Talk:Turtle ship/Archive 1

Origin

Does somebody have a source about the name "Turtle ship" being used since the 15th century? As this point the article is contradictory: Turtle ships are said to have been invented by Yong Sun-sin (1545-1598)... and I think this is the generally accepted story, but at the same time they are said to have existed since the 15th century.... PHG 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but "15th C" could be a slip and actually refer to "1500s." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A source for the 15th-century assertion has been added. -- Visviva 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Flamethrowers?

An anon added the statement that the dragon heads could be used to set enemy ships ablaze. Does anyone have a reference for that? It's certainly a very interesting factoid, if true. -- Visviva 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

People have been adding that the dragon's head of the turtle ship shot out flame or spewed out smoke. I have not seen any reliable source for this so I keep deleteing references. However, it still keeps popping up. Before anyone adds this again, could they provide a reliable reference from Admiral Yi's own writting, his nephew's (Yi Wan) writtings, the Chronicles of Joseon or any other contemporary source? WangKon936 11:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Turtle Ship's dragon head did not spew out fire. It really did release sulfur gas to try and scare enemies into thinking the dragon was real. Also, the dragon head could carry a cannon too. I have no references but I have read books and discussed with others that this is true. Good friend100

It certainly did not spew fire. The head was probably wood. However, it was a well known fact that sulfur gas came out from the head. I have also read books about it. HistoryManiac 10:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the dragon head made out of iron not wood? Good friend100 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We probably do not know the actual size of the head, but if it was to be large enough to encase a cannon, it would probably have been to heavy, and would have affected the center of gravity of the Turtle Ship, so I would agree that it would have been made of wood.

the turtle ship had two heads. one was an iron ramming oni head, and the other was a wooden dragon head. Odst 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Topic title

Removed the brackets from the topic ==The Immortal Yi Soon Shin (Historical Drama)== to this ==The Immortal Yi Soon Shin (Historical Drama)== per Wikipedia style.--Dakota ~ ° 02:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we need referrences to the Yi Soon Shin drama in this article? The topic itself does not directly discuss the turtleship. Someone should move this to the Yi Soon Shin article instead. WangKon936 10:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please move it. Pavel Vozenilek 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proper noun

I know this is nitpicky, but is there any reason to use "Turtle Ship" rather than the simple "turtle ship"? -- Visviva 16:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "turtle ship" is a proper noun. Maybe Geobukseon if you want it capitalized? Tortfeasor 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Video Game References

I find that the digression into video games rather jaring. It ought to be a separated out and linked to rather than inserted in the main article. --Lou 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No. we don't even need an article about turtleships in games. I'm deleting it. (Wikimachine 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

hmm the section was rather trivial but not completely irrelevant. many history articles have a short "modern depiction" section or somesuch. how about a very concise section at the end, possibly mentioning a few games in one sentence? Appleby 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern depiction doesn't mean video games necessarily. Wikipedia needs to look professional. Imagine. All this hard work & then spoil it with a sentence about video games? (Wikimachine 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine: Thanks for your hard work on many articles. My concern is this: I think we need more consensus before we delete the video game references. In my personal opinion, I rather liked to read about modern depictions of the turtle ship because it is A) interesting and B) rather rare for Korean history to be mentioned in mainstream western publications. I want to revert the deletion of the video game references until we have a little more consensus. (Also, personally, I don't think there is a need for a new article like "Turtle ships in video games" because I feel it is overly specific and redundant). Anyways, I hope that this is okay with you. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Tortfeasor 19:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. I guess I was too abrupt. Sorry and thanks. (Wikimachine 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Just wondering. Does anybody remember "depiction in media" in any of the articles in Encarta, Britannica, etc. about Turtle Ship? (Wikimachine 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)) Let's do a poll on whether to delete the section.

Poll on deleting/leaving "depiction in media"

Support: This is an encyclopedia, and this article is specifically about Turtle Ship. It is to be written in educational manner. Historical facts. That's it. Think like this. Would you ever trust Encarta or Britannica if they had a section on games for this subject? Never. Same here. Wikipedia should be no less professional & genuine & factual & historical & educational than any other encyclopedias. (Wikimachine 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose: While I think these 'in media' sections can often get somewhat overblown, the purpose of Wikipedia is, as you say, to be an encyclopedia. Wiktionary defines "encyclopedic" as "...having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge." So, for the most part, anything relevant to the subject should be included. Characters in Kabuki plays serve as fine examples - many figures depicted in Kabuki acquire interesting attributes or associations in that context, and this is important to understanding the modern-day perception and knowledge of that figure. To take a very specific example, Ichikawa Goemon was a real-life thief and criminal who would have been little more than a footnote in history if not for his transformation, in Kabuki and other fictional forms, into someone akin to a Japanese Robin Hood, and even given magical powers in some tales. LordAmeth 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey LordAmeth. 1 question. Does Encarta and Britannica cover those materials? Yes, an encyclopedia by definition is to be comprehensive, but, in this case, we got too comprehensive about something outside Wikipedia's purpose. (Wikimachine 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose deletion. My reasons are written above and I agree with LordAmeth that Wikipedia articles encompass a broad scope; and doesn't necessarily have to follow Encarta and Britannica in this regard. Tortfeasor 23:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. modern depiction can be significant, & in this case, the reality is that most non-koreans probably encounter the subject through video games. i had objected to the previous lengthy details on various games that overwhelmed the article, but the current version is a informative but brief summary & doesn't detract from the encyclopedic nature of the article, imho. Appleby 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Modern depiction is ok, unless the section is crammed with ads or information about the game itself. Good friend100 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia should remain historically fact-in fact such games sometimes have incorrect depictions or history of the Turtle Ship. I support a link to a game related with the Turtle Ship, but not in the article. Oyo321 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its got wood in it too

Not trying to sound biased, but the Turtle Ship's iron plating prevented only boarding., with it's spikes. Its also written to have deflected cannon balls, but at the velocity of a cannon ball shot and that the distance between ships was usually short, I don't think the metal plating would have blocked anything at all, rather denting or piercing. The sides of the ships are all made entirely of wood, so wouldn't a well placed shot make Turtle Ships as vulnerable as other ships? Oyo321 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese ships had only 2-3 cannons per atake bune and 1 cannon on a seki bune. They sucked, too. Dude, the geobuksun kicked ass. It was bristled with cannons and there WERE IRON PLATINGS ON THE BROADSIDES. It's got wood in it? hell, the U.S.S. Bunker Hill has wood in it. It's not a surprise. Odst 18:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese ships originally did not carry any cannons with them (because the shock of the cannon blast would weaken the ship's hall) while Koreans could have ships with a whole row of cannons lined up (like Europeans) because Korean ships were sturdier.

I think it's disputed on whether or not turtle ship had iron plating on the sides, but that didn't matter until the middle of the war when Japanese began to attach cannons (hovering in air) (Wikimachine 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)).

Japanese ships did carry cannons, especially large ones such as Atakebune. The problem is that, when they installed the cannon, the Japanese people didn't load the cannon on deck; they had a thick pole protruding from the upper-structure, then "hung" the cannon on that pole. To expect accurate cannon shot out of such is but a joke, if you want to call it so. Still, Atakebune was usually armed with about 2 cannons per ship. (Compare that to the ordnance of Panoksun. You can clearly see Japanese naval vessel wasn't designed for cannon barrage.)

Thus, I find it highly doubtful whether the iron plating actually deflected cannon balls. If anything, Japanese navy wasn't capable of sending strong enough cannon balls in battle. Considering the hull integrity of Japanese ships (which you can find many accounts), I find it highly doubtful that Japanese navy wanted to put that much of stress to their already weak hull by using cannons and as such.

rv POV

Stop making changes to the article regarding whether the turtle ship had iron or not. There is enough doubt on it according to the new section you put on. It is an obvious POV against Korea to disprove that the turtle ship ever had iron.

A million "there are no contemporary evidences" sentences does not make the article any better and if you reject this so much, why even bother discussing east asian ironclads in the first place? The turtle ship is probably going to make up a large portion of the new east asian ironclad predecessors article anyways and the Chinese claim to their ironclads is not widely accepted and the Japanese ironclads were more like floating fortresses on the coast, not meant for attacking Korea. Good friend100 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

subsection delete

I deleted this following section because it clashes horribly with the "Pros and Cons" on Iron Cladding.

There is no sense in putting this after several paragraphs regarding a confusion on whether the Geobukson was Iron-plated or not.

Notes on iron cladding

The turtle ships of the Japanese invasions of Korea are noticeable for the iron plating covering the deck of the ship.

The armor was hexagonal iron platings with sharp spikes protruding from them. Yi used the iron plates to counter the main Japanese attack method of using grappling hooks to board an enemy vessel and engage in melee combat, similar to the naval tactics of ancient Rome. During battle, Yi had the spikes covered with hay to hide them so that the Japanese soldiers would be injured or killed during their attempts to board the ship, although the historical accuracy of such an arrangement had been questioned on the grounds that it would have invited fire arrows of the enemy.

Besides protecting the turtle ship from boarding attacks, the iron plates could deflect arrows and bullets. The plates gave only some protection to cannonballs; however, Japanese warships rarely used them. The turtle ships could survive many battles without sinking or receiving major damage, though notably all were sunk in the Battle of Chilchonryang in August 1597, under the command of generals and admirals appointed to replace Admiral Yi (who was demoted and imprisoned for a time, through no fault of his own), and did not return until the final naval battle of the war, the Battle of Noryang Point, December 1598.

That dumb moron (who replaced Adm. Yi) would be Won Kyun. He is known for his military brilliances as well as spectacular family history - i.e. his father proctoring his officer examination (which was illegal by the national law then), taking bribes etc etc. Also important to notice is that, by the time Japan invaded Korea, Korean navy was divided into 4 parts; Kyung-sang navy (right/left) and Jeon-ra navy (right/left) Geographically, Kyung-sang navy - right is covering all-important Busan port, and thus the strongest of the four. Jeon-ra navy was somewhat inferior (in terms of armament) to Kyung-sang navy.

The fate had it that Won Kyun was the admiral of Kyung-sang right navy while Yi Sun Shin was the admiral of Jeon-ra left navy. When the war broke out, what Won Kyun did was to sink his own battleships, (up to 80 Panoksuns) in the fear that Japanese navy might take them over. This is just starting brilliance of him, mind you. He has shown many other brilliancies during the war (disguising korean people as Japanese soldiers then executing them, reporting them as his achievement, for instance.)

hexagonal plates

File:Turtleship3floor.jpg

Drawing of a naval battle during the war. Note the hexagonal patterns on the Turtle ship at the far upper left hand corner. Hexagonal shapes were used and not something that should be aggresively questioned. Good friend100 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who questions the hexagonal shape? It is included in the article. The only thing which is questioned is that the hexagonal shape is indicative of iron-cladding, since the name 'turtle ship' had been given the vessel by the Koreans when the deck was clearly made of wood. So when an artist draws the upper roof with hexagonal shape he draws a turtle ship, a ship that looks like a turtle. There is no necessary connection between the hexagonal shape and iron-cladding, the ship has been called turtle ship long before and after the question of iron-cladding under Yi ever arose. The hexagonal shape is indicative only of the ship being a turtle ship, nothing more. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw I made the pic a bit smaller so as to fit in the subsection. It would be nice if you could give further information as to the origin of the pic. When was it made, by whom, where was it published, what sea battle is shown, etc. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do remember a stupid argument that hexagonal shapes were never on the turtle ship and that it never meant that it was ironcladded. Anyways, the hexagonal shapes can infer the use of ironcladding. Why would Admiral Yi decide to make his turtle ship look pretty by etching in hexagons on the wooden roof of the turtle ship? Good friend100 18:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The depiction was not made by Yi, but by later artists information to provide on them is your job. The artist was requested to draw a turtle ship, hence he draw a ship whose deck looked like the back of the turtle. I do not see any compelling connection to iron-cladding, are turtles iron-clad? Besides, not only the deck but also the sides of the ship are also covered with hexagonal shapes, while the documented iron spikes are missing....why so?

And Yi himself, in fact, does not mention any iron-cladding of his turtle ships in his war diaries...why so? Regards Gun Powder Ma 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Most assume that Admiral Yi thought using ironclads was a natural thing to do and did not mention it. This is in Turnbull's book Samurai Invasion.

Also, iron spikes were not always used. The holes on top of the Turtle ships allowed Korean soldiers to thrust spears or spikes up when needed. The holes were also used to shoot arrows and bullets through. Good friend100 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Did not know about the latter, but your pic does not show holes, either. So how reliable is it? And the former argument does not sound plausible. With that kind of argument one can justify anything absent from documentation. Why should Yi mention the relatively inconspicuous iron spikes but leave out the several tons of iron covering his deck, considering this would be have been clearly the most labour- and cost intensive part of his turtle ship (not to mention that it might have made the ship a bit too top-heavy for his liking)? Also, his nephew did not mention iron-cladding, either. The most obvious answer is because it did not exist. Last, but not least, neither had turtle ships before or after Yi iron-cladding, all leading to the conclusion that the evidence for iron-cladding is rather weak. Regards Gun Powder Ma 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm yes it does show holes in the picture. You can see them lined up. And how are iron spikes "inconsicuous"? They are one of the most innovative parts along with the iron and the dragon head. It was best to repel Japanese boarding attacks. Oh, and did you know Yi covered his top with empty rice bales to cover the spikes and let some unlucky Japanese soldier to spike his own feet.

The turtle ship wasn't too heavy considering the fact that the iron only covered the top of the ship and floated on Yi's first try (one day before the invasion). And, Japanese sources and letters to and from Japan reveal that most of the Japanese commanders requested iron armor from Japan to "counter" the Koreans.

After the Battle of Angolpo, the Japanese recorder wrote of the Korean ships "covered in iron".Good friend100 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

These things have already been addressed in the article. I reedit the intro, since that was a few weeks ago the product of a compromise. It is better not to use words such as "conventionally", since there does no consensus exist here. Gun Powder Ma 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not here in Wikipedia, generally in Korea and generally accepted elsewhere, except that all this doubt and questioning the ironclad suddenly just makes me angry. So much effort to insert a "controversial" section. I wonder if an ironclad ship from Korea is a never ending jab in the side to some until it is refuted. Good friend100 02:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And what about the hexagonal shapes on the turtle ship in the picture I mentioned before? Again, if there were no iron plates and only iron spikes, why would Admiral Yi etch or carve in hexagonal shapes in the wood over the hull? It doesn't make sense why he would do it other than to make it look nice (which is probably not what he wanted). Good friend100 23:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yi did not draw that picture, so what has he to do with it? Please provide now complete information on the origin of the pic you posted or I am afraid it must be deleted according to WP guidelines. Gun Powder Ma 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did. I think this image adds nice color to Admiral Yi and the Turtle Ship article. Good friend100 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revisions regarding iron cladding

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122292251&oldid=122287820 Deleted and streamlined sentences that were filled with bad writing.

E.g. 1 "Primary Korean sources are generally silent on the matter: Admiral Yi Sun-sin himself makes no mention of an iron-clad roof in his comprehensive war diary, although in a war report submitted on 14 June 1592, he refers once to "iron spikes" protruding from the roof:"

was changed to:

"Although, Admiral Yi Sun-sin doesn't mention iron-cladding in his comprehensive war diary, he refers to "iron spikes" protruding from the roof in a war report submitted on 14 June 1592"

E.g. 2 "The brushwork departs in important aspects from the war records: While the hexagonal structure of the deck may give credence to the view that the turtle ships featured iron roof plates, the unexplained absence of the documented iron spikes have raised doubts, leading to complaints..."

was changed to:

"The brushworked illustration however has lead to complaints about the "lack of realism in the brushwork of literati" which "has introduced questions as to the authenticity of the records"

Whether brushwork departs from war records is for the reader to decide for themselves from the picture and the quoted text. Furthermore, whether the hexagonal roof gives credence to iron or whether iron spikes are missing at all, etc. are all conjectures that doesn't have any direct relation to the cited quotation. The cited quotation complains of lack of realism in the brushwork illustration which is fine and is left as is.

On a side note, whoever made these edits in the first place obvious had a POV that they were trying to push. Given the dubious POV edits that are rife in this subsection, these unverifiable book references are also suspicious.melonbarmonster 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From trying to track down references, my guess is that these "quotes" are from references given by other internet sites in Korean or Japanese. If you have any more informations on these book references in this wiki article please share. Thanks.melonbarmonster 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

POV distortion of Prof. Park Hae Ill's 1977 article in Korea Journal

So I followed my hunch and actually tracked down the references and found there was no controversy and it seems whoever made these bogus edits were knew they were distorting Prof. Park's article which is where all of these primary quotes and information comes from!

You can download this article yourself from Korea Journal's website: http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/index.jsp It seems all the anti-iron cladding arguments are coming from this article which is pretty ridiculous given Prof. Park's own conclusions based on Korean and Japanese primarily evidence along with iron cladding evidence from the same time period is that iron cladding not only existed but was feasible and likely.

Unless anyone has any other references or sources that doubts iron cladding of the turtle ship, such doubts and conjectures are original research and personal opinion and violates WP:A.

I'm going to make appropriate edits. Please provide further references if you disagree with Prof. Park's article.melonbarmonster 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes made and subsection title changed to "Sources". This seems appropriate since this sub-section just lists the primary sources from Prof. Park's article any ways. These original sources are stated without POV elaboration which is as it should be.

Out of good faith to editors who may disagree, I've left out my own personal opinion from the text but it seems pretty obvious to me that the turtle ship was covered with iron and iron spikes from the primary sources made available by Prof. Park's article. Again, if additional sources exist I'd love to see it.melonbarmonster 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lactose

As a bit of a boat enthusiast, it is not so notable that they might have spikes (these have been on boats for thousands of years). It's also not really important whether or not they had iron plating at all--unless you want to make a claim that it is an early ironclad--whether they did or not has nothing to do with "being first" (which is irrelevant anyway, since the industrial revolution era ships were not based on these earlier ideas). Thus, I don't see what all the fighting is about.

If you really insist on saying "Koreans like to celebrate the 1590's ships as being first ironclads" you should a) cite that fact (even if you are Korean, it doesn't mean the general population feels this way) and b) you must qualify it as to avoid it being misleading (since iron clad ships exist made in the 1570's which the reader might not know about). It's kind of like putting in the first section of the Henry Ford article that, "Many people believe Henry Ford invented the automobile," and then not qualifying it. —LactoseTI^T 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference added and text repaired to reflect cited reference to address your concerns. I would appreciate it if you would raise whatever objections pertaining to text of the article here for discussion instead of making dubious and poorly written edits.

Furthermore, if you don't see what all the "fighting" is about, please don't change the text and claim iron cladding is a "controversy" when I've already explained no such claims exist in cited references or that Admiral Yi's war diary doesn't mentinon iron cladding when no such statements exist in referenced article.melonbarmonster 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you re-edited, replacing with incorrect information, perhaps it would help to summarize: please don't persist on saying a ship built in the 1590's predates one in the 1570's (citation provided in article), wiping out references. —LactoseTI^T 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not wipe out any references. You are lying because you didn't include any references in your previous edit and here's the proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122326394&oldid=122325406

Additionally, your reference violates WP:V. If you can provide the pertinent text so that the rest of us can verify the reference, we can consider reconciling the issue of the "first" iron clad ship. Where did you get this reference?melonbarmonster 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned several times, please see the Atakebune page for some examples (although you may have to resort to a library to get some of them). Although I know a lot of you youngin's these days (and I'm sure quite a few old geysers like myself) find it inconvenient, just because you have to go to a library doesn't mean it's not verifiable. After a quick search, it seems there are a few available on Amazon as well.

As for you not ever removing references, please see this diff: [[1]]. —LactoseTI^T 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You were making your accusations at 21:43. My deletion of your "reference" was 21:53. Please just admit your mistake.melonbarmonster 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, LactoseTI, I didn't write that comment down simply because I'm Korean. I've been to Korea and war museums and memorials make the turtle ship very fancy looking. Good friend100 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's got a bit messy here--I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you are referring to the statement that Koreans celebrate it as being the first ironclad, or some such thing, it needs a citation (I mean, the fact that they celebrate as a people needs a citation). It's quite probable that some war museums come up with a fancy design based as much on their own imaginations as on historical record (of which there are sadly few). Those memorials and museums build something because the ship has found a place in the history books and you need something concrete and visible in an exhibit, so people make something "that might have been."

I think a lot of confusion comes about with the two generations of ships sharing the same name, but it's clear that the second generation (whether they used iron or not) came after ships coated with iron armor appearing in other places (which goes back to my "many believe Henry Ford invented the car" comment--even if you can find a citation for the belief being widespread, you need to qualify it so as to avoid confusion). —LactoseTI^T 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On Pros and Cons

A few points

• Sources have to reliable. Not any online source is good enough to be quoted in WP. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Specifically, citing interpretation of pics, although this interpretation contradicts what everybody can see with his own eyes, is weird.
• That the TS is regarded in South Korea as ironclad is fine, but cannot serve as an argument here. The compass is also viewed in Italy as an Italian invention, and printing in Germany as a German one. But do these claims prove anything?
• The claim that the TS were iron-clad is controversial. In fact, there is no clear evidence.
• Even if the TS were ironclad, they were not necessarily the first ironclad ships in the world. See, for example, Santa Anna (ship) and Atakebune
• Even if the TS were the first ironclad ships, they were not necessarily the first ironclads, since the ironclad has been long defined by historians as "a type of warship developed in Europe and the United States during the mid-19th Century".

Gun Powder Ma 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your personal opinions are, the point remains that Prof. Park's article clearly states that iron cladding exists. So far this article is the ONLY source for primary sources. The article needs to reflect the cited reference and not YOUR subjective doubts about TS's iron cladding.

Plus, comments such as: "Primary Korean sources are generally silent on the matter", "This is controversial, however. There is no clear evidence that the ships were ironclad" are just superfluous commentary that's unnecessary and inappropriate.

This sentence doesn't even make sense: "Generally, contemporary sources are silent on the construction of the turtle ship to the point that 'even conceptual estimates of the design are seriously handicapped by limitations in the knowledge we have'" Prof. Park doesn't mention anything abot contemporary sources being silent. He also doesn't say anything about that "silence" leading to that quote. What he is talking about is that the state of Chosun was so unstable that technical records are scarce.melonbarmonster 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no Prof. Park quoted in the article. Gun Powder Ma 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Park is another way to transliterate Bak. It's the ONE only article that's the source for all the primary sources in this subsection as I've already explained in detail above.melonbarmonster 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I left this on a talk page where there was a related discussion, but I think it applies here as well--the article that you are talking about, written by a Korean physicist employed in a nuclear engineering department (not a history or Korean studies department), is simply more or less an exploration of if it is even really a possibility that they had iron (since it isn't well known). If I recall, Bak's conclusion is that it might be a possibility, but he's basically looking at the same sources mentioned in the Wikipedia article (those written 200 years after the fact). What's more, he's talking about iron in a somewhat different sense than traditional "ironcladding." The whole article is kind of in the form that "wouldn't it be fun to think about this neat ship." It is, but that hardly is the "conclusive proof" you've been trying to find to make your point. —LactoseTI^T 03:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the comment that the turtle ship is celebrated as the first ironclad does not prove anything and thats not my intention anyways. Koreans celebrate the turtle ship as the first ironclad and thats a fact.

Again, I don't understand why Turnbull's book is a bad reference. It is a good reference material and yet you say its not reliable. Also, its a book not an internet reference. Good friend100 01:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Iron cladding or not

I've tracked down leads and found the referenced sources regarding the issue of whether the turtle ship was iron clad or not. THERE IS NOT ONE ARTICLE THAT DOUBTS IRON CLADDING. If it's not in the references, it shouldn't be stated in this article. The text of this article needs to state the facts without prejudice.

Your personal commentary and opinion on whether the facts are "controversial" or your personal views on how facts should be interpreted doesn't belong in the article.

I've been more than considerate in tracking down ALL the referenced sources and documenting my findings in this talk page only to have my good faith edits reverted. Participate in this discussion before making edits.melonbarmonster 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the archives here as well as on the ironclad warship/old ships with armor page. This has been discussed at great length, and it is quite obvious that even if iron was used, it was not "ironcladding" in the traditional/formal sense of the word. —LactoseTI^T 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. That's why I tracked down ALL the references first hand myself. I've discussed and explained my finding in great length. You've offered nothing. If you have ONE reference that doubts iron cladding, please give it. ALL the references cited in the article assumes iron cladding.melonbarmonster 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a grade 11 history report on some website doesn't count as a source. The fact is, even Park's article was an exploration of if it could even be possible, and the conclusion was, "maybe." That hardly seems like a definite "yes." —LactoseTI^T 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter you have NO SOURCES! You have no reference to attribute your kooky theories to. You're vandalizing this article by ignoring WIKI rules and the substance of discussions. I've explained each of my edits which you've wholesale ignored. GIVE ANY REFERENCE or a COHERENT discussion on topic at hand. I love to hear it and discuss it with you.melonbarmonster 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An 11th grader's unpublished history report is not a source. The best source you have is Park's paper (who's expertise lies in a totally different field, by the way), who was exploring this topic because it is controversial, and his conclusion was that it might have been possible, not a foregone conclusion. —LactoseTI^T 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ALL of the quotes of Japanese and Korean sources are from Prof. Park's paper. I haven't mentioned the "11th grade paper". That your disagreement with someone else.

Prof. Park's paper was not exploring a controversy. He gives all the Korean and Japanese primary sources that mention the turtle ship and concludes specific facts and iron cladding. The paper assumes iron cladding to be true. It doesn't matter if you think it was controversial. The text of the article needs to reflect the article not your personal opinion.

Find a reference that cites that and we can consider including it. As it stand you have no sources and and your personal opinions don't belong.

If you're going to make edits, tell me WHERE in WHAT reference supports your edits as I have above in this talk page and in my original edit explanations.melonbarmonster 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're just editing without reading what you're reverting--you are adding back , diff here. This is not an acceptable source. —LactoseTI^T 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about this minor article when the Park/Bak from Korea Journal and Turnbull both say the same thing and you have NO SOURCES! Give me ONE "11th grade paper" or any source that you're using to claim that iron cladding is controversial. GIVE ME ONE so that we know you're not just lying and making things up.

Besides that minor issue, you need to address the fact that ALL the material and quotations about iron cladding from Japanese and Korean sources are from Prof. Park's article. The article assumes iron cladding and gives specific dimensions on the iron clad plating. THERE IS NOTHING about "controversy" in Prof. Park's article or any other reference for that matter.

While I understand that you doubt turtle ship's iron cladding WIKI is not a place for you to edit your personal doubts or other opinions.

Under WP, I am asking you for your reference for this supposed "controversy". Please provide it instead of blindly reverting edits. If you don't have any references, stop claiming such "controversy" in this article. In fact, let me help you out and start sections for you below so that you won't confuse separate issues and actually give me a response to that Hideyoshi article as well as the other issues.melonbarmonster 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge on Reference: "Madness of Hideyoshi"

I've started this section to help Lactose keep different disagreements in order. He has deleted the following citation: “Madness of Toyotomi Hideyoshi" http://www.samurai-archives.com/mth.html

I've checked WP:A and WP:V and I see no problem with that website. Although it's not as reliable as an academic source like Prof. Park's article, the website is a compilation of research done by different authors and legitimate under WIKI rules. It's not a self-publicated, it's not a personal blog, etc.. Unless someone has better references to challenge this article, I see no reason why this reference should be deleted.melonbarmonster 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The author (Marcel Thach) "is in Grade 11 at Northern Secondary School in Toronto, Ontario," and it's a self-published history paper. If you want to include it, dig into what supports it (there is a bibliography) and get real sources. —LactoseTI^T 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless, Tach runs the website the article is not self-published. It's a research paper that's been compiled and posted up by the website. However, if you have other sources that states facts contrary to this article and your source is better than I would be more than happy to forfeit this article. But for now, you have provided NO SOURCES so there's no reason to delete this article.melonbarmonster 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Thach submitted the paper to be published on the site; he has nothing to do with the samurai archives. --Kuuzo 06:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenge on Reference: Turnbull, Stephen, Sterling, Samurai Invasion

Lactose has continuously and without explanation deleted this reference. When questioned about why, no answers were offered and deletions were made again. Please explain any complaints to using Turbull's book as a reference in this subsection instead of deleting them again. Thanks.melonbarmonster 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this reference per se. As I explained in the edit summary, however, it is a duplicate item (same thing as above). Since this is a tertiary source describing a secondary source, and the secondary source is already referenced, there's no need to have it repeated with a different bullet further down the list. —LactoseTI^T 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. You don't even know what secondary source means... Dude just leave it alone.melonbarmonster 05:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference for supposed Controversy of Iron Cladding

I've deleted mentions of any controversy regarding iron cladding due to the fact that NONE of the references mention any controversy. It seems pretty obvious that personal opinions and commentaries that doubt the turtle ship's iron cladding does not belong here under WP:A and WP:V.

E.g. subsection heading "pros and cons" was changed to "sources" since the references cited does not mention anything about "pros and cons" but just lists Korean and Japanese quotations that mention the "turtle ship". These quotations should be just listed as facts without prejudice. Whether anyone considers them as "pros" or "cons" is personal interpretation and opinion.

If you want to claim that iron cladding is controversial, please tell which reference claims this. Any citation or reference for any portion of the text you want to edit/revert would be appreciated. melonbarmonster 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're reverting a lot more than just a phrase of "controversial." I have no trouble getting rid of the word controversy as long as there is mention that there is no primary (or reliable secondary) source evidence for the kind of iron plating you wish existed. —LactoseTI^T 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what wikipedia is about. This isn't a place to debate and prove personal theories. It doesn't matter that YOU DON"T THINK THERE IS PRIMARY, SECONDARY EVIDENCE FOR IRON CLADDING. It's about what the references and sources state. I'm writing down iron plating exists because Prof, Park's article, Turnbull and countless other sources state that it exists. If you have a reference or a source that says there is no evidence for iron cladding or that it's controversial, etc., please provide it so we can consider putting it into the article. That's how WP:A works. I don't understand why you're ignoring these simple wikipedia rules.melonbarmonster 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Example of Misuse of Reference

You can find an example of misuse or fraudulent use of references in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turtle_ship&diff=128023785&oldid=128021959

A quotation from Prof. Park's is fraudulently or ignorantly perhaps used to state: "It is sometimes asserted that the turtle ships, specifically their roof, had iron cladding. This is controversial, however, with present-day estimates "inconsistent with a realistic evaluation of their practical performance possibilities". The quotation is used to claim that iron cladding is controversial!

However, the inconsistency mentioned by Prof. Park in the actual article refers NOT to the claim of iron cladding but to the technical specifications of the turtle ship: size, dimensions, specs, iron plating thickness, weight of iron and effect on boat, etc.. It's not the existence of iron cladding that is inconsistent with realistic evaluations! But rather it is the technical dimensions of the turtle boat such as thickness of the iron cladding, weight, etc., that is inconsistent with realistic evaluations. The WHOLE article is in fact about Prof. Park, going on to calculate specification of iron cladding and spikes, etc.!!

A misuse of quotation like this is excusable if it was done in ignorance but repeated reversions in spite of my previous explanations is just inexcusable. Let's try to keep things honest and not abuse sources and references to push POV theories and agenda.melonbarmonster 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Park (the nuclear physicist, a "lightweight" source for all you want to devote to him), was talking about whether it's possible to cover a ship with iron in the way you seem to think. It's not clear whether there was a meter-thick slab of iron covering every inch of the ship (unlikely) or small spikes here and there (much more likely). His point is it's unclear. You have an image in your mind, and unless you can provide some evidence of it (of which I'm sure you can't, since it's a debated point academically) you can't have that image presented as fact. If you don't want the phrase "controversy," fine, we'll go with it "being debated"--or perhaps not include the phrase at all, just presenting the evidence we've got (I favor this latter approach). —LactoseTI^T 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not allowed to prove academic points or personal opinions on wikipedia. You're violating WP:OR, that's why you're not understanding what's going on. Please read WP:OR because what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic of the section and is prohibited by Wikipedia rules! If you think iron clad is being debated, provide some journal articles or any sources that debates this instead of violating WP:OR. You've GIVEN NONE!

And regardless, you can't fraudulently quote sources no matter what! The text of the article has to reflect what the reference actually states. If the article doesn't claim iron cladding is controversial, unproven, etc., you can't put that crap in the article!!! You need to also read WP:A. Whether you or I think there is or isn't enough proof means nothing. You can't put in your personal opinion into these articles. You have just state the referenced facts as is. If it's referenced it goes in the article. If it's your personal opinion about whether there's enough proof or not, then it doesn't belong in the article.

About Prof. Park, the guy is a nuclear engineer. That's why his paper is about the technical specifics of the turtle ship including the iron cladding and iron spikes. If you want to include any mention controversy or doubts about iron cladding, you need to provide sources. melonbarmonster 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I just made a pass through the article, a bit more closely than I did before, but still need to go through more comprehensively. I tried to make some compromise here, please everyone don't just revert madly (and try to cut out wikilaywering), but try to work from it. I think we are progressing... Komdori 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its generally accepted that there were iron cladding. Its not a massive questioning thing done by historians that require this article to be written as if it never had it. Stuff like "it might have" or "it is sometimes asserted" is POV in the fact that there are not any hard evidence that there wouldnt be any iron cladding. Good friend100 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say that iron cladding is generally accepted. THERE IS NO REFERENCE THAT STATES OTHERWISE!!! All sources state that the turtle ship was iron clad. Period. Language such as "it might have" "it is asserted" is ALL UNREFERENCED PERSONAL opinion that violate WP:A, WP:V and WP:OR.melonbarmonster 06:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that this is a clear example of fraudulent misuse of reference that should be deleted and avoided in the text of the article!melonbarmonster 18:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Request for Addition References before Edit Process

In light of the ensuing disagreement, I am requesting for references and sources that mention, document, discuss any sort of controversy or doubt on iron cladding of the turtle boat. None has been provided and this "theory" remains unreferenced and personal theory which violate WP:A, WP:V, and WP:OR.

Please feel free to bring to our attention any references or sources that doubt iron cladding of the turtle boat so that we can further discuss it's inclusion and manner of inclusion.

If no references or sources are provided, appropriate changes in the text of the article will be made.melonbarmonster 17:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be no explicit statement saying there is controversy of whether or not there was some kind of shielding. Something was going on those ships, though it seems we don't know exactly what, spikes, plates, etc. So I guess if there is any "controversy," the best we can say is there is some debate as to what form the shielding took. I think the compromise form, where it sits right now, is close to being good. To everyone: at this point, what lines would you like to see changed, and how? Komdori 18:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, did you read the references to investigate what the citations actually state? Prof. Bak's article from the Korea Journal is where 90% of information regarding the turtle ship comes from. The discussion should be limited to finding additional relevant references and sources before we can go on to discuss and come up with compromises on which attributable(WP:A) facts and contents should be included.

Accordingly, any mention of a "debate" about the iron shielding would be appropriate only if there are references or sources that state that there is such a "debate". As it stands, that "debate" is attributable only to personal opinions among editors and inclusion of personal editor theories in the text of article is a clear violatation of WP:A, WP:V and WP:OR. That's why I started this subsection to ask for references and sources that we can all look and discuss.

Again, interested editors, please provide references and sources if you've got them before we start proposing edits and start making changes to the text. And please read over the relevant WIKI rules so that this discussion will be productive and sensible.melonbarmonster 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it right now, there are few citation requests. The references to debate and controversy are removed, and we have several references saying that we basically have no clue in what way the turtle ships were constructed. If you want more references, please be more specific. I don't see anything which needs sourced at the moment. —LactoseTI^T 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that we have "no clue in what way the turtle ships were constructed"?melonbarmonster 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A site that provides information on medieval history:*[2]. Bookrags seems to have links to a certain topic. Scroll down to see an entry on turtle ships in Science and its times:*[3] Good friend100 22:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked off a section to debate Lactose's personal theories because it has nothing to do request for reference. Any new references before we begin with edits? Please give it if you've got them.melonbarmonster 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not much point if you're just going to ignore the references provided (Park/Turnbull). Try responding to the argument directly instead of just attacking the editor who brought up some evidence you don't seem to like. —LactoseTI^T 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are lying again. Please do not lie. You did not provide the Turnbull reference. In fact you deleted that reference numerous times without explanation. Both Turnbull and Park supports iron cladding of turtle ship so I don't even know what you're trying claim by bringing this up. Why don't you just give an actual reference that says iron cladding on turtle ship is a controversy, or that turtle ship wasn't iron clad, etc..melonbarmonster 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is for discussion of references for and against iron cladding. Please do not engage in disruptive editing and start new sections for unrelated discussions.melonbarmonster 06:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, there are few citation requests. The references to debate and controversy are removed, and we have several references saying that we basically have no clue in what way the turtle ships were constructed. If you want more references, please be more specific. I don't see anything which needs sourced at the moment. —LactoseTI^T 06:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that you were wrong in claiming that the turtle wasn't iron clad or that there was any sort of controversy in the matter. Text of the article will be edited accordingly. Please remember that information in wiki articles need to be properly attributed and verified on request.melonbarmonster 06:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked how you wanted to change it, there are currently no citation requests for relevant information, and there are no mentions of a controversy. Please discuss if you'd like to change something. —LactoseTI^T 06:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thanks.melonbarmonster 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lactose's Personal Theories

Please observe the following comments by me as part of the previous section. Another editor feels the need to relocate them here. Repeatedly.:

By "no clue" I mean things like when Park says "even conceptual estimates of the design are seriously handicapped by limitations in the knowledge we have," and that when they tried to build another ship identical to the turtle ships (according to what is believed the most authentic sources available), it sank (since they put iron on it) (Turnbull mentions this). The fact is the sources are contradictory, and there isn't much we can do about that.

Some show plates with no spikes, in direct opposition to the diaries that said there were spikes on wooden planks, but mention no plates. Personally I tend to believe primary sources first, but I know that popular culture and (it seems) a sense of (perhaps misguided) pride has myths landing square in people's belief systems. Those who do little fact checking and take these myths at face value wind up with part-truth and part-myth accounts of things like this. Of course, a few people actually do even a a modicum of checking (although, it's so hard when we're talking about a handful of long-defeated ships with any trustworthy schematic destroyed hundreds of years ago). I suppose you may be able to find a few wishy washy sources who didn't fact check, and we can include their thoughts--I'm not against that. I'm even for including some of the outrageous and clearly incorrect beliefs that the uneducated masses have. When it comes right down to it, though, we cannot censor the fact that others (rather, the serious academics) have evidence being less than supportive of the myths. —LactoseTI^T 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Korean pride is misguided, as you put it. Its quite easy to point out all your POV and personal opinions while your comments look very supported and thoughtful even when they are not. I don't see any sources that you have that suggest that the turtle ship never had any iron cladding. You simply call the sources wishy washy because there are not much sources that agree with your view on iron cladding on the turtle ship. So who are the serious academics? Science and its times must be a bogus magazine right?

I never said that there isn't any questioning of iron cladding on the turtle ship. The wording of the article sounds way too biased on iron cladding and seems to always pound the reader with comments like "again, this doesn't mean that the turtle ship had iron armor" or "it still doesn't show that the turtle ship had armor". Sounds hollow or like weasel words. Good friend100 14:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't turn it into a racial issue; I just (correctly) said that hundreds of years of epic tales about a few legendary boats is to blame for the modern misguided perceptions. This kind of thing is not unique to turtle boats; it happens all over things of this age. Ever hear Galileo was blinded by the sun? You might even find a nice source like NASA here to help confirm this. Unfortunately, the problem is he lived into his old age never having gone blind from solar observing.

My point is if you actually do a little fact checking, you find out that the construction is virtually unknown for this ship. They go on to say that the primary sources mention spears/spikes in wooden planks, and don't mention anything iron plates--that's fine, if we don't like the primary sources, we can believe the secondary ones made centuries later that clearly contradict them (not having any spikes, but showing plates). They support the legends that grew up about the boats more. We can also downplay the fact that when they built a boat following the known "plans" for a war (so they weren't screwing around), the boat sank since it was too heavy since that time, they did try using plates. All I am saying is that we need to include some of the references saying that we are "seriously handicapped" in coming up with any kind of idea of how it was built. —LactoseTI^T 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one that brought up the race card first. No one's interested in your kooky theories. You've offered nothing of substance and the only reason you're here seems to be is to push you anti-korean japanese POV which I find to be utterly disgusting and morally decrepid. But I'm guessing that we both don't care for each other's personal opinions and theories and that's a good thing. WIKI articles isn't a place where you debate and write down personal opinions and theories. That's why the above sectin was created in hopes of accumulating references from both sides. So far you've offered none.melonbarmonster 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its totally personal. Good friend100 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lactose is more than welcome to give us some references to cast away all doubt. But so far, no references that document any doubt as to turtle ship's iron cladding or "controversy".melonbarmonster 05:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Melon, you seem to quote Wikipedia policies quite often--try reading up on Wikipedia:NPA and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. —LactoseTI^T 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the feeling is mutual. In any case, don't delete my edits. I created this subsection and your personal opinion isn't a response to my request for references. You can explain your complaints, doubts, theories all you want in this subsubsection. Better yet, just start another section for yourself.melonbarmonster 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So how does any of your personal theories have any bearing on the fact that Turnbull, Park along with every other published reference state that turtle ship is iron clad???melonbarmonster 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal theories. Go back and read what I wrote. —LactoseTI^T 06:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. You can call it what you want but it's all your own personal theories to me. It's your own opinion on the facts which have no bearing on the contents of the article and hence is not worth discussion in this talk page other than for the sake of the discussion itself. It seems you have no references that support any of your interpretations, theories, opinions or whatever description you want to use.melonbarmonster 06:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Try again, actually read/look at the quotes in question, and perhaps go back the source (or ask me) if you need more background information to put them in context beyond what I've already done. —LactoseTI^T 06:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, proving your personal theories is not what WIKI is about. WP:OR... read it.melonbarmonster 07:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly--you seem to have an theory/idea of how you believe a turtle boat was constructed (the way it is in popular mythology); we have multiple references saying that we are woefully lacking on any idea of how they were really built, and no reference contradicting that (saying, for example, that a new source of information was found). —LactoseTI^T 07:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't have any references that totally refute iron cladding so that the article can be written in a POV way. Good friend100 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As much as I want to agree with you, I would have to disagree. If you want first-hand source about whether TS had iron cladding or not, you should look at Japanese source - many accounts from the soldiers that survived the battle recount encounter, but they all vividly claim the ship had iron plating on the outside of the hull. I have seen many controversies surrounding the TS (as to whether it had two decks or three, etc etc) but the iron cladding part never came across as those "controversy" as you claim. So... the final arbiter is, again, stone-cold evidence. You can put an end to this whole mess by providing the source that actually says there is a controversy involving the iron-plating of the ship - or say that the TS never actually had iron plating whatsoever. Once you provide the source, I will know that there is a controversy, and the entire community will know that there is a controversy. So... once and for all, why don't you cite your source?

A suggestion on the treatment of what we do and don't know

At the risk of getting drawn into this mightily bloody back-and-forth, may I point out that it may not have been the case that turtle boats did-or-did-not have iron plating (etc.), but rather a case of some-did-some-didn’t? It is true that we have only limited details about the construction of turtle boats, but we do know there were at least two generations of them – the original 15th-century vessels and Adm. Yi’s late 16th-century designs, which from his descriptions appear to have incorporated several innovations of Yi’s. It is possible that the first-generation had no iron accoutrements, but that Yi’s – all or some – did. As Adm. Yi wrote:

“I specially built a turtle-boat, with a dragon-head mounted at the bow, through the mouth of which one fires cannon, and with the back (roof-deck) studded with iron spikes (against enemy boarders).” [Emphasis added.]

This implies that this ship may have been a special version and possibly not indicative of all of his turtle ships. Instead of spikes – or in addition to them – others could have featured iron plates (or even links of chain, which would also be covered by the vague phrase “covered with iron” used by the Japanese source). I have seen models which feature holes in the roofdeck for thrusting spears through to attack boarders; it seems an unwise design to me, but is a possibility. In any case, it would not be at all unlikely for an innovator like Yi to experiment with different design features or to specially configure a portion of his ships to suit his particular tactical needs (which is certainly true of the turtle ships as a type themselves).

I fully agree with melonbarmonster that there is way too much credence given to the supposition that there is no evidence the turtle ships were ever “ironclad” – a claim I had never encountered before reading this article. A possible compromise exposition might be something like this: “While many turtle boat design details have been lost to us, including that on possible variations in equipment, the most commonly accepted features include the use of iron anti-boarding spikes or armor plates on the roofdeck.” I believe this (or something like it) is a fair statement of what we don’t know and do know and all of it can be attributed to existing references. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right on the money to me (or close to it). Most, if not all, of the mentions of "controversy" have been eliminated--if there are any left, they should go, too. I personally believe the best approach is to mention the current beliefs, and mention the (sourced) statements that much of the details were lost. Wrap it up with the few tidbits we found today, and call it a day.

Askari Mark: I agree the "controversy" claims were too one-sided before the current revision, but do you notice any specific sections in the current article where it goes a bit too far? —LactoseTI^T 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article in general has certainly much cleaned up, but the "Iron cladding" section, while not going "too far", keeps alluding to an uncertainty without giving the general reader any context. "While the shielding of turtle ships is often discussed, present-day estimates for turtle ships in general are "inconsistent with a realistic evaluation of their practical performance possibilities" is so vague as to be useless. That's partly why I suggested the above phrasing. The whole section needs to be reworked and possibly retitled. I may take a stab at a draft revision this week as time permits. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad and thankful that Lactose(who claims to be a professor at a university in NY) has backed down from his ridiculous and unscrupulous editing and reverting to include unreferenced commentaries in bad english that turtle ship had no iron cladding or that it's a "controversy" or "it doesn't show iron cladding" or "doesn't mean there's iron cladding" or "there is no evidence for iron cladding" and other such personal, unreferenced comentaries. I'm glad that we can all agree that such crap doesn't belong in the text of the article and hopefully we can move on to productive editing.

I will make my edit proposals soon but would like to hear some more edit proposals.melonbarmonster 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lactose is a professor, I know him. He hasn't reverted anything since the neutral wording compromises started showing up, let's not point fingers. Anyway, just as saying it's clear there were no plates might be "crap," it's also "crap" to say there definitely were. In any case, the current version is close to being correct, there isn't any real change that needs to be made, and until we get some more proposals here there isn't much to talk about.

I do, however, agree with Mark's idea to make it more clear, rather than the borderline politically-correct lawyerspeak that is there now. Basically, we need to say something like, "It is commonly believed there was some sort of anti-boarding device, such as iron spikes or plates, but the exact details have been lost through the centuries." Komdori 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edit proposals. However, Lactose has reverted neutral compromises and reinserted claims of "controversy" dozens of times! I have documented in an above section where he fraudulently uses Prof. Bak's article and reverted back to it numerous times... I don't care if you know him or not but that kind of snide behavior is hard to stomach and the fact that anyone in academia let alone a "professor" would resort to that kind of fraudulent, incorrect at best, use of citations is just unacceptable.melonbarmonster 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure you do, your both working in the same office right? Or was that a school or a college? I'm sure LactoseTI reffered him knowing Komdori from the same office. Good friend100 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

They're both Japanese and they're not professors. Foreign grad students from Japan is my guess. I know plenty of people in academia and these type of fraudulent referencing is unimaginable.melonbarmonster 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So do you think that their opinion is less worth because they are Japanese? I sincerely hope this is not the faith in which you are editing this article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors who can abide by our basic norms, such as not making personal attacks on other editors, are welcome here, regardless of their ethnicity. Editors who cannot are not. -- Visviva 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look above Visviva for evidence of fraudulent citations.melonbarmonster 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Something's missing here ...

In the "Construction" section, the text reads as follows: "It was launched on 27 March 1592. Its mounted cannons, with gunnery ranges of from 300 to 500 meters, were tested on 12 March 1592, one day before the Siege of Busan and the Battle of Tadaejin." However, those battles began on 23 May 1592. It appears that some intervening text was inadvertently removed. Anyone know what the missing material may have been? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

most likely they disappeared due to vandalism. i doubt taht gunnery ranges were 300 to 500 meters either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It was originally written as "The Turtle Ships of the Seven-Year War were set sail for the first-time testing on April 12, 1592 which is a day before the war began."[4], which is correct date in Lunar calendar. Then it was rewritten as "After a year of research and construction, the first Turtle Ship served in the Seven-Year War was launched on March 27, 1592 and the mounted cannons with gunnery-range 300 to 500 meters long were tested on March 12, 1592 which was one day before the war broken."[5] After that, there were several copy editing to that part but dates remained same. I don't think there's any vandalism involved. --Kusunose 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a standard here on using lunar vs. solar dates? Also, is there a conversion table available? Askari Mark (Talk) 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a good converter off the top of my head. All dates can be whatever we want (lunar/solar), but must include Gregorian or Julian versions per the guidelines. Personally, I think it tends to read better and leads to less confusion by picking Gregorian/Julian and including only that date, unless the lunar date is particularly relevant or is often quoted (that is, in the case where including both dates could resolve confusion/conflicting information people have seen). Komdori 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a Japanese web tool Kanreki that converts old Japanese date, Julian date, Gregorian date and gives sexagenary cycle, the day of week, etc. Using it I found both April 12, 1592 and March 12, 1592 are correct. It's April 12, 1592 in the old Japanese calendar, March 12, 1592 in the Julian calendar and March 23, 1592 in the Gregorian calendar. --Kusunose 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So we have cannon testing on 12 March (Julian) [12 April Japanese/lunar], the first battles of the war on 13 March (Julian) [13 April Japanese/lunar], first ship launched on 27 March (Julian) [27 April Japanese/lunar], a war report from 14 June (Julian??). Correct? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem I'm running into is the inconsistency of dates being used on Wikipedia for Korean articles. Here's one relevant example: Timeline of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), which apparently uses the lunar calendar – and which places the start of the war on 14 April, not 13 April (as stated in this article's text). If we go strictly by Wikipedia's guidelines, I suppose Julian would be correct (since Korea and Japan did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until much later), but then we would "disagree" with the timeline article. Has WP:Korea or WP:Japan ever adopted a preference? I couldn't find one. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

They didn't adopt the Julian date system at the time, either. I'm in a rush so I can't check, but my gut feeling was the intent of the style guideline suggesting to ues Julian dates in areas not accepting the Gregorian calendar was because they would have often have primary sources recording the Julian date, and that wouldn't happen here (they'd be recorded in the Lunar system). Two areas that need much clarification are casualty estimates and dates, with at least some hope for getting the right answer on the dates since we may get some agreement on the primary sources. I guess all the dates need citations, and if we hit conflicts we may need to fall to a "circa April 14" idea, assuming the different date systems can't resolve the conflict. I suppose it might be a bit obnoxious to go through and tag all the dates/casualty estimates, but it might be the best way to track the progress. Komdori 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Gregorian calendar had existed only for a decade and hadn't yet become broadly accepted even in Europe, so the Julian would seem more appropriate. Any idea why modern scholars like Hawley are giving dates in late May for events transpiring in mid-April (lunar) and mid-March (Julian)? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV edits

I made edits that fall into following categories: 1. deleted commentary that were mixed in with referenced facts that were made to look like the commentary was part of the referenced fact. 2. Personal commentary about what not stated and adjectives like "mentions only once", "briefly mentions", etc.. were deleted. Let the facts speak for themselves. 3. Quotations from Prof Baek's article were fraudulently worded to make claims that were simply not made by the referenced article. One attempt at repairing these fraudulent quotations were deleted because the use of quote still doesn't reflect the context its taken out from.

Attempts at neutral introduction to primary quotations from Prof. Baek's article welcome. But until we can agree on one, readers should be allowed to read the quotations and draw their own conclusions.melonbarmonster 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete the reference talking about the inconsistency of the hexagon pattern with no spikes; I believe it's referenced right out of the paper. —LactoseTI^T 13:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lactose you reverted the entire edit wholesale! I wish you'd be honest with your edits instead of trying to manipulate and hide what you really reverted. Here are examples of your unreferenced, personal POV commentary that you reverted:

"Primary Korean sources are generally silent on the matter"

stating that iron spikes are "briefly mentioned" instead of just stating that it was mentioned

pointing out that what part of the primary sources are "relevant"

"There are no known contemporary depictions, so that the first image of a turtle ship - and the one commonly referred to - is found in the Complete Writings of Admiral Yi which were edited for the first time two hundred years after the war in 1795."

All these little comments are unnecessary because they try to undermine whatever primary sources there are for iron cladding. These facts should be presented without such POV comments. We have already discussed this and your behavior is inexplicable to me.

As for the quotation that you replaced, I already explained that it's not "right out of the paper". It's not out of the paper but is a fraudulent use of quotations. For someone who claims to be a professor, your support of fraudulent and incorrect citations is quite alarming. Please don't revert based on your "belief" without checking the facts.melonbarmonster 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lactose, if other POV is being left out why do you insist on leaving YOUR POV commentary in the text. Having all of BOTH Korean and Japanese quotations presented without commentary is the most NPOV way to present the facts. You're introducing prejudice with your POV edits. I am not asking you to do something that I am not willing to do myself. I'm not including my own commentaries and have long deleted pro-iron cladding commentaries. Please reciprocate the courtesy.

Hopefully you can agree that the quotations themselves are a neutral starting point. If you agree, then we can open up another section to discuss what further text can be added in terms of neutral introduction, commentary to the quotations. We'll need other editors to join in that discussion.melonbarmonster 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So you want the statement that he's a nephew and was in the war in, but the fact that he probably never saw the turtle ship and his data is unreliable out. That doesn't sound like "just the facts." It's sourced material, and directly relevant. By what rationale do you remove it? —LactoseTI^T 04:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lactose, I agree that the text shouldn't mislead readers into thinking Yi Pun was a first hand witness of battles involving turtle ship. I'll try to fix that and you're welcome to try to fix it yourself. However, all of these historical quotations are from Prof. Bak's article and the primary purpose of presenting these quotation is to present historical description and mention of iron cladding and turtle ship and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

Prof Bak's opinion that Yi Pun probably missed turtle boats in the war is just one of the many side issues in Prof Bak analysis of Yi Pun's document along with nature bladed spikes, whether those metal spikes were concealed during battle with grass, whether fire tactics necessitated metal plating, etc., not to mention his conclusions beyond Yi Pun's document where he gives specifics of metal plating armor of turtle ship. It's my opinion that we should leave out Bak's analysis and conclusions(pertaining to Yi Pun's article and beyond) for purposes of this discussion.melonbarmonster 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)