Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa

Archives
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa Archive 2 Archive 3

Merge

As I construe LordAmeth's comments at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial. --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose to the name at Korea mission to Edo.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Korean embassies to Japan" (I found it from web) is also an alternative option. The parallel to Ryukyu is well, that is not concern of Korean project.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge (Joseon tongsinsa)

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Joseon tongsinsa--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This text does not comply in any way with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Although the exposition makes points which could be valid, there is no reason to attribute any credibility to this work.

For this reason, I believe the article should be abandoned -- marked for speedy deletion when Joseon Tongsinsa is merged with Korean missions to Edo.

The options here seem limited. What else is there to be done consistent with WP:V? I would be willing to incorporate this text into a merged article, but I can't quite figure out how it could be done? --Tenmei (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I construe LordAmeth's comments at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial. --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion (Joseon tongsinsa)

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Joseon tongsinsa--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In view of the unbalanced edit history and the unverifiable content of this article, I wonder if deletion might not be the best and most constructive course -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Template:AfD footer? This appears to be one of those miscellaneous postings which has fallen through the cracks. The first line at WP:V is on-point in this context:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

This posting may be an impossible-to-unsnarl mixture of fact and fiction or it may be crucially flawed or misleading or contrived in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- we just don't know ...?

A variety of tags were added, but the sad fact-of-the-matter is that more time, effort and care seems to have been invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than can be credited to the text's originator. I note that the anonymous creator of introduced other new articles and then abandoned them:

• 05:54, 21 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo ‎ (←Created page with 'Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo provide precious historical and archaeological material for the study of ancient Korean history. Although they are presumed to have be...')
• 04:56, 15 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wianbu ‎ (←Created page with 'Ilbongun wianbu (Military Sexual Slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army) were women who were forcibly drafted from Korea, Taiwan, Japan and othe...')
• 04:51, 15 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Ilbongun wianbu ‎ (←Blanked the page)
• 04:42, 15 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Ilbongun wianbu ‎ (←Created page with 'Ilbongun wianbu (Military Sexual Slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army) were women who were forcibly drafted from Korea, Taiwan, Japan and othe...')
• 07:04, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Joseon tongsinsa ‎ (Joseon tongsinsa)

The controversial Ilbongun wianbu would seem to have developed by merging with an older article first created in 2003, while this pre-stub text and the pre-stub about Goguryeo tombs stagnated.

My guess is that the now inactive Koreahistory was randomly scattering "seeds" ...?

Perhaps the best thing to do is simply to start over ...?

Maybe this could be considered within the ambit of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron? --Tenmei (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Needing diplomacy and finesse. Perhaps this constructive gesture will produce meaningful results? --Tenmei (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge (Korean missions to Edo)

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial exchange in this thread was copied from User Talk:Tenmei#Korean missions to Edo.

Hello, Tenmei, thank you for the contributions to the article in question. Unfortunately, it turns out that Wikipedia has three articles on the same subject, Joseon tongsinsa, and yours are the newest one, so your contents should be merged into Joseon Tongsinsa along with Joseon tongsinsa. The title can be changeable if Joseon Tongsinsa is only local name for Korea, but well we need a talk on this. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I've had something like this article in the back of my mind for over a year, the impetus for pulling it together just now comes from work done by LordAmeth, who conceived of it as a necessary corollary for Ryukyuan missions to Edo. That article has been created quite recently. It was, in fact, the red font link in "See also" at the bottom of that Ryukuyan article which led me to develop Korean missions to Edo as a stub.

Thanks for letting me know about the unwelcome duplication.

Of course the three articles need to be merged into one. I don't know how to go about merging articles ... but this would be my approach to our problem -- perhaps not the way someone else would proceed, but this is what I'd do:

• 1. I would copy any non-redundant information from Korean missions to Edo into appropriate parts of Joseon Tongsinsa.
• 2. Then I would re-configure Korean missions to Edo as a redirect.
• 3. Then I would copy any non-redundant information from Joseon tongsinsa into appropriate parts of the "enhanced" Joseon Tongsinsa.
• 4. Then I would proposed renaming the article Joseon missions to Japan, which I would then want to expand with such information as we can find about diplomatic missions between the Joseon Dynasty and Japan prior to the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate at the beginning of the 17th century?

At some point in the future, perhaps you can help me with figuring out how to create an article about pre-Joseon diplomatic exchanges with Japan? Perhaps one already exists? --Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your solution sounds good. If we keep the article at "Joseon Tongsinsa" which may make few people to understand what it is. (for readers or editors who have knowledge of Korean language and history). I found out the duplication by searching with Korean name if there has already the same article because the subject is important one for both Korea and Japan relationship. There is no wonder for duplication, although yours are well-referenced and the tidiest among them. I think we can use WP:RM because I don't think the merge is controversial, so admins could peacefully merge all history of the three articles. After merging, we can move the article to the desired one. As for the last question, hmm.. local name is always important to prevent such things. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

After examining Joseon tongsinsa, I don't know what to do with it. Without any cited references, there is no way to guess whether some or all or none of it is verifiable. I note that the article was created by an effectively anonymous editor who only contributed to Wikipedia in April 2008. Since that time, no further work has mitigated the problems of that initial draft.

Without more, I would be inclined to mark that less-than-a-stub article for speedy deletion. Perhaps in future, some other editor will help expand Wikipedia's coverage of this subject in a way which is consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability; but that hope doesn't help us figure out how to handle this any differently now. --Tenmei (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. It sounds like Tenmei has a solid plan for working this all out; I leave things in his capable hands. Whatever title we come up with, whether it be "Korean missions to Edo", "Joseon missions to Japan" or whatever, it's fine with me. I have not the energy or patience to argue over nitpicky naming things. I will, however, vote against a Korean title such as "Joseon tongsinsa" which tells the reader unfamiliar with the Korean language absolutely nothing and is a violation of WP:Use English. Note that I did not title the Ryukyuan one Ryukyu Edo Nobori (琉球江戸上り) because I knew that it wouldn't mean anything to the casual reader. LordAmeth (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I construe LordAmeth's comments, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial. --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the title would be, this newest article should be merged into the oldest one to save its history. Naming is next step after merge.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseon Tongsinsa

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial exchange in this thread has been copied from User Talk:LordAmeth#Joseon Tongsingsa.

LordAmeth -- I'd guess that you're likely to want to scan Korean missions to Edo? A helpful Korean editor pointed out that Korean missions to Edo is redundant because Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa already exist. The proposed merge of all three articles is reasonable, of course; but the ultimate name of the merged article may not be so easily resolved?

I tentatively suggested Joseon missions to Japan as a plausible name for an umbrella article which incorporates and links the Korean missions to Edo and also the diplomatic exchanges between the Joseon Dynasty and Japan in that period before the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate; but I'm not encouraged that this potential olive branch was understood in that context.

Perhaps this small problem is not entirely unexpected? --Tenmei (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did this exchange take place between you and the Korean editor? I don't see anything. In any case, I'd prefer Korean missions to Edo as it parallels Ryukyuan missions to Edo. Since there was no other Korea contemporary to Edo other than Korea under the Joseon Dynasty, I see no reason to call it "Joseon missions" or anything of the sort; the word "Joseon" is also unknown to just about anyone who is not an East Asian history specialist (though, admittedly, Ryukyu and Edo aren't particularly commonly known terms either), so I think "Korean" is better.

That said, Korean missions to Japan during the Joseon period do extend before (and after?) the Joseon period, so I suppose the argument for an article incorporating these earlier (and later?) events might be merited. It's all a matter of perspective, really.

As a Japan scholar focusing on Ryukyuan missions during the Edo period, I'm looking for a title that parallels Ryukyuan missions to Edo, creating a set (even if it a set of only two items). If someone were approaching this from a "History of Korean foreign relations" or "Aspects of Joseon history" perspective, I can understand arguments towards another title.

In any case, however, I think the non-English title Joseon tongsinsa is no good. I resisted the urge to title the Okinawa-related article Ryūkyū Edo Nobori, knowing that it violates WP:Use English, and that it would not be comprehensible to any non-Japan specialists, such as China or Korea specialists, or anyone else interested in the subject but not familiar with the Japanese language. LordAmeth (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add, also, thank you very much for your contributions to both the Ryukyuan and Korean missions topics; I am also really happy to see that others (incl. Korea specialists) have created articles for the Korean missions, as it's admittedly not really a topic that intrigues me too much. I'll add what I can from Ron Toby's book, and other sources I have, and to help out with the merge (unless you or someone else would like to captain the effort), but I'm very happy to discover that there's a foundation to work with. LordAmeth (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- the link was wrong. It should have been User talk:Tenmei#Korean missions to Edo. In any case, I'm moving this exchange to Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge#Joseon Tongsinsa. This subject does interest me, but I have zero willingness to tolerate the kind of pointless exercise in futility which characterizes anything to do with Liancourt rocks.

My strategic plan is (a) to merge the Edo period articles within the quite impossible Korean name ..., and then (b) to place this carefully-focused subject under another, larger "umbrella" article ..., and then (c) to re-establish the Edo period diplomatic exchanges in a "new" article which I predict becomes necessary as the scale, scope and focus of that more fully-researched aspect of the broad narrative develops. Otherwise, I would imagine that projected umbrella article will come to seem unbalanced by the quality and depth of coverage pertaining to a mere 300-year period in the context of a longer historic timespan. As for what the article is named this week or next, this month or next -- I don't care. Let someone else focus on that chimera while my strategic plan unfolds quietly, effectively, slowly, inevitably ....

Of course, WP:Use English is a practical, plausible, appropriate and necessary fulcrum; but I'm persuaded that there is likely to be no lever or force to make good use of that fulcrum. I could not agree more with the analysis and sentiments you express in the last paragraph you wrote above. In my view, your conclusions are so obvious, plain, necessary that they hardly bear repeating; but merest hint of Dokdo-type logic already causes me to feel wary, sceptical, regretful. --Tenmei (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the parallel to Ryukyuan missions to Edo. Who knows what Edo is except few people knowledgeable of Japanese culture? Whether Joseon is unknown term to people, that is the official title of the state. Besides, Ryukyu was a vassal state of Japan, and the parallel can imply false connotation that Korea was as such. I think Joseon Tongsinsa is not that bad title after reading this.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added the following at (1)-Joseon Tongsinsa, (2)-Joseon tongsinsa and (3)-Korean missions to Edo:

• "As I construe LordAmeth's comments at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge, it becomes plain that any merge which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would not be uncontroversial."

In my view, this thread can be brought to a close; and further discussion would be better continued at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge. However, I do want to ameliorate a modest problem before it grows any bigger. It may be clarifying to underscore just one explicit point-of-view in this closing context.

Today, now, at this moment: there is no correct or incorrect, no pro- or con-, no right or wrong, nothing to be "against" -- no dispute at all; and in my opinion, it would be a needless mistake to begin down any path which leads towards controversy rather than consensus. In that broad sense only, Caspian blue's word-choice of "against" within the narrow confines of a single sentence appears somewhat unhelpful, premature, discouraging. --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Be civil--Caspian blue (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to merge

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to unresolved issues about the name of a merged article -- especially in relation to WP:Use English -- another more significant problem bars moving forward constructively.

At present, Caspian blue's proposal that articles be merged is premature. In the absence of any cited sources, the material posted at Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa is not readily verifiable, nor are the individual elements distinguishable from original research

• 1. Please see Citation.
• 2. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
• 4. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V). The first line at WP:V is on-point in this context:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

The subject matter could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. At present, however, that hope for cooperative scholarship remains only an aspiration. For now, This is only another one of those plausible ideas whose time has not come. --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..you added several wrong names. There is no such named Korean officials, and you fix your wrong name/pronunciation after reading Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa) into the article. It seems like one of your source is not that reliable per the false info. (who the hell are Ko tsi tsiou (or Houng tchi tchoung) and Tsiou nan gouts (or Thsieou nan yuě) ? You should've checked the source first and check their name. The Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Besides, the years such as Kan'en are only for Japanese point of view. I have to ask you that why you added some info from the article of Joseon Tongsinsa, and oppose to merging all together on contrary to your claim for WP:V. WP:V is a very important policy, the two other articles are lied in only matter of references, and WP:OR is irrelevant to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added disclaimers for the Japanese era names identifying them as such; if you wanted to add the Korean era equivalents, it'd be most welcome, for balance. I also added the title "King" where relevant, so as to add context (i.e. for the reader to understand who these figures are; same for the shoguns); I imagine this should also serve to reflect greater respect towards the Korean side of the equation. LordAmeth (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the article neutral, but I think it is not wise to keep adding things since three articles deal with the same subject.(I appreciate your help though) Besides, I really don't think that the current title is good because of the several concerns that I left your page before. I think I have to clean up Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa first (how ridiculous two articles with the same name and just tiny difference in capital letter)--Caspian blue (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The envoy from 1607 to 1624 is introducing himself as not "朝鮮通信使" but "回答兼刷還使". [1]　--Eichikiyama (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. That website looks very useful and interesting. How would you translate 「回答兼刷還使」？ LordAmeth (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"兼刷" is a meaning of "The captive is regained". [2]. To regain captive's Korean people, they visited the Tokugawa shogunate. A lot of Korean people was captured by invading Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

朝鮮通信使 has various names. (For instance,　朝鮮信使 [3]　or 朝鮮来聘使 [4]) Therefore, the historian translates 朝鮮通信使 with "The Exchange of Envoys between Korea and Japan During the Tokugawa Period". [5]--Eichikiyama (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese name for the missions

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, new question. Minor issue. Hopefully something that can be resolved quickly and with a minimum of conflict or debate.

The Korean term "Joseon tongsinsa", is equivalent to the Japanese "Chousen tsuushinshi", which I suppose roughly translates to Joseon Communication Envoy/Mission. The term I tentatively chose, Chousen Edo Nobori (朝鮮江戸上り), literally meaning something like "the going up to Edo of Joseon", refers more to the actual event, the parade, the march of the foreign entourage through the Japanese countryside on their way to Edo. Tsuushinshi (or tongsinsa) is a more diplomatic/political term referring to the mission itself - its diplomatic/political goals, etc. I'm not explaining myself well here, in the differences between the two terms.

The point is, which should we use? Should we change the Japanese language term in the opening sentence to "chousen tsuushin shi", and work Chousen Edo Nobori in later somewhere? Or what? ... If I remember, I shall try to find time within the next few days to scan a few of my different sources to see which terms they use. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

*This discussion is moved from Talk:Korean missions to Edo--Caspian blue (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I read this thread under request of Tenmei. He asked my contribute since I am not English, nor Korean, nor Japanese. First of all let me say that I am totally ignorant of the specific content of this article, so I will not deal with it, but only with the "merge" issue.

My understanding is that there are two prblems

1. how and what to merge
2. how to name the article

If my understanding is correct, I would propose the following solution for the first issue. To my understanding Tenmei article is more reliable than the other ones because of the availability of verifiable references. On the other hand, there is no reason why the other articles would not be reliable too, in theory. So I suggest to merge all articles.

When a statement, a date, a fact is not reliable, or at least, there is no way to know if it is true, but there is no correspondence in the Tenmei article, I would keep it but I would add the template requesting a citation be provided. If no citation will be provided in few months, I would move it to a subarticle that will preserve all not verifiable elements. Just removing those elements would be a pity because they could be valuable and we have no guarantee that someone else wil be able to include them again in future. The subarticle will be available from the talk page of the main article. So if the article name is XXXX, the subarticle will be XXXX/To be verified and it will be available from the top of talk page as [[XXXX/To be verified|Info to be verified]].

On the other, if a fact is not reliable, or at least, there is no way to know if it is true, and there is a correspondence in the Tenmei article, it will be the Tenmei element to be preserved and the other to be removed UNLESS there are really different opinion by historians because of different sources.

About the name, now. I would like to ask Tenmei which are the LITERAL translations in English of the Korean and the Japanese names used for this event? I would start from them. In any case, I would also use redirection for Joseon tongsinsa and Chōsen Edo nobori even if they are not English terms. The reason is that we have to use English terms if there is a well-know English name accepted by all historians. But if there is not, whatever term we invent, it is better to keep also the original ones, forwarding them to the single article, because many world historians might know the event by the original name. This is very common in History. For example, in English we say "French Revolution" rather than "Révolution Française", but there is no way to say "Risorgimento" whereas "Rinascimento" is translated "Renaissance", from French. So non-anglophone terms are often used in History from English historians too.

This is just my two cent contribute.--Dejudicibus (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged

I've merged the three articles. I've chosen the oldest one as the merge target, i.e. this one (Joseon Tongsinsa). Next question to work out is the ultimate article name where you want to have it. It seems pretty clear that an English descriptive title will be better than this Korean term. Please just work something out and let me or some other admin know if you decide to move it somewhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of article.

It seems to me that there is consensus that WP:English indicates that this is a bad title for the page, but discussion seems to have died of. Unless someone disagrees I am going to move this page to Joseon embassies to Japan. Taemyr (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the title may be not satisfiable for every party, I disagree with the unilateral move at this status. Wait for the further responses from all side. Regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a clear consensus that the current title is against WP:English. Because my title suggestion is a new proposal I am going to wait. Taemyr (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier you suggested "Korean embassies to Japan." Is that still your preferred title? --Amble (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using the name Korean is that it might be slightly inaccurate. Korean embassies to Japan might reasonably be redirected to Japan–Korea relations. Taemyr (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just note on one thing, Korean missions to Edo that Tenmei (talk · contribs) previously named is clearly not a good translation. Throughout the whole history, the tongsinsa sometimes did not go to Edo (current Tokyo), and Edo is not a clear term to everyone except people knowledgeable of Japanese culture.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with Joseon embassies to Japan as a compromise. Though, as Caspian blue so accurately points out, "Edo" is not a clear term to everyone except people knowledgeable of Japanese culture; the same can be said of "Joseon", which is not a well-known term outside of those familiar with Korean history. Which is why I think the word "Korean" needs to be included, particularly if the word "Japan" is going to be. How about Joseon period Korean embassies to Japan (a bit long and wordy), Joseon Korean embassies to Japan, Embassies of Joseon Dynasty Korea to Tokugawa Japan, Korean embassies to Tokugawa Japan (there was no other Korea during the Tokugawa period but that under the Joseon Dynasty, so specifying Joseon is unnecessary) or any sort of combination of those? LordAmeth (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the article starts with embassies from 1404 the article has a wider scope than embassies to Tokugawa. An option is to widen the scope further and move the page to Historical relations between Japan and Korea, or Relations between Japan and Korea prior to 1895. Taemyr (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kon-nichi-wa, Taemyr and LordAmeth. Should Japanese envoy to Tang Dynasty China's name change to Kentoh-shi or Qian tang shi (遣唐使)? --Eichikiyama (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Should kon-nichi-wa be "good afternoon" in English? ^_^v--Caspian blue (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Eichikiyama; no. Use English. The japanese terms might redirect to the page though. Taemyr (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)