Talk:Goryeo

RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?
This discussion is about what information should be included in the infobox. The current status label and the proposed status label are reproduced below for the convenience of the discussion.


 * Current: Tributary state[1][2][3][4] of Later Tang, Later Jin, Later Han, Later Zhou,[5] Song,[6] Liao,[7][8][9] Jin,[10][11] the Mongol Empire,[12][13] Yuan,[14] and Ming[15][16]


 * Proposed: Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system[1]
 * New Proposal: Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system[1] Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)

23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese dynasties are categorized as former empires. See Category:Former empires. So the style of the current version is correct per Template:Infobox former country as tributary state is categorized Category:States by power status along with client state, protectorate, puppet state, and vassal state. See also Template:Infobox former country/Categories and vassal state. Vassal state and tributary state are interchangeable. Oda Mari (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Goryeo is a historical Kingdom of Korea, please stop Sinocentrism. Sinocentrism is not what Wikipedia for. Oneslin (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For the Japanese editor, please read carefully Neutral point of view. Sinocentrism is giving unbalanced aspects to this article. It is a violation of Wiki principle.Oneslin (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oda Mari, you continue to ignore the most pertinent issue at hand - the fact that the current status label violates guidelines set forth by both Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX. Please review the several violations that I listed in my previous statements. Oneslin does have a point as well, the infobox contains too much information about Imperial China, most of which is not pertinent to the structure of Goryeo.


 * Also, there appears to be a misconception regarding the Template:Infobox former country/Categories source. If you read carefully, you'll see that the source's purpose is to list which values fit the into the default "status" and "empire" fields. The reason that the "status_text" field exists is to allow editors to create more specific status labels, such as "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". In other words, the source does not exclude other values, such as "Imperial Chinese tributary system" from being used. They just don't fit into the default format: "status(empire)". According to Template:Infobox former country, there is nothing wrong with the proposed edit. BUjjsp (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support proposed. An infobox is supposed to be concise. The current one is unreadable. Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support neither proposed with modification - The current is organized illegibly and the proposed is oversimplified, and slightly incorrect. The current would be better if it were organized as it is on Ryukyu Kingdom; each entry having its own line and providing dates. The Mongol Empire (I'm not talking about the Yuan dynasty) shouldn't be considered part of the "Imperial Chinese tributary system".
 * Oda Mari isn't pushing Sinocentrism. It doesn't matter that Goryeo was a "historical" Korean kingdom, the fact remains that it was a tributary of China for most of its existence.
 * EDIT: That user was indef blocked for "vandalism". It looks more like POV pushing.
 * "Too much information on Imperial China"; that's funny. I'm pretty sure that each dynasty is treated as a separate entity. And Mongolia isn't China, and shouldn't be labeled as such.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Sturmgewehr88, I appreciate your concern regarding the article. However, if you read the reasons I listed above, inclusion of the dynasty names reveals nothing regarding the political structure of Goryeo or any of the tributary system members for that matter. Yes, they were separate entities, but in the interest of conciseness as well as the inclusion of only KEY INFORMATION relating to Goryeo, the relationship that Goryeo had with these dynasties can be summed up in a far more efficient manner, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". This label collectively includes the relationships between tributary system members and the various Chinese dynasties. Consequently, I see no reason to include the individual dynasty names when the relationship can be explained in a concise, single label.


 * As for Mongolia, it is common knowledge that it is not Chinese (meaning a Han Chinese dynasty). However, the period between which the Mongol Empire's relationship with Goryeo was short-lived, before the Yuan Dynasty took its place (1259-1271). Despite this, in the interest of obtaining consensus, I am willing to include, "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)" as part of the infobox stats label. BUjjsp (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. So just to be sure, the new proposed status label is,
 * "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system
 * Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)"

Please tell me if any editors involved have any digressions with this. BUjjsp (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC) and, please read Talk:Joseon and Talk:Joseon first as the talk started there. I'll post what I have to say as soon as possible. Oda Mari (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support proposed Chosen at random to answer RFC's. The current info box is a mess, it needs to be simplified. AlbinoFerret  02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to read Talk:Joseon, but I don't really see the point considering the points brought up on this page and that page are practically identical. The reason I moved the discussion here is because no one responded to my WP:3O on the Joseon page, likely because the discussion got way too long. You can also see that I brought up the same issue on the Ryukyu Kingdom page in the Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom section. BUjjsp (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support proposed. Agree with Scolaire's comment. The current format is too complex, and unreadable. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not right that the description style should be changed just because the status section of this article looks a mess. See the status section of Ashikaga shogunate and Joseon. They are readable, but BUjjsp requested the same change at Talk:Joseon before this proposal. Goryeo was a tributary state of many countries and it is an exceptional case. The current proposal have two different style. If the style was changed, Ryukyu Kingdom would also have two different style of its status. The consistency of the style would be lost. IMHO, the issue here is not the readabily, but the matter of the consistency of the style/format. The change would affect a lot of articles. I'll ask for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries as the infobox is a part of the project. Oda Mari (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support proposed. The fact remains that this infobox is currently a mess and fails to meet the criteria set forth by Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX, which every editor here except you has concurred with. This "style" argument that you keep bringing up is not cited anywhere in Wikipedia. It is your own personal, unsubstantiated opinion. And so what if the status labels in the other articles are changed? The same argument: "This style has been at EN:WP for years" that you bring up over and over again is irrelevant. The whole point of Wikipedia being a public encyclopedia is to constantly improve on its content where appropriate. BUjjsp (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as there is still dissent from one involved editor despite comments from other editors through the Rfc process, I move to end the Rfc and request formal mediation to resolve the issue at hand. If there is any digression with this, please comment below. BUjjsp (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how an RfC works. When you make a request for comments, you have to wait for the comments to come in. Then somebody closes it, there is a result, and that result is implemented. You don't just hop to the next process because things aren't happening fast enough for you. I put in a request for closure four days ago, on the basis that there had been no input for six days at that time. If you hadn't started playing around, it would in all probability have been closed by now. Because you tried to mark it "withdrawn", however, it has now been reopened. Just sit tight for a while, let more people comment if they wish, and if the discussion stops for several days again, you can make another request to close. You should not be moving to mediation until much further down the line. And you'd better hope that it doesn't come to that, because mediation takes a very long time indeed. And, by the way, I did not appreciate being named in your abortive request for mediation as a party to the dispute. I am not in a dispute with anybody. All I did was to !vote in this RfC, and do some housekeeping. Scolaire (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you and any other editors involved. The guidelines provided for 'requests for formal mediation' asked me to name any "editors who are involved". I never had to use the formal mediation process before, so I tried to follow the guidelines available to the best of my ability. My apologies again. BUjjsp (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll note that due to the backlog at ANRFC, it was unlikely this would have been closed before January 9th (30 days) anyways. RfCs are typically set to run for 30 days, and there are currently multiple discussions that are over 60 days waiting to be closed.  If new comments seem to be lacking and you'd like to generate more discussion, you might consider listing the discussion on WP:CENT or posting a notice of the discussion to relevant WikiProjects and Village pumps. Good luck! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 03:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support new proposal, with comma before "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire...".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Infoboxes should be "short & straight to the point", which at the moment it's not so per above I have to support. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, infoboxes should be as concise as possible. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref for status field
I removed the one remaining ref for the status of "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" in the infobox, because the proposal in the RfC only said "[1]", it did not specify what "[1]" was to represent. It needs to be agreed (a) whether a ref is required at all, and (b) if so, which. Note that there was never a proposal to have a ref for "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire". Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any response after four days, I take it that the answer to (a) is no, a ref is not required. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say, "Go for it!" ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"As for Mongolia, it is common knowledge that it is not Chinese (meaning a Han Chinese dynasty)."
User:BUjjsp, is Liao dynasty Han Chinese? Or Jin dynasty (1115–1234)? Yuan dynasty? Neither are Later Tang, Later Jin (Five Dynasties) and Later Han (Five Dynasties). In other words, six out of the nine polities supposed covered by the 4-word label "Imperial Chinese tributary system", are in-fact non-Han-Chinese. This label is particularly problematic for the 2 centuries after 994, when Goryeo after the First conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War started using Khitan Liao (and later, the Jurchen Jin) era names rather than the "Han Chinese" Song dynasty era names (though Goryeo used Song era names again between 1016 to 1022). In other words, for 220 years between 994 and 1224 Goryeo was making tributes to either the Khitans or the Jurchens rather than "Han Chinese". The current field is VERY MISLEADING. Either set it up like Ryukyu Kingdom, or delete the section altogether. Timmyshin (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The current label is not misleading at all. The dynasties you mentioned were not Han Chinese of course. However, these entities, like the Han Chinese dynasties, followed the model of the Imperial Chinese tributary system as a method of asserting their suzerainty over smaller states. If you were familiar with the definition of the Imperial Chinese tributary system, you'd know that being a 'Han Chinese' dynasty was not a prerequisite for assuming the role of power within the Imperial Chinese Tributary system. For example, the Manchurian Qing Dynasty was not a Han Chinese dynasty, yet indisputably, it continued the central role of the Imperial Chinese Tributary System until its demise in 1911. I hope that cleared up any misconceptions you may have previously held. BUjjsp (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, when the Mongols first conquered China, they didn't continue the tribute system. It wasn't until Kublai Khan established the Yuan dynasty that the tribute system resumed.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Years as vassal state
I have noted that consensus on the format for the status text in the infobox in the section. However, that discussion did not actually discuss the years as vassal state at all. Rather, on a different section, i.e., it mentioned that the correct year is 1270-1350s. This is in fact true, and for more details on this period, please look at the Korea under Yuan rule article. The Zhengdong Branch Secretariat (征東等處行中書省) was established in Korea in the 1280s, and King Gongmin of Goryeo began to push the Mongol garrisons of the Yuan back in the 1350s. Both of these clearly suggest the years "1259-1271" as vassal state is wrong. Instead, "1270-1350s" is the correct span for the vassalage, as vassal state of the Yuan dynasty. --Cartakes (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Cartakes: If so, I recommend changing the years to (1259-1356), and changing the label to say Vassal of the Mongol Empire to collectively describe Goryeo's semi-autonomous vassal status to the Mongol Empire (which includes the Yuan dynasty). Additionally, the vassal label should be made distinct from the "independent kingdom" label since Goryeo was not independent during the Mongol domination period. BUjjsp (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the said section, I think the actual Mongol domination in Goryeo only started after the enthronement of Kublai Khan in 1270 instead of early in 1259. For example, according to the book "A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, by Michael J. Seth", page 112, "From 1270 to 1356 Korea was under Mongol domination". Beginning with 1260 the Mongol Empire became divided or fractured into the Yuan dynasty and the western Mongol khanates, so it is difficult to talk about a single Mongol Empire after that. It was Yuan under the Kublaids who dealt with the Goryeo (Korea), that is why I prefer to say "Yuan dynasty". However, I think it is a good idea to change the label "independent kingdom" as you said, at least add the years when it was in fact an independent kingdom (i.e. 918-1270 and 1356-1392). Thanks for your suggestion. --Cartakes (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For now, while I have read sources that suggest otherwise, I think it's best that we follow the source you provided and change the starting year to 1270. However, I do have a couple of suggestions: 1) I recommend changing the label to say "Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty" to make it clear that the Yuan dynasty was in fact controlled by the Mongols and to avoid confusing readers. 2) For the purpose of aesthetics, I recommend that the following infobox status label be used:

Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty (1270-1356) Member of the imperial Chinese tributary system
 * Independent kingdom (918-1270, 1356-1392)

BUjjsp (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. I have changed it to "Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty" and add a new line between "Independent kingdom" and its years as you said. I did not force a second new line though because it would take a lot of lines and would thus look a little bad. Anyway, thanks for your input too. --Cartakes (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent IP Edits
To the editor(s) who is/are repeatedly changing the article's content without explanation, please explain the reasoning behind your edits. Considering that the article is about Goryeo, there no reason to change the pre-existing map to one that focuses on the Jurchen Jin dynasty, which is being persistently added without explanation. Moreover, I see no reason to repeatedly remove information that was decided by consensus on this talk page. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)