User10281129 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
User10281129 (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
::::You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that.[[User:User10281129|User10281129]] ([[User talk:User10281129|talk]]) 03:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
::::You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that.[[User:User10281129|User10281129]] ([[User talk:User10281129|talk]]) 03:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::You said there is no such articles in other pages, so |
::::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 [[User:User10281129|User10281129]] ([[User talk:User10281129|talk]]) 03:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:38, 30 January 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Common languages
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)
- 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)
Official languages again
@Creator88711: This has been discussed before. You need to read the sources rather than reinstate your changes to the longstanding content without consensus.
Regarding this third repeated removal, 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)
- Pinging Bumbubookworm who also reverted the removal of Classical Chinese and its citations. — MarkH21talk 00:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
Gallery of the Royal seals of Joseon
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".
-
before joining the Chinese tributary system period seal used about 10 years.
-
Ming dynasty protectorate period seal.
-
Qing dynasty protectorate period seal used between 1653 and 1776.
-
Qing dynasty protectorate period seal used between 1776 and 1876.
-
"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 -
"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)
- My bad, wrong translation, I meant tributary state. --Donald Trung (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1025731580
I added the list, so please add new seals to the gallery in the article. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@고려: (Consideration), could also please add the Chosŏn'gul and Hanja inscriptions and perhaps what they mean in English of each seal? --Donald Trung (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Royal seal was just one.
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.
-
Seal used from 1392 to 1401.
-
Seals used concurrent to the Ming dynasty, from 1401 to 1637.[1]
-
Seal used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - between 1653 and 1776.[4]
-
Seal used concurrent to the Qing dynasty - between 1776 and 1876.
-
The seal was produced on December 15, 1876, for use in Japanese-related state documents.
-
"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[5] -
"DaejoseonDaegunjubo" were used as ‘the seal of state’ for credentials in diplomatic relations with other countries. : between 1882[5]
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?
-
Seal used from 1392 to 1401.
-
Seals used from 1401 to 1897.
Among many national seals of Joseon, there were two royal seals from establishment to collapse.
Royal seals of Joseon: http://www.heritage.go.kr/heri/inj/selectIJList.do?s_code1=122&s_code2=06&s_code3=&navigator=%3E%EC%9D%B8%EC%9E%A5%EC%A2%85%EB%A5%98%EB%B3%84&dirName=%EA%B5%AD%EC%83%88%28%E5%9C%8B%E7%92%BD%29&codeLevel=2&searchCond=&searchPage=1&searchGubun=s_mnm1&searchDisp=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator88711 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Veritable Records of Taejong, vol. 1, year of 1401, 6th month, 12nd day
- ^ Veritable Records of Injoo, vol. 35, year of 1637, 11th month, 20nd day.
- ^ 김지남 (1888). "9". Record of Joseon Diplomacy. Vol. 3. p. 126~127.
- ^ Veritable Records of Jeongjo, vol. 2, year of 1776, 8th month, 18nd day
- ^ a b Journal of the Royal Secretariat, vol. 2902, year of 1882, 7th month, 1nd day
- @Creator88711: 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 Donald Trung who originally added these and may have more to say on it. Note that Creator88711 also changed the seals in the infobox in this edit.Also please sign your comments with four tildes like this:
~~~~
. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 00:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)- 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)
Status as a exception in historical country wikiboxes
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Qiushufang 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 {{efn}} 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 {{tq|independent state as a [[...]}}, since being an independent state is usually presumed unless otherwise noted. — MarkH21talk 23:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Status
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)
Can i restore it? User10281129 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's why I initially included it in there and you reverted it. Qiushufang (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- So you are not allow me to restore it? User10281129 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I did not placate you. I tried to very hard to respect you and humor you. User10281129 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- China had zero control over their tributaries User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- More specifically, Ming and Qing User10281129 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- The two are not mutually exclusive. Qiushufang (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Song did not exist in 1356–1392. User10281129 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh. At that time, there was no sense of logic that China should control over tributaries. User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- At all User10281129 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Chinese tributary system was just hierarchical relationship between China and foreign nations. User10281129 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- At that time, hierarchical relations was matter of course in east asian diplomacy. User10281129 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Plan =× execute (not same) User10281129 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Independent state [a][b]
(1392–1882, 1895–1897)
Client state of Qing dynasty
(1882–1895)[1][2][3][4]
References
- ^ 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)
- ^ 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-)
- ^ Lin 2014, pp. 69–71.
- ^ 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)
- I saw that you have interest in asian history. Do u have any opinion?User10281129 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that.User10281129 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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).