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