Talk:Joseon

Archives
February 2005–August 2007 September 2007

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 {{dubious}} 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—in my mind—is a combination of the following:

1. 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.
2. 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—or what "tributary" means—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. —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.[1] 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.[2] 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.

—Rockhill, William Woodville (1905). China's intercourse with Korea from the XVth century to 1895. London: Luzac & co.

—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. rʨanaɢ (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)

Request for comment

Template:Rfcid 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 #Review of content changes. rʨanaɢ (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)

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.
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)

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. rʨanaɢ (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.[3]

• Baptisan4 made around 20 different edits[4] 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.[5]

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.) rʨanaɢ (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. rʨanaɢ (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?[6][7].

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[[8]] so I addressed the issue and hyperlinked WP:TPO for reference[9]. 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)

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.

[10] removed referenced mention of Joseon's tributary relationship to Qing, renamed "Chinese" influence as "Confucian" influence (but isn't the Confucian influence from China?)

[11] removed mention of Joseon's surrender to the Qing in 1637

[12] removed an entire paragraph of text without explanation

[13] 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.)

[14] 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?)

[15] 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

[16] changed "Seven Year War" to "Seven Years War" (sp, should be Seven Years')

[17] renamed "Confucian" scholar as "Seonbi" scholar; however, the artwork does not identify the person in question specifically as a Seonbi scholar.

[18] 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)

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)

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)