Talk:Joseon/Archive 2

Requested move 2007
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)

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 [unpublished draft] Posted by authors at

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

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: Article size. ADKTE (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote it and I remind you Consensus, newbie--Caspian blue 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also this policy: Please do not bite the newcomers. ADKTE (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a wonderful policy; 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, 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 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 . 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 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", "merger", and AfD. 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&#32;• 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. &mdash;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

Bukubku's edits

 * 1) POV Pushing
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) WP:Undue and POV Pushing
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) 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.
 * 9) WP:CITE: Moreover, he has not provided that she is referred to as "Queen Min in Japan and so on".
 * 10) WP:English: English Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, but this wrong grammar is beyond the principle of Wikipedia.
 * 11) e.g. "with the aid of with the aid of several hundreds Korean Army"
 * 12) 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"?
 * 13) After the assassination of his consort -why this meaningless sentence should be addressed?
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) 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

 * 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
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) False allegation He lied that I attacked him based on his age. I'm sorry, where? Diff lease.
 * 8) WP:GAME and BAD FAITH
 * 9) Again, he falsely accused Historiographer of violating 3RR and then made a hoax 3RR report to 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".
 * 10) 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&mdash;during certain periods&mdash;Joseon was a fully-sovereign state. &mdash;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.

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.


 * 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&mdash;especially changes to the disputed section&mdash;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. r ʨ anaɢ 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. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
FYI, I have filed a case for this page at the Mediation Cabal &rarr; 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. r ʨ anaɢ 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. r ʨ anaɢ 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,  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&mdash;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.  has followed the POV of  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  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.  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,  has not reached out to match those good-faith efforts. &mdash;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.


 * 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 &mdash; in other words, said the same thing as Theo in different words &mdash; came later. Jpatokal (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I conflated the two&mdash;I apologize for that. 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. &mdash;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. r ʨ anaɢ 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, 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.
 * (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...
 * (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 
 * (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...
 * (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 &mdash; 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. -- Kfc 18645  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.


 * 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:

"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))
 * 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
 * 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, "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.

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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?
 * Just recognize again?! That's your original research.
 * 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" 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.)

Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 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. 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.] Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia Article itself can't be a reliable source.
 * 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
 * POV forks
 * 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

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. &mdash;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. r ʨ anaɢ 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? r ʨ anaɢ 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? r ʨ anaɢ 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. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> 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. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> 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. 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. &mdash;Notyourbroom ( talk ) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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  <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(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  <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(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. &mdash;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? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At your suggestion, I've just notified the editor with a link to this thread. &mdash;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  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&mdash;in my mind&mdash;is a combination of the following:
 * 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.
 * 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&mdash;or what "tributary" means&mdash;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. &mdash;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. 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. 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.

&mdash; &mdash;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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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.


 * Baptisan4 made around 20 different edits 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.


 * 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.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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?.
 * 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[] so I addressed the issue and hyperlinked WP:TPO for reference. 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.
 * removed referenced mention of Joseon's tributary relationship to Qing, renamed "Chinese" influence as "Confucian" influence (but isn't the Confucian influence from China?)
 * removed mention of Joseon's surrender to the Qing in 1637
 * removed an entire paragraph of text without explanation
 * 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.)
 * 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?)
 * 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
 * changed "Seven Year War" to "Seven Years War" (sp, should be Seven Years')
 * renamed "Confucian" scholar as "Seonbi" scholar; however, the artwork does not identify the person in question specifically as a Seonbi scholar.
 * 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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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, 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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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 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 ―― 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 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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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 . 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. 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. &mdash;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, 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 about edit-warring before your, 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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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 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 version that was up? This whole tangent is an irrelevant distraction, please discuss the actual issue at hand. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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 WikiProject_best_practices, 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&mdash;a state which does not exist, and which is not "possessed" by anyone in the modern world&mdash;is not the same as a city, which is physical, concrete, and tangible. &mdash;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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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 . <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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) 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)
 * 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.
 * 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, 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 Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which some of you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash;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. &mdash;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,, a major contributor to China-related articles, 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, , who   to remove the WPKorea banner (and Vietnam's too). KoreanSentry  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,  if necessary, and mount a soapbox on irrelevant nationalist grievances until the other editors were  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, and how do you feel about these references in the List of tributaries of Imperial China article? . Thanks. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 12:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Official languages again
This has been discussed before. You need to read the sources rather than reinstate your changes to the longstanding content without consensus.Regarding, 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. — MarkH21talk 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging who also reverted the removal of Classical Chinese and its citations. — MarkH21talk 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 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 independent state as a undefined, since being an independent state is usually presumed unless otherwise noted.  — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21talk 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) --


 * 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. — MarkH21talk 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)