Talk:Joseon Dynasty/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Contents 1 Update 2 Earlier comments 3 worst article ever 4 Request for Noury to indicate academic credentials/expertise in Korean history 5 Attempting to Wikify a bit 6 Total Revision Requested 7 Is this a copyright violation or viceversa? = 8 Disputed Beginnings section 9 Additional comments from article 10 The Yi Seok section 11 A Comment 12 . 13 ? 14 Proposed move 15 North Korean POV 16 Illegitimate? 17 Ming intervention 18 External links 19 title of article 20 longest dynasty 21 Korea's Tributary Relations with Qing 22 Rose-tinted view 23 JOSUN?? 24 Kojong's abdication 25 full of fantasy 26 Korean role in Japanese invasion 27 proposed ove?

Update

This entire article is being rewritten, and will be reposted with new information by May 8th. As well there will be hyperlinks to sub-articles on: Joseon dynasty art, Joseon dynasty politics, Joseon dynasty figures, and Joseon dynasty foreign relations, as well as links to Joseon dynasty Confucianism. Apologies to all for some initial chaos in laying this down. Once the format is laid out, it will be followed in dynasties before and after, and clarity given. --POofYS 15:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Earlier comments

Extensive fact checking has revealed accurate information on Yi Seok from at least 10 magazine/internet sources.

Fact checking of article verified by AFP article collated with Wall Street Journal and Korea Times and Washington Times articles amongst the many.

Fact checking verified by:

(1) http://entertainment.news.designerz.com/koreas-turbulent-times-mirrored-in-life-of-chosun-prince.html

A good article. Historically the Joseon Dynasty entry though she be linked to other hyperlinked articles.

This article has no focus. It seems to dwell on Yi Seok and nothing else.

I agree that this article has no focus, so I, Prince Tyrone, have added recent developments in our Family of Yi.

Also, General Yi, the creator of both the steel ships and submarine in the 10th century, is the ancestor of this dynasty, and at some point within the 13th century, a son of Kahn married into the family and we all have the blood of Genghis Kahn as a result, uniting, in effect, the Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Siamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Japanese, Siberian, and Mongolian royal families, and recent marriages during the 20th century after the Korean War has indirectly united the family with Mesoamerican and European royal families. Only proof I offer is the family itself.

worst article ever

The former article about Joseon Dynasty was one of the worst Wiki article I've ever seen. It contained numerous errors and it was based on Chinese view of the history. Worst of all, Yi Suk's story was over represented though he has almost no importance in Joseon Dynasty. So I deleted the article except the years of exsitence of the dynasty. - 14/02/2005 noury

Request for Noury to indicate academic credentials/expertise in Korean history

Response: Please give your credentials as a historian, or an expert on the history of Korea, especially dynastic Joseon history. Otherwise the article goes back up, you made no note of any historical fallacies or errors, and have no prove of any element being inaccurate. The Cambridge History of Korea is still being completed, and you are invited to add your comments to this, as the man who wrote the Joseon Dynasty article is one of its contributors.

In future months, I will rewrite this whole article. Since I am related to Prince Gu, my great-granduncle, I shall honor him later with a well-written article.

Too bad it was written so poorly.

Attempting to Wikify a bit

Guidance needed if somehow I make it look worse! --Aika 15:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Total Revision Requested

Much of the information provided is inaccurate, from the origion of Joseon to the "royal family in 2004." I will just make a few points. First of all, this article is written way too much in sino-centric view. Although Chinese interfered with Joseon in international affairs, Joseon was completely independent kingdom with peculiar culture. Kicking Mongolians out of Korea and founding Joseon were done solely by Koreans. It is also extremely unnecessary and disrespectful to explain things in Joseon in terms of similar events in China. Second of all, Mongols never ruled Korea. Mongols successfully invaded Korea but did not annexed it. Instead, Goryu became "little brother" of Mongol and paid tributes and sent women to Mongol. Korean kings still ruled Korea, and Goryu dynasty never stopped before Joseon. Third of all, due to its corruption during Goryu, buddhism was discouraged during Joseon. Finally, claiming that royal family is in symbolic role (such as in Japan) is a pitifully weak argument. Korean government never formally recognized the existence and validity of Joseon imperial family after Japanese colonial period. Although the descendants still live today, they are not royal and not given any special status. Of course, they do not live in imperial palace. Making such a bold point and providing no more evidence than writings in the meida is just unacceptable. Whoever the writer is, the newspaper cannot be the verification of your argument. Please, if you want to keep the "imperial family in 2004," show evidence from scholarly writing by prominent KOREAN historian or politician, or a sample of writing from Korean governmental documents.

To the writer: The part about Yi-Suk, as another person has already said, is irrelevant with the history of Joseon. The newspaper articles you mentioned are no more than "keeping Korean values that are lost today." It's about a "movement", in which Yi-Suk is a symbolic figure because he is the last blood of Korean imperial family, not "re-establishment" Again, "re-establishment" has much more to do with the government, and Korean government has not said anything about it. And if you meant "movement," you forgot the fact that this is about HISTORY, but not about CURRENT ISSUES ON THE SUBJECT.

Thus, "Yi-Suk has finally regained his dignity and respect in keeping the Korean royal traditions alive in 2004." is serious exaggeration of fact to the point that it is not true anymore.

Is this a copyright violation or viceversa? =

See http://joseon-dynasty.biography.ms/ is nearly word for word

Looks as if parts of the article here were picked up off the net and put into another article. Wiki is public domain, so this has happened all over - and articles keeping on changing and getting modified - it happens. Nothing can be done about this because of the GNU licence. Thanks for spotting it. With hope as this article is corrected and fact-checked, the duplicates out there will mutate to accuracy as well. --POofYS 15:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Beginnings section

I removed this note from the article section:

"Note: This section is historically inaccurate and gramatically problematic. For example, there was no said-alliance with China, the Mongols never really annexed Korea, and the word superlative is used inappropriately. Furthermore, Yi Seongye's coup was not a Chinese backed coup-- in fact, Ming-Joseon relations would be strained until the early 15th Cenutyr. Someone please fix this article. I will when I have time if no one does it. --thevizier 21:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)"

I am mostly trying to copyedit and improve grammar here, though I am also restating or removing peacocks and weasels. This dispute should continue to be discussed, however. Demi ^T/_C 22:25, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Additional comments from article

I have removed this comment from the article:

Note: Half of what is in this section has no direct relevance to the topic at hand. It should be under the Russo-Japanese War if anything. This does not explain the reasons for the decline of the Joseon dynasty at all- --thevizier 21:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a pertinent comment, but it belongs here, on the talk page. Demi ^T/_C 23:59, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

The Yi Seok section

I removed this section from the article. This material can be covered in Yi Seok. The following comment really belonged on the talk page, not in the article text, so I preserve it here:

(Note that there has been debate here on succession issues, as in all monarchy based sites in the 20th century and now; there are still claims of Stuart succession invalidating Queen Elizabeth and her heirs; as well as similar battles fought on other websites; a link will be added on this forthcoming setting forth arguments on succession issues from a variety of historians and legalists.) (The discussion below is extraordinarily unbalanced, and blatantly wrong in a number of places. The Korean Crown Prince and Head of Household is Yi Ku, not his cousin Yi Seok. Yi Ku is the son of the previous Crown Prince, Yi Wu and his wife Yi Pangja. Yi Ku has not named a successor, so as yet there is no heir. While Yi Seok's efforts at cultural preservation are praiseworthy and worthwhile, his claims to be the heir are not really controversial - they're simply wrong. Reference: http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Korea/korea9.htm)

I don't know who made this comment. Some of this section referred to the family, not Yi Seok specifically, so I left it, but have not yet edited or attempted to improve on it. Demi ^T/_C 00:05, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Demi - the parenthetic note starting "(The discussion below..." is mine. Not sure how to email you, so I'll note here. Without getting into specifics of legitimacy, it appears that Yi Seok has hired an agent or some such, since there's been a recent proliferation of articles around the net, very similar in content as someone noted above, but factually distorted. --Danstr 20:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Right--I wanted to preserve the commentary for future editors, thus moving it to talk without deleting it. I check my watched pages occasionally, but you can usually get good results leaving a message on my talk page. Demi ^T/_C 00:06, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

A Comment

Joseon rulers did not refer to themselves as Emperors until 1894, after the establishment of the T'ae Han Cheguk. Calling Sejong, Sonjo, Yongjo, etc Emperors is inappropriate and is not practiced in Korean historiography.--68.160.255.149 15:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

.

After the Invasion and de facto annexation of Korea by Japanes in 1910, the Princes and Princesses of Imperial Family were forced to leave for Japan to be educated and to be married. The Heir to the Throne, Imperial Crown Prince Uimin, married Princess Yi Bang-ja nee Nashimoto, and had two sons Princes Yi Jin and Yi Gu. His brother, Imperial Prince Ui, actually elder by birth and seniority, had thirteen sons and nine daughters from various wives and concubines.

The Crown Prince lost his status in Japan at the end of the World War II, and returned to Korea in 1963 after an invitation by Republican Government. He suffered stroke as the plane landed in Seoul and was rushed to a hospital. He never recovered and passed away in 1970. His brother, Imperial Prince Ui passed away in 1955. The death of Crown Princess Yi Bang-ja in 1989 marked an effective end to the Imperial Family before 1910.

Today, it is widely acknowledged that Prince Yi Gu is the Head of the Imperial Family as the son of the Crown Prince, though some dissidents point out his Japanese ancestry from his mother's sides. Those people supported the claim of Prince Yi Seok, the son of Imperial Prince Ui and the only male member of the Imperial Family living in Korea, though his position as his father's 11th son makes his claim flimsy. By the rules of Primogeniture, the direct successor of the Imperial legacy, whether bypassing Prince Yi Gu or not, appears to be Prince Yi Chong, the son of Prince Yi Woo, the second son of Imperial Prince Ui. This is because Prince Yi Kun, the elder brother of Prince Yi Woo, took upon a Japanese Citizenship in 1947 and is therefore considered to be unsuitable for the Korean heritage.

• Gojong
  • Sunjong
  • Ui
    • Kun
    • Wu
      • Chong
    • Seok
    • Ten other sons
    • Nine daughters
  • Uimin
    • Jin
    • Gu

The New Crown Prince of Korea lives in Phoenix, Arizona. He is Anthony Lee, Son of Yi Soo Young, Son of Yi Tae Sung, Nephew of former Crown Prince Gu. I am Prince Tyrone, and I offer myself and my blood as proof! We also came to America after President Truman declared we could not restore our Monarchy in Korea after the war to give his Marxist buddies some territory, nor were we allowed to live in Japan under our Japanese family's watch, so we were all allowed to emigrate to America, which took over 20 years of red tape and paper work and came to settle through out this Great Nation.

?

This article needs to be wikified.

Proposed move

Joseon seems to have information in it not strictly related to the dynasty but to the use of the term in a more general sense; however, I don't know enough about it to really judge. What is the motivation for the proposed move? Demi ^T/_C 22:49, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

• As of now, the move has not yet been listed on Requested moves; the move proposal was made by 69.212.70.138. Demi ^T/_C 22:58, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Since two months have gone by without anyone expressing support for this move, or the reasoning behind it, I will remove the template. -- Visviva 23:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

North Korean POV

There's no mention of how North Korean history regards Joseon. Somehow they still use the name today... Kokiri 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Illegitimate?

There are no 'illegitimate' children of the king as long as the mother was one of palace maiden. Kings of Joseon dynasty did not maintain monogamy. Hence the term 'illegitimate' in glossary of styles should be eliminated.

Ming intervention

A previous anonymous edit states that Ming China refused to aid the Koreans. This contradicts the information in Imjin War. --Pravit 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

There seems to be a technical issue with this section.--ThreeAnswers 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

title of article

there's a problem with this article's title, since the subject is the korean state that existed from 1392 to 1897, when korea's name was joseon.

1. it's not really about the ruling dynasty of the period, which conceivably could be a separate article (e.g. South Korea & President of South Korea).
2. it's potentially ambiguous, since Joseon could refer to gojoseon or north korean, both of which could also theoretically have "dynasty" articles.
3. it's inconsistent. all other articles in the korean history template refer to the state, not the ruling dynasty. if this article is to be about the ruling family, then we should have a separate article about the state & its history, and that latter article should go into the history template.

"dynasty" was probably intended to disambiguate, & is often used informally, but it creates the above problems. i'm not sure what the accurate, consistent, simple, & unambiguous title should be, though. the korean wikipedia link goes to "joseon," and says it was the state name used by the dynasty that ruled the peninsula 1392-1897. Appleby 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

longest dynasty

• longest-lived dynasty in East Asian history [1]
• perhaps the longest-lived actively ruling dynasty in East Asia [2]
• one of the longest periods of domination by a single dynasty in world history [3]
• one of the world's longest continuously ruling royal families [4] [5]

Appleby 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

the language in this article is already conservative, qualified as "perhaps" and "actively ruling"; earlier part of shang is not as well-attested about central rule as the yin period, which is probably why the sources say what they say. after all, joseon was 1400 AD while with shang, we're talking about 1600 BC. zhou was feudal, as Zhou dynasty indicates. i think we can leave the carefully qualified, sourced language. Appleby 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the language may seem conservative, but it also borders on weasel. The problem lies with the definition of these criteria, i.e. "domination", "actively ruling", and "continuously ruling". But again, sicne these criteria and the language are all somewhat vague, or conservative if you like to call it, they can't really be disputed. I disagree, however, with the first assertion, "longest-lived dynasty in East Asian history". The imperial house of Japan clearly predates and outlives the Joseon Dynasty by a large margin. The page you sourced gives absolutely no support for this. Uly 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Korea's Tributary Relations with Qing

Ok... Korea did not "agree" to become tributary to the Qing... The Qing FIRST invaded Joseon and subjugated it. This helped them to defeat the Ming. This is a big error and should be corrected.

Rose-tinted view

I added a section on the brutal caste system employed by the Joseon dynasty, which wasn't even mentioned before. The role of the 1983 Donghak slave rebellion in toppling the Joseon dynasty should also be mentioned. Jpatokal 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If Caste is same with Caste of India, I believe Caste is not an appropriate word for describing hierachy system of Joseon era. Yangban has a hereditary right to be a noble man but it is not that restrict system actually. Joseon Dynastyshould describe more NPOV for this issue. --Alf 14:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

JOSUN??

The name of this article and any emglish word of "Joseon" is wrong. This doesn't make any sense, and its been bothering me for years. Why name Josun "Chosun??" Its ridiculous. Somehow now I've been seeing a lot of "Joseon." Joseon?? What the heck is Joseon? Its a terrible spelling, and any foreigner (escpecially European) would pronouce it "Joe-see-on" This is common sense everyone. Wouldn't it be better to spell it "Josun??" Some one should start a poll on what the name of "Joseon" Dynasty should be. Oyo321 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Revised Romanization of Korean. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). Jpatokal 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever is head of Revised Romanization did a horrible job. Oyo321 21:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm native Korean. I have to agree with Joseon is horrible romanization. 'Jo' of George and 'Sun' of the Sun. --Alf 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not the westerners' fault, its just that Korean and English are totally different. Good friend100 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kojong's abdication

The 1895 date for King Kojong's abdication contradicts the wikipedia article on Kojong - and is incorrect. He was forced to abdicate in 1907. --Dan 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

full of fantasy

It seems most(if not all) the sources are based on Korean documents. This article is definitely biased. If you could read original Chinese and Japanese documents, You will see totally different history.

Joseon Dynasty has been a client state for hundreds of years. This history is never told or taught in Korea.

Buddhism Suppression Joseon Dynasty suppressed Buddhism and destroyed almost all temples. Buddhists freed to Japan with old sacred sutras. Now Koreans accuse for Japan saying "Japanses stole them". If you compare old picture of a temple in Korea and latest picture of the temple, you see it. It was destroyed by Korean king but has been totally rebuilt from ground up in 21 century.

Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea The sentence "Local resistance, however, slowed down the Japanese advance " is not entirely true.

In the Korean document written by the Korean king at the time "宣祖実録" 宣祖二十五年壬辰五月條 reads: "人心怨叛し、倭と同心" and "斬る所の首級半ば皆朝鮮の民" It translates as "(korean)people are with Japanese. They are rebels" "Half of the heads we cut off are our own Korean poeple"

Other documents "白沙集" written by 李恒福 describes Korean slaves destroyed much of Gyeongbokgung because they wanted to be free.

Korean National treasure No.274 was lator found a fake. The article contains a sentense "The Korean navy maintained superiority... (i.e. cannons, fire arrows in form of Singijeon deployed by Hwacha, etc.)"

18, Aug 1992 A tresure hunter "found" cannons supporsedly on Turtle ship. It became Korean National treasure No.274. However, In 1995, it was found to be a fake and arrested the tresure hunter.

pirates were mostly koreans Korean documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Joseon_Dynasty) "世宗実録"二十八十月壬戌条(year 1446) shows Japanese prirates were only 10% or 20% and rest were Koreans. The original text were "然其間倭人不過一二而本国民仮著倭服成党作乱"

Also old Chinese document (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2) "明史" describe Japanese pirates were only 30%. Again, the original Chinese text is "大抵真倭十之三".

See more detail for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou

Korea became a client state to China after Second Manchu invasion of Korea The article does not mention about Korean's client state to Sino-China. Korea became independent after the Treaty of Shimonoseki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samjeondo_Monument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeongeunmun_Gate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Gate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki

One of the oldest korean flag clearly states "大清國属 高麗国旗 旗國麗高 属國大清". It translates: "属 belongs" to "大清國 The Great Sino" "高麗國旗 Korean flag" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_old_Korea.jpg

Dude, your Chinese characters are all wrong: 高麗 was not used to refer to Korea after late 14th century, when Joseon Dynasty (朝鮮) came to power. certainly not when the Manchus (the 清 dynasty) came to power in 17th century. The use of the simplified character 国 is also very modern, which can't be applicable to such supposedly old flags. h27kim November 12, 2006

About the font character 国, I fixed it. Please see the pics for the real character.

"China generally refer to Korea as 高麗(not the dynasty) at the time", professor 김 원모 explains

http://i815.or.kr/media_data/gwanbo/1998/04/19980404.html

also http://www.koreasymbol.co.kr/symbol_212.html

We call Korea(高麗) not Joseon(朝鮮) today, do we?

Joseon had been already widely known as Korea/Cores/Coray/Corie/Corey/Coeree(高麗) in western countries since 1255 when a french missionary used "Caule". That is why "高麗(korean)國旗(flag)". see some more info at Names_of_Korea

The flag uses 國. The file size is too small though, many other characters are nearly illegible. Jpatokal 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the original picture http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200401/200401260030.html

Funny thing is that the Korean version of the very same picture has been photoshoped and the words are erased! Let's compare it with the english version above to this one http://www.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200401/200401260260.html.

Anyone ever read Sino-Joseon treaty in sep 1882 中國朝鮮商民水陸貿易章程? This treaty begins with "朝鮮久列藩邦" and "此次所訂水陸貿易章程係中國優待属邦之意". and the article 8. "應随時由北洋大臣與朝鮮國王咨商妥善請","旨定奪施行" then, article 23. "來往文書應遵體例朝鮮必須尊稱天朝或稱上國字様" Can anyone translate this?

And in 1876, Sino's minister sent a letter to Japan's minister saying "朝鮮爲中國属國 中外共知 属國有属國分際 古今所同" and "朝鮮寔中國所属之邦一 即中國之自任也 豈得謂属國爲空名".

It is crystal clear to me.

Who began this section of "full of fantasy"? 高麗 as in 고려? Koryo? hmm what dynasty was Korea in during the 14th century? Good friend100 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sino and many other countries at the time called Joseon(not dynasty) as 高麗.

please read:

http://i815.or.kr/media_data/gwanbo/1998/04/19980404.html

청국 외교문서인 『통상조약장정성안휘편(通商條約章程成案彙編)』(전 12책, 1886, 서울대 규장각 소장) 제2권에 세계 60개국인 채색국기와 함께 「고려국기」 (7×8.1㎝)가 총천연색으로 등재되어 있다. 「고려국기」의 특색을 보면, 4괘의 색깔이 청색이라는 것, 태극 양의(兩儀)가 현행 태극기는 너무 규격화되어 있는데 반하여 한국적 선의 미를 살려 상하로 휘감겨 있다는 것, 4괘의 배치가 현행 태극기와 일치하고 있다는 것이다. 여기서 '고려'란 고려왕조를 의미하는 고유명사가 아니고 중국에서는 조선을 일반적으로 '고려'라고 부르고 있었다.

http://www.koreasymbol.co.kr/symbol_212.html

또한 조선시대 후반에 미국에서 발행한 세계 각국의 국기 가운데 당시 조선의 국기로 사용한 것으로 보이는 한 종류의 태극기가 발견되었는데 이 이름도 역시 '朝鮮國旗(조선국기)'가 아닌 '高麗國旗(고려국기)'로 기록되어 있다는 점이다. 이는 추측컨대 만주벌판을 호령하던 막강한 나라였던 고구려(高句麗)가 사해(四海)에 그 위엄을 떨치게 됨에 따라 그 영향을 받았거나 아니면 고려시대에 고려(高麗)의 교역 상대가 멀리 아라비아 半島까지 미치게 되고 또 그곳을 통하여 우리의 존재가 서양에도 알려지게 됨으로써 조선시대가 500여 년간이나 지속된 데도 불구하고 계속적으로 '고려'(Korea)라는 이름이 사용된 것은 아니었을까?

The original picture is taken from the site below(Korean news paper Chosunilbo)

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200401/200401260030.html

"One in the right is the "national flag of Goryeo" mentioned in a diplomatic document of the Ching Dynasty, dated March 1883."

"Li(Li_Hongzhang) and Commodore Shufeldt(Robert W. Shufeldt) secretly negotiated the deal in China, even to the point of choosing Korea's new national flag (and still the flag of South Korea) , and then presented the finished document to the Koreans." - Bruce Cummings. Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History. http://www.history.uncc.edu/jmflower/hermit_kingdom.htm --Enjoyfuga 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought Joseon dynasty's vassal state of China was a common knowlege. Here is the American navy's point of view: "History of United States Naval Operations: Korea" by DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER http://www.history.navy.mil/books/field/ch1a.htm --Enjoyfuga 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseon_Dynasty_politics also mentions about this: Joseon's international relations were dominated by its relationship to the Ming and Qing dynasties of China, and by the Neo-Confucian ideal of "serving the great" (sadae). Joseon typically saw itself as a loyal and exemplary, but internally sovererign vassal of China.

By the way, is there any particular reason Joseon_Dynasty_politics should be distinct from the article at Joseon_Dynasty?--Enjoyfuga 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, lets clear this up, are you saying this article is biased and that Joseon was a vassal state of China? Your sources are heavily slanted. Good friend100 20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"vassal state", "client state" you name it. What did you think of Samjeondo_Monument,Yeongeunmun_Gate,Treaty_of_Shimonoseki,Independence_Gate for? That's just one of my points.

Part of the problem is that Ch'ing China did not acknowledge any equal and treated all foreign states as "tributary" or "vassal"--this was the central problem in the Macartney Mission, where the Chinese insisted on referring to it as a tributary mission and, in effect, labeled United Kingdom as a "vassal state" of China. Perhaps insisting on the modern, Westphalian view of equal sovereign states is itself the problem User:h27kim 1:27am, 2 December 2006 (PST)

>Ch'ing China did not acknowledge any equal and treated all foreign states as "tributary" or "vassal" This is true. However, unlike Britain, Korea was a REAL vassal state of the Qing. Korea had been presenting a large quantity of gifts for the Qing annually for several hundred years. Also Korea's diplomacy was limited by the Qing. Plus if Korea was not a vassal state of the Qing, why Koreans built the gate named the INDEPENDENCE GATE?

Korean role in Japanese invasion

It's not something the Koreans much like to talk about, but the Japanese invaders were to some extent joined by the Korean slaves rising up against their rulers. The National Museum in Jinju covers this to some extent, so there's probably a source on the web out there somewhere... Jpatokal 05:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In which invasion, the 16th century one or the 1910 one, or the Hundreds of too many to count invasions? Good friend100 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The 16th century one (Imjin War), as that's when the Sieges of Jinju happened. Jpatokal 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Korean people even captured two of their princes(sons of 14th king 선조 Seonjo) and just handed them to the Japanese (Katō Kiyomasa).

I found a picture of 宣祖実録.

http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/middle/image/sensoj.jpg

See the words? "奴卑"(slaves) and "放火"(set on fire) and "景福宮"(Gyeongbokgung)、掌隷院(where they keep the list of slave).

I think details like this belong in the Imjin War article, not here. After all, slaves and the underclass sometimes joined invaders throughout history, but is not a major part of this 500-year historical overview. Even then, if I understand WP:NOR correctly, you should cite secondary sources, not your personal interpretation of primary sources. You could find lots of fascinating sentences in the Bible, but you should rely on scholarly secondary or tertiary sources to determine relative importance and historical context in an overview article on the Bible. Room218 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jpatokal, I want to make it clear I'm not opposing the inclusion just because it sounds bad for Korea. If you cite proper sources and other editors agree, I have no problem with inclusion. I was just reverting the anonymous Japanese editor's anti-Korean jihad with his broad, repeated Japanese-nationalistic interpretations of selective, relatively obscure trivia. Room218 17:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source given above? Do you have an alternative interpretation of the Chinese in the image?

Also, while I agree that this particular point is maybe not that important, I do think that the slave rebellions (this was far from the only one!) should be mentioned in this article. The Joseon era is often considered a golden age of sorts, but the article should also reflect that fact that many, many Koreans were not happy at all with it. The Donghak Rebellion is also missing entirely from the article, but unfortunately its article is rather terrible. Jpatokal 09:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree strongly with the matter of rebellions ... however, we do need a proper secondary (or tertiary) reliable source; out-of-context images hosted on personal websites do not meet that criterion. In particular, I'm given to understand that the principal Jinju uprising (and the one most likely to have been in the museum) was in 1862, so no foreign invasion was directly involved; of course, there may have been other Jinju uprisings at other times. -- Visviva 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Room218. You are doing a fundamental mistake. You are not introducing the source that can be trusted more. Frankly, you want only to be deleting the source that you do not like. Therefore, you never comment to writing in the source. --218.218.129.105 18:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the contributor to provide attributions from reliable sources to support controversial content, and to demonstrate that no WP:NOR violation is involved. -- Visviva 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

After the Imjin War, ex-prime minister of war cabinet of Joseon, Sungryong Ryu wrote book about Imjin War;Jing-Bi-Rok(징비록). It is reflective journal about how,why Joseon was so vulnerable and how Koreans survive from Japanese invasion finally. It is not to celebrate victory but to warn all Korean generation about war. It records all detail of escaping Seoul(April 30, 1592). Yes, he said it is a pity that the palace was burnt down by same Korean. There was rebel and traitor (Just like Vichy France) during the war. The fire of palace is caused by rebels who are disappointed with king's escape to north. But if you read more history, you may understand it was a strategic decision for the king and the cabinet to survive and to win. --Alf 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

proposed ove?

I see no reason to put 'dynasty' on the end of the article nane. Can we establish a poll here?K14 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)