Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa/Archive 1

Merge
As I construe LordAmeth's comments at Talk:Korean missions to Edo, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial. --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose to the name at Korea mission to Edo.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Korean embassies to Japan" (I found it from web) is also an alternative option. The parallel to Ryukyu is well, that is not concern of Korean project.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge (Joseon tongsinsa)
*This discussion is moved from Talk:Joseon tongsinsa--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This text does not comply in any way with Verifiability. Although the exposition makes points which could be valid, there is no reason to attribute any credibility to this work.

For this reason, I believe the article should be abandoned -- marked for speedy deletion when Joseon Tongsinsa is merged with Korean missions to Edo.

The options here seem limited. What else is there to be done consistent with WP:V? I would be willing to incorporate this text into a merged article, but I can't quite figure out how it could be done? --Tenmei (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I construe LordAmeth's comments at Talk:Korean missions to Edo, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial. --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion (Joseon tongsinsa)
*This discussion is moved from Talk:Joseon tongsinsa--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In view of the unbalanced edit history and the unverifiable content of this article, I wonder if deletion might not be the best and most constructive course -- see Articles for deletion, Deletion policy and Template:AfD footer? This appears to be one of those miscellaneous postings which has fallen through the cracks. The first line at WP:V is on-point in this context:
 *  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." 

This posting may be an impossible-to-unsnarl mixture of fact and fiction or it may be crucially flawed or misleading or contrived in a manner inconsistent with Neutral point of view -- we just don't know ...?

A variety of tags were added, but the sad fact-of-the-matter is that more time, effort and care seems to have been invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than can be credited to the text's originator. I note that the anonymous creator of introduced other new articles and then abandoned them: The controversial Ilbongun wianbu would seem to have developed by merging with an older article first created in 2003, while this pre-stub text and the pre-stub about Goguryeo tombs stagnated.
 * 05:54, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo ‎ (←Created page with 'Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo provide precious historical and archaeological material for the study of ancient Korean history. Although they are presumed to have be...')
 * 04:56, 15 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wianbu ‎ (←Created page with 'Ilbongun wianbu (Military Sexual Slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army) were women who were forcibly drafted from Korea, Taiwan, Japan and othe...')
 * 04:51, 15 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ilbongun wianbu ‎ (←Blanked the page)
 * 04:42, 15 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Ilbongun wianbu ‎ (←Created page with 'Ilbongun wianbu (Military Sexual Slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army) were women who were forcibly drafted from Korea, Taiwan, Japan and othe...')
 * 07:04, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Joseon tongsinsa ‎ (Joseon tongsinsa)

My guess is that the now inactive Koreahistory was randomly scattering "seeds" ...?

Perhaps the best thing to do is simply to start over ...?

Maybe this could be considered within the ambit of Article Rescue Squadron? --Tenmei (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. Perhaps this constructive gesture will produce meaningful results? --Tenmei (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge (Korean missions to Edo)
*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial exchange in this thread was copied from User Talk:Tenmei.

Hello, Tenmei, thank you for the contributions to the article in question. Unfortunately, it turns out that Wikipedia has three articles on the same subject, Joseon tongsinsa, and yours are the newest one, so your contents should be merged into Joseon Tongsinsa along with Joseon tongsinsa. The title can be changeable if Joseon Tongsinsa is only local name for Korea, but well we need a talk on this. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I've had something like this article in the back of my mind for over a year, the impetus for pulling it together just now comes from work done by LordAmeth, who conceived of it as a necessary corollary for Ryukyuan missions to Edo. That article has been created quite recently.  It was, in fact, the red font link in "See also" at the bottom of that Ryukuyan article which led me to develop Korean missions to Edo as a stub.


 * Thanks for letting me know about the unwelcome duplication.


 * Of course the three articles need to be merged into one. I don't know how to go about merging articles ... but this would be my approach to our problem -- perhaps not the way someone else would proceed, but this is what I'd do:
 * 1. I would copy any non-redundant information from Korean missions to Edo into appropriate parts of Joseon Tongsinsa.
 * 2. Then I would re-configure Korean missions to Edo as a redirect.
 * 3. Then I would copy any non-redundant information from Joseon tongsinsa into appropriate parts of the "enhanced" Joseon Tongsinsa.
 * 4. Then I would proposed renaming the article Joseon missions to Japan, which I would then want to expand with such information as we can find about diplomatic missions between the Joseon Dynasty and Japan prior to the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate at the beginning of the 17th century?


 * At some point in the future, perhaps you can help me with figuring out how to create an article about pre-Joseon diplomatic exchanges with Japan? Perhaps one already exists? --Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your solution sounds good. If we keep the article at "Joseon Tongsinsa" which may make few people to understand what it is. (for readers or editors who have knowledge of Korean language and history). I found out the duplication by searching with Korean name if there has already the same article because the subject is important one for both Korea and Japan relationship. There is no wonder for duplication, although yours are well-referenced and the tidiest among them. I think we can use WP:RM because I don't think the merge is controversial, so admins could peacefully merge all history of the three articles. After merging, we can move the article to the desired one. As for the last question, hmm.. local name is always important to prevent such things. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After examining Joseon tongsinsa, I don't know what to do with it. Without any cited references, there is no way to guess whether some or all or none of it is verifiable.  I note that the article was created by an effectively anonymous editor who only contributed to Wikipedia in April 2008.  Since that time, no further work has mitigated the problems of that initial draft.


 * Without more, I would be inclined to mark that less-than-a-stub article for speedy deletion. Perhaps in future, some other editor will help expand Wikipedia's coverage of this subject in a way which is consistent with Verifiability; but that hope doesn't help us figure out how to handle this any differently now. --Tenmei (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. It sounds like Tenmei has a solid plan for working this all out; I leave things in his capable hands. Whatever title we come up with, whether it be "Korean missions to Edo", "Joseon missions to Japan" or whatever, it's fine with me. I have not the energy or patience to argue over nitpicky naming things. I will, however, vote against a Korean title such as "Joseon tongsinsa" which tells the reader unfamiliar with the Korean language absolutely nothing and is a violation of WP:Use English. Note that I did not title the Ryukyuan one Ryukyu Edo Nobori (琉球江戸上り) because I knew that it wouldn't mean anything to the casual reader. LordAmeth (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I construe LordAmeth's comments, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial. --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever the title would be, this newest article should be merged into the oldest one to save its history. Naming is next step after merge.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseon Tongsinsa
*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial exchange in this thread has been copied from User Talk:LordAmeth.

LordAmeth -- I'd guess that you're likely to want to scan Korean missions to Edo? A helpful Korean editor pointed out that Korean missions to Edo is redundant because Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa already exist. The proposed merge of all three articles is reasonable, of course; but the ultimate name of the merged article may not be so easily resolved?

I tentatively suggested Joseon missions to Japan as a plausible name for an umbrella article which incorporates and links the Korean missions to Edo and also the diplomatic exchanges between the Joseon Dynasty and Japan in that period before the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate; but I'm not encouraged that this potential olive branch was understood in that context.

Perhaps this small problem is not entirely unexpected? --Tenmei (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did this exchange take place between you and the Korean editor? I don't see anything. In any case, I'd prefer Korean missions to Edo as it parallels Ryukyuan missions to Edo. Since there was no other Korea contemporary to Edo other than Korea under the Joseon Dynasty, I see no reason to call it "Joseon missions" or anything of the sort; the word "Joseon" is also unknown to just about anyone who is not an East Asian history specialist (though, admittedly, Ryukyu and Edo aren't particularly commonly known terms either), so I think "Korean" is better.


 * That said, Korean missions to Japan during the Joseon period do extend before (and after?) the Joseon period, so I suppose the argument for an article incorporating these earlier (and later?) events might be merited. It's all a matter of perspective, really.


 * As a Japan scholar focusing on Ryukyuan missions during the Edo period, I'm looking for a title that parallels Ryukyuan missions to Edo, creating a set (even if it a set of only two items). If someone were approaching this from a "History of Korean foreign relations" or "Aspects of Joseon history" perspective, I can understand arguments towards another title.


 * In any case, however, I think the non-English title Joseon tongsinsa is no good. I resisted the urge to title the Okinawa-related article Ryūkyū Edo Nobori, knowing that it violates WP:Use English, and that it would not be comprehensible to any non-Japan specialists, such as China or Korea specialists, or anyone else interested in the subject but not familiar with the Japanese language. LordAmeth (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add, also, thank you very much for your contributions to both the Ryukyuan and Korean missions topics; I am also really happy to see that others (incl. Korea specialists) have created articles for the Korean missions, as it's admittedly not really a topic that intrigues me too much. I'll add what I can from Ron Toby's book, and other sources I have, and to help out with the merge (unless you or someone else would like to captain the effort), but I'm very happy to discover that there's a foundation to work with. LordAmeth (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- the link was wrong. It should have been User talk:Tenmei. In any case, I'm moving this exchange to Talk:Korean missions to Edo.  This subject does interest me, but I have zero willingness to tolerate the kind of pointless exercise in futility which characterizes anything to do with Liancourt rocks.


 * My strategic plan is (a) to merge the Edo period articles within the quite impossible Korean name ..., and then (b) to place this carefully-focused subject under another, larger "umbrella" article ..., and then (c) to re-establish the Edo period diplomatic exchanges in a "new" article which I predict becomes necessary as the scale, scope and focus of that more fully-researched aspect of the broad narrative develops.  Otherwise, I would imagine that projected umbrella article will come to seem unbalanced by the quality and depth of coverage pertaining to a mere 300-year period in the context of a longer historic timespan. As for what the article is named this week or next, this month or next -- I don't care.  Let someone else focus on that chimera while my strategic plan unfolds quietly, effectively, slowly, inevitably ....


 * Of course, WP:Use English is a practical, plausible, appropriate and necessary fulcrum; but I'm persuaded that there is likely to be no lever or force to make good use of that fulcrum. I could not agree more with the analysis and sentiments you express in the last paragraph you wrote above. In my view, your conclusions are so obvious, plain, necessary that they hardly bear repeating; but merest hint of Dokdo-type logic already causes me to feel wary, sceptical, regretful.  --Tenmei (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm against the parallel to Ryukyuan missions to Edo. Who knows what Edo is except few people knowledgeable of Japanese culture? Whether Joseon is unknown term to people, that is the official title of the state. Besides, Ryukyu was a vassal state of Japan, and the parallel can imply false connotation that Korea was as such. I think Joseon Tongsinsa is not that bad title after reading this.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the following at (1)-Joseon Tongsinsa, (2)-Joseon tongsinsa and (3)-Korean missions to Edo:
 *  "As I construe LordAmeth's comments at Talk:Korean missions to Edo, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial." 
 * In my view, this thread can be brought to a close; and further discussion would be better continued at Talk:Korean missions to Edo. However, I do want to ameliorate a modest problem before it grows any bigger. It may be clarifying to underscore just one explicit point-of-view in this closing context.


 * Today, now, at this moment: there is no correct or incorrect, no pro- or con-, no right or wrong, nothing to be "against" -- no dispute at all; and in my opinion, it would be a needless mistake to begin down any path which leads towards controversy rather than consensus. In that broad sense only, Caspian blue's word-choice of "against" within the narrow confines of a single sentence appears somewhat unhelpful, premature, discouraging. --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Be civil--Caspian blue (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to merge
*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to unresolved issues about the name of a merged article -- especially in relation to WP:Use English -- another more significant problem bars moving forward constructively.

At present, Caspian blue's proposal that articles be merged is premature. In the absence of any cited sources, the material posted at Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa is not readily verifiable, nor are the individual elements distinguishable from original research
 * 1. Please see Citation.
 * 2. Please see Citing sources.
 * 3. Please see No original research.
 * 4. Please see Verifiability (WP:V). The first line at WP:V is on-point in this context:
 *  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." 

The subject matter could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. At present, however, that hope for cooperative scholarship remains only an aspiration. For now, This is only another one of those plausible ideas whose time has not come. --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa) into the article. It seems like one of your source is not that reliable per the false info. (who the hell are Ko tsi tsiou (or Houng tchi tchoung) and Tsiou nan gouts (or Thsieou nan yuě) ? You should've checked the source first and check their name. The Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Besides, the years such as Kan'en are only for Japanese point of view. I have to ask you that why you added some info from the article of Joseon Tongsinsa, and oppose to merging all together on contrary to your claim for WP:V. WP:V is a very important policy, the two other articles are lied in only matter of references, and WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added disclaimers for the Japanese era names identifying them as such; if you wanted to add the Korean era equivalents, it'd be most welcome, for balance. I also added the title "King" where relevant, so as to add context (i.e. for the reader to understand who these figures are; same for the shoguns); I imagine this should also serve to reflect greater respect towards the Korean side of the equation. LordAmeth (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for keeping the article neutral, but I think it is not wise to keep adding things since three articles deal with the same subject.(I appreciate your help though) Besides, I really don't think that the current title is good because of the several concerns that I left your page before. I think I have to clean up Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa first (how ridiculous two articles with the same name and just tiny difference in capital letter)--Caspian blue (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese name for the missions
*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, new question. Minor issue. Hopefully something that can be resolved quickly and with a minimum of conflict or debate.

The Korean term "Joseon tongsinsa", is equivalent to the Japanese "Chousen tsuushinshi", which I suppose roughly translates to Joseon Communication Envoy/Mission. The term I tentatively chose, Chousen Edo Nobori (朝鮮江戸上り), literally meaning something like "the going up to Edo of Joseon", refers more to the actual event, the parade, the march of the foreign entourage through the Japanese countryside on their way to Edo. Tsuushinshi (or tongsinsa) is a more diplomatic/political term referring to the mission itself - its diplomatic/political goals, etc. I'm not explaining myself well here, in the differences between the two terms.

The point is, which should we use? Should we change the Japanese language term in the opening sentence to "chousen tsuushin shi", and work Chousen Edo Nobori in later somewhere? Or what? ... If I remember, I shall try to find time within the next few days to scan a few of my different sources to see which terms they use. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposal
*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I read this thread under request of Tenmei. He asked my contribute since I am not English, nor Korean, nor Japanese. First of all let me say that I am totally ignorant of the specific content of this article, so I will not deal with it, but only with the "merge" issue.

My understanding is that there are two prblems


 * 1) how and what to merge
 * 2) how to name the article

If my understanding is correct, I would propose the following solution for the first issue. To my understanding Tenmei article is more reliable than the other ones because of the availability of verifiable references. On the other hand, there is no reason why the other articles would not be reliable too, in theory. So I suggest to merge all articles.

When a statement, a date, a fact is not reliable, or at least, there is no way to know if it is true, but there is no correspondence in the Tenmei article, I would keep it but I would add the template requesting a citation be provided. If no citation will be provided in few months, I would move it to a subarticle that will preserve all not verifiable elements. Just removing those elements would be a pity because they could be valuable and we have no guarantee that someone else wil be able to include them again in future. The subarticle will be available from the talk page of the main article. So if the article name is XXXX, the subarticle will be XXXX/To be verified and it will be available from the top of talk page as Info to be verified.

On the other, if a fact is not reliable, or at least, there is no way to know if it is true, and there is a correspondence in the Tenmei article, it will be the Tenmei element to be preserved and the other to be removed UNLESS there are really different opinion by historians because of different sources.

About the name, now. I would like to ask Tenmei which are the LITERAL translations in English of the Korean and the Japanese names used for this event? I would start from them. In any case, I would also use redirection for Joseon tongsinsa and Chōsen Edo nobori even if they are not English terms. The reason is that we have to use English terms if there is a well-know English name accepted by all historians. But if there is not, whatever term we invent, it is better to keep also the original ones, forwarding them to the single article, because many world historians might know the event by the original name. This is very common in History. For example, in English we say "French Revolution" rather than "Révolution Française", but there is no way to say "Risorgimento" whereas "Rinascimento" is translated "Renaissance", from French. So non-anglophone terms are often used in History from English historians too.

This is just my two cent contribute.--Dejudicibus (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged
I've merged the three articles. I've chosen the oldest one as the merge target, i.e. this one (Joseon Tongsinsa). Next question to work out is the ultimate article name where you want to have it. It seems pretty clear that an English descriptive title will be better than this Korean term. Please just work something out and let me or some other admin know if you decide to move it somewhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of article.
It seems to me that there is consensus that WP:English indicates that this is a bad title for the page, but discussion seems to have died of. Unless someone disagrees I am going to move this page to Joseon embassies to Japan. Taemyr (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the title may be not satisfiable for every party, I disagree with the unilateral move at this status. Wait for the further responses from all side. Regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to me to be a clear consensus that the current title is against WP:English. Because my title suggestion is a new proposal I am going to wait.  Taemyr (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier you suggested "Korean embassies to Japan." Is that still your preferred title?  --Amble (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with using the name Korean is that it might be slightly inaccurate. Korean embassies to Japan might reasonably be redirected to Japan–Korea relations. Taemyr (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just note on one thing, Korean missions to Edo that previously named is clearly not a good translation. Throughout the whole history, the tongsinsa sometimes did not go to Edo (current Tokyo), and Edo is not a clear term to everyone except people knowledgeable of Japanese culture.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with Joseon embassies to Japan as a compromise. Though, as Caspian blue so accurately points out, "Edo" is not a clear term to everyone except people knowledgeable of Japanese culture; the same can be said of "Joseon", which is not a well-known term outside of those familiar with Korean history. Which is why I think the word "Korean" needs to be included, particularly if the word "Japan" is going to be. How about Joseon period Korean embassies to Japan (a bit long and wordy), Joseon Korean embassies to Japan, Embassies of Joseon Dynasty Korea to Tokugawa Japan, Korean embassies to Tokugawa Japan (there was no other Korea during the Tokugawa period but that under the Joseon Dynasty, so specifying Joseon is unnecessary) or any sort of combination of those? LordAmeth (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that the article starts with embassies from 1404 the article has a wider scope than embassies to Tokugawa. An option is to widen the scope further and move the page to Historical relations between Japan and Korea, or Relations between Japan and Korea prior to 1895.  Taemyr (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The historical background section explaining previous relations between Korea and Japan begins with 1404, but the core topic of the article remains those embassies conducted within the particular historical context of a specific type of embassy/mission sent by Joseon Korea to Tokugawa Japan. I think that while an article on "historical relations between Korea and Japan" or "relations before 1895" could be a great thing to have, this here is not the place for it. This article as it stands now, and the Korean missions to Edo article which I and User:Tenmei created before it was merged here, represent that specific particular historical topic, and I think this should be reflected both in the title and in the content. A much broader article on historical relations would be great, and could refer to this topic in summary, linking here for more detail, as so many of the broad history topic articles do. Note also the corresponding article for the Ryukyu Kingdom (Okinawa), Ryukyuan missions to Edo. A broader article could, and probably should, be written, spanning all Japan-Okinawa relations but the eighteen missions sent to Edo represent a very particular type of embassy/mission, sent in a particular fashion, in a particular historical context. The same goes for the Korean missions, and I think that a separate article devoted to the missions sent from 1607-1811 is warranted. LordAmeth (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kon-nichi-wa, Taemyr and LordAmeth. Should Japanese envoy to Tang Dynasty China's name change to Kentoh-shi or Qian tang shi (遣唐使)? --Eichikiyama (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Should kon-nichi-wa be "good afternoon" in English? ^_^v--Caspian blue (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Eichikiyama; no. Use English.  The japanese terms might redirect to the page though. Taemyr (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Raising the level of dispute
Caspian blue -- My interest here is in raising the level of dispute; and that means wiki-QUALITY = WP:V Neither the quality of Wikipedia articles nor the level of dispute is enhanced by innuendo, not by derision, not by attempting to be offensive, confrontational, inflammatory, provocative ... and your recent edits give me cause to worry that somehow I might have failed inform you in terms that are clear, plain, unambiguous? --Tenmei (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Korean sources enhance quality and usefulness
In articles about Korea and Korean-related subjects or topics, there is little question that Korean sources enhance quality and usefulness of Wikipedia articles. However, this important material cannot be considered exempt from the modest requirements which are encompassed within WP:V; and there is no Wikipedia-related obligation for users, readers or editors to go to the trouble of translating a Korean-language citation, as is explicitly explained at Verifiability, but in general, it has been my impression that a generous benefit-of-a-doubt is extended in such circumstances -- including Joseon tonsingsa.

Burden of evidence

 * For how to write citations, see Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.

Non-English sources

 * Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Problematic, un-translated Korean-language reference citation
The sole Korean-language citation is machine translated below; and the draft suggests a problematic relationship between the text posted on the main article page and the source which is cited in support. This presents a knotty problem which invites further investigation. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The beginnings of a full-text translation of this Korean encyclopedia entry follows:

일반적으로 조선통신사라고도 한다. 조선이 1403년(태종 3)에 명나라로부터 책봉을 받고, 그 이듬해 일본의 아시카가(足利義滿) 장군도 책봉을 받자, 중국·조선·일본 간에는 사대·교린의 외교관계가 성립되었다. 그러자 조선과 일본 두 나라는 대등한 처지의 교린국이 되고, 조선국왕과 막부장군은 양국의 최고권력자로서 상호간에 사절을 파견하였다. [BabelFish translation: Korea communication buy altitude does generally. 1403 Korea ([thay] bell 3) from the life country received the book seal, that next year Japan they knew and the car was formed (as many as) General justice should have received the book seal, to China * Korea * Japan between serves the powerful * diplomatic relation of relation of neighboring countries. And then Korea and the Japanese two countries became the relation of neighboring countries country of the situation which is equal, with the Korea king the department head army as the highest power person of the both nations the trade name dispatched the embassador just.]

이때 조선 국왕이 막부장군(일본국왕으로 칭함)에게 보내는 사절을 통신사, 막부장군이 조선 국왕에게 보내는 사절을 일본 국왕사(日本國王使)라고 하였다. 일반적으로 통신사란 용어는 적례(敵禮)적인 입장의 대등(對等)한 국가간에 신의(信義)를 통(通)하는 사절이라는 의미를 지닌다. BabelFish translation: This time the news agency and just the department head army send the embassador whom the Korea king sends with the Japanese king (naming) the department head army just to the Korea king embassador the Japanese king company (day) as. As a result of general the communication saran terminology enemy [lyey] (in the equal (equal) one nation between of the position which is) enemies providence (justice), bears the meaning which is an embassador whom does.

조선 전기에는 일본과의 사절 왕래가 많아 조선 사절의 일본 파견이 18회에 달하였고, 일본국왕사의 조선 파견이 71회에 달한다. 그러나 조선 국왕이 파견한 사절이 모두 통신사의 호칭을 갖지는 않았으며, 이 중 장군에게 간 것은 8회 뿐이다. 예를 들면 명칭도 회례사(回禮使)·회례관(回禮官)·보빙사(報聘使)·경차관(敬差官)·통신사·통신관(通信官) 등 일정치 않았고, 목적과 편성도 다양했다. [BabelFish translation: To Korea electricity the embassador traffic of Japan and Japanese dispatch of the Korea embassador accomplishes to 18 times many, the Japanese king resignation Korea dispatch accomplishes to 71 times. The embassador whom the Korea king dispatches but does not have the title of all news agency not to be, the thing is only 8 times in General [i cwung]. For example also the name bought the round of visits company (round of visits) * the round of visits tube (round of visits officialdom) * step round * the variation tube (officialdoms) * the news agency * the politics which will be communication tube (officialdoms) etc. not to be, also the goal and organization were various.]

이러한 점에서 조선이 파견한 통신사는 다음과 같은 조건과 목적을 갖추어야 한다. 첫째, 조선 국왕으로부터 일본 장군(국왕)에게 파견된다. 둘째, 일본 국왕의 길흉(吉凶) 또는 양국간의 긴급한 문제를 해결하는 목적을 갖는다. 셋째, 조선 국왕이 일본 국왕(막부장군)에게 보내는 국서(國書)와 예단(禮單)을 지참한다. 넷째, 사절단은 중앙의 고위관리인 삼사(三使) 이하로 편성한다. 다섯째, 국왕사의 칭호도 갖는다. BabelFish translation: The news agency which Korea dispatches from like this point with afterwords same must equip a condition and goal. First, is dispatched to the Japanese market army (king) from the Korea king. Second, has the goal which solves the problem which good or bad luck of the Japanese king or the both nations between is urgent. Three, the credential (books) which the Korea king sends to the Japanese king (just department head army) comes example only brings. Four, the delegation organizes below high rank administrator three four of the center. Fifth, also the king resignation designation has.]

일본의 막부장군에게 파견한 사절단에 통신사의 호칭을 처음 쓴 것은 고려시대인 1375년 무로마치(室町) 막부의 장군에게 왜구 금지를 요청하는 사절을 파견한 것이 시초이다. 그러나 명칭만 통신사였을 뿐, 그 조건과 목적을 갖추지는 못하였다.BabelFish translation: Japan just sweeping the title of the news agency initially in the delegation whom dispatches to the department head army 1375 nothing Rome is a consideration time (why the fact that dispatches the embassador who requests nine prohibitions the beginning in General) just bringing up for discussion. But only name the news agency only will be, does not equip the condition and a goal could not.]

조선시대에 들어와 통신사의 명칭이 처음 나타난 것은 1413년(태종 13)이었으나, 이 사행도 정사 박분(朴賁)이 중도에서 병이 났기 때문에 중지되었다. 그 뒤 통신사의 명칭을 가지고 일본에 파견된 사행은 1428년(세종 10) 정사 박서생(朴瑞生) 이하의 사절단으로, 이들의 파견 목적은 장군습직의 축하와 전장군에 대한 치제(致祭)였다. [BabelFish translation: Came in into a Korea time and the name of the news agency appearing initially 1413 ([thay] bell 13) was, but this meandering political affairs Pak minute in order from this moderation for the bottle to be born was discontinued. Has the name of the news agency after that and meandering which is dispatched to Japan as the delegation below the political affairs Pak student (lifestyles) 1428 (Sejong 10), these dispatch goal general [sup] position was sacrifice about congratulation and the battlefield army.]

이후 통신사의 파견은 정례화되어 조·일 양국간에 우호교린의 상징으로 조선시대 전기간에 걸쳐 총 20회(조선 전기 8회, 조선 후기 12회)가 이루어졌다. 조선시대 일본에 파견된 통신사는 〔표 1〕과 같다. [BabelFish translation'': The dispatch of the after that news agency became regulations and in trillion * one both nations between with symbol of amicable relation of neighboring countries extended in Korea periodic electricity between and total 20 times (Korea electricity 8 time, Korea postscript 12 time) became accomplished. The news agency which is dispatched to Korea periodic Japan (ticket 1) with is same.]

파견이유와 목적 [BabelFish translation: Dispatch reason and intension

통신사의 파견 이유나 목적은 임진왜란을 전후하여 다소 차이가 있다. 조선 전기의 경우 일본관계에 있어 가장 큰 관심사는 역시 왜구문제였고, 조선에서는 이 문제를 해결하기 위하여 막부장군에게 통신사를 파견했다. 따라서 통신사 파견의 표면적 이유는 왜구 금압의 요청과 우호관계 유지를 위한 장군습직 축하 등 주로 정치·외교적인 목적에서였다.[BabelFish translation: Dispatch reason of the news agency the goal Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 and around there is some difference. There was to case Japanese relationship of Korea electricity and the high stake why was old story system as well, in order to solve this problem dispatched the news agency to the department head army just from Korea. Consequently the surface area reason of news agency dispatch why general for the request and a amicable relationship maintenance of nine gold pressures [sup] position congratulation etc. mainly politics * was from the goal which is diplomatic.]

이 점은 일본으로부터 조선에 파견되는 일본 국왕사가 동(銅)을 가져와 대신 생필품인 쌀·콩·목면을 구해가는 경제적인 목적이거나, 아니면 일본에서 선종(禪宗)이 크게 유행하자 조선의 대장경과 범종을 가져가는 문화적이었던 점과 대조를 이룬다. [BabelFish translation: This piece the Japanese king company which is dispatched to Korea brings east from Japan and the rice which is a substitution essential goods * the bean * the cotton buys and is a goal which is economic, or the adenoma  on a large scale with the point which is cultural takes Buddhist Sutras of popularity flaw Korea and the pan bell contrasts with from Japan.]

한편 조선 후기의 경우는 임진왜란 직후, 전쟁상태 종결을 위한 강화교섭, 피로인(被擄人) 쇄환(刷還：외국에서 떠돌고 있는 동포를 데리고 돌아옴), 국정탐색, 막부장군의 습직 축하 등 역시 정치·외교적인 목적에서 통신사를 파견했다. 반면 조선 후기 일본으로부터 일본 국왕사의 조선파견은 금지되었다. [BabelFish translation: Meantime the case of Korea postscript immediately after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592, the [sway] annularity which is a peace negotiations and a fatigue for a state of war conclusion (people) (: Got accompanied by the compatriot who is drifting from the foreign nation and returning), [sup] position congratulation etc. of state search and just the department head army as well politics * dispatched the news agency from the goal which is diplomatic. The Japanese king resignation Korea dispatch was forbidden from the other side Korea postscript Japan.]

조선 전기 일본 국왕사의 상경로가 임란 당시 일본군의 침략로로 이용되는 등 피해가 심하자, 조선에서는 일본 국왕사의 상경을 허락하지 않았기 때문이었다.그 뒤 일본국왕사의 파견은 중단되고, 대신 막부장군에 관한 일은 차왜(差倭)가 대신하게 된다. [BabelFish translation: Being the course at Korea electric Japanese king resignation, the etc. damage which is used with aggression of at that time Japanese army which is core flaw, from Korea does not allow Japanese king resignation coming up to the capital, was because not being. The Japanese king resignation dispatch after that is discontinued, substitution about the department head army rises just and difference why to make substitute becomes.]

그런데 임진왜란 직후인 1607년·1617년·1624년에 파견된 사절단은 통신사라 하지 않고, ‘회답겸쇄환사(回答兼刷還使)’라는 칭호를 썼다. 그 이유는 조선에서는 이 시기만 하더라도 도쿠가와(德川) 막부를 신의를 통할 수 있는 통신국(通信國)으로 인정하지 않았기 때문이다. [BabelFish translation: By the way the delegation who is dispatched at 1607 is immediately after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 * 1617 * 1624 the designation which is did not do the news agency not to be, `reply and also [sway] annular companies (reply) 'wrote. The reason from Korea only this time does but the [khwu] does not recognize and (the communication country which is the possibility of leading a virtue) just department providence with, because not being is.]

통신사의 호칭이 다시 사용되기 시작한 것은 1636년부터인데, 이러한 배경에는 동아시아 국제정세의 변동이 주된 원인으로 작용하고 있다. 즉, 명·청의 세력 교체와 그에 따른 중화질서(中華秩序)의 붕괴는 조·일 양국에 새로운 연대감과 탈중화(脫中華)의 교린관계를 구축하게 했다. [BabelFish translation: The title of the news agency being used again, starting from 1636 rises, to like this background is operating with the cause to which the fluctuation of East Asia international situation is principal. Namely, influence shift of life * blue and the neutralization order which follows in him the collapse with the new regiment feeling the neutralization which burns  did to make a relation of neighboring countries relationship construct in trillion * one both nations.]

따라서 조선 후기의 통신사는 청을 중심으로 한 책봉체제를 배제하고, 조·일 양국의 독자적인 대등외교의 수립이라는 외교사적인 의미가 있다.

이러한 국제환경 속에서 통신사의 목적과 서계·예단·여정 등 내용과 형식에 있어서 통신사가 정례화되었다. 그리고 한편으로 대마도와의 실질적인 통교를 위하여 문위행(問慰行)과 팔송사(八送使) 및 차왜(差倭)제도를 확립하였다.

통신사 파견이 정례화된 이후, 파견 목적은 표면적으로는 대부분이 장군습직의 축하였다. 그러나 내면적으로는 그때마다 다른 이유와 목적을 가지고 있었다.

예를 들면, 1636년은 명·청의 세력 교체에 따른 일본과의 연대감 확립, 국서개작사건 이후 대마도주의 옹호와 국정탐색, 1643년은 청나라의 압력에 대한 견제와 겸대(兼帶)의 제도 이후 늘어나는 무역량의 축소 교섭, 일본의 해금정책(海禁政策)과 도원생변(島原生變)에 대한 국정탐색이었다.

그 뒤 1655년의 통신사는 일본이 ‘가도조선’(假道朝鮮)한다는 정보를 확인하기 위함이었고, 1682년은 대마도와의 무역통제를 위한 7개 조의 조시약정(朝市約定)이었다. 1711년의 통신사는 아라이 하쿠세끼(新井白石)의 외교의례 개정에 대한 국가의 체면 유지와 일본과의 계속적인 우호관계가 목적이었다. 1719년은 외교의례 복귀에 대한 조선의 외교방침 전달 및 대마도에서의 ‘표인차왜(漂人差倭)’의 조약체결 등 구체적인 양국의 현안문제가 있었다.

그러나 18세기에 들어와 대륙의 정세가 안정되자 통신사 파견도 외교적인 현안보다는 의례적이 되었다. 따라서 1748년과 1764년의 통신사는 장군습직 축하와 교린관계 확인이 주목적이 되었다.

이러한 경향은 19세기에 들어와 통신사 파견의 외교적인 의미가 상실되면서, 1811년 통신사는 여정을 바꾸어 대마도에서 국서를 교환하는 의례적인 ‘역지통신(易地通信)’으로 막을 내리며, 이후 정례화된 통신사는 없었다.

물론 그 뒤에도 장군이 습직할 때마다 ‘대판역지통신(大阪易地通信)’ 또는 ‘대마역지통신(對馬易地通信)’이 결정되었지만 시행되지 않았다. 이미 이 시기가 되면 양국은 통신사 파견에 대한 적극적인 의지가 없었다.

더구나 19세기 중반, 동아시아세계가 서구세력의 위협을 받게 되면서부터 조·일 양국은 통신사를 통한 우호교린보다는 서로 상반된 대외인식에 의해 서구세력에 대처해 나가게 되었고, 일본에 의한 일방적인 교린체제의 파괴는 통신사의 폐절과 함께 교린관계의 종말을 가져왔다.

파견절차와 구성원

통신사의 파견절차는 다음과 같다. 먼저 일본에서 새로운 막부장군의 승습이 결정되면, 대마도주는 막부의 명령으로 ‘관백승습고경차왜(關白承襲告慶差倭：일본에서는 大慶參判使)’를 조선에 파견하여 그 사실을 알려 온다.

곧이어 다시 통신사 파견을 요청하는 ‘통신사청래차왜(通信使請來差倭)〔修聘參判使〕’를 파견한다. 이에 따라 조선에서는 예조가 이 현안을 건의하면 조정에서 논의한 뒤 통신사 파견이 결정되고, 이 사실을 왜관(倭館)에 알린다.

그 뒤 대마도주는 조선측과 통신사 일행의 도일(渡日)에 따른 여러 가지 문제를 협의하기 위하여 또다시 ‘신사영재판차왜(信使迎裁判差倭)’를 부산왜관에 파견한다. 이에 따라 통신사 파견의 구체적인 내용이 협의되면, 예조에서는 이를 조정에 알린다. 조정에서 의논한 뒤 결정이 나면 통신사 일행이 구성된다.

이들이 한양을 출발하여 동래부에 도착하면 다시 대마도에서 파견된 ‘신사영빙재판차왜(信使迎聘裁判差倭)’의 인도를 받아 대마도에 도착한 뒤, 대마도주의 안내를 받아 일본 국내 에도(江戶)까지 왕복한다. 이들이 임무를 마치고 대마도로 돌아오면 그 곳에서 부산까지는 다시 대마도주가 임명하는 ‘신사송재판차왜(信使送裁判差倭)’가 이를 호행·안내한다.

통신사 구성에 관한 절목은 1802년 사역원당상역관 김건서(金健瑞)·이사공(李思恭)·임서무(林瑞茂) 등에 의하여 편찬된 ≪증정교린지 增正交隣志≫ 권5에 상세하게 실려 있다. 그 편성내용은 〔표 2〕와 같다.

〔표 2〕는 1682년(숙종 8)에 개정, 정비되어 완결된 형태로 통신사 총인원이 577인에 달했다. 그 밖에 규정된 것으로 인원편성에 관한 도구전식(都口傳式), 사행의 마필(馬匹)에 관한 마문식(馬文式), 의복을 포함하여 사행준비를 기록한 경외노수(京外路需)가 있는데, 여기에는 정사 이하 노자(奴子)에 이르기까지의 하사품이 지시되어 있고, 끝부분에는 일본 각소에의 예단이 규정되어 있다.

즉, 일본 국왕·약군(若君)·집정(執政) 이하 대마도봉행(對馬島奉行) 등의 처소에는 사신 사예단(私禮單)으로 인삼 49근, 호피(虎皮) 16장(張), 백저포(白苧布) 62필, 흑마포(黑麻布) 109필, 황모필(黃毛筆) 202병(柄), 진묵(眞墨) 360홀(笏), 부용향(芙蓉香) 310지(枝), 소은장도(小銀粧刀) 5병(柄), 석린(石鱗) 14근, 청심원(淸心元) 109환(丸) 등이다.

한편, 통신사 일행이 타고 가는 배는 수군통제사영과 경상좌수사영에서 준비하였다. 이 배는 사람이 타는 기선(騎船) 3척, 짐 싣는 복선(卜船) 3척 등 모두 6척으로 편성하였다. 그리고 정사·부사·종사관의 3사단(使團)으로 구성된 통신사 일행은 3선단(船團)으로 편성하였다.

제1선단에는 국서(國書)를 받드는 정사를 비롯하여 그 수행원인 군관·상통사·제술관에서부터 격군까지 타고, 제2선단에는 정사를 받드는 부사를 비롯하여 수행원이, 제3선단에는 종사관을 비롯한 그 수행원이 탔다. 이와 같이 구성된 사절단은 공식외교문서인 서계와 별폭(別幅)을 지참하였다. 막부장군에게는 조선국왕의 명의로 된 국서(國書)가 작성되었다.

그리고 그 밖에 대마도주나 막부의 관리들에게는 예조참판 또는 예조참의·좌랑 등 상대의 지위에 따라 그에 상응하는 직명으로 서계가 작성되었다. 특히, 국서의 경우에는 규모나 격식이 정해져 있어서 그 형식을 반드시 지켜야 하였다. 여기에서 별폭이란 줄 선물의 품목을 말한다.

이것을 별폭이라고 한 것은 서계의 문서에 사절의 목적과 용건을 기재하고, 문서 끝이나 별지에 예물로 보내는 선물의 종류와 수량을 적어 완전한 문서로 작성하였기 때문이다. 별폭은 상대방의 지위에 따라 품목과 그 품목의 양이 달리 정하여졌다. 그리고 별폭은 선물내용이나 수량면에서 증여무역(贈與貿易)의 성격을 지니고 있었다.

파견 노정

통신사 일행이 한양을 출발하여 부산에 도착하는 데 2개월 정도가 소요되었다. 이들에게는 중도에 연향이 베풀어졌는데, 처음에는 충주·안동·경주·부산의 4개 소에서 베풀어졌으나 후기에 와서는 민폐 때문에 부산 한곳에서만 베풀어졌다. 이들은 부산에 도착하여 영가대(永嘉臺)에서 해신제(海神祭)를 지냈다.

이 해신제는 길일(吉日)을 택하여 통신사 일행이 부산에서 일본으로 떠나는 바로 그날 거행되었다. 해신제는 통신사 출향 직전의 필수적인 의식으로 ≪국조오례의 國朝五禮儀≫의 해독제(海瀆祭)에 준하여 거행되었다. 즉, 영가대 높은 곳에 제단을 마련하여 희생과 폐백(幣帛)을 차려 놓고 집사(執事)의 사회 아래 엄숙하게 진행되었다.

이 제전의 내용은 신유한(申維翰)의 ≪해유록 海游錄≫에 상세하게 기록되어 있다. 영가대는 통신사 일행과 인연이 깊은 부산의 명승지로, 그들은 이곳에서 일본으로 떠나고 이곳으로 돌아왔다.

임진왜란 뒤 1614년(광해군 6) 순찰사 권반(權盼)은 이곳에 못을 파고 호수를 만들어 전함을 계류(繫留)하는 장소로 하였는데, 그것은 임진왜란의 쓰라린 경험을 거울삼고자 한 시책이었다 한다.

그리고 그 옆에 10여 발 되는 높은 언덕을 만들어 전형적인 건축양식의 누정(樓亭)을 세웠다. 이 누정을 영가(永嘉)라고 하였는데, 이것은 권반의 본관인 ‘안동’을 옛날에 영가라 하였기 때문에 그 이름을 딴 것이라 한다.

전함을 계류하였던 영가대 호수의 흔적은 1906년까지만 하여도 완연히 남아 있었으나, 그 뒤 일본인들의 매축(埋築：바닷가나 강가를 메워 뭍으로 만드는 일)으로 사라지고 말았다.

한편, 영가대에서 해신제를 지낸 통신사는 국서를 받들고 기선 3척과 복선 3척에 나누어 타고 그 날로 출발하여 호위하는 대마선단에 선도되어 대마 와니우라(鰐浦)에 입항한 뒤 부중(府中)으로 들어갔다.

대마 부중에서 도주의 연향을 받은 다음, 이정암(以酊庵) 장로(長老) 2인의 안내를 받아 이키도(壹岐島)에서 후쿠오카현(福岡縣 粕屋郡 相島)을 거쳐 아카마세키(赤間關：下關)를 항로로 취하여 세토나이해를 거슬러 올라갔다.

이후 각 번의 향응과 호행을 받으면서 기다리고 있던 유자(儒者)·문인(文人)과의 필담창화(筆談唱和)를 하면서 해로를 따라 대판(大阪)에 이른 뒤 누선(樓船)으로 갈아타고 상륙하여 동·서본원사(東西本願寺)에 들어갔다. 그 뒤 6척의 아국선과 몇 명의 경비요원만을 남겨둔 채 여러 대명(大名)이 제공한 배를 타고 요도우라(淀浦)에 상륙한다.

이어 인마(人馬)의 도움을 받아 육로로 교토(京都)로 향했다. 무로마치(室町) 막부 때에는 여기가 종점이었지만, 에도 막부 때에는 1617년을 제외하고는 모두 에도까지 갔다. 쿠사(草津)를 출발하여 1620년대 특별히 건설하였던 ‘조선인가도(朝鮮人街道)’를 지나 도카이도(東海道)를 지나갔다.

그 중도에는 배다리〔船橋〕가 있었는데, 1682년 통신사 일행은 이 길을 가면서 “다리를 놓는 데 쓰인 배가 무려 300척이나 되었다.” “열선(列船)의 비용과 철색운판(鐵索運板)의 비용이 수천여 금에 이르렀다.”라고 기술하고 있다. 한편, 오카자키(岡崎)에 도착하여서는 막부에서 보낸 사자(使者：問安使)의 출영을 받으면서 육로로 목적지인 에도에 들어갔다.

숙사는 1682년 무렵부터 본원사로 하였으나 뒤에 동본원사(東本願寺)로 바꾸었다. 통신사 일행이 통과하는 객사에서의 교류는 한시문·학술의 필담창화라고 하는 문화상의 교류가 성하였다. 그리고 이에 따른 화려하고 사치한 향응은 결국 일본의 재정을 핍박하는 하나의 원인이 되기도 했다.

특히, 일본학자 아라이 하쿠세끼(新井白石)는 이 상황을 비판하여 통신사 접대에 대한 제 규정의 시정을 시도하기도 하였다. 그가 제시한 시정안은 향응장소를 5개소(大阪·京都·名古屋·駿府, 왕로에는 赤間關, 귀로에는 牛窓)만으로 한정하고, 다른 곳에서는 음식만을 제공하는 것이었다. 이러한 개혁안은 결국 한번으로 끝나고 또다시 종전의 형태로 돌아가 호화로운 향응을 계속하였다.

에도에 체류하는 동안에 1636·1643·1655년에 파견된 통신사 일행들은 도쿠가와 장군의 묘소〔日光東照宮〕의 참배를 강요받기도 하였다. 또, 1636년부터는 막부의 요청에 의하여 곡마단(曲馬團)의 공연이 있었는데, 1680년부터는 이를 위하여 마상재(馬上才)의 파견이 항례화되었다.

막부로부터 길일이 택하여져 허락이 있으면 국서와 별폭을 건네주고는 며칠 뒤 장군의 회답·별폭, 그리고 정사 이하에게 물품과 금은이 답례로 주어지고, 다시 대마도주와 함께 왔던 길을 돌아서 귀로에 올랐다. 제후들의 향응과 접대가 처음 올 때와 마찬가지로 행하여졌으며, 대마도로부터는 신사송재판차왜가 동행하여 부산에 입항한 뒤 한양으로 돌아왔다.

통신사들의 왕래 일정에는 다소 차이가 있기는 하나 대개는 5개월에서 8개월이 소요되었다. 그러나 무더운 여름이나 엄동이 낀 노정기간에는 2년 여에 걸친 사행도 있었다. 1428년(세종 10) 장군습직 축하로부터 시작된 통신사는 1811년(순조 11) 대마도에서 국서를 교환하는 역지통신(易地通信)으로 변질되었고, 이것을 마지막으로 역사에서 사라졌다.

마지막 통신사 김이교 일행 334인이 대마도에 먼저 도착하여 막부 장군이 보내 오는 사신을 기다린 것이라든가, 정하여진 규례에 따른 양국 사신간의 단조로운 행사, 일본 막부의 금령으로 일본 백성에게 통신사 일행과의 접촉을 금한 것은 이전과는 다른 모습이었다. 통신사에 대한 일본인의 반응은 정치담당자들뿐만 아니라 일반 무사를 비롯한 문인·묵객·서민에 이르기까지 커다란 관심을 불러일으켰기 때문이다.

통신사는 그들이 방문한 곳마다 서화·시문·글씨 등을 많이 남겼으며, 그것은 병풍·회권·판화 등의 형태로 만들어져 널리 유행되었으며, 이러한 것들이 현재까지 전해져 내려오고 있다. 한편, 통신사들은 국내로 돌아와 일본에서 겪은 견문록을 남기기도 하였다.

이 기록들은 당시 통신사에 참여한 인물들이 일본에서 경험한 사실들을 일기형식으로 기록하여 남겨 놓은 것으로, 당시 문물교류를 살피는 데 좋은 자료가 된다. 이러한 측면에서 통신사는 일본과의 관계 유지라는 외교적인 의미뿐만 아니라 학술·사상·기술·예술상의 문화교류라는 또 하나의 문화적인 의미를 가진다고 할 것이다.


 * Tenmei, machine translations are worthless. Taemyr (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again,, after your failed attempt at Severance Hospital, and Yonsei, you pick the one again. Tenmei, love drama so much? --Caspian blue 21:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Caspian blue --
 * Reset (military): After gratifying accomplishments and much still to learn ... not drama -- not about drama ....
 * Taxonomy: Think again.
 * Modest attention devoted to WP:V is essentially undramatic. --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted from article
Before removing the flawed synthesis sentences from the "History" section, each citation was expanded with a link to the diff which linked a cite to incorrect data -- see here. For convenience, these diff-links are replicated below:


 * WP:BURDEN/INCORRECT –  not 1428 ; diff: "The Joseon royal embassies to Japan were missions sent intermittently by Joseon Dynasty Korea to the Shogunate of Japan between the years 1428 and 1811.


 * WP:BURDEN/INCORRECT –  not 1404 ; diff: "Following the establishment of diplomatic ties ... in 1404 (4th year of King Taejong's reign in Joseon), the two countries began to dispatch envoys to handle diplomatic issues."<:ref name="encyKorea">; This diff documents the addition of this post hoc reference source citation.


 * WP:BURDEN/INCORRECT –  not 1428 ; diff ---> diff: "The first actual visit to Japan by Joseon envoys took place in 1428 (11th year of King Sejong's reign) when the delegation, led by Bak Seo-saeng (박서생, 朴瑞生), arrived in Kyoto." <:ref name="encyKorea">


 * WP:BURDEN/INCORRECT –  purpose ≠ pirates ; diff: "In the years before the 1592 Japanese invasion of Joseon, the main purpose of the tongsinsa visits to Japan was to make formal requests to the shogun to take control of waegu (wakō), or "Japanese pirates", which ravaged and plundered along Joseon’s coastline.<:ref>This diff documents the addition of  this post hoc reference support citation, e.g.,  ; compare Naumann, Louis-Frederic. (2002). Japan Encyclopedia, p. 1026..


 * WP:Burden? Where does the incorrect information in these sentence come from? Where is this information in the cited source? --Tenmei (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * These sentences represent <misleading synthesis:
 * WP:Burden/INCOMPLETE – "The envoys dispatched by Joseon were not singularly referred to as tongsinsa, however, and a variety of titles were used, including bobingsa (보빙사, 報聘使), hoeryesa (회례사, 回禮使), hoeryegwan (회례관, 回禮官), tongsingwan (통신관, 通信官) and gyeongchagwan (경차관, 敬差官)."
 * joseon tongsinsa (조선통신사, 朝鮮通信使) –
 * tongsin – "signifies trust in each other" plus "formal and fully-fledged diplomatic intercourse"
 * bobingsa (보빙사, 報聘使) – pobingsa (hōheishi) = "response envoy"
 * hoeryesa (회례사, 回禮使) – (kaireishi)= "response envoy"
 * hoeryegwan (회례관, 回禮官) –
 * tongsingwan (통신관, 通信官) –
 * gyeongchagwan (경차관, 敬差官) – (a)"Investigator; a temporary governmental position for investigating loss of harvest or public opinion";<:ref>Park, Byeongju. "Dokdo Island," Section 5.2, Knol. June 9, 2009. (b) in the reign of Kin Sejo of Joseon (1455-1468), "official name for supervisor of irrigation facilities"

>:::* "The title and era name entered in diplomatic documents were important factors in defining the nature of foreign relations and ideological input of the rulers.
 * Compare <:ref name="hae-jin_kang34-35">Kang, Etsuko Hae-jin . (1997). Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, pp. 34-35.


 * WP:BURDEN/INCORRECT – not 1413 ; "It was in 1413 (13th year of King Taejong's reign) that the term tongsinsa was used for the first time, with Bak Bun (박분, 朴賁) heading the delegation to Japan. However, their trip to Japan was cancelled when Bak fell ill in the middle of the voyage."
 * joseon tongsinsa (조선통신사, 朝鮮通信使) –


 * The questions becomes overwhelming, discouraging and more .... --Tenmei (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material
This artcle has been edited in a manner consistent with WP:V and WP:Burden.

In this context, the burden of restoring any information from the longer unsourced version would clearly fall on the editor(s) reinstating the claims -- see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:BURDEN at the article level (permanent link)

There is no reason for this subject to lie fallow. --Tenmei 23:56, 18 August 2009


 * No source has ever been cited for names deleted from this article's table. This problem was wrongly carried over from the unsourced material of now-merged articles.  There is no evidence that the merge was handled in anything but a careless manner.


 * When this article was edited accordingly, it was undone by a Korean editor:
 * diff 09:32, 19 August 2009 Historiographer (Explanation was not enough.)
 * This explanation invites further sourced improvements to an article which focuses attention on specific instances of good relations between the governing powers in geographically adjacent states.
 * In this context, WP:Burden requires that unsourced material be removed; and it establishes a burden for those wishing to enhance the quality of this article. New material simply needs to be supported by a credible source citation. --Tenmei (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Tenmei, I belive that written sources exists from the 17th century. So I find the statement "who the Joseon envoy to Tokukawa was in year 16XX is not known to us" to be extremely dubious, and hence saying that the chief envoy in 1611 is someone unknown falls as much under WP:Burden as the stating that Yeo U-gil was the chief envoy in 1611.  Note also that WP:Burden states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged".  And so I am unclear on one thing; do you claim that the statement "Yoe U-gil was the chief envoy of the Joseon diplomatic mission to Tokugawa Hidetada in 1611" is false or controversial?  Taemyr (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Taemyr -- I don't know what to make of the opening argument you seem to contrive based on some kind of unspecified, but plausible "belief." As I see it, you contrive a non-issue.


 * The edit histories of these articles and the corollary talk pages support no inference that any on-going research or other investigations are currently in hand; and, given the fallow state of this article for the past several months, no good reason for delay presents itself. There may be sources which provide further information, but they have not been provided. It is axiomatic that what remains unsourced can be removed; and that's what I've done.


 * In the period before User:Caspian blue busied himself with escalating complaints, I had already posted pre-Hepburn transliterations of the names of some of the ambassadors as published by Julius Klaproth and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in 1834. I have now restored this credibly supported material; but to what end?


 * In an effort to work collaboratively, I filled the mission leader cells of this table with suspect data from one of these unsourced articles. At that time, it was my hope that this gesture would be accepted as a constructive step.  It was not.


 * The blank cells in the tables will remain available for improvement. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My opening statements was a complaint about the fact that when you replace a name in a table such as the one in question with the term "unknown" you are not removing a statment. You are replacing a statement.  For instance replacing "Yoe U-gil" with "unknown" changes the statement "Yoe U-gil was the chief envoy in the mission of 1611" to "it is not known who the chief envoy was in the mission of 1611".  The latter statement is completely unplausible and hence requires support pr. WP:Burden.  Replacing the supposed name with a question mark is better, although it still is a replacement rather than a removal.
 * If sources exists that support the names in Korean then those sources can be used, in accordance with WP:NONENG. Transliteration should be carried out according to Manual of Style (Korea-related articles).   Transliteration acording to established norms should be considered as a Routine calculations pr No original research.  Modern transliteration schemes are clearly preferable to transliteration schemes that are outdated.  Taemyr (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Taemyr -- You make two points. I understand and accept with both except for the time-based replacement/removal issue which is becomes a variation of a post hoc ergo propter hoc falacy gambit. That element of your reasoning will have to be set aside, because I'm unwilling to do more than acknowledge it.  Accordingly, I have struck one part of my comments above.


 * The observations about transliteration are irreproachable, but entirely irrelevant because the in a choice between an archaic representation of an ambassadors name and something with no support whatsoever is a non-choice, a non-issue. Who's kidding who?


 * Yes, Manual of Style (Korea-related articles) does explain that Im Kwang is better than
 * (a) Nin kwô, which is a pre-Hepburn Japanese transliteration devised by Julius Klaproth and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in 1834; and
 * (b) Jin kuang, which is a pre-McCune–Reischauer, Korean romanization devised by Klaproth et al.
 * However, without a citation, I feel no compulsion to invest time in trying to figure out what to make of Im Gwang? This is the unsourced data which was previously in the table-cell identifying the chief envoy of the Joseon delegation of 1625.  For you to argue that I must invest that time and effort in research before balking is indefensible; yet there were are nonetheless.  You have heedlessly squandered credibility and good will for naught.


 * You complain:
 * "And so I am unclear on one thing; do you claim that the statement "Yoe U-gil was the chief envoy of the Joseon diplomatic mission to Tokugawa Hidetada in 1611" is false or controversial?"
 * I recognize that the only constructive answer is this: You've asked a non-question ...  I might ask, what is your response to this: "When did you stop beating your wife?"  Despite the impropriety of the question in this setting, I would hope you recognize this formulation as an a priori rhetorical trap. --Tenmei (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: In striking my commets above, I withdraw from this discussion-thread. This investment serves no constructive function. --Tenmei (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags on the History section
The history section was tagged with refimprove and Original research, I removed these tags. These tags imply that the section is undersourced, and a cursorial glance at the section will tell that this is not the case. I have doubts about the Synthesis tag as well, since WP:Synthesis is a rather specific complaint, it deals with a specific way that sources should not be used. Most likely this tag as well should be removed. If it is in doubt if specific sources really support a statement then the inline tag verify source should be used. Again note that statements that are not likely to be challenged does not need any citation. Taemyr (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, this one citation was added for cosmetic reasons and no other. At one point, I would have welcomed any effort whatsoever to help me understand how the proffered encyclopedia citation is related to the claims put forward in the sentences of this article.  This has not been forthcoming; and this begs the question, why not?


 * My judgment about WP:AGF is informed by a very clear history of actions and inaction; therefore, the tag is justified.


 * I would welcome clarification, not only because it would improve this specific article, but also because the process of working collaboratively to improve this text will suggest ways to address similarly difficult problems which may arise in future. --Tenmei (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, the section is referenced. If the references fails to support the section then that is an entirely different problem.  Taemyr (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Taemyr No -- the section is not referenced. The section has a citation with a link to an encyclopedia article written in Korean -- yes; but there is no evidence that anyone, not User: Caspian blue nor anyone else has actually read it, nor that any part of that Korean text is accurately reflected in the English prose posted in our article.  Where is the evidence that anyone else has done as much as I have to make sense of it? In the context of cumulative evidence of actions and of inactions, the "reasonable doubt" once extended to that citation fades. You reject my efforts to use machine transcription to search for some ground for identifying any part of this text; but you fail to acknowledge the glaring fact that nothing more was done with this article.  You miss the forest for the trees in your comments at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:BURDEN at the article level (permanent link).

NOTE: In striking my contributions, I withdraw from this thread. This investment serves no constructive function. --Tenmei (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taemyr --Please strike your comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. In that context and in this one, your strategies are undeserved and it offends. --Tenmei (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification :
 * Taemyr -- You have it exactly backwards when you seem to marry WP:Verifiability/WP:Burden with a demand that I find something to complain about; and then you blame me for failing to participate in a needless dispute I'm trying to avoid.


 * You seem to equate WP:Burden with disagreement, but this a priori focus presumes to establish a fulcrum at the wrong point. I begin to worry that you misconstrue the fulcrum and the lever and the use to which both are to be applied.


 * I feel that the thrust of this thread needs to be more forward-looking. --Tenmei (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed material
The following was removed from the "List of embassies" section. This requires support and discussion. This plausible enhancement is relatively recent:
 * 1 diff 08:53, 5 August 2009 Historiographer (10,795 bytes) (Joseon Tongsinsa begins to sent in 1428.)
 * 2 diff 09:12, 5 August 2009 Historiographer (11,677 bytes)

The table posted by Historiographer was initially moved here. No sources were indicated in support of any part of it. The cells of that table were expanded and populated with data supported by citations from reliable sources. This material was developed across a span of weeks; and it has now been incorporated in a new article -- see Joseon missions to Japan

The collapsed table below is a placeholder for the earlier versions of the "new" table. --Tenmei (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The information contained in the table needs to be restated in prose for each of the individual diplomatic missions:
 * 1392
 * 1398
 * 1404
 * 1406
 * 1410
 * 1413
 * 1420
 * 1423
 * 1424
 * 1428
 * 1432
 * 1439
 * 1443
 * 1590


 * 1596 – ?

__________ Two questions seem relevant:

Question A What citations support this new table? In my view, The table may be an appropriate addition to this article, or perhaps it is better positioned in a separate article; but in any event, supporting source citations are needed -- compare Korea-Japan relations, Northeast Asia History Foundation.

Regardless of whether this table is restored to this article or moved to its own article, I would have thought that it should be accompanied by complementary prose. I would anticipate something like the "Missions chronology" sub-section. Also, I would have thought that (a) the table is enhanced by encompassing the 1413 mission; and (b) some further explanation of the 1596 mission needs to be added in light of the reference to 1592 events in the "History" section of the article.

Question B Are the sub-headings off-topic in focusing on Hideyoshi's invasion as a pivotal fulcrum? The sub-headings are a different matter altogether; and they seem like suspect WP:OR without more:
 * >Sub-heading ---> Before Japanese invasions of Korea
 * Proposed non-original research alternative: "Korean embassies to the Muromachi bafuku and Hideyoshi"<:ref>Hae-jin Kang, Etsuko. (1997). Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, p. 275.
 * >Sub-heading ---> After Japanese invasions of Korea
 * Proposed non-WP:OR alternative: "Yi Korea-Tokugawa period diplomatic relations"<:ref>Woong, Joe Kang. (2005). The Korean struggle for International identity, p. 44.

Collaborative editing?
Does this represent a constructive collaborative editing gesture? -- Tenmei 17:10, 21 August 2009 --Tenmei (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)