Talk:Joseon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

description in the infobox regarding the tributary system[edit]

Hi Sturmgewehr88. Just wanted to make a separate talk page section to understand your point of view, and avoid having this dispute escalate to an edit war. In the meantime, I've restored the page to the stable version that's been used for more than a year and a half, which precludes the description: "Independent Kingdom, Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". From what I've seen around wikipedia, the description in the infobox pertaining to a country's "status" always details a relationship that compromises the country's sovereignty to another entity (take the British raj, the Nguyễn dynasty, and British Hong Kong for example). This makes sense, because we would only want to include the most important information in the infobox. Consequently, I don't believe that the relationship between Imperial China and Joseon in the infobox warrants inclusion, considering, as the sources demonstrate, that the relationship was almost exclusively a trade-based, or economic one - as Joseon was in fact independent. If we were to include all of the complex commercial and economic relationships that historical countries around the world had, we'd have infoboxes cluttered with such information - mentioned before far more important information such as its form of government, dates of existence, etc. Keeping with the idea that we'd want to make this section of the page as concise as possible, and considering that the nature of the relationship was one that didn't infringe on Joseon's autonomy, it seems that this information would be best elaborated upon in the body of the article. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlackRanger88: See Qing invasion of Joseon. It could be argued that Korea was annexed or vassalized like when the Mongols had previously invaded Korea, therefore it is important to note that it was independent, yet a member of the tributary system. The Ryukyu Kingdom also has its sovereignty explained in its infobox for similar reasons. Just because all former countries don't use this feature doesn't mean none of them should. There have been multiple discussions since 2006 where this information has been worked out, so there is prior consensus to this information's inclusion and therefore the "stable" version was that of before your unilateral removal. Pinging @Oda Mari and BUjjsp: because of their involvement in the most recent of these earlier discussions. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Thanks for commenting. Korea being annexed by the Qing is false, and the sources demonstrate that Joseon's tributary status was entirely nominal, indicating no evidence of a removal of national sovereignty (the Qing did not interfere with Joseon's politics once the war was over and a peace treaty had been established). The sources seem explicitly clear on this subject, and staying true to the sources is imperative for us as editors to follow. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the Ryukyu kingdom to comment on their specific situation, but for Joseon, Vietnam (the Tay Son and Nguyen dynasties), plus Siam, Burma and numerous other states, inclusion in the tributary system did not imply a loss of sovereignty, hence why I contest a description of this largely economic relationship taking up space in any of these countries' infoboxes. I welcome other editors' contributions to this subject. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlackRanger88: But the Qing did keep the king as a hostage in Mukden in the aftermath of the war and force Joseon to enter into tributary relations with them, which seems like an infringement of sovereignty to me. Exactly which sources are you reading from? Because of the special relationship between China and Ryukyu and Korea, this information is relevant enough to be addressed in their infoboxes, as has been discussed and debated multiple times over the years. See the related discussion at Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed? (the two users I pinged earlier are currently inactive). We could hold another RfC if you insist. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The king being taken hostage is factually inaccurate. Rather, two of King Injo's sons were sent to the Qing capital as part of peace negotiations following the conflict. The sources I'm reading from are the ones attached to the infobox description, all of which confirm Joseon's independence. The fact of the matter is that the Qing never exercised power over Joseon following the war, preserving the autonomy of Joseon's government. Consequently, I don't see why this "special relationship" you describe, which as indicated by the sources was almost entirely economic and nominal, merits inclusion in the infobox - as it should by definition only contain the most important information on the article's subject. Requesting @BUjjsp:'s input, as it was their idea to begin the request for comment you linked to. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlackRanger88: The entire point of the previous Rfc surrounding the status section of the infobox was to ensure conciseness and prevent inclusion of unnecessary information that could more effectively be discussed in the body of the article. In fact, there were a couple of editors that addressed concerns similar to yours on the Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#RfC: Infobox page. Your reasoning makes sense, as did that of the editors who shared your concerns on the aforementioned page. Ultimately, I am fine with both Sturmgewehr's proposed edit to add the previous status mentioning Joseon's membership in the imperial tribute system, as well as your advocacy of excluding the label. However, in the interests of conciseness and including only the most integral information in the infobox, I support your suggestion to exclude the label from the infobox and elaborate upon it in more detail in the body of the article. BUjjsp (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joseon. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Naming Process of Joseon[edit]

User:損齋: Greetings. I noticed your edit and your message on my talk page. Thank you for bringing this information to my attention. I have temporarily reverted your edit because the article would contain directly contradictory information otherwise, until the discrepancy is resolved.

Right now, the English source states "Yi Seong-gye issued a royal edict to proclaim the name of the new dynasty to "Joseon" and issued amnesty to all criminals who opposed the transition in dynasty", which directly contradicts the edit you made "Goryeo was formally renamed "Joseon" under the edict of Emperor Taizu of Ming".

I unfortunately cannot read the Chinese source you provided, but a possible reason for this discrepancy may be that Ming Taizu did not issue a direct "edict" (or command) but rather a suggestion. The English source states that Yi Seong-gye asked for Ming Taizu's opinion on the name of the new Korean kingdom, due to the historically amiable relations between the two countries, trying to decide between two name options - Joseon and Hwaryeong. Ming Taizu's stated that he preferred Joseon, and following this exchange, the source states that Taejo issued the edict to name the kingdom Joseon.

So, to reiterate, it seems that Ming Taizu did not issue an edict/command to name the new dynasty Joseon, but rather offered his suggestion due to Taejo's inquiry. Please let me know what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

On your talkpage I provided the translation. You are right except, according to the word 命, which means order, Ming Taizu did issue an edict instead of a pure suggestion. ----損齋 (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion would be adding the fact that "the renaming of 高麗 to 朝鮮 was confirmed by an edict of Emperor Taizu of Ming".----損齋 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:損齋: Thank you for your response and for providing a translation. My only issue with your suggestion is that it can be confusing for readers if the article two edicts making the exact same endorsement/recommendation are mentioned. To resolve this minor discrepancy, I've found a source that addresses both the contributions of King Taejo and Ming Taizu in the naming process of Joseon.

My suggestion to avoid confusing readers is as follows: "In naming the new dynasty, Taejo contemplated two possibilities - "Hwaryeong" and "Joseon". After much internal deliberation, as well as endorsement by the neighboring Ming dynasty's emperor, Taejo declared the name of the kingdom to be Joseon, a tribute to the ancient Korean state of Gojoseon."

This follows the wording of the new source I found: "...the Chinese endorsed Choson as the name of their neighboring state."[1]

Endorsement is a much stronger word than suggestion, and emphasizes Taizu's affirmation of the name while following the source wording.

I believe this edit appropriately addresses the roles that both Yi and Taizu had in the naming process. Please let me know what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BlackRanger88: I see. I think this will do. Shall you make the change or I? Let me know. ----損齋 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:損齋: I'll go ahead and add it in. Thanks for your contribution. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joseon. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Client state of the Qing dynasty[edit]

Wasn't the Joseon dynasty a client state of the Qing dynasty, and shouldn't this be mentioned in the infobox in "status"? (Marxist-Trotskyist Communism (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC))

Hanja should be added to the terms[edit]

Many terms in this entry are only written in their Romanized forms and Hangul forms. However, historically they were written with Hanja. Could anybody help with adding hanja to the terms? Thanks a lot.--27.38.9.108 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ {{|last= Kim |first= Jinwung|date= Nov 5, 2012|title= A History of Korea: From "Land of the Morning Calm" to States in Conflict|publisher= Indiana University Press|page= 187}} "the Chinese endorsed Choson as the name of their neighboring state."