Talk:Joseon

population

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)

Stop adding info without sources

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)

Population Statistics?

It seems to me the population stats for both the Joseon article and the Silla article seem inaccurate? The Baekje, Goryeo and Goguryeo statistics seem to be somewhat consistent and accurate, but for Joseon and Silla I've seen some very broad range of numbers + very poor sources Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's no opposition, I will remove the 1927 source and look around for more modern estimates Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just added this information, it seems previous edits were made a year ago and cited 1927 data, while modern data is very different from it. Also it appears initial first edits were for households not population Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

1897 or 1910?

Encyclopedia Britannica says it ended in 1910. Which is correct? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends. The Joseon "dynasty" ended in 1910 with the annexation of Korea. However, I think it's safe to say Joseon ended as a Korean state in 1897 with the birth of the Korean Empire. The two terms are used interchangeably in Korean sources. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The restoration of original research by Antwerpant

@Sunnyediting99: Regarding this edit:

1. The first sentence on The Chinese tributary system was a largely-symbolic Confucian world order... is an overly long and general statement for an endnote, especially when it's an endnote for a link to the Tributary system of China article.
2. The part their international status cannot be considered 'client states'. is taken directly from original research added by ban-evading Antwerpant in their own words here.
3. The other part of the edit deletes material that is directly from Duke University Press and Oxford University Press sources that specifically talk about Joseon's status.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 10:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I see I didn't realize that Antwerpant was banned here, that said, I do think the research used here by the edits that followed are a bit incorrect on terming Joseon and the other tributaries of Ming and Qing China are "vassals" of the Son of Heaven given that the tributary system is more complex then that. The controversy here arises from the fact that from Chinese scholars (and the historical perspective of Chinese dynasties), Joseon and other tributaries were "vassals" but from ther tributaries perspectives as well as that of many modern scholars especially Western ones, is that the tributary system was far more loose than vassalage.

Would you be alright if I then proposed different scholarship on this topic? Here are some sources

Lee JY. China's Hegemony: Four Hundred Years of East Asian Domination. Columbia University Press; 2016 Dec 31.

"The "tribute" entailed a foreign court sending envoys and exotic products to the Chinese emperor. The emperor then gave the envoys gifts in return and permitted them to trade in China. Presenting tribute involved theatrical subordination but usually not political subordination"

It also is talked about in another page as well.

Vassal state#Controversy on Status of Joseon

"Yuan Shikai argued that Korea was a dependent "vassal state"; Owen N. Denny argued that Korea was an independent "tributary state". William W. Rockhill said that calling Korea a vassal state was "misleading". According to Rockhill: "The tribute sent to Peking by all the 'vassal states,' and also by the Tibetans, and the Aboriginal tribes of Western China, is solely a quid pro quo for the privilege of trading with the Chinese under extraordinarily favorable conditions." Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to follow up on this Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@MarkH21 I like the edits, though I think your previous edits that were the following much more accurately captured the relationship:

The diplomatic system of East Asia was hierarchical, lacking in equality.[12] Joseon Korea enjoyed a high level of independence and sovereignty in domestic and foreign affairs while ritually subservient to the Ming and Qing dynasties of China. However, the Qing dynasty was directly involved in the affairs of Joseon from the Imo Incident of 1882 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895.[14] Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Using tributary in place of vassal would be less controversial since that seems to be the most used nomenclature, although that does not exclude real political authority in some cases such as Tibet. The Qing and Ming collected tribute from peoples that were tusi as well but they were most definitely under some form of direct political authority from the dynasty. Joseon does not seem to fit that template and did not have direct political interference from the Qing until after 1882. Qiushufang (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To avoid making a long infobox endnote even longer (this is not where details belong), I would propose just the deletion the Despite being a vassal of the Son of Heaven without new material. So there is a sentence mentioning that the Chinese dynasties viewed all of its tributary relationships as an emperor-vassal relationship (generic statement) followed by the sentence on Joseon's high level of independence and sovereignty. — MarkH₂₁^talk

Requested move 5 October 2024

Joseon → Chosŏn – I'm proposing this mainly to poll opinions in the manner of an WP:RFC, as well as to try and illustrate how our new MOS works. If you're a regular on any Korea topics, I encourage you to think about what I'm discussing here because similar principles will apply to many other moves that may happen in the near future.

Context:

1. "Chosŏn" is the McCune–Reischauer ("MR") romanization of 조선. "Joseon" is using Revised Romanization ("RR").
2. We recently rewrote MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. As part of this, MR is now recommended for all pre-1945 topics. Before the rewrite, RR was recommended for pre-1945 topics (except, confusingly, for people names lol...).

Thoughts:

1. Relevant policies: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DIVIDEDUSE, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. These policies are also the foundation for MOS:KO and WP:NCKO.
2. Coverage in RS:
   • MR and "Chosŏn" are used by almost all Korean history academic journals ([1][2]).
   • In my experience, practice in books is more divided. Well-respected and widely used history books almost universally use MR and "Chosŏn". All other books (including less reliable pop culture books about Korea) seem to use RR and "Joseon". This divided use can be somewhat seen in the close race on Ngrams, which measures mentions in books. However, if we prioritize the most reliable sources, this still leans towards MR.
   • News and pop culture tend to use "Joseon", like Poong, the Joseon Psychiatrist.
   • Together, this suggests that academia uses "Chosŏn", but average people may use "Joseon".
3. Since this article was created 21 years ago in 2003, it has never gone by "Chosŏn". Moving it to that has seemingly never even been requested. I think this clearly suggests that Wikipedia editors have a preference for this spelling.
   • Wikipedia's use of the spelling also possibly influenced global use of the spelling as well.
   • Oh, and it's also annoying to type the diacritic letter (ŏ); it's frustratingly not easily available on Mac, PC, or iPhones.

In short, there's basically three relevant groups here: academic historians (prefer MR), average people around the world (RR), and Wikipedia editors (RR). I think this move should be decided by how much you want to cater towards each of these groups.

I want to hear other arguments or want others to weigh in. I'm actually leaning towards "Joseon" being more appropriate. I think Wikipedia is meant to be used by the average person, and clearly both average people and Wikipedia editors prefer that spelling. But I'm leaving open the possibility for "Chosŏn" to happen. seefooddiet (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject East Asia, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject Council, and WikiProject Korea have been notified of this discussion. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. I'd also recommend a speedy close as the nominator themselves admitted they do not actually want to move the article. What they are looking for is a... y'know... WP:RFC, not a move discussion. (or better yet, just a simple talk page comment because RFCs are used in the case of intractable issues). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose speedy close. I'm leaving open the possibility of the move actually happening because I'm not sure of what the best thing to do is. Citing common name alone tells me you didn't really understand this post. seefooddiet (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  I understand the distinction you're making (it's the same name morphemically, but rendered differently) I don't think that's quite fair. In general, there's almost never a meaningful distinction to make between the two in these discussions. MOS:ROMANIZATION specifically says If a particular romanization of the subject's name is most common in English, that form should be used. Otherwise, the romanization of names should adhere to a particular widely used system for the language in question. If I may, the changes to MOS:KO seems analogous to MOS:ZH in terms of this: we use Hanyu Pinyin by default, except when there's a clear COMMONNAME exception (e.g. Sun Tzu) Remsense ‥ 论 01:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  An RM seems to be appropriate here, and the evidence contradicts the status quo being common name. As someone not familiar with Korean history, I've never seen the Choson spelling, but that's not reason to oppose. I'm leaning towards support due to WP:Common name based on the evidence provided, although prevalence in Korean language sources is irrelevant for common name due to WP:Use English (note that per WP:UE, Korean words used predominantly in English language sources become English). On Google Scholar, Joseon gives 54,500 hits, Chosŏn 22,600. While WP:CRITERIA are acceded by common name, you could argue Joseon is more recognisable. All this makes me lean towards weak support because I love ngrams Kowal2701 (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - Though Chosŏn has a slight advantage in books/academia, "Joseon" is by far the most common romanization in English language general usage, news articles, popular culture, etc. I'd argue that moving the article to "Chosŏn" would violate the principle of least astonishment; the majority of "regular people" would be searching for the article on "Joseon" and would be surprised when we redirect them somewhere else, to a different word with ~fancy~ diacritic marks that isn't what they expected to see. RachelTensions (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Chosŏn doesn't have a slight advantage in academia; if you read my OP my analysis has it that it's the overwhelming practice. Less rigorous books, usually pop culture or about modern South Korea, use "Joseon". So this is more a split between academia and the general public. seefooddiet (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  So it's academia versus everyone else. We're writing an encyclopedia for "everyone else", not academics. RachelTensions (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Mind the tone btw; it reads a bit sarcastic and aggressive when really I mostly agree with your point.

  One reason I made this post is to illustrate that these situations are not straightforward and there isn't a simple solution for everything. I've spent the last three months thinking about these topics every day, and have seen discussions from the past 20 years where people rushed into these debates with hard-set opinions and assumptions that end up conflicting with the hard-set opinions of others. It's not simple.

  "Joseon" is lucky because it does appear in pop culture a lot. But for many Korean history articles, the topics basically never show up in pop culture and only in history books that would use MR. Should we use RR or MR or those? Not simple and deserves thought. seefooddiet (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now – I appreciate this being posted for the reasons given in the OP, and it does beg one to reflect on what sources we consider when evaluating WP:NC—there are many cases where we simply do not use the most common name (e.g. Influenza or applications of WP:NPOVNAME) and I think sometimes editors lose sight of the four naming criteria other than recognizability. As it stands though, I think it's correct to sample the broadest base when naming historical polities. It's possible the systematic rendering will be most suited in the future, but not yet.

Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's use of the spelling also possibly influenced global use of the spelling as well.

I agree with this. I suspect that the reason "Joseon" is common among average people is that they simply copied whatever is used on Wikipedia. Average people usually check Wikipedia to get some simple/basic knowledge about the topic.

So in this case, I believe we should be careful about including what average people use.

(As a side note, I get the impression that there was a tendency to favor RR among editors in the early years of Wikipedia.) 172.56.232.193 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, although I'd argue people are really likely to encounter "Joseon" through Korean dramas nowadays, even moreso than through Wikipedia.

Some additional context to this; RR was brand new around the time Wikipedia was first created. If WP:COMMONNAME existed at the time (I remember reading that it didn't), I don't think there could have been a convincing case for RR; it would have almost certainly been MR. But now we're here. seefooddiet (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Our own influence, while theoretically a potentially valid dimension to consider, is not really one we're able to measure or consider. Remsense ‥ 论 02:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)