User:Pldx1/Joseon-references

The 40 references given in the Joseon Kingdom page are more than often poorly filled. Among them, we have:
 * 3 broken links. Another link to the controversial 'Korean Nobi in American Mirror' should be found (precisely because this text was influent). The other have to be replaced.
 * 5 unfair quotations UFQ. For example, among the three references given for 'Qing tributary 1636', we have two quotations about Ming in 1500 and the last one is about the Battle of Koeniggraetz...
 * 9 references are in Korean. When asserting a non controversial point, these references should be replaced by English ones. When the point is controversial, it would be great to provide a Korean quotation and a fair translation.

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

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

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

Joseon Kingdom References, old and news
K01ok	 = Broken link.

K02ok	 = 02a	 =

03ok	 = UFQ

04ok	 = UFQ

05ok	 = UFQ

06ok =

07ok =

K08ok =

K09ok	 =

K10ok =

11ok =

12ok =

13ok =

14ok =

K15ok =

16aok = 16ok =

17a	 = Repetition of the reference in the same § is useless. K17	 = 17b	 = Repetition of the reference in the same § is useless. 17c	 = Repetition of the reference in the same § is useless.

18ok = UFQ.

19ok = Broken link

20ok =

21ok =

22ok =

23ok =

24ok =

25ok =

26ok =

27ok =

28ok = UFQ

29ok =

30ok =

31ok =

32ok =

33ok =

34ok =

35ok =

36ok =

K37ok =

38ok =

K39	 =

40ok = Broken link

Brokenlinks

 * Korean Nobi in American Mirror: Yi Dynasty Coerced Labor in Comparison to the Slavery in the Antebellum Southern United States. Was a working paper of Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University. The link was Korean Nobi


 * Korea And The Korean People. The link was


 * About Rank of Joseon Officials. Publisher: Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies (?). Not reachable from . More details should be given.

References (Books-Journals)





















 * . This tool gives access to any individual record of the Annals of Joseon Dynasty. An URL like http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=kna_12505003_006 refers to the Korean version (k) of Seonjo's (letter n is the 13th, while Seonjo was the 13th king), year 25 (125), month 05 (050), day 03, document 6 (006).

Third Level References






Yet another References
These books are quoted somewhere in Wikipedia