Talk:Joseon

Archives
February 2005–August 2007 September 2007

Question

Why does this article failed to point out that Joseon was a Tribute of China? Thanks~

Question

What does these numbers after the word "King" mean ?
King -1
King -1/2
King +1/2
King +1
King +2
Thank you Sayom (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Pldx1, 08 September 2011

Picture for admiral Yi Sunsin has been removed and should be replaced. Among several possibilities, File:AdmiralYi-BusanTower.jpg is looking great. Thanks in advance.

Pldx1 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections, so added the image you suggested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality of the references should be improved

Dear all, I have reviewed the 40 references presently used in the Joseon Kingdom page. What I have found is as follows.

The references are more than often poorly documented. 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 controversial and 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 (cf #28).

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 !

Pldx1 (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Great job, Pldx1! This is very helpful. Let me add that note 16 (on Empress Myeongseong/Queen Min, another talk page nightmare) is a primary source from 1895 AND it doesn't support what is said in the text. No time to look at the other notes in any detail, but next week I'll try to compile a list of useful sources for improving this article. Madalibi (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I just finished analyzing all the footnotes. Here's a list with what I think about them. In most cases I'm just confirming Pldx1's analysis. I can't read Korean, so I can't tell what citations in Korean are about. When that happens, I just write "in Korean."

1. in Korean; nice info, but can't be used to support any English translation, because it's not in English
2. in Korean
3. from www.Koreanhistoryproject.org, a great educational website, but not peer-reviewed, and therefore not clearly WP:RS; as Pldx1 has noted, this page is about the Ming
4. website, not WP:RS; same as the above
5. academic book, but not clearly WP:RS for this kind of claim; in any case, page number doesn't support text (as Pldx1 has also shown)
6. first of 4 notes to document a claim concerning Tsushima's status vis-a-vis Joseon; title is too short (should be Korea: A Historical and Korean Dictionary), p. 255 would directly support the last sentence
7. Cambridge History of Japan; should be p. 442
8. in Korean; seems unnecessary if we already have two reliable sources (notes 6 and 7)
9. in Korean; same as note 8
10. in Korean
11. from Asiasociety.com, a website; arguably not WP:RS
12. scholarly book: fine
13. same
14. a scholarly article: fine, though the link doesn't lead to it
15. untranslated passage from Annals of Joseon Dynasty; doesn't support the text; WP:PRIMARY; says that the people (not "slaves") supported the Wokou because people from the palace cheated them
16. a New York Times article dated 1895; doesn't support the text; WP:primary
17. in Korean; cited four times, all about the assassination of Queen Min; we should replace with one of dozens of English-language WP:RS that say the same thing
18. another Wiki page: WP:CIRCULAR
19. could be database or article; impossible to trace without a page number or a link
20. scholarly source: fine
21. same
22. same
23. same
24. same
25. dead link
26. a personal blog, so clearly not WP:RS; gives good leads to better sources; explains that Korean scholars disagree that "nobi = slaves"; this suggests that we should explain the debate in our wiki (as RS describe it, of course)
27. a "Discussion Paper" titled "Korean Slavery"; some good content but we could probably find better
28. two scholarly sources: fine
29. scholarly source: fine
30. same
31. same
32. same
33. a primary source cited in a scholarly study: fine
34. scholarly article: fine
35. same
36. same
37. in Korean; the corresponding text needs to be clarified
38. scholarly source: fine
39. in Korean
40. a dead page from Indiana University

Conclusion: the Joseon Dynasty#Society section is the only well-referenced section. It contains 19 of all 40 notes (notes 20 to 38) and most of the reliable sources. The rest is basically unreferenced: dead links, blogs, non-RS, and sources that don't support the claims made in the text. Lots of work to do... Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting a biased and impolite reversion

As it is well known, the choice of a picture illustrates the chooser and her's ulterior motives as well as the illustrated topic. Historiographer's choice for Yi Sunsin is a Seoul statue, depicting the Admiral as a shadow guy, looking at people from above. Another choice is a Busan statue, of a sunny Admiral, looking at a vast perspective and producing an impression of adhesion.

The first picture would indeed be appropriate to illustrate how, long after the death of the Admiral, the name of Yi Sunsin was used, perused and abused by a lot of Seoul's Dark Vadors to masquerade their ulterior political motives.

But what is to be illustrated here are the real life victories of a real life Admiral. Any Geographer would know that Yeosu 여수, Sacheon 사천, Noryang 노량 etc. are not located on the banks of the Han River, but at Sea, roughly between Jeju 제주 and Busan 부산, the final move of the Imjin war being the Japanese withdrawal from Busan.

These are the reasons why, at least according to my opinion, the Busan picture is better. Moreover a policy of politeness should be enforced in this page, implying discussion in the talk page before unilateral changes. This is another reason to use a picture illustrating success and consensus rather than a picture illustrating shadow and a 'from above' attitude. Pldx1 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Discussion of Gender Roles

I was just looking at this page with the hope of discovering what gender roles where during this time period. Would it be accurate to even simply post a link to Women in Confucian thought, or was Joseon interpretation different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelnish (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Joseon per Consistency Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Joseon Dynasty → Joseon – I'm resurrecting this proposal which has been brought up twice before, once in 2007 where no one commented and once in 2008 where there was no consensus to move. There are two reasons for this change: 1) Consistency, since no other articles for historical Korean states use "dynasty" in the title (Goryeo, Silla, Paekche, Koguryeo, Balhae, Gojoseon etc.) 2) Technical correctness, since usually Joseon refers to the state and Yi Dynasty is used to refer to the actual dynasty. Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Counterpropose Chosun, currently a redirect here; The Chosun Ilbo derives its name from and starts with the same hanja characters(朝鮮)/hangul syllables (조선), and the majority of the included references and materials use Chosun, except where translations from other languages. To be honest, I had never seen this as anything else. Dru of Id (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Chosun is a non-standard Romanization, it isn't used in modern historical works as far as I'm aware and has vague colonial connotations. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest Chosŏn dynasty, per Britannica, Kim's The History of Korea (2005), and Seth's A Concise History of Korea (2006). Columbia gives "Choson dynasty". Kauffner (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If we adopt Chosŏn, and there's certainly good reason to do so in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, we should adopt McCune-Reischauer for every other historical Korean name too (despite my post above where I mixed the systems, they are all currently in Revised Romanization). This would require a much broader community discussion about Korean romanization though, and I think abruptly setting a new precedent here would be a bad idea. Also, having "dynasty" at the end here is, as I pointed out, inconsistent with all the other articles on historical Korean states. See below --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. MOS:KO specifies quite clearly that "The preference is to use Revised Romanization for South Korean articles and for general articles on Korean history, culture, etc." If you want to change this convention, we should get consensus over at the MOS page first. (Which I suspect will be an uphill battle, since I don't really see a need to change this.)

I wasn't aware of that -- seems pretty clear to me, thank you. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

MOS:KO should come into play only when we don't have a common English spelling for a topic per WP:USEENGLISH: if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic --Kusunose 07:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to Joseon as proposed by Tyrannus, it's the odd one out at the moment for no real reason. Jpatokal (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. All the precedent monarch were Goguryeo , Baekje, Silla and Goryeo without suffix. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support for Joseon, but only for that exact rendering of the spelling. Variants like "Chosun" are unacceptable. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm fine with what others decide (the consistency argument and the Yi Dynasty argument work for me although we use "dynasty" for China, Vietnam, and a number of other entities). I oppose any spelling other than "Joseon", though. —  AjaxSmack  01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is simply WP:COMMONNAME; it's fairly rare for the period to be referred to as "Joseon Dynasty" or "Yi Dynasty" in Korean, usually it's simply called Joseon or Joseon Period (조선, 조선시대). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I get 6,170 post-2000 English-language GBook hits for Joseon dynasty Korea, 10,800 for Choson dynasty Korea. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support to remove "Dynasty" for conciseness and consistency. I don't think precision is an issue here; I presume this is the primary topic for Joseon and various forms of 朝鮮, as they redirect to this article. Not sure which spelling is the common English name though. --Kusunose 07:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hangeul or Chosŏn'gŭl?

Was the Korean alphabet called Hangeul or Chosŏn'gŭl during the Joseon Dyansty? I believe it's the former, but I'm just asking here to make sure. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hangul#History says "[Ju Sigyeong] coined the term Hangul "great script" to replace eonmun "vulgar script" in 1912". Hangeul was not coined during Joseon Dyasty yet. Probably neither was Chosŏn'gŭl. --Kusunose 08:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Confucianism

Since Confucianism was so important to this period it might make sense to include a dedicated section to it instead of just a few sprinkled references. But I am just a random viewer who came here to learn more about Joseon era Confucian and its effect on their culture. --Wisnoskij (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)