of a History of the Qing dynasty article, but continue to be WikiLonely... --NickDupree (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Plunge forward and create it, I'll try to chip in. Jpatokal (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be a nice addition. It'll also help Jpatokal & co. understand that Joseon by all modern definitions, acted as a sovereign nation. Kuebie (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to make sure update Qing Dynasty as Manchu Dynasty, Qing emperors were all Manchus not Chinese. Chinese claims on Qing as Chinese dynasty is flimsy because it doesn't make any sense.--KSentry(talk) 12:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that Qing dynasty was a Manchu dynasty is lost on ANYONE, it is covered extensively in the Qing dynasty article. Why do you keep talking about it here on the Joseon dynasty article? That discussion is irrelevant to Korea and should be on Talk:Qing dynasty not here. --NickDupree (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please consider the historical framework Joseon and Imperial China found themselves in...

Quigley stated "the recent edit-warring (in the sections above) relating to Joseon's relationship with China cries out for expertise from WPCHINA editors." And "The history writing about this subject on Wikipedia is dubious to say the least, considering the long blockade we see continued here against WikiProject China and its editors on Korea-related articles. Quigley (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a contributor under WikiProject Chinese history so I'll answer what "cries out for expertise" and weigh in....

I want nothing more than to improve Wikipedia's coverage of historical topics (that is why I'm here). First, I want to point out that Qing boots were on the ground in Korea during the Joseon period, multiple times, and Ming troops were involved in Korea to an even greater extent. This discussion will be impossible as long as certain nationalistic POV warriors cling to black and white thinking about sovereignty, Korea was either sovereign or it wasn't. The history of Asia is much more muddled and gray; in reality, the Joseon state had partial sovereignty! The Joseon dynasty had wide independence over its own internal affairs (domestic matters) because the Chinese Emperors expected the Koreans to order themselves and maintain peace, but this too was part of the Imperial tributary system based on old Confucian thinking of rigid father-son obligations: the children states did everything for the honor and benefit of their Imperial fathers. In addition to expecting large tribute payments to Beijing on an exacting schedule, it went without saying that Joseon had to make all its trade, military and diplomatic decisions to please China, and in exchange China would protect and defend the Korean peninsula. A good illustration of this relationship is the Imjin war, where Ming forces fought to protect and keep Korea in the face of Japanese invasion. The Ming Dynasty nearly went bankrupt defending its castles on the Korean peninsula and fighting the two successive Japanese invasions in the late 16th century, and the Ming was so weakened by these wars they soon-after collapsed and the Qing Dynasty took their place. That the Imjin War was fought almost entirely by Ming sailors and troops and settled diplomatically solely by China and Japan makes User:Kuebie's claim that Joseon was independent in "all military and political functions" impossible, simply a fiction.

It cannot be said that Korea during the Joseon period was "all-in-all independent," no. But it is also false to say that Joseon had no sovereignty. Their power over domestic affairs deserves full and fair coverage, at length, in any article on the subject. And the partial sovereignty that I described waxed and waned as Chinese dynasties rose and fell and as Japan's role grew, certainly there were times of Chinese decline when their suzerainty over the Korean peninsula was "in name only," but the fact that the Joseon state never tried to shake free of that nominal Imperial Chinese affiliation even when China was in the throes of dynastic decline also tells you a lot about how strong the historic ties were, and how badly Korea needed a powerful ally in their corner to help in the event of possible attack. Joseon's murky, sometimes fluctuating, level of sovereignty requires thoughtful, nuanced explanation. The truth is not compatible with nationalistic slogans. The truth here, is neither black nor white, but, as often the case in historical topics, is found in the gray.

What I'm saying is informed by the Journal of Asian Studies and the textbook China's Path to Modernization: A Historical Review from 1800 to the Present. Kuebie, are there any WP:Reliable Sources behind your claims?

I welcome actual informed debate regarding the real issues and facts. NickDupree (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh, how did you explain about Ōei Invasion or Tsushima Expedition? Korean military took independent action without any Chinese permission.--Historiographer (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, Chinese Emperors expected the Koreans to order themselves and maintain peace, defeating or dealing with Japanese pirates that China hated was very much welcomed by the emperor. Pirates in Korean waters were an internal matter to be handled by the Koreans. This doesn't go against my point about partial sovereignty at all. NickDupree (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm... You're mistaken I see. It was not related with your (or your source) theory. Koreans were just defend themselves rather than Chinese emperors' expected.--Aocduio (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there was no official vassalage agreement between Joseon and Ming, Ming court expected Joseon to remained as peaceful and join Ming against to Ming's enemies, it was sort of like today's U.S ally. Btw, Qing Dynasty wasn't Chinese dynasty, some people here are mistaken to think Qing as Chinese. Chinese able to claim "China" from Manchus after collapse of Qing.--KSentry(talk) 08:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yuan Dynasty was a non-Chinese dynasty also, and so was the Qing Dynasty. What relevance does that have to Joseon state? You just conceded that the Joseon dynasty had a close relationship with Qing empire. My point above is that this was a very complicated, close relationship with a lot of nuance and many don't understand it. The history is complex and can't fit on a nationalistic bumper sticker for either Korea nor China. --NickDupree (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're overstating the issue a bit. It is complex but not so complex that there wasn't wide mutual and deep consensus between China, Korea and all other surrounding kingdoms about their place in relation to once another.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not even Ming, Ching, et al Confucious aristocrats would claim that Korean kingdoms weren't sovereign. They saw Korean kingdoms as being "little brother" states independent and sovereign and subordinate to the sinocentric world that made up ancient 'civilized' Asia. That's why ALL asian countries called China the "middle kingdom". That did not mean all the countries that happily subordinated to Chinese kingdoms weren't sovereign. Sovereignty and national identity is defined by history of national, ethnic identity, identity of language, food and culture. ALL Korean kingdoms pass these checkpoints with flying colors. No serious Chinese, Korean scholars claim that Chosun or precedent Korean kingdoms weren't sovereign.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Melonbarmonster2, for one of the first constructive, solid arguments about the historical context from your side of the discussion. If we could insert (well referenced) text into the article explaining as you have They saw Korean kingdoms as being "little brother" states independent and sovereign and subordinate to the sinocentric world that made up ancient 'civilized' Asia. That's why ALL asian countries called China the "middle kingdom". That did not mean all the countries that happily subordinated to Chinese kingdoms weren't sovereign. you'd have no objections from me, or most of the others, because you're describing these old East Asian relationships fairly comprehensively and accurately. I never would oppose that. What I oppose is dumbing it down to bumper sticker nationalistic slogans "Joseon was all and all independent militarily and diplomatically!" that are misleading. Korea was dotted with Chinese castles and other military fortifications during the Joseon period, and during the the Imjin War especially, the primary defense Joseon had against Japanese aggression were the Ming armies! Thus, you can't accurately explain Joseon dynasty's status in the absolute black and white terms typical of the Westphalian sovereignty that dominates the way people think of the world in recent centuries. The Confucian idea of being a "little brother" state doesn't preclude autonomy, I agree with you on that, but it also means tight familial ties and intense obligations on both sides. I do not imply that the relationship was complex for the nations involved, I'm certain that it was routinized century after century until it was as expected as sun-up in the morning! What I meant is it is hard to grasp for many of us in today's world, where national pride, absolutism on foreign policy and national borders, and angry fist-pumping about all of the above is more prevalent than ancient Confucian thinking on foreign relations (understatement). NickDupree (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

This message is being sent to inform the followers of this talk page that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which some of you may have been involved. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How come you didn't showed up when Chinese are deleting "Korean wikiproject" tags from Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty etc.. because they temporary occupied parts of Korean territory therefore they should also list Korean wikiproject tags? --KSentry(talk) 08:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch those articles. So if you're looking for hypocrisy, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. —Bill Price (nyb) 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the KoreanSentry's point still stands regardless of whether you, me or anyone watches those articles or not. There is a line that should be drawn when it comes to placing wikiproject tags on articles that are clearly and empirically understood as being "korean", "chinese" or "japan". Allowing editors to inject their particular ethnic tags on articles is inviting a POV troll war and UNHELPFUL.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, KoreanSentry is wrong when he says that "Chinese are deleting 'Korean wikiproject' tags from Han Dynasty"; in fact the opposite is true. In the most recent such discussion, PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs), a major contributor to China-related articles, was arguing for WikiProject Korea's and WikiProject Vietnam's banner inclusion on the Han Dynasty article. It was none other than one of our resident Korean users, Historiographer (talk · contribs), who edit warred to remove the WPKorea banner (and Vietnam's too). KoreanSentry apparently supported the banner then, with the rationale, "I think Koreans also have equal right to add their research if Chinese can edit Korean/Japanese articles. This is wikipedia not communist enforced websites." Rather than showcasing Chinese nationalism and hypocrisy, which he is constantly complaining about, KoreanSentry has just revealed his own. That discussion on the Han Dynasty article ended when it was clear that the anti-banner people (who are not really anti-banner, but are inconsistently enforcing what they see as Korean interests) would continue to aggressively revert, on rotation if necessary, and mount a soapbox on irrelevant nationalist grievances until the other editors were worn down and quit. It looks as if this discussion might end the same way. Quigley (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

At last we have someone who understand what's going on at wikipedia, the major problem with Korean related articles is we have Chinese and Japanese nationalists editing all Korean articles rendering with their POV, now when Koreans tried to edit theirs (Chinese/Japanese) articles, they just removed our edits, so basically there's no way can edit their articles in more balanced format. There's simply no way I can add my edits to Han to Tang Dynasty because Chinese users will list me as vandal.--KSentry(talk) 12:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

References for Joseon being a Qing tributary

Melonbarmonster, you've (again) removed mention of Joseon being a Qing tributary on the grounds of, and I quote, "korean history project is selfpublished reference and the Moran book doesn't deal with the Qing at all". How about the third reference, the Office of the President of the Republic Korea [48], and how do you feel about these references in the List of tributaries of Imperial China article?

Jpatokal (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He won't be able to respond right away, as I blocked him for 1 week. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I said that these content emphasizes below section more exactly, and it is not necessary obstinately in opening. In addition, tribute relationship was not the master and servant relation. Please, DON'T make controversial changes like this.--Historiographer (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari must keep neutrality he said. Otherwise, he should remove all of controversial articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.196.7.102 (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

For years people have been reverting one another, often without any discussion, over the use of the words "sovereign" and "tributary" in this article. I have had to protect it four times already and have had to block one editor for it. Still people are reverting over it without discussing. This is getting ridiculous. I've protected it for one month this time, and something needs to be done to get a real consensus on this wording before the page is unprotected.

Here is a summary of what happened leading up to this latest protection:

• [49] An editor made the typical change, known to be controversial, with no discussion and no edit summary
• [50] I undid the change, because as I made clear at previous discussions on this talk page, this sort of sneaky reverting in a known dispute area is unacceptable. I have no preference for either version and have probably reverted to both versions at various times (I don't even know anything about Korean history), I just don't want to see more of this kind of edit warring
• [51] An IP editor made the change again, again with no discussion, no explanation, and no edit summary. Given that it's directly reverting to a previous version of the article and given that Korea-related topics have many known sockpuppeteers, it is likely that this editor is the same person as some of the other editors who have been involved in this edit warring in the past.
• [52] User:Oda Mari reverted this for a valid reason (that it was a revert known to be controversial, accompanied by no explanation or justification)
• [53] The same IP editor (IP address nearly identical) reverted again
• [54] revert by Quigley
• [55] revert by KaraKamilia

Clearly this is unacceptable. I am going to open another request for comment (the one above apparently did not reach any solid conclusion) and hopefully get the opinion of editors who are not already part of this dispute. I think I would like to insist that before the article is unprotected a clear, explicit consensus in favor of one version or other must be reached. Explicit consensus like this could be pointed to for future reference if this dispute pops up again, and could form the basis for more solid editing restrictions to prevent further edit warring on this article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on the lede

This article has been host to an edit war for several years between basically two versions:

• This version calls Joseon a "sovereign state" in the lede and does not call it a Qing tributary.
• This version does not call it a "sovereign state", and does call it a Qing tributary.

Can we reach a consensus on which version should be used? The page is currently fully protected because of this dispute and I am hesitant to unprotect it before a consensus is reached here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version should be used. It is widely acknowledged in orthodox East Asian history that Joseon's autonomy waxed and waned (mostly waned) over the centuries, and that both its internal and external politics were heavily influenced by the machinations of China and Japan. The idea that Joseon was 100% independent 100% of the time is nothing but a nationalist fantasy, which is why the efforts to put "sovereign" in the first sentence are so poorly sourced. The lead sentence needs to be flexible and to appreciate nuance. "State" is a rather kindly way of doing that, because one could just as well put "dependency" or "puppet state" in its place and still be correct for most of Joseon's relevant history. Quigley (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada isn't 100% independent nor is current Japan for that matter. That's not what the term "sovereign" means.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version I'll be honest that I'm not an expert on Korean history (I'll plead decently knowledgeable, stronger in East Asia as a whole). Overall, I'd say it sounds like the relationship, like most state-to-state relationships of the time was vague and dependent more on relative strength of the regime than any formal bonds. But I think the second version is better just because how sovereign the Josen dynasty was doesn't seem like a defining aspect of it, and thus does not belong in the lead.

Moreover, to be technical (as the relevant article points out), being sovereign has as much to do with internal control as it does external, my measuring stick of sovereignty would be that you could send your police anywhere in the country and arrest people, based on crimes defined by the state, without violence suddenly breaking out. By that definition, very few political entities in the world during this period (at the very least very few states in the 16th and 17th century) would be sovereign (for example if a Qing emperor wanted to arrest some Manchu high nobility, he'd have to get ready for all hell to break loose), independent of the question of whether they belonged, "de jure" or "de facto", under the umbrella of a larger entity. Jztinfinity (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• First version I agree that Korea had sent the missions to China as tribute, and then Korea's status was just subject of China to the eye. However, there are some reasons that Korea was a tributary of China is illogical. First, Qing China could't interfere in the internal affairs of Korea for most of years except for 1882-1894. I think we should not overanalyzing for Korean status as a subjects during Joseon period just about this short years. Second, if Korea was not a sovereign, they shouldn't performed any other external diplomatic relations with the Japan (1876), United State (1882), United Kingdom (1883), Russia (1884), and France (1886) and so on. But Korea had made their treaties with this states equally without any Chinese interference. China only to claims to Korea as the relationship between subordinates and superiors during the 1882-94. Third, China had regareded other state, which send mission to their court was a tributary. Using that yardstick, Japan, Vietnam, Ryukyu, even British had sent their mission and regareded as a tributary by Chinese. BUT, that doesn't mean these states were tributary of China, and unreasonable fact only emphasized to Korea. That is not related in wiki article, I said logical correlation in this situation. Please, think an effective diplomacy, not one-side (or Chinese and Western side) notion.--Historiographer (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version. The history has been hashed over and over, so instead of repeating it all, I will simply ask a question: why does one side of the dispute insist on labeling Joseon "sovereign" in the first sentence of the article, when (as far as I'm aware) not a single other state in Wikipedia has this adjective in the lede? I posit that this is because the sovereignty of the state has repeatedly been questioned, and they wish to emphasize their view that Joseon is sovereign. Thus, using the adjective in the lede would be POV. Jpatokal (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Question of what should be stated in first paragraph is a question of how material a fact is. Obviously this is a notable issue.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion Since it seems that both referring to it as "sovereign" and as a "tributary" are controversial, why not just not use either of these labels? As numerous editors have pointed out, there's no need to define it as a sovereign state in the first sentence; if there is an involved historical debate about whether Joseon was actually sovereign, then someone can write a section describing the debate in more detail, rather than just trying to "win" the debate by edit warring over an article. I am pretty tired of the way many editors in these political/historical topics get so dug in and focused on winning an argument that they forget our purpose here is to teach something to readers, and that by actually describing the issue rather than trying to win it we can both give something better to readers and avoid this edit warring entirely.

  The same applies to the use of "becoming a Qing tributary", which is the other point of contention between those two edits. I think this wording is probably somewhat less controversial since it's not the first sentence of the article (and it can be reworded to refer to a specific period of time, e.g. saying "Joseon was a Qing tributary during <some time>", rather than defining it as a tributary once and for all); but if it is still controversial, do the same thing I suggested above, and describe the debate rather than trying to win it.

  Is there anyone who can handle this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article already states that Joseon became a Qing tributary only in 1636, after its defeat in the 2nd Manchu invasion. This is pretty much as close to an objective historical fact as it gets, there's even a big chunk of stone in Seoul commemorating the event. The other side's objections seem to mostly revolve around the argument that the English word "tributary" somehow gives an incorrect view of the China-Joseon relationship, even though it's correct in a literal sense (Joseon certainly paid tribute to China) and is explained in detail at Tributary state. Jpatokal (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal, I said that all of diplomat mission to China was regareded as a tributary by Chinese, and thus it is of no concern. There is the other fact that Korea was sovereignty state, China forced Korea to adopt the new Korean flag, which like Qing Chinese-style flag (However, Qing China officially adopt their national flag in 1890) in 1883. However, King Gojong (later became Emperor Gojong) rejected for Chinese demanding, and made a new flag, Taegeukgi. Adopting national flag is only possible to sovereignty state, and Korean did so. As I said above, many reasons such as Korea's independent managing state affairs, external diplomatic relations without Chinese interference, and character of mission diplomacy to Imperial China are show that Chinese-Korean vassalage relationship was pretty "superficial" things likewise flag adopting incident.

I suggest it should be reflect both opinions, such as Korea was an outwardly tributary state of China, but all of things exclude relationship of China had exerted their sovereignty even 1882-94. Once again, do not adhere to one-side view, and considered the matter from various point.--Historiographer (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• None of them. (1) Personal opinion. Kingdom of Joseon was a sovereign state, where Kings and Ministers were locally instated, ousted, killed and even reinstated without interventions from abroad. On the other hand, Korean Empire was an unequally treated state where armed military from abroad (China, Japan, Russia, USA, and so many other) were (a) enforcing unequal commerce rules and (b) directly intervening in the state affairs. Cf Corea e Coreani . Proclamation of the Empire can be seen retrospectively as an attempt to draw a line between a glorious past and a not so promising future.

(2) By the way, the title of the page, "Joseon Dynasty", is as bad as possible: it should be Joseon State (or Joseon Kingdom & Korean Empire, or any other title focused on Country, not on King). The topic is about the so many people, farmers, soldiers, merchants, litterati, ministers and even rulers that have written the Korean history with their flesh and blood. If this title was to be maintained, the whole page should be rewritten as : the king was martyri-ministred, the king was purged, the king was faction-ed, the king was invaded, the king was populated, the king was clothed, painted, architecture-d and even eaten. No a so great vision of History. It should be noticed, that none of the Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla pages are named 'Dynasty' !

(3) Recommendations. One the one hand, "tributists" should be required to work seriously instead of war-editing. They should be required to describe in detail what were these tributes, how many people, how much silk, silver, ginseng or anything else, were given in tribute, when, where, etc, at least during the 1637-1850 period. On the other hand, "sovereignists" should be required to work seriously instead of war-editing. They should be required to describe in detail what were the "damages of war" that Joseon had to pay after being defeated in 1637, until when, and give reasonable evidences that, afterwards, Joseon was only required to be polite, without anything to pay. More than by a lack of neutrality, these pages are threatened by a lack of content. Pldx1 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Both of them. Western logic (either/or) isn't always the best way of understanding the non-Western world. Try both/and instead, and this dispute will become manageable. Joseon was sovereign in the sense that [...] and tributary in the sense that [...] - Korea experts fill in the dots. G41rn8 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's high time somebody added that paragraph into the body of the article; however, this RFC is about the lede. Jpatokal (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version I said what I had to say at here. Just remember Treaty of Shimonoseki, Yeongeunmun and Samjeondo Monument. BTW, the dynasty was also a Ming's vassal state. Ref is this book. It says "Hideyoshi invaded Korea, a Ming vassal state, to force China to allow Japan to..." Check it for yourself. Oda Mari (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oda, do not adhere to one-side view, and considered the matter from various point. How can you explain about their own external diplomatic relations without Chinese, flag controversy in 1883, and comparing Korea envoy with other states' mission?--Historiographer (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• First. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Both versions are flawed. They're both misleading, and they both have a POV problem, so we're asked to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. Version 1 tries to make a complex point with a single word and omits the tributary relationship altogether, whereas version 2 does not mention Joseon's autonomy within that system and misleadingly implies that Joseon changed status in 1636, when all it was doing was transferring allegiance from Ming to Qing under duress after the Second Manchu invasion of Korea. In my experience, the best way to resolve content conflicts is to find reliable sources that give a balanced picture of the issue we're disagreeing about. Since both autonomy and tributary status are verifiable in reliable sources, we need a third version that acknowledges both. I took the liberty to write a new version that I hope will help to break this impasse. See "A third version: let's vote?" Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Both of them. Historiographer's second comment, and Madalibi's compromise suggestion should resolves this issue.--Aocduio (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

For years people have been reverting one another, often without any discussion, over the use of the words "sovereign" and "tributary" in this article. I have had to protect it four times already and have had to block one editor for it. Still people are reverting over it without discussing. This is getting ridiculous. I've protected it for one month this time, and something needs to be done to get a real consensus on this wording before the page is unprotected.

Here is a summary of what happened leading up to this latest protection:

• [56] An editor made the typical change, known to be controversial, with no discussion and no edit summary
• [57] I undid the change, because as I made clear at previous discussions on this talk page, this sort of sneaky reverting in a known dispute area is unacceptable. I have no preference for either version and have probably reverted to both versions at various times (I don't even know anything about Korean history), I just don't want to see more of this kind of edit warring
• [58] An IP editor made the change again, again with no discussion, no explanation, and no edit summary. Given that it's directly reverting to a previous version of the article and given that Korea-related topics have many known sockpuppeteers, it is likely that this editor is the same person as some of the other editors who have been involved in this edit warring in the past.
• [59] User:Oda Mari reverted this for a valid reason (that it was a revert known to be controversial, accompanied by no explanation or justification)
• [60] The same IP editor (IP address nearly identical) reverted again
• [61] revert by Quigley
• [62] revert by KaraKamilia

Clearly this is unacceptable. I am going to open another request for comment (the one above apparently did not reach any solid conclusion) and hopefully get the opinion of editors who are not already part of this dispute. I think I would like to insist that before the article is unprotected a clear, explicit consensus in favor of one version or other must be reached. Explicit consensus like this could be pointed to for future reference if this dispute pops up again, and could form the basis for more solid editing restrictions to prevent further edit warring on this article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on the lede

This article has been host to an edit war for several years between basically two versions:

• This version calls Joseon a "sovereign state" in the lede and does not call it a Qing tributary.
• This version does not call it a "sovereign state", and does call it a Qing tributary.

Can we reach a consensus on which version should be used? The page is currently fully protected because of this dispute and I am hesitant to unprotect it before a consensus is reached here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version should be used. It is widely acknowledged in orthodox East Asian history that Joseon's autonomy waxed and waned (mostly waned) over the centuries, and that both its internal and external politics were heavily influenced by the machinations of China and Japan. The idea that Joseon was 100% independent 100% of the time is nothing but a nationalist fantasy, which is why the efforts to put "sovereign" in the first sentence are so poorly sourced. The lead sentence needs to be flexible and to appreciate nuance. "State" is a rather kindly way of doing that, because one could just as well put "dependency" or "puppet state" in its place and still be correct for most of Joseon's relevant history. Quigley (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada isn't 100% independent nor is current Japan for that matter. That's not what the term "sovereign" means.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version I'll be honest that I'm not an expert on Korean history (I'll plead decently knowledgeable, stronger in East Asia as a whole). Overall, I'd say it sounds like the relationship, like most state-to-state relationships of the time was vague and dependent more on relative strength of the regime than any formal bonds. But I think the second version is better just because how sovereign the Josen dynasty was doesn't seem like a defining aspect of it, and thus does not belong in the lead.

Moreover, to be technical (as the relevant article points out), being sovereign has as much to do with internal control as it does external, my measuring stick of sovereignty would be that you could send your police anywhere in the country and arrest people, based on crimes defined by the state, without violence suddenly breaking out. By that definition, very few political entities in the world during this period (at the very least very few states in the 16th and 17th century) would be sovereign (for example if a Qing emperor wanted to arrest some Manchu high nobility, he'd have to get ready for all hell to break loose), independent of the question of whether they belonged, "de jure" or "de facto", under the umbrella of a larger entity. Jztinfinity (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• First version I agree that Korea had sent the missions to China as tribute, and then Korea's status was just subject of China to the eye. However, there are some reasons that Korea was a tributary of China is illogical. First, Qing China could't interfere in the internal affairs of Korea for most of years except for 1882-1894. I think we should not overanalyzing for Korean status as a subjects during Joseon period just about this short years. Second, if Korea was not a sovereign, they shouldn't performed any other external diplomatic relations with the Japan (1876), United State (1882), United Kingdom (1883), Russia (1884), and France (1886) and so on. But Korea had made their treaties with this states equally without any Chinese interference. China only to claims to Korea as the relationship between subordinates and superiors during the 1882-94. Third, China had regareded other state, which send mission to their court was a tributary. Using that yardstick, Japan, Vietnam, Ryukyu, even British had sent their mission and regareded as a tributary by Chinese. BUT, that doesn't mean these states were tributary of China, and unreasonable fact only emphasized to Korea. That is not related in wiki article, I said logical correlation in this situation. Please, think an effective diplomacy, not one-side (or Chinese and Western side) notion.--Historiographer (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version. The history has been hashed over and over, so instead of repeating it all, I will simply ask a question: why does one side of the dispute insist on labeling Joseon "sovereign" in the first sentence of the article, when (as far as I'm aware) not a single other state in Wikipedia has this adjective in the lede? I posit that this is because the sovereignty of the state has repeatedly been questioned, and they wish to emphasize their view that Joseon is sovereign. Thus, using the adjective in the lede would be POV. Jpatokal (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Question of what should be stated in first paragraph is a question of how material a fact is. Obviously this is a notable issue.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion Since it seems that both referring to it as "sovereign" and as a "tributary" are controversial, why not just not use either of these labels? As numerous editors have pointed out, there's no need to define it as a sovereign state in the first sentence; if there is an involved historical debate about whether Joseon was actually sovereign, then someone can write a section describing the debate in more detail, rather than just trying to "win" the debate by edit warring over an article. I am pretty tired of the way many editors in these political/historical topics get so dug in and focused on winning an argument that they forget our purpose here is to teach something to readers, and that by actually describing the issue rather than trying to win it we can both give something better to readers and avoid this edit warring entirely.

  The same applies to the use of "becoming a Qing tributary", which is the other point of contention between those two edits. I think this wording is probably somewhat less controversial since it's not the first sentence of the article (and it can be reworded to refer to a specific period of time, e.g. saying "Joseon was a Qing tributary during <some time>", rather than defining it as a tributary once and for all); but if it is still controversial, do the same thing I suggested above, and describe the debate rather than trying to win it.

  Is there anyone who can handle this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article already states that Joseon became a Qing tributary only in 1636, after its defeat in the 2nd Manchu invasion. This is pretty much as close to an objective historical fact as it gets, there's even a big chunk of stone in Seoul commemorating the event. The other side's objections seem to mostly revolve around the argument that the English word "tributary" somehow gives an incorrect view of the China-Joseon relationship, even though it's correct in a literal sense (Joseon certainly paid tribute to China) and is explained in detail at Tributary state. Jpatokal (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal, I said that all of diplomat mission to China was regareded as a tributary by Chinese, and thus it is of no concern. There is the other fact that Korea was sovereignty state, China forced Korea to adopt the new Korean flag, which like Qing Chinese-style flag (However, Qing China officially adopt their national flag in 1890) in 1883. However, King Gojong (later became Emperor Gojong) rejected for Chinese demanding, and made a new flag, Taegeukgi. Adopting national flag is only possible to sovereignty state, and Korean did so. As I said above, many reasons such as Korea's independent managing state affairs, external diplomatic relations without Chinese interference, and character of mission diplomacy to Imperial China are show that Chinese-Korean vassalage relationship was pretty "superficial" things likewise flag adopting incident.

I suggest it should be reflect both opinions, such as Korea was an outwardly tributary state of China, but all of things exclude relationship of China had exerted their sovereignty even 1882-94. Once again, do not adhere to one-side view, and considered the matter from various point.--Historiographer (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• None of them. (1) Personal opinion. Kingdom of Joseon was a sovereign state, where Kings and Ministers were locally instated, ousted, killed and even reinstated without interventions from abroad. On the other hand, Korean Empire was an unequally treated state where armed military from abroad (China, Japan, Russia, USA, and so many other) were (a) enforcing unequal commerce rules and (b) directly intervening in the state affairs. Cf Corea e Coreani . Proclamation of the Empire can be seen retrospectively as an attempt to draw a line between a glorious past and a not so promising future.

(2) By the way, the title of the page, "Joseon Dynasty", is as bad as possible: it should be Joseon State (or Joseon Kingdom & Korean Empire, or any other title focused on Country, not on King). The topic is about the so many people, farmers, soldiers, merchants, litterati, ministers and even rulers that have written the Korean history with their flesh and blood. If this title was to be maintained, the whole page should be rewritten as : the king was martyri-ministred, the king was purged, the king was faction-ed, the king was invaded, the king was populated, the king was clothed, painted, architecture-d and even eaten. No a so great vision of History. It should be noticed, that none of the Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla pages are named 'Dynasty' !

(3) Recommendations. One the one hand, "tributists" should be required to work seriously instead of war-editing. They should be required to describe in detail what were these tributes, how many people, how much silk, silver, ginseng or anything else, were given in tribute, when, where, etc, at least during the 1637-1850 period. On the other hand, "sovereignists" should be required to work seriously instead of war-editing. They should be required to describe in detail what were the "damages of war" that Joseon had to pay after being defeated in 1637, until when, and give reasonable evidences that, afterwards, Joseon was only required to be polite, without anything to pay. More than by a lack of neutrality, these pages are threatened by a lack of content. Pldx1 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Both of them. Western logic (either/or) isn't always the best way of understanding the non-Western world. Try both/and instead, and this dispute will become manageable. Joseon was sovereign in the sense that [...] and tributary in the sense that [...] - Korea experts fill in the dots. G41rn8 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's high time somebody added that paragraph into the body of the article; however, this RFC is about the lede. Jpatokal (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Second version I said what I had to say at here. Just remember Treaty of Shimonoseki, Yeongeunmun and Samjeondo Monument. BTW, the dynasty was also a Ming's vassal state. Ref is this book. It says "Hideyoshi invaded Korea, a Ming vassal state, to force China to allow Japan to..." Check it for yourself. Oda Mari (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oda, do not adhere to one-side view, and considered the matter from various point. How can you explain about their own external diplomatic relations without Chinese, flag controversy in 1883, and comparing Korea envoy with other states' mission?--Historiographer (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• First. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Both versions are flawed. They're both misleading, and they both have a POV problem, so we're asked to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. Version 1 tries to make a complex point with a single word and omits the tributary relationship altogether, whereas version 2 does not mention Joseon's autonomy within that system and misleadingly implies that Joseon changed status in 1636, when all it was doing was transferring allegiance from Ming to Qing under duress after the Second Manchu invasion of Korea. In my experience, the best way to resolve content conflicts is to find reliable sources that give a balanced picture of the issue we're disagreeing about. Since both autonomy and tributary status are verifiable in reliable sources, we need a third version that acknowledges both. I took the liberty to write a new version that I hope will help to break this impasse. See "A third version: let's vote?" Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Both of them. Historiographer's second comment, and Madalibi's compromise suggestion should resolves this issue.--Aocduio (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pldx1, 25 August 2011

Section 9 "Title and Styles" of page "Joseon Kingdom" should be reorganised as follows.

(1) Divide this section in two sections, one for "Joseon Kingdom" and the other for "Korean Empire".

(2) Moreover, section "Joseon Kingdom" should be sorted by generation, since Joseon hierarchy was mostly generation driven.

The whole thing could be done as described here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pldx1/Korean_Titles.

The present edit-war is about who says who is the King and who are all the other members of the hierarchy. On the contrary, the present edit is about how did you call such and such member of the hierarchy once designed. Therefore, the proposed amendment is orthogonal to the current dispute. Pldx1 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Pldx1 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually make the edit (in a userpage somewhere) so that someone here can simply paste it in, rather than asking someone else to do the work for you? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My request is simply to replace section 9, "Titles and styles" of Joseon Kingdom by the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pldx1/Korean_Titles. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No opposition, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations from a reliable source on Joseon-China relations

Here are extensive citations from Kirk W. Larsen's Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosǒn Korea, 1850-1910 (Cambridge and London: published by Harvard University Asia Center, distributed by Harvard University Press, 2008). I put them here to give editors more substantial material to edit this page, and to support the new version of the lead that I'm proposing in the next section below. Larsen shows that Sino-Korean relations were not simple, but a clear point recurs: Joseon accepted its tributary status vis-a-vis China, yet it was almost entirely autonomous in its internal affairs. Basing our wording on a reliable source like Larsen's book will help us to avoid original research and to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:V, which are Wikipedia's main content policies. So here are the citations. Note that "Chosǒn" is an equivalent of "Joseon" throughout.

• Page 23: "When Western powers sought to engage in commercial or diplomatic relations with Korea in the nineteenth century, they often asked the Qing Empire to explain the nature of its relations with Chosǒn Korea. The response of the Zongli yamen, the Qing foreign policy organization created in 1861, to one such inquiry read: 'Chosǒn is a tributary of China; but as for said country's autonomy in its own politics, religion, prohibitions, and orders, China has never interfered with it.' Japanese diplomats received a similar reply: 'That Korea is a dependent state of China is known by all; that it is an autonomous country is also known by all.' Such statements caused no small amount of confusion to foreign, particularly Western, observers."
• Page 24: "...even a cursory examination of relations between the inhabitants and states of the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula reveals a wide variety of interactions, ranging from harmonious alliances to open warfare. The seductive simplicity of the tribute system and John King Fairbank's Chinese World Order does little justice to the multiplicity of relations between China and Korea over the centuries. Nevertheless, some aspects of the ideal-type tribute system do approximate the Sino-Korean relationship that so confused nineteenth-century Western observers."
• Page 29: "By the time the Korean Chosǒn Kingdom (1392-1910) was established, Sino-Korean relations had for centuries been predicated on Korea's acceptance of Chinese claims to suzerainty as expressed through tribute missions."
• Page 29, note 20: "Korean accommodation with the Ming was hardly exceptional at the time. David Kang ("Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles," 174) writes that 'accommodation of China was the norm in East Asia during the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911) eras. This did not, however, involve a significant loss of national independence, as nearby states were largely free to conduct their domestic and foreign policy independent of China.'"
• Page 30: "The Hongwu Emperor's successors, experiencing challenges to their authority at home, were more appreciative of Korean offers of fealty. They welcomed Korean tribute missions and quickly granted full recognition and investiture to King Taejo's successors. In Korea, the Chosǒn-Ming relationship came to be known as 'serving the great' (sadae; C. shida), and the periodic tribute missions / sent to China as the 'dispatch of envoys of submission' (sadae sahaeng; C. shida shixing). Two basic principles would animate Sino-Korean relations for the next five centuries: hierarchy and distance."
• Page 31: "After the solidification of Ming-Chosǒn relations, the powers that ruled Korea and China reached an understanding on the basic principles that would govern their dealings. The first principle was the mutual acceptance of a hierarchical order in which China was the superior and Korea the inferior."
• Pages 31-32: "Korean acceptance of Chinese suzerainty was ritually expressed through participation in the so-called tribute system. Three or four times a year, envoys from the Chosǒn kingdom traveled to China to declare Korean loyalty to the Ming and present goods, congratulations, or other ritual niceties to the Ming emperor and his house.... The Chosǒn court also expressed its acceptance of the suzerain-vassal relationship by using the official Chinese calendar and by accepting and entertaining the occasional visits of Chinese envoys. These usually came to Korea to grant investiture to Chosǒn kings. When the Chinese envoy neared Seoul, the Korean king would leave his palace and travel to the Welcoming Imperial Grace Gate (Yǒngunmǔn) on the outskirts to meet / the envoy. There he would prostrate himself as the message from the emperor was read aloud."
• Page 32: "The tendency of Chinese records to characterize nearly every contact with outside powers as 'tribute' did not reflect geopolitical or cultural realities in many instances. However, Chosǒn Korea was as close to a model tributary state as China ever found."
• Page 33: "The practice of 'serving the great' was roundly criticized by late nineteenth-century Korean reformers who saw the Chosǒn Kingdom's relations with China as unwarranted dependence on an outside power. Indeed, the very term sadaejuūi (sadae-ism) is now synonymous with toadyism or flunkeyism. However, Korea's decision to accept vassal status vis-à-vis China did not reflect the obsequious servility these terms connote. Rather, the decision was motivated by a quite pragmatic assessment of the best way to guarantee both security and autonomy for Korea."
• Page 33: "Moreover, an exclusive focus on ritual declarations of servility distracts attention from the second major principle that animated Ming-Chosǒn relations: distance and separation. Participation in the tribute system can be understood as the best means for limiting contact with China.... As long as the Korean court declared fealty to China, it was left alone to do virtually as it pleased. In addition, Korea's willing participation in a Sinocentric tribute system did not mean abject dependence. Koreans have often displayed a strong sense of cultural uniqueness if not superiority vis-à-vis their neighbors."
• Page 35: "The mutually agreeable system of noninterference experienced a significant shock at the end of the sixteenth century. The Japanese invasions of Korea of the 1590s led by Hideyoshi Toyotomi devastated the peninsula and prompted the dispatch of a large Ming army to Korea to repulse the Japanese invaders. The Ming decision to send troops to Korea may have been motivated as much by a concern that the Japanese subjugation of Korea might lead to a direct Japanese assault on China as by a need to fulfill China's obligation as suzerain to give aid to its vassal in times of trouble. Nevertheless, the dispatch of troops was described purely in terms of upholding the traditional obligations between suzerain and vassal, and generations of grateful Koreans clearly saw it as such."
• Pages 36-37: "After an initial transition period in which the Manchus kept members of the Chosǒn court hostage at their capital and, like the Ming in its early years, demanded human tribute, the rulers of the newly founded Qing dynasty did / little to modify the structure of China's relations with Korea. They demanded tribute missions (although the number of regular missions sent each year was soon reduced from three or four to one) and sent occasional envoys to grant investiture to Korean kings. Other forms of interaction––trade, travel, and migration––were strictly limited or prohibited outright. And, like the Ming, the Qing virtually never interfered with Korean domestic affairs."
• Pages 37: "The willingness of the Qing to grant Korea dependent-yet-autonomous status is rather remarkable, given the fact that the Qing was an expansionistic empire. Under the rule of vigorous monarchs such as Kangxi (r. 1662-1722), Yongzheng (r. 1723-1735), and Qianlong (r. 1736-1795), the Qing Empire expanded its borders to include areas of Mongolia, Central Asia, Turkestan, and Tibet. Yet, once Korean fealty was secured, the Qing appears never to have seriously considered subjugating and ruling outright the territory so close to the southern border of the Manchu homeland."
• Page 37: "...tributary relations with the Qing continued to be predicated on the ceremonial expression of Qing suzerainty, on one hand, and distance and noninterference, on the other. Korea generally headed the Qing lists of tributaries, and the number of tribute missions from Korea dwarfed those coming from other places. Judging by the frequency and consistency of these tribute missions, Korea continued to be China's most faithful tributary state."
• Pages 39-40: "The alternative to public acceptance of Qing suzerainty was confrontation, and Korea was sure to lose any prolonged military conflict with the Qing. Ritual declarations of submission were a small price to pay for peace and autonomy. This is not to say that Koreans during the Chosǒn period lacked a strong sense of identity or confidence in the value of Korean culture. In terms of international relations, however, accepting the tribute system was the most effective way to ensure harmony between China and Korea."
• Page 40: "The system also allowed Korea the privilege of being an active participant in the Sinocentric world order without compromising Korean autonomy."

Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A third version: let's vote?

Here's a third version that I think is less flawed than the two that are under consideration in the current RfC. It's based on Kirk W. Larsen's Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosǒn Korea, 1850-1910 (Harvard University Press, 2008), a book that devotes an entire chapter to pre-nineteenth-century Sino-Korean relations and seven more chapters to late-Qing policies toward Korea. This is undoubtedly a reliable source. I cite the relevant passages at length in the first footnote so that readers and editors will all be clear about where the info comes from. This should also minimize controversy. Longer citations can be found in the section above this one. So here's the text I propose:

Joseon was officially a tributary of China, but neither the Ming nor the Qing dynasty significantly interfered with its domestic affairs. This "dependent-yet-autonomous status" ended after the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), when victorious Japan forced the Qing to recognize the full independence of Korea by the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

We should have a longer section that explains all the subtleties, but this should be enough for the lede. Would you agree to discuss this version instead of the other two? If so, please vote support or oppose, or write a comment! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Your contribution to the topic is interesting indeed. Thanks for that. Nevertheless, I don't think that you proposal can stop the edit-warriors and allow a quick reopening of this page. Obtaining a balanced description of conflicting opinions requires space and cannot take place in a short introduction.

The experience shows that the edit-warriors aren't reading more ten lines, only checking if their flag word is or is not present, and immediately exploding in imprecations. Therefore, the introduction should be reduced to the shortest, without any mention of any kind of controversial questions. Moreover, this policy should be explicitly stated. Suggestion :

Joseon (July 1392 – October 1897) (also written Chosŏn, Choson, Chosun) was a Korean Kingdom. It was founded by Yi Seong-gye, actually known as Taejo of Joseon. It takes succession of the Goryeo Kingdom. The capital was transferred from Kaesong to Hanyang, the modern-day Seoul. The northernmost borders were expanded to the natural boundaries at the Amnok and Duman rivers (through the subjugation of the Jurchens).

Joseon Kingdom saw the entrenchment of Korean Confucian ideals and doctrines in Korea, importing and adapting Chinese culture. However, the country was severely weakened during the late 16th and early 17th centuries, when invasions by the neighboring Japan and Qing nearly overran the peninsula. This experience lead to an increasingly harsh isolationist policy, for which the country became known as the Hermit Kingdom. Under this policy, Joseon experienced a nearly 200-year period of peace, leading to the height of classical Korean culture, trade, science, literature, and technology.

At the end of the period, internal strife have occurred, while international pressure and Unequal treaties lead to a decline. In 1897, the Kingdom transformed itself into the Korean Empire that lasted until it was annexed by Imperial Japan (1910). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldx1 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Pldx1. I'm just afraid that if the nature of Joseon's relationship with Ming and Qing China is not mentioned in the lede, someone will eventually add it again in a rougher form, and we will have another edit war on our hands. So I tried to write a version that everybody can agree on. I trust that reasonable people from both "sides" will recognize their own points in my wording, or will propose further improvements that will help to develop the consensus we need to reopen the page. Finally, I agree that whatever we say in the lede should eventually be expanded into a more detailed section that explains the issue as it is discussed in a wide array of reliable sources. Madalibi (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Madalibi, I like your wording and think that definitely belongs in the body of the article, but like Pldx1 I have to agree that putting that in the lede seems excessive -- and, since you mention that hot-button word "tributary", it would likely still lead to edit wars even if it was placed there. Jpatokal (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Jpatokal! It's true that the lede looks a bit meager right now, but both Han Dynasty and Song Dynasty, which are featured articles, have very long ledes. Like Han and Song, Joseon has the kind of rich history that deserves a long introduction. By the time we finish writing this long lede, the two sentences I propose should not look disproportionately long, and they will explain in a few words an important issue that should then be fleshed out in the body of the text. And if it takes two sentences to get out of the current block and start editing again, then I say it's worth it! As for your second point, I say let's not jump to conclusions. I know I used the word "tributary," but with an immediate qualification, and my wording looks so close to something Historiographer said in one of his comments that I trust editors who supported him will also find my version balanced and NPOV. I just hope more editors from WikiProjectKorea can comment on this issue. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of mentioning the Ming relationship, and of attempting to explain nuance, but the third lead's unprosaic emphasis on Joseon's "autonomy", self-management of "domestic affairs", and "independence" after the Treaty of Shimonoseki (!) reads more like an forced concession to modern political demands than a straightforwardly historical text. Why should the lead paragraph try so stridently to disabuse its readers of certain possible implications of "tributary" that the word does not normally have? Quigley (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the version 3 is the best. But as Jpatokal suggested, it should be put in the article body as the status of the dynasty. I think this pdf file is helpful too. On page 30, "...Gustav Boissonnade expressed his opinion that Korea was neither a complete vassal of China nor was it entirely independent, but was positioned somewhere in between" and "Later realizing its blunder, the Qing stated that it is widely known that Korea was in fact a part of China". Oda Mari (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quigley and Oda Mari, and thank you for your support and suggestions. Most editors have so far suggested that these two sentences would fit better in the text than in the lead. I don't think length is really a big issue, but I would have no problem putting the text somewhere else in the body of the article if that's what the consensus ends up saying. Also, as I'm re-reading my version, I realize that the mention of Korea's independence is misleading, since Japan forced the Qing to recognize Korea's de jure independence so that it (Japan) would get a free hand to take over Korea (as it did officially in 1910). In other words, "independent Korea" in the late 1890s and early 1900s was probably less autonomous than "tributary Korea" under the Ming and Qing! So we need a clarification. Let me think about this one for a day or two.

As for Quigley's point about my strident... understatement, I think it could be solved simply by removing the word "officially." That word seems to imply that NON-officially (whatever that might be) Joseon was NOT a tributary of China, which is not the point. The point is that Korea WAS a tributary of China (Larsen even says Korea was "China's most faithful tributary state"), BUT this status did not keep Joseon from determining its own policies, choosing its kings, etc. I cited long passages from Larsen's book to show that BOTH of these positions are amply supported by reliable sources. We will eventually have to explain what being a "tributary" meant at the time, but that can wait. (Maybe I'll try to write a short section on Joseon-China relations in the future to clear this all up.)

In any case, I suggest that we stay very strict in our use of sources when we face a possibly controversial topic like this one: if Larsen says "officially," we can use that word; if not, let's not! I can't go through the whole book right now, but I see that the passages I quoted do not include the term "officially." Strictly speaking, my version is therefore guilty of subtle WP:EDITORIALIZING (2nd paragraph). For that, I'm removing the word "officially" from my proposed version. Thanks again, and let's keep racking our brains to find the best possible version! (I'll also have something to say about Oda Mari's suggestion, but I'm out of time for now.) Madalibi (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with that. It is unbiased, and something similar to my second comment. We don't stick to a one-side view.--Historiographer (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that a bot has removed protection from the page. Would other editors now agree to add the first sentence I proposed to the lede? It would read "Joseon was a tributary of China, but neither the Ming nor the Qing dynasty significantly interfered with its domestic affairs." (We could optionally add, "a status that historian Kirk Larsen has called 'dependent yet autonomous'.") As many people have pointed out, we will still need a short section on Joseon's foreign relations that will explain the kingdom's relation with China (and parts of Japan) in more detail. I think adding a single sentence to the lede does not sound excessive, but this is not my decision to make, so let's hear everybody's ideas! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A bot didn't remove protection; the protection expired days ago, a bot just removed the notice that said (incorrectly) that the article was protected. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality of the references should be improved

Dear all, I have reviewed the 40 references presently used in the Joseon Kingdom page. What I have found is as follows.

The references are more than often poorly documented. Among them, we have:

• 3 broken links. Another link to the controversial 'Korean Nobi in American Mirror' should be found (precisely because this text was controversial and influent). The other have to be replaced.
• 5 unfair quotations UFQ. For example, among the three references given for 'Qing tributary 1636', we have two quotations about Ming in 1500 and the last one is about the Battle of Koeniggraetz !
• 9 references are in Korean. When asserting a non controversial point, these references should be replaced by English ones. When the point is controversial, it would be great to provide a Korean quotation and a fair translation.

Moreover, these sources are more than often poorly used. Here are some examples.

• If the 'Cambridge history of Japan' is not worth anything, it should not been used at all. If these 7 books are worth something, it looks weird to use them only to discuss about 'iron or not iron' on the top of the Turtle ships.
• It would be great to compare 'Cambridge history of Japan' and 'Cambridge history of China' when both series intersect on a Korean topic. The long-in-the-works 'Cambridge history of Korea', which promises broad coverage of traditional Korea, has encountered troubled waters since the passing of Prof. James Palais, its late chief editor.
• In the same vein, using the Pratt's Dictionary (1999) only for a 10 line narrative item on the Gyehae Treaty seems weird. If this book is only a waste of paper, don't use it at all. If it is authoritative, use it for checking everything (inside a special section, saying which side the Pratt's Dictionary stands in the various controversies).
• The question of slavery is controversial and nevertheless unavoidable. It should be documented with strong references, discussing on facts. Moreover, references must be used honestly (cf #28).

Due to the actual ban from editing, I propose to start by a technical, neutral, replacement of each reference tag, by a better filled tag. Concerning the quotations tagged as UFQ, I require your opinion on the UNFAIRNESS of the quotations (not on the points that these quotations should illustrate). The replacements that I am suggesting are given in User:Pldx1/Joseon-references. I prefer to collect a formal consensus before proposing this edit to the administrators.

In a second step, a list of useful, academic, books should be built. Obviously, 'biased' books (i.e. books supporting such or such opinion) have to be included if they are presenting documented facts. It's a long way to go !

Pldx1 (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Great job, Pldx1! This is very helpful. Let me add that note 16 (on Empress Myeongseong/Queen Min, another talk page nightmare) is a primary source from 1895 AND it doesn't support what is said in the text. No time to look at the other notes in any detail, but next week I'll try to compile a list of useful sources for improving this article. Madalibi (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I just finished analyzing all the footnotes. Here's a list with what I think about them. In most cases I'm just confirming Pldx1's analysis. I can't read Korean, so I can't tell what citations in Korean are about. When that happens, I just write "in Korean."

1. in Korean; nice info, but can't be used to support any English translation, because it's not in English
2. in Korean
3. from www.Koreanhistoryproject.org, a great educational website, but not peer-reviewed, and therefore not clearly WP:RS; as Pldx1 has noted, this page is about the Ming
4. website, not WP:RS; same as the above
5. academic book, but not clearly WP:RS for this kind of claim; in any case, page number doesn't support text (as Pldx1 has also shown)
6. first of 4 notes to document a claim concerning Tsushima's status vis-a-vis Joseon; title is too short (should be Korea: A Historical and Korean Dictionary), p. 255 would directly support the last sentence
7. Cambridge History of Japan; should be p. 442
8. in Korean; seems unnecessary if we already have two reliable sources (notes 6 and 7)
9. in Korean; same as note 8
10. in Korean
11. from Asiasociety.com, a website; arguably not WP:RS
12. scholarly book: fine
13. same
14. a scholarly article: fine, though the link doesn't lead to it
15. untranslated passage from Annals of Joseon Dynasty; doesn't support the text; WP:PRIMARY; says that the people (not "slaves") supported the Wokou because people from the palace cheated them
16. a New York Times article dated 1895; doesn't support the text; WP:primary
17. in Korean; cited four times, all about the assassination of Queen Min; we should replace with one of dozens of English-language WP:RS that say the same thing
18. another Wiki page: WP:CIRCULAR
19. could be database or article; impossible to trace without a page number or a link
20. scholarly source: fine
21. same
22. same
23. same
24. same
25. dead link
26. a personal blog, so clearly not WP:RS; gives good leads to better sources; explains that Korean scholars disagree that "nobi = slaves"; this suggests that we should explain the debate in our wiki (as RS describe it, of course)
27. a "Discussion Paper" titled "Korean Slavery"; some good content but we could probably find better
28. two scholarly sources: fine
29. scholarly source: fine
30. same
31. same
32. same
33. a primary source cited in a scholarly study: fine
34. scholarly article: fine
35. same
36. same
37. in Korean; the corresponding text needs to be clarified
38. scholarly source: fine
39. in Korean
40. a dead page from Indiana University

Conclusion: the Joseon Dynasty#Society section is the only well-referenced section. It contains 19 of all 40 notes (notes 20 to 38) and most of the reliable sources. The rest is basically unreferenced: dead links, blogs, non-RS, and sources that don't support the claims made in the text. Lots of work to do... Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pldx1, 08 September 2011

Picture for admiral Yi Sunsin has been removed and should be replaced. Among several possibilities, File:AdmiralYi-BusanTower.jpg is looking great. Thanks in advance.

Pldx1 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections, so added the image you suggested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting a biased and impolite reversion

As it is well known, the choice of a picture illustrates the chooser and her's ulterior motives as well as the illustrated topic. Historiographer's choice for Yi Sunsin is a Seoul statue, depicting the Admiral as a shadow guy, looking at people from above. Another choice is a Busan statue, of a sunny Admiral, looking at a vast perspective and producing an impression of adhesion.

The first picture would indeed be appropriate to illustrate how, long after the death of the Admiral, the name of Yi Sunsin was used, perused and abused by a lot of Seoul's Dark Vadors to masquerade their ulterior political motives.

But what is to be illustrated here are the real life victories of a real life Admiral. Any Geographer would know that Yeosu 여수, Sacheon 사천, Noryang 노량 etc. are not located on the banks of the Han River, but at Sea, roughly between Jeju 제주 and Busan 부산, the final move of the Imjin war being the Japanese withdrawal from Busan.

These are the reasons why, at least according to my opinion, the Busan picture is better. Moreover a policy of politeness should be enforced in this page, implying discussion in the talk page before unilateral changes. This is another reason to use a picture illustrating success and consensus rather than a picture illustrating shadow and a 'from above' attitude. Pldx1 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Discussion of Gender Roles

I was just looking at this page with the hope of discovering what gender roles where during this time period. Would it be accurate to even simply post a link to Women in Confucian thought, or was Joseon interpretation different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelnish (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Moved to Joseon per Consistency Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Joseon Dynasty → Joseon – I'm resurrecting this proposal which has been brought up twice before, once in 2007 where no one commented and once in 2008 where there was no consensus to move. There are two reasons for this change: 1) Consistency, since no other articles for historical Korean states use "dynasty" in the title (Goryeo, Silla, Paekche, Koguryeo, Balhae, Gojoseon etc.) 2) Technical correctness, since usually Joseon refers to the state and Yi Dynasty is used to refer to the actual dynasty. Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Counterpropose Chosun, currently a redirect here; The Chosun Ilbo derives its name from and starts with the same hanja characters(朝鮮)/hangul syllables (조선), and the majority of the included references and materials use Chosun, except where translations from other languages. To be honest, I had never seen this as anything else. Dru of Id (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Chosun is a non-standard Romanization, it isn't used in modern historical works as far as I'm aware and has vague colonial connotations. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest Chosŏn dynasty, per Britannica, Kim's The History of Korea (2005), and Seth's A Concise History of Korea (2006). Columbia gives "Choson dynasty". Kauffner (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If we adopt Chosŏn, and there's certainly good reason to do so in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, we should adopt McCune-Reischauer for every other historical Korean name too (despite my post above where I mixed the systems, they are all currently in Revised Romanization). This would require a much broader community discussion about Korean romanization though, and I think abruptly setting a new precedent here would be a bad idea. Also, having "dynasty" at the end here is, as I pointed out, inconsistent with all the other articles on historical Korean states. See below --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. MOS:KO specifies quite clearly that "The preference is to use Revised Romanization for South Korean articles and for general articles on Korean history, culture, etc." If you want to change this convention, we should get consensus over at the MOS page first. (Which I suspect will be an uphill battle, since I don't really see a need to change this.)

I wasn't aware of that -- seems pretty clear to me, thank you. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

MOS:KO should come into play only when we don't have a common English spelling for a topic per WP:USEENGLISH: if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic --Kusunose 07:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to Joseon as proposed by Tyrannus, it's the odd one out at the moment for no real reason. Jpatokal (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. All the precedent monarch were Goguryeo , Baekje, Silla and Goryeo without suffix. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support for Joseon, but only for that exact rendering of the spelling. Variants like "Chosun" are unacceptable. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm fine with what others decide (the consistency argument and the Yi Dynasty argument work for me although we use "dynasty" for China, Vietnam, and a number of other entities). I oppose any spelling other than "Joseon", though. —  AjaxSmack  01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is simply WP:COMMONNAME; it's fairly rare for the period to be referred to as "Joseon Dynasty" or "Yi Dynasty" in Korean, usually it's simply called Joseon or Joseon Period (조선, 조선시대). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I get 6,170 post-2000 English-language GBook hits for Joseon dynasty Korea, 10,800 for Choson dynasty Korea. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support to remove "Dynasty" for conciseness and consistency. I don't think precision is an issue here; I presume this is the primary topic for Joseon and various forms of 朝鮮, as they redirect to this article. Not sure which spelling is the common English name though. --Kusunose 07:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Confucianism

Since Confucianism was so important to this period it might make sense to include a dedicated section to it instead of just a few sprinkled references. But I am just a random viewer who came here to learn more about Joseon era Confucian and how it it effected the culture's day to day life, because there is a big difference between their philosophy and the reality, interpretation, and how both directly effected the culture and lives of Koreans. --Wisnoskij (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hangeul or Chosŏn'gŭl?

Was the Korean alphabet called Hangeul or Chosŏn'gŭl during the Joseon Dyansty? I believe it's the former, but I'm just asking here to make sure. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hangul#History says "[Ju Sigyeong] coined the term Hangul "great script" to replace eonmun "vulgar script" in 1912". Hangeul was not coined during Joseon Dyasty yet. Probably neither was Chosŏn'gŭl. --Kusunose 08:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll change all instances of "Hangul" in the article to "Korean", accordingly. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

What does these numbers after the word "King" mean ?
King -1
King -1/2
King +1/2
King +1
King +2
Thank you Sayom (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. Pldx1 (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseon was not Vassal state of china

I noticed that you have restored the term vassal state in the Joseon section because I deleted it beforehand, but actually, Joseon is no where close to Chinese vassal state. As written in the passage, Joseon was only nominally a vassal state of China, but it actually was a sole independent and sovereign nation. Take a look at the section of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This country solely is a personal union of the Kingdom of Poland, but as I said before, Joseon is not a colony nor a vassal state of ancient China but an independent nation. In eastnorth-asia internation relationshop a tribute mean kind of diplomatic protocol as toadyism, it not mean certainly toadysim is obedience or client country. that is giving tribute mean they firm up their diplomacy.

전통적 동아시아 국제사회에 소속된 국가들이 서로 installation과 tribute의 예를 교환하되 home affairs과 외교에 대해서는 간섭하지 않는 매우 특별한 관계를 ‘책봉,조공 관계’라고 부를 수 있다. 이렇게 볼 때 책봉,조공 관계는 상호 독립적인 국제사회에서 발생하는 관계라는 점에서 볼 때 일종의 事大字小관계라 할 수있다. 따라서 전통적인 relationship of installation&tribute는 국가 간 subordinate relation가 아닌 formality of diplomacy의 하나였다.
A very special relationship in which states belonging to traditional East Asian international society exchanged the properties of installations and tributes but did not interfere domestic affairs and diplomacy can be called ‘Relationship of installation & tribute.’ Considering that it was the relationship that happened in mutually independent international society, this relationship of installation & tribute can be viewed as a kind of relationship of 'Taking-care-of-the-small-and-respecting-the-big(事大字小).' Therefore, the Relationship of installation & tribute was a formality of diplomacy, not subordinate relationship among nations.

— A Study on Ming China's View of the Chosun Dynasty -through the Special References to Chosun Chronicle in Chinese Ming Authentic History / Jun se young

The status by installation is samely meaningless, so it is bad to overinterpretation. at first, CHINA didn't make any equal relationship with other countries. except them, other countries is just a barbarian country that dedicate atribute. it is hared to understand nowadays, thoes days it is 'Order of EastNorth-asia". then it is natural thing but after modernization many people misunderstand. contents of simonoseki treaty just reconfirm the fact that vassal country as independant. My point is, tribute isn't sufficient to be clue of vassal state. In addition, Second Manchu invasion of Korea, Yeongeunmun, Samjeondo_Monument, ko:정축하성, and Flag of South Korea#History are just diplomatic means neither are they.

따라서 relationship of installation&tribute가 반드시 속국이나 relation of top and bottom를 의미하지는 않는다. relationship of installation&tribute가 갖는 정치적인 의미를 살펴본다면, 중국 입장에서는 황제국으로 인정받아 권위를 확보하고 주변 국가와 종족들 사이에 군사적 안정을 기대하는 일종의 친선외교정책의 성격을 가지며, tribute country의 입장에서는 installation을 통하여 국내에서 정치적 권위와 안정을 기대하고 사신 왕래에 수반하여 문화적•경제적 교류를 하는 이점이 있었다. joseon과 qing의 relationship of installation&tribute는 Second Manchu invasion of Korea 이후 부터였다.
Thus, the relationship of installation & tribute does not necessarily mean a vassal state or a relationship between a subordinate and a superior. From political terms, the relationship of installation & tribute secured authority for China as the Emperor Nation and military security for the surrounding nations and tribes, which can be translated as a friendly diplomacy policy, whereas the relationship established domestic political authority and stability for the tribute countries through installation and brought cultural and economic benefits accompanied by the exchange of envoys. The relationship of installation & tribute between Chosun and Qing began after the second Manchurian invasion of Korea.

— A Study on Ming & Ching China's View of the Chosun Dynasty in Politico-diplomatic Aspects: through the Special References to Chosun Chronicle in Chinese Authentic History / Jun se young

I would like to correct the rumor of Flag of South Korea#History ("Empire of the Great Qing's tributary state: Flag of Goryeo") It's is original souve is a personal diary written by Li Hongzhang(diary name:通商章程成案彙編). More over it is not true but personal doodle. This doodle may not be the official position and has not been the official position

참고로 위 사진 중 두번째 사진을 토대로 大淸國屬高麗國旗였다고 하는 얘기는 오해이다. 1874년 通商章程에 나왔다는 것은 오류고 1883년작 Li Hongzhang의 개인저서 通商章程成案彙編에 수록된 것으로 한마디로 혼자 낙서한것이다. 이것이 일본이 joseon을 qing으로부터 독립 시켜준 것이라는 주장을 위해 퍼진것이다. 19세기 말 당시 qing의 외교방식을 보면 조선이 속국의 위치였다고 보기는 어렵다. 태국이나 베트남에는 속국 방식으로 friendly relations했지만 조선은 국가대 국가인 외교 방식을 취했다. 개혁과정에서 제국주의식 속국화를 추진했다고 해도 결국 정식으로 속국이 된 적은 없다. 물론 qing의 속국 이야기에서 함께 거론되는 ming와의 관계도 속국이 아닌 관계였으며 애초에 속국이라는 개념이 제국주의시대를 맞아 근대에 와서 생겨난 개념이므로 틀린 주장이다.
For reference, it is wrong to call 'the flag of Koryo belonging to Great Qing (大淸國屬高麗國旗)' on the basis of second photograph among others. It is wrong to say that it appeared in Tosangzangzeng (通商章程) in 1874; it is actually included in 通商章程成案彙編which was a personal publication of Li Hongzhang in 1883, not an official document. Japan spread this to claim that they liberated Chosun from Qing. Looking at the diplomatic forms of Qing in the late 19th century, it is hard to see that Chosun was a vassal state of Qing. Although Thailand and Vietnam were in friendly relationship with Qing as vassal states, Chosun took state-to-state diplomatic form. Even when some aimed to make Chosun a imperialistic vassal state, Chosun was never a formal vassal to any nation. The relationship with Ming was also not one of vassal state either and since the concept of vassal state was created during modern imperialistic age, it is a false claim.

In late 19c, qing treated Thailand,Vietnam as vassal state but Joseon as independent state with even position. Throught the history of east asia, Joseon had never been appointed an official independent state by ming. Ming is not master-slave relationship between joseon. The relationship between Joseon and Ming only was connected by Confucian belief.

cultural area of Confucianism에서 installation은 동아시아 질서의 중심으로서 중국황제의 권위를 빌어 국내의 지배권을 보증받는 것이며, 중국은 이 점을 이용하여 tribute country와의 외교관계를 맺었다. tribute은 중국 Warring States period부터 시작된 외교행위로 황제를 Audience하는 행위인 ‘朝’와 여러 제물을 선물로 바치는 행위인 ‘貢’이 합쳐진 것으로 tribute란 중국의 황제로부터 installation을 받은 주변국가가 사신을 통해 중국에 공물을 바치는 외교적 행위이다. 즉, 동북아시아 국제 관계에 있어서도 tribute은 시대에 따른 일종의 외교 formality였지, 반드시 tribute and installation이 복종 혹은 Vassal state을 의미하는 것은 아니었다.
The installation in the cultural area of Confucianism was to secure domestic ruling power by borrowing the authority of Chinese Emperor as the center of East Asian order and China, utilizing the situation, established diplomatic relationship with surrounding tribute countries. Tribute is a diplomatic behavior that started from Warring States period and is a combination of 'Jo(朝)', which was an audience with Emperor, and 'Gong(貢)’ which was to offer various wealth as presents. Thus, tribute was a diplomatic behavior in which installed states by the Emperor made offerings to China through envoys. That is, tribute in East Asian international relationship was a kind of diplomatic formality of the time and tribute and installation does not necessarily mean subordination or vassal states

— A Study on Ming China's View of the Chosun Dynasty -through the Special References to Chosun Chronicle in Chinese Ming Authentic History / Jun se young

In addition, the notion of vassal state was created in by Western. Thus it can't be applied to relationship between joseon and ming,qing. Some people may interpret their relationship as the relation between master and servant. Through western colonialism oint of view. But they definitely make a mistake because there didn't exist the notion of vassal state in their age region. When qing conducted their reformation , qing tried to appoint joseon as vassal state but joseon wasn't actually appointed. Paying a tribute does not make a subordinate nation. If paying a tribute makes a nation subordinate, even the U.K. and Spain falls into the category of subordinate nations because they paid a tribute to China. I will edit, so give an opinion by discussion if you have any request. -- JARA7979 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2014 (KTC)

Please provide RS saying "Joseon was not vassal state of China". And please explain the article 1 of Treaty of Shimonoseki. Why there is such an article? Oda Mari (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(added the source) It is written as “China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, that are in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future.” in the article 1 of the treaty. It was about the confirmation that the Joseon Dynasty is an independent country, nor a subject country. and the intention of the treaty was to separate Joseon from China by Japan plus, it was an attempt to set up a status to invade Joseon. And add comment, Also the Joseon dynasty made Taegeukgi, which is Korean flag, in 1884 and it has the spirit that the Joseon dynasty was not a Vassal state of China. Lastly In 1963, Zhou Enlai, the prime minister of China said "This is ridiculous that the Joseon dynasty was a subordinate state of China' in the meeting having an audience with scientist of north korea delegation.

또 1963년에는 Zhou Enlai 중국 총리도 북한 과학원 대표단을 접견한 자리에서 "Liao River, Songhua River 유역에는 joseon 민족의 발자취가 남아있다"며 "joseon이 중국의 속국이었다는 것은 터무니없는 말"이라고 한 것으로 드러났습니다.
Gapsin Coup에서 제일 먼저 qing와의 관계를 끊을 것을 주장한 것이나, Independence Club에서 Yeongeunmun을 부수고 independent gate을 세운 것도 이런 영향이 크다.
It also turned out that Former Chinese Prime minister Zhou Enlai also said in 1963 when he received the delegation of Science Institute of North Korea, "There are still traces of Korean nationals in the basins of Liao River and Songhua River. It is absurd to say that Chosun was a vassal state of China."

-- JARA7979 (talk) 01:55, 02 March 2014 (KTC)

I disagree with you. If Joseon was an independent country, there would not have been the article one. Please provide RS, no Korean news articles, that it was a confirmation. Why there was Yeongeunmun until 1896 and why was Independence Gate build by Independence Club in 1896 to 97 as the replacement of the Yeongeunmun? Your claim is in conflict with those WP articles. Oda Mari (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Independent is a private newspaper not to be organized by government. Therefore the written article is close to personal opinion such as an editorial than government's standpoint. Also, The Independent is doubt to be trusted. As The Independent was published by Phillip Jaisohn who is Pro-American, there were a lot of contents related to flunkism.

Korea royal refuge at the Russian legation으로 김홍집 유길준 정권은 무너졌으나 새로 등장한 박정양 •이완용 정권은 친미파 관료들이 주도하였다. 따라서 The Independent에서도 그는 자기가 미국인임을 늘 강조하였다 그는 미국인으로서 The Independent을 통해 미국의 이미지를 절대적으로 미화하였다. 심지어 미국의 'Gyeongin Line railroad concession', 'unsan gold mine mining right' 침탈을 환영하였다. ‘속마음을 의심할 필요가 없는 나라와 맺은 것이며 지금까지 어느 열강들과 맺은 조약보다 유리한 계약’《The Independent》1896. 4. 16)이라는 것이다. 그는 또 미국의 필리핀 하와이 쿠바 점령에 대하여 적극적으로 지지를 표시하였다. 1898년 당시 그의 출국을 만류하는 Independence Club 회원들에게 보낸 답장에는 joseon 정부를 ‘貴 政府’라 부르고 있다.
As the incidence of the "Taking refuge of Korean royals at the Russian legation' brought down the Kim Hong Jip-Yoo Gil Jun regime, pro-U.S. bureaucrats led the new Park Jung Yang-Lee Wan Yong regime. He always emphasized that he was an American in the newspaper 'Independent'. As Americans, he absolutely glorified the image of the U.S. through Independent and even welcomed the U.S.'s pillage of 'Gyeongin Railroad Line concession' and 'the mining right of Unsan gold mine', which he called a treaty with a 'country for which no suspicion for the ulterior motive is necessary' and 'a more advantageous one than the ones signed with any other power' up to that time (《The Independent》of April 16, 1896). He expressed a strong support for the U.S. occupation of Philippines, Hawaii and Cuba as well. As he responded to the members of the Independence Club who tried to dissuade him from leaving Korea, he called the government of Chosun 'your government.

Destroying Yeongeunmun and building Independence Gate by Independence Club is for resolving misunderstanding where the Korean bringing a tribute to China looks like a colony by a Westerner’s view. These point of view affected intelligentsia too. Thus, they insist to cut subordinate relation out with China on Gapsin Coup. Removing Yeongeunmun and founding Independence Gate by Independence Club is because of these things.

그러나 서양인들 관점에선 거의 자기들이 아는 '식민지' 비슷한 걸로 보일 수밖에 없었고(대표적인 경우가 Port Hamilton incident), 이는 서양인의 관점에 영향을 받은 enlightenment intellectual들에게도 전해졌다. Gapsin Coup에서 제일 먼저 qing와의 관계를 끊을 것을 주장한 것이나, Independence Club에서 Yeongeunmun을 부수고 independent gate을 세운 것도 이런 영향이 크다.
And yet, for Westerners, it looked like 'colonies' as they knew (a typical case was Port Hamilton incident), which was delivered to enlightenment intellectuals who were influenced by Western perspective. The influence led to the claim to sever the relationship with Qing at the time of Gapsin Coup and to the destruction of Yeongeunmun and the construction of Independent Gate by the Independence Club.

-- JARA7979 (talk) 19:35, 09 March 2014 (KTC)

They are not RS. Please provide RS in English written by non-Korean historians or historical records/documents. Oda Mari (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the Translation Source. -- JARA7979 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2014 (KTC)

Oda Mari's wrong viewpoint.

The important point is that many other east Asian countries and even Japan does that it does not appear on the main introduction bar. It is already mentioned in text for several times and it is totally right that it is useless repetition and redundant. So everyone agreed that it was mere repetition and redundant to write this on introduction bar. Should we have to write Australia as 'Tribute of Great Britain' and United state as 'Tribute of Great Britain'? Malicious editing can be banned, you were warned as malicious editing for several times especially related to Korean issues. Go back and focus on Japanese issues, not on Korean issues. I politely ask you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heeyoong (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reason that Joseon is not tribute. Tribute countries cannot have king and can't control their own countries.

Tributary countries cannot sustain one's own kingdom and should be combined to their mastery country. However Chosun and Ming, Qing dynasty had a clear borderline that distinguishes each country's territory(Treaty of 1712, argument of clear territorial borderline). And also had totally different King and Army system. Both Joseon citizens and Ming Ching citizens were severely punished if they enter opponent's country without permission of both country. This is identical to Modern society's borderline system. One cannot enter each other's country as they want, and they have a totally different King, Army system and Law system. Mari's mention is refuted by JARA7979, Junohk, chadlesch and others. Hope this help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heeeeyoung (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Why does this article failed to point out that Joseon was a Tribute of China? Thanks~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.19.136.181 (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer

Joeseon was an independent kingdom that had diplomatic gift exchanges, otherwise known as tributary exchanges, with Chinese dynasties. This can be clearly demonstrated in Joseon's two wars against the France and the United States. In both instances, France and the United States wished to sign treaties with Joseon through war, and these wars are not considered to be wars against China in China, unlike the British Opium Wars or the Boxer Rebellion which clearly are taught as Western imperialist's war against China.

The very fact that France and the United States wished to sign treaties with Joseon demonstrates that France and United States understood Joseon to be an independent sovereign kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.121.66 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

providing sources for the following part

Hello. Can someone please provide a good source for the following part:
"Shortly thereafter, Taejong installed an office, known as the Sinmun Office, to hear cases in which aggrieved subjects felt that they had been exploited or treated unjustly by government officials or aristocrats. However, Taejong kept Jeong Do-jeon's reforms intact for most part. In addition, Taejong executed or exiled many of his supporters who helped him ascend on the throne in order to strengthen the royal authority. To limit influence of in-laws, he also killed all four of his Queen's brothers and his son Sejong's father-in-law. Taejong remains a controversial figure who killed many of his rivals and relatives to gain power and yet ruled effectively to improve the populace's lives, strengthen national defense, and lay down a solid foundations for his successor Sejong's rule."
I could not find any.--Sayom (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tributary state

Joseon is an indepedent nation so there was no need to use the term Joseon regarding Tributary state on the chart. These contents may not necessarily be put into a chart, but into an item. I will edit, so give an opinion by discussion if you have any request. -- JARA7979 (talk) 22:46, 04 April 2014 (KTC)

It's only your personal opinion.Please stop removing sourced material. You have never provided RS. What you've been doing here is whitewashing. Oda Mari (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does it need to have rs to come up with suggetion? Beside, This is never a personal opinion. In that logic, all the countries, which are members of the British Commonwealth and have British Queen as their state head, should have 'member of the British Commonwealth' or 'virtual independent nation' written on the list. Take Liao dynasty for an another example; Liao dynasty received tributes from Song dynasty each year but they made much of Song dynasty as their 'big brother country' while they made little of themselves as 'little brother country' and paid return tributes to Song dynasty, even though they were small. Does this mean that we should call Liao dynasty and Western Xia the tribute countries (actual independent countries) of Song dynasty? Do we have to write that Taiwan is a nominal subordinate country of China and virtual independent country on the list of Taiwan? -- JARA7979 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2014 (KTC)

I can see (talk) have been trying to camouflage the historical fact around the Chinese Empire's tributary relations. This kind of a statement belongs in the text of the article, not at the top. The tributary relation is already mentioned in the article. Also these tributary relations did not only happen between Joseon, Qing and Ming dynasty but also with Ryukyu, Toyotomi and several other Japanese states as well. Without this being mentioned on other articles properly, mentioning it on the title bar of the dynasty is a distortion of historical fact. Displaying this fact as a banner immediately below the name of the dynasty only in Joseon's context without much explanation in the same language is 'strongly' misleading. I can see this being mentioned several times on the article's talk page as well as on yours. Please be considerate of other's opinions and presenting more accurate information on Wikipedia. --Junohk (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see Oda Mari constantly disagreeing with people and adding the tributary back to the chart. With the fact being mentioned more detailed on the article, it is strongly misleading. --Junohk (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tributary comment from the title bar. PLEASE STOP "CAMOUFLAGING" historical facts! and again the explanation has been made several times by many users including myself. --Junohk (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not misleading. See Ashikaga shogunate and Ryukyu Kingdom. Additionally. please explain the article one of treaty of Shimonoseki. And please provide RS supporting your idea. Oda Mari (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no academic proof that can "title" those states as tributary nations. Tributary was a form of diplomacy. Please be careful with WP:OWN --Junohk (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just read the article. My goodness treaty of Shimonoseki article has so many controversial content. Especially the part where it is saying "ending the rule of Qing dynasty." This is a serious academic vandalism --Junohk (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oda Mari, the idea is clear, there is no guideline in terms of using the fact that there was tributary relations between the two. However, as professor Seith mentioned, the nation was "politically independent". Hence, there is no need to mention this in the information bar, in addition to the section of the article.--Junohk (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you mentioned that on Goryeo's page. This needs a further discussion. for now i will leave it as is. But this has to be reviewed further--Junohk (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. it's redundant and misleading to put it again in the side bar.--Chadlesch (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but based on what does JARA7979 question the tributary state? Please CITE sources. Cuz I'm holding Professor Nahm's book in my hand (Nahm, Andrew C. Korea: Tradition and Transformation — A History of the Korean People, második kiadás, Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym International (1996)) and it's all over in there. Joseon paid tributary goods to China, just like Goryeo did, and the Joseon ruler was never able to call himself an emperor (well until the proclamation of the Korean Empire towards the end of the dynasty), "just" a king, as it would have displeased the Chinese emperor. Wikipedia is not a place to prove your personal viewpoints on a topic. Cite a reliable academic source that says Joseon was not a tributary state to China. And if you have suhc source, even then, the other sources need to stay in, as only then would you get a neutral picture of the academic stance on the matter. History is never black and white but the blatantly remove information from an article just because you personally disagree with it is called vandalism. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Teemeah, that is an inevitable fact and it is important to know considering the foreign diplomacy between East Asian nations at the time. This tributary and the idea of King and Emperor is a much more complicated concept than one can presume in modern society. In fact, this tributary relation was not only established between Joseon and China, but also between all other nations around the region. If you look at the historical records in China, Japan, Korea, Rykyu and Vietnam, it is quite easy to find parts mentioning this tributary relations. However, as many scholars and academics have argued, including Professor Zhang of Bristol University and other articles studied this particular system, such as "Reconsidering the Tributary Trade of Samhan", "朝鮮 中宗朝 對明貿易 硏究", or other articles easily found in different contexts and languages, the tributary system was more so of an 'diplomatic trade system' than establishing political hierarchy between the sates. Although there was power and cultural hierarchy existed as a form of Sinocentrism but it was more invisible system than visible diplomacy acts. If we title an East Asian dynasty as a tributary state of Ming or Qing dynasty, things become very controversial and complicated, as there was tributary relations existed between Japan to Korea, Ryukyu to Japan, and other ways as well.

Also, as you mentioned the difference between King and Emperor, there is a definite difference in the diplomatic context at the time, however, this differentiation has to be made very carefully as the tile Emperor in Japan has been used quite differently than in other Asian kingdoms and there has been massive historical camouflage made after the World War 2 not only in Japan but also in other countries like China and Korea as well.

Again, the issue here is whether or not putting the title "Tributary State of Qing Dynasty" on Joseon's introduction bar right below the name, in addition to having a section described below. This is not a personal opinion but a product of false camouflage by Nationalist accounts. We have to be very careful and sensitive when describing a portion of historical facts. Because, in that logic we can say Yuan Dynasty is Mongolian and Qing Dynasty is Manchurian (which is clearly not) and the main population in China had been ruled by foreigners over centuries (which clearly is NOT). This way of describing East Asian history extremely complicates things. History should be owned by everyone not the genetic decedents, all Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and other nationals have to take ownership over transnational history of the world. Because we are THE SAME HUMAN BEINGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junohk (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not "introduction bar", but we call it "infobox". As I wrote above, both Ashikaga shogunate and Ryukyu Kingdom have the information of tributary in the infobox and the article body. It's a mystery to me that no editors try to remove the information from the infobox of the articles, but this one. I don't think the reason "it's redundant and misleading" is acceptable. Why the information should be removed only from this article? Please explain. Oda Mari (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Okay folks. Oda Mari, explain succinctly why exactly the infobox is somehow incomplete without that statement in a way that a neutral third party can understand. Junokh and others have done a very good job of explaining why it should not be included, but instead discussed in depth in the article itself. Risker (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It is because Korea was heavily influenced by China almost all through its history. See History of Sino-Korean relations and List of tributaries of Imperial China. You cannot explain Korean history, especially Joseon, without referring to Chinese influence and the tributary status. The name Joseon was given by Hongwu Emperor. [63] [64] Even when Qing was declining, Joseon could not liberate herself from Chinese influence and their Sojunghwa until Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876 and Treaty of Shimonoseki. See page 29. See also related articles. Sadae, Korean Confucianism, Joseon missions to Imperial China, Second Manchu invasion of Korea, Samjeondo Monument, and Yeongeunmun, Independence Gate and Flag of South Korea#History. Oda Mari (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've waited for Junohk to reply to my message on April 21 for weeks, but the user didn't and no other editors but a blocked sock left messages. I restore the sourced information of the Joseon status. Like Ashikaga shogunate and Ryukyu Kingdom, the information should be in the infobox. See these page. [65] and [66]. There are lots of books referring to it. Oda Mari (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refute "JARA7979 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2014 (KTC)","Joseon was not Vassal state of china" before you edit the article. -- JARA7979 (talk) 22:53, 15 may 2014 (KTC)

As I wrote before, the sources you provided are not RS. RigVeda Wiki is as unreliable as Wikipedia. Naver is a news site and the provided pages seem to be fringe theories. If Joseon was an independent country, why did the name was given by China? Why didn't the dynasty decide its name by herself? Why there is a sentence "The Qing acknowledged defeat in the Treaty of Shimonoseki (17 April 1895), which officially guaranteed Korea's independence from China." in the article? What do you think of the search results of the googlebooks above? You did not provide RS. Why should I refute? Oda Mari (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I also hope to revise the source of Rigveda wiki. Definitely, the Rigveda wiki, was not reliable. I appreciate the point-out of my error. But, the rest of it has no errors in reliability. The paper I write is KCI where the most valuable paper would go academically. And the rest of the articles is the ones in the newspaper company that has no problem in reliability. I pointed out the Naver where most of the pages about Korea just shows on NAVER by mirroring the articles. If you want, I will bring you the origin of the article. And I changed the source of Rigveda into other reliable source. Refer to it. And what you've said about the part in Shimonoseki treaty is a trick by Japan to exclude China's traditional suzerainty over Japan, and so far what has been said was that it confirmed Korea is an independent nation, and never said that it was its subject state.[67] -- JARA7979 (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2014 (KTC)

The linked page is irrelevant and not a RS to deny Joseon was a tributary state. I don't understand "Shimonoseki treaty is a trick by Japan to exclude China's traditional suzerainty over Japan ". It seems to be your personal opinion. Or are there any RS? Japan was not a tributary state of Qing. See List of tributaries of Imperial China. The article is well referenced. Please stop pushing your point of view and whitewashing the history. Oda Mari (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly brought the link on the RS list. No more comments for this, please. following your opinion, you need to call it 'one of the British Commonwealth of Nations' or 'colony of England' to the form of the nation which is crowning Queen as a president. -- JARA7979 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (KTC)

WP is not a RS. Please provide RS in English. Oda Mari (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't present the source of wikipedia. I just present the writings about ‘allowed source of wikepedia’ and I present allowed source of wikepedia , that is previous source. lastly, according to rule of wikepedia source, it possible to provide translation source. -- JARA7979 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2014 (KTC)

(i) Please remember WP:NOENG: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." I searched "tribut" and "suzerain" in the website you referred to, but there was no hit. Please provide WP:SOURCES which accord with WP:NOENG and explicitly state that Joseon was not a tributary state of Ming/Qing.

(ii) Please note that the cited sources in the article explicitly state that Joseon was a tributary state of Ming and Qing. After providing WP:SOURCES which state that Joseon was not a tributary state of Ming/Qing, please explain why it is reasonable to use only your sources, if any, and to ignore the WP:SOURCES cited in the article.

Thank you. De 4 de 171 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

i)I added the Korean original text of the english translation as you said.
ii)The pertinent content was rebuted in the earlier debate. Check it please. -- JARA7979 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2014 (KTC)

Where scholarly WP:RS exist for both views, different POVs are resolved by mentioning the two views together with each other, not by deleting one view and imposing the other. Write a separate section on the "modern Korean POV" but do not remove WP:RS citing content. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked JARA7979's "sources" one by one. There was no reliable source (see WP:RS) which claimed that Joseon was not a tributary.

1st: In eastnorth-asia internation relationshop a tribute mean kind of diplomatic protocol as toadyism, it not mean certainly toadysim is obedience or client country.

(i) The paper does not deny the fact that Joseon was a tributary state of Ming. (If JARA7979 claims that it does, s/he should extract sentences which do so.)

(ii) Also, it does not discuss the relation between Joseon and Qing.

(iii) It violates WP:RS and WP:thirdparty. WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:thirdparty: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The paper is published by a Korean political science society, so it is not a third-party source.

2nd - 6th: Second Manchu invasion of Korea, Yeongeunmun, Samjeondo_Monument, ko:정축하성, and Flag of South Korea#History

(i) They are not WP:sources because they violate WP:WPNOTRS: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose".

7th (a paper written by the same author of the 1st "source"): are just diplomatic means neither are they.

(i) It does not deny the fact that Joseon was a tributary state.

(ii) The comment (iii) I gave to the 1st "source" also applies to this "source".

8th: More over it is not true but personal doodle. This doodle may not be the official position and has not been the official position

(i) It violates WP:source: "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

9th: Ming is not master-slave relationship between joseon. The relationship between Joseon and Ming only was connected by Confucian belief.

(i) It is the same paper as the 1st "source", and the comments (i)-(iii) I gave to the 1st "source" apply to it also.

10th, 11th: it has the spirit that the Joseon dynasty was not a Vassal state of China. Lastly In 1963, Zhou Enlai, the prime minister of China said "This is ridiculous that the Joseon dynasty was a subordinate state of China'

(i) They violate WP:source: "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable." By the way, does JARA7979 believe that a prime minister of China is a reliable source of the historical facts?! I hope that s/he is just joking. (Use of such a "source" clearly shows that JARA7979 does not have the ability to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones.)

12th, 13th: As The Independent was published by Phillip Jaisohn who is Pro-American, there were a lot of contents related to flunkism. These point of view affected intelligentsia too. Thus, they insist to cut subordinate relation out with China on Gapsin Coup. Removing Yeongeunmun and founding Independence Gate by Independence Club is because of these things.

(i) The quotes do not mention tributary relationships.

(ii) They violate WP:source: "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

Finally, please remember WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

The bottom line: At present, WP:RSs which claim that Joseon was not a tributary are not provided. De 4 de 171 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You are understanding my writing, from a wrong point of view.
1) The source of the original Korean writing, which I posted recently, is about the previous topic and I posted this at the request of the opposing debater.

The source of that writing was 'Joseon was not a subordinate state of China.' written in the past. This material isn't about that 'Joseon is not a tributary state of China.' But you said you found the word about the tribute in the writing to refute the 'subordinate state' and what does this mean?
2) I want you not to conclude as you please. I never refuted the truth that Joseon paid a tribute to China.I assumed that there was no need to attach the title, 'tributary state' to the frame of Joseon. Let me give you the source of the tribute that you want.

책봉은 왕이 제후에게 벼슬을 주고 영토 지배를 인정해 주는 것이고, 조공은 제후가 왕에게 정기적으로 특산물을 바치는 것으로 주나라 때부터 시작되었다. 이러한 의례는 한 대 이후 중국과 주변국 사이에도 적용되어 책봉과 조공이라는 독특한 동아시아 외교 질서가 나타났다. 책봉·조공 관계에서는 주변국이 중국에 조공 물품을 바치고 많은 답례 물품을 받았으므로 경제적 이득을 얻는 경우가 많았다. 따라서 책봉을 받지 않는 나라에서도 중국에 조공을 행하는 경우가 있었다.책봉·조공 관계의 실제 내용은 국가 간의 상황과 필요에 따라 달랐다. 중원 왕조는 한반도, 일본 열도와는 문화, 기술, 제도 등을 교류하였다. 유목 민족과는 전쟁을 억제하기 위한 물자의 교환 등이 주를 이루었다.그러나 중원 왕조의 대외 정책이 반드시 책봉·조공으로만 이루어진 것은 아니었다. 한 제국은 군사적으로 앞선 흉노에게 비단과 같은 물자를 제공하고, 황실의 여성들을 결혼시키는 등 인적 교류를 매개로 친선 관계를 유지하였다. 또, 서역 여러 나라와도 조공을 명목으로 경제 교역을 하였다. 따라서 책봉·조공 관계는 종주국과 속국의 상하 관계가 아니라 서로의 필요에서 만들어진 의례적인 성격이 강하였다.
Investiture means what a king gives government positions to feudal lords and approves the rule of territory, and tribute means what feudal lords dedicate specialties to a king and it was started from the Zhou Dynasty. This formality was applied to China and the surrounding countries too after the Han Dynasty and this led to the unique East Asian diplomatic orders like investiture and tribute.In the relationship between investiture and tribute, the surrounding countries received a lot of economic benefits, since they were given many acknowledgements by paying tributes to China. Therefore, even the countries that did not obtain investiture, paid tributes to China, in some cases. In reality, the relationship between investiture and tribute varied depending on the circumstances and needs of the countries. The central Chinese plain dynasties exchanged culture, technologies and systems with the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Islands. Also, they mainly exchanged the supplies to suppress the war with nomadic people. But it was not that the diplomatic policy of the central Chinese plain dynasties was always based on investiture and tribute. The Han Empire maintained the amicable relationship by providing the commodities including silk to the Huns that was militarily in advance of them, and marrying the women of the imperial family to the Huns. Besides, they economically traded with many countries bordering on Western China under the pretext of tribute. Therefore, the relationship between investiture and tribute showed a formal characteristic created under the necessity of each other, not a relationship between superiors and subordinates. - History of East Asia, Kyohaksa, Page 48

As I said previously, tribute was a diplomatic system of modern times created under the necessity of each other, not a relationship between superiors and subordinates, or an alliance. But it is wrong to attach this concept of diplomacy, not a concept of subordinate state or alliance to the Template of the text and this is why I asked you to delete. -- JARA7979 (talk) 23:46, 07 October 2014 (KTC)

I appreciate your effort for constructive discussion.

• I am glad to know that we have a common understanding that Joseon was a tributary state. Now we can proceed to the next topic, namely (in)appropriateness of the inclusion of Joseon's tributary status in the infobox. Is my understanding of the current situation of the discussion in accordance with yours? (If so, maybe it is a good idea to begin a new section on the topic of the (in)appropriateness.)

• "The source of that writing was 'Joseon was not a subordinate state of China.' written in the past. This material isn't about that 'Joseon is not a tributary state of China.' But you said you found the word about the tribute in the writing to refute the 'subordinate state' and what does this mean?"

-> It is difficult to understand this paragraph. Could you rewrite it in a different way?

• "As I said previously, tribute was a diplomatic system of modern times created under the necessity of each other, not a relationship between superiors and subordinates, or an alliance. But it is wrong to attach this concept of diplomacy, not a concept of subordinate state or alliance to the frame of the text and this is why I asked you to delete."

-> It is hard for me to understand the second sentence. Could you write it again in other words?

• By the way, it is difficult to evaluate reliability of your source. When making a quotation, please add the author(s) and other important information as well as the title and publisher of the source for verifiability. (WP:Citing sources would be helpful for appropriate citation.)

Thank you very much for your responses to my requests in advance. De 4 de 171 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

vassal state related issue was finished brfore last debate paragraph, so I think don’t have to move paragraph of tribute debate. And I little amend the text. i’m so sorry, you don understand my text. lastly I add the source as your request.-- JARA7979 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2014 (KTC)

Thank you for your response.

1. Your comment is hard to understand in places, but is it correct that you agree that Joseon was a tributary state of Ming and Qing?
2. Regrettably, you didn't revise the paragraph, "The source of that writing ...", so it remains unintelligible (please check my last comment).
3. Please don't remove the information on the tributary status of Joseon before discussion of the appropriateness of the removal. You have not shown any understandable reasons for removing the well-sourced information.
4. > "But it is wrong to attach this concept of diplomacy, not a concept of subordinate state or alliance to the Template of the text" (From your revised comments)

(I guess that "the Template" in your comment means the Infobox.) Why wrong? It is just your groundless assumption, isn't it? If not, please provide relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Also, it is unclear what separates subordination and alliance from diplomacy. Please explain it with providing RSs. Thanks. De 4 de 171 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Joseon as a Tributary of China

It is completely unnecessary to label the kingdom of Joseon as a tributary state at the top of the page. Joseon, like nearly every other kingdom in the East-Southeast Asian region was classified as a nominal tributary state to China. Anyone familiar with the Sino-centric system would understand that this label is completely redundant, as other regional states such as Japan, Annam (vietnam), Siam (Thailand), Ryukyu Kingdom and many more were all classified as tributary states under the Ming dynasty. In fact, any state that engaged in economic relations with China was obligated to enter into the tributary system. Since even European nations, such as England, the Netherlands and Portugal all fit under this definition, should all these states have the label of Chinese tributary state affixed to their respective pages as well?

I am requesting this label be removed on the grounds of its redundancy.

However, should this label continue to be affixed to Joseon's page, it is imperative that identical labels be affixed to the pages of the other states that were also classified as "tributary states". An entire list of Imperial Chinese tributaries can be found on the "List of tributaries of Imperial China" wikipedia page. In this case, those that have appropriate sourcing should also have the label "tributary of the Ming dynasty" attached to their respective pages.

If there are reasons that suggest otherwise, then please state them.

BUjjsp (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

On the first and second paragraphs:

1. The claim of "complete redundan[cy]" is simply false. For example, Tokugawa shogunate wasn't a tributary state of China, while Ashikaga shogunate was. Please do not mislead others by incorrect information.
2. Also, Korea (Joseon) was special, regarding the tributary relationship with China. That Joseon's tributary relationship with China was extremely important and was more prominent than any other countries' is maintained by WP:SOURCES. E.g.,

Korea is often referred to as a model Chinese tributary state. Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of Korea's tributary relations with China in the development of Korean political institutions and higher culture. ... (Clark, D. N. (1998), "Sino-Korean tributary relations under the Ming", in D. Twitchett, F. W. Mote (eds.), The Cambridge History of China, Volume 8: The Ming Dynasty, 1368−1644, Part 2, 272–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 272)

Two most significant aspects of Korean history of the early Yi period were the establishment of China's suzerain lordship over Korea and Confucianization of the country. ... With this, Ming China assumed suzerainty over Korea and the Yi dynasty pledged its loyalty to China as her vassal, establishing the Sino-Korean relations based on the principle of sadae ("subservience to big power"), which lasted until 1894. (Nahm, A. C. (1988), Korea: Tradition & Transformation: A History of the Korean People. Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym, p. 94)

Korea during the Chosǒn dynasty, more than any other country, gained a reputation as the pre-eminent tributary. ... (Schmid, A. (2007), "Tributary relations and the Qing-Chosǒn frontier on Mount Paektu." In D. Lary (ed.), The Chinese State at the Borders, 126-150. Vancouver: UBC Press, p. 129)

Are there any historians that stress the importance of, say, England's tributary relationship with China in the development of its political institutions and higher culture?

On the third paragraph:

1. You cannot command other editors to add sentences to other articles as you want. If you think some sentences should be added to some articles, please remember that you can edit the articles by yourself.
2. As explained above with RSs, Joseon's tributary relationship with China was extremely important and more prominent than any other countries', so it does not make sense to treat Joseon and the other countries equally.

Please adduce other reasons, if any. Thank you. De 4 de 171 (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response. I understand your viewpoint, but I still have some digressions:

- You asserted that states such as Joseon had more pre-eminent tributary relationships with China than other tributary states, in order to justify why some states have the label "tributary state" affixed to their pages and some don't. I am well aware that Joseon did indeed have a pre-eminent tributary relationship with China. However, to omit the label of "tributary state" from some pages and include them is your own personal discretion.

- Consequently, for uniformity's sake, if one tributary state's page has this includes this title in the information box at the top, then all of the pages of the respective tributary states should have this the label of "tributary state" included, such as England, Portugal and the Netherlands. The information box at the top contains content that is exclusively fact, and information should not be omitted based on individual discretion.

I propose to move the explanation of Joseon's tributary relations with China to the "Foreign Affairs" section of the article, which is currently incomplete. Here, Joseon's unique tributary relationship (which you reinforced with your sources) can be properly explained and elaborated upon. Doing this would also eliminate the need to include the status of "tributary state" on the pages of states where the Imperial Chinese tributary system was less integral to the states' respective foreign affairs, such as England, Portugal and the Netherlands.

BUjjsp (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

> "I understand your viewpoint, but I still have some digressions:"

Regrettably, no, you didn't understand it. In a nutshell, what you did in your new comments was to repeat your opinion, not to respond to my comments. Maybe my writing was not clear enough.

> "However, to omit the label of "tributary state" from some pages and include them is your own personal discretion. Consequently, ..."

1. Why is it my "own personal discretion"? For your information, I reproduce some of my previous comments below and add some new comments for clarification.

2.1. You cannot command other editors to add sentences to other articles as you want. If you think some sentences should be added to some articles, please remember that you can edit the articles by yourself.

Because editors (including me) have no obligation to add a label to other countries, your accusation of my "omi[ssion]" is ungrounded and unfair.

2.2. As explained above with RSs, Joseon's tributary relationship with China was extremely important and more prominent than any other countries', so it does not make sense to treat Joseon and the other countries equally.

According to the Wikipedia guideline, WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, "an infobox template is a panel ... that summarizes key features of the page's subject." Korea's tributary relationship with China was extremely important to Korea, as stated in reliable sources, so it follows the WP guideline to include the information in the infobox. On the other hand, the tributary relationship of, say, England with China was not a key feature of England, so the inclusion of the label in the infobox of England would violate the WP guideline. Can you provide reliable sources for importance of England's tributary relationship with China? If you cannot, it means that your claim of my "own personal discretion" is groundless. I am just following the WP guideline.

Can you explain why the "omi[ssion]" is my "own personal discretion"?

> "Doing this would also eliminate the need to include the status of "tributary state" on the pages of states where the Imperial Chinese tributary system was less integral to the states' respective foreign affairs, such as England, Portugal and the Netherlands."

2. "[T]he need to include the status of 'tributary state' on the pages of states ... such as England, ..." is an illusionary need which you created in your previous comments (please read my comments above). It is simply a violation of MOS:INFOBOX. Why is it a "need"? Please explain.

I have more to write, but I'll wait for your responses to my comments. Please read my comments above carefully. Thank you. De 4 de 171 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your response.

Responding to 2.1: To clarify, I have not been commanding you or anyone else to add anything. I politely ask that you please refrain from making accusations based on your interpretation of my statements.

Responding to 2.2: I had been basing my claim off of the wikipedia page, Help:Infobox, particularly in the section "What should an Infobox contain?" where it states that infoboxes should be, "Comparable. If a lot of different subjects all share a common attribute (for instance, all people have a name and a date of birth), then it is useful to be able to compare these across different pages. This also implies that where possible, material should be presented in a standard format."

Logically, since the label of "tributary state" was a common feature among all the states I mentioned, according to the information on the page listed above, if the page of one includes this title, then the title should be applied to the respective pages of the others. This is why I stated that your assertion that Joseon's infobox should detail its status as a tributary but the pages of other tributaries shouldn't was at your own discretion, as it conflicted with the guidelines listed by the Help:Infobox page. I hope I cleared up any confusion regarding this.

According to Help:Infobox, "Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format." Because of this, the most important pieces of information should located be at the top, while less important but still pertinent information should be further down the infobox, or omitted from the infobox and placed in the body of the article. It is without a doubt that Joseon's status as a tributary was important, but I contest the notion that that information is anywhere near as important as facts such as the dates of the state's existence, and other essential pieces of information such as the government structure or the historical era in which it existed.

Because of this, I have two proposals that I would like you and others participating in the editing of this page to consider.

1. I propose that the mention of Joseon's tributary status be included between the the "Historical Era" and "Population" sections of the infobox.

2. I propose that Joseon's tributary status be omitted entirely from the infobox and be elaborated upon solely in the body of the article, where the complex nature of the relationship can be thoroughly explained.

However, since you seem adamant about retaining this information within the infobox (and I fully acknowledge that this opinion is substantiated), I urge you to consider reaching a consensus within reasonable parameters of my first proposal.

I look forward to hearing from you.

BUjjsp (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clarifications, which are of great help for understanding your viewpoint, and proposals. I'll write my responses to them in the coming weekend (or earlier, if possible). Thank you for your patience. De 4 de 171 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to your last comments (esp., your response to 2.2 and its following paragraph), I think that I understand your point: inconsistency (not 'redundancy').

1. Now, I have checked all the countries in the List of tributaries of Imperial China#Ming. Not only Joseon ('Korea' in the list) but also Ashikaga shogunate ('Japan') is labeled as Ming's "tributary state", and Ryukyu Kingdom ('Liuqiu'/'Ryukyu Islands') is labeled as Ming's "nominal Vassal state". It means that your two proposals, which both claim removal of the label of tributary from Joseon, do not solve the inconsistency problem: they create inconsistency within the comparable countries in East Asia. If inconsistency is what you are concerned with, proposals which eliminate or reduce it are called for, not the ones which you gave in your last comments. Any idea?
2. I, however, agree with a part of your second proposal, which is independent of the inclusion/exclusion of the label in the infobox: I think that it is appropriate and desirable to elaborate Joseon's tributary status "in the body of the article, where the complex nature of the relationship can be thoroughly explained" because of the importance of the tributary relationship for Joseon. It is a problem independent of the inclusion/exclusion of the label in the infobox.
3. As for your response to 2.1, I have to say that it is difficult to understand what you mean. If you have not been commanding other editors to add anything, on what basis did you state that the "omi[ssion]" of adding the label to some pages is my "own personal discretion"? My point is that, as I stated before, it is not my obligation to add the label to other pages. If some editors want to add, they can do so by themselves.

Putting aside the last point (it seems that it is becoming a fruitless discussion), I hope that a satisfactory solution of the inconsistency problem will be worked out through the discussion. De 4 de 171 (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I just want to lay out some groundwork here for future reference, should this discussion need to continue for much longer. Please tell me if you have any digressions. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style resource you included, you asserted that the status of tributary should be attached to the pages of East Asian states (and arguably Southeast Asian states) due to its importance but not European states due to the label's little to no importance. The Help:Infobox source that I provided demonstrates that there must be consistency among the content of infoboxes, i.e. if a common characteristic can be applied to one, then it should be applied to others. Taking the information from both sources into account, I hope we can agree that the pertinent states in question are those East and Southeast Asia sourced in the "List of Tributaries of Imperial China" page.

Next, to address your response to my proposals: I believe there is some misunderstanding. The two proposals that I presented were intended to be distinct (I apologize if that wasn't made clear). Only the second proposal suggests that the status of tributary be omitted from the infobox. In my first proposal on the other hand, I support that the inclusion of the tributary status of Joseon, but argue that it should not be placed at the top of the infobox, as infoboxes tend to list information in order of importance. In this proposal, I present the idea that Joseon's tributary relationship SHOULD remain in the infobox but that it should be placed between the "Historical Era" and "Population" sections of the infobox, but as I explained in my previous argument, "I contest the notion that that information is anywhere near as important as facts such as the dates of the state's existence, and other essential pieces of information such as the government structure or the historical era in which it existed."

To be completely clear, this was the essence of my first proposal -

Joseon's tributary relationship is important but not nearly as important as other pieces of information in the infobox.

To help reach consensus, I assert that this status be included further down in the infobox, specifically between the "Historical Era" and "Population" sections of the infobox.

This is all that I wish to address at the time being.

Please tell me what you think and if you agree with my proposal.

If this fails to achieve consensus, I would be more than happy to explain the logic behind my claim to inconsistency.

BUjjsp (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems

This entry is too long, it's like a book. Also, there is no pronunciation key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.145 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding the Status Label of the Infobox

I undid BUjjsp's recent edit per consistency with other articles. Additionally, thinking about Battle of Sarhu, First Manchu invasion of Korea, Second Manchu invasion of Korea, etc, the relationship between China and Joseon was not that simple to describe in one sentence. Oda Mari (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Oda Mari.

I appreciate your concern regarding the article.

However, if you read my reasoning, I see no reason to revoke the changes I implemented.

For example, I linked the Imperial Chinese tributary system wikipedia page instead of the Tributary state wikipedia page as it provides a lot more insight into the tributary relationships specific to China.

Secondly, if you read the guidelines provided by the Help:Infobox wikipedia page, it states that one of the core characteristics of infoboxes is conciseness "Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts."

I agree that the unique and prominent tributary relationship between China and Joseon is something that cannot be explained in a single sentence. However, to explain this relationship in detail is not the purpose of the infobox. Details such as the Battle of Sarhu, the First Manchu invasion of Korea and others should be listed and elaborted upon in the body of the article.

Again, see the Help:infobox page.

Finally, in regards to consistency, I plan to change the pages of all the respective Chinese tributary states to fit this concise label, such as the Nguyen dynasty of Vietnam, the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Ashikaga Shogunate, as the infoboxes of many of the other tributary states contains a lot of unnecessary clutter, much like the infobox of the Joseon page. This new label, as explained above, better serves the purpose of the infobox.

I hope you now understand my logic behind the changes and I will be reinstating the changes I made.

Thank you for your input. If you have any further digressions beyond the ones you entailed above, please don't hesitate to inform me.

BUjjsp (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I was busy and took time to reply. I disagree with you. The stable version is concise enough. Your version is vague. If you disagree with me, ask for other editor's comment. I don't think the link to Imperial Chinese tributary system is a good idea as the article is short and no mention on Korea. If you don't think Tributary state is good, link to Tribute should be better as Korea is mentioned in it. Your version has a factual error. The end of the tributary status was not in 1881, but in 1895. The style of the stable version has been here at en:WP for years. A lot of POV pushers have tried to remove the tributary status of Korea for a year and I'm fed up with them. It is fully sourced. Then, as a newbie, you jumped into this article and tries to change it. Please do not change the style of other articles for your convenience and preference. Ask for the consensus first. Frankly speaking, it seems to me that you are trying to look minimized, a kind of whitewashing maybe, the status of Joseon. Oda Mari (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply.

You asserted, "If you disagree with me, ask for other editor's comment."

On of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia states, "If you can improve an article, please do so. It is important, however, to distinguish boldness from recklessness. Start off small. Begin by making minor modifications to existing articles before attempting a complete rewrite of History of science." My condensing of information definitely fits within this definition. My edit was what I perceived as a minor edit.

While this is being addressed, the fact that the current version has "been here at en:WP for years" is irrelevant. The whole point of Wikipedia being a public encyclopedia is to encourage improvements wherever beneficial.

Secondly, you stated that my version is vague. Actually, the label that I implemented was far more pertinent to the specific relationship between China and its tributary states as it referenced the Imperial Chinese tributary system page, as opposed to the Tributary state wikipedia page and the Tribute wikipedia page. Consequently, I fail to see how this is "vague" when it is in fact more specific.

If you read the entirety of the Imperial Chinese tributary system page, you would see that Korea was indeed, along with the many other prominent tributary states, mentioned in the body of the article. "Korea, the Ryukyu Islands, Annam (present-day Vietnam), Siam (Thailand), Burma (new name Myanmar), and Nepal were “tributary states,” which sent regular tribute missions."

I hope I have cleared up any confusion regarding this.

In response to the last part of your statement:

I find this attack against me very troubling, "A lot of POV pushers have tried to remove the tributary status of Korea for a year and I'm fed up with them. It is fully sourced. Then, as a newbie, you jumped into this article and tries to change it. Please do not change the style of other articles for your convenience and preference. Ask for the consensus first. Frankly speaking, it seems to me that you are trying to look minimized, a kind of whitewashing maybe, the status of Joseon."

-First of all, where in my edit, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" was there a suggestion to remove Joseon's tributary status? I fully acknowledged that it is sourced, and am simply trying to improve on its specificity. To be completely clear, I am not attempting to remove Joseon's tributary status from the page.

-Secondly, calling me a "newbie" to undermine the legitimacy of my claim is irrelevant. Regardless if I am a veteran editor or a novice, my edits (which do follow the guidelines that Wikipedia has set forth) are just as legitimate as yours.

-Thirdly, your accusation that I am trying to "whitewash" the content of this article is completely inappropriate. I ask that you please refrain from making personal attacks such as these.

I would be more than happy to repeal my decision if you can point out the bias that you claim exists in my edit. But rather than try and show me where your perceived "whitewashing" in my edit is, you reference the actions of past editors (to which I have no relation) to justify your ungrounded and accusatory claim.

Seeing as this is something that we disagree upon, I will refrain from reinstating my edit, out of respect.

I hope that I was able to clarify my point, and look forward to arriving at a consensus with you.

BUjjsp (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still busy. Please wait for a few more days. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I read the above discussions. I agree to BUjjsp's view. -- Asadal (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@BUjjsp:thank you for waiting. I can only reply your first two comments today as I am still busy. Ask for other editors' comment means WP:RFC. I don't think it's a minor edit. What you did is change the style, ignoring consistency. You actually changed the other articles' style in order to be consistent with your edit. I think it's selfish PoV edits. I am not the editor who first used the style. The style was there when I saw it. As far as I know, you are the first one the style is not appropriate. As I wrote before, I think it's concise enough. What I meant "vague" is your removal of Chinese dynasty names. Imperial China is long and complicated and it's more reader friendly with the dynasty names, and I don't think your edit was improvements. Oda Mari (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Asadal: Thank you for recognizing the legitimacy of my edit.

@Oda Mari: Once again, I appreciate your reply.

However, I still have many digressions with your viewpoint.

- Responding to your point of "ignoring consistency": You claim that my edit ignores consistency, but how can that be the case when there is no consistency to begin with? Many of the pages of the Imperial Chinese tributary states have differing labels, each inconsistent with one-another. Look the current discrepancies between the pages of Joseon, the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Nguyen Dynasty for example. Some include the names of dynasties, some include the labels "nominal" and "practical" and some contain neither.

I recognized this and attempted to provide a concise label (by linking it to the Imperial Chinese tributary system page) that would be more accurate and would create consistency (where there currently isn't) among the pages. So in regards to consistency, my edits were significant improvements.

- Responding to your claims regarding conciseness: I disagree. The Imperial Chinese tributary system maintained the same role under the Ming dynasty as it did under the Qing dynasty, to shape foreign policy and maintain Chinese economic dominance in Eastern Asia. So including the names of the dynasties in the infobox does nothing in terms of providing greater understanding to the reader.

- According to the MOS:INFOBOX guidelines, the purpose of the infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

- If you can, please explain to me what was so inherently different about the tributary system under the Ming and Qing dynasties, so much so that it warrants a distinct label in the infobox. If not, there is no reason to include the individual names.

- If fact, I believe that having a consistent label for all tributary states would actually be beneficial for readers. When comparing Chinese tributary states from different geographical areas (such as those from Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Thailand and Burma) and across different time periods, the consistency of the label, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system," helps readers to better recognize this key similarity between distinct kingdoms as well as the continuity of the tributary system over such vast time periods.

This also helps keep in line with the "comparability" requirement that Help:Infobox sets forth.

- Lastly, I fail to how my edits were "selfish PoV edits" as you claim them to be.

All I have been trying to do is improve the accuracy and specificity of the article while molding the infobox to be more consistent with the guidelines that both the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and the Help:Infobox page have set forth.

I really hope that you can understand the validity in my edits now, as I have presented clear, substantiated reasons for doing so. If you have any further digressions, I ask that you please substantiate them with fact, not just your opinion.

I'm not sure why you still think that bias exists in my edits, but please know that this is not my intention. I am simply trying to improve the article/infobox as well as help establish consistency among related pages.

It is my sincere hope that we can now reach consensus.

BUjjsp (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the article Imperial Chinese tributary system is the best link, but I edited the article and changed the target page to the one you want, using piped link. The style is the same, but the click of the word "Tributary state" will take readers to the Imperial Chinese tributary system page. No more compromise. Please do not change it. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oda Mari,

Once again, despite my several requests to substantiate your viewpoints with evidence rather than just your opinions, you have failed to do so. In fact, you simply ignored many of the points I made in my previous statement.

It's getting really frustrating trying to reason with you, considering that you continue to oppose my edit without pointing out any logical fallacies with it.

I've given you so many reasons that support the institution of this edit. If you need refreshing, please refer to my previous statements.

You do not have the authority to make the commands you made in your previous statement: "No more compromise. Please do not change it."

According to WP:CON, consensus building on Wikipedia between two dissenting viewpoints is usually achieved through compromise, but only when both sides manage to "persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." In other words, if our viewpoints still conflict despite both being logically sound and well substantiated, it is then that compromise that satisfies both sides should be sought out.

I would be more than happy to compromise if, as stated multiple times before, you provide clear, substantiated reasons for doing so. But so far, you have not.

If you have any further digressions, please state them only if they are substantiated by fact and not solely your own point of view.

BUjjsp (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about "Joseon". Status in the infobox should be clarified. Using the word "a member of" is misleading. Because the relationship was bilateral, and China/dynasties treated neighboring countries differently. For instance, Joseon was forced to be a tribute state by Qing, but in Japan, it was Ashikaga's own decision to be a tribute state to Ming. It's a mistake to treat those two as equals and to describe them in the same category as "a member". As far as I know, notable historians do not use the description. Please provide sources, if there are any. If not, it would be your WP:OR. Yuan dynasty was a Mongolian dynasty and not only in the history of China, but it is included also in the history of Mongolia, but later in 1691–1911, Mongolia was a vassal of Qing. Using the dynasty names is needed in the infobox. What you think "improvement" would make things blurred and confusing. Oda Mari (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this information. It makes it easier to understand your viewpoint.

I'll be addressing your concerns in three parts.

1) From what I understand, you believe that because the nature of Joseon's entry into the tributary system under the Qing differed from those that entered willingly, that this warrants a distinct label. Correct me if this is an inaccurate representation of your viewpoint.

- A discrepancy in the nature of entry into the system does not warrant a distinct label. This is because tributary status does imply the willingness of states to enter the system. It merely serves to illustrate the extent of Chinese cultural, political and economic influence over Eastern Asia. The discrepancies between Joseon's willingness to enter the tributary system under the Ming and its reluctance to enter under the Qing are details that can be elaborated upon in the body of the article.

To provide a related example, I will use the Warsaw Pact in which one nation, the Soviet Union exerted a sphere of dominance over a region, in this case Eastern Europe. Some member states of the Warsaw Pact joined willingly, while others had to be incorporated through force. However, despite the nature of the states' entries into the system, the status of the individual states is consistent.

- To explain my earlier statement further, the function of the tributary system did not change between the Ming and Qing dynasties. This is why historians don't make significant distinctions between the tributary system under the Ming and Qing dynasties, but rather refer to it collectively as "The Imperial Chinese Tributary System," due to its continuity. As a result, the inclusion of dynasty names is unnecessary.

2) I used the term "Member of" in my label because it would have been redundant to say "Tributary State of the Imperial Chinese Tributary System." Membership within the system implies tributary status. I've seen the term "member state" used interchangeably with "tributary state" in the sources I've read regarding the subject. Listed below are a few that I could find within short notice.

From the London School of Economics (LSE) - The Nature and Linkages of China’s Tributary System under the Ming and Qing Dynasties, by Giovanni Adornino

"Secondly, and consequently, “it must be safely assumed that a common culture among members facilitated the emergence and operation of extra-territorial institutions that operated to regulate inter-state relations and sustain the system. Indeed, the evidence suggests that responses to challenges encountered in solving problems of cooperation, conflict, and coexistence included an elaborated, informed web of codes which was formulated and followed by member states in their mutual relations with the Chinese system.”

From the Oxford Journals, The Chinese Journal of International Politics - The Tributary System as International Society in Theory and Practice by Yongjin Zhang and Barry Buzan

"Korea, as a model tributary, fully embraced the tributary system, as well the cultural assumptions and legitimation claims behind it, until the end of the 19th century. It is indisputably a member of the society of states centered in Imperial China."

The "society of states" is referring to the Imperial Chinese tributary system

From Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, by Keat Gin Ooi

"This tribute was not a financial burden for the missions, for they were well compensated for behaving appropriately, and their members were allowed to trade with the Chinese waiting at the designated ports, notably Guangzhou."

3) I'm not quite sure why you included information regarding the Yuan Dynasty. It seems rather irrelevant.

- There is a significant distinction between tributary status under the Qing, which was the case of Joseon, and incorporation into the Qing Empire, which was the case of Mongolia from 1691-1911. Consequently, I don't see how you can draw a comparison between the two to make your point.

- I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make with that information. Please clarify.

BUjjsp (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Compareing with The Warsaw Pact, a modern treaty, is meaningless and irrelevant. As for Mongolia, the same style can be seen in the infobox, "tributary/vassal" of "xx dynasty". Your edit damages the style and consistency. Your first request was removing the information from the infobox, a typical PoV pushers' idea, and the second one was moving the information to near the bottom of the infobox to make the information inconspicuous. Now you want to change the style and use the phrase "a member of". Thinking about your previous requests, it is clear that you want to trivialize the information. The content of the infobox is about Joseon, and the status information should be restricted only to Joseon. "A member of the Imperial Tributary System"? It means Joseon was "a tributary state". It's more concise and precise. Your talk is a quibble. I'm afraid you only want to whitewash the Joseon history. Interestingly, only on this article, people come and try to remove/trivialize the information. Please stop using sophistry and move on. Oda Mari (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oda Mari,

Quite frankly, it's very frustrating having to encounter your accusations again and again. I've respectfully requested many times to refrain from this, yet you have not. Your accusations are baseless and violate the Wikipedia:Civility code of conduct. Please stop. Engaging in personal attacks is counterproductive in resolving the issue at hand.

For organizational purposes, I will address your concerns specifically pertaining to the article here and will address other points that were brought up later.

As referenced by the sources I provided, which you requested but then ignored, the phrase "a member of" when referring to tributary states is completely academic. I am indifferent regarding the use of either, since they are both referenced by credible sources. However, in regards to conciseness, the label I proposed is far more concise and free of unnecessary detail. The two are reproduced for your convenience.

"Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system (1392-1895)"

"Tributary state of the Ming Dynasty (1392-1637) and the Qing Dynasty (1637-1895)"

In regards to consistency, as I mentioned in my previous statements, "Many of the pages of the Imperial Chinese tributary states have differing labels, each inconsistent with one-another. Look the current discrepancies between the pages of Joseon, the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Nguyen Dynasty for example. Some include the names of dynasties, some include the labels "nominal" and "practical" and some contain neither."

In addition, some of these infoboxes provide links for clarification, some provide other links and some provide none at all.

This section will deal with the remainder of the issues you brought up.

The use of the Warsaw Pact example, if you read the reasoning, is relevant to the issue at hand. The discrepancy between time periods does not undermine the legitimacy of the example in the context it was used. The argument, in its base form, is that when states that enter into a relationship with a larger country, the status of their membership within the system is not influenced by their means of entry. Their respective statuses are consistent, despite some being forced into the relationship while others willingly entered.

My first request was based on misconceptions I had regarding the tributary system's role in East Asia. Thanks to the contributions of user @De 4 de 171, I now understand why this status should be included.

- If you read the reasons I used to substantiate my requests, then you would see that it was not "typical PoV," but rather my attempt to abide by the guidelines of WP:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX

In regards to your example of Mongolia, the label is unsourced and factually incorrect. Mongolia was not a vassal state of the Qing dynasty, but rather a part of the Qing Empire, as it did not have internal autonomy. There is a significant distinction. I will mention that error on the talk page.

Since it seems that the primary disagreement you have with my edit is maintaining the style of the label, "tributary state," I drafted a compromise listed below that I think will satisfy both concerns we have regarding the label.

"Tributary State of Imperial China (1392-1895)"

This keeps the style "tributary state" as opposed to "member of" (even though both are academically acceptable) and achieves the conciseness that you and I both agree needs to be achieved.

I hope that you find this acceptable and that we can now achieve consensus.

BUjjsp (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable per WP:LINKCLARITY. The style is "tributary state of XX dynasty" and the current/stable version does not have any problems. Oda Mari (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably, it is apparent that you've misunderstood the content of the link to WP:LINKCLARITY that you provided.

The link you provided to WP:LINKCLARITY does not support what you think it does. The example it provides demonstrates that the hyperlink, "Requiem" would be unacceptable, as opposed to "Mozart's Requiem", because the latter is more clear in terms of the link it redirects to.

To clarify the example it uses, due to the fact that the hyperlink "Mozart's Requiem" is more specific to the name of the article Mozart's Requiem, it is more effective than the hyperlink, "Requiem", which is not as specific to the reader. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have regarding the link you provided.

In fact, the link, WP:LINKCLARITY actually supports the institution of my edit in its original form: "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system."

Since my original edit contains a more accurate portrayal of the system by specifying the "Imperial Chinese Tributary System" within the label, as opposed to the vagueness of "tributary state," it is actually more appropriate to be used as the status label for Joseon, according to guidelines set forth by WP:LINKCLARITY.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way. Please know that I mean no offense in this statement, but from what I've gathered, it seems that you haven't been able to understand a lot of the previous statements I've made, possibly due to a language barrier. Additionally, based on the content and sentence structure of your previous statements, it seems that your proficiency in the English language is unfit for the continuation of this conversation.

Please continue only if you have any concrete evidence you can provide in opposition of my edit. As of now, I stand by the institution of my original edit, in light of the new information you provided through WP:LINKCLARITY.

BUjjsp (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant link to Imperial China was inappropriate as it's a general term. The link to Imperial China is equivalent to the link to Requiem and xx dynasty is the link to Requiem (Mozart) or Requiem (Verdi). As I wrote above, the current version has the link to Imperial Chinese tributary system. Please click the word "Tributary state" in the infobox. The reason I think the dynasty name/s are needed is that it's reader friendly, especially for those who have little knowledge on East Asian history. I don't think they know the names and chronological order of Chinese dynasties. Just "Imperial China" is not helpful. Oda Mari (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I still don't think you understand the guidelines set forth by WP:LINKCLARITY.

If you take a look at the second edit I proposed, "Tributary State of Imperial China," there was no link to Imperial China, so I fail to see the comparison you're trying to make.

To be absolutely clear, the WP:LINKCLARITY states, in short, that hyperlinks should be as specific as possible to their destination pages. In this case, the hyperlink: "tributary state" violates the guidelines because it, in its wording, does not specify the specific tributary system, the Imperial Chinese tributary system. By these guidelines, the hyperlink: "tributary state" which is currently in place, is too vague.

As a result, my original edit - "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system", abides by these guidelines best, as it accurately portrays the page that it links to.

Additionally, as I've stated several times now, the inclusion of dynasty names in the status section of the infobox is unnecessary. Since the purpose/function of the Imperial Chinese tributary system did NOT change between the Ming and Qing Dynasties, including the individual names does not reveal any key information pertinent to the structure of the Kingdom of Joseon. Keeping in mind the requirements of conciseness and selective inclusion of ONLY key facts set forth by WP:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX as discussed in my previous statements, omission of the dynasty names helps to best serve the function of the infobox.

It is possible that some readers are not familiar with Chinese/East Asian history to the extent to where they know the dynasty names. However, that is not the purpose of this article, let alone the infobox. As you said, this article is about Joseon exclusively, NOT Imperial China. It is not this job of Joseon's infobox to detail specifics regarding the history of Imperial China.

I stand by my original edit: "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system (1392-1895)" as it best satisfies the requirements set forth by WP:Infobox, MOS:INFOBOX and WP:LINKCLARITY.

Please read the statements I've made carefully and respond only if you have factual evidence that conflicts with my edit.

BUjjsp (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not repeat yourself. I don't want to repeat myself, but I say this again. Did you click the word "tributary state" in the infobox? The word is hyperlinked to Imperial Chinese tributary system by piped link, not to tributary state. Here is the example. Click this tributary state. Your request is vague. "(1392-1895)" rings nothing. Using the word "member" is problematic and misleading in the context because it's only a Chinese diplomatic/trading method and the relationship was bilateral and the treatment was different by countries and by dynasties. And unlike Korea, other neighboring countries were not always "tributary state" and they could quit the relationship. It is clear that there will never be consensus. Please read WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you cannot accept it, please read WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests and ask for a resolution request. Oda Mari (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to have to repeat myself either, but it is more than apparent that you still do not understand what WP:LINKCLARITY is saying.

Let me try to explain the content of the article in the simplest terms I can. WP:LINKCLARITY states that the hyperlink should be as specific as possible to the page it redirects to. Notice that in the "Mozart's Requiem" example given, BOTH the hyperlinks "Requiem" and "his Requiem" redirect to the page Requiem (Mozart). However, according to WP:LINKCLARITY, only the hyperlink, "his Requiem" is acceptable because it specifies the article it redirects to in its wording.

I have clicked the link and I am well aware that it redirects to the Imperial Chinese tributary system page. However, in this case, the use of the hyperlink, "tributary state," to refer to the page, Imperial Chinese tributary system actually violates the guidelines of WP:LINKCLARITY. It would be improved upon if the hyperlink specified which tributary system it was referring to in its wording.

If this is still not clear enough, please go back and carefully reread the contents of WP:LINKCLARITY.

The use of the word "member of" is not problematic and I've proven this. I've presented to you multiple academic sources upon YOUR REQUEST that support the use of this term. Please stop ignoring information that I've previously provided. It makes this discussion redundant and forces me to repeat myself.

Additionally, as I stated before, all the tributary states were grouped collectively in the Imperial Chinese tributary system. Historians do not give a distinct label to Joseon or any of the other tributaries due to discrepancies between their means of entry but rather refer to all of them as either "tributaries," "tributary states," "members of the tributary system" or "members of the sinocentric system," etc.

If you can, please provide a source that refers to Joseon by a different term than the other tributary system members, such as Annam, the Ryukyu Kingdom and others.

I hate to bring this up again, but it seems as though your proficiency in English is inadequate for this discussion. From what I gather, you have been unable to understand the source WP:LINKCLARITY that you provided, despite my several attempts to explain it to you. On top of this, you have either flat out ignored or been unable to comprehend many of the substantiated points that I've brought up thus far.

Please consider all this carefully before responding. If you still have digressions that I have not yet refuted, please state them.

BUjjsp (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseon is a historical Kingdom of Korea, please stop Sinocentrism. Sinocentrism is not what Wikipedia for.Oneslin (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For the Japanese editor, please read carefully Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects. Sinocentrism is giving unbalanced aspects to this article. It is a violation of Wiki principle.Oneslin (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm intimately familiar with and involved with most of the leading scholars in Korean Studies. I've worked and studied closely with the leading figures on Choson history, in Korean and outside Korea. Most the the articles cited for inclusion in the info box are out of context and biased - even if is Palais. He too was heavily influenced by Fairbankian models which have repeatedly been proven misleading and incorrect. The Japanese editor fails to understand the argument - completely. Yes, a discussion within the article is important, but on the banner is very misleading, unnecessary, outdated, and displays a lack of familiarity with most current scholarship and narrative trends. In one word = SINOCENTRIC. such views are very old fashioned and, well, laughed at by the newest generation of scholars as examples of cultural imperialism that some scholars continually display in trying to downplay the central importance of Korean kingdoms and dynasties in East Asia. Its getting old. Please update your knowledge and get more informed on this controversy before subjecting wiki to your cultural imperialism. If your obsession with this cannot be eased, then follow the other suggestions repeatedly made and place it further down in the box - maybe down at the bottom, because that would more accurately reflect its overall importance to the historical narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindlessbuddha (talk • contribs) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions regarding this issue on the pages of other tributary system members, such as Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?, which has already concluded and Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#Rfc: Infobox, which is still open for discussion. You bring up some interesting points. In fact, I've been wondering, if the tributary system was so integral to the political structure of its members that it warrants a status label in the infobox in the English wiki, why isn't "tributary state" used as the status label for the same pages of these member states on the Chinese wiki, Korean wiki, Japanese wiki, etc? It seems sensible that the writers on these wikis (which are arguably the most knowledgeable regarding the subject) would be the first to include this status label, yet it is absent in each. However, for the sake of discussion, if you wish to advance your claim, it would be best if it was substantiated by academic sources. You are welcome to start a Request for comment if you'd like. BUjjsp (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Request sources

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) 20:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Joseon Kingdom or Joseon Dynasty?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in this RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Another user has stated that this article should be about the political entities ruled by the House of Yi (aka the Joseon Dynasty), to include the Joseon Kingdom and the Korean Empire. The user claims that academia rarely discuss the Kingdom of Joseon in its own right, always either the Joseon Dynasty or the Joseon Era. Should Joseon be rewritten or renamed Joseon Dynasty, or is the current coverage adequate? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Split into dynastic and geopolitical articles. I lean toward StG88's interpretation (in the thread above), that we should separate the articles on the dynasties of rulers vs. the articles on the countries, where feasible. An article on the House of Yi a.k.a. the Joseon Dynasty would cover the fact that it included at one point the Koreah Empire, but these are not identical topics. Cf. House of Bourbon: "The House of Bourbon ... is a European royal house of French origin, a branch of the Capetian dynasty .... Bourbon kings first ruled Navarre and France in the 16th century. By the 18th century, members of the Bourbon dynasty also held thrones in Spain, Naples, Sicily, and Parma. Spain and Luxembourg currently have Bourbon monarchs." We treat all those as separate articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We can set House of Yi and Korean Empire and Joseon; one is the genealogical history and the other the state. Ogress _smash! 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Joseon and the Korean Empire are nation-states, while the House of Yi is a dynasty, and the Joseon Dynasty is equivalent to the House if Yi Jangdan (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• For most of the English speaking people, 'Dynasty' is a soap opera, a competitor of the 'Dallas' soap opera. Both were about a sequence of powerful people from the same family. And therefore, we have to use dynasty with that meaning, using the reader's words. Therefore, we have to translate 明朝 by Ming State or Ming Period (depending on the context). The fact that a lot of academics are using Ming Dynasty to translate 明朝 is partly an illustration of the well known tradutore/tradittore problematic. And partly an amusing hint about how much 'Western professional historians' are on their knees in front of the dynastic people. A meaningful lapsus, like the rückhaltlos / rückgratlos lapsus pointed by Freud.

It remains that this article is about both the Joseon State and the Joseon Period. Therefore, 'Joseon', the actual title, is the most efficient one, meaning 'Joseon, broadly construed'. If you really want to improve this article, better expand the 'nobi' section. They were people too, weren't they ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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.

Joseon Dynasty and the Korean Empire

The vast majority of sources consider the Korean Empire as a segment of the Joseon period of Korean history. Did it theoretically cease to exist in 1897, when the name 朝鮮 was replaced by 大韓? Yes, but that shouldn't matter - academia calls the Empire part of the Joseon Dynasty, and Wikipedia should reflect academia. For example, Baekje changed its official name in the sixth century, yet Wikipedia has no problem with referring to everything up to 660 as "Baekje."

The Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, which is governmental and hence broadly reflective of the Korean academia, defines it as "1392년부터 1910년까지 518년간 이씨(李氏)가 27대에 걸쳐 집권했던 왕조", which translates roughly to "the dynasty in which 27 kings of the House of Yi ruled, from 1392 to 1910." Or from The History of Korea by Djun Kil Kim, which is a fairly good English-language synopsis of Korean history, again where "Joseon" is used to refer to the Korean Empire; "in the early twentieth century, Joseon Korea, an isolated nation, was absolutely disregarded by the imperial powers in the world." Or just look at the article's own sources: a good number explicitly state that the Joseon/Choson/Yi dynasty lasted until 1910.The Library of Congress's subject headings classify Korean Empire history as Joseon history.

If nobody responds, I'll revert the template back to Joseon Korea having ended in 1910.--太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, some academia calls the Empire part of the Yi or Joseon Dynasty, because House of Yi existed as the ruling royal/imperial family of Korea, before the Japanese annexation of the peninsula, ending Joseon Dynasty rule. But the infobox template was named as Kingdom of Joseon, not Joseon dynasty. And it is obvious that the article actually covers the Kingdom of Joseon rather than Joseon Dynasty, so that there is no section regarding the Korean empire, which is excluded from the article. Conprix (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Empire of Korea" is considered a part of the "Joseon period" of Korean history by academia, which is synonymous with the topic of this article. King Seong renamed Baekje the "Southern Buyeo" (南扶餘). From the thirty-seventh book of the Samguk Sagi,

"至二十六世聖王移都所夫里 國號南扶餘"

"By the time of King Seong, the twenty-sixth king, the capital was moved to Soburi. The country was [re]named the Southern Buyeo."

But Wikipedia's article on Baekje continues to call the "Southern Buyeo" Baekje, because academics do so, and Wikipedia is not in a position where it can classify historical periods as it wants. The same should apply to the Joseon Dynasty.

Doing a cursory search on Naver's collection of encyclopedias, every one of them refers to "the Joseon period" as having lasted to 1910. So does Everyday Life in Joseon-Era Korea: Economy and Society by Michael D. Shin, who who studies the period academically. I'll reiterate that the Library of Congress classifies the Empire as the Joseon era of Korean history.

Or, for that matter, the dynasty founded by Yi Seonggye after the abdication of Wang Yo was not called the Joseon until February 15 1393, when the Ming ambassador Han Shangzhi and others announced that the Hongwu Emperor had selected "朝鮮" as the name of the new Korean state. Before that day, Yi Seonggye still ruled the Kingdom of Goryeo (高麗國), not the Kingdom of Joseon. If this article is going to be pedantic about terminology to the point that the Korean Empire is not included, how come the article still states that the Joseon Dynasty began in 1392? --太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 and 太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純: first off, I would advise you to change your signature due to the length of your username. As for the matter at hand, the other responding user is correct. This article is about the Joseon Kingdom, not the Joseon Dynasty. The former ended in 1897. While the "Joseon Era" may have lasted until 1910, the Joseon Kingdom didn't outlive the 18th century. You can't insert a mix-up of facts into the article. Have you considered creating an independant article for the Joseon Dynasty? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask why the article is about the kingdom? The polity with the name 朝鮮 ("Joseon"), which was used by the Yi kings from 1393 to 1897, is not in itself a subject of academic study - the Joseon era, in which the descendants of Yi Seonggye ruled the peninsula from 1392 to 1910, is always the unit of discussion, as previously quoted sources show. And considering the similarities between imperial China and the last two Korean dynasties, it is curious that this article is not about the dynasty, when all Chinese states after Qin are referred to as dynasties in Wikipedia. (of course East Asian "dynasties" are the state, not the lineage as in the Habsburg dynasty - the Zhou clan of Zhou Yuanzhang would never be referred to as the Ming dynasty, because the term 明朝, translated to "Ming dynasty" in English, is solely about the state ruled by the Zhou emperors) On a final note, the focus on the use of the name 朝鮮 is a bit strange, since, as mentioned, it was not until 1393 that it was ascertained as the new name of the dynasty - and yet this article (rightfully) states that Joseon began in 1392, which is when the dynasty of Yi Seonggye began, and not when 朝鮮 became the name of the kingdom. "The Joseon Kingdom" as you seem to be defining it would have begun in 1393.--太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純 (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純: well, I would consider China to be the exception rather than the rule. My specialty area is the Ryukyu Islands, and the countries that existed there had numerous dynasties, but they weren't referred to by their dynasty like China was (FYI, Ryukyu was in total awe of China). Going with your line of thinking, why not rename Ryukyu Kingdom as First Shō Dynasty? My answer would be that the article is about a country and not a lineage. So I think you should start an independant article about the Joseon Dynasty (List of monarchs of Ryukyu Islands exists). And 朝鮮王國 was what it was called wasn't it? You can just add a note that the country was renamed after its rulers gained power (the same thing happened with Chūzan and Ryukyu). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(I'm assuming you read Chinese) First, "dynasty" in East Asian context is simply a translation of 朝. 明朝 means the Chinese state under the emperors of the Zhou family, not the Zhou family itself. 陳朝 - the Trần dynasty - is the Vietnamese state under the Trần monarchs, not the lineage of Trần Thái Tông. So on - China isn't an exception here.

For instance, John B. Duncan's The Origins of the Choson Dynasty is not about the lineage of Yi Seonggye, but is an analysis about the central officialdom and bureaucracy of the early state founded by Yi Seonggye. Someone like Duncan aren't nobodies - he's the director of the UCLA Center for Korean Studies. This JSTOR article freely uses "the Kingdom of Joseon" and "the Joseon Dynasty" as total synonyms while including the Korean Empire as part of the "Kingdom of Joseon." Burglind Jungmann, the UCLA's first Professor of Korean Art History, has written a book titled Pathways to Korean Culture: Paintings of the Joseon Dynasty, again referring to the five-century era of Korean history as the Joseon Dynasty rather than the lineage of Yi Seonggye.

To your question "why not rename Ryukyu Kingdom as First Shō Dynasty" I would respond that the Ryukyu kingdom is the preferred academic term/unit for the Ryukyus, whereas in China and Korea the preferred term is "[Name of the State] Dynasty" and for Vietnam "[Royal/imperial family name] Dynasty."

As side notes, I have made a new signature after multiple promptings, an article about the royal lineage of Yi Seonggye already exists, and the term used was generally 朝鮮國, used nearly 400 times in Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, and not 朝鮮王國, used exactly once in the thousands of volumes comprising the Annals. It's rather a moot point, since we happily call the 大明國 the Ming Dynasty, or 大越國 the Lê dynasty.--太睿光純 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純: Well maybe China and Vietnam follow this rule, but I usually see Korea referred to as "Kingdom of ___" and not "___ Dynasty" (at least in English, Okinawan, and Japanese). Kingdom of Baekje, Kingdom of Silla, Kingdom of Joseon, etc. So if there already exists a fully independent article on the Joseon Dynasty, which states that the descendants of Yi controlled Joseon and the Korean Empire from 1392–1910 (the "Joseon Era"), then what exactly do you want to change in this article? If you want it to focus more on the "Joseon Era", you can freely add information as you please, or make an independant article (like how Tokugawa Shogunate and Edo Period have separate articles). Well, I'm assuming that's because 朝鮮王國 was more of an exonym and you were reading out of the "Annals"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Baekje and Silla are fundamentally different from Goryeo and Joseon, especially considering that Silla was not actually a dynastic state. The "Dynasty" use applies only to the last two dynasties that were much more Sinicized - Goryeo and Joseon. I think I've shown that "Joseon/Choson Dynasty" is extremely commonplace everywhere as a term meaning the kingdom ruled by the Yi kings.

My point is that the House of Yi article is not about the Joseon Dynasty; it's about the royal family of the Joseon Dynasty. The Joseon Dynasty is the political entity (entities) ruled by the descendants of the Yi family.

The original point of this discussion, which has digressed a bit, is that the article should include the Korean Empire. I still stand by this, because the unit of discussion is always the Joseon Dynasty or the Joseon era and never 朝鮮國 in itself, and the vast majority of sources include the Empire as a segment of 518-year Joseon history. That's it, really.

The Hongwu Emperor uses 朝鮮國 in the first years of the dynasty, the government of the Ryukyus does so in 1430, centuries later a a Qing envoy in 1685 also uses the term "朝鮮國," as does the treaty with Japan in 1876. 朝鮮國 was definitely the exonym as well.--太睿光純 (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@太定太世文端世睿成燕中仁明宣光仁孝顯肅景英正純憲哲高純: I see no point in this article including the Korean Empire any further than "Technically, 1897 marks the end of the Joseon period, as the official name of the empire was changed; however the Joseon Dynasty would still reign, albeit perturbed by Japan and Russia" and a wikilink to Korean Empire. If you want to discuss more, then perhaps we should just open a WP:Request for comment and get some outside input? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you respond to the new section in the talk page? Thanks. --太睿光純 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

On the RfC, I would note that the House of Yi is never referred to as the Joseon Dynasty. As I've said, the Joseon Dynasty is always the Joseon state, just as the Ming Dynasty is never used to refer to the descendants of Zhu Yuanzhang.--太睿光純 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A more elaborate explanation on why this article should be changed back to "Joseon Dynasty"

Why the article should incorporate the Imperial period

Before beginning, it seems that an explanation of "dynasty" in the English-language historiography of many East Asian states is necessary: to quote from Frederick W. Mote's Imperial China: 900-1800": "Dynasty as used in Chinese history has three levels of meaning. At the core of those meanings is the essential one: the emperor, his immediate family, and his lineal descendants. Dynasty means the continuous rule within successive generations of males in one patriline. (In some circumstances one generation may provide more than one ruler, as when a younger brother or a cousin succeeds.) A second level of meaning derived from the first is the period of history in which that succession of rulers holds the throne. The third level of meaning is the country, the nation, the territory under those rulers [.....] In short, "the Ming dynasty" means Zhu Yuanzhang and his imperial successors; it means the period in history from 1638 to 1644; and it means the country and people of China during those years." This applies not only to China, but to many Vietnamese states, as we see from Wikipedia's own article on the Trần dynasty. It also applies to the Korean kingdoms of the latest millennium. Whether "dynasty" should continue to be used in academia as opposed to less ambiguous terms can be disputed, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do it.

Anyways, I will contend that the vast majority of sources use "the Joseon period" or "the Joseon dynasty" as their primary unit of historical discussion, as opposed to the state named "Joseon" which existed in Korea from 1393 to 1897. By this I mean that despite naming and ritualistic differences, the dynastic state that existed from 1392 to 1910 is discussed as a whole by historians under terms such as "the Joseon dynasty" or "the Joseon period." Even when subdivided, the Korean Empire era is almost always clumped in with the rest of the late 19th century marked by the advent of imperialism into Korea, a period known in Korean as "Joseon Malgi" (朝鮮 末期) or, to use a more dated term, "Guhan Malgi" (舊韓 末期). If we really want to divide the Joseon era, although I don't necessarily see why we should, it would be more along the lines of "Early Joseon period" up to around 1600, "Late Joseon period" up to 1870, and "End of the Joseon period" up to the Japanese annexation in 1910. This article should deal with Korea from 1392 to 1910 just as Ming Dynasty deals with China from 1368 to 1644.

According to Wikipedia:Sources, "if available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Well, let's begin with the fact that many academic books, if they deal with the Neo-Confucian statecraft or politics, will contain the phrase (emphasis mine) "Korea -- Politics and government -- 1392-1910" before the text begins. If it has more of a cultural bent it might say "Korea -- Social life and customs -- 1392-1910." And for some of these books published by university presses:

• Culture and the State in Late Choson Korea, an anthology of academic papers published by Harvard University Asia Center, speaks in terms of "Choson dynasty," "Choson Korea," and "Choson period." Even the first is spoken of very frequently as equivalent to the historical period in which Korea was under the Yi monarchs, for instance page 134 "By no stretch of the imagination was the Choson dynasty (1392-1910) the best of times for Buddhism in Korea." The term "Choson period" is also followed by the dates "1392~1910" (see page 160). The date 1897 is not mentioned once.
• Beyond Birth: Social Status in the Emergence of Modern Korea, also published by Harvard University Asia Center, categorizes Korean history into subdivisions in the prologue. For the period in question Hwang uses the phrase "1392 - 1910: Choson dynasty," and throughout the book "Choson dynasty" is used consistently to refer to Korea from 1392 to 1910, even in the Google Books introduction.
• Epistolary Korea: Letters in The Communicative Space of the Choson, 1392-1910, published by Columbia University Press, states from the very title that the book will use "the Joseon period" from 1392 to 1910 as the unit of discussion. Indeed the very first sentence of the book is "This book is about the epistles and epistolography of Choson Korea (1392~1910)." The Korean Empire is mentioned once as a sidenote, "an effort to modernize the monarchy."
• The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800 also consistently uses "Choson dynasty": "for more than five centuries of the Choson dynasty (1392~1910), Koreans proudly declared that they had created a cultural replica of China on their small peninsula."
• From a 2015 volume of The Journal of Korean Studies, the term "the Choson period (1392-1910)" is used by two different authors (page 7 "Feeling Power in Early Choson Korea" and page 114 "Dynamic Korea"). None of the papers claim or even imply that the Choson period ended in 1897.
• Tradition, Treaties, and Trade - Qing Imperialism and Choson Korea, 1850-1910, published by Harvard University Press, again refers to Korea up to 1910 as "Choson Korea" from the very title. In fact page 1 explicitly refers to "the Choson Kingdom (1392-1910)" and page 29 repeats this: "the Korean Choson Kingdom (1392-1910)."
• A History of Korea: From "Land of the Morning Calm" to States in Conflict by Jinwung Kim, published by Indiana University Press, has a chapter titled "The Second Half of the Choson Period (1650-1910)." It is needless to say that Kim also categorizes the Joseon period as incorporating the Korean Empire.
• Women and Confucian Cultures in Premodern China, Korea, and Japan published by the University of California uses "the Choson dynasty (1392-1910)" as the unit of discussion, ie "the later centuries of the Choson dynasty (1392-1910), when intellectual life was more fully committed to a Confucian worldview" (page 78), "elite women of the Choson dynasty (1392-1910)" or "the patriarchal system that evolved during the Choson dynasty (1392-1910)" (page 279).
• Treasures from Korea: Arts and Culture of the Joseon Dynasty, 1392-1910 published by the Yale University Press again uses the "Joseon Dynasty" as the unit of discussion as we see from the title.

Now let's take the time to review some of the texts that do separate the Joseon from the Korean Empire, as approximately seen here as a search ("1392 1897 Korea") in Google Books, yielding about 3000 results. First off, many of them are recent - 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, even 2015. This makes me wonder if the existence of this Wikipedia article may have contributed to the numbers. Besides these new ones, there are some extremely old sources, including some written at a time when the Korean Empire existed (such as Hulbert's History of Korea). Only a few of them are written by academics or are published by university presses, and the topic of many are not Joseon or Korean history. The contrast with "1392 1910 Korea," which yields 8 times the results, is fairly striking.

Besides academic texts,

• The Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, widely considered the most extensive encyclopedia in Korean studies, defines "Joseon" as "a dynasty in which 27 kings of the House of Yi ruled, from 1392 to 1910." Link here for Korean speakers. The Korean Empire is dealt with as part of Joseon history, and consequently the history of the Empire appears in the article on Joseon. And in fact the article on the Korean Empire defines its topic as "a Joseon dynastic state that existed from October 12 1897 to August 29 1910."
• Many introductory and non-academic books a layman would be expected to find, such as Seth's A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, Hwang's A History of Korea, Kim's The History of Korea, or Peterson's A Brief History of Korea all classify the Korean Empire within the category of "Joseon," "Joseon dynasty," "Joseon kingdom," "Joseon period," and so on.
• Many of this article's own references seems to prove my point...

My suggestion is that the page include the decade of history represented by the Korean Empire. I don't necessarily see a reason to change the title this far on.--太睿光純 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I would personally prefer the page to be named Joseon Kingdom. Admiral Yi Sun-shin once said "If you abandon the sea, you abandon the Kingdom." And if we include the Korean Empire here, having a separate article would be redundant, no? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I know the line "바다를 버리는 것은 조선을 버리는 것이다" or some equivalent showed up in this movie and the novels that were its basis, but I don't recall having read it in any historical work, and the context of the line in the actual novel series is during a private meeting. But the historicity of the line is beside the point, because the word used in the line was 조선, cosen / joseon, which simply means "Korea" (as it still does in North Korea, for example). "Kingdom" is a translation that does not actually convey the meaning of the text. And wouldn't using this line as a reason to name the page "Joseon Kingdom" border on original research?

Anyways, yes, I would support a merger of the Korean Empire article into this one. Currently there is no content whatsoever in the KE article that cannot be digested into a longer and better Joseon article. --太睿光純 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like that would be like merging Ryukyu Kingdom into Chūzan just because they were both ruled by the same family. The fact remains that the Korean Empire was declared, and the King of Joseon elevated himself to Emperor. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The example of Ryukyu is honestly irrelevant. If you're going to compare Korea to something, it should be China (it is quite obvious that China is Korea's closest analogue - Duncan in his The Origins of the Choson Dynasty, among other works, explicitly mentions this). Anyways you shouldn't compare Joseon Korea to Ryukyu or China or Japan, the title should be decided on its own merit. It is quite clear that most sources, academic or otherwise, classify the Joseon period from 1392 to 1910 as the unit of discussion.

I will also remind you that Gwangjong of Goryeo also briefly made himself emperor in the early 960s and termed his capital of Gaegyeong "an imperial capital." (皇都) Does this mean that Goryeo should not include the three years that Gwangjong took up such imperial pretensions? Deciding that the Korean Empire should be differentiated from the rest of the Joseon period is IMO borderline Original Research. --太睿光純 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear 태예광순. I agree with you that period 1897–1910 is to short to make sense when studied in isolation. Since no one suggest to agglomerate with the explicit Japanese colonial period, the only remaining choice is to agglomerate with the period 1392–1897. And, as a miracle, the result of this kind of Original Research is in coincidence with what most of the sources are doing, i.e. considering 1392–1910 as a single entity: the Joseon period. Moreover, I have a doubt about using here 'Joseon Dynasty' as an equivalent to 'Joseon period'. As said above, the average English reader will unavoidably understand Dynasty as in the Dallas soap-opera. And, indeed, a shift in sources can be seen to rather use Joseon period. Pldx1 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

==> 朝鮮 as above means that Tangun Chosun ==> Therefore, it must explain the term shipbuilding (Tangun Korea), Lee shipbuilding should be described in the (shipbuilding Lee)

Pldx1 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

File:朝鮮 KOREA 3.jpg

Different thought about Monarchs of Korea - Joseon dynasty

Different thought about Monarchs of Korea - Joseon dynasty

[李朝實錄] 太祖, 2年(癸酉 / 明 洪武 26年 2月 15日(庚寅)

可自今除高麗國名, 遵用朝鮮之號。(trans : It is not use with KOREA, I will use joseon)

※ KORE + Area 國 (高麗國) [高句麗 KOKURE 高麗 KORE] IS RIGHT ?

※ CHIN + Area 國 (震國)

檀君朝鮮 (Monarchs of Korea = Kingdom of KOREA)

李氏朝鮮 (Joseon dynasty) → DAI HAN Imperial

--안성균 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

(joseon is dangunjoseon) and (lee's joseon is lee's joseon)

=============================================================================================

朝鮮이라 함은 檀君朝鮮을 뜻하는 것이요, 후에 나온 箕子朝鮮, 衛滿朝鮮, 李氏朝鮮이라 해야 옳습니다 !

[三國遺事] (紀異第一) 雄乃假化而㛰之. 孕生子號曰壇君王倹. 以唐髙即位五十年庚寅 唐堯即位元年戊辰, 則五十年丁巳非庚寅也. 疑其未實. 都平壤城 今西亰始稱朝鮮

[李朝實錄] 世祖 4卷, 2年(1456 丙子 / 明 景泰 7年) 7月 1日(戊辰) 更定朝鮮檀君神主爲朝鮮始祖檀君之位, 後朝鮮始祖箕子爲後朝鮮始祖箕子之位, 高句麗始祖爲高句麗始祖東明王之位。

==> 상기와 같이 朝鮮은 단군조선을 뜻합니다 ==> 따라서, 조선이라 함은 (단군조선)을 설명해야 하며, 이씨조선은 (이씨조선)에서 설명해야 합니다 ========================================================================================================= --안성균 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What follows was a Google translation of the message of User:안성균. With the intent to suggest that a better translation could be welcome. Four month after, this intent is no more apparent. Sorry for that. Pldx1 (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC) North Korea Tangun 이라 함 은 을뜻 하는 것이요, 후에 나온 Jizi Korea, Wiman Korea, Lee Korea 이라 해야 옳 습니다! 朝鮮 shall mean a means of 檀 君 朝鮮, came after 箕子 朝鮮, 衛 滿 朝鮮, 李氏 朝鮮 is right. Should I say!

[Three Kingdoms] (JI exclusive first) of male and 㛰 it is false. Pregnant twins altar king Xiao Yue Jian. In Tang Gao Accession five decades GY TangYao Boshin year reign, the fifty years of non-GY also Dimba . suspect it is not real. all turns the Pyongyang City Imanishi said before North Korea

[Annals of the Joseon Dynasty] ancestor Volume 4, 2 years (1456 Rat / Jingtai seven years) July 1 (Boshin) Korea Tangun more fixed altar is a bit ancestor of Tangun's Korea, after North Korea ancestor Jizi bit Korea Jizi ancestor, the ancestor of Goguryeo Goguryeo beginning 祖东明 king of the place.

Desinfobox

The desinfobox says: Yeonguijeong: |deputy4 = [[Yeonguijeong|Chae Jegong]], |year_deputy4 = 1793–1801. This is amusing for many reasons. Finding why is left as an exercise to the reader.Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joseon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928110202/http://www.instrok.org/instrok/lesson1/page01.html?thisChar=4 to http://www.instrok.org/instrok/lesson1/page01.html?thisChar=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050313144134/http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~mss1/choson.html to http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~mss1/choson.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050113191703/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501120024.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501120024.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202204421/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200601/200601270013.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200601/200601270013.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604062746/http://www.bennettsfineart.com/lee%20dynasty.htm to http://www.bennettsfineart.com/lee%20dynasty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

description in the infobox regarding the tributary system

Hi Sturmgewehr88. Just wanted to make a separate talk page section to understand your point of view, and avoid having this dispute escalate to an edit war. In the meantime, I've restored the page to the stable version that's been used for more than a year and a half, which precludes the description: "Independent Kingdom, Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". From what I've seen around wikipedia, the description in the infobox pertaining to a country's "status" always details a relationship that compromises the country's sovereignty to another entity (take the British raj, the Nguyễn dynasty, and British Hong Kong for example). This makes sense, because we would only want to include the most important information in the infobox. Consequently, I don't believe that the relationship between Imperial China and Joseon in the infobox warrants inclusion, considering, as the sources demonstrate, that the relationship was almost exclusively a trade-based, or economic one - as Joseon was in fact independent. If we were to include all of the complex commercial and economic relationships that historical countries around the world had, we'd have infoboxes cluttered with such information - mentioned before far more important information such as its form of government, dates of existence, etc. Keeping with the idea that we'd want to make this section of the page as concise as possible, and considering that the nature of the relationship was one that didn't infringe on Joseon's autonomy, it seems that this information would be best elaborated upon in the body of the article. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlackRanger88: See Qing invasion of Joseon. It could be argued that Korea was annexed or vassalized like when the Mongols had previously invaded Korea, therefore it is important to note that it was independent, yet a member of the tributary system. The Ryukyu Kingdom also has its sovereignty explained in its infobox for similar reasons. Just because all former countries don't use this feature doesn't mean none of them should. There have been multiple discussions since 2006 where this information has been worked out, so there is prior consensus to this information's inclusion and therefore the "stable" version was that of before your unilateral removal. Pinging @Oda Mari and BUjjsp: because of their involvement in the most recent of these earlier discussions. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Thanks for commenting. Korea being annexed by the Qing is false, and the sources demonstrate that Joseon's tributary status was entirely nominal, indicating no evidence of a removal of national sovereignty (the Qing did not interfere with Joseon's politics once the war was over and a peace treaty had been established). The sources seem explicitly clear on this subject, and staying true to the sources is imperative for us as editors to follow. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the Ryukyu kingdom to comment on their specific situation, but for Joseon, Vietnam (the Tay Son and Nguyen dynasties), plus Siam, Burma and numerous other states, inclusion in the tributary system did not imply a loss of sovereignty, hence why I contest a description of this largely economic relationship taking up space in any of these countries' infoboxes. I welcome other editors' contributions to this subject. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlackRanger88: But the Qing did keep the king as a hostage in Mukden in the aftermath of the war and force Joseon to enter into tributary relations with them, which seems like an infringement of sovereignty to me. Exactly which sources are you reading from? Because of the special relationship between China and Ryukyu and Korea, this information is relevant enough to be addressed in their infoboxes, as has been discussed and debated multiple times over the years. See the related discussion at Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed? (the two users I pinged earlier are currently inactive). We could hold another RfC if you insist. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The king being taken hostage is factually inaccurate. Rather, two of King Injo's sons were sent to the Qing capital as part of peace negotiations following the conflict. The sources I'm reading from are the ones attached to the infobox description, all of which confirm Joseon's independence. The fact of the matter is that the Qing never exercised power over Joseon following the war, preserving the autonomy of Joseon's government. Consequently, I don't see why this "special relationship" you describe, which as indicated by the sources was almost entirely economic and nominal, merits inclusion in the infobox - as it should by definition only contain the most important information on the article's subject. Requesting @BUjjsp:'s input, as it was their idea to begin the request for comment you linked to. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlackRanger88: The entire point of the previous Rfc surrounding the status section of the infobox was to ensure conciseness and prevent inclusion of unnecessary information that could more effectively be discussed in the body of the article. In fact, there were a couple of editors that addressed concerns similar to yours on the Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#RfC: Infobox page. Your reasoning makes sense, as did that of the editors who shared your concerns on the aforementioned page. Ultimately, I am fine with both Sturmgewehr's proposed edit to add the previous status mentioning Joseon's membership in the imperial tribute system, as well as your advocacy of excluding the label. However, in the interests of conciseness and including only the most integral information in the infobox, I support your suggestion to exclude the label from the infobox and elaborate upon it in more detail in the body of the article. BUjjsp (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming Process of Joseon

User:損齋: Greetings. I noticed your edit and your message on my talk page. Thank you for bringing this information to my attention. I have temporarily reverted your edit because the article would contain directly contradictory information otherwise, until the discrepancy is resolved.

Right now, the English source states "Yi Seong-gye issued a royal edict to proclaim the name of the new dynasty to "Joseon" and issued amnesty to all criminals who opposed the transition in dynasty", which directly contradicts the edit you made "Goryeo was formally renamed "Joseon" under the edict of Emperor Taizu of Ming".

I unfortunately cannot read the Chinese source you provided, but a possible reason for this discrepancy may be that Ming Taizu did not issue a direct "edict" (or command) but rather a suggestion. The English source states that Yi Seong-gye asked for Ming Taizu's opinion on the name of the new Korean kingdom, due to the historically amiable relations between the two countries, trying to decide between two name options - Joseon and Hwaryeong. Ming Taizu's stated that he preferred Joseon, and following this exchange, the source states that Taejo issued the edict to name the kingdom Joseon.

So, to reiterate, it seems that Ming Taizu did not issue an edict/command to name the new dynasty Joseon, but rather offered his suggestion due to Taejo's inquiry. Please let me know what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

On your talkpage I provided the translation. You are right except, according to the word 命, which means order, Ming Taizu did issue an edict instead of a pure suggestion. ----損齋 (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion would be adding the fact that "the renaming of 高麗 to 朝鮮 was confirmed by an edict of Emperor Taizu of Ming".----損齋 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:損齋: Thank you for your response and for providing a translation. My only issue with your suggestion is that it can be confusing for readers if the article two edicts making the exact same endorsement/recommendation are mentioned. To resolve this minor discrepancy, I've found a source that addresses both the contributions of King Taejo and Ming Taizu in the naming process of Joseon.

My suggestion to avoid confusing readers is as follows: "In naming the new dynasty, Taejo contemplated two possibilities - "Hwaryeong" and "Joseon". After much internal deliberation, as well as endorsement by the neighboring Ming dynasty's emperor, Taejo declared the name of the kingdom to be Joseon, a tribute to the ancient Korean state of Gojoseon."

This follows the wording of the new source I found: "...the Chinese endorsed Choson as the name of their neighboring state."

Endorsement is a much stronger word than suggestion, and emphasizes Taizu's affirmation of the name while following the source wording.

I believe this edit appropriately addresses the roles that both Yi and Taizu had in the naming process. Please let me know what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BlackRanger88: I see. I think this will do. Shall you make the change or I? Let me know. ----損齋 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:損齋: I'll go ahead and add it in. Thanks for your contribution. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joseon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newstown.co.kr/newsbuilder/service/article/messmail.asp?P_Index=72824
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610053214/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=112816&v=42 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=112816&v=42
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610053227/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=236670&v=42 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=236670&v=42
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050207052645/http://royalcity.or.kr/ to http://www.royalcity.or.kr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Client state of the Qing dynasty

Wasn't the Joseon dynasty a client state of the Qing dynasty, and shouldn't this be mentioned in the infobox in "status"? (Marxist-Trotskyist Communism (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC))

Hanja should be added to the terms

Many terms in this entry are only written in their Romanized forms and Hangul forms. However, historically they were written with Hanja. Could anybody help with adding hanja to the terms? Thanks a lot.--27.38.9.108 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Dates

The dates given for the Joseon founding are incorrect. The correct date is August 5th, 1392. 7/17 is the date in the lunar-solar calendar (17th day of the 7th month), which should be converted. It is NOT July 17th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwangLA (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We should merge this passage with Korean Empire

{{Merge|Korean Empire | date = March 2021 }} They two are different stages of the same dynasty. Merging should be better.

That wouldn't make much sense, as the Korean Empire was a complete reform of the state, like how the First Republic of Korea ain't the same as the Second Republic of Korea, while both are still South Korea. It would make more sense to create a new article that includes both the Kingdom and Empire period and gives a short summation of both. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Common script

Looking at the history of Korea, the pre-modern Korean elites wrote Hanja, which was borrowed from China, as a text, but they did not know how to speak Chinese without learning it later.

For example, Silla couldn't communicate with China (North-South Dynasty, Tang Dynasty) without an interpreter. Buyeo, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Kara (Gaya) were likewise different from China, and Chinese history books show how their language is interpreted as Chinese. In particular, the Baekje, Silla, and Gaya regions were originally regions where ancient Japanese was spoken, so their language was close to Japanese. Later, through the conquest and domination of Korean-language speakers from Manchuria, the language used was replaced with Korean, and Japanese speakers disappeared from the central and southern parts of the Korean Peninsula. As now, Japanese speakers are left only in the Japanese archipelago.

The later Goryeo and the Joseon elite also had to learn Chinese separately in order to perform interpretations with Chinese envoys or envoys sent to China.

The English version of Wikipedia evokes the illusion as if Korean elites spoke Chinese freely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanja — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to compare it to the Latin language in Europe, Classical Chinese was the written language of the elites but it wasn't an actual spoken language. Just like that even within China the "Chinese language" isn't mutually intelligible among each other if they are from distant provinces but written Chinese remains largely the same. The written language in the infobox doesn't refer to any modern language spoken in China but literary Hanja. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

About The Sin-Chosôn Kingdom/Tae-Chosôn Kingdom? Or About The Yi Dynasty?

If this article is supposed to be about the Sin-Chosôn Kingdom/Tae-Chosôn Kingdom (1392 A.D./C.E. ~ 1897 A.D./C.E.), then why does this article keep referring to it as a Dynasty?

If this article is supposed to be about the Dynasty that ruled the Sin-Chosôn Kingdom/Tae-Chosôn Kingdom (1392 A.D./C.E. ~ 1897 A.D./C.E.) and the Taehan Empire (1897 A.D./C.E. ~ 1910 A.D./C.E.), then that is the Yi Dynasty and there is another confused article supposedly about the Yi Dynasty.

100.2.24.15 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Those references are likely from an older name of the article, as the article used to be called "Joseon Dynasty" before it was moved to "Joseon" later. You are free to clean those references up. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Gallery of the Royal seals of Joseon

I wanted to add a gallery of royal seals to the article, as Joseon used more royal seals (as far as I'm aware of) than the Kingdom of Goryeo. But I am not sure if this should be added to this article or the article about the politics of the Joseon dynasty or perhaps a specialised page for "Seals of Joseon and the Korean Empire".

• 
  before joining the Chinese tributary system period seal used about 10 years.
• 
  Ming dynasty protectorate period seal.
• 
  Qing dynasty protectorate period seal used between 1653 and 1776.
• 
  Qing dynasty protectorate period seal used between 1776 and 1876.
• 
  "Daegunjubo" designed to replace the former sergeant "Joseongukwangjiin".
  used as the seal of the king for documents such as appointment documents for high-ranking government officials and ordinances proclaimed in Korea.- between 1882 and 1897
• 
  "DaejoseonDaegunjubo" were used as ‘the seal of state’ for credentials in diplomatic relations with other countries. : between 1882 ~

--Donald Trung (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

protectorate ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad, wrong translation, I meant tributary state. --Donald Trung (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Done https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1025731580

I added the list, so please add new seals to the gallery in the article. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@고려: (Consideration), could also please add the Chosŏn'gul and Hanja inscriptions and perhaps what they mean in English of each seal? --Donald Trung (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Royal seal was just one.

Classification>Seals by Type>Seal of the State

Sorry, I didn't see another royal seal. There were two royal seals. One was before receiving the royal seal from the emporor(조선왕보,朝鮮王寶) and the other one was after recived the royal seal from the emporor(조선국왕지인,朝鮮國王之印).

There were only two royal seals, but here are many seals. I don't understand why these are royal seal of Joseon. I think these are misinformation. so it should be deleted.

• 
  Seal used from 1392 to 1401.
• 
  Seals used concurrent to the Ming dynasty, from 1401 to 1637.
• 
  Seals used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - used between 1637 and 1653.
• 
  Seal used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - between 1653 and 1776.
• 
  Seal used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - between 1776 and 1876.
• 
  The seal was produced on December 15, 1876, for use in Japanese-related state documents.
• 
  "Daegunjubo" designed to replace the former sergeant "Joseongukwangjiin".
  used as the seal of the king for documents such as appointment documents for high-ranking government officials and ordinances proclaimed in Korea.- between 1882 and 1897
• 
  "DaejoseonDaegunjubo" were used as ‘the seal of state’ for credentials in diplomatic relations with other countries. : between 1882

In the South Korean goverment, 국새(國璽) means "royal seal" in English.

https://theme.archives.go.kr//next/koreaOfRecord/guksae.do

How about change like this?

• 
  Seal used from 1392 to 1401.
• 
  Seals used from 1401 to 1897.

Among many national seals of Joseon, there were two royal seals from establishment to collapse.

National seals of Joseon: Classification>Seal Period>Joseon Dynasty

Royal seals of Joseon: Classification>Seals by Type>Seal of the State

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator88711 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

References

@Creator88711: Just because your particular database search does not find these seals does not mean that they don't exist. There are clearly citations for some of these. Pinging Donald Trung who originally added these and may have more to say on it. Note that Creator88711 also changed the seals in the infobox in this edit.

Also please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't get the ping but I found these edits while checking my e-mails, I initially only found one (1) royal seal but a South Korean user with a Choso√n'gul username did and they added the sources, as I can't read the Korean alphabet I have more trouble searching but I initially came to the same conclusions as the above user and constantly had to correct myself (also like the above user, Creator88711) so I will go with "the angle of verifiability" and the user with the Choso√n'gul username provided sources and they were the one that asked Sodacan to make all the SVG's (except for the one I requested) in the Graphic Lab's Illustration workshop, if I can find their username I will ping them. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Common languages

Other documents in the History of Korea include Classical Chinese in Common languages, but Classical Chinese is a character, not a language, so this should be included in the Common script section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese is a writing system (i.e. script). Classical Chinese is a language. Classical Chinese is written in Traditional Chinese but they are two different things. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Official languages again

@Creator88711: This has been discussed before. You need to read the sources rather than reinstate your changes to the longstanding content without consensus.

Regarding this third repeated removal, academic sources say that the government and officials used Classical Chinese (i.e. hanmun). Classical Chinese is a language. It is not the same as Traditional Chinese or hanja (cf. the existence of Gugyeol, Hyangchal, and Idu script as written bridges between Classical Chinese and Korean as languages), which are writing systems. Classical Chinese written in Traditional Chinese characters and Korean written in hanja use Chinese characters and have some shared vocabulary, but have different grammatical structures, vocabulary, etc.

The academic sources literally state the official usage of the language of Classical Chinese (separately from hanja), so please stop removing it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Bumbubookworm who also reverted the removal of Classical Chinese and its citations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Classical Chinese is in Chinese cultural countries what Latin is in Europe and Arabic in the Islamic World, most infoboxes on historical European and Muslim countries also list Latin or Arabic as the official language so it would make little sense to remove it here as it was the administrative language, even if all the characters are pronounced in Korean (Sino-Korean vocabulary) it doesn't make it any less Classical Chinese. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Status as a exception in historical country wikiboxes

Something where the Joseon article is singled out on is the "Status" section of the Infobox, where it is unanimously presented as a "Member of the Imperial Chinese Tributary system", while none of that is applied to either Dai Viet, Ayutthaya or Sukhothai as well as various other countries in South East Asia, who would fit this criteria as well. The well recorded ambiguity of Joseons relationship to Ming and Qing should be taken in regard, when dealing with this topic. Along with the very formal nature of the tributary relationship that is instead presented from the Sinocentric POV, of which its neutrality in Confucian discourse might be emphasized, yet does not fit either modern academic discourse nor a English language variant of Wikipedia, a site accessed by a wider audience unfamiliar with this topic.

What appears to be a more questionable and implicit recent addition should be under investigation perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FingonFindekáno (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

According to the wiki page for Chinese tributary system, the "system" itself is a western invention, which I agree with, but to say that there is ambiguity in Joseon's relationship with the Ming and Qing needs further clarification. According to the article, Joseon's tributary relationship with the Ming may possibly be the strongest out of all the states that were part of the "system." And Joseon in particular was effected by the Qing claim to tributary overlordship, which was enforced via military means both at the start and end of the dynasty. So I am not sure if the tributary relationship was merely a formality. At least during the Japanese invasions and during the Qing invasions, the relationship took on a real geopolitical dimension beyond just symbolic ritual, which Joseon also practiced whether willingly under the Ming or begrudingly under the Qing. If anything, the existing information points to Joseon being an anomaly in the tributary system if it exists, in that it both conformed to imperial tributary culture and China did affect its stance on foreign affairs. Qiushufang (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The articles mentioned for Dai Viet, Ayutthaya Kingdom, and Sukhothai Kingdom have their own problems and differences from Joseon. Dai Viet is a fairly new article which did not have much content a year ago, at which time it was merely a stub. It does mention that the Vietnamese rulers considered themselves emperors, which is somewhat different from Joseon. Both Ayyuthaya and Sukhothai's articles have more citations needed templates which probably means they're not the most complete articles. Ayyuthaya's does mention it sent tribute to dynasties in China and both articles mention they were tributaries and even vassals to other polities not in China. I assume those take precedence over their participation in the Chinese tributary system, which is superseded by more immediately tangible political relationship to another suzerain. None of these three articles have a status section in their template like Joseon. This is something Joseon shares with Ryukyu Kingdom, which also mentions tributary status to Chinese dynasties, but not the other three articles. Qiushufang (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, many of the Vietnamese dynasty articles do include the tributary status in the infoboxes: Đinh dynasty, Early Lê dynasty, Lý dynasty, Trần dynasty, Lê dynasty, Tây Sơn dynasty, Nguyễn dynasty. As Qiushufang points out, the Đại Việt article is newer and this status could be added to the Dai Viet infobox (but the tributary status runs across several disjoint periods so the years could get quite messy; maybe an {{efn}} endnote would work).

Some other articles also note similar statuses: Ryukyu Kingdom, Sultanate of Sulu, Lanfang Republic. Some don't include it and some do. What is unusual, however, would be to explicitly write {{tq|independent state as a [[...]}}, since being an independent state is usually presumed unless otherwise noted. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Status

Tbh I want to restore it. "Independent state while maintaining tributary relations"... It could be confusing if Joseon or Goryeo was part of China or not, for those who don't know about the system. And ive seen some problems with Goryeo. During 1356–1392, Didn't Song dynasty already gone? And in case of Joseon, Joseon was not independent during 1882-1895 User10281129 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Can i restore it? User10281129 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Those circumstances are already listed in the status, notes, and with multiple qualifiers such as "nominal" and "independent." Ryukyu kingdom does not do this nor do any of the other Vietnamese dynasty articles. As far as I know no other article has ever listed "independent" as part of its majority status either such as was done at Joseon. It is completely redundant. That is the default position. Qiushufang (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I know. It is redundant but it is much more specifical describe to explain what the Chinese tributary system is User10281129 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's why I initially included it in there and you reverted it. Qiushufang (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I know you are trying to humor me and respect me. But i think we have to restore it. It has no difference of meaning between our two edits. But what i meant to say is we should make it easy to understand it. To be honest, if i was someome who dont know about the system, i would think that Joseon or Goryeo is just territory of China User10281129 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So you are not allow me to restore it? User10281129 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No that's just you projecting your own beliefs onto others. Nobody thinks Vietnamese dynasties or the Ryukyu Kingdom was part of China even though they have tributary relations in their status boxes. People don't even think Tibet is part of China and that's actually controlled by China. There is no realm of possibility where somebody thinks Goryeo was part of China because it has tributary in its status box. The very word tributary implies it is not part of China, otherwise how could it pay tribute to it? There was never any need to list independent in the status box in the first place other than to placate emotional concerns. No other status box does this. Qiushufang (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats only you, not the others. Tributary state means it has no independence and control by foreign User10281129 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not placate you. I tried to very hard to respect you and humor you. User10281129 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It was controlled by a foreign power and it was part of a system in which it saw itself as the junior member of an international system led by the Ming dynasty. When the Ming was invaded, it stuck by the Ming until it was invaded by the Qing and forcibly turned into a Qing tributary. In that sense, it was not independent, but not as you said, give off the impression that it was part of China. Being independent is not the same thing as being part of China as there are varying degrees of control and spheres of influence in politics. These are not binary statuses and not equivalent to each other. Qiushufang (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You said it was controlled by foreign powers but Chinese tributary system was relation based on hierarchical diplomatic system in east asia. User10281129 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

China had zero control over their tributaries User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not what it says in Chinese tributary system. It says in almost all cases. In the case of Qing and Joseon it was not voluntary hence some level of control was required at a certain point. Qiushufang (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, Ming and Qing User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive. Qiushufang (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Song did not exist in 1356–1392. User10281129 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. At that time, there was no sense of logic that China should control over tributaries. User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

At all User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Chinese tributary system was just hierarchical relationship between China and foreign nations. User10281129 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

At that time, hierarchical relations was matter of course in east asian diplomacy. User10281129 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You said there was little control over Joseon but Qing did not interfere in Joseon's affairs at all until 1882 User10281129 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not "at all" for the time just before 1882. Bcs Qing tried to make Joseon as their client state since 19th century User10281129 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Per above, it is not mutually exclusive with real control, as was the case at some point with Qing and Joseon. I think some WP:COMPETENCE is needed as your sentences and logical follow through are too fragmented and hard to understand. Needless to say, I do not agree with the changes you have made to the status box, it has no precedence and is redundant. As you were reverted by three different users back in May over the same material, I think it's safe to say you do not have consensus currently. Qiushufang (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

When did i say Qing had control over Joseon before 1882? What I was trying to say was the Qing Dynasty's attempt to interfere in the affairs of Joseon, but the interference did not materialize at all until 1882, so there is a difference between the two. User10281129 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Plan =× execute (not same) User10281129 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is redundant, it is correct to write both. from 1882 to 1895, it was a client state under the interference of the Qing Dynasty. But it was independent except for that period. it is lack of explanation that such explanation is omitted. User10281129 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like redundant, is it okay to change like that? Is it okay with you? User10281129 (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Independent state
(1392–1882, 1895–1897)

Client state of Qing dynasty
(1882–1895)

---

References

@User10281129: please indent your talk posts in the future so it is easier to follow the conversation. Thanks! I've done it just now for readability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw that you have interest in asian history. Do u have any opinion?User10281129 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

China's tribute system was not even a means of controlling other countries, but an example of a hierarchical diplomatic method that existed in East Asia in the past. Hierarchical relationships were a natural thing in East Asian diplomacy. I tried to write concisely and specifically for those who lack understanding of the system. we need to include both tributary relations and the period of being independent. If such explanations are omitted, it's insufficient of explanations. User10281129 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No I disagree with the change. There is no need or precedence for it in other wiki articles for tributary members. Other reasons I have already outline above. Qiushufang (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that.User10281129 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You said there is no such articles in other pages, so you told me not to restore it. And u said u don't want a redundant. This can't be reason User10281129 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Etymology section

I think article could benefit from a separate etymology section that explains the origin of the name, as well as the official names and spellings of the name in other Koreanic writing systems toobigtokale (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)