Status[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Can i restore it? User10281129 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
That's why I initially included it in there and you reverted it. Qiushufang (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
So you are not allow me to restore it? User10281129 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I did not placate you. I tried to very hard to respect you and humor you. User10281129 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
China had zero control over their tributaries User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
More specifically, Ming and Qing User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two are not mutually exclusive. Qiushufang (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Song did not exist in 1356–1392. User10281129 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. At that time, there was no sense of logic that China should control over tributaries. User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At all User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chinese tributary system was just hierarchical relationship between China and foreign nations. User10281129 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At that time, hierarchical relations was matter of course in east asian diplomacy. User10281129 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Plan =× execute (not same) User10281129 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Independent state [a][b]
(1392–1882, 1895–1897)

Client state of Qing dynasty
(1882–1895)[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Mitani Hiroshi (三谷博) (18 January 2016). グローバル化への対応－中・日・韓三国の分岐－ (PDF) (in Japanese). Statistical Research Society. Statistical Research Society Journal No. 1 (統計研究会『学際』第1号)
  2. ^ Harada Damaki (原田環) (12 June 2005). 東アジアの国際関係とその近代化－朝鮮と－ (PDF) (in Japanese). The Japan-Korea cultural foundation. Joint Research Report on Japan-Korea History No. 1 (日韓歴史共同研究報告書 -第1期-)
  3. ^ Lin 2014, pp. 69–71.
  4. ^ Yoo bada (13 July 2017). "Japanese Awareness about Joseon's International Legal Status after Imo Military Rebellion". Korea Citation Index. Qing arranged for the conclusion of the Joseon-America Treaty in 1882, and regulated the Joseon-China Regulation after suppressing the ImO Military Rebellion and defined Joseon as a SemiSovereign or Dependent State based on the Elements of International Law...If so, Joseon would gain the international legal status of protectorate and his sovereignty should be limited.
@User10281129: 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)Reply[reply]
I saw that you have interest in asian history. Do u have any opinion?User10281129 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that.User10281129 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Etymology section[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

population[edit]

This wiki article's record of Joseon's population is incorrect.

The official position of Korean academia on the population of Joseon in the 15th to 19th centuries is as follows.

http://contents.nahf.or.kr/item/level.do?levelId=edeah.d_0004_0030_0020_0030#self

I think the population related part should be restored to the old content edited before 16:16, 7 May 2023‎. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega23days (talk • contribs)

Opinions of Joseon's population historians and economists.[edit]

Regarding the population of Joseon, Professor Shin Yong-ha and Kwon Tae-wan calculated it based on the population growth rate. (On Population Estimates of the Yi Dynasty, 1392-1910)

In addition, Professors Lee Young-gu and Lee Ho-cheol used the population growth rate of the modern era to reverse-calculate and count the figures. (The Estimation of Population in Choson Dynasty (Ⅱ))

However, Western historians, such as Fairbank, Reischauer, and Professor Craig, counted the population of Joseon based on household survey data, and they counted the population of Joseon in 1590 as 5 million. However, as recorded in the Geography of the Annals of King Sejong, the actual population of Joseon during the reign of King Sejong varied greatly to the extent that the actual population at that time could only be determined by multiplying the surveyed population by 8 to 10 times. Therefore, there is a problem with the views of Western historians who use only family register data to determine the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega23days (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Japan a vassal state of Korea?[edit]

The article states that the Japanese paid tribute to Yi Dynasty Korea. This is a misleading term. Japan never paid tribute to Korea. Residents of Tsushima, a remote island, independently conducted diplomacy and paid tribute to Korea. Of course, Tsushima is a territory of Japan, but to avoid misunderstanding, "Japanese" should be rewritten as "Tsushima Residents". Op221 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop adding info without sources[edit]

This article is already long enough; info without sources is close to useless at this point. If you want to contribute to this article, focus on either finding sources for claims that don't already have them or deleting stuff that's poorly written and unsourced. toobigtokale (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).

Categories