Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 5

Timeline pages

In the see also section, there are two pages linked for the timeline of the war, Imjin War Timeline and Timeline of the Imjin War. Both are obviously for the same topic, so which one is the more appropriate one to link to? (I.e., which is going to be merged with which?) I've left both links in the see also section for now. YooChung 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously think that the timeline article should be deleted or fixed. Admiral Yi's personal life should not be mixed with the Imjin War itself. Also, renaming the article to Japanese invasions of Korea timeline would be more appropriate. (Wikimachine 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Images from Samurai Invasion

I asked Mr. Stephen Turnbull, the author of Samurai Invasion, if I could use his images. He agreed as long as I don't use it for profit. What does it mean for us? Can we use all those battle images and maps? Good friend100 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL allows for-profit distribution, so probably not unless under fair use or if they're faithful reproductions of public domain (i.e. really old) images. YooChung 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And as previously discussed, battle images cannot be used to illustrate battles under fair use unless it's so famous as to be iconic per Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. --Kusunose 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I emailed Mr. Turnbull and he allowed permission, so how can I not use that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good friend100 (talk • contribs)

Inclusion in Wikipedia means that the images could be used in ways that Mr. Turnbull would not allow, so:

1. Did he permit modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose (including commercial purposes)? ("as long as I don't use it for profit" suggests otherwise)
2. Does Mr. Turnbull own the copyright to the images? (This question is purely out of ignorance: I have no idea if he created the images himself, outright purchased them from others, or merely obtained permission to use them.)

If both of the answers to the above questions are "yes", then the Wikimedia Communications committee needs to be notified per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. (Yes, legal restrictions are sometimes a pain, but it's understandable that the Wikimedia Foundation would want to avoid any grounds for a lawsuit.)

-- YooChung 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he said I could use my images in the "project" I am working on only for educational uses but not comercially. Mr. Turnbull has permission to use the images (or he couldn't have been able to put those images in his book legally). So the answer to both is yes. Good friend100 12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Use on Wikipedia implicitly implies possible commercial use (see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?). Mr. Turnbull obviously either owns the images or has permission to use the images, but if it's the latter, does he have permission to grant other people use of the images in any way he sees fit? YooChung 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he is allowed to allow other people use the copyrighted images. He got permission to use his images so he has the right to use his images (whether it be in a book or letting other ppl use it) according to the copyright. Do you understand what I mean? (sorry I don't know how to word it clearly) Good friend100 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm not writing in a clear manner, so I'll try to be clearer. If the images cannot be used commercially, then they cannot be used in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?). And just as Stephen Turnbull giving us permission to use an image in Wikipedia does not mean that we can in turn give other people permission to use the image, the fact that he is permitted to use an image in his book does not necessarily mean that he is allowed to give us permission to use the image. (He might own the images outright, in which case the latter is a moot point.) YooChung 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Campaigns and Army designations

Quite some time ago, there was an editor who came along and created a great many articles and templates relating to this war (I apologize that I cannot remember when this was, or who), naming separate campaigns and designating numbered divisions and topics such as Japanese Left Army and Army of the Right. I argued at the time that terms like "Army of the Left" and "Fourth Division" sound awfully modern to me, and since there was no modern Western-style military notion in Japan at the time, it seems anachronistic, even if the Japanese terms used may have translated to that.

Since then, in the many overhauls this article, and many of the related articles have seen, much of these references appear to have been eliminated. In particular, it appears that Template:Campaignbox Hideyoshi's Invasions has consolidated all of the most important battles into one campaignbox. (Meanwhile, many of the other smaller campaignboxes, such as Template:Campaignbox Japanese Left Army (1597), are not listed on the main WPMILHIST list of campaignboxes, and are not in any organized set of categories.)

However, many of these articles (like Japanese Left Army, just to take one example) continue to exist in very stubby form, and continue to be linked to here and there, as do the seemingly deprecated campaignboxes (Battle of Noryang for example uses the Template:Campaignbox Japanese Left Army (1597), not the consolidated Hideyoshi's Invasions one). I do not know what the consensus here is about these sorts of things, but I think that discussion ought to be begun and some sort of consensus reached, in order to help clean-up this network of articles (this article, the battles, the waeseong, the individuals involved, etc.)

The main two points:

1. Are separate campaigns useful & accurate, as articles and/or as campaignboxes? Or should these deprecated concepts (links, articles, campaignboxes) be removed?
2. Are terms like Japanese Left Army and Japanese Right Army worthwhile & accurate? Or should these articles, references to the terms, and links to them be removed?

Thanks much. LordAmeth 11:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the army references should be removed. They sound horrible and I'm not sure they're that accurate - sounds rather "Engrishy" to me. John Smith's 09:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But Samurai Invasion book describes it as Army of the Left and Army of the Right, and 1st Division, 2nd Division, etc. Good friend100 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Does he seriously? Wow, sometimes it seems like every time I turn around I find a reason to lose respect for Stephen Turnbull. Well, I would be curious what the Japanese terms he gained these from were - if primary sources call them 一師団、二師団、左軍、右軍 or some variation, then I guess it's alright. What I mean to say is, it bugs me, but if Turnbull uses those terms then it's fine - he's certainly far more an expert than I am. Still bugs me, as it sounds like a misguided attempt to apply modern Western terms to pre-modern Eastern concepts, but in the end, it's not my call. Just wanted to put my concerns out there. Thanks. Meanwhile, any thoughts on the campaignbox issue?LordAmeth 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I have no experience and no knowledge of campaignboxes. The boxes certainly do need a TON of reorganization, but the only way I could help would be to supply the order of battles and which campaigns are which. Good friend100 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do that, supply a list, I'd be happy to take care of the templates. Do you think this war warrants separate campaigns, or is the one single list of battles under Template:Campaignbox Hideyoshi's Invasions sufficient? Thanks. LordAmeth 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think, we should make another box on naval battles, another on the irregular volunteer campaign, and another for Kato's northern campaign.

The campaign boxes for each of Admiral Yi's camapaigns are a little too complicated and I think grouping all the naval battles into one campaignbox will be good. Good friend100 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese possession of Korean artifacts

There were a great many artifacts and works of art looted and stolen by Hideyoshi's armies, and I do not doubt that many of those items never made it back to Korea. However, I feel as though the current wording of the article implies that all Korean objects in Japanese collections fall into this category, and that all of them are objects of this resentment. On the contrary, I would not be at all surprised if in fact a great many Korean objects in Japanese collections came to Japan before or after this time - there were many gifts from Korea to Japan in the first millennium, and strong trade links throughout history, particularly in the Edo period. In addition, as Japan grew more wealthy in the latter half of the 20th century, and began to build a ridiculous number of museums, I am sure that these institutions, as well as private corporations and individuals, purchased plenty of Korean items on the legal market.

I'm not trying to start any sort of argument here; I'm just saying that the wording needs some work. Thanks. LordAmeth 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the past section, but if its POV sounding it can be edited. Anyways, there are still a lot of Korean artifacts, that is a fact, in Japan among private collectors. Its not surprising coming across Korean articles about Korean thieves who steal Korean artifacts from Japan and return them to Korea. Good friend100 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing result of war

In current article head, saying :The war concluded with a naval battle at the Noryang Strait. In addition to human losses, Korea suffered cultural, economic... But it seems what is end of the war. I think the article needs more explanation before aftermath story. Actually after naval battle of the Noryang strait, All Japanese army was retreated from Korea completely. In perspective of Korean and Chinese, it is not just end of war, it was clear victory from invasion. Even though there was peace negotiation. So I would like to add ; " After Hideyoshi's death, successor Tokukawa Ieyasu tried to retreat Japanese army from Korea and tried to conciliate Chinese army. But in Noryang strait, Japanese were defeated seriously by Korean Chinese allied fleet and had to retreat all Japanese from Korea completely in 12th lunar month of 1598." --Alf 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

peer review

Hmm, the peer review has not helped as much as I wanted. Here aer some questions:

• Is the article NPOV?

• Is it organized into sections correctly?

• Any grammatical errors (I looked over the entire article and edited but I might have missed some)?

• Enough pictures? (I'm trying to get permission from others to use their maps of the war.)

thanks guys, Good friend100 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good areas of focus

I've found really good articles on the war.

• Historical & political significance: each nations attempted to use the tributary system under China to their own advantage, Hideyoshi attempted to challenge the Chinese authority. The failed peace talks at Beijing signifies the failure of China to maintain its absolute superiority.
• Refs about the sexagenary cycle.
• The damage that Korea went through (--> Aftermath)
• Significance of gunpowder weapons
• Significance of the aftermath of the war in literature, & philosophical context

(Wikimachine 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

You know how some of the subjects here are covered without refs -almost as if they're rumors. Not anymore. (Wikimachine 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

So, do you think the article is ready to be nominated as a FA status article? Good friend100 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. After a week or 2 of work.

FA's expect more than just a historical narrative. More analysis etc on subjects beyond the chronology is needed.

Also, the writing here's terrible. I don't know who's done it, but people here take a compound-complex sentence to say something that could be said in one simple sentence.

Some sections have absolutely 0 refs. (Wikimachine 17:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

Example: The battle of Hansando was one of the most important victories of the Korean fleet. Change "of" to "for". (Wikimachine 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

What do you mean by the analysis? Good friend100 18:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just talking about it. I'll do it, so don't worry. (Wikimachine 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

model

Hey guys, I think modeling this article after a FA status article is a good idea. Check Italian War of 1521-1526.

The article is very informative but pretty standard for an article. The reason why is, is because they include all their battle names under one single time period of the war instead of a separate subsection for each battle like in this article. I think we should do this. Good friend100 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually makes the article more fluent. (Wikimachine 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

So do you agree with grouping all the battles into paragraphs with no subsections or do you like the categorization we have now? Good friend100 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

Let's officially begin the "Collaboration of the month" (Collaboration of the year, duh).

• Aim to substantiate all claims. That way, we can avoid significant NPOV disputes as well as inaccuracies derived from rumors/personal theories from "experts" that plague Korean articles. Put {{fact}} for all statements not verified.

Completed

• Introduction (Wikimachine 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
• Background (Wikimachine 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Not Completed

• Military capabilities
• First invasion (1592-1593)
• Negotiations and Truce Between China and Japan (1594-1596)
• Korean military reorganization
• Second invasion (1597-1598)
• Aftermath

Questions

• "The Jurchens raided infrequently along the northern border, and Japanese Wokou pirates pillaged coastal villages and trade ships" For grammar, I had to fix the sentence this way; however, I think that this is too plain. If anybody has anything interesting about the raids (i.e. frequency, means of raiding - horse rides?, i'm sure they sieged castles, right?), could you add to it? Also, I'm quite sure that there were whole lot more responses against the invasions than those mentioned in the article. (Wikimachine 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes, Oei Invasion. Good friend100 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Isn't the weapons and armor section sufficient? I think it is very informative. Apart from the second invasion and military reorganization, its ok. Good friend100 22:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• " 12th lunar month of 1598"... Could someone translate this into modern-day solar calendar? (Wikimachine 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Name box

Shouldn't the order of the name box be Japanese, Korean, and then Chinese - not Korean, Japanese, and Chinese.

Chinese should be last, of course; however the war matters to both Korea & Japan on an equal degree. That brings us to the alphabetical order, which puts Japanese on top. (Wikimachine 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

It really doesn't matter where a name goes, its not a large problem. Good friend100 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Dates with the battles

I was checking out the dates for the battles in the first war and noticed they conflict with the start of the war. The dates for the battles start in april, but the first landing appears to be May 23. Either one or the other is wrong, or some explanation to why there were battles before the war "officially" began is nessary.

how do you explain this?

What is correct about this image and why is it fair use rationale. I don't understand what I have done wrong with my images I uploaded. Good friend100 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

images with copyright issues

I would like to ask why those images have been deleted. I have given a fair use rationale, a source, and a copyright tag.

You have this tag that says the source is not valid? Why is that?

Also, I have not gotten any replies on regarding how to fix the problems, which I have attempted. Good friend100 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You have got replies on the PUI page as well as on the other pages where you asked for help. They are simply not fixable--the images are unusable. I discourage you from following up on your threat to cause a disruption (when you said, "Don't worry LactoseTI, I can find numerous other sites to retrieve those same pictures for you to tag again"). Unless you can track down the true copyright holder/no longer under copyright (which is unlikely) or in some other way address the copyright concerns, we can't use the images, and just recreating them without addressing these issues would probably leave them open for speedy deletes. Why not just work on improving the articles rather than fighting about pictures like this? 68.71.196.88 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

for an anoymous user who knows much about wikipedia, you should realize that pictures are key to making the article much better. I'm working to get this article to FA status, and I'm sure they will not accept this article without a lot of images. Good friend100 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And they are even less likely to accept an article with images with copyright issues. —LactoseTI^T 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's first Envoy to Korea in 18571587

Yoshuhiro doesn't sound like a Japanese name to me (the difference is subtle, but the natives can tell) so I conducted quick investigation on the Internet. I was not able to find an authoritative source, but the person is most likely 柚谷康広 (Yuzutani Yasuhiro or Yuzuya Yasuhiro -- I could not determine which is correct). I would appreciate it if someone with better access to proper references could confirm it. Thanks--Dwy 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your title. Good friend100 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He probably means 1587. Typo. LordAmeth 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo in the title, and thank you for pointing it out.--Dwy 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is the Yoshuhiro you are talking about and what did he do? Good friend100 13:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the "Background" section of this article:

In 1587, Hideyoshi sent his first envoy Yoshuhiro to the Korea then under King Seonjo[21] to re-establish diplomatic relationship between Korea and Japan, which Hideyoshi hoped to use as a foundation to induce the Yi Court to join Japan on war against China.[22] Yoshuhiro, with his warrior background, and an attitude disdainful of the Korean officials in their customs he considered as effeminate, failed to receive the promise of future ambassadorial missions from Korea.[23]

--Dwy 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the info. I got it from a document provided from University of Hong Kong Library (online). [1][2](Wikimachine 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the information, Wikimachine. The reference you provided says in the footnote that Yoshuhiro was known as 橘康廣. Since the letter “広” is the simplified form of the letter”廣” and 橘 (Tachibana) is one of the four major extended clans in Japan, 橘康廣 and 柚谷康広 are most likely the same person belonging to the 柚谷 branch of Tachibana clan.

In any case, I think that 橘康廣 should normally be transliterated to "Tachibana Yasuhiro" as in here [3], and Yoshuhiro is a typo. --Dwy 08:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When you fix the name, please add the link to the Oxford site as well. Thanks. (Wikimachine 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I don't really know how to cite the sources properly, but I tried my best anyway. I would appreciate it if someone could look into it and correct any irregularities (there may be a lot, I guess.) --Dwy 07:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion.

Shouldn't the title be "Japanese Invasions of Korea"? I think this page should be moved to the new title. Amphitere 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOoooo! Don't suggest a move! Just look at how long it took to agree upon something last time! ... Nah, I'm just kidding with you. Seriously, though, the "Japanese invasions of Korea" is a description, not a title, and therefore does not get capitalized. Scholarly works refer to these events with a wide variety of titles and descriptions, and this is far from being the "official" or most common title/description. LordAmeth 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha I remember the last poll here. Good friend100 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs explanation

"His true goal, however, was not to subjugate or conquer China, but simply to gain access to official trade with China which had been denied (see hai jin) since 1557."

I read something about this - could somebody actually tell me all about what the article cited is saying? (Wikimachine 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Hiya. I'm the one who added that citation. Sorry if I didn't expound upon the argument further. Arano basically argues that Hideyoshi was more realistic in his goals than he is often given credit for, and that he wished to create a Japanocentric system of tributary states as China had already done. Essentially, his foreign policy was patterned on the Chinese model - he sought greater control over Japan's role in the region, and in world trade, not as a subordinate to China, but as more or less an equal with its own system of legitimacy. Arano does not go into any detail about Hideyoshi's claims of desires to invade China, etc, as that's not the focus of his article, but I would be happy to email you the article if you would like. It's an interesting read. LordAmeth 10:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to read that, LordAmeth! I read in some International journal that Hideyoshi did aim for a Japonocentric order but only by conquering China. (Wikimachine 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Mu Ye Je Bo

What is mis is a little information about the compilation of the Mu Ye Je Bo, the martial arts manual that was written in, I believe, the aftermath of the war. Not a lot of English information is available though on this particular subject. Kbarends 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Woongjinweewinjungi

=== Battle of Noryang Point ===

The battle ended as an allied victory and a Japanese loss of nearly 250 battleships out of the original 500. Only after the battle did the soldiers learn of Yi's death, and it is said that Chen Lin lamented that Yi died in his stead.<ref>pg. 111 Woongjinweewinjungi #14 ''Yi Sun-shin'' by Baek Sukgi. (C) Woongjin Publishing Co., Ltd.</ref>

I could not find the reference. Would anyone give it the ISBN number or something else that help identify it? Is it a manhwa? Jjok 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.iibook.co.kr/frontstore/item/item_zoom.asp?mart_id=IIBOOK&item_num=441030&catalog_num=82920 (Wikimachine 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Thank you, Wikimachine. One of Ungjin Weewin Jingi (웅진위인전기, 熊津偉人伝記), Ungjin's Biographies of Great People published by Ungjin Publishing, probably for primary school students, is it? Do you know what is the base of the referenced description in the book? Nanjung Ilgi? Is it possible to replace it for more academic or general ones? Jjok 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's for elementary schoolers, but I still think it to be a dependable source - if you're looking for simple fact findings instead of detailed analysis on international politics. I'm trying to rewrite the entire article, as you can see by checking out the history, so everything that's unreliable or original research will be washed off. Thanks. (Wikimachine 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Image:Korean Infantry.JPG|thumb|140px|right|Joseon soldier in full armor.

This image is a good graphic, but it has no verification to be re-created authentically. Thus it is one of WP:OR. Please cite a image which is one of Secondary source. Northwest1202 09:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is based on an existing image. See archives. (Wikimachine 12:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

If this image is based on an existing image, it's reproducibility is not clear for Wikipedians. And so it has no verification to be re-created authentically. Thus it is one of WP:OR. Please cite a image which is one of Secondary source or Primary source. Although this image is a good graphic, this is the Encyclopedia. Northwest1202 13:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It was verified at the time of its production & agreed to be no OR. See archives. (Wikimachine 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

The image can't be verified in this article with citations, and we can't juge it's reproducibility objectively. Thus, I regret to say it is one of WP:OR. So we should cite a image which is one of Secondary source or Primary source. Northwest1202 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Northwest, let me repeat. It was verified by other editors at the time of its addition. The link is now dead. (Wikimachine 03:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

The dead link: http://gorefined.cafe24.com/blog/attach/1/847460.jpg

Archives: Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592-1598)/archive_3#Pic_for_Korean_soldier.

Editors who verified the pic:

• user:LactoseTI
• user:Good friend100
• user:Wandalstouring
• user:Oyo321

(Wikimachine 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

I also think that the pic is very good one. But now the original pic which you looked and copied can't be seen by us. So I don't think good to use the pic in the page for a historical description. Northwest1202 10:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment (by the way, I personally think that the image is too "blurry" so I'm editing it with CGI right now), but ít was seen by other ppl at the time of its addition. Then, you don't need to question its accuracy now. (Wikimachine 16:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

The pic's artistic merit and it's merit as a source are different issues. In the latter case, we can't use it as a secondary and a primary source. And it's same if it was repainted. Northwest1202 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not question "artistic meric" & the source is there, & it was verified to be a true source & that the image is based on that true image. If you still disagree, go ask at the help desk or request a 3rd opinion. (I'm using CGI to fix some flaws, not to satisfy your current demands) (Wikimachine 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Of course Wikipedia does not quetion "artistic meric", but it verifies that the pic has a true source and it is based on true image. And so the pic isn't acceptable to Wikipedia:Verifiability. We can't verify the pic now. Wikipedia:Verifiability isn't the rule that must be adhered only once, but it is the rule that must be adhered at every moment. If you can't understand this, I regret to say that you have a bent to be WP:OWN. Northwest1202 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You know you're going over the line. It is not Wikipedia's burden to worry about a link that can go dead any time. Websites come on, off & go @ any time, newspapers after a while charge $$$ to access their archives. It doesn't have to be verified now (what's the difference, all that matters is that it's based on a true image whether existing or not now), what's your problem? And please use your real account, your Northwest1202 is a fake, I know it. (Wikimachine 19:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I read this page[[4]] which you mentioned above, and I confirmed that there are no informations of source. Of cause Website's links somtimes go dead, but what the Wikipedia:Verifiability rule governs is the source, not link. No one can verify the pic after your arguments, it breaks Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikimachine, you shouldn't do WP:PA, but steps into other people's shoes. Northwest1202 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you're wrong. Go request a 3rd opinion & that was not personal attack (don't write [[WP:PA]], but [[WP:PA|personal attacks]]). Learn to state things as they are, & don't exaggerate. See WP:SOCK. (Wikimachine 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Wrong,what? The pic has no source. And you have said definitively that I am a Sock without no reason. You have made personal attacks to me for two times, by this. I'm sick of it. OK. I will request a 3rd opinion about you. Northwest1202 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Saw my name mentioned and figured I'd stop by--I vaguely remember the image, but I don't recall if we had discussed if that image itself was actually a valid image or not. Can you find a source? It's unusual for an editor to produce a drawing like this, so I'm not sure the best way to handle it, but I suppose to way to treat it is just like article text. It should be based on an cited, acceptable source that satisfies all verifiability, etc. (such that a reasonable person would say that it is not only a valid original, but that this work follows from it in a straightforward way). The image itself seems to be just some web picture, which itself would not have been acceptable if it had lacked a source. —LactoseTI^T 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The image was drawn in response to the fact that the real image had no valid copyright information (then deleted). Then that in itself is the evidence that this image is based on that image, and I'm sorry if you didn't participate in the discussion or if you didn't see the actual image yourself. Others have & they know that it was a real image & that the current image is based on that image. I agree completely with the Wikipedia policies, you don't need to remind me of those, & the source is valid (now dead, but that doesn't matter). I guess this is settled, then. Intelliigent & purposeful discussions do not contain repeated contents. (Wikimachine 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

It seems you are suggesting that since it is based on an existing unusable picture, it somehow becomes valid? I believe the point is that the picture on which it is based may have itself not have been valid--for example, it could have been based on an artist's imagination instead of fact, it could have been a picture of something else, or it could be something else entirely. Just like text, this needs to be sourced. If someone made an edit to the main text of the article based on some random website which doesn't even exist any longer, it would not be acceptable. You obviously spent some time on this picture; do some searches and try to track down what the original work really is, who made it, and so on. —LactoseTI^T 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a photograph. There was no manipulation involved. (Wikimachine 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

A photograph of what? Where is the source (both the picture and some reliable source saying what it is)? Incidentally, I don't recall it being a photograph, not that it would make any difference... —LactoseTI^T 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, why do you have to come all the way over here and pick on an insignificant picture? The drawing was made of a photograph of the same soldier that couldn't be used on Wikipedia. And because you don't recall anything doesn't mean you can simply remove the image. Nobody agreed to it except you, who is inflating this into a big problem. Good friend100 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Aim for featured article

I think that we should cite all factual statements that we put into this article. For example, I know too that Korean soldiers did not wear any armor (except for the generals). However, I could not find a source that stated that & therefore I did not write that.

Also, Good friend100, you deleted some info's explaining the geopolitics of that time (i.e. background information). Do you think that it's too extraneous & unnecessary? Thx. (Wikimachine 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Yes, its extraneous, and I'm unhappy with how almost none of my work exists, especially about the armor, weapons, etc. Also, this is worded as if China had a large role in the war. No they did not. Yes, China did send many soldiers, and their efforts contributed to the defeat of the Japanese, but its not like they participated in every naval battle, as the article seems to suggest. Good friend100 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding FA status, I think we're good on references, but the structure of the article after "Second Invasion" seems to be a little awkward. Good friend100 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted them b/c they were not sourced. You should put some sources, Good friend100. (Wikimachine 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

anti-Korean sentiment in Japan category

I don't see how it works either, although Turnbull's book Samurai Invasion hinted at that in that the Japanese troops, in their 2nd invasion, were coming to conquer Korea & to avenge their comrades' deaths from the previous war - evidenced by much more unrestrained violence on civilian populations. (Wikimachine 14:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree that the category is not appropriate to this article. It could be argued that this caused anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, but not really the other way around. John Smith's 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No one's claiming that the invasions caused anti-Korean sentiment. No one's making that argument. However, this article is an important moment in the history of conflicts and resulting mutual animosity between both Korea and Japan and provides relevant historical context behind anti-Korean sentiment in Japan. That's enough relevance to add this category to this article in my opinion.melonbarmonster 05:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't see the anti-Korean sentiment in Japan because of this. You'd need evidence for that. John Smith's 09:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with this article

I keep editing the article to make it better because it is written very poorly and there are many grammatical errors. It wasn't like this before, and I'm fairly angry at the person who wrote this, who is clearly not an english speaker. Good friend100 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The top part or the bottom part. I rewrote the top part. (Wikimachine 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

By the way, from this diff I'm guessing that you think the article has too much refs? Well, I think that if we don't have a ref per every statement, some nationalist or non-English speaker will come and add stuffs to it & we won't know if it's true or not. On an article like this we should cite every statement. Also, you should really cite your edits & your edits focus too much on Korea (i.e. Korean infantry, armor, etc.) Nothing on China, etc. (Wikimachine 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

I've made some grammar changes myself - I couldn't go through the whole article as it was a bit long. John Smith's 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for looking through, John Smith's. I went through the article again just now. Regarding information and refs, I think its fine, but the tone of the article and grammar problems aren't going to cut it when we apply for FA status. Good friend100 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a mental note to go through and take a look at the rest. However, can I please suggest that no one add to the article for now - let's focus on improving what's there at the moment. Of course, re-writes are fine but don't throw in new material. John Smith's 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know now, suddenly the article looks worse, Good friend100. "Admiral Yi Korea's best hero" "the war left a legacy" These don't sound right. I think that my version (w/ except of several corrections of the wording) sounded much better. (Wikimachine 22:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Look, Good friend100, instead of settling the article as it is, let's discuss about the changes. I admit that some of my wordings sounded awkward but that's trivial compared to all the citing & organization stuffs that I did. I don't think that how you put "armors" and then "weapons" is sounnd. Armor technically is a weapon. And then the armor section is completely not sourced & it talks only about Korea. It's original research. You may be frustrated that nearly none of your works existed in the other version but that's not a reason for anything. (Wikimachine 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Infobox casualties section

The "casualties" heading in the infobox is very confusing and not done according to custom. Could someone separate the casualties so that only those of Japan are listed on the right side and the dead and wounded (including civilians) of China and Korea are on the left side?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Feature

This article is defenitly good and ready to be featured. Spam the suggestion box! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.69.190 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of Haengju.jpg

Image:Battle of Haengju.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA review

The article has too many fact tags, so i'm obliged to quick-fail it. Before renominating you should take a closer look at What is a good article?. :) Yamanbaiia 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So the article can't have any fact tags at all? Considering the time Wikimachine spent on citing about 60% of the sentences in the article, I really can't see any other reason why this article fails the GA nomination when there are 3 or 4 fact tags that can be referenced easily. Ok, if it fails it, then I'll reference them. Are there any other problems with this article? Good friend100 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't have any cleanup banners and there are three in the article. I didn't really take a good look at the article, i just checked the quick fail criteria, but i did notice that there are three unsourced sections: "Battle of Chilchonryang", "Negotiations and truce between China and Japan (1594–1596)" and "Korean military reorganization". Also some sections (like "Korean Militias") have as a source one reference, and there's really no need to put the same reference after each sentence in the section, just leave the one at the end.
If you disagree with my review feel free to seek a reassessment (keep in mind that the article was only nominated for 20 minutes, and it's not like you waited a month for it to be failed), or renominate as soon as you fix this problems. -Yamanbaiia 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody went to the extreme with citing almost every sentence. Anyways, I'll fix those tags and maybe remove some extra ones. Other than that, I think the article is generally good with information. Good friend100 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed all the tags. How do I renominate this article for GA? Do I simply go through the normal process or is there a special way. Good friend100 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the same process. Good luck! Yamanbaiia 09:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Good friend100 12:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Toyotomi Hideyoshi's intent

In the section about Toyotomi Hideyoshi's intent to invade, it says:

It is said that Hideyoshi planned for an invasion of China...

And then:

But it is quite possible that Hideyoshi might have set a more realistic goal of...

I think this may be a case of weasel wordage. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Legend has it, it is said (passive voice) and WP:Weasel. I tried to think of how to fix it, but maybe somebody more knowledegeable on the subject matter should do it.

Who said that Hideyoshi planned for an invasion of China? And who thinks it's possible that Hideyoshi might have set a more realistic goal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are those sentences basically saying that historical records wrote that Hideyoshi planned for an invasion of China, but that modern historians believe his goal might have been more realistic? Anyway, this needs some clarification. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Who says that it's possible that Hideyoshi had a more realistic goal? Arano Yasunori of Rikkyo University, in the article cited. I would not be surprised if there are other scholars (other articles, books, etc) who agree with him, but I do not have any specific examples. As for who says Hideyoshi planned an invasion of China, that'd be pretty much the majority of the mainstream of the older generation of historians, relying primarily or solely on a number of letters by Hideyoshi explaining his plans and intentions. Arano's article was originally published in 1987... a lot of rethinking of foreign relations in this period and such went on in the 1980s. LordAmeth (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought. I would suggest that some clarification be made on those sentences, if the plan is to take this article to FA. Some of the FA reviewers might object to the wording based on Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Legend has it, it is said (passive voice) and WP:Weasel. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would love to fix it, but I am afraid that no matter how I word it, it will still be seen as weasel wordage by some. If I write "Many scholars think X while others think Y," a completely true statement and one which would be welcomed in formal scholarship (provided there are citations to back it up), it will still fall under the Wikipedia definitions of "weasel words". If on the other hand I make a definite effort to avoid weasel words and write "Sansom writes X but Arano Yasunori has said Y" then I'm only giving two scholars' opinions, and the overall argument seems far weaker. If it is not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you could make the changes you feel are necessary to the wording of that section. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave it then. If the article is lucky, FA reviewers will let it pass. But I looked at the source provided[5] and it doesn't actually say that it was from historical records that they thought Hideyoshi wanted to invade China. So my question is, what does the Arano source really say? Does he say simply that that wasn't Hideyoshi's intent? Does he say that modern analysis shows that this is not Hideyoshi's intent? etc? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that web source isn't mine, so I won't make any comment on what it does or doesn't say. As for Arano, you're welcome to read it yourself; the pdf of his article is available here. The most relevant bit is from p206 and reads as follows:

Toyotomi Hideyoshi had famously declared his intention of conquering China long before he united Japan. This made it seem as if his Korean expeditions were part of a larger plan. The Toyotomi regime, however, had far more realistic foreign policies: it sought to have Europe and Ming China as its trading partners, and Korea, the Ryukyus, Luzon (the Philippines) and Taiwan as its subordinate states. However, all through his Korean campaigns, Hideyoshi sought from Ming China, not subordination, but access to the licensed tally trade (kangō bōeki 勘合貿易).

He cites then-recent (1985-6) works on Hideyoshi by two other scholars within that short section - Fujiki Hisashi and Kitajima Manji. I hope this helps to clear things up a bit. I'd be happy to find the relevant quotes from Sansom, though I'd imagine that pretty much any proper source on the subject should touch upon Hideyoshi's statements about his desires to conquer China etc etc. LordAmeth (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nagoya is not in Kyushu

It says under Troop Strength: Hideyoshi mobilized his army at the Nagoya castle on Kyūshū, newly built just for the purpose of housing the invasion forces and the reserves.[63]

Nagoya is in Aichi Prefecture located on the island of Honshu. If it really is Nagoya Castle than this should be changed to not reference Kyushu, but instead Honshu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakeshotz (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The castle referenced here is not Nagoya Castle located at Nagoya, Aichi in Honshu but Nagoya Castle (Hizen Province) (currently a red link), located at Nagoya, Saga in Kyushu. So the reference to Kyushu is correct and does not need to be changed. --22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusunose (talk • contribs)

GA on Hold

Hi, thanks for contributing such a comprehensive and well-researched article to Wikipedia! I'm putting this article's GA nom on Hold for the following reasons:

1. The referencing, which is heavy for long stretches of text, gets way too thin in places. For example see the sections "Negotiations and truce between China and Japan (1594–1596)," "Intervention of Ming China" & "Battle of Haengju." At least one of these (which are only examples; please check every section) has no referencing whatsoever.
2. I added one {{cn}} template; the adjective "brilliant" is POV and needs to be referenced or removed.
3. The reliability of those websites is highly suspect. One of them is even from geocities, which by definition makes it a personal website & unreliable. The "eye of the tiger" website looks like a personal website too... others may also be suspect; check all web references against WP:RS.
4. Three of your references are broken & have large red "Cite error" warnings. I would have fixed them myself, but there are two books by the same author, so I wasn't sure which was the correct one.

The following errors are not fatal to the GA nom, but I would recommend adressing them at a later date:

1. The article had several examples of awkward phrasing, a few of which I have already fixed.
2. It also has an overabundance of parenthetical remarks. All those parentheses are distracting; the sentences can be reworded so as to avoid using them. As just one example, see the paragraph beginning, "There were fundamental design flaws with the Japanese ships..."
3. The article should be sent through WP:LoCE first and then the A-Class rating review of WP:MILHIST before considering sending it to WP:FA.
4. I added one or perhaps two ISBNs; please check all the existing ISBNs for accuracy etc.
5. I'm not sure why given names are included in the notes, unless two books are written by different authors with the same surname.

That's about all i see now. Drop me a line if you have questions. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Good friend100 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: you have a period of one week from the date of the Hold to address these concerns. If they aren't addressed, the article will Fail GA. I hope that won't happen, as this is an interesting and informative article. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

• No progress on Hold after 6 days. if you think this review is in error, feel free to list the article at WP:GAR Ling.Nut (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Death toll

Ludicrous. Koreans did not deploy more than 84,500 troops during 1st invasion, and not much more in 2nd. 300,000? Wow. The Chinese also never deployed more than 80,000 troops during any point of the invasion. 300,000 for Chinese as well. Way to go. - A former Wikipedian. (69.180.210.99 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Cruelty and war crimes

First of all the phrase "Japanese forces committed most of the indiscriminate killings" is rather vague. What is an "indiscriminate killing" and why is it more significant than a "discriminiate killing"? Also who were the victims, why, etc?

Second we have no sources to back that up. The one source we have on the matter says:

The Chinese were said to be no better than the Japanese in the amount of destruction they caused and the degree of the crimes they committed.

Perhaps it would be better to simply put things back as they were. John Smith's (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No no, when "things [were] back as they were," they were cited very thoroughly. See here.

Also, see Citizendium's entry on this war.

I see how ppl here systematically & methodically broke down these details:

"Stephen Turnbull, a historian specializing in the Japanese samurais, the Japanese troops committed the worst crimes against civilians in battles, and killed indiscriminately, including farm animals.[90] Outside of the main battles, Japanese raided Korean habitations to “kill, rape and steal in a more cruel manner than…”[179] Japanese soldiers treated their own peasants no better than the captured Koreans, and worked them all to death by starvation and flogging.[180] The Japanese collected enough ears and noses[181] (cutting ears off of enemy bodies for making casualty counts was an accepted practice) to build a large mound near the Hideyoshi’s Great Buddha, called the Mimizuka, or “the Mound of Ears”."

(69.245.41.113 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

That doesn't make any sense. Why are you objecting to restoring a previous version if it was better cited? John Smith's (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the earlier interpretation of the war crimes, as it makes more sense when looking at the facts we had (and no one provided a source to back up the previous claim that the Japanese were the "worst". I have also made some tweaks here-and-there.

Furthermore I have removed broken citations. Please look at these carefully and add new ones - a fact tag request is better than a horrible red error message. John Smith's (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They were perfectly cited & none of the cites are red - again, I see this common aggressive maneuver in Wikipedia where you just argue your way in with half-lies. Stephen Turnbull specifically wrote himself that the Japanese committed the worst atrocities in the war. You probably don't have the text. Of course, a nationalistic Japanese from WikiProject Japan or some sympathetic & racist/biased American can go this far. (69.180.193.52 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

The "[90]" cite is the one you're talking about & it's definitely not broken. You do understand, so don't smirk that you don't & don't make the situation more complicated than it is b/c it's really very simple - you're lying. (69.180.193.52 (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

See? Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p. 50-1. (69.180.193.52 (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

First of all, don't make person attacks. Of course, a nationalistic Japanese from WikiProject Japan or some sympathetic & racist/biased American can go this far. is not good assuming good faith.

Second I did remove red error messages regarding citations. Maybe they appeared fine for you but something was clearly wrong. Don't accuse others of lying - that is also bad faith.

Third how can Turnbull say they were the worst if he also says The Chinese were said to be no better than the Japanese in the amount of destruction they caused and the degree of the crimes they committed?

By the way as you appear to be on a floating IP it might help if you made an account to login with. John Smith's (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban evasions and IP users

The user posting from 69.180.193.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and similar addresses is banned User:Wikimachine and should be rolled back on sight. The other user posting from 128.205.165.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is User:Komdori and/or User:LactoseTI and should please show their face when posting here. We've had enough trouble with anon IP disruption. For established editors to disguise their actions through logged-out editing is definitely not welcome in the context of these disputes, and will be treated as disruptive sockpuppetry if it continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Sunrise. John Smith's (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandals were here- request semiprotection

There is still some vandalism on the article page; can an admin please add some protection on this page? Ginbot86 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference section?

What happened to the reference section? Hanfresco (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Total/Subtotal

Configured the numbers to include a total via adding subtotals. Plz fix the formatting. thxs Intranetusa (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

no display picture

At Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)#First invasion (1592–1593), the picture, which should be there, is not shown. This picture, name Image:1592invasionmap.png, which was deleted on 18 September 2008, because of duplicating with Common. Nevertheless, now, it does not show up. What's wrong?

P.S. Please use picture from Common, because I'm going to contribute this article in Thai version. --Brandy Frisky (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Succession to the Shogunate

Under the section "Hideyoshi's Succession" some reputedly cited fact by Arano states that Hideyoshi lacked "Imperial lineage". I do not know what words to express my rage at this reckless edit. If I recall from other sources, Hideyoshi's rule lacked legitimacy because he was not descended from Minamoto no Yoritomo: the first Shogun and thus couldn't ascend himself to Shogun by Imperial charter. This leaves me pondering as to how accurate other information on this article are, unfortunately I have no time to contribute to further verification.

Citations provided on request. 118.92.183.10 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully you've since read some notable history on Japan of this period, and now know that he indeed was born outside the nobility and could never aspire to the Shogunate, because only the semi-regal clans could receive the title.

Number of Japanese naval units against Korean navy

Refer to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)#First invasion (1592–1593)#The naval battles of Admiral Yi#Battle of Hansando

"In response to the Korean navy's success, Toyotomi Hideyoshi recalled three admirals from land-based activities: Wakizaka Yasuharu, Kato Yoshiaki, and Kuki Yoshitaka. They were the only ones with naval responsibilities in the entirety of the Japanese invasion forces. However, the admirals arrived in Busan nine days before Hideyoshi's order was actually issued, and assembled a squadron to counter the Korean navy ."

Refer to Military organization#Hierarchy of modern navies, number of naval squadron is just small number and Squadron (naval) issues to be just 3-4 major ships.

By my understanding, at that time, Korean navy held around 26 ships. By comparing Japanese counter squadron with Korean, Japanese was outnumbered. Is there any misteditting?

Personally, I think Japanese would assembled squadrons rather than just a squadron, but this is just my opinion. I ask you to confirm if there any mistake in editting.

Thank you,

--Brandy Frisky (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For further information, I read Battle of Hansan Island, it clearly issues, there were Japanese 73 ships deployed. It too large to be called squadron, it was a fleet or navy.

--Brandy Frisky (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A missing general

As far as I know, there was a Chinese commander Deng Zilong (zh:邓子龙) who battled to death during the second Japanese invasion. ——Waltigs (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanseong an ineffective means of defence?

as much as I like Stephen Turnbull's view on Imjin war, I disagree with Stephen Turnbull's opinion about Sanseong, or Mountain Fortress. To be rad, I really think he needs to climb few Sanseongs before he makes a statement about its defensive networks.

Sanseong itself utilizes the vertical steepness of a natural mountain and does not need manmade crossfire sections, as the natural geography cuts the walls or palisades in and out, making natural crossfire sections. Also, there is no need for high walls as the vertical challenge the mountains provides to the defenders work as a huge vertical advantage. All of this can be seen if you climb some Sanseongs in Korea such as ones in Duta Mountain(this is actually where a major battle occured in Imjin War), Namhan Sanseong(did not fall for 50 days and was surrendered) or Hangju Sanseong(palisade works and earthen trenches).

On the assaulting perspective, all the crap you feel about sieging a Sanseong can be felt when you go up that mountain. since it's steep, there's no room to deploy siege weapons or any heavy weapons of any sorts. a typical Japanese soldier probably took an arquebus, or his sword at most. before attacking a fortress you have to climb a steep mountain, or climb a mountain while attacking. probably no room for ladders as there no room to place it shut, and the individual soldiers probably climbed it with hand.

Though I made a pretty radical comment up there, I'm sure he climbed one of the sanseongs while his visit in Korea. I'm not sure if he understands the real advantage of Sanseongs. Most of the battles the Korean army won on foot in Imjin war was when they were holding these mountain fortresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.253.89.139 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Technology of Japan that kills commander of Korea

The commander of Korea is dead also of as many as eight people. It sees it like the overwhelmingness of Japan though Japan left from a Korean peninsula. Wasn't the ninja of the assassination specialty in a Japanese army? 60.33.32.179 (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Naval power

I do not welcome unreliable speculations. If somebody wants to say that Chinese shipbuilding technologies had some effect to Joseon shipbuilding technologies, add your theory to the Panokseon or Turtle ship pages with credible source. So that I can find some tiny reason from these articles that Chinese influenced Joseon shipbuilding technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryosaram (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize how arrogant you sound? "I do not welcome..." This is not Koryosarampedia, and we're all very happy it is not. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My edit to "Diplomatic dealings between Japan and Korea" section

I merged the description about 1587 removing unimportant to diplomatic topic or duplicated part. What I removed are as follows;

" to re-establish diplomatic relations between Korea and Japan (broken since the Japanese pirate raid in 1555), which Hideyoshi hoped to use as a foundation to induce the Yi Court to join Japan in a war against China.[36] Yasuhiro, with his warrior background and an attitude disdainful of the Korean officials and their customs, failed to receive the promise of future ambassadorial missions from Korea."

" Even when Hideyoshi renewed his order, Sō Yoshitoshi reduced the visit to the Yi Court to a campaign to better relations between the two countries. Near the end of the ambassadorial mission, Yoshitoshi presented King Seonjo a brace of peafowl and matchlock guns - the first advanced fire-arms to come to Korea. Yu Seong-ryong, a high-ranking scholar official, suggested that the military put the arquebus into production and use, but the Yi Court failed to cooperate. This lack of interest and underestimation of the power of the arquebus eventually led to the decimation of the Korean army early in the war."

Descriptions added with a reliable source are as follows;

"Loyal to the Ming suzerainty"

Please explain what is wrong with my edit. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed to mention about your POV addition in your edit summary as if you would've purely removed duplicated info which is obviously not in the case. Japan was also loyal to Ming and paid tribute, and Hideyoshi disliked the situation, so caused the war. So if you want to add that, you will be fine with an addition of the fact on the Japan's situation as well for fairness and NPOV. Moreover, Yi Dynasty is a POV term mainly used by Japanese scholars or Japanologists looking down the Korean kingdom. You need to present diffs to compare your unconsensus version and the original one. Your alteration to "underestimated" is also a Japanese POV which does not comply with the Korean perspective. However, you nearly violated 3RR by repeatedly inserting your POV to the article and omitting the description on the Japanese pirates.--Caspian blue 11:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

1. 1. Regarding the loyal to the Ming suzerainty, the original sentence is "The Yi Court handed .... King Seonjo's letter rebuking Hideyoshi for challenging the Chinese tributary system." Then readers probably wonder why King Seonjo rebuked Hideyoshi for challenging the Chinese tributary system. So I added the sentence as an explanation. The source I used says "....he threatened invasion if the court did not let him make use of Korean roads for Japanese expedition forces attacking Ming China. Needless to say, the Korean court, loyal to the Ming suzerainty, rejected his demands." Nothing wrong with this edit.
   2. "Yi Dynasty" is irrelevant to my edit.
   3. I cannot understand about "presenting diffs" issue.
   4. "underestimated" is not "a Japanese POV" at all. The original sentence is "it expected Hideyoshi's invasions to be no better than the common wakō ". Don't you think something wrong with this sentence? So I changed "expected" to "underestimated". Considering Hideyoshi's army consisted of 150,000 men compared to the common wako"s 1,000, "underestimate" is neither an exaggerated expression nor a Japanese POV at all. Moreover you said "Your alteration to "underestimated" is also a Japanese POV which does not comply with the Korean perspective", "Korean perspective" means "Korean Point Of View". You are admitting you reverted what does not comply with the Korean POV". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      1. The sentence also says that Hideyoshi wanted to get out of the tributary system of which Japan was a part with paying tribute. So I don't think adding the Japan's situation is no problem for you. Your edit summary did not tell your POV addition to emphasize the tributary system as if Japan would've had nothing to do with, which is simply not true, wasn't it? That's why your edits are legitimately pointed out by me. Nothing wrong with my criticism on your edit and edit summary.
      2. That is very much relevant to your edit since you chose to call the Korean state as "Yi Dynasty" instead of Joseon Dynasty.
      3. That is your assessment not scholars' general assessment, so that is your POV with no source. I don't understand why you dared to risk yourself as nearly violating the 3RR rule if that phrase was perceived as "so important for you". The alteration to "underestimated" is a Japanese sided view and not "Joseon court's view". Since that sentence is about how the Korean court thought of Hideyoshi, so there is no need for Hideyoshi's view, nor Japanese view. Your own admission tells that you're pushing Japanese view with your edit warring.--Caspian blue 02:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
         1. In this context, Japan has nothing to do with. Edit summary is a summary of edit not a whole list of edit. Are you reverting all the edit without an edit summary?
         2. Please stop making a false accusation. Please indicate the evidence I edited the Korean state as "Yi Dynasty" instead of Joseon Dynasty.
         3. "underestimated" is neither Hideyoshi's view, nor Japanese view but neutral point of view. Evaluating 150,000 as 1000 is nothing other than "underestimate". The rejection of "underestimated" is "Korean POV" as you confessed above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's comical how you ninja-ed 'Loyal to the Ming suzerainty' like that's actually a legitimate reason Joseon rejected Toyotomi's invasion of Ming through Korea to China. That statement has no weight whatsoever. Like Joseon was going to let uneducated and sexually frustrated soldiers fresh from the warring states era just waltz right into Korea. Uh-huh. Japanese attack on Korea's coast in mid-16th century we're so frequent that the government made the Pibyŏnsa (border defence council). Akkies (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony

Refer to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)#International awareness

"Despite the great enthusiasm for the war in East Asia, the Japanese invasions of Korea are not widely known in the west. Historian Stephen Turnbull attributes this ignorance to titles such as Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea (merely an extended part of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's biography) and the Japanese invasions of Korea (simply a larger repeat of the Japanese wakō pirate raids) absent the distinction as a "war" ."

Could we change the article name to the Imjin War or give any sort of hint that it was a war and not some simple invasion? I mean, it seems ironic to me that we have a passage where a certain historian says the west doesn't really know about it because it isn't really labeled as a war; and here we have the article name: Japanese invasions of Korea along with only a line of the first paragraph that calls it a war. The rest of the first paragraph gives the indication that it wasn't really what you would call a "war". Hanul (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. I read this article and cringed just because of that. I find it almost ignorant that it would include a paragraph on the fact that this almost completely unknown in the western world, and how "Historian Stephen Turnbull attributes this ignorance to titles such as Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea (merely an extended part of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's biography) and the Japanese invasions of Korea (simply a larger repeat of the Japanese wakō pirate raids) absent the distinction as a "war"." It serves this part of history completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhistory (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)