Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Back to focus: grammar

"By 1592, Korean cannons were very powerful, compared to the few cannons Japanese soldiers used. They shot iron cannonballs, but large wooden arrows were used the most often because pf their ability to puncture the side of a Japanese ship, possibly disabling and destroying it."

This should be:

"The Korean cannons were much more powerful than their Japanese counterparts. Large wooden arrows were used to supplement the limited number of cannonballs, and yet they still proved to be effective due to the weakness of the Japanese ships."

And this shouldn't even be in the naval forces section. There's should be a separate section for artillery. The naval force section should actually contain info's about how panokseons were much stronger than the Japanese ships (which was true) & how Japanese had to suspend cannons in the air so that the impacts of firing a cannon would not destroy the ship. (Wikimachine 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

Another problem. The introductory sentence: "The Japanese invasions of Korea refer to the 1592–1598 Japanese-Korean war masterminded by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, which originally had the professed aim of conquering Ming Dynasty China"

what is "which" describing? Toyotomi Hideyoshi or the war? It is obvious, but it is still grammatically incorrect. Somebody must fix this. (Wikimachine 03:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

I fixed this, and I even thought the lead looked pretty good. It read

The Japanese invasions of Korea of 1592-1598 were wars between Japan and Korea in which Japan's professed aim was the subjugation of Ming Dynasty China. Because the invasions were masterminded by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, they are often referred to as Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea or Hideyoshi's Korean Expeditions. They are also known as the Imjin War, in reference to the "Imjin" year in the sexagenary cycle. In reference to its span, the war is also known as the Seven-Year War.

But now you've changed it again, and it reads

The Japanese invasions of Korea, or the Seven-Year War, (also referred as Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea and Hideyoshi's Korean Expeditions in English) occurred between Japan and Korea from 1592 to 1598. Toyotomi Hideoyshi, the Japanese daimyo who had unified Japan, launched the invasion with the professed aim of conquering Ming Dynasty China. They are also known as the Imjin War, in reference to the "Imjin" year in the sexagenary cycle.

Here are my issues with what you did:

1) You made a major change to the article lead and left a completely unrelated edit summary.

2) You added parentheticals to the lead, and there are now seven mid-sentence breaks instead of three.

3) At the same time, you took all of the descriptive information out of the opening sentence. Because "Japanese invasions of Korea" is dealt with as a title, you must describe the meaning of the title in the opening sentence.

4) ...while it bothers me is that your other edits for the day had no edit summaries, appear to have removed information from the article, and made the article less grammatical, I'm not going to call it a POV issue, but there seem to be ownership issues here. I am going to change the lead back to the one I wrote and add that Toyotomi was a kampaku. If you revert me, I'll let it go and apply my efforts elsewhere. Dekimasu 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A few more notes:

1) An invasion can't occur between two countries, so you have to fix that if you use your lead. It's referred to as, not referred as.

2) All of these names are English, so there's no reason to write "in English" there. Dekimasu 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. What troubles me the most about Wikimachine's edit is that it deleted any mention of Korean losses of lives and property. The edit hides a lot of other details, such as that Hideyoshi masterminded the invasion. And of course, the edit summary (or the lack of it) hides what the edits were really about.--Endroit 04:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the other edits. I don't like to fight so I'm just going to note them and others can discuss.

During the campaigns, the Japanese army had success on land, occupying parts of the Korean peninsula, while the Korean navy dominated at sea. As the war dragged on, the ravages of war destroyed much of the arable land in Korea. Unable to support their troops reliably by sea, and facing land rendered useless by war in addition to the growing opposition by the allied forces of Korea and China, Japan withdrew. Korea suffered great loss of life and cultural artifacts, as well as long-lasting damage to its economy.

was changed to

The Japanese forces saw initial success on land, and continued failure at sea. In the later years, the Japanese forces suffered heavily, as they continued to push north and found disruptions in its naval supply chain. The Japanese troops withdrew, and invaded for the second time with no avail.

All I'll say is that one is clearly more informative than the other. Dekimasu 04:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I deny any intention of "ownership" or "fight"s. They were all done under good will. Here are my explanations:

• The introductory paragraph... I did not see the necessity of discussing about the name of the article, just because there was a previous conflict about the naming of the article. This is English Wikipedia, so I put all the English titles. I took out Imjin War, because I think that's Korean pronunciation and that is already in the box on the right. About the sexagenery cycle etc., it was already included in the 3rd paragraph. A good essay does not have repetitive contents, especially within the same section. But if you guys don't like it, it's fine.

• No edit summary? My later edits are all under the same intention.

• About this:

During the campaigns, the Japanese army had success on land, occupying parts of the Korean peninsula, while the Korean navy dominated at sea. As the war dragged on, the ravages of war destroyed much of the arable land in Korea. Unable to support their troops reliably by sea, and facing land rendered useless by war in addition to the growing opposition by the allied forces of Korea and China, Japan withdrew. Korea suffered great loss of life and cultural artifacts, as well as long-lasting damage to its economy.

was changed to

The Japanese forces saw initial success on land, and continued failure at sea. In the later years, the Japanese forces suffered heavily, as they continued to push north and found disruptions in its naval supply chain. The Japanese troops withdrew, and invaded for the second time with no avail.

• Shorter and more precise words. "the Japanese army had success on land" is misleading because their successes were mostly in the beginning of the war.
• Destruction of much of the arable land in Korea is extraneous information. I don't think that this relates to anything that the paragraph is talking about.
• "their" and Japan are not in the same number.
• "growing opposition" was never the case.
• "Korea suffered great loss of life and cultural artifacts, as well as..." should be "Korea suffered from much casualties, pillages of cultural artifacts, and economic decline.", and even that is not related to what the paragraph was talking about. The paragraph was summarizing the events of the war. Those analytical infos should be in the later paragraphs. (Wikimachine 06:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

I think the destruction of the arable land and the damage to the Korean economy are important statements to make when summarizing the war. Per the guidelines, the article summary should be written with the knowledge that it is all that many people will read. As for the sexagenary cycle, the first sentence of the second paragraph is barely understandable as it stands now. Dekimasu 04:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never meant to cause any discontent. You're free to edit in any ways you like. (Wikimachine 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

New edits

Here are new edits by an anonymous user.

Also, Korea maintained a certain traditional dependency relationship with the Ming Dynasty of China, although China under the Tang, Sui, and Han dynasties were sometimes friend sometimes enemy of Korea,which gradually formed a single nation from the several states.

I like what he's trying to get at, but I think that this is written in wrong grammar. I'm not quite knowledgeable about the relations that Korea had with Tang, Sui, and many other dynasties, so could the anon user or another Wikipedian correct the grammar in this sentence? (Wikimachine 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

The above statement should be deleted or revised because its incorrect. Firstly, Ming China was Korea's ally, not neccesarily a country it depended on. Also, during the Tang, Sui, and Han dynasties, Korea (more like Goguryeo) was an large enemy to China. Good friend100 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV

The article's point of view on, e.g. the participation of Buddhist monks is not neutral. e.g. "Buddhist monks proved to be great leaders and excelled at fighting the Japanese." If Buddhist monks did excel it deserves a cite or examples or something. DavidBofinger 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole article's messed up. (Wikimachine 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

In 7th lunar month of 1592, Joseon government set up Seung-Tong(僧統)and recruit Buddishist monk as volunteer soldier officialy. Yu-jung(惟政)and Cheu-young(處英)were leader of the monks. Actually they were irregular army organized by them selves but in this case, Government granted their activiy as official one. Especially Yu-jung(惟政) were acting army general and became ambassador after war and went to Japan for aftermath negotiation and brought many captivated 3000 Koreans in 4th lunar month of 1605. In perspective of native Korean buddhist, fighting against enemy could be a great part of buddhist practice for people. In my opinion, it could be a kind of a holy war or Jihad for them. --Alf 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious ranges

I know almost nothing about Japanese and Korean military technology of this era, but the ranges stated for bows and especialy the muskets is suspicious to me. I think the english longbow was considered a very long ranged bow, and yet I've never read anything reliable that said they could shoot further than 350m if that, yet in this article, we have bows shooting a distance of 380m-460m. It just seems a bit suspicious to me, although I admit I'm not a bow expert. The musket information seems even more suspicious, since in europe in napoleonic times, infantry fired at each other at a range of about 50m, and anything above 150m was considered pointless as you'd never hit a thing. Yet here, over 300 years before napoleon, they are supposed to have muskets copied from the west that can fire 500m? Anyway, I have no absolute facts about these things, I'm just saying I doubt what has been written in the article. -OOPSIE- 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese used Matchlock muskets which were superior to the originals they aquired from the portugese.CHSGHSF 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Korea had one of the most advanced bows on the entire planet at the time.

"It makes sense that their few firearms were concentrated on boats or on the walls of important cities and fortresses. In their rather limited conflicts in other arenas, Korean bows, which were among the best in Asia and will be discussed below, were generally sufficient to carry the day. And as for cavalry, the Koreans preferred either spears or long battle flails, a weapon which has few parallels elsewhere. The Japanese, on the other hand, had been in a state of almost total war for over a century. The adoption of muskets and their deployment in the hands of relatively untrained peasants allowed a few daimyo to finally carry the day and defeat their rivals. Meanwhile the Chinese used different weapons in different areas depending upon the type of foe they faced. But they, too, increasingly relied upon firearms in the late Ming period, especially in conflicts with recalcitrant tribespeople along the frontiers who resisted the steady encroachment of the expanding Ming state. Larger cannon were, of course, best for attacking or defending the walled cities common in Ming China."

"At this point a few words should be said about missile weapons other than firearms since they proved nearly as important in the respective [End Page 28] arsenals of the belligerents. According to J. L. Boots, the bow and arrow was the one weapon in which the Koreans excelled, both in use and production. In his usual florid way Boots states, "It was the one military practice in which Korean boys longed to become proficient, the one token of martial skill which ever held its own among a people who for thousands of years have preferred silks, pictures, poems, and music, the stately crane in the paddy fields and the knarled [sic] pine on the mountainside."58 Indeed, the diaries of the famed naval commander Yi Sunsin are replete with references to almost daily archery practice. The Korean bow was a composite reflex bow, usually about four feet in length and made of mulberry wood, bamboo, water buffalo horn, and cow sinew spliced together. The bows could be used in different ways and could fire different arrows. They were sometimes even used crossbow fashion to lay down a barrage of covering fire and could also be used from horseback.59 The Koreans sometimes employed poisoned, fire, or exploding arrows, much like the Chinese. Most significantly, Korean bows had tremendous range, being able to cover up to 500 yards, compared to about 350 yards for Japanese long bows."

[1]

What people usually mean by "longer range" when comparing guns and bows, they mean the distance covered when you aim with the weapons. In battles between mass armies, you didn't have to aim. You just had to launch the arrows into the air & they would make a curved launch across the battlefield. With guns, however, you couldn't just shoot them up into the air & expect them to fall down on the enemies. And the Koreans, after having been told the mechanisms behind the guns by a Japanese general who had surrendered, immediately began to manufacture guns (if you can manufacture cannons, you can too guns). So it's not like Koreans would have been at disad even if their bows weren't better. (Wikimachine 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Okay, so the dispute concerning the range of Korean bows seems to be settled. Then what about the statement that Japanese musketeers outranged Korean archers? Something needs to be done about that, because anyone who knows anything about the history of firearms will tell you that the range of 16th century muskets was nothing near 500m (more like 50m). Heythatslife 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's original research. We need to fix that. Thanks. (Wikimachine 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

it certainly is not original research. Cf. Turnbull (not exactly an amateur at military history) and Hawley. Japanese musketeers outranged Korean archers by far. In modern and ancient accounts. I actually bothered to reference that, so... 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)(Shogo Kawada 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

Where did you reference it? ??? Could you copy & paste? Also, if it's not website, could you type the warrants from your references that prove this? (Wikimachine 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

He mentioned it in the edit summary[2]: Technical explanations about bows/muskets are explained pp. 8-9, and pp. 100-102, in Hawley's Imjin war, as signalled. --Kusunose 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are my cites.

• The Civil War rifle-musket was a very good weapon, capable of hitting targets at ranges over 400 yards - Civil War rifle-muskets didn't even match the range of 500 yards of the Korean bows. I wonder how weak the muskets must have been 200 years earlier.
• While muskets were easy to use, the Kentucky rifle was effective only in the hands of a skilled marksman, who could hit a target the size of a man's head from 200 yards away - I'm not sure if Japan was ahead of the United States in military technology 200 years earlier.
• Fields of fire were only limited to the range of a matchlock musket, which was 200 meters. Only 200 yards. (Wikimachine 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

I get it. Effective range: 200m. Maximum range: 400 [3]. "The Kentucy rifle" website says that A lucky shot could travel 400 yards..

To say that the gun had maximum range of 500 is bloated. (Wikimachine 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

A Korean website says 고조선과 삼한시대에는 마제석촉이나 청동으로 만든 화살촉이 등장하는데, 길이는 4∼5cm 정도이고, 화살촉 뿌리의 길이도 1∼2cm 되는 것들이다. 만궁(彎弓)은 말을 타고 전투를 하는 민족에 유리한 활로서 특히 고구려의 만궁인 맥궁(貊弓)은 유명한 것이었다. 삼국시대의 화살의 길이는 60∼70cm이다. 조선시대의 활과 화살은 규격을 정하여 이 규격대로 제작, 사용되었다. 1474년(성종 5)에 편찬된 《국조오례서례 國朝五禮序禮》의 <병기도설 兵器圖說>에 기록된, 활과 화살의 크기와 규모는 다음과 같다. 활의 길이는 6척으로 약 1.8m이고, 화살은 철전(鐵箭)·편전(片箭)·목전(木箭) 등이 있었다. 철전은 쇠촉을 달았으며 그 길이는 4척(1.2m)이고, 사정거리는 180보(步, 약 54m)였다. 철전의 촉을 나무로 바꾼 것이 목전인데 사정거리는 240보(약 72m)이고 주로 무과시험과 연습용으로 사용되었다. 대나무통 속에 넣고 쏘는 길이 36cm(1척 2촌)의 편전이 있는데 사정거리는 1천보(약 300m) 정도였다고 전한다. 쇠뇌는 기계활로 보통활보다 힘이 세어 보통활의 사정거리보다 훨씬 멀리 날아갔다. 조선 후기 쇠뇌에 사용한 활의 길이가 2.47m 정도이다. or that depending on the size and type of the bows, their range varied from 54m to more than 300m -that is... effective range.

So I don't think that it's matter of which weapon shot further as much as explaining this interweaving relation. (Wikimachine 02:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

Footnotes. Look at the footnotes. The bibliography... (it's taken me while to put it up) Isn't it supposed to be an encyclopaedia? I'm not going to comment on Civil War comparisons, which I find utterly irrelevant (200 years before the Civil War, therer was no such thing as 'the United States'; the Japanese arquebus is based on a Portuguese model, this is Japanese and Korean history, etc.). Perhaps, the range (and yes, of course, we are speaking in terms of max. range, not effective range) is bloated, but it is an exaggeration coming from a professional historian, and as such, not one I am willing to challenge. pp. 8-9, Hawley, The Imjin War: 'Muskets were not expensive to produce; the more affluent daimyo could affort to have them turned out by the thousands. They did not require carefully crafted arrows, only simple lead balls. Their range and striking power was also far superior to those of any traditional weapon. A musket, for example, could lob a slug narly half a kilometer, compared to a maximum range of 380 meters for the heaviest - and most difficult to use - Japanese composite bow; at the closer distances at which most battles were thought, it could pierce iron armor that an arrow could only scratch.'

p. 100: '[The lightweight arquebus] was relatively cheap to manufacture. It shot farther than a bow, and more important, packed a greater armor-piercing punch at the closer distances preferred in battle, usually one hundred meters or less.' Every single account, modern (Turnbull, Hawley) or ancient (Chosen Ki), of the early land battles agree on this particular point: the arquebus was a decisive weapon, one that put the Choseon army at a considerable disadvantage. Historic reseach is still based on actual books, archives, etc. and not google (at least not yet). (Shogo Kawada 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

Historical research is not limited to books & archives, buddy. And I think that those comparisons were made with Japanese bows. I mean, what's the point when maximum range for Korean bows was also half a km? (Wikimachine 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

I'm ready to reject your claims. It's really by few historians who I bet haven't study a thing about Korean bows. Bows were more accurate and had longer range than most fire arms.

my claims? What are you talking about? These are not my claims. And "Few" historians? I wouldn't say that either. Besides, since we are playing the comparison game, Noam Chomsky's views on generative grammar certainly have more weight than 100 minor linguists from Languedoc-Roussillon (no offence to Languedoc-Rousillon people). So it is not a valid argument. And ocnce again, you are resorting to a comparison with Western military history. I see your point. But how about actually talking about Japanese and Korean histories? That would be relevant.

To go back to the website you're quoting.. what I would to see is something Portuguese firearms. The Portuguese Empire reached its maximum size during the 16th century. There might be a reason why. And it would be interesting to see whether it had anything to do with their arquebuses/muskets in particular. Oh yeah, and obviously, I use the internet as well, as do most historians, I'm sure. Since when did I say that historical research was limited to books & archives? I just can't see how you can deal without it. Especially considering how little information there can be on some subjects on-line. And last, I did not question anything you said about the range of Korean bows. So maybe more information could be added about these. There is way more information available about this in books and elsewhere on the subject. (Shogo Kawada 08:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Minor Point: while 18th century practical ranges were rather limited, it may have a lot more to do with speed loading (rates of fire of 4, even 5 shots per minute under battlefield conditions; this leaves little time to aim) and a lot less to do with the effective training of the shooter. In Europe, when speed was not yet an issue (pre-Nassauer tactics), hitting a 200 yards was apparently expected at least in training; however, effective ranges of not 500, but 556 yards, should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Snapdragonfly 12:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true enough. The effective range is supposed to be 200 meters, max. range: 500 (added "maximum" range in the body text.

But really, all of this should be a minor point. The point is: the arquebus was instrumental in defeating Joseon forces on land, as was the fact that their armors were nonexistent. Anyway, if anybody has a reliable source (book and otherwise) stating what range those muskets cover, feel free. It's wikipedia, after all... also, I'm getting interested in the differences between Western weapons and (Far) Eastern ones. {Shogo Kawada 17:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Japanese used Matchlock muskets which were superior to the originals they aquired from the portugese.CHSGHSF 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article in Korean above, it states that the 54m ranged steel tip arrow was the main battle weapon, the 72m wood tip was used in examinations and practice, and the longest range "fragment arrow" was shot with a "thrower" analogous to a spear thrower or sabot to travel a thousand steps. I'm skeptical of the accuracy of this claim, because the number one thousand is often a number used to exaggerate or express extremity (similar to the way ten thousand is used), but regardless, the short arrow required considerable skill to use, and probably wasn't fielded in sufficient numbers to offset the advantages of firearms.

The technological disadvantage that Korean land forces were at during the war is common knowledge in Korea, used as a kind of moral parable illustrating the need for "keeping up with the Jonses." This has even influenced Korean historical consciousness regarding a different war on a different continent. I remember my high school history textbook saying that it was English *crossbowmen* with their armor piercing bolts who defeated the obsolete knights and longbowmen at Crecy during the 100 Year War.140.180.159.23 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yi I's Advisory

Could anybody give ref on this? Also, did he really predict the possibility of a Japanese invasion? I thought that the Korean court was not aware of the strength of the Japanese military until they sent the two ambassadors. (Wikimachine 06:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

Oh yes, Yi I clearly stated that Korea need an army of 100,000 men to which the Korean king promptly rejected. The two ambassadors were sent to observe of Japanese preparations of war if any. One said Japan was preparing, the other said Japan was not ready to attack Korea. The king listened to the latter. Good friend100 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but did he know before or after the two ambassadors were sent? Or did he just wish for it without the knowledge of Japanese invasion? (Wikimachine 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Before the ambassadors were sent. -- General Tiger

Yi I was a prominent scholar in Korea and he predicted an invasion from Japan and strongly suggested that Korea begin training more men and repairing castles. The king basically didn't know what was going on. Good friend100 13:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a record that Ming and Korea planned preemptive attack on Japan though it was not carried out because of the weak naval force. 宣祖 27卷 25年 6月 26日 (甲寅) 008 / 왜란이 일어나기 전 명나라가 우리 나라와 유구 등이 합쳐 일본을 치려던 당시 상황에 대한 기록 --Jjok 04:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Citation

If we ever hope to do anything about grammar, we need to keep proper referencing in mind because later or eventually we would have to go through the article, do a proper wipe with all the claims in the articles w/ citations. That means that whatever grammar we fix now, or whatever info we put in, they might get lost or be fruitless later on. (Wikimachine 01:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

I have some reservations about the rampant original research going on in this and some other articles. Wikipedia policy is to cite reputable secondary and tertiary sources, like academic journals and authoritative media. If each person selectively quotes and interpretes parts of ancient foreign language primary documents, this article would become a battleground of original research, rather than a an encyclopedia article. Frankly, Jjok's personal selection of sentences to translate, without historical context, from the centuries-old, foreign-language multi-volume compilations are pretty obviously intended to make a certain personal point, rather than providing an objective, scholarly, contextual overview of the article subject. Korealist 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which part is an original research?　Korealist is making an emotional opinion. Please point out a concrete mistake. --211.3.125.56 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. It says: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present accounts of views and arguments of reliable, verifiable scholars, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves." DanKim 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Look 211.3.125.56, let me explain to you clearly why your sources are original research. Let's just say that Jews and Palestinians had a war 2,000 years ago. Why would basing infos from either the Jewish historians or the Palestinian historians be false? Because Jewish people could write only from their own point of view & Palestinians from the other. That's why we can't use primary sources to settle controversial matters because they are POV. So, we use secondary and tertiary sources because they've been written by another party or historians in the 20th & 21st centuries who have studied resources from the both sides & know NPOV. (Wikimachine 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

The Korea Dynasties Fact Record:King Seonjo, Year 25, 5th month.

The part : "However, these proposals were opposed by most advisers of the court, who believed Japan was not in a position to attack Korea and Yu's proposals were snubbed. Also, they rejected the proposals to repair castles because of the amount of money and labour that would have to go into it. Yu was dismissed by King Seonjo."

Please check the record in The Korea Dynasties Fact Record, King Seonjo , (1567-1608) : Year 25 ; Imjin year; head 5th month. It says, People were grudged, they were with Japanese. Half was my citizen, the other half was Japanese. - 09:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is original source, and, therefore, it cannot be used. (Wikimachine 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm afraid that the above translation is not the correct one, nor the given text is a full one. The first half and the second half shown above are excerptions from two different places, and with wrong translations even. The noted text is from the record of the dialog between King Seonjo and his officials on 3rd May, 1592. The dialog is in the sixth article of the record of 3rd May, 1592. Seonjo was on the flight from Japanese army since he left Hanyang(Seoul) on 30th April. The excerption was parts of text where Yi Gwak was reporting people's response and situation saying that the corruption in palace officials was the cause of hostile attitude of people, and was asking the king to punish those who were responsible. I will present the part of text where the above excerption was made.

今日生變之由, 皆緣王子宮人作弊, 故人心怨叛, 與倭同心矣. 聞賊之來也, 言: ‘我不殺汝輩, 汝君虐民, 故如此.’ 云我民亦曰: ‘倭亦人也, 吾等何必棄家而避也?’

I include the text in image format for those whose browser cannot display Chinese characters.

The translation:

Current situation is the result of the corruption in the prince's household officials. Because of that, people were angry and turned against, siding with Japanese. When the enemy(Japanese) arrived, he(Japanese) would say 'I will not kill you. Your king has oppressed you, therefore we came.' Our people say 'Japanese are also human beings, so why should we leave our home and run away?'

( Sjahn 12:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC) )

Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)

I know subject of the article's name has been beaten to death but I want to say a few things. Japan's main goal was to conquer China; so the article's title is misleading. Also the very fact that people have been arguing over Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea, The Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, Hideyoshi's Korea invasions, Hideyoshi's Korea Invasions and every other possible word arrangement and spelling variation of that title very obviously shows that that name is not established. Imjin War on the other hand is established. Can anyone tell me why the book with "the most comprehensive account ever published in English of this important event" [4] has the title Imjin War? Perhaps it would be a good idea to listen to an expert like Samuel Hawley and change the title to Imjin War.

Yes that was the name we wanted but there has to be a compromise that both sides agree. And plus, Japan invaded the Korean peninsula, they didn't go straight to China. Good friend100 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But no one here is an expert so why should their opinions matter?

Japan never intended to just behead China

I find this part of editing talk section very educational with the current " Historical War" that is happening between Korea and China or Korea and Japan. Its not sensitive topic. This topic should be openly discussed in Asian History class in Korea, Japan, China and United States.

I have found quiet diplomacy by Korean government toward China and Japan to be most shameful act. The quiet diplomacy by Korean government dealing with " Historical War" between China and Japan has got nothing for Korea. I blame this totally on Korean President/Government and Koreans.

The future of Korea is Unification. The unity is power for people and for the nation. The truth is Yes. Japan and China would not want Korean peninsula to be united as one. Japan and China policy toward Korea always has been weaker Korea is always better for Japanese and Chinese political and economical interest. This is why Korea need Political and Economical ally. That is United States. Korea and United States Political and Economical relationship should be much more stronger. Build on "Respect and Trust". This is area in which Korean education and Korea media need tremendous improvement. Simply need to provide correct and up to date information to Koreans.

Wikipedia need a article on " China invasion on Korea" or " Korea invasion on China". Korea historical enemy is not only Japan. Actually i am not futurist but i can say that in near future. China will be Political and Economical enemy with Korea. China is " land of confusion" lacks discipline and direction. This is were Koreans must decide to be Political and Economical close with United States ally ( Japan) or with China. Korea united or not. This is one hell serious questions that Koreans must ask themselves. For the future of their nation and for there people.

Unification: It will gradually happen for Korea. The outside pressure meaning ( China and Japan political and economical power will make Korean Unification to happen). Like it or not North and South Koreans need each other. The pressure to unite will greatly increase. Korea's political and economical unity will be the greatly increased between North and South.

Problems: Only serious problem for Korea is can Koreans themselves unite??? Their is no outside influence from China, Japan, Russia and United States. Unable to make Koreans unite. Its problem within Koreans.

Toyotomi Hideyoshi dreamed of conquering ALL of Asia-such a big dream for a small guy. Hideyoshi decided certainly to take the easiest route-up through Hanbando and then plunging into Chinese territory and eliminating that annoyance. Hideyoshi believed that beyond China, everything would simply fall to his power. There should also be a section on Japan's negotiations with Chosun before the war. Japan attempted to talk their way through the Hanbando, without shedding blood with Chosun, and then attack China, using Chosun land as his HQ. He failed. Oyo321 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He may have dreamed of such things, but I think that phrasing it as such comes off a bit too biased to me. This is an article about a series of wars between the forces of Joseon and Hideyoshi, not about his personal dreams of conquest or whatever. It may be accurate, but I think it sets off the article beginning in a biased light. BTW, what's "Hanbando"? The link just points to a movie, not to the term you're trying to reference. LordAmeth 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Japan" never intended anything in this period. Hideyoshi was merely a feudal warlord who had amassed a significant amount of territory and followers. He was not Shogun, or Emperor, or Prime Minister... there was no "Japan" technically speaking until the late 19th century... maybe, arguably, some beginnings of national identity during the Edo period (17th c - 19th c), but to equate Hideyoshi's goals or intentions with those of "Japan" is like comparing Genghis Khan to "Mongolia". I really don't think it's accurate to portray "Japan" as intending anything. LordAmeth 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is still "Japan" I don't think Hideyoshi used another term to describe his country. And, "Hanbando" is Korean for the Korean peninsula. Hideyoshi's dreams would be better placed in Hideyoshi's article instead. Good friend100 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Is "Hanbando" written as 韓半島? Interesting term to know. LordAmeth 15:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is important to make that psychological connection between a 16th c. conquest attempt and purely imperialistic ambitions nearly 400 years later. Hideyoshi's dream certainly is a crucial part to understanding a feudal Japan, Imperial Japan, and today's Japan. There is no bias in this. I believe its interesting to note that transfer of ideology. Japan's participation in WWII, Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars were not for nothing. They were an important part to achieving and creating a unified Asia under the Greater East Asia Sphere, another dream.

A further link can be made with today's modern Japanese government. All issues surrounding border and island claims, such as Dokdo or Senkaku, are Japan's ways of continuing their past. To INVADE and CONQUER. The beastly attitude still exists in Japan.

)You know what I meant by "Japan." If there is no other way to describe Japan's feudal ages, I will refer to them as Wa. I do not believe Japan to have had dynasties so that is out of the question.

Despite Japan's military restrictions bestowed by the United States, the Japanese navy continues to be formidable. In an unlikely situation of Japan invading Dokdo and South Korea, the South Korean navy will likely be crushed. So Japan's existing ability to do so should be noted in the article.

I myself will not make any insertions about this issue into the article, because my knowledge does not reach professional level. And because LordAmeth you are right in pointing out a tad of bias in it, I'll probably be slandered (like user Yuje, who continues to blast me wherever he goes, so I now refuse to even respond to trash like him) and a lot of heat might start up. So I'll leave this possible work to maybe Wikiproject Korea leader Goodfriend100.

Late, but Happy New Year. Oyo321 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in slandering anyone, or in starting any kind of racist or biased discourse; I just want to see things on Wikipedia represented as professionally as possible. Now, I can understand completely if you come from a Korean background, or a Korean perspective in some other way (I'm not Japanese, just a Japanese studies student), and I fully respect that you may have a lot emotionally involved in this type of issue. But there is really no call for such blatantly racist/prejudiced remarks. To say that Japan has always been bent on invasion and conquest is simply not true. Hideyoshi led armies in the 1590s, and there was WWII. Two events. Is this a national history of invasion and conquest? Is it really fair to say that these are the same people, even, carrying on the same policies? Comparing Hideyoshi to the Imperial government during WWII is like comparing Mao to Qin Shih Huang and claiming that China has always been like X. It's simply not true. There are massive differences between periods, between rulers, in any country. As for Japan invading South Korea, I think it's really sad that people should still think of this as a possibility. Japan's navy is formidable because they're an island nation, and because they fear for their safety in the increasing volatile regional environment, faced by North Korea, the PRC, and the Taiwan issue. I think it is a terrible shame that South Korea can't realize the geopolitics of the region and be friendly with Japan against the dangers posed by Kim Jong-Il and China.

I make no such statements about Germans "throughout history" being bent on invasion or conquest or whatever, and I hold no ill feelings towards the German people or German government today, which has no direct connection or responsibility for the events of two generations ago. I hope we can put these kinds of things behind us, and reevaluate our feelings towards other countries based not on how they were that one time but how they are today. I am not telling you to that you have to think any particular way... just please don't express your racist beliefs here. It's not appropriate here; it's not appropriate anywhere. LordAmeth 10:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but Korea does certainly know its disadvantage geographically with Japan, China, Russia, and even America surrounding it. And that is why Korea is extremely sensitive when it comes to historic issues or issues like Dokdo. I know this is not the place to discuss about this, but has Korea ever invaded another country? (save Gwanggetto the Great in his conquests of China). Korea has only suffered invasions from others and its bleak history makes Koreans especially angry over current issues. Good friend100 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about that as I was writing my previous comment. You're probably right - with maybe one or two exceptions, no Korean state has ever invaded another country. And I can certainly see how the experiences of the various wars of the late 19th-early 20th century, as well as centuries of domination by China, invasions by the Mongols, likely the Manchus as well, other groups, as well as those two failed invasions by Hideyoshi, would shape a country's attitudes somewhat. Please believe me when I say that I understand and respect that - every country, every people has its own cultural heritage, its own "racial memory", and it is an interesting and important part of any culture. Nevertheless, we are not here to represent that point of view. We are here to represent some semblance of an unbiased view of events. LordAmeth 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth I do not regard you to be slandering at all.

First of all, you are still slightly missing my general point. I have no intention of bringing racism into my historical connection-and to me, racism cannot be a factor in arguing my point. Goodfriend is right, Korea has always been the victim of neighboring powers.

I also do not understand why my argument seems racist and POV to you. Its recorded history, and that is fact.

I compare nothing. I only make strong connections between past government and attitudes.

I do not know and probably never will know what is the opinion of Chinese or Japanese people on their past invasions. But I do know Korea's sentiment to it.

Returning to my first point, I'll give you a piece of evidence. While China, Japan, Russia, and the United States have a presence in Hanbando politics, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Korea to reunify. Why? Because no country wants that to happen. Reunifying the two Koreas will only make the country twice as strong, something China and Japan dreadfully hate, and might stop this from happening at all costs. Nobody wants a stronger and larger neighboring country near them.

I think this is important enough to be added. Not only Japanese, but Chinese attempts to conquer Korea and Asia should be included. Its more than just two events and more than what I have listed here.

China

• Constant, I repeat CONSTANT attack and border crossing of Jurchen and Mongol states into Hanbando and wrecking havoc.
• Mongol invasion and conquer of Hanbando under Genghis Khan
• Goguryeo-Sui invasion
• Goguryeo-Tang invasion
• Imjin War (The Ming dynasty was reluectant to pull troops out of Chosun, while commiting as many atrocities as Japan did)
• Chinese naval invasion repelled by Admiral Jang Bo Go
• Today China's childish claims on Korean history
• Today China's childish claims on Baekdusan
• China's alteration of history books

Japan

• Constant, I repeat CONSTANT attack and landing of Japanese pirate clans on the eastern and southern coasts of Hanbando.
• Imjin War Hideyoshi's irresistable dream over all of Asia
• Imperial Japan Greater East Co. Prosperity Sphere over all of Asia
• Dokdo and Senkaku and Russian island claims
• Japan's alteration of history books

Seems to me that Japan just cannot stop their imperialistic ambitions. I am contradicting you and cannot happen to agree. It is a history of goverment, not people, that wish to continue grabbing or stealing at other countries' land.

Its even worse for the Chinese predicament. China is literally trying to steal another nation's history blatantly in front of them, with no feeling of respect or dignity.

I also have no emotional sentiment regarding this. Korea's victim to imperialism and conquer are facts that everyone should know. I see you said that "racial memories" although should be forgotten, are interesting nontheless. I disagree highly. It cannot be a biased points of opinions-I am meaning history, and that is not opinion nor bias.

And it cannot be forgotten by the Korean people.

I do not insult the Japanese navy-I merely pointed out that if Japan were to step over the brink of war over Dokdo (which is more than possible) South Korea's navy will have a greater chance of losing. I also disagree that although Japan enjoys a possible naval superiority in East Asian waters, the Japanese navy is meant for defense against North Korea. I'm sure Japan knows that a formidable navy is nothing against a Daepodong 2.

South Korea cannot make any foreign political alliances now whatsoever. Japan is under threat from nobody, save Kim Jong Il. Kim is a threat to everbody indiscriminately. The Japanese economy improves, and their auto industry is threatening America's ability to recover American automobiles.

China poses threats to Korea and the US. Fearing China's economic power, most nations will accept Chinese claims of Baekdusan is Chinese, and Goguryeo is Chinese.....and eyeing the spot the US holds now-the one and only world power. That similar effect will come from Japan also. There is a reason why the East Sea is now Sea of Japan, and why, possibly in the future, Dokdo and all the fishing grounds could be wrested from Korea. Oyo321 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you do not take me as slandering you; I am glad that we can discuss this in a relatively calm and straightforward fashion. The argument seems biased to me because of the comment regarding "Japan's ways of continuing their past. To INVADE and CONQUER." You take a handful of events, however numerous, and equate them with the actions or intentions or nature of every Japanese person or every Japanese government that has ever existed. You assume that Hideyoshi, the wakou, the WWII imperialists are all the same people, or the same government, or the same ideology. They're not. They are just not. To accuse a culture, or a people, of always being a certain way throughout history, that's where the racism comes in. You say "it cannot be forgotten by the Korean people," and I can respect that, to some extent. After all, we say "Never Forget" about the Holocaust. But many, if not most Jews hold no grudge against Germany or the German people as a whole, from the beginning of time to today, throughout all its incarnations. Are Americans still upset over injustices committed by the British nearly three hundred years ago? No. Are the Brits still upset with the Vikings or the Normans or the Romans who no longer exist? No. You can name as many events as you want, as many Japanese incursions or invasions or attacks as you want, but the people who committed them have nothing in common with one another other than that they are Japanese. I do not disagree that Japan has had a violent history, and that Korea has suffered because of it. I do not disagree that currently today Japan and China both have serious issues with their history textbooks. But the blanket statement that "all Japanese are like this" or that "Japan has always been like this" is where I must disagree with you. If you cannot see the racism inherent in those statements... then it makes me very curious as to what sort of thing you would consider racism. Incidentally, I have been reading a fair bit about Korean history here on Wikipedia, and it's fascinating stuff; I'm no fan of the CCP, but many other aspects of East Asian and Southeast Asian history quite intrigue me, and I am looking forward to learning more about Korean history. LordAmeth 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you are right, except that Oyo321, your contradicting yourself a bit and this article is not the place to discuss the various invasions by China and Japan. If invasions of Korea are interesting, I suggest writing a new article on it? A concise article on invasions of Korea might be helpful to others, but its only a suggestion.

Oh yes, and LordAmeth, you probably are aware that Korea believes that Japanese aggression in Dokdo is a continuous thing of Japanese imperialism, right? Korea believes that Japan and China are continuing their imperialism and trying to influence Korea. That may be where Oyo321 gets his standpoint on this issue.

Anyways, this article is for discussing the article, not a political discussion about East Asia (not that I'm discouraging it) Good friend100 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Racism is a strong word. I would consider myself stereotyping Chinese and Japanese attitudes. You argue well, LordAmeth, but I am forced to say that still, you have a very limited idea of the situation surrounding the geopolitics of East Asia right now. It's true, LordAmeth, that China and Japan still wish to *gulp* *swallow* Korea. That's a fact that any Korean, any educated Chinese or Japanese, or any educated Westerner can realize. You may know that last week, Japan rocketed a very high-quality spy camera into space. Japan now has a total number of four spy-capable satellites in space, all concentrated on Korea and China. The suspicious actions of the Japanese government drew questions, and Japan replied that they fear a nuclear threat from North Korea. Nice excuse. You also know of Dokdo. It's quite easy to leave a country's territory alone, you know...Japan throws massive efforts at persuading the people of a "Takeshima."

Do you know of China's decision to construct their 2008 Olympic structures on Mount. Baekdusan? It is a horrible way to try and show the world that Baekdusan is Chinese...which it isn't. Everyone knows of Chinese and Japanese alterations of history in their textbooks. A sane nation would never think of such things without the evil intention to invade...

China and Japan wish to humble Korea. That cannot be denied.

If you don't stand from a Korean POV, I'm sorry. You just can't realize how, as an independent nation, hurt we are. I really do hope you learn a lot about Korea. Maybe you could sometime later see from the Korean POV. I myself have been reading about China and Japan. Oyo321 01:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if there are Koreans who feel threatened and belittled. I really am. Being a small country between two large powers, attacked numerous times throughout history by the Han, the Manchus, the Mongols, the Jurchens, the Soviets, will result in that sort of attitude. I went to a lecture a few days ago on late 19th century Court relations between England and East Asia - there was an interesting episode in which the Koreans attempted to involve themselves in Court politics on the level of the Chinese & Japanese Emperors and the English Queen are were laughed at by Britain and Europe for thinking themselves equals to such large important powers. If this is all you see of your long, deep, and interesting history, then I understand and sympathize entirely. But if you cannot see that Japan fears the threats of North Korea and Communist China, that it is not intending any threat of its own, then I really do not know what to say to you. Dokdo, the Senkakus, and like that are tense situations, but they are small islands over which to dispute, and I cannot emphasize enough that I think your accusation that Japan wants to "swallow" Korea is just flat out wrong. Sooner or later, the South Koreans have to come to the realization that they are far more similar to Japan in outlook and in culture and that they need to side with Japan against the authoritarian, violent governments of Communist China and North Korea if they want to survive. I cannot think of another country off-hand in the entire world who is so deeply attached to their victim culture and so fearful of her neighbors - with the exception of Israel, which has every right to be fearful. LordAmeth 09:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oyo321, this is not a talk page to discuss philosophical ideas and other political problems, ideals, beliefs, accusations, or reflective opinions about the world around you. Good friend100 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think LordAmeth has good point, and I wish koreans and japanese would come to terms that they are not that different. the solution is either that koreans forgive japan for what happened or for japan to apologize and do what Germans did. Neither is happening and frankly it'd make more sense for japanese to do their part first than the koreans. as far as authoritarian violent gov is concerned, don't be a naivete, japan has its own agenda, and so do all the other countries involved. it's korean necks that are on the line, and many of them smarter than all of us statistically speaking, feel that Japan is a bigger threat than n.korea, then i guess it is unless japan assuages korean sentiment which is pretty easy to do in practice.

Hideyoshi's death

Regarding the recent edit which notes a cross next to Hideyoshi's name in the infobox, representing his death during the conflict... I know he died in 1598, bringing a sudden end to the campaigns in Korea, but did he die in combat? Did he even die in Korea? The cross in the infobox here is a minor detail, but I think the question is a valid one, and one that is surprisingly absent from his article. (This article here indicates that he died in his sleep, and that he ordered the withdrawal of all forces from Korea just before that, strongly implying that he died at home in Japan... if I had any books in front of me, I'd check into this, but alas I do not.) Thanks. LordAmeth 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hideyoshi never even touched the Korean peninsula. He died in his sleep in his kingdom. Oyo321 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So, should the cross be removed? If he wasn't in Korea, then he didn't die directly in relation to the event... LordAmeth 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

After his death, there is no pushing energy in Japan. Successor Tokukawa Ieyasu summoned some combat leader in Korea and tried to retreat from Korea. And tried to conciliate Chinese army general. But Joseon government want to expel all Japanese strongly. After battle of Noryang and defeated Japanese had to retreat all army back to Japan without any option or ground base in Korea. --Alf 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

HEADS UP

It should be most noted that the Japanese incasions of Korea article is getting increasingly long. The Battles of the War should be their own little independent articles, or else this article looks like a stinking (confusing) piece of crap.... Please! the evidence!!! I wish I could believe half the stuff in there!!!! Odst 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

a map of the first invasion 1592

File:1592invasionmap.png

I made this map, its really only temporary because I hope somebody with photoshop can make this map a lot easier to read and cooler. click on the image to read the captions for the blue, red, green, purple lines. Good friend100 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's really cool! Perfect. Wait. Perfect - 1. Maybe there should be a tool box inside the pic instead of the picture summary explaining it... and also isn't the pic based off a real map? Then, it's under copyright violation. You could make an outline of the Korean peninsula fresh, right? (Wikimachine 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

The map is apparently based on commons:Image:MapofKorea.png, which is released under GFDL, so it cannot be released into the public domain. Good friend100, please change the licensing to {{GFDL-retouched}} and specify original source and author in the sammary to solve the copyright issue. --Kusunose 03:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamgyong campaign

I'm not sure exactly where this fits into the 'pedia's current coverage of the conflict... is this redundant? Is it useful? I would appreciate it if someone could take a glance and see if it's worth keeping, or renaming, or merging, or expanding... Thanks. LordAmeth 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a really good article to keep and expand. Kato Kiyomasa's northern campaign is one of the main episodes of the invasion. It marks Japanese success on land in Korea and its peak, then its retreat after Kato's first and only invasion into China where he was beaten by nomadic tribes. Good friend100 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

subsections and sections

The article is really long. Some of the sections are long enough to be their own articles on a different page. We should start to minimize sections and summarize the battles while leaving details in the link provided to the main article of that section. Good friend100 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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). [5][6](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 [7], 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[[8]] 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[9] 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)