Talk:Korean missions to Edo

Merge

The initial exchange in this thread was copied from User Talk:Tenmei#Korean missions to Edo.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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

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

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#Korean missions to Edo. 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)

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#Merge, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Wikipedia: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#Merge. 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)