Talk:Joseon missions to China

Synthesis
Historiographer made two edits which are a little unclear:
 * A. diff 11:31, 10 October 2009 Historiographer (3,895 bytes)
 * What's the odds?


 * B. diff 11:35, 10 October 2009 Historiographer (3,840 bytes)
 * Gyorin policy was not only relationship with Japan, and it is multi-foreign policy. )

The clarification of Joseon's neighborly relations policy may be entirely correct -- true, confirmable, verifiable -- the specific source cited does not support it. For that reason, I have restored the original sentence, which is verified and confirmed by the citation; and I have added the newly proposed information in a separate paragraph. If there were a source cited to support this new information, it would be a helpful step in a constructive direction.

I don't understand the deletion of the link to Korean Empire nor the removal of the "See also" section. The meaning of the edit summary is unclear. In this context, I hope for an explanation of the phrase "What's the odds?"

I wonder if the term "synthesis" is a commonly-understood term; or does it perhaps need further discussion? This change to Historiographer's edit says nothing about the accuracy or inaccuracy of what was added. Instead, the focus is a little different. Synethesis is a term which applies here because the cited source only addresses the bilateral Joseon-Japanese relationship.

I hope this clarifies what is intended to be a small, non-controversial edit. --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

JPOV doubt
I note with interest that the user page for Historiographer includes the following

JPOV doubt:
 * Joseon Tongsinsa
 * Joseon diplomacy
 * Joseon missions to Japan
 * Pak Tong-chi
 * Yan Yu (diplomat)
 * Yǒ ǔi-gye
 * Naval history of Japan

Perhaps it will be constructive to address this perceived issue directly. If so, it is modestly reasonable to mention that almost every sentence in the current version of this article is supported by a citation and a reliable source. The sole exception is the material which Historiographer has introduced.

One way to avoid any perceived bias is to cited sources, as has been done here. I would hope this will be construed as a constructive step towards averting any suspected POV or JPOV. --Tenmei (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1st revert
Historiographer -- I don't understand the rationale for this edit:
 * diff 02:37, 11 October 2009 Historiographer (4,062 bytes)
 * It has nothing to do with this article.

This thread allows for meaningful discussion. Perhaps this can be a step towards consensus. --Tenmei (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd revert
Why is there no talk page participation? --Tenmei (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

3rd revert
Historiographer -- This process calls for patience. I may not grasp everything about whatever is going on here, but I do understand the twin concepts of patience and waiting. In our slim context, the edit summary seems to suggest more questions than answers:
 * diff 13:51, 14 October 2009 Historiographer (4,403 bytes)
 * This idea is totally choplogic.

I did investigate further by checking Wiktionary [chop logic]; but the exercise was unavailing. --Tenmei (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

4th revert
Historiographer -- Without an explanation for your edits, they are not easy to understand: In the context of your other edits, this begins to appear as merely provocative. As I understand basic Wikipedia policy, this doesn't need to be confrontational. If you simply decide to contribute to talk page discussion threads, then it becomes possible to move towards some kind of consensus agreement. If not, the range of options remains barren. --Tenmei (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * diff 01:03, 18 October 2009 Historiographer (6,321 bytes)
 * diff 01:03, 18 October 2009 Historiographer (6,372 bytes)
 * My edit summaries are demonstrably reasonable in the context above:


 * A. diff 05:18, 18 October 2009 Tenmei m (6,356 bytes)
 * Restoring -- without edit summaries or talk page participation, Historiographer's appear unsupported? unhelpful?
 * B. diff 05:20, 18 October 2009 Tenmei m (6,321 bytes) (Undid revision 320545148 by Tenmei
 * More explicit edit summary may be necessary
 * C. diff 05:23, 18 October 2009 Tenmei m (6,356 bytes
 * Historiographer's edits need explanation & context -- talk page comments are unavoidable in this instance


 * In sum, the time I have invested on this talk page exceeds the amount of time Historiographer has devoted in edits without any attempt to explain. This begs an unavoidable question about what is really going on here?  Why? --Tenmei (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

5th revert
Historiographer -- The following edit and edit summary give inadequate reasons for me to begin to guess what vexes you.
 * diff 08:40, 18 October 2009 Historiographer (talk | contribs) (6,321 bytes)
 * You just asserted own your opinion and canvassing to me. That is worthless in participation.

The evolution of this talk page is not encouraging. See also Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa#Measured response to confrontational strategy Without your cooperation, this remains frustrating -- but perhaps that's the point? --Tenmei (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

6th revert
Historiographer -- In the absence of anything else, I can only make guesses about whatever it is you have in mind. I can speculate ...? At best, this is some variation on ipse dixit reasoning?. Alternately, I construe this as a deliberately contrived "edit war" -- pointless in terms of improving the substance of this or any other article, but none-the-less worthwhile from your point of view because it is provocative, etc.

Worst among my guesses is that you have been ill-served by the community because, from what I can tell by scanning your edit history, "edit warring" tactics have proven workable, low-risk, cost-effectiv etc. -- e.g.,


 * EXAMPLE: Edit war at Joseon Dynasty


 * EXAMPLE: Edit warring again

EXAMPLE: Korean Empire

For me, the most recent edit summary ("C" below) provides a compelling reason for you to explain whatever you think this gambit is intended to achieve ...? Repeating what I posted as an edit summary on October 18th:
 * A. diff 05:23, 18 October 2009 Tenmei m (6,356 bytes)
 * Historiographer's edits need explanation & context -- talk page comments are unavoidable in this instance


 * B. diff 08:40, 18 October 2009 Historiographer (6,321 bytes)
 * You just asserted own your opinion and canvassing to me. That is worthless in participation.


 * C. diff 21:42, 18 October 2009 Tenmei (6,356 bytes) (Undid revision 320564935 by Historiographer
 * Explain on talk page -- your edits are not understood


 * D. diff 14:04, 19 October 2009 Historiographer (6,321 bytes)
 * On the contrary, I don't understand your behavior too.

Following the conventional wiki-protocols requires only seconds for a click/undo gesture; and the process of adding a comment in this venue takes quite a bit longer. That's a little bit unbalanced -- not an arguably good process for working towards consensus.

Perhaps it will help to put this in a broader context than just this one article, e.g.,


 * Goryeo missions to Imperial China
 * Goryeo missions to Yuan China
 * Goryeo missions to Ming China
 * Goryeo missions to Japan


 * Joseon diplomacy
 * Joseon missions to Imperial China
 * Joseon missions to Ming China
 * Joseon missions to Qing China
 * Joseon missions to Japan
 * Joseon tongsinsa
 * Joseon missions to Ryukyu Kingdom
 * Ryukkuan missions to Joseon


 * Japanese diplomacy (pre-Meiji period)
 * Japanese missions to Imperial China
 * Japanese missions to Sui China
 * Japanese missions to Tang China
 * Japanese missions to Yuan China
 * Japanese missions to Ming China
 * Japanese missions to Qing China
 * Japanese missions to Joseon
 * Japanese missions to Korean Empire
 * Japanese missions to Ryukyu Kingdom
 * Japanese missions to Mexico

Bottom line: I refuse to guess. I refuse to invest more time than I have already done. For however long this continues, my invitation to join me in a process which moves towards consensus will be terse. --Tenmei (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeating what was posted in the 4th revert -- see above ...: "... time I have invested on this talk page exceeds the amount of time Historiographer has devoted in edits without any attempt to explain." "... what is really going on here? Why?"

If the purpose is something simple -- like wanting attention, then what? What next? --Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The evolution of this talk page is not encouraging. See also Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa#Measured response to confrontational strategy  --Tenmei (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyorin
Historiographer -- At this point, there is no citation support for the plausible claim that a kyorin (gyorin) policy encompassed Jurchen people and Ryukyu Kingdom. There is no citation identifying one or more diplomatic exchanges between Joseon and the Jurchen and/or betweenJoseon and the Ryukyu kingdom.

The sentence in which Jurchen people was inserted doesn't clarify what specific elements of the Jurchen quasi-state groupings would have established diplomatic relations with Joseon. Nor does it explain to which Jurchen entity the Joseon court might have tried to contact.

When these fundamental issues are addresseded and supported by a citation, both can be restored to the article, of course. However, neither can be re-inserted in a sentence which is explicitly supported by a citation which does not mention either the Jurchen or the Ryukyu Kingdom. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd revert
Historiographer -- This is a contrived issue. It is not a legitimate dispute, but a phoney one created for no plausibly constructive reasons. This thread illustrates an attempt to construe a new cause for confrontation and an unreasonable decision to proceed with the provocative "edit war" pattern which is detailed above.

In the edit summaries below,
 * "A" shows the addition of useful information without a sourced citation; "B" shows removal of WP:Synthesis and the suggested solution.
 * A. diff 11:35, 10 October 2009 Historiographer (3,840 bytes)
 * Gyorin policy was not only relationship with Japan, and it is multi-foreign policy.


 * B. diff 15:03, 10 October 2009 Tenmei
 * Removing synthesis -- see talk page


 * "C" + "D" show that this extended talk page thread was created, and it was referenced with explicit clarity.
 * C. diff 16:40, 19 October 2009 Historiographer Joseon missions to Imperial China
 * →Joseon diplomacy:Moving Jurchen and Ryukyu Kingdom to talk page


 * D. diff 16:52, 19 October 2009 Historiographer Talk:Joseon missions to Imperial China
 * →Kyorin: new heading


 * "E" shows that Historiographer did not read or acknowledge either the terse edit summary or the amplified summary posted on this talk page.
 * E. diff 13:54, 20 October 2009 Historiographer  (6,972 bytes)
 * Don't remove your own assert again.

Development of a phoney something to fight about
 * FIRST: the sentence below is the subject of this narrowly-focused dispute:
 * This long-term, strategic policy contrasts with the Gyorin (neighborly relations) diplomacy in dealings with Jurchen, Ryukyu and Japan.<:ref>Kang, Etsuko H. (1997). Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, p. 49.


 * SECOND: The sentence I drafted below is offered as a alternative. Some supporting citation was needed.
 * The Gyorin policy was not soley descriptive of the Joseon relationship with Japan; rather, it was applied to a multi-natinal foreign policy, e.g., in relatins with Jurchen and the Ryukyu Kingdom.


 * THIRD: Historiographer modification restores the synthesis and adds a Korean language citation to a another sentence.
 * This long-term, strategic policy contrasts with the gyorin (kyorin) (neighborly relations) diplomacy in dealings with Jurchen, Ryukyu Kingdom and Japan. Gyorin was applied to a multi-national foreign policy.

___________________ FOOTNOTE 1: Kang, Etsuko H. (1997). Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, p. 49. FOOTNOTE 2: 사대교린 (조선 외교), Britannica online Korea
 * 사대는 중국, 교린은 왜국(倭國) 및 여진(女眞)에 대한 외교정책으로, 세력이 강하고 큰 나라는 받들어 섬기고(事大) 이웃나라와는 대등한 입장에서 사귀어(交隣) 국가의 안정을 도모한다는 외교방침이다. 본래 이 용어는 〈맹자〉에 서 나온 말로 전국시대의 제나라 선왕이 이웃나라와 교제하는 방법(交隣之道)을 물었는데 맹자가 대답하기를 "사대(事大)와 사소(事小)가 있어 인자(仁者)라는 것은 능히 대국(大國)이 소국(小國)을 섬기는 것이고, 지자(智者)라는 것은 능히 소국이 대국을 섬기는 것이다"라고 했다. 한국에서 사대교린이 언제부터 대외관계의 용어로 같이 쓰이기 시작했는지 정확히 알 수 없으나, 조선의 경우 〈경국대전〉에 서 이전(吏典)에 승문원을 사대교린의 문서를 관장하는 관서라 하고, 예전(禮典)에는 사대라는 항목이 있다. 또 대사객(待使客)이라는 항목이 있어서 일본을 비롯하여 야인과 중국에서 오는 사신까지 다루고 있다. 그러나 1554년(명종 9)의 실록기사를 보면 "사대 문서와 교린 서계(書契)"라 하여 사대와 교린의 구분이 점차 명백해지고 있으며, 조선 후기 대외관계의 기본문헌인 〈통문관지〉에서는 사대와 교린을 명백히 구분하여 사대는 중국에 관한 것으로 교린은 일본에 관한 것으로 하고 있다. 그리고 전에는 교린의 대상이었던 야인이 이때에 오면 강대해져서 청나라를 세웠으므로 이제 교린이 아닌 사대의 대상이 되었다.
 * Buys China which puts, relation of neighboring countries why the soup and aftershock (woman) about with foreign policy, the country where the influence is big strongly lifts and serves and from the position which is equal (worship of the powerful) with the neighborhood country associates and (plans the stability of) nations is a diplomatic policy. The origin comes out terminology stands and rolls up with my country late king of nationwide time with the neighborhood country the method which associates, Mencius who asks but answers, " Worship of the powerful (worship of the powerful) came  to be a trivialness and factor  being the large country (the large country) this small country  serving easily and, should have fallen  being easily " where means that the small country serves the large country; As did. From Korea the worship of the powerful relation of neighboring countries from when being used with like terminology of international relations, start, accurately the possibility of knowing is not, but case of Korea stands before  the government office where controls the document of worship of the powerful relation of neighboring countries an item which is to do a monk literary world, former times  to buys there is. Also the important visitor (visitors) Japan and there is an item which is and including comes lived until is treating from the rustic and China. When 1554 (life bell 9) sees the thread rock article but, " Worship of the powerful document and relation of neighboring countries stand orgin (book) " Does and dividing the worship of the powerful and the relation of neighboring countries gradually clarity termination, is, is a basic literature of Korea postscript international relations and from clearly divides a worship of the powerful and a relation of neighboring countries and buys about China which puts with the thing the relation of neighboring countries about Japan is doing with the thing. And to before the rustic who is the object of relation of neighboring countries time came and became mightily and from founds the blue country recently became the object of the worship of the powerful where is not the relation of neighboring countries.
 * 중국에 대한 사대의 내용을 보면, 조선은 개국초부터 해마다 하정사(賀正使 : 정월 초하루)·성절사(聖節使 : 황제의 생일)·천추사(千秋使 : 황태자의 생일)·동지사(冬至使) 등을 정기적으로 명나 라에 보냈다. 그외에 사은사(謝恩使 : 고마운 처사가 있을 때)·주청사(奏請使 : 임시로 보고할 일이 있을 때)·진하사(進賀使 : 명나라 황실에 경사가 있을 때)·진위사(陳慰使) 또는 진향사(進香使 : 명 황실에 불행이 있을 때) 등을 수시로 보냈다. 이러한 사신의 파견에는 중국황실에 보내는 방물(方物 : 貢物)이 뒤따랐는데, 이처럼 사대는 흔히 소국이 대국에 바치는 조공(朝貢)과 대국이 소국에 베푸는 책 봉(冊封)으로 나타난다. 본래 중국은 선진(先秦)시대부터 천하에 천명을 받은 천자가 있고 그 아래에서 군신관계의 상하 위계서열로 세계질서가 형성된다고 보았다. 이러한 군신의 상하관계는 중국과 그 주변국가간에도 확대 적용된다. 따라서 주변국가들은 중국에 조공을 바쳤으며, 그대신 중국은 주변국가의 왕들을 책봉했다.
 * When sees the contents of worship of the powerful about China, Korea from foundation of a country beginning every year the New Year's greetings company (New Year's greetings: Early in January one day) * the characteristic paragraph company (paragraphs: Birthday of the emperor) * many years the company (many years: Birthday of Crown Prince) * the comrade company (sent) etc. to a life periodically. In others repaying kindness company (repaying kindness: When being grateful measure,) * the week Government building (: When being the work which will report with being temporary) * the position staff sargeant (: When being inclination in the life country imperial court,) * the authentic company or position syncline (: When being unhappiness in the life imperial court,) sent etc. at any time. Was like this and lived to dispatch the woman's merchandise items which sends to the Chinese imperial court  follows, but like this buys the supporting attack which the small country gives frequently puts in the large country  with the book seal which the large country holds in the small country (the book seal) with appears. Origin China advancement (from) time is a puncture which receives a fate in public and that from the lower part with court rank order under at of lord and vassal relationship the world order is formed, saw. The relationship under at of like this lord and vassal magnification is applied even in China and that circumferential nation between. The circumferential nations gave a supporting attack consequently in China, you new China king the circumferential nation the book seal.
 * 한편 교린의 내용을 보면 먼저 일본에 대한 것은 왜구 방지를 위한 평화적 회유책이었다. 조선은 개국초부터 대일교섭을 통하여 고려말 이후 조선의 연안뿐 아니라 내륙까지 나타나 노략질을 일삼던 왜구의 금지를 요구했고, 일본도 조선정부의 요구에 응하는 한편 조선과의 통교를 위해 사신을 파견했다. 여진에 대한 교린도 여진족이 국경지대에서 벌여온 노략질을 못하도록 달래는 회유정책이었다. 여진의 추장들은 조선의 명예관직을 얻고, 일정한 규정에 따라 1년에 1번 혹은 수년에 1번씩 조선에 와서 국왕에게 숙배(肅拜)하여 형식상으로 종속관계를 유지했다. 그러나 실질적으로 여진이 노린 것은 이러한 왕래 과정에서 이루어지는 교역관계였으며, 조선도 이들의 교역 욕구를 충족시켜주는 대가로 국경지대의 안전을 꾀했다. 이처럼 교린정책은 일종의 회유책이었으나 이것이 실패했을 때는 무력정벌을 병행했다. 여진에 대한 4군 6진의 개척이나 일본에 대한 대마도정벌은 그 대표적인 것이다. 따라서 교린정책은 온건과 강경, 회유와 토벌이라는 이중적인 내용을 갖고 있는 외교정책이다.
 * When saw the contents of relation of neighboring countries meantime and first the thing why was the peaceful excursion book for nine preventions about Japan. Korea led and from foundation of a country beginning Dale negotiation consideration only the coast of after that Korea which rolls up knew and until inland to appear an old friendship prohibition, why makes it business to plundering demanded also Japan responds in demand of the Korea government as a result of Korea and, respects [kyo] lived dispatched. About aftershock relation of neighboring countries the aftershock family to open from the border area and in order not to be able plundering, was an excursion policy which calms down. The chiefs of aftershock got the honor official post of Korea, or to 1 Korea and in the king and a subordination relationship in format as a matter of according to the provision which is fixed to 1 1 time to several years they came [swuk] they conceived to do they maintained. The fact that the aftershock stares at but substantially was relationship of the trade which becomes accomplished from like this traffic process, also Korea these trade craving attempted the safety of the border area at the price to be sufficient. Like this the good-neighbor policy when this which is a kind of excursion book but fails, military force conquest was in parallel. About aftershock the Tsu Island conquest is to be the representative about 4 army 6 true meaning opening up or Japan. Consequently the good-neighbor policy moderate and firm, is the foreign policy which has the contents which is a duplication which is an excursion and a toe earning.

Although online translations of Korean text are demonstrably poor, the fact remains that there is no reference to Jurchen people or Ryukyu Kingdom in the above citation. Nor does this text mention any nation other than Japan.

This was no a mistake.

This was mere ipse dixit or ipse-dixitism.

The Korean language citation was nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Historiographer -- It seems to me that you have been poorly served by a community which has tolerated this strategy in other circumstances. --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

3rd revert
Historiographer -- See above.

This dispute is easily resolved. This is a problem which doesn't need to be a problem at all. --Tenmei (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Restatement
My contributions to the threads on this page have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
 * 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
 * 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
 * 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
 * 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseon missions to Imperial China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614035130/http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML43412.html to http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML43412.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)