Jump to content

Talk:Turtle ship: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot
→‎Continued problem with decking: good article / thanks
Line 48: Line 48:
::I actually don't think that's a helpful perspective. This is not about nationalism or Korea, Japan or whatever POV propaganda and engaging sock puppets and the like. I'm sure this article has had problems with such but this section has always had an issue with editors turning this into an opinion piece about iron cladding or lack thereof and using references to draw their own conclusions. I'm hoping to have this section be a more neutral presentation of facts and references cited.[[User:Melonbarmonster2|Melonbarmonster2]] ([[User talk:Melonbarmonster2|talk]]) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
::I actually don't think that's a helpful perspective. This is not about nationalism or Korea, Japan or whatever POV propaganda and engaging sock puppets and the like. I'm sure this article has had problems with such but this section has always had an issue with editors turning this into an opinion piece about iron cladding or lack thereof and using references to draw their own conclusions. I'm hoping to have this section be a more neutral presentation of facts and references cited.[[User:Melonbarmonster2|Melonbarmonster2]] ([[User talk:Melonbarmonster2|talk]]) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
::: I was merely pointing out that despite its military history interest, it's an object of fraught ideological meaning and as such, motivates editors in a way that is different than other articles about historical ships and the like. [[User:Ogress|'''Ogress''']] [[User_Talk:Ogress|<sub style="color:#BA55D3;">''smash!''</sub>]] 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
::: I was merely pointing out that despite its military history interest, it's an object of fraught ideological meaning and as such, motivates editors in a way that is different than other articles about historical ships and the like. [[User:Ogress|'''Ogress''']] [[User_Talk:Ogress|<sub style="color:#BA55D3;">''smash!''</sub>]] 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:Were Wikipedia not multiple editable, a more concise section with a single conclusion (plate or no plate) might be possible. But given the nature of Wikipedia, this is a well written article, including this deck section that leaves it to the reader to conclude whether or not the ship was iron clad. If [[User:Ogress|'''Ogress''']] (or anyone else) can document the POV that turtle ships are a national symbol of pride for some of Korea, that is worth adding to the section [[Turtle_ship#Turtle_ships_today|Turtle Ships Today]]. Thanks. [[User:GeeBee60|GeeBee60]] ([[User talk:GeeBee60|talk]]) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 15:17, 14 December 2016

more pictures and graphs

We need more pictures and architectural layout of this ship, we seriously lack detailed information.--Korsentry 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)

If you read the article, you'll see that not much is known because the closest resembling ship was drawn 200 years later. Presumably none have been found on the sea floor either. So most of it is educated speculation and academics disagreeing with each other. Actually Hawley is not even professional historian [1], but his book was reviewed in academic journals [2]. And Turnbull's books are written for the general public too. Perhaps there's more serious work in Korean. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in service

15th ~ 19th century?, I always thoughts it was used only in Imjin war (16th century), where is source for used until 19th century?--Korsentry 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)

Continued problem with decking

The decking section remains problematic. There are conflicting sources and there is no consensus regarding iron plating on decking of the turtle ship. The section currently reads like a research article using references to argue for why the turtle ship was not iron clad. I tried to reword the section to get rid of POV presentation of referenced facts without deleting useful references. I will continue to work on rewriting this section to have it be a neutral presentation of referenced information rather than an opinion piece.

One chronic problem in this section has been editors drawing their on conclusions and interpretations using references which is original research and synthesis appropriate for writing research papers but not for wikipedia articles. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melonbarmonster2 The Korea articles have (as many others do) a set of nationalistic stalkers/edit warriors and sock farmers. The turtle ship is a frequent nationalistic symbol, especially an anti-Japanese one. I agree that the page is problematic and its source of nationalistic reification is the reason there's so much seemingly unusual activity on the topic. Ogress smash! 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think that's a helpful perspective. This is not about nationalism or Korea, Japan or whatever POV propaganda and engaging sock puppets and the like. I'm sure this article has had problems with such but this section has always had an issue with editors turning this into an opinion piece about iron cladding or lack thereof and using references to draw their own conclusions. I'm hoping to have this section be a more neutral presentation of facts and references cited.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely pointing out that despite its military history interest, it's an object of fraught ideological meaning and as such, motivates editors in a way that is different than other articles about historical ships and the like. Ogress smash! 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Were Wikipedia not multiple editable, a more concise section with a single conclusion (plate or no plate) might be possible. But given the nature of Wikipedia, this is a well written article, including this deck section that leaves it to the reader to conclude whether or not the ship was iron clad. If Ogress (or anyone else) can document the POV that turtle ships are a national symbol of pride for some of Korea, that is worth adding to the section Turtle Ships Today. Thanks. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Turtle ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Turtle ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]