Talk:Joseon/Archive 2

message: There are no sources that describe this as "Kingdom of Joseon"
either "Joseon Dynasty" or "Joseon" should be used. It should be noted that the move was not discussed. Good friend100 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2007 

message: The Joseon (Chosŏn) dynasty lasted so long, and was so culturally distinctive, that Korea and Joseon are sometimes used interchangeably for the 15th-19th centuries. Old maps do refer to it as "Choson," as do historians -- when they get careless, at any rate. Examples: Kim SJ (2007:10), Jun & Lewis (2004), both using the phrase "Chosŏn nation." Certainly it was a very different country than Goryeo (Koryŏ), which preceded it, or the Japanese colony which followed it.  This is a judgment call.  
I may make a number of revisions in the near future.  Looking at other editorial comments, I'm particularly concerned about my tendency to excessive wordiness.  Tell me to shut up if this becomes a concern.
Refs:
Kim SJ (2007), Marginality and Subversion in Korea: The Hong Kyŏngnae Rebellion of 1812. Univ. Wash. Press, 194 pp.
Jun SH & JB Lewis (2004), On double-entry bookkeeping in Eighteenth-century Korea: A consideration of the account books from two clan associations and a private academy. [unpublished draft] Posted by authors at 
Augwhite (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit removed all mention of the cheonmin class.  Please explain? Jpatokal (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm-m.  The cheonmin article claims that they're the lowest class, but Caste disagrees and puts them several rungs above baekjeong.  This should be sorted out... Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Sure. My understanding (could be wrong) is that cheonmin was not an inherited status.  For example, as Yu Hyeongweong (17th century) said ""Shamans, actors, monks, and such types ... [W]hat you detest about them is that they do the work of shamans, actors, and monks. If they were to abandon these practices and as a  matter of course become commoners, what would there be about them to hate?"" So, cheonmin didn't represent a social caste -- just a number of disfavored occupations. It also depends on the observer's position.  To a member of an old yangban family, having a mudang relative probably would be an inheritable taint; but ordinary people would not have seen it that way.  The yangban did most of the writing, but we aren't required to see Joseon Korea only through their eyes. Augwhite (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Neutral I don't see why it is overly confusing to use "dynasty", as an English speaker myself. Perhaps some more info on dynastic succession in Korea should be added to the article. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A "succession of rulers" is not a "kingdom". Joseon is not a Chinese dynasty. The proposed title must not be read as implying that Joseon is not a dynasty. Srnec (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Chinese dynasties could be better thought of as "X Empire."  They certainly referred to themselves that way.  I think Joseon would be fine for this article but I have no huge problem with the current title either.  (We like things to neatly be either a "state" or a "dynasty" but in pre-modern East Asia, the two were conflated.) —  AjaxSmack  03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
From the lead:
*Joseon ... was a sovereign state. . . Can a dynasty be a sovereign state? Not in normal English usage, but maybe in Korean historiography. Either way, the re-title I suggest would cause less initial confusion. 
*Joseon was the last royal and later imperial dynasty. . . So it is a dynasty...
*During its reign, Joseon consolidated its absolute rule over Korea. . . Can't tell if it's talking about a dynasty or a kingdom, but I notice it doesn't use the definite article ("the Joseaon"). I don't know what that implies. 
*The Joseon's rule has left a substantial legacy. . ." Here we have a definite article and I'm not sure why the two different usages appear in the same lead. Also, Joseon here is singular. 
Also in the lead Goryeo is described both as a kingdom and a dynasty. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2008 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Neutral I don't see why it is overly confusing to use "dynasty", as an English speaker myself. Perhaps some more info on dynastic succession in Korea should be added to the article. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A "succession of rulers" is not a "kingdom". Joseon is not a Chinese dynasty. The proposed title must not be read as implying that Joseon is not a dynasty. Srnec (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Chinese dynasties could be better thought of as "X Empire."  They certainly referred to themselves that way.  I think Joseon would be fine for this article but I have no huge problem with the current title either.  (We like things to neatly be either a "state" or a "dynasty" but in pre-modern East Asia, the two were conflated.) —  AjaxSmack  03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
From the lead:
*Joseon ... was a sovereign state. . . Can a dynasty be a sovereign state? Not in normal English usage, but maybe in Korean historiography. Either way, the re-title I suggest would cause less initial confusion. 
*Joseon was the last royal and later imperial dynasty. . . So it is a dynasty...
*During its reign, Joseon consolidated its absolute rule over Korea. . . Can't tell if it's talking about a dynasty or a kingdom, but I notice it doesn't use the definite article ("the Joseaon"). I don't know what that implies. 
*The Joseon's rule has left a substantial legacy. . ." Here we have a definite article and I'm not sure why the two different usages appear in the same lead. Also, Joseon here is singular. 
Also in the lead Goryeo is described both as a kingdom and a dynasty. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article has exceeded the appropriate size. History of Joseon Dynasty has been created for the History section. A summary is also left on Joseon article. ADKTE (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You, one-day-old Wikipedian, can show me a pertinent policy of "what is appropriate size for articles in Wiki. This is nothing but your declaration (by my request) for what you're unilaterally doing. Since your edits are not a "consensus version", your calling my edits "vandalism" is WP:Personal attack. As long as you do not get a consensus from editors here, your edits should be reverted to the previous version. I'm obviously objecting to your idea of spliting.--Caspian blue 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Quote it and I remind you Wikipedia:Consensus, newbie--Caspian blue 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: We have a wonderful policy; Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I'm sorry, but nobody believe that your miraculous Wiki knowledge can be seen from ordinary and real new comers--Caspian blue 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your edits without discussion nor consensus is viewed as constructive. Preventing further damages is not vandalism, newbie. Keep deliberately saying as such is WP:Personal attack. You don't WP:Own the article. Present reasons why we should have two separate articles on the same subject. I don't think the article in original status is too long.--Caspian blue 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Joseon Dynasty deals with everything of Joseon Dynasty not just its history. History of Joseon Dynasty deals only with the history. These are two seperate subjects. ADKTE (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Joseon Dynasty itself is a history article and a part of History of Korea.--Caspian blue 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is you have exercised your POV without any attempt to notify your intention and we do not know who you're and how you would edit. All you have done is "cut-and-past" edits and reverting and making false accusation. Moreover, the article seriously lacks of "inline sources", and your naming is false in English as well (if kept separately, the title should History of the Joseon Dynasty, not History of Joseon Dynasty). I do not agree with your simply cut-and-paste unless the main article is implemented with "many" additional source. Besides, when Ming Dynasty was chosen as featured article, the size was 110,043 bytes. If you insist that it has a separate article like History of the Ming Dynasty which was only created recently without any tough to the article of Ming Dynasty (current size is 136,947 bytes). I can't see any precedent discussion at its talk either though)--Caspian blue 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: History of Joseon Dynasty was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.ADKTE (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Joseon Dynasty]] 

message: Since this made it to WP:AN3, I suppose I'd better comment. I take it that this  is the dispute in question: whether text from this page should be moved into a sub page History of Joseon Dynasty. To make my prejudices clear: I don't care if you do this or not.
However:
: History of Joseon Dynasty was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. - this won't do. The nominator wanted delete or make-redirect, ADKTE wanted keep, so those balance out. That leaves 2 redirect votes, which means remove the article content back to here.
: ADTKE is at fault because his only talk page comment appears to be to note on various page the keep decision  . CB is at fault for incivility.
William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment and advice 

message: Two days ago, the article of History of Joseon Dynasty was created by  who claim this article of Joseon Dynasty is too long. The newly created article is not based on a consensus, so that several editors have requested "Prod", "merger", and AfD. Since the closing admin of the AfD on History of Joseon Dynasty suggested to involved editors to discuss for merging, redirecting, and others within the talk page, I put the template of the merger on the article. The unilateral split by ADKTE was not a consensus version, so we need to continue discussion rather than blind reverting. I think the article should go back to the big change because of the following reasons. 
*First, the article is barely inline-sourced, so until it is sourced to a certain degree that we feel okay to take out the template of "", the idea of splitting this article into two is not a good idea. That means editors here have to take care of the two articles on the same subject in mess. 
*Second, when splitting, the current article should hold skeletons of every important contents. So summarizing the removed contents should be carefully done. However, mere relocating contents from here to the other just produces lack of "flows". Readers could have a hard time to properly understand the article, and would soon lose interest in reading it. 
However, ADKTE has not been properly summarizing contents nor sourcing, so his claim as a person improving the articles are not convincing. When the article of Ming Dynasty was titled as a featured article, its size was over 100,000 kbyte, so ADKTE must resent his reason except the size matter.--Caspian blue 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Merger with [[History of Joseon Dynasty]] 

message: Here is a table to comare edits on the article and History of Joseon Dynasty 
The original content	Bukubku's and ADKTE's edits
Assassination of Empress Myeongseong
The empress had attempted to counter Japanese interference in Korea and was considering turning to Russia or China for support. In 1895, Empress Myeongseong was assassinated by Japanese agents. The Japanese minister to Korea, Miura Goro orchestrated the plot against her. A group of Japanese agents entered the Imperial palace in Seoul, which was under Japanese guard, and Empress Myeongseong (referred to as "Queen Min" by the Japanese) was killed and her body desecrated in the North wing of the palace.	Eulmi Incident	
	
In 1895, Empress Myeongseong (referred to as "Queen Min" by the United StatesCharacteristics of Queen of Corea The New York Times Nov 10, 1895, Japan and so on) was assassinated by Japanese agents with the aid of with the aid of several hundreds Korean Army.. The Japanese minister to Korea, Miura Goro orchestrated the plot against her. A group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army. entered the Royal palace in Seoul, which was under Japanese and Koreans guard, and Japanese agent was directly kill a Empress Myeongseong and her body desecrated in the North wing of the palace. The empress had attempted to counter Japanese interference in Korea and was considering turning to Russia or China for support. After the assassination of his consort.
===Bukubku's edits===
#POV Pushing
##Without any consensus, Bukubku has tried to change every links referring to Empress Myeongseong to "Queen Min". Since the result of the renaming discussion was settled, whether you like or not, the title should follow the current title of the article for consistency. However, he styled like "The empress/queen" here and other articles, which behaviors clearly constitute pov pushing.
#WP:Undue and POV Pushing
##The Korean Army called "Hullyondae" (훈련대) was trained by the Japanese and under the Japanese assassins' direction. They are referred to as "Hullyondae" and scholars mention that they're under the direct Japanese order. Therefore, scholars conclude that the main charge of the assassination falls upon the Japanese, not Koreans. How do I know of it? Due to Bukubku, I ordered 5 books regarding the incidents (all English books written by Anglo scholars specializing in Japan and Korean studies) and they say the Empress was murdered by the Japanese not says Japanese and Koreans. 
##Of course, there were Korean collaborators, but the incident was plotted by the Japanese. However, Bukubku has tried to share the whole blame of the crime with Koreans without even mentioning of the character of the Korean Army. 
##Scholars also point out that the Japanese assassins tried to disguise as if the murder was carried by the Korean army just like Bukubku has done here.
#WP:Point: Bukubku changed to the sub-header from Assassination of Empress Myeongseong to Eulmi Incident. However, Eulmi Incident is a "redirect age" and he intended it go to Queen Min which makes double-redirect to Empress Myeongseong. The change seems like an attempt to minimize the attention to the article.
#WP:Original research: The 1895 NYT source only said about "Queen of Corea", not "by Queen Min". Thus, Bukubku's insistence that she is referred to as Queen Min by the United States is his "original research". Moreover, the preposition by means she became to be called as such by Americans. It is also original research.
#WP:CITE: Moreover, he has not provided that she is referred to as "Queen Min in Japan and so on". 
#WP:English: English Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, but this wrong grammar is beyond the principle of Wikipedia.
##e.g. "with the aid of with the aid of several hundreds Korean Army"
##A group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army.... was directly kill a Empress Myeongseong. --> ?? In your sentence, a group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army was (not were?) killed instead of the Empress? Besides, where is another Empress Myeongseong since he said "a Empress Myeongseong"? 
##After the assassination of his consort -why this meaningless sentence should be addressed?
#WP:Disruptive editing: I clearly sad the above reason in the edit summary twice, but he has just pushed to include his referred version without any attempt to explain his edits to the talk page.
#Blatant Disregard to Consensus In site of repeated suggestion for opening discussion on the talk, he has refused to gain a consensus. That is very harmful for building articles constructively and for resolving dispute.
#WP:GAME:It's ironic that Bukubku who tried to delete the source regarding the Russian eye-witness report from Empress Myeongseong and Korea under Japanese rule is currently using the same source. This double play can be considered "gaming" for his POV.--Caspian blue 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bukubku and ADKTE's disruptive edits 

message: #POV Pushing
##Without any consensus, Bukubku has tried to change every links referring to Empress Myeongseong to "Queen Min". Since the result of the renaming discussion was settled, whether you like or not, the title should follow the current title of the article for consistency. However, he styled like "The empress/queen" here and other articles, which behaviors clearly constitute pov pushing.
#WP:Undue and POV Pushing
##The Korean Army called "Hullyondae" (훈련대) was trained by the Japanese and under the Japanese assassins' direction. They are referred to as "Hullyondae" and scholars mention that they're under the direct Japanese order. Therefore, scholars conclude that the main charge of the assassination falls upon the Japanese, not Koreans. How do I know of it? Due to Bukubku, I ordered 5 books regarding the incidents (all English books written by Anglo scholars specializing in Japan and Korean studies) and they say the Empress was murdered by the Japanese not says Japanese and Koreans. 
##Of course, there were Korean collaborators, but the incident was plotted by the Japanese. However, Bukubku has tried to share the whole blame of the crime with Koreans without even mentioning of the character of the Korean Army. 
##Scholars also point out that the Japanese assassins tried to disguise as if the murder was carried by the Korean army just like Bukubku has done here.
#WP:Point: Bukubku changed to the sub-header from Assassination of Empress Myeongseong to Eulmi Incident. However, Eulmi Incident is a "redirect age" and he intended it go to Queen Min which makes double-redirect to Empress Myeongseong. The change seems like an attempt to minimize the attention to the article.
#WP:Original research: The 1895 NYT source only said about "Queen of Corea", not "by Queen Min". Thus, Bukubku's insistence that she is referred to as Queen Min by the United States is his "original research". Moreover, the preposition by means she became to be called as such by Americans. It is also original research.
#WP:CITE: Moreover, he has not provided that she is referred to as "Queen Min in Japan and so on". 
#WP:English: English Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, but this wrong grammar is beyond the principle of Wikipedia.
##e.g. "with the aid of with the aid of several hundreds Korean Army"
##A group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army.... was directly kill a Empress Myeongseong. --> ?? In your sentence, a group of Japanese agents along with Korean Army was (not were?) killed instead of the Empress? Besides, where is another Empress Myeongseong since he said "a Empress Myeongseong"? 
##After the assassination of his consort -why this meaningless sentence should be addressed?
#WP:Disruptive editing: I clearly sad the above reason in the edit summary twice, but he has just pushed to include his referred version without any attempt to explain his edits to the talk page.
#Blatant Disregard to Consensus In site of repeated suggestion for opening discussion on the talk, he has refused to gain a consensus. That is very harmful for building articles constructively and for resolving dispute.
#WP:GAME:It's ironic that Bukubku who tried to delete the source regarding the Russian eye-witness report from Empress Myeongseong and Korea under Japanese rule is currently using the same source. This double play can be considered "gaming" for his POV.--Caspian blue 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bukubku's edits

message: #POV Pushing ADKTE has been disrupting not only to the two articles with his unilateral split of this article, but also blindly reverted 8 times in total for his pov. 
#WP:MEAT Then he suddenly appeared to revert the article in support for Bukubku's edits without examining the sources and edits. 
#WP:Harassment and WP:Personal attack
##Currently he is the only one who reverted 3 times in 24 hours (more accurately in 9 hours), but threaten Historiographer who reverted 2 times in 24 hours. If Historiographer reverted ADKTE's edits, he would be "blocked" by his report. However, he is neighter an admin who can speak and Bukubku reverted as much as Historiographer.
##When I gave him 3RR warnings because he reverted 3 times unlike any of three editors, however, he gave me a hoax 3RR warning as a retaliation.
##Due to his harassing behaviors, I gave him No Personal attack warning, and then he also gave me a threat to report. Those are all harassment. 
##False allegation He lied that I attacked him based on his age. I'm sorry, where? Diff lease.
#WP:GAME and BAD FAITH 
##Again, he falsely accused Historiographer of violating 3RR and then made a hoax 3RR report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in order to harass him. This based on bad faith to block his opponent with the false charge is "gaming the system". 
##Moreover, the one that is close to 3RR violation is ADKTE. The consequence of the hoax report would go to his responsibility.--Caspian blue 05:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ADKTE's edit

message: I have undone this edit and blocked Historiographer for 31 hours because this is clear continuation of edit warring, less than 24 hours after the page was unprotected, and with no consensus at the talk page. If my protection rationale was not clear enough already, I think both Historiographer and Jpatokal need to stay out of this article (other than minor/MOS edits and reverting vandalism) and stick to the talk page. Any further reverts—especially changes to the disputed section—will result in blocks, like this one did. It is you guys' responsibility to find outside opinions, bring them here, and reach an acceptable consensus/compromise; until that is done, neither of you should be editing the disputed text directly. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please limit your remarks to the person actually doing the edit warring; I haven't touched the article since June 25th, and have no intention of doing so. Jpatokal (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say you were edit warring; I just was clarifying that I think both of you should stay at the talk page. You haven't done anything wrong, I just didn't want to look like I was singling one editor out. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More edit warring 

message: FYI, I have filed a case for this page at the Mediation Cabal → Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-09/Joseon Dynasty. Jpatokal (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone, why don't you talk in the mediation cabal but still make edit-warring? --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now User:蘇州宇文宙武 has been blocked 31h for the same reason as Historiographer was: unexplained reverting in the middle of a content dispute. If this continues I will have to protect the page again, and for a longer time before; I won't care which version is protected. I will also file an RFC or an RfAR to request that this article be put on article probation. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favor of immediate protection, so we can try to work out something on the Talk page instead of continuing the pointless edit war. Jpatokal (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal 

message: I've been an occasional participant in this debate, but I'm now taking this article off of my watchlist and withdrawing from further editing for the time being. I think things have reached an impasse, everyone is accusing everyone else of edit-warring, someone's already received a block, and I don't want to risk my ability to participate in other projects by being similarly blocked in the crossfire. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawing 

message: According to the book, the sovereignty of Joseon was clearly defined. This book's copyright is in public domain. Please do not push the biased the view, especially IP users.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PP15&dq=Korea&ei=jedPSu-vEI2WzgTz_-jyAg&client=firefox-a&id=BwMMAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&output=text
 --Historiographer (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Appeal to authority is a genetic fallacy. And I am a descendant of Shennong. Should I call your argument Bulverism or an Argument from ignorance? Your false attribution of the correlation between your ancestry and the content of this article is irrelevant and leads to resembling an Ad nauseam claim. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseon was fully independent and sovereign state 

message: The discussions are going in circles here and it's clear no one is ever going to agree whether to call Joseon a "sovereign state" or a "vassal state". I'm sick of seeing the reverts and the way everyone is digging their heels in, so it's time for a compromise. This is the suggestion I made at User talk:蘇州宇文宙武: My two cents: replace "sovereign state" with 'kingdom' or whatnot in the lede, and add a new section near the beginning saying something along the lines of "whether Joseon was a sovereign state or not is disputed" and then summarizing the arguments, along with sources, that have been discussed at the talk page. In short, we need to stop worrying about who's right and who's wrong, and start worrying about how to accomodate both sides in the article. It's clear that the edit warring will never end if we're forced to choose one term or the other, so the only acceptable solution is to include both and summarize the arguments. Based on the lengthy discussions that have already happened at this talk page, it seems clear that there are enough sources and research on this to write an entire new section on the debate over whether Joseon was sovereign or not. So let's all start talking about how to write that, rather than reverting one another. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been monitoring this from a distance for a while... I am not into East Asian History, I have no clue about the who-is-who and all that. Imagine someone like me comes to this article just to get the gist of the whole thing. It would be very helpful to explain to someone like me why this tiny word sparks such a fury, who could possibly have a stake in this on either side, and then simply put that into the article. That would be more educational than any click-and-rant agendas. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My two won -- the bizarre thing here is that the actual facts of the case are not really in dispute.  As far as I can see, nobody contests that Joseon had pretty much full control over what happened within its borders, and nobody contests that Joseon lost several wars against Qing, paid tribute to them afterwards and toed the Chinese line on foreign policy.  It's just that one side thinks that Joseon was still "sovereign" in practice, and one side (including me) thinks that using a word that means "One who is not a subject to a ruler or nation" is not a suitable description of this state of affairs. Jpatokal (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. So put that whole thesis into the present (And again, I'm neutral here, just trying to make sense of it): Does the fact that Liechtenstein would collapse outside the Swiss financial system make it "not sovereign"? Does the fact that Israel would be overrun without U.S. military aid make it "not sovereign"? Does the fact that Lesotho wouldn't have a chance in a confrontation with South Africa make it "not sovereign"? In the end, it might be wise to omit the word altogether... Seb az86556 (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but attempting to remove that word is precisely what triggered this edit war. Jpatokal (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So here's an idea: Instead of having the wikilink lead to sovereign state, why not link the word sovereign? That article gives an extensive history of the word, how it came about, what it used to mean, and what it's come to mean. Readers can then make up their own minds. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to nip this in the bud 

message: this kingdom was called Korea at that time. 
'The country was officially called Korea at that time, but is often referred to in history as the Ri Dynasty.' Gzhao (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That link does not work. And what are you trying to suggest with this comment? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I still don't see what you're trying to say. Are you saying you think this article's title should be changed? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: According to the very links you gave, Joseon (Chaoxian) is the more commonly used name. I don't speak Korean, but I know 조선 in hangul is cho sŏn. ko-wiki uses that, and zh-wiki lists it as both the Korean name and Hanja name of 李. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Chosŏn" is the Wade-Giles romanization of 조선, used (in a modified version) in North Korea.  "Joseon" is the same in Revised Romanization of Korean, used in South Korea. Jpatokal (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: so both "Chosŏn" and "Joseon" are different Transliteration words or Loanwords. is 'Ri Dynasty of Korea' the best name for both north and south? Gzhao (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Chosŏn and Joseon are different spellings of the same word. As for your second question, no, Ri Dynasty is far less commonly used than the other ones. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: yes,i agree with Rjanag,조선왕조 (朝鮮王朝)used more often than 李氏朝鮮(Ri Dynasty) in Korea today, but i want to know where is 대조선국 （大朝鮮國) 'Kingdom of Great Joseon' come from? it seems someone modified this in may 2007.  Gzhao (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The three different Wikipedias may possibly serve as a POV fork, where JP Wiki and ZH Wiki both refer to the dynasty in question as 李氏朝鮮, while also mentioning the other names 朝鮮王朝 and 朝鮮國, but never uses the term 大朝鮮國, which is the case on the KR Wiki. To avoid any argument over what the dynasty should actually be called, would we be able to compare the frequency of the names in external texts? Oh, and I hope someone hasn't brought the Joseon Dynasty into confusion with the 大韓帝国, which occurs much later. I don't recall that all had the 大- prefix, only the 大韓帝国 did. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The literal translation of the agreed English name, Joseon Dynasty, is obviously 朝鮮 (Joseon) 王朝 (Dynasty).  Other names like 李氏朝鮮 may be worth mentioning in the content though. Jpatokal (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ri Dynasty]] 

message: Hello, this is to inform all that a Mediation Cabal case has been opened regarding a recent dispute on this article. As you may know, the MEDCAB process is informal and strictly voluntary; we have neither the power to compel participation or impose any resolution. Our goal is to act as a neutral third-party in helping to reach a compromise acceptable to all. To begin the process, I would ask that all interested/listed parties to please visit the case page and signify their acceptance of mediation, and me as mediator, by signing. Thank you, Vicenarian (T · C) 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. It's been about a month since this mediation case was opened, and so far only one participant has accepted. If there are others who still wish to participate, please let me know by signing your acceptance on the case page. Otherwise, I will be closing the case in a few days. Regards, Vicenarian (Said · Done) 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-09/Joseon Dynasty]] 

message: It said, "In 1895, The Joseon Dynasty was forced to write a document of independence from the Qing Dynasty after the Japanese victory in the First Sino-Japanese War and its peace treaty, the Treaty of Shimonoseki. From 1897 to 1910, Korea was formally known as the Korean Empire to signify a sovereign nation no longer a tributary of the Qing Dynasty. The Joseon Dynasty came to an end in 1910, when the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was enforced by the Empire of Japan." But it was a completely independent dynasty. I think that we should get rid of that controversial section.
It had not been giving tributes to China as much at the time. It does not make sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.254.239 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock off the bold. We can read text, thank you. And it does make sense - "independence" in this context means being free from the tributary relationship; it does not necessarily mean that JS was part of Q. And given by the historical sources, JS was tributary to Q at that time. If you can provide WP:RS, then be WP:BOLD and change it. If not, well there's not much you can do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseon was not part of Qing 

message: What purpose does this edit serve? I stopped just short of reverting it, and decided to bring it up on the talk page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it pretty silly, too, and to be honest I'm tempted to put that list article up for AfD. Have you notified the editor of this discussion? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At your suggestion, I've just notified the editor with a link to this thread. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of countries in 1708" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Life expectancy 

message: 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.
—
—Bill Price (nyb) 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Korean source: Rockhill 1905 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And which editor would that be? Jpatokal (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  So laughable.--Historiographer (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, seriously.  This is about the Korean kingdom of Joseon, not Japan. Jpatokal (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Protected

message: Should the word "sovereign" be included in the lead or not? Oda Mari (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is this helpful at all?  Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: the following two messages were moved up from #Review of content changes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: If Joseon wasn't sovereign state then how come Japan was sovereign state?--KSentry(talk) 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  Please note Joseon Dynasty existed period of Ming to ROC, Joseon was sovereign state when it was founded and forced to become vassal of Ming & Qing under specific terms, it was never full vassal state. Please note Qing wasn't Chinese dynasty, also Japan was once vassal state under various Chinese to Korean states never listed as vassal to Chinese, Koreans etc.. care to explain this Mari?--KSentry(talk) 08:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether forced or not or if it was not full, it was a tributary state, wasn't it? That is why I am asking not to use "sovereign" in the lead. The ref. above says it was not a fully independent state.  What's wrong with a sentence like "Joseon was a Korean state founded by Taejo Yi Seong-gye..." as the first sentence of the lead? I didn't say it should be included that " The Joseon dynasy was a tributary state". Why should it be described as "sovereign state" when some ref. say it was not. It is in conflict with the article one in the treaty of Shimonoseki. As for Japan, it was mentioned on the pages like these. List of tributaries of Imperial China, Muromachi period#Economic and cultural developments, Sō clan, and maybe more. Oda Mari (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Well then we should list Japan as tributary state under various Chinese and Korean states too. Yamatai/Yamato was basically vassal state of Baekje but Japanese fabricated evidence to disassociate themselves from this.--KSentry(talk) 12:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, Japan is listed on List of tributaries of Imperial China. What is Japanese fabricated evidence? You mean Nihon Shoki? Or Kojiki? How about Book of Sui? Do you deny the book too? But those things are irrelevant at here. If you think the article Yamato period or Kofun period are incorrect, use their talk page. This is Joseon Dynasty's talk page and  I'm talking about the Joseon Dynasty. Please answer my questions above. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Big lesson for you is not to believe face value from written history but to learn to read behind history. Using both 3rd party sources and archeology etc.. In your case, Tsushima never was part of Japan at early Joseon dynasty period and even japan paid tributes to Joseon. --KSentry(talk) 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No more refutation? As I wrote above, the sovereignty of the dynasty is controversial. I'll remove the word "sovereign" from the lead in a week. Oda Mari (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Don't forget to add Japan as tributary state of China and Korea.--KSentry(talk) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what does this have to do with the Joseon Dynasty article? Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does matter when Japan did paid tributes to Joseon.--KSentry(talk) 03:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, what?  Japan paid tributes to Joseon!? Jpatokal (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Fyi, Tsushima remained vassal of Joseon until it was annexed by imperial Japan in 19th century. Seoul still have original Tsushima clan membership and family tree books. Also, various Daimyo did paid tributes to Joseon court in return for trade.--KSentry(talk) 08:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: Plunge forward and create it, I'll try to chip in. Jpatokal (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Looks to be a nice addition. It'll also help Jpatokal & co. understand that Joseon by all modern definitions, acted as a sovereign nation. Kuebie (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

text: We need to make sure update Qing Dynasty as Manchu Dynasty, Qing emperors were all Manchus not Chinese. Chinese claims on Qing as Chinese dynasty is flimsy because it doesn't make any sense.--KSentry(talk) 12:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the fact that Qing dynasty was a Manchu dynasty is lost on ANYONE, it is covered extensively in the Qing dynasty article.  Why do you keep talking about it here on the Joseon dynasty article?  That discussion is irrelevant to Korea and should be on Talk:Qing dynasty not here. --NickDupree (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inserting a relevant source on Korea and other Qing tributary states 

message: Quigley stated "the recent edit-warring (in the sections above) relating to Joseon's relationship with China cries out for expertise from WPCHINA editors."  And "The history writing about this subject on Wikipedia is dubious to say the least, considering the long blockade we see continued here against WikiProject China and its editors on Korea-related articles. Quigley (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, how did you explain about Ōei Invasion or Tsushima Expedition? Korean military took independent action without any Chinese permission.--Historiographer (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, Chinese Emperors expected the Koreans to order themselves and maintain peace, defeating or dealing with Japanese pirates that China hated was very much welcomed by the emperor. Pirates in Korean waters were an internal matter to be handled by the Koreans.  This doesn't go against my point about partial sovereignty at all. NickDupree (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... You're mistaken I see. It was not related with your (or your source) theory. Koreans were just defend themselves rather than Chinese emperors' expected.--Aocduio (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually there was no official vassalage agreement between Joseon and Ming, Ming court expected Joseon to remained as peaceful and join Ming against to Ming's enemies, it was sort of like today's U.S ally. Btw, Qing Dynasty wasn't Chinese dynasty, some people here are mistaken to think Qing as Chinese. Chinese able to claim "China" from Manchus after collapse of Qing.--KSentry(talk) 08:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yuan Dynasty was a non-Chinese dynasty also, and so was the Qing Dynasty. What relevance does that have to Joseon state? You just conceded that the Joseon dynasty had a close relationship with Qing empire. My point above is that this was a very complicated, close relationship with a lot of nuance and many don't understand it. The history is complex and can't fit on a nationalistic bumper sticker for either Korea nor China.  --NickDupree (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're overstating the issue a bit.  It is complex but not so complex that there wasn't wide mutual and deep consensus between China, Korea and all other surrounding kingdoms about their place in relation to once another.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you Melonbarmonster2, for one of the first constructive, solid arguments about the historical context from your side of the discussion.  If we could insert (well referenced) text into the article explaining as you have They saw Korean kingdoms as being "little brother" states independent and sovereign and subordinate to the sinocentric world that made up ancient 'civilized' Asia.  That's why ALL asian countries called China the "middle kingdom".  That did not mean all the countries that happily subordinated to Chinese kingdoms weren't sovereign. you'd have no objections from me, or most of the others, because you're describing these old East Asian relationships fairly comprehensively and accurately.  I never would oppose that.  What I oppose is dumbing it down to bumper sticker nationalistic slogans "Joseon was all and all independent militarily and diplomatically!" that are misleading. Korea was dotted with Chinese castles and other military fortifications during the Joseon period, and during the the Imjin War especially, the primary defense Joseon had against Japanese aggression were the Ming armies! Thus, you can't accurately explain Joseon dynasty's status in the absolute black and white terms typical of the Westphalian sovereignty that dominates the way people think of the world in recent centuries. The Confucian idea of being a "little brother" state doesn't preclude autonomy, I agree with you on that, but it also means tight familial ties and intense obligations on both sides. I do not imply that the relationship was complex for the nations involved, I'm certain that it was routinized century after century until it was as expected as sun-up in the morning! What I meant is it is hard to grasp for many of us in today's world, where national pride, absolutism on foreign policy and national borders, and angry fist-pumping about all of the above is more prevalent than ancient Confucian thinking on foreign relations (understatement).  NickDupree (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider the historical framework Joseon and Imperial China found themselves in... 

message: This message is being sent to inform the followers of this talk page that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which some of you may have been involved.     Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How come you didn't showed up when Chinese are deleting "Korean wikiproject" tags from Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty etc.. because they temporary occupied parts of Korean territory therefore they should also list Korean wikiproject tags? --KSentry(talk) 08:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't watch those articles. So if you're looking for hypocrisy, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. —Bill Price (nyb) 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the KoreanSentry's point still stands regardless of whether you, me or anyone watches those articles or not.  There is a line that should be drawn when it comes to placing wikiproject tags on articles that are clearly and empirically understood as being "korean", "chinese" or "japan".  Allowing editors to inject their particular ethnic tags on articles is inviting a POV troll war and UNHELPFUL.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, KoreanSentry is wrong when he says that "Chinese are deleting 'Korean wikiproject' tags from Han Dynasty"; in fact the opposite is true. In the most recent such discussion, , a major contributor to China-related articles,  for WikiProject Korea's and WikiProject Vietnam's banner inclusion on the Han Dynasty article. It was none other than one of our resident Korean users, , who   to remove the WPKorea banner (and Vietnam's too). KoreanSentry  the banner then, with the rationale, "I think Koreans also have equal right to add their research if Chinese can edit Korean/Japanese articles. This is wikipedia not communist enforced websites." Rather than showcasing Chinese nationalism and hypocrisy, which he is constantly complaining about, KoreanSentry has just revealed his own. That discussion on the Han Dynasty article ended when it was clear that the anti-banner people (who are not really anti-banner, but are inconsistently enforcing what they see as Korean interests) would continue to aggressively revert,  if necessary, and mount a soapbox on irrelevant nationalist grievances until the other editors were  and quit. It looks as if this discussion might end the same way. Quigley (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  At last we have someone who understand what's going on at wikipedia, the major problem with Korean related articles is we have Chinese and Japanese nationalists editing all Korean articles rendering with their POV, now when Koreans tried to edit theirs (Chinese/Japanese) articles, they just removed our edits, so basically there's no way can edit their articles in more balanced format. There's simply no way I can add my edits to Han to Tang Dynasty because Chinese users will list me as vandal.--KSentry(talk) 12:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquette alert 

message: Melonbarmonster, you've (again) removed mention of Joseon being a Qing tributary on the grounds of, and I quote, "korean history project is selfpublished reference and the Moran book doesn't deal with the Qing at all".  How about the third reference, the Office of the President of the Republic Korea , and how do you feel about these references in the List of tributaries of Imperial China article? 
Jpatokal (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He won't be able to respond right away, as I blocked him for 1 week. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that these content emphasizes below section more exactly, and it is not necessary obstinately in opening. In addition, tribute relationship was not the master and servant relation. Please, DON'T make controversial changes like this.--Historiographer (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for Joseon being a Qing tributary 

message: For years people have been reverting one another, often without any discussion, over the use of the words "sovereign" and "tributary" in this article. I have had to protect it four times already and have had to block one editor for it. Still people are reverting over it without discussing. This is getting ridiculous. I've protected it for one month this time, and something needs to be done to get a real consensus on this wording before the page is unprotected.
Here is a summary of what happened leading up to this latest protection:
* An editor made the typical change, known to be controversial, with no discussion and no edit summary
* I undid the change, because as I made clear at previous discussions on this talk page, this sort of sneaky reverting in a known dispute area is unacceptable. I have no preference for either version and have probably reverted to both versions at various times (I don't even know anything about Korean history), I just don't want to see more of this kind of edit warring
* An IP editor made the change again, again with no discussion, no explanation, and no edit summary. Given that it's directly reverting to a previous version of the article and given that Korea-related topics have many known sockpuppeteers, it is likely that this editor is the same person as some of the other editors who have been involved in this edit warring in the past. 
* User:Oda Mari reverted this for a valid reason (that it was a revert known to be controversial, accompanied by no explanation or justification)
* The same IP editor (IP address nearly identical) reverted again
* revert by Quigley
* revert by KaraKamilia
Clearly this is unacceptable. I am going to open another request for comment (the one above apparently did not reach any solid conclusion) and hopefully get the opinion of editors who are not already part of this dispute. I think I would like to insist that before the article is unprotected a clear, explicit consensus in favor of one version or other must be reached. Explicit consensus like this could be pointed to for future reference if this dispute pops up again, and could form the basis for more solid editing restrictions to prevent further edit warring on this article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: For years people have been reverting one another, often without any discussion, over the use of the words "sovereign" and "tributary" in this article. I have had to protect it four times already and have had to block one editor for it. Still people are reverting over it without discussing. This is getting ridiculous. I've protected it for one month this time, and something needs to be done to get a real consensus on this wording before the page is unprotected.
Here is a summary of what happened leading up to this latest protection:
* An editor made the typical change, known to be controversial, with no discussion and no edit summary
* I undid the change, because as I made clear at previous discussions on this talk page, this sort of sneaky reverting in a known dispute area is unacceptable. I have no preference for either version and have probably reverted to both versions at various times (I don't even know anything about Korean history), I just don't want to see more of this kind of edit warring
* An IP editor made the change again, again with no discussion, no explanation, and no edit summary. Given that it's directly reverting to a previous version of the article and given that Korea-related topics have many known sockpuppeteers, it is likely that this editor is the same person as some of the other editors who have been involved in this edit warring in the past. 
* User:Oda Mari reverted this for a valid reason (that it was a revert known to be controversial, accompanied by no explanation or justification)
* The same IP editor (IP address nearly identical) reverted again
* revert by Quigley
* revert by KaraKamilia
Clearly this is unacceptable. I am going to open another request for comment (the one above apparently did not reach any solid conclusion) and hopefully get the opinion of editors who are not already part of this dispute. I think I would like to insist that before the article is unprotected a clear, explicit consensus in favor of one version or other must be reached. Explicit consensus like this could be pointed to for future reference if this dispute pops up again, and could form the basis for more solid editing restrictions to prevent further edit warring on this article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Section 9 "Title and Styles" of page "Joseon Kingdom" should be reorganised as follows. 
(1) Divide this section in two sections, one for "Joseon Kingdom" and the other for "Korean Empire".
(2) Moreover, section "Joseon Kingdom" should be sorted by generation, since Joseon hierarchy was 
mostly generation driven.
The whole thing could be done as described here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pldx1/Korean_Titles.
The present edit-war is about who says who is the King and who are all the other members of the hierarchy. On the
contrary, the present edit is about how did you call such and such member of the hierarchy once designed. Therefore,
the proposed amendment is orthogonal to the current dispute. Pldx1 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you actually make the edit (in a userpage somewhere) so that someone here can simply paste it in, rather than asking someone else to do the work for you? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  My request is simply to replace section 9, "Titles and styles" of Joseon Kingdom by the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pldx1/Korean_Titles. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No opposition, so  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Pldx1, 25 August 2011 

message: Here are extensive citations from Kirk W. Larsen's Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosǒn Korea, 1850-1910 (Cambridge and London: published by Harvard University Asia Center, distributed by Harvard University Press, 2008). I put them here to give editors more substantial material to edit this page, and to support the new version of the lead that I'm proposing in the next section below. Larsen shows that Sino-Korean relations were not simple, but a clear point recurs: Joseon accepted its tributary status vis-a-vis China, yet it was almost entirely autonomous in its internal affairs. Basing our wording on a reliable source like Larsen's book will help us to avoid original research and to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:V, which are Wikipedia's main content policies. So here are the citations. Note that "Chosǒn" is an equivalent of "Joseon" throughout.
*Page 23: "When Western powers sought to engage in commercial or diplomatic relations with Korea in the nineteenth century, they often asked the Qing Empire to explain the nature of its relations with Chosǒn Korea. The response of the Zongli yamen, the Qing foreign policy organization created in 1861, to one such inquiry read: 'Chosǒn is a tributary of China; but as for said country's autonomy in its own politics, religion, prohibitions, and orders, China has never interfered with it.' Japanese diplomats received a similar reply: 'That Korea is a dependent state of China is known by all; that it is an autonomous country is also known by all.' Such statements caused no small amount of confusion to foreign, particularly Western, observers."
*Page 24: "...even a cursory examination of relations between the inhabitants and states of the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula reveals a wide variety of interactions, ranging from harmonious alliances to open warfare. The seductive simplicity of the tribute system and John King Fairbank's Chinese World Order does little justice to the multiplicity of relations between China and Korea over the centuries. Nevertheless, some aspects of the ideal-type tribute system do approximate the Sino-Korean relationship that so confused nineteenth-century Western observers."
*Page 29: "By the time the Korean Chosǒn Kingdom (1392-1910) was established, Sino-Korean relations had for centuries been predicated on Korea's acceptance of Chinese claims to suzerainty as expressed through tribute missions."
*Page 29, note 20: "Korean accommodation with the Ming was hardly exceptional at the time. David Kang ("Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles," 174) writes that 'accommodation of China was the norm in East Asia during the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911) eras. This did not, however, involve a significant loss of national independence, as nearby states were largely free to conduct their domestic and foreign policy independent of China.'"
*Page 30: "The Hongwu Emperor's successors, experiencing challenges to their authority at home, were more appreciative of Korean offers of fealty. They welcomed Korean tribute missions and quickly granted full recognition and investiture to King Taejo's successors. In Korea, the Chosǒn-Ming relationship came to be known as 'serving the great' (sadae; C. shida), and the periodic tribute missions / sent to China as the 'dispatch of envoys of submission' (sadae sahaeng; C. shida shixing). Two basic principles would animate Sino-Korean relations for the next five centuries: hierarchy and distance."
*Page 31: "After the solidification of Ming-Chosǒn relations, the powers that ruled Korea and China reached an understanding on the basic principles that would govern their dealings. The first principle was the mutual acceptance of a hierarchical order in which China was the superior and Korea the inferior."
*Pages 31-32: "Korean acceptance of Chinese suzerainty was ritually expressed through participation in the so-called tribute system. Three or four times a year, envoys from the Chosǒn kingdom traveled to China to declare Korean loyalty to the Ming and present goods, congratulations, or other ritual niceties to the Ming emperor and his house.... The Chosǒn court also expressed its acceptance of the suzerain-vassal relationship by using the official Chinese calendar and by accepting and entertaining the occasional visits of Chinese envoys. These usually came to Korea to grant investiture to Chosǒn kings. When the Chinese envoy neared Seoul, the Korean king would leave his palace and travel to the Welcoming Imperial Grace Gate (Yǒngunmǔn) on the outskirts to meet / the envoy. There he would prostrate himself as the message from the emperor was read aloud."
*Page 32: "The tendency of Chinese records to characterize nearly every contact with outside powers as 'tribute' did not reflect geopolitical or cultural realities in many instances. However, Chosǒn Korea was as close to a model tributary state as China ever found."
*Page 33: "The practice of 'serving the great' was roundly criticized by late nineteenth-century Korean reformers who saw the Chosǒn Kingdom's relations with China as unwarranted dependence on an outside power. Indeed, the very term sadaejuūi (sadae-ism) is now synonymous with toadyism or flunkeyism. However, Korea's decision to accept vassal status vis-à-vis China did not reflect the obsequious servility these terms connote. Rather, the decision was motivated by a quite pragmatic assessment of the best way to guarantee both security and autonomy for Korea."
*Page 33: "Moreover, an exclusive focus on ritual declarations of servility distracts attention from the second major principle that animated Ming-Chosǒn relations: distance and separation. Participation in the tribute system can be understood as the best means for limiting contact with China.... As long as the Korean court declared fealty to China, it was left alone to do virtually as it pleased. In addition, Korea's willing participation in a Sinocentric tribute system did not mean abject dependence. Koreans have often displayed a strong sense of cultural uniqueness if not superiority vis-à-vis their neighbors."
*Page 35: "The mutually agreeable system of noninterference experienced a significant shock at the end of the sixteenth century. The Japanese invasions of Korea of the 1590s led by Hideyoshi Toyotomi devastated the peninsula and prompted the dispatch of a large Ming army to Korea to repulse the Japanese invaders. The Ming decision to send troops to Korea may have been motivated as much by a concern that the Japanese subjugation of Korea might lead to a direct Japanese assault on China as by a need to fulfill China's obligation as suzerain to give aid to its vassal in times of trouble. Nevertheless, the dispatch of troops was described purely in terms of upholding the traditional obligations between suzerain and vassal, and generations of grateful Koreans clearly saw it as such."
*Pages 36-37: "After an initial transition period in which the Manchus kept members of the Chosǒn court hostage at their capital and, like the Ming in its early years, demanded human tribute, the rulers of the newly founded Qing dynasty did / little to modify the structure of China's relations with Korea. They demanded tribute missions (although the number of regular missions sent each year was soon reduced from three or four to one) and sent occasional envoys to grant investiture to Korean kings. Other forms of interaction––trade, travel, and migration––were strictly limited or prohibited outright. And, like the Ming, the Qing virtually never interfered with Korean domestic affairs."
*Pages 37: "The willingness of the Qing to grant Korea dependent-yet-autonomous status is rather remarkable, given the fact that the Qing was an expansionistic empire. Under the rule of vigorous monarchs such as Kangxi (r. 1662-1722), Yongzheng (r. 1723-1735), and Qianlong (r. 1736-1795), the Qing Empire expanded its borders to include areas of Mongolia, Central Asia, Turkestan, and Tibet. Yet, once Korean fealty was secured, the Qing appears never to have seriously considered subjugating and ruling outright the territory so close to the southern border of the Manchu homeland."
*Page 37: "...tributary relations with the Qing continued to be predicated on the ceremonial expression of Qing suzerainty, on one hand, and distance and noninterference, on the other. Korea generally headed the Qing lists of tributaries, and the number of tribute missions from Korea dwarfed those coming from other places. Judging by the frequency and consistency of these tribute missions, Korea continued to be China's most faithful tributary state."
*Pages 39-40: "The alternative to public acceptance of Qing suzerainty was confrontation, and Korea was sure to lose any prolonged military conflict with the Qing. Ritual declarations of submission were a small price to pay for peace and autonomy. This is not to say that Koreans during the Chosǒn period lacked a strong sense of identity or confidence in the value of Korean culture. In terms of international relations, however, accepting the tribute system was the most effective way to ensure harmony between China and Korea."
*Page 40: "The system also allowed Korea the privilege of being an active participant in the Sinocentric world order without compromising Korean autonomy."
Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations from a reliable source on Joseon-China relations 

message: 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)
replies: text: No objections, so added the image you suggested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Pldx1, 08 September 2011 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting a biased and impolite reversion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Discussion of Gender Roles 

message: 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 how it it effected the culture's day to day life, because there is a big difference between their philosophy and the reality, interpretation, and how both directly effected the culture and lives of Koreans.
--Wisnoskij (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confucianism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I'll change all instances of "Hangul" in the article to "Korean", accordingly. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hangeul or Chosŏn'gŭl? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The important point is that many other east Asian countries and even Japan does that it does not appear on the main introduction bar.
It is already mentioned in text for several times and it is totally right that it is useless repetition and redundant.
So everyone agreed that it was mere repetition and redundant to write this on introduction bar.
Should we have to write Australia as 'Tribute of Great Britain' and United state as 'Tribute of Great Britain'?
Malicious editing can be banned, you were warned as malicious editing for several times especially related to Korean issues.
Go back and focus on Japanese issues, not on Korean issues.
I politely ask you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heeyoong (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oda Mari's wrong viewpoint. 

message: Tributary countries cannot sustain one's own kingdom and should be combined to their mastery country. 
However Chosun and Ming, Qing dynasty had a clear borderline that distinguishes each country's territory(Treaty of 1712, argument of clear territorial borderline). And also had totally different King and Army system.
Both Joseon citizens and Ming Ching citizens were severely punished if they enter opponent's country without permission of both country. This is identical to Modern society's borderline system. One cannot enter each other's country as they want, and they have a totally different King, Army system and Law system. 
Mari's mention is refuted by JARA7979, Junohk, chadlesch and others.
Hope this help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heeeeyoung (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason that Joseon is not tribute. Tribute countries cannot have king and can't control their own countries. 

message: Why does this article failed to point out that Joseon was a Tribute of China? Thanks~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.19.136.181 (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Joeseon was an independent kingdom that had diplomatic gift exchanges, otherwise known as tributary exchanges, with Chinese dynasties. This can be clearly demonstrated in Joseon's two wars against the France and the United States. In both instances, France and the United States wished to sign treaties with Joseon through war, and these wars are not considered to be wars against China in China, unlike the British Opium Wars or the Boxer Rebellion which clearly are taught as Western imperialist's war against China.
The very fact that France and the United States wished to sign treaties with Joseon demonstrates that France and United States understood Joseon to be an independent sovereign kingdom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.121.66 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer 

message: Hello. Can someone please provide a good source for the following part:
"Shortly thereafter, Taejong installed an office, known as the Sinmun Office, to hear cases in which aggrieved subjects felt that they had been exploited or treated unjustly by government officials or aristocrats. However, Taejong kept Jeong Do-jeon's reforms intact for most part. In addition, Taejong executed or exiled many of his supporters who helped him ascend on the throne in order to strengthen the royal authority. To limit influence of in-laws, he also killed all four of his Queen's brothers and his son Sejong's father-in-law. Taejong remains a controversial figure who killed many of his rivals and relatives to gain power and yet ruled effectively to improve the populace's lives, strengthen national defense, and lay down a solid foundations for his successor Sejong's rule."
I could not find any.--Sayom (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  providing sources for the following part 

message: This entry is too long, it's like a book. Also, there is no pronunciation key.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.145 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Hi. I am improving The Arabic article of Joseon and I Just miss the sources to write a small paragraph about the Royalty. Could someone please notes some English sources about the royal family, its origin, sub-clans, and General information? Thank you.--Sayom (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request sources  

message: Another user has stated that this article should be about the political entities ruled by the House of Yi (aka the Joseon Dynasty), to include the Joseon Kingdom and the Korean Empire. The user claims that academia rarely discuss the Kingdom of Joseon in its own right, always either the Joseon Dynasty or the Joseon Era. Should Joseon be rewritten or renamed Joseon Dynasty, or is the current coverage adequate? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can set House of Yi and Korean Empire and Joseon; one is the genealogical history and the other the state. Ogress smash! 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Joseon and the Korean Empire are nation-states, while the House of Yi is a dynasty, and the Joseon Dynasty is equivalent to the House if Yi Jangdan (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

text: It remains that this article is about both the Joseon State and the Joseon Period. Therefore, 'Joseon', the actual title, is the most efficient one, meaning 'Joseon, broadly construed'. If you really want to improve this article, better expand the 'nobi' section. They were people too, weren't they ?  Pldx1 (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Joseon Kingdom or Joseon Dynasty? 

message: Different thought about Monarchs of Korea - Joseon dynasty
[李朝實錄] 太祖, 2年(癸酉 / 明 洪武 26年 2月 15日(庚寅) 
可自今除高麗國名, 遵用朝鮮之號。(trans : It is not use with KOREA, I will use joseon) 
※ KORE + Area 國 (高麗國) [高句麗 KOKURE 高麗 KORE] IS RIGHT ? 
※ CHIN + Area 國 (震國) 
檀君朝鮮 (Monarchs of Korea = Kingdom of KOREA)
李氏朝鮮 (Joseon dynasty) → DAI HAN Imperial  
--안성균 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different thought about Monarchs of Korea - Joseon dynasty 

message: =========================================================================================================
朝鮮이라 함은 檀君朝鮮을 뜻하는 것이요, 후에 나온 箕子朝鮮, 衛滿朝鮮, 李氏朝鮮이라 해야 옳습니다 !
[三國遺事] (紀異第一) 雄乃假化而㛰之. 孕生子號曰壇君王倹. 以唐髙即位五十年庚寅 唐堯即位元年戊辰, 則五十年丁巳非庚寅也. 疑其未實. 都平壤城 今西亰始稱朝鮮
[李朝實錄] 世祖 4卷, 2年(1456 丙子 / 明 景泰 7年) 7月 1日(戊辰) 更定朝鮮檀君神主爲朝鮮始祖檀君之位, 後朝鮮始祖箕子爲後朝鮮始祖箕子之位, 高句麗始祖爲高句麗始祖東明王之位。
==> 상기와 같이 朝鮮은 단군조선을 뜻합니다 
==> 따라서, 조선이라 함은 (단군조선)을 설명해야 하며, 이씨조선은 (이씨조선)에서 설명해야 합니다
========================================================================================================= --안성균 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  (joseon is dangunjoseon) and (lee's joseon is lee's joseon)  

message: 朝鮮이라 함은 檀君朝鮮을 뜻하는 것이요, 후에 나온 箕子朝鮮, 衛滿朝鮮, 李氏朝鮮이라 해야 옳습니다 !
[三國遺事] (紀異第一) 雄乃假化而㛰之. 孕生子號曰壇君王倹. 以唐髙即位五十年庚寅 唐堯即位元年戊辰, 則五十年丁巳非庚寅也. 疑其未實. 都平壤城 今西亰始稱朝鮮
[李朝實錄] 世祖 4卷, 2年(1456 丙子 / 明 景泰 7年) 7月 1日(戊辰) 更定朝鮮檀君神主爲朝鮮始祖檀君之位, 後朝鮮始祖箕子爲後朝鮮始祖箕子之位, 高句麗始祖爲高句麗始祖東明王之位。
==> 상기와 같이 朝鮮은 단군조선을 뜻합니다 
==> 따라서, 조선이라 함은 (단군조선)을 설명해야 하며, 이씨조선은 (이씨조선)에서 설명해야 합니다
========================================================================================================= --안성균 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: =============================================================================================

message: The desinfobox says: Yeonguijeong: |deputy4      = Chae Jegong, |year_deputy4 = 1793–1801. This is amusing for many reasons. Finding why is left as an exercise to the reader.Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desinfobox 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928110202/http://www.instrok.org/instrok/lesson1/page01.html?thisChar=4 to http://www.instrok.org/instrok/lesson1/page01.html?thisChar=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050313144134/http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~mss1/choson.html to http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~mss1/choson.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050113191703/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501120024.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501120024.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202204421/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200601/200601270013.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200601/200601270013.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604062746/http://www.bennettsfineart.com/lee%20dynasty.htm to http://www.bennettsfineart.com/lee%20dynasty.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 's input, as it was their idea to begin the request for comment you linked to. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  description in the infobox regarding the tributary system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naming Process of Joseon 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.newstown.co.kr/newsbuilder/service/article/messmail.asp?P_Index=72824
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610053214/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=112816&v=42 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=112816&v=42
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610053227/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=236670&v=42 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=236670&v=42
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050207052645/http://royalcity.or.kr/ to http://www.royalcity.or.kr/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Client state of the Qing dynasty 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hanja should be added to the terms

message: The dates given for the Joseon founding are incorrect. The correct date is August 5th, 1392. 7/17 is the date in the lunar-solar calendar (17th day of the 7th month), which should be converted. It is NOT July 17th.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwangLA (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: 
They two are different stages of the same dynasty. Merging should be better.
: That wouldn't make much sense, as the Korean Empire was a complete reform of the state, like how the First Republic of Korea ain't the same as the Second Republic of Korea, while both are still South Korea. It would make more sense to create a new article that includes both the Kingdom and Empire period and gives a short summation of both. --Donald Trung (talk)  12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should merge this passage with Korean Empire 

message: Looking at the history of Korea, the pre-modern Korean elites wrote Hanja, which was borrowed from China, as a text, but they did not know how to speak Chinese without learning it later.
For example, Silla couldn't communicate with China (North-South Dynasty, Tang Dynasty) without an interpreter. Buyeo, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Kara (Gaya) were likewise different from China, and Chinese history books show how their language is interpreted as Chinese. In particular, the Baekje, Silla, and Gaya regions were originally regions where ancient Japanese was spoken, so their language was close to Japanese. Later, through the conquest and domination of Korean-language speakers from Manchuria, the language used was replaced with Korean, and Japanese speakers disappeared from the central and southern parts of the Korean Peninsula. As now, Japanese speakers are left only in the Japanese archipelago.
The later Goryeo and the Joseon elite also had to learn Chinese separately in order to perform interpretations with Chinese envoys or envoys sent to China.
The English version of Wikipedia evokes the illusion as if Korean elites spoke Chinese freely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanja  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more accurate to compare it to the Latin language in Europe, Classical Chinese was the written language of the elites but it wasn't an actual spoken language. Just like that even within China the "Chinese language" isn't mutually intelligible among each other if they are from distant provinces but written Chinese remains largely the same. The written language in the infobox doesn't refer to any modern language spoken in China but literary Hanja. --Donald Trung (talk)  12:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common script 

message: If this article is supposed to be about the Sin-Chosôn Kingdom/Tae-Chosôn Kingdom (1392 A.D./C.E. ~ 1897 A.D./C.E.), then why does this article keep referring to it as a Dynasty?  
If this article is supposed to be about the Dynasty that ruled the Sin-Chosôn Kingdom/Tae-Chosôn Kingdom (1392 A.D./C.E. ~ 1897 A.D./C.E.) and the Taehan Empire (1897 A.D./C.E. ~ 1910 A.D./C.E.), then that is the Yi Dynasty and there is another confused article supposedly about the Yi Dynasty.  
100.2.24.15 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Those references are likely from an older name of the article, as the article used to be called "Joseon Dynasty" before it was moved to "Joseon" later. You are free to clean those references up. --Donald Trung (talk)  12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About The Sin-Chosôn Kingdom/Tae-Chosôn Kingdom?  Or About The Yi Dynasty? 

message: I wanted to add a gallery of royal seals to the article, as Joseon used more royal seals (as far as I'm aware of) than the Kingdom of Goryeo. But I am not sure if this should be added to this article or the article about the politics of the Joseon dynasty or perhaps a specialised page for "Seals of Joseon and the Korean Empire". 
Image:Joseon wang bo (Royal Seal Treasure of the Joseon King).svg|before joining the Chinese tributary system period seal used about 10 years.
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon).svg|Ming dynasty protectorate period seal. 
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon, 1653-1776).svg|Qing dynasty protectorate period seal used between 1653 and 1776.
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon, 1776-1876).svg|Qing dynasty protectorate period seal used between 1776 and 1876. 
Image:Daegunjubo.svg|"Daegunjubo" designed to replace the former sergeant "Joseongukwangjiin". used as the seal of the king for documents such as appointment documents for high-ranking government officials and ordinances proclaimed in Korea.- between 1882 and 1897
Image:DaejoseonDaegunjubo.svg|"DaejoseonDaegunjubo" were used as ‘the seal of state’ for credentials in diplomatic relations with other countries. : between 1882 ~
--Donald Trung (talk)  12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: protectorate ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bad, wrong translation, I meant tributary state. --Donald Trung (talk)  16:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery of the Royal seals of Joseon 

message: Classification>Seals by Type>Seal of the State
Sorry, I didn't see another royal seal. There were two royal seals. One was before receiving the royal seal from the emporor(조선왕보,朝鮮王寶) and the other one was after recived the royal seal from the emporor(조선국왕지인,朝鮮國王之印).
There were only two royal seals, but here are many seals. I don't understand why these are royal seal of Joseon. I think these are misinformation. so it should be deleted.
Image:Joseon wang bo (Royal Seal Treasure of the Joseon King).svg|Seal used from 1392 to 1401.
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon).svg| Seals used concurrent to the Ming dynasty, from 1401 to 1637.Veritable Records of Taejong, vol. 1, year of 1401, 6th month, 12nd day 
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon, 1637-1653).svg| Seals used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - used between 1637Veritable Records of Injoo, vol. 35, year of 1637, 11th month, 20nd day. and 1653.
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon, 1653-1776).svg|Seal used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - between 1653 and 1776.Veritable Records of Jeongjo, vol. 2, year of 1776, 8th month, 18nd day
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon, 1776-1876).svg|Seal used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - between 1776 and 1876. 
Image:Daejoseongukjusangjibo.svg|The seal was produced on December 15, 1876, for use in Japanese-related state documents.
Image:Daegunjubo.svg|"Daegunjubo" designed to replace the former sergeant "Joseongukwangjiin". used as the seal of the king for documents such as appointment documents for high-ranking government officials and ordinances proclaimed in Korea.- between 1882 and 1897Journal of the Royal Secretariat, vol. 2902, year of 1882, 7th month, 1nd day
Image:DaejoseonDaegunjubo.svg|"DaejoseonDaegunjubo" were used as ‘the seal of state’ for credentials in diplomatic relations with other countries. : between 1882
In the South Korean goverment, 국새(國璽) means "royal seal" in English.
https://theme.archives.go.kr//next/koreaOfRecord/guksae.do
How about change like this?
Image:Joseon wang bo (Royal Seal Treasure of the Joseon King).svg|Seal used from 1392 to 1401.
Image:Joseongukwangjiin (The Seal of the King of Joseon).svg| Seals used from 1401 to 1897.
Among many national seals of Joseon, there were two royal seals from establishment to  collapse.
National seals of Joseon: Classification>Seal Period>Joseon Dynasty
Royal seals of Joseon: Classification>Seals by Type>Seal of the State
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator88711 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because your particular database search does not find these seals does not mean that they don't exist. There are clearly citations for some of these. Pinging  who originally added these and may have more to say on it. Note that Creator88711 also changed the seals in the infobox .Also please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 00:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't get the ping but I found these edits while checking my e-mails, I initially only found one (1) royal seal but a South Korean user with a Choso√n'gul username did and they added the sources, as I can't read the Korean alphabet I have more trouble searching but I initially came to the same conclusions as the above user and constantly had to correct myself (also like the above user, Creator88711) so I will go with "the angle of verifiability" and the user with the Choso√n'gul username provided sources and they were the one that asked Sodacan to make all the SVG's (except for the one I requested) in the Graphic Lab's Illustration workshop, if I can find their username I will ping them. --Donald Trung (talk)  08:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal seal was just one.  

message: Other documents in the History of Korea include Classical Chinese in Common languages, but Classical Chinese is a character, not a language, so this should be included in the Common script section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional Chinese is a writing system (i.e. script). Classical Chinese is a language. Classical Chinese is written in Traditional Chinese but they are two different things. — MarkH21talk 12:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Pinging  who also reverted the removal of Classical Chinese and its citations. — MarkH21talk 00:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Classical Chinese is in Chinese cultural countries what Latin is in Europe and Arabic in the Islamic World, most infoboxes on historical European and Muslim countries also list Latin or Arabic as the official language so it would make little sense to remove it here as it was the administrative language, even if all the characters are pronounced in Korean (Sino-Korean vocabulary) it doesn't make it any less Classical Chinese. --Donald Trung (talk)  08:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common languages 

message: This has been discussed before. You need to read the sources rather than reinstate your changes to the longstanding content without consensus.Regarding , academic sources say that the government and officials used Classical Chinese (i.e. hanmun). Classical Chinese is a language. It is not the same as Traditional Chinese or hanja (cf. the existence of Gugyeol, Hyangchal, and Idu script as written bridges between Classical Chinese and Korean as languages), which are writing systems. Classical Chinese written in Traditional Chinese characters and Korean written in hanja use Chinese characters and have some shared vocabulary, but have different grammatical structures, vocabulary, etc.The academic sources literally state the official usage of the language of Classical Chinese (separately from hanja), so please stop removing it. — MarkH21talk 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  who also reverted the removal of Classical Chinese and its citations. — MarkH21talk 00:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Classical Chinese is in Chinese cultural countries what Latin is in Europe and Arabic in the Islamic World, most infoboxes on historical European and Muslim countries also list Latin or Arabic as the official language so it would make little sense to remove it here as it was the administrative language, even if all the characters are pronounced in Korean (Sino-Korean vocabulary) it doesn't make it any less Classical Chinese. --Donald Trung (talk)  08:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Official languages again

message: Something where the Joseon article is singled out on is the "Status" section of the Infobox, where it is unanimously presented as a "Member of the Imperial Chinese Tributary system", while none of that is applied to either Dai Viet, Ayutthaya or Sukhothai as well as various other countries in South East Asia, who would fit this criteria as well. The well recorded ambiguity of Joseons relationship to Ming and Qing should be taken in regard, when dealing with this topic. Along with the very formal nature of the tributary relationship that is instead presented from the Sinocentric POV, of which its neutrality in Confucian discourse might be emphasized, yet does not fit either modern academic discourse nor a English language variant of Wikipedia, a site accessed by a wider audience unfamiliar with this topic.
What appears to be a more questionable and implicit recent addition should be under investigation perhaps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FingonFindekáno (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the wiki page for Chinese tributary system, the "system" itself is a western invention, which I agree with, but to say that there is ambiguity in Joseon's relationship with the Ming and Qing needs further clarification. According to the article, Joseon's tributary relationship with the Ming may possibly be the strongest out of all the states that were part of the "system." And Joseon in particular was effected by the Qing claim to tributary overlordship, which was enforced via military means both at the start and end of the dynasty. So I am not sure if the tributary relationship was merely a formality. At least during the Japanese invasions and during the Qing invasions, the relationship took on a real geopolitical dimension beyond just symbolic ritual, which Joseon also practiced whether willingly under the Ming or begrudingly under the Qing. If anything, the existing information points to Joseon being an anomaly in the tributary system if it exists, in that it both conformed to imperial tributary culture and China did affect its stance on foreign affairs. Qiushufang (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The articles mentioned for Dai Viet, Ayutthaya Kingdom, and Sukhothai Kingdom have their own problems and differences from Joseon. Dai Viet is a fairly new article which did not have much content a year ago, at which time it was merely a stub. It does mention that the Vietnamese rulers considered themselves emperors, which is somewhat different from Joseon. Both Ayyuthaya and Sukhothai's articles have more citations needed templates which probably means they're not the most complete articles. Ayyuthaya's does mention it sent tribute to dynasties in China and both articles mention they were tributaries and even vassals to other polities not in China. I assume those take precedence over their participation in the Chinese tributary system, which is superseded by more immediately tangible political relationship to another suzerain. None of these three articles have a status section in their template like Joseon. This is something Joseon shares with Ryukyu Kingdom, which also mentions tributary status to Chinese dynasties, but not the other three articles. Qiushufang (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, many of the Vietnamese dynasty articles do include the tributary status in the infoboxes: Đinh dynasty, Early Lê dynasty, Lý dynasty, Trần dynasty, Lê dynasty, Tây Sơn dynasty, Nguyễn dynasty. As  points out, the Đại Việt article is newer and this status could be added to the Dai Viet infobox (but the tributary status runs across several disjoint periods so the years could get quite messy; maybe an  endnote would work).Some other articles also note similar statuses: Ryukyu Kingdom, Sultanate of Sulu, Lanfang Republic. Some don't include it and some do. What is unusual, however, would be to explicitly write , since being an independent state is usually presumed unless otherwise noted.  — MarkH21talk 23:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as a exception in historical country wikiboxes 

message: Tbh I want to restore it. "Independent state while maintaining tributary relations"... It could be confusing if Joseon or Goryeo was part of China or not, for those who don't know about the system. And ive seen some problems with Goryeo. During 1356–1392, Didn't Song dynasty already gone? And in case of Joseon, Joseon was not independent during 1882-1895 User10281129 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those circumstances are already listed in the status, notes, and with multiple qualifiers such as "nominal" and "independent." Ryukyu kingdom does not do this nor do any of the other Vietnamese dynasty articles. As far as I know no other article has ever listed "independent" as part of its majority status either such as was done at Joseon. It is completely redundant. That is the default position. Qiushufang (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. It is redundant but it is much more specifical describe to explain what the Chinese tributary system is User10281129 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I initially included it in there and you reverted it. Qiushufang (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you are trying to humor me and respect me. But i think we have to restore it. It has no difference of meaning between our two edits. But what i meant to say is we should make it easy to understand it. To be honest, if i was someome who dont know about the system, i would think that Joseon or Goryeo is just territory of China User10281129 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: So you are not allow me to restore it?  User10281129 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's just you projecting your own beliefs onto others. Nobody thinks Vietnamese dynasties or the Ryukyu Kingdom was part of China even though they have tributary relations in their status boxes. People don't even think Tibet is part of China and that's actually controlled by China. There is no realm of possibility where somebody thinks Goryeo was part of China because it has tributary in its status box. The very word tributary implies it is not part of China, otherwise how could it pay tribute to it? There was never any need to list independent in the status box in the first place other than to placate emotional concerns. No other status box does this. Qiushufang (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats only you, not the others. Tributary state means it has no independence and control by foreign User10281129 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I did not placate you. I tried to very hard to respect you and humor you.   User10281129 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was controlled by a foreign power and it was part of a system in which it saw itself as the junior member of an international system led by the Ming dynasty. When the Ming was invaded, it stuck by the Ming until it was invaded by the Qing and forcibly turned into a Qing tributary. In that sense, it was not independent, but not as you said, give off the impression that it was part of China. Being independent is not the same thing as being part of China as there are varying degrees of control and spheres of influence in politics. These are not binary statuses and not equivalent to each other. Qiushufang (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: You said it was controlled by foreign powers but Chinese tributary system was relation based on hierarchical diplomatic system in east asia.  User10281129 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: China had zero control over their tributaries User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what it says in Chinese tributary system. It says in almost all cases. In the case of Qing and Joseon it was not voluntary hence some level of control was required at a certain point. Qiushufang (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically, Ming and Qing User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are not mutually exclusive. Qiushufang (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Song did not exist in 1356–1392.  User10281129 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Oh. At that time, there was no sense of logic that China should control over tributaries. User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: At all User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Chinese tributary system was just hierarchical relationship between China and foreign nations.  User10281129 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: At that time, hierarchical relations was matter of course in east asian diplomacy.  User10281129 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: You said there was little control over Joseon but Qing did not interfere in Joseon's affairs at all until 1882 User10281129 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Not "at all" for the time just before 1882. Bcs Qing tried to make Joseon as their client state since 19th century User10281129 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per above, it is not mutually exclusive with real control, as was the case at some point with Qing and Joseon. I think some WP:COMPETENCE is needed as your sentences and logical follow through are too fragmented and hard to understand. Needless to say, I do not agree with the changes you have made to the status box, it has no precedence and is redundant. As you were reverted by three different users back in May over the same material, I think it's safe to say you do not have consensus currently. Qiushufang (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: When did i say Qing had control over Joseon before 1882? What I was trying to say was the Qing Dynasty's attempt to interfere in the affairs of Joseon, but the interference did not materialize at all until 1882, so there is a difference between the two. User10281129 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Plan =× execute (not same) User10281129 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Even if it is redundant, it is correct to write both. from 1882 to 1895, it was a client state under the interference of the Qing Dynasty. But it was independent except for that period. it is lack of explanation that such explanation is omitted.  User10281129 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: If you don't like redundant, is it okay to change like that? Is it okay with you? User10281129 (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: please indent your talk posts in the future so it is easier to follow the conversation. Thanks! I've done it just now for readability. — MarkH21talk 23:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that you have interest in asian history. Do u have any opinion?User10281129 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

text: China's tribute system was not even a means of controlling other countries, but an example of a hierarchical diplomatic method that existed in East Asia in the past.  Hierarchical relationships were a natural thing in East Asian diplomacy. I tried to write concisely and specifically for those who lack understanding of the system. we need to include both tributary relations and the period of being independent. If such explanations are omitted, it's insufficient of explanations. User10281129 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No I disagree with the change. There is no need or precedence for it in other wiki articles for tributary members. Other reasons I have already outline above. Qiushufang (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that.User10281129 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

text: You said there is no such articles in other pages, so you told me not to restore it. And u said u don't want a redundant. This can't be reason User10281129 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: I think article could benefit from a separate etymology section that explains the origin of the name, as well as the official names and spellings of the name in other Koreanic writing systems toobigtokale (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section