Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Next you will say that Vittoro-Veneto was a "Possible" Italian victory?

A "possible" Allied victory? A war that is so disasterous for the Empire of Japan that it remains more or less secluded to the Home Islands for about 200+ years? A war so bloody that utterly few of the Japanese the landed on the shores of Korea survived at all? And this is a "possible" Allied Victory. I am reverting it.

Naval Operations of Coalition Forces in 1597

I changed this title back into "Korena Naval Operations in 1597".

Yes, China sent a large fleet to Korea to help out Admiral Yi. It is also true that China played a major factor in forcing the Japanese to retreat.

But most of the battles until late 1597 and 1598, it was mostly Korean forces that won naval battles against the Japanese. Chinese forces really helped out in the Battle of Noryang, and not at the moment they came to aid the Korean soldiers. Good friend100 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

reference tab

who put up the reference tab on the article?

a lot of the information I write comes from prior knowledge. Good friend100 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I put it there. Whenever you have a reference being used, use this format: (take out the _) <_ref>source<_/ref>.

Many of this is not properly cited. Take a look at Jang Yeongsil article. It's thoroughly cited.

If we want this to be a featured article, we need to cite everything. (Wikimachine 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Ok I'll get my Imjin War book. Good friend100 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Korea's Navy

This is a question I've always kept unanswered- whatever happened to turtleships? After their significant role as destroying the Japanese navy, why didn't the Korean government continue a production of these ships? Oyo321 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Korea did in fact mass produce the Turtle ships until the late 18th century. However, lack of military tention and budget, turtle ship armada was disbanded in the course of two centuries. Last turtle ship in action was against a ship called 'General Sherman'. one turtle ship assaulted the American ship, and well, you can only guess what happened to the turtle ship.

The article clearly states that they didn't need the Turtle Ships anymore. Read first, then ask. Good friend100 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps they were too busy reconstructing the country. (Wikimachine 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Maybe, Korea had several weak kings and the military was ignored again. Consequently, the Japanese "invasion" happened in 1910 and Korea became annexed. It justs makes you think how Koreans are so ignorant sometimes; they had to suffer two invasions just to understand how dangerous their neighbor is. (I'm not bias, I'm Korean myself) Good friend100 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

reference

How on earth do you cite a reference or a source???

I have no idea. Could someone explain the steps to cite a reference? Thank you. Good friend100 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to 'edit' to see the format

Sentence... sentence... sentence.

That's how you cite a webpage. Don't know about a book. Once you type this right after a sentence (with no space), it will automatically appear under 'References'.

If you cite the same source multiple times:

Sentence... sentence... sentence. (First time)

Sentence... sentence... sentence. (Second time)

Sentence... sentence... sentence. (Third time)

You can go on indefinately like this. Remember to add the slashes. When you do this again for another source make up another name.

I found all this out by looking at other articles. Taeguk Warrior 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a help source for the Imjin War...

Hi, this is a very interesting article, though it is lacking in depth and references as the headline tab says.

Read this: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v069/69.1swope.html

I think this is a more accurate and balanced account of the Imjin War than the stuff Stephen Turnbull writes.

Cheers

Thank you for the reference however it seems you need to be a member of some sort. Anyhow, the Stephen Turnbull stuff is still reliable. Its just that he is a historian on Japanese history. The book was written as part of his researches on Japanese history not Korean, and some of the stuff in his book are POV. Good friend100 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the article didn't work. I'm on university networks which is why. You're correct that Turnbull focuses on Japanese history. I feel that the other article that I linked gives a more reliable assessment overall, which is necessary here. It draws from sources of all the three major combatants. It also points at some loopholes in the other analyses. I suppose Turnbull can be reliable when you're just focusing on Japanese military history or for the lack of other sources in the case of the Imjin War (aspects relating to Japanese organization, governance), but as for the battles, and more international affairs, we need a comparative approach.

Here's the article: (This is only a brief abstract; the author is in the process of finishing the research paper)

Crouching Tigers, Secret Weapons: Military Technology Employed During the Sino-Japanese-Korean War, 1592-1598 Kenneth M. Swope

Abstract

The Japanese invasion of Korea (1592-98) has recently been called Asia's first "regional world war." It marked the first time in Asian history that massive armies equipped with modern weaponry faced one another on the field of battle. The Japanese armies commanded by the warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi were arguably the most skilled in the world at the time, yet in the end the Japanese were defeated by a Sino-Korean alliance in tandem with Korean guerrillas. Looking at the primary documents of the war, it seems apparent that military technology was the single most important, but not the only, factor that shaped the direction and determined the outcome of the war. This article presents an overview of some of the major military technologies utilized by the belligerents and challenges conventional interpretations of the conflict, passed down through the centuries, that claim Japan's defeat was due to superior allied numbers and Hideyoshi's death.

The Japanese invasion of Korea (1592-98), masterminded by the upstart overlord of Japan, Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-98),1 was one [End Page 11]of the most significant events in the long history of East Asia. Planned as the first stage in Japan's conquest of China, and eventually India as well, the invasion has recently been called Asia's first regional "world war." It marked the first time in Asian history that massive armies equipped with modern weaponry clashed on the field of battle.2 Moreover, unlike the Korean War of the 1950s, often called "The Forgotten War" by Americans scarred by the experience of Vietnam, Hideyoshi's Korean War is still very much in the popular consciousness of both Korea and Japan, and to a much lesser degree, China as well. Shrines and memorials to heroes of this saga dot both the Korean and Japanese countrysides. Tourists are encouraged to visit the splendid museum inside Hideyoshi's former castle at Osaka, restored in the militaristic 1930s to serve as a memorial to Japan's glorious military past. Likewise, visitors can view spectacular paintings, statues, and reconstructed turtleboats (kŏbuksŏn) all over Korea. Admiral Yi Sunsin (1545-98), Korea's leading naval commander during the invasions, is regarded as perhaps the single greatest hero in Korean history. It is no accident that Yi's diary and memorials from the war are among the few primary sources of Korean history from the Yi dynasty translated into English.3 Additionally, some Japanese [End Page 12] commanders, most notably KatōKiyomasa (1562-1611), were venerated to the point of deification in the years after the invasion. Even though Japan's designs were eventually thwarted by a Sino-Korean alliance, Hideyoshi's dream of conquering the Asian mainland was revived in the late nineteenth century by Meiji expansionists. In fact, the very route the Japanese invaders followed through China in the 1930s was modeled after Hideyoshi's initial plans. The events of the war also inspired anti-Japanese revolutionaries in Korea in the twentieth century, and the Japanese colonial regime went to great lengths to destroy reminders of the conflict that might provoke anti-Japanese resistance.

The war also has larger international implications. In terms of sheer numbers, the conflict involved armies that easily dwarfed those of their European contemporaries, as more than two hundred thousand regular troops fought for both the Chinese and Japanese sides, in addition to hundreds of thousands of Korean regulars, volunteer militiamen, and monk soldiers. The fluid political environment of maritime Asia in the late sixteenth century also meant that there was a significant European impact on the war as well, manifesting itself both in the form of European observers and chroniclers from afar, and more importantly, in the use of various European military technologies, most notably muskets and cannon, throughout the conflict. It is well known that the Japanese had used European-derived firearms in domestic conflicts since the middle of the sixteenth century, but only recently have other examples of military technological diffusion become apparent with regards to this war.4 Expanding upon and challenging Michael Roberts's and Geoffrey Parker's thesis of a European military revolution, Sun Laichen has persuasively argued that Ming China was in fact the world's first gunpowder empire and that the Ming were the primary exporters of military technology throughout Asia until at least the late sixteenth century.5 Japanese scholars have suggested that further technology transfers took place after the war, including a dissemination of firearms technology from Japan to China via captured Japanese prisoners, and the transmittal of Dutch knowledge of cannon making to the Koreans via shipwrecked [End Page 13] sailors in the seventeenth century.6 Findings such as these suggest that the war really needs to be evaluated within the larger context of military innovation and international trade, and not just as an isolated phenomenon in Asian history. Thus, it would be useful to ask how this conflict fits into the larger parameters of the so-called military revolution and if this war could not be seen as a test study for the wider application of the theories of Geoffrey Parker and others along those lines, although that is beyond the scope of the present article.7

But despite its obvious importance for both East Asian and world history, the War of the Korean Peninsula remains little known and poorly understood in the West. Most textbooks give it scant attention or at best devote a few lines to it, blaming the war for the weakening of the Ming (1368-1644) state, the destruction of Korea, and the victory of the forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542-1616) in the Battle of Sekigahara in Japan in 1600. This situation in itself is baffling, for the war is wonderfully documented in Korea, China, and Japan. Literally thousands of documents on the war remain extant, and a tremendous number of them have been published in various forms in China, Japan, and Korea. Most of these documents are written in classical Chinese, which is fortuitous for someone such as myself who does not read Korean. The sheer volume of material is certainly partly to blame for the lack of scholarly attention to this conflict in the West. This situation has been exacerbated by the general reluctance of Asianists in the West to devote much attention to military affairs, a reluctance perhaps born of the biases inherent in the writings of civil officials trained in Confucian learning.8 [End Page 14]

As a result of these and other problems, to date not a single full-length scholarly treatment of the conflict exists in English, although there seems to be a recent resurgence in interest in the war as evidenced by the number of articles published lately in Asia and elsewhere and interest expressed at scholarly conferences.9 Stephen Turnbull published the first popular account, which, although it provides a solid general narrative of the war, has a number of shortcomings. First of all, Turnbull relies entirely on Japanese- and English-language secondary materials, augmented by a few translations of primary sources. He uses virtually nothing written from the Chinese perspective, not even widely available English-language reference works or monographs. He also leaves out much important Japanese scholarship, most notably the works of Kitajima Manji, who has published extensively on the subject. As a result the work is one-sided and presents a rather flawed interpretation of the war. Turnbull repeats the conventional view that Hideyoshi's death in 1598 was the primary factor in Japan's defeat in Korea. He also seems to adopt a pro-Japanese slant throughout, such as glossing over Japanese atrocities by blaming them on "lesser soldiers not in the first rank of samurai heroes."10 Nevertheless, Turnbull does deserve credit for making a larger audience aware of this war and its historical importance. His work is also lavishly illustrated and therefore useful for those who would like to see images of some of the personalities, technologies, and sites of the war.

As indicated above, study of this conflict can shed invaluable light on a number of important issues in early modern Asian, or even world history, including the nature of foreign relations and diplomacy between states including the so-called Chinese world order and its attendant tributary system, the importance of ritual and "face" in interstate relations in Asia, the importance of imperial pretensions and motives, military logistics and planning, and the adoption and use of new military technologies in battle, to name just a few. It also helps to put the current tensions on the Korean peninsula in their proper historical perspective as North Korea's current desire for national security is certainly grounded in past experiences. Policy makers and negotiators would benefit by gaining a greater understanding of the historical tensions between China, Korea, and Japan as we move into a new century promising increased involvement on the international stage by all these states.

In this article I concentrate on one very important dimension of the war, military technology. Again, it is somewhat surprising that this aspect of the war has not received more attention outside East Asia. As [End Page 15] will be seen below, traditional accounts generally attribute the complete and utter collapse of Korean regulars in the early stages of the war to their deficiencies in technology. Japanese accounts from the time of the war down to the present highlight this fact. It was only when the Koreans managed to invent their ingenious turtleboats (vessels reinforced with iron plates and ringed with spikes that made them resemble turtles) and the Ming Chinese intervened with overwhelming numbers that the tide was turned against the invaders.11 Japan's technological and tactical advantages were such that had Hideyoshi not died in 1598, then his dream of creating an empire in mainland Asia may have been realized,12 or so standard treatments, most of which were written from the Japanese perspective, would have us believe.13

While more recent scholarship, most notably the fine work of Kitajima Manji, has tended to adopt a more balanced appraisal of the conflict, for centuries the Japanese perpetuated a myth of victory in Korea, a myth so powerful that it fired the dreams of conquerors in the late nineteenth century until Hideyoshi's dreams were finally realized with the annexation of Korea in 1910. This myth stemmed in part from the various chronicles compiled on behalf of Hideyoshi's retainers serving in Korea, all of whom were eager to attain recognition for their efforts.14 Thus, official house historians were wont to exaggerate the prowess of their respective employers, and the numbers of enemy troops, for example, were often inflated so that the Japanese were always outnumbered in any conflict. Later historians, who wrote comprehensive accounts of the conflict for Japanese audiences by utilizing these earlier records as their sources, in turn transmitted such tales. The most prominent and [End Page 16] influential of these works, if not the most accurate, were Kawaguchi Choju's Seikan iryaku, translated as A Heroic Account of the Conquest of Korea; and Rai Sanyo's Nihon gaishi, rendered as A History of Japan's Foreign Relations.15 Furthermore, this myth is alive and well today as evidenced by the content of various shrines and memorials to Hideyoshi and the war scattered throughout Japan and by the conversations I myself have had with ordinary Japanese.

What is perhaps more surprising is that modern Chinese histories of the conflict often have the same interpretation. Again, many of these flawed interpretations of the war stem from reliance upon biased or inaccurate source materials. For example, one of the most often cited summaries of the conflict, excerpted from the Ming shi, translated as The Official History of the Ming Dynasty, relates that "When the kampaku [Hideyoshi] invaded the eastern country [Korea] the war lasted seven years from start to finish and resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, the destruction of millions of pounds of grain and yet the Middle Kingdom and Korea had still not devised a stratagem for victory. It was only with the death of Hideyoshi that hostilities were brought to a close."16 Yet throughout this same source, accounts that directly contradict this assessment can be found. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that Chinese historiographical practice virtually required the assignation of praise and blame, and as the history of the Ming was compiled during the succeeding Qing (1644-1911) period, it was necessary for the compilers to look for evidence of Ming military weakness. Since the compilers of this same history blamed the Wanli Emperor (r. 1573-1620) for initiating the period of Ming decline, it was only natural for them to extend their argument to all aspects of his administration. Later Chinese historians have followed this lead, with the notable exception of the late Li Guangtao, who made extensive use of primary sources from all three sides, most notably the Korean.17

When I first approached this topic as a graduate student, I was heavily influenced by the standard portrayals, but even a cursory reading of [End Page 17] some of the primary sources suggested to me that such stock interpretations were grossly oversimplified and there was far more going on in the war that demanded further study. Additionally, far from conveying images of fearful Chinese and Koreans loath to meet the fabled Japanese war machine head on, I found that the reverse was often the case. In fact, it was the Japanese who often avoided large set piece battles with the Chinese, not because they feared their numbers, but because they had a healthy respect for Ming military technology. This assessment comes from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean sources. Therefore, based on my extensive readings of a number of key primary sources, it is my contention that despite all the rhetoric used by the participants throughout the conflict, in the end it was technological and logistical considerations that probably shaped the direction of the war more than anything else, and everyone knew it. Lest I open myself up to charges of technological determinism, I would add that I do not believe that technology was the only factor that impelled the Japanese retreat, but it was the single greatest variable. Early in the war, before the Chinese got involved and before the Koreans unveiled their turtleboats, the Japanese ran roughshod over the defenders. Technology leveled and then eventually tipped the battlefields in favor of the Sino-Korean allies, along with logistical considerations, of course. Finally, I would add that the present piece is but a tiny sliver of a much larger work in progress and I hope to present a much more thorough treatment of the war and all its myriad complexities in the finished work.

In primary accounts of the war, what is most striking at first is the diversity of technologies employed. All three combatants consistently sought to develop and implement new technologies and strategies throughout the conflict, and all devised countermeasures to combat the perceived advantages of their opponents. This should come as no surprise to most students of military history, but these developments, with the notable exception of Korea's famous turtleboats, have been largely ignored by historians outside Asia. Thus, this war provides an excellent forum in which to pursue comparative military issues. For example, much has been made of the so-called "Military Revolution" in Europe from 1500 to 1800, but hardly any attention has been devoted to Asian developments in this same period, despite the availability of primary source materials.18 It is taken for granted by many that military and technological innovation was a driving force of Western expansion and dominance and a manifestation of the West's dynamism.19 But, if one [End Page 18] were to focus on even just this war, much of the same dynamism can be seen, albeit on a more limited scale. Therefore, the Korean War of 1592-98 is of seminal importance in understanding the nature and impetus for innovations in military technology in early modern East Asia and offers a unique setting in which to study both military theory and practice. We also see how fast military technologies can be developed and implemented during a war, a situation that is often discussed with respect to later conflicts, but also seems to apply here.

Before going further, it should be acknowledged that some of the technologies used in this war were in fact developed outside Asia, most notably the arquebus muskets used by the Japanese, while others were fascinating adaptations of designs and technologies developed in a variety of places and times. For example, according to tradition the Japanese first received firearms technology from Portuguese who landed off the island of Tanegashima in 1543. Thus, guns were sometimes called Tanegashima, in addition to the more general term teppō.20 These were small-bore weapons and were actually modeled on designs the Europeans quickly replaced, though they were retained by the Japanese with slight variations almost through the Tokugawa (1603-1868) period. While on the one hand this is certainly evidence of the superior firearms technology of the Europeans as of the sixteenth century, it is also a testament to the willingness of Asian states to adopt and adapt useful foreign technologies. States within Asia and rival groups within states, such as the Japanese daimyo (warlords), were very cognizant of the advantages superior military technology could offer them, and they were always on the lookout for something that could give them an edge. Thus, they eagerly adapted any new technology that might be in their means to implement. The ability to manufacture or acquire the technology is therefore key. In some instances it was impossible for states or leaders to use these technologies on a large scale for a variety of reasons, so obviously superior weapons were either not used at all or used only on a limited scale. [End Page 19]

Before the coming of the Europeans in larger numbers in the sixteenth century, the Chinese were the major disseminators of military technology in Asia. The Ming Chinese had actually been using weapons similar to the Portuguese arquebus for some two hundred years.21 As indicated above, one scholar has even called early Ming China the first "gunpowder empire" in the early modern world and asserts that it was the Ming, not the Europeans, who started the military revolution, not only in Asian history, but also in world history.22 Therefore, when Europeans brought their arms to Asia, they did not introduce the technology, but rather they supplemented and expanded the options already available to war-makers. Victory or defeat often came to rest upon the ability to properly use the technologies at one's disposal. Because of this fact, troops which were otherwise overmatched or outclassed could prevail by virtue of the superiority of their weaponry, most often greater range or penetrating power on the part of their ranged weapons. As a result, conflicts often became testing grounds for new technologies.

When Hideyoshi first set his sights on conquering Ming China, and later, the rest of Asia, he had good reason to be confident. After all, with the use of Western military technology, namely the aforementioned arquebus musket, Hideyoshi had managed to conquer all of Japan and bring it under the rule of one man for the first time in over a century. He knew the Koreans, through whom he would have to go first, were woefully ill-equipped to deal with his disciplined, well-armed troops. Indeed, on paper the war looked like a serious mismatch from the start, though the early twentieth century scholar J. L. Boots, writing during the period of Japanese colonial rule over Korea, exaggerated a bit when he said, "The story of Korean arms is a tragedy. . . . It is a story of a people driven in desperation to a task for which they had no heart, forced to learn an art for which they had no aptitude. It is the story of a people who repeatedly had to lay down their honored pen and brush to defend their lands and homes against those who loved the sword."23

In fact, Hideyoshi did attempt to learn something of Korea's defenses and armed forces before the invasion via a number of spies and coastal raids. On the whole he was unimpressed. According to a Japanese source, Hideyoshi sent twenty-six ships to ply the waters off the south coast of Korea in 1587 in order to test the strengths and weaknesses of Korea's troops. The Korean troops on land and at sea were timid in these encounters and fled before the Japanese. The only commander who did [End Page 20] come forth to fight was killed when his boat was sunk.24 Therefore, Hideyoshi felt he had nothing to fear whatsoever from the Koreans. Furthermore, he dismissed Ming China as "the country of the long sleeves" and figured that the scholar-bureaucrats who ran the empire would offer little resistance to his forces, saying the armies of the Ming "resemble helpless women in their spirit and fighting ability."25

What Hideyoshi did not know was that the Ming had also been developing cannon and other firearms based on Portuguese models since early in the reign of the Jiajing emperor (r. 1522-66). Upon seeing the efficacy of these weapons, the emperor ordered that a bureau be established immediately for their manufacture and that soldiers be trained in their use. After Jiajing's directive, the floodgates were opened for the importation of foreign military technology. In Wanli's reign (1573-1620), other foreign ships arrived bearing what the Chinese called "Red Barbarian Cannon" (hong yi pao), a mighty weapon some twenty feet in length and weighing over thirty-three hundred pounds, capable of reducing city walls and making the ground shake for ten li (approximately 3.5 miles).26 The manufacture of these weapons was but an extension of the duties of the Ming firearms division, which was first established by Emperor Yongle in 1407, allegedly with the help of Vietnamese experts captured during the Ming occupation.27 Equally fascinating is the fact that the Koreans also established their own firearms divisions and eagerly sought help from Ming China in this area.28 They also apparently made relatively frequent use of these weapons against both pirates and Jurchen raiders from the north, although it seems that they had fallen into disuse by the time of the Japanese invasions. [End Page 21]

Finally, Hideyoshi did not foresee how important control of the seas would be during the campaign. Over the seven-year span of the war, the Japanese found themselves bested time and again by the allies at sea, their supply lines cut. They were never able to close the technological gap between themselves and the Chinese and Koreans in this area. Hideyoshi tried throwing more men at the problem, but the combination of Admiral Yi Sunsin's turtleboats and the naval artillery of the Chinese proved too much for the invaders to handle. In the end the superior experience, skill, and discipline of the Japanese were no match for the technological superiority of the Chinese and the Koreans. It should be added that numbers were not as much of a factor as some Japanese sources would have us believe. As far as I can determine, the Chinese did not have numerical superiority over the Japanese until the very last stages of the war, although the Koreans tipped numbers in favor of the allies. But the popular assertion that the Japanese were grossly outnumbered throughout the conflict is simply not true.

The invasion began on 23 May 1592 as a force of over 150,000 Japanese in several hundred ships landed at Pusan and other ports along Korea's southeastern coast.29 When Sō Yoshitoshi (1568-1615) and Konishi Yukinaga (1558-1600) arrived at the head of the invading forces, the Koreans were intimidated by their banners "which blotted out the sky" and their cannon which "roared like thunder."30 The garrison at Pusan was manned by 20,000 troops under the command of General Chŏng Pal, fierce in his black armor. Chong came forth to engage the enemy but he found his forces about to be cut off so he retreated to the city, pursued by the Japanese. The invaders took up positions on the mountain behind the city and fired down upon the Koreans within. Their ranks did not hold, and the Koreans scattered.31 As they tried to flee, the Japanese cut them to ribbons, killing 8,500 Koreans and capturing alive 200 more. Chŏng Pal himself died in the fighting but was buried with honor by the Japanese.32 In this engagement, as would be the case throughout the early stages of the war, Japanese muskets gave them a huge advantage over the defenders. Both Japanese and Korean accounts consistently refer to the Japanese use of firearms in land battles as being integral to early Japanese successes, the guns apparently having both greater range and penetrating power than Korean bows and arrows. [End Page 22] Japenese invasion of 1592 Click for larger view Figure 1 Japenese invasion of 1592 [End Page 23]

We also see Japanese tactics and organization at work. Throughout the war when attacking Korean cities and mountain fortresses (sansŏng), the Japanese tried to gain the high ground and fire down upon the defenders with volleys of bullets and arrows.33 Japanese forces were organized into infantry and cavalry divisions with the infantry consisting of units of archers, spearmen, and gunners, while mounted troops tended to carry spears.34 It is significant to note that they did not generally rely upon the fabled Japanese long swords (katana) as their favored weapon in mass combat, although they did carry them. Japanese swords did prove vital in a least a couple of major battles during the war, being longer and sharper than the swords of the Chinese and Koreans. The general tactic adopted by the invaders was to fire musket volleys first, then advance, and fire more volleys before engaging in hand-to-hand combat. Spear units operated in tandem with archery and gun units to provide defense. As noted above, firearms and other light artillery came to be the most important weapons used by the Japanese. Some of them fired shot as heavy as thirty momme, or about three pounds.35 The matchlocks were called hinawaju or hinawajutusu in Japanese, in addition to the more generic terms mentioned above. Yi Sunsin remarked about how feared Japanese firearms were among the Koreans and how the Japanese often attacked with guns from caves, hideouts, and other fortified positions.

A typical Japanese musket was just over three feet in length and fired shot weighing about six momme. The caliber was about 15.8 mm. While the muskets had a range in excess of perhaps six hundred yards, they were actually more effective at longer distances because of the difficulties of loading, aiming, and firing at close range. The Koreans realized this fact early on and tried to exploit it, albeit with limited success. The Japanese also had smaller guns designed specifically for use from horseback; there was a fair variation in the length, weight, and caliber of their muskets, with some versions exceeding five feet in length and weighing approximately twenty pounds while having about the same caliber as the aforementioned models.36 Heavier hand-held arms weighed over sixty-five pounds and had much larger bores, firing heavier shot in [End Page 24] a wider arc. Types of shot varied as well, ranging from small single pellets weighing just under half an ounce to balls with tiny hooks suspended from them to scattershot.37 Left: 'Black' mark cannon fired by fuse. Lead balls or bundles of large arrows were discharged. Right: 'Yellow' mark cannon shot lead balls and wing arrows. Click for larger view Figure 2 Left: "Black" mark cannon fired by fuse. Lead balls or bundles of large arrows were discharged. Right: "Yellow" mark cannon shot lead balls and wing arrows.

Larger guns were used specifically for sieges or sometimes mounted on platforms on ships, especially during the second invasion of 1597-98. But it appears that Japanese cannon never quite reached the massive sizes of their mainland counterparts, perhaps because of their different geopolitical environments, and quite likely in the Korean case, because it may have been too difficult for the Japanese to transport massive cannon through hostile and rugged terrain. Representative examples included in a recent military dictionary depict field pieces that weighed in at a mere ninety pounds or so.38 They tended to favor a short, heavy musket with a wide bore. Numerous illustrations of Japanese soldiers using these "hand cannons" in combat have survived.39 The Shimazu clan, in particular, were said to have used these weapons to great effect in the siege of Sachŏn in 1598.40 In fact, the Japanese came to rely more and more upon firearms as the war dragged on. Letters home frequently beseeched Hideyoshi and other commanders to send more firearms to counteract those of the Chinese. This included requests for heavier cannon.41

In discussing firearms used during the war it is interesting to note that while the Japanese specialized in hand-held weapons and light artillery, the Chinese and the Koreans countered with larger cannon and naval weapons.42 The most plausible explanation for this is the different [End Page 25] types of strategic environments in which the three belligerents operated prior to the war. Korea had long been at peace and faced few external threats other than pirates. 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.

The Koreans had four primary types of cannon: heaven, earth, black, and yellow, their names derived from the first four characters of an ancient Chinese-language primer and typically inscribed upon the cannon themselves.43 They also used a variety of small cannon known as "victory mark cannon." These bronze weapons ranged from just under a foot to perhaps twice that in length and had bores of 23 to 29 mm.44 The Koreans also used mortars and primitive hand grenades, and quickly started manufacturing muskets after being given one as a present by a Japanese ambassador just prior to the war.45 They had four major sources of guns, namely, old guns they made themselves, the Ming Chinese, the Portuguese, and copied Japanese models. Therefore, most Korean models seem to be derivative though scattered references in Korea's dynastic histories suggest they may have invented some of their cannon or, at the very least, made extensive modifications to Chinese imports. Like the Chinese, the Koreans employed a number of hybrid weapons in their arsenal, most commonly arrows with small explosive [End Page 26] charges or incendiary devices attached. They also sometimes used devices that fired a large number of arrows at once using the force of a single explosive charge. The ranges of these models varied, but, as an illustrative example, the Grand General Fire Arrow had a range of nine hundred paces.46 Modern Japanese texts contain diagrams of similar weapons, but I have seen no definitive evidence of their use in the fighting in Korea.47

The most important artillery pieces in the Ming arsenal were the Portuguese-derivedfolangji, sometimes translated as culverin, which were often mounted on ships, and native models such as the Grand General Cannon (da jiangjun pao), the Great Distance Cannon (wei yuan pao), and the Crouching Tiger Cannon (hu cun pao).48 The latter in particular were used to great effect at the Battle of Pyŏngyang in 1593. They were approximately two feet in length and thirty-three pounds in weight, firing in excess of one hundred (.43 ounce) pellets in one discharge.49 The Ming also had muskets, mortars, bombards (fa gong), fire arrows (another favorite of the Koreans), and a variety of smoke bombs and hand grenades. In addition to the examples mentioned above, both the Chinese and the Koreans also employed a fascinating array of hybrid weapons featuring elements of both more traditional catapults and gunpowder weapons. The most ingenious of these devices included the Korean hwacha, or firecart, used at the siege of Haengju in 1593. This was the equivalent of a modern rocket launcher as it consisted of a honeycomb-like framework mounted upon a wooden cart pushed by two to four men. One hundred to two hundred arrows or steel-tipped rockets could be fired simultaneously from the cart.50 The Ming also reportedly used battering rams loaded with gunpowder, though descriptions of these weapons are confusing. This list is by no means complete, and some of the more interesting weapons will be discussed later.

As the Japanese continued to advance during the last week of May and pushed rapidly towards the Korean capital at Seoul, the Koreans resolved to make a stand at narrow Chŏryŏng Pass, an eminently defensible position along the route to Seoul. Despite their shocking series of defeats up to this point, some Korean commanders, most notably Sin Ip (1546-92), who earned his reputation battling fierce Jurchen tribesmen in the north, still believed the Koreans could prevail.51 As a result, [End Page 27] instead of meeting the enemy at the pass itself, Sin resolved to fight a decisive battle in the flatlands beyond the pass, before the hill fort of Ch'ungju, saying, "The enemy are foot soldiers and we are cavalry. If we go forth and meet them on the open plain and use our iron clad cavalry, how can we not be victorious?"52 Furthermore, Sin thought the Japanese were too short to be capable soldiers and because they relied upon muskets, which were useless at close range, the Korean forces should be able to close and defeat them with their array of polearms and flails.53

Korean cavalry were typically equipped with battle flails, glaives, and long spears, in addition to bows, which will be described below. The flail was a round hard wood stick, painted red and 4.5 feet long, with an additional heavier piece fourteen inches long, attached by three links of iron chain and covered with heavy iron nails or knobs.54 Mounted archers often carried it for use after they had spent all their arrows. Long spears came in all manner of shapes and sizes, including tridents and spears similar to European awls or pikes. They also used glaives, sometimes referred to as "reclining moon knives"; battle rakes modeled on those used by the Chinese; and cross-bladed spears, which were effective in unhorsing enemy cavalry. The Japanese used cross-bladed spears as well; the Japanese commander Kato Kiyomasa's personal weapon of this type has been preserved in Japan and immortalized in statues and artwork.55

The Battle of Ch'ungju turned out to be a complete and utter rout for the Koreans. Ignoring the advice of his subordinates, Sin Ip stubbornly insisted upon arraying his forces on the soft ground of the valley, with their backs to a river. The Japanese split up their forces and entered the valley from all sides, rushing in "like the wind and the rain."56 The combined force of their arquebuses and cannon shook the earth, and several outlying towers quickly fell to the attackers. According to a Japanese source, in the middle of the night the Japanese commander employed a "flaming ox attack" (burning reeds were attached to the tails of cattle which were sent forth) and the Korean lines broke, Sin and many of his men drowning in the Han River.57 Ch'ungju was taken on 7 June. Altogether, more than three thousand Koreans were killed and one hundred were captured.

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.

The Chinese also used a variety of bows. They preferred the crossbow, which had been invented in China, and which had both great range and penetration power, its primary limitation being the amount of time it took to load, draw, and fire. The Chinese also used short bows for mounted combat and longer composite bows for their infantry. They especially liked to use fire arrows, particularly in siege and naval warfare. While some of these weapons were simply ordinary arrows wrapped with pitch or other inflammable materials, others contained explosive devices or gunpowder in small amounts. Japanese bows were massive, over seven feet in length, and constructed of bamboo and mulberry, wrapped with reed or lacquered. They fired arrows some three feet in length, tipped with a variety of different heads for specialized purposes, including for killing enemy officers and for signaling by means of attaching a wooden whistling box to the head.60

Rocked by the defeat at Ch'ungju, the Korean court abandoned the capital and fled to the north, finally stopping at the town of Ŭiju, located along the Yalu River, the border with China, as the Japanese captured city after city, eventually getting as far as Pyŏngyang. The Koreans requested aid from their nominal tributary overlords, the Ming, who were at the time preoccupied with the suppression of a troop mutiny in [End Page 29] Ningxia in northwest China.61 Therefore, the Ming dispatched only Zu Chengxun, the Vice Commander of the northeastern city of Liaoyang, and a subordinate named Shi Ru at the head of three thousand troops. Their mission was to investigate the situation in Korea and perhaps send a military message to the Japanese. The Ming crossed the Yalu on 22 August and headed for Pyŏngyang. They encountered difficulties immediately as the Ming were not familiar with the terrain and their cavalry were hampered by heavy rains. The Japanese got word of the Ming approach and opened the gates of Pyŏngyang. The Ming, believing the city to be deserted, entered, only to be lured into an ambush on 23 August, the Japanese emerging from cover "like ghosts in the night," firing upon the Ming forces with their muskets, which the Ming apparently were not aware the Japanese possessed in large numbers, despite Korean warnings.62 The Ming horses could not maneuver on the muddy ground, and the calvary were almost completely annihilated. Shi Ru was killed, and Zu Chengxun barely escaped with his life.63 It was said that only a few dozen men survived the Japanese ambush.64 This would not be the only time during the Korean campaign that Chinese cavalry were undone by poor conditions. Nevertheless, even with their victory, the Japanese commanders were ill at ease. They knew the Chinese would be coming in greater numbers, and despite Hideyoshi's bombast, Japan's generals had a healthy respect for the military prowess of Ming China from the start. Throughout the next several years the Japanese would consistently avoid engaging the Chinese in set piece battles if at all possible and would try to rely on ambushes and terrain advantages to offset their technological shortcomings, which would become apparent in the Battle of Pyŏngyang in early 1593.

At any rate, the Ming was rocked by news of the debacle at Pyŏngyang. Immediate orders were issued for the bolstering of defenses and recruitment of troops in all coastal provinces in anticipation of a possible Japanese invasion. Song Yingchang (1536-1606), a veteran official known for his interest in military defense, training, and preparations, was appointed Military Commissioner (jinglue) of Korea, and Shen [End Page 30] Weijing (ca. 1540-97), an obscure trader who had connections to the Chinese Minister of War, was made an ambassador to deal with the Japanese and buy the Ming some time as Song gathered men, mounts, and supplies for a large-scale expedition to Korea. A reconstruction of a turtle ship based on the written description of designs preserved in the Exhibition Hall at the Yi Sunsin Shrine in Asan, Korea. Click for larger view Figure 3 A reconstruction of a turtle ship based on the written description of designs preserved in the Exhibition Hall at the Yi Sunsin Shrine in Asan, Korea.

Things would have been even worse for the Koreans at this point had it not been for the heroism of Korea's most revered historical figure, Admiral Yi Sunsin. Yi was the Naval Commander of the Left of Chŏlla Province and soon joined the fight against the Japanese in the waters off the southern coast of Korea. He is famous for his invention of the turtleboats, but in actuality the idea had been around in Korea since at least 1415. Chinese sources from the same period contain pictures of craft that bear a striking resemblance to the turtleboat, in particular a ship known as the "falcon boat" (ying chuan), though I have found no evidence that suggests the Chinese used these boats in the war against Japan.65 The turtleboats were propelled by rows of oars on both sides, meaning they were not vulnerable to the vagaries of wind like the boats of the Japanese. A head was mounted on front, fires were apparently lit [End Page 31] below decks, and the smoke funneled out the mouth for added effect. The plates and spikes thwarted the favored Japanese tactics of grappling and boarding but more significantly, the ships were equipped with cannon on all sides. This was in marked contrast to the Japanese, who had plenty of muskets on land but virtually no cannon on their ships.66 Thus, the Koreans were able to create havoc amongst the Japanese fleet by firing away with their cannon, out of range of Japanese bows and catapults. Moreover, the Japanese were scattered and disoriented by the smoke spewing from the mouth of the turtle at the front of the ships.67 In the Battle of Hansan Island in July 1592, only fourteen of seventy Japanese ships are said to have survived an encounter with Yi and his turtleboats. Korean sources have tended to give Yi and his ships almost all the credit for defeating the Japanese. Though this is an exaggeration in my opinion, the Korean navy did play a vital role in severing Japanese lines of transportation and communication and gave the Koreans a much-needed psychological boost.

It should be added that it was not just the turtleboats that outperformed Japanese naval vessels. In fact, the entire Korean fleet probably did not have more than half a dozen turtleboats in action at any one time. The square sails used by the Japanese were not nearly as effective as Chinese and Korean fore and aft sail designs. Therefore, Chinese and Korean ships were far more maneuverable than their Japanese counterparts, which were essentially appropriated merchant vessels. In fact, Hideyoshi had tried to obtain warships from the Portuguese through Jesuit intermediaries but was rebuffed. A first-class man-of-war (panoksŏn) of the Yi dynasty was "probably not less than seventy feet overall in length and probably went up to one hundred feet with a beam of about one third the length. . . . Along the sides were heavy bulwarks of thick planking loopholed for archery and fitted with ports for small cannon. On some vessels shields were hung along these bulwarks as was the custom in ancient times in the Mediterranean and with the Vikings."68 Korean sailors wore sea-blue uniforms with black felt hats and used a wide variety of weapons including swords, spears, tridents, battle axes, maces, scythes, grappling hooks and irons, and great bows with large arrows, fire arrows, and darts, some with a range of four hundred yards. They also used crossbows and even pistols for ranged warfare.69 [End Page 32] Japan's second invasion of Korea, 1597-98 Click for larger view Figure 4 Japan's second invasion of Korea, 1597-98

The Chinese navy must also be taken into account when discussing the Korean campaign, although it should be noted that none of the participants in this conflict truly possessed a jurisdictionally separate navy, so readers should not think that these units were all that different from their land counterparts. On the one hand this might seem strange given the lengthy seacoasts of all three states, but this situation also reflects the political realities of the era when the most pressing military concerns (up to this point) were land based. Thus, the Japanese used co-opted pirates and merchants to facilitate their crossing to Korea and had few [End Page 33] commanders with real experience in naval warfare. The Chinese and Koreans had a few officers and soldiers with extensive experience on the sea, but even these soldiers typically rotated inland when needed. Thus, they were typically just called "water soldiers," or shui bing in Chinese.

This notwithstanding, from the beginning of the war the Chinese recognized the importance of the navy, realizing they would need both warships and supply vessels. The warships of Fujian were deemed the best, followed by medium-sized vessels (cang chuan), flat-bottomed ships (sha chuan), and galleys (hu chuan). These boats were sturdily constructed of reinforced pine and ironwood and were equipped with cannon and smaller arms, making them very effective in combat. There was nothing that could match them on the seas, and the Japanese did not dare take them on.70 As soon as the Chinese decided that war with the Japanese was imminent, the Ministry of Works, one of the six branches of Ming government, was ordered to build twenty Fujianese war galleys, eighty to one hundred medium-sized ships, and fifty to sixty flat-bottomed vessels.71 These vessels were all typically equipped with a variety of firearms, ranging from bombards to falconets to mortars to culverins. Many of the Chinese vessels possessed oars in addition to sails. Bronze bombards sometimes weighed in excess of six hundred pounds and fired solid lead balls weighing about six pounds apiece. Ming mortars fired upwards of one hundred pellets in one discharge, each pellet weighing just under half an ounce.72

As preliminary discussions with the Japanese were taking place through the fall of 1592, the Ming were assembling an army for a much larger counterattack. Li Rusong (1549-98), who had been the commander responsible for the Ming victory in Ningxia and was from a prominent military family, was made Military Superintendent, a position which imbued him with sweeping authority for the Eastern Expedition that exceeded that of virtually any Korean official save the king. He led his forces directly from Ningxia to the Korean border where he linked up with other units recruited from all over the empire.73 According to some sources the Ming assembled as many as seventy thousand troops, but the [End Page 34] actual number was probably somewhere in the vicinity of forty thousand, half of whom could be considered seasoned veterans. The Koreans were desperate for Ming assistance, but still reeling from their earlier defeats at the hands of the Japanese, they warned the Ming about the fighting prowess of their foes. Song Yingchang addressed the Korean envoy, saying, "Our army is like the wind and the rain. In the morning they will come together at the Yalu River and by evening we certainly will have smashed the enemy."74

The Ming finally crossed the Yalu in January 1593 and were again warned about the Japanese use of muskets in battle. Li Rusong scoffed at this, boasting, "The Japanese may rely on muskets, but we use great cannon which have a range of 5-6 li. What can the enemy do against them?"75 After a series of skirmishes the main body of the Ming army arrived outside the walls of Pyŏngyang on 6 February, bolstered by Korean forces. That night a Japanese assault on the camp of Li Rubo, Rusong's younger brother, was repulsed by the Ming with fire arrows.76 The allied commanders deployed their forces around the walls of the city even as some of the Japanese commanders beat a fighting retreat to its innermost defenses. Li had the Korean generals Yi Il and Kim Ŭngsŏ attack the east as he arrayed a variety of large and small cannon and artillery pieces around the other walls, directing his men to fire smoke bombs and flaming arrows into the city.77

At dawn on 8 February, the drums within the city sounded and the Japanese attacked, their boulders, bullets, and arrows falling down like rain on the besiegers. The ground shook and smoke filled the sky as the armies joined battle. Losses were heavy on both sides. Japanese armed with great spears and vats of boiling water repulsed the initial assault by Kim Ŭngsŏ and Yi Il on the east wall. Li then had his forces feign a major assault on the southeast corner of the city as he and his brother led their troops against the west walls. As the front ranks began to break, Li personally killed a fleeing soldier to restore order and announced that the first man to breach the walls would receive five thousand ounces of silver.78 Fires broke out all over the city and noxious vapors filled the air. Li Rusong galloped forth and directed the battle himself from the thick of the fighting. At one point his horse was even shot out from under him.79 He gathered a group of stouthearted men and hit the wall with "cloud ladders." Li Rusong then directed Commander Yang Yuan to proceed [End Page 35] through the small west gate of the city while his brother, Li Rubo, followed through the great west gate, setting fires so that the smoke and flames blinded and disoriented the enemy. Subsequently Yang Yuan and Li Rubo found themselves in the midst of a bloody street fight with the defenders.

Song Yingchang was present at the battle as well, leading reinforcements at the north, south, and west sides of the city. Konishi Yukinaga boldly led his men forth to break out of the encirclement, but a hail of arrows and cannon fire turned him back. The Japanese then turned to cut their way through the troops stationed to the southwest, whom they believed to be Koreans. To their dismay, however, the troops shed their disguises and revealed themselves to be Ming troops, a revelation which is said to have thrown the Japanese into a panic.80 Meanwhile, the Ming commander Wu Weizhong was battling the Japanese at the Peony Terrace outside the city, where he continued to lead his men despite taking a bullet in the chest.81 Japanese resistance remained stubborn, and even though they were badly defeated, Konishi Yukinaga was able to retreat to Pongwŏllu Pavilion outside the city.82 The Japanese made a fair stand there and cut down a number of their pursuers, which allowed Konishi Yukinaga to cross the frozen Taedong River in the middle of the night, as he retreated south towards Yŏngsan.83

The Japanese were sorely shaken after this defeat, and in a sense, after this battle, they never recovered the momentum they had enjoyed up to this point. Therefore, even though the war would drag on for over five more years, this battle was the turning point of the war, not unlike the Battle of Midway in the Second World War. It showed that the Japanese were not invincible and gave the Koreans their first chance to claim a definitive victory. Moreover, the Battle of Pyŏngyang changed the way the Japanese fought the rest of the war. Until the Ming got involved the Japanese largely relied on their superior training, morale, and firearms to carry the day. The Battle of Pyŏngyang convinced the Japanese they could not go head to head with the Ming when the latter could bring their big guns to bear. For the rest of the war the Japanese preferred to use ambushes and hit-and-run tactics against the Ming. They had apparently [End Page 36] never encountered firepower of this magnitude in their own country. It is said that the great cannon of the Ming shook the earth for tens of li, and even the mountains around the city trembled during the battle. The smoke from the artillery blotted out the sky, and the whole city was ablaze from Ming fire arrows. The surrounding forest also caught fire.84

The Japanese commanders retreated in disarray and hastily convened a council of war to determine their next course of action. There were arguments and countercharges hurled about on all sides, but they eventually decided to retreat as far as Seoul, with the Chinese and Koreans in hot pursuit. The allies quickly recaptured the city of Kaesong and recovered the four northern provinces of Korea. The Korean king even returned to Pyŏngyang. The Koreans were duly impressed with Chinese firepower and military prowess as King Sŏnjo (r. 1567-1608) exclaimed, "Their army is said to number 30,000. This is not a lot but they know how to use them. That is military ability!"85 When the king asked his ministers about Chinese and Japanese firearms, they replied, "When the Japanese fire their muskets, you can still hear, even if they fire from all sides. But when the Chinese fire their cannon, the sky and the earth vibrate and the mountains and plains tremble and you can't even speak." The king replied, "With weapons such as these, how can we not fight and win?"86 The Koreans also stated, "Military affairs are simple. Big cannons defeat small cannons and many cannon defeat few cannon."87

Giddy with his success and possessing faulty intelligence which suggested that Japanese had already abandoned Seoul, Li Rusong sped forth at the head of no more than three thousand cavalry, leaving his train of firearms far behind. In late February Li and his men were ambushed by a large force of Japanese at the postal station of Pyŏkchegwan, some ninety li north of Seoul. The Japanese attacked with their muskets from the high ground and then closed in on the Ming cavalry, inflicting heavy casualties with their katana, which were longer and sharper than the swords carried by the northern Ming cavalry units that served as Li's vanguard. The battle raged from late morning until early afternoon. Li Rusong himself may well have been killed or captured had it not been for the heroism of his subordinate Li Yousheng, who used his own body as a human shield to save the general.88 The Ming commander was finally saved when his brothers Li Rubo and Li Rumei arrived and caught the Japanese in a pincer attack. In the end both sides suffered about equal [End Page 37] losses and both retreated, the allies to Kaesong, the Japanese to Seoul. Soon thereafter the Japanese were forced to abandon Seoul, as a Chinese general led a detachment in burning the Japanese grain stores nearby.

Some sources erroneously refer to the Battle of Pyŏkchegwan as the largest or most important conflict of the entire Korean campaign.89 While the battle was important, as it temporarily slowed the allied advance and disheartened Li Rusong, in the end the Japanese were still forced to abandon Seoul and retreat all the way to the southeast coast of Korea. The main significance of the battle was probably that it rendered the Ming less aggressive for the remainder of the conflict. The battle also impressed upon both sides the importance of firearms and superior military technology. The Japanese were able to prevail because they possessed more guns and longer, better swords. As the Chinese were soon to find out, northern cavalry-based units were at a serious disadvantage in mountainous Korea. There was not enough grassland to pasture horses, and their mobility was severely curtailed in Korea's rugged terrain. The weapons northern soldiers typically carried, namely bows and short swords, were ineffective against Japanese muskets fired from cover and katana used in hand-to-hand combat. Some Ming commanders complained that the Japanese muskets fired too fast for the Ming to counter, while others said once the Japanese fired, it took them a long time to reload. Others said the muskets had range but lacked accuracy and were of little use at close quarters, so the Ming should just close on them.90 If the troops did this, however, they would have to contend with the longer swords of the Japanese. Therefore, as the war dragged on, the Chinese brought in more southern troops who were infantry based and trained in the tactics first devised by the great Ming commander Qi Jiguang (1528-88) in the 1560s to combat Japanese pirates who plagued the southeast coast of China.

The Japanese withdrew from Seoul on 9 May. They eventually hunkered down in a string of fortified camps along the southeast coast of Korea as peace talks dragged on for over four years. The commanders on all sides disagreed about exactly how to pursue peace negotiations and what the terms would be. Even worse, the envoys consistently misrepresented the demands of the other side to their respective governments.91 Most of the Ming forces returned to China, though a small number were left to keep an eye on the Japanese and help train the Koreans to defend themselves, using Chinese weapons, strategy, and tactics. There were occasional skirmishes between the two sides, and a [End Page 38] Japanese massacre of civilians at Chinju in the summer of 1593 put a serious strain on the peace talks. Few at the Ming court trusted the Japanese, and the Koreans continued to press the Ming to help them expel the Japanese from the peninsula altogether. In the end, after a bizarre series of events that included the flight of the chief Ming envoy, the Ming granted Hideyoshi the title "King of Japan." This infuriated the Japanese ruler, who was of a mind to kill the Ming envoys on the spot but eventually just decided to invade Korea in force again.

Just over 140,000 men were mobilized for the second invasion of Korea, which began in early 1597. This time the Japanese were even more brutal, impressing Koreans into service and killing those of no value to them. As many as 50,000 to 60,000 Koreans may have been forcibly taken back to Japan. The Koreans again asked the Ming for help and dispatched Kwŏn Yul and Yi Wŏn'ik, Korea's foremost generals, to the south to rally forces against the enemy. This time the Japanese took pains to build up their navy and tried to supply more of their troops with firearms. They were aided by factional strife in Korea, which had resulted in Yi Sunsin being deprived of his post and replaced by an incompetent drunk, Wŏn Kyun. Thus, early in the second campaign, the Japanese were able to transport troops and supplies to the southern tip of Korea and attack from that direction in addition to the southwest. The Chinese forces still present moved to check the Japanese advance, but they were sorely outnumbered and could do little until reinforcements arrived. For their part, the Ming decided to send another large expeditionary force with the aim of striking the Japanese as quickly as possible.

In terms of military technology, the second campaign was much like the first, though overall the fighting was more bitter and there were more sieges. The Japanese enjoyed initial success in approaching Seoul from the south, but were finally checked in early autumn of 1597 at Chiksan, in the mountains south of the capital.92 Again, it was firearms that helped the allies carry the day. There are also reports of the Ming developing a type of reinforced, bulletproof armor which made them better able to withstand Japanese musket barrages.93 At the same time Chinese naval forces were arriving to threaten Japanese supply lines in the south, and an allied land offensive was pushing the Japanese back towards their fortified bases in the southeast.

Though an attempted siege of Ulsan in southeast Korea was foiled by a Japanese relief force at the end of 1597, the invaders never seriously went on the offensive again. They consistently found themselves holed up in strongly fortified castles, often along narrow mountain passes, [End Page 39] which precluded the Chinese and Koreans from using their superior cannon. Even when the Japanese managed to save themselves from almost certain defeat, as was the case in Sachŏn when a freak explosion forced the allies to retreat as they breached the wall, they had to pull back for lack of supplies or reinforcements.

Morale amongst the Japanese steadily declined, and many of their commanders began pressing for a withdrawal to the home islands. Even Hideyoshi himself came to have doubts, allegedly saying, "How could I have sent 100,000 soldiers overseas to become ghosts?"94 When he questioned his generals about the situation in Korea, they said, "Korea is a big country. If we move east, then we have to defend the west; if we attack to our left, then we are assailed on the right. Even if we had another ten years, the matter still might not be resolved."95 Thereupon Hideyoshi complained of his advanced age and the fact that there appeared to be no way out of quagmire and asked them, "If we were to stop the troops and sue for peace, then what?" At this all the generals answered, "That would be best."96 Sources such as these indicate that Hideyoshi himself decided to withdraw from Korea before his death from illness on 18 September 1598. This is in marked contrast to the account transmitted in most secondary sources, which maintains that the decision to withdraw from Korea was made by Hideyoshi's inner circle of councilors and commissioners after his death. The most senior of these men also served as regents for Hideyoshi's infant son. It is generally held that these men sought to get out of the Korean quagmire so they could devote their full attention to contesting for power in Japan. While all of the information concerning their motives may well be true, it appears from these accounts that the disenchanted conqueror had already made his decision to throw down the sword. In fact, the withdrawal from Korea was well underway by the time of Hideyoshi's death, and less than half of his top commanders remained in Korea as of August 1598. Throughout the summer of 1598 the Japanese troops had become increasingly restless, and their commanders feared they were on the verge of mutiny. Matters were exacerbated when Yi Sunsin was restored to his post and given joint command of the naval forces with the Chinese commander Chen Lin (d. 1607), a noted firearms expert.97 [End Page 40]

The final three months of the war were nothing short of a disaster for the Japanese, whose retreat was far from orderly. The allies were eager to settle scores for damage inflicted upon them over the previous seven years. After heavy fighting most of the Japanese commanders managed to escape, though the allies inflicted a serious defeat on the Japanese in the Battle of Noryang Straits in mid-December of 1598. Although Yi Sunsin was killed in this engagement, the allies sunk over three hundred Japanese ships and killed as many as ten thousand Japanese. As the hapless Japanese swam to shore and tried to hide in caves in the tiny islets of the straits, allied forces bombarded them with cannon and mortar fire.98 This marked an ignominious end to Hideyoshi's dream of an Asiatic empire.

While there were many factors responsible for the final defeat of the Japanese in the Korean campaign, I would suggest that military technology was the single most important variable. The Japanese enjoyed great success early in the war when they held a monopoly on superior technology on land. Conversely, the Koreans and Chinese dominated the sea-lanes for most of the war and effectively prevented the Japanese from ever securing stable supply lines. Once they entered the war, the Chinese supplied the Koreans with superior weapons and helped train their troops. Tactically the Chinese and Koreans were often overmatched by their battle-hardened Japanese foes, yet the Japanese were reluctant to engage the allies in set-piece battles because they knew they could not win. Many Japanese accounts suggest that the allies prevailed simply by force of numbers. This was not the case. The Japanese mobilized close to half a million troops over the course of the war, perhaps five times as many as the Chinese. The Koreans were certainly more numerous, but their most notable victories were guerrilla attacks, and the major fighting was carried out by Chinese troops under Chinese commanders. In the end the Japanese commanders pressed their hegemon to pull out and return home where, ironically enough, they would largely isolate themselves from the outside world and its technologies for two and one-half centuries before once again emerging as a military threat to the Asian mainland at the end of the nineteenth century. Kenneth Swope earned his Ph.D. in History at the University of Michigan for his dissertation, "The Three Great Campaigns of the Wanli Emperor, 1592-1600: Court, Military, and Society in Late Sixteenth-Century China," and he conducted research for that work at the Academia Sinica in Taibei, Taiwan. He is currently Assistant Professor of History at Ball State University, where he is working on a book on the Ming Chinese response to the Japanese invasion of Korea. Endnotes

1. Hideyoshi was the second of the so-called Three Unifiers of sixteenth-century Japan, succeeding Oda Nobunaga (1534-82) and preceding Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542-1616). He rose to high position under Oda and succeeded him in 1582 after Nobunaga was surrounded and forced to commit ritual suicide by another vassal named Akechi Mitsuhide (1526-82). Mitsuhide lived barely two weeks after his coup as Hideyoshi soon mustered sufficient forces to crush his rival at the Battle of Yamazaki. After this engagement, Hideyoshi went about the business of defeating or co-opting his other military rivals and establishing a new government order in Japan, one which was federalist in its makeup, but legitimized by the authority of the imperial family, who bestowed high titles upon Hideyoshi, including the title of kampaku (imperial regent) in 1585, and taiko (retired imperial regent) in 1591. Because of his humble birth he could not attain the title of shogun, but by 1590 Hideyoshi had brought all of Japan under his rule and was poised to take the next step on his path to glory. The standard English-language biography of Hideyoshi is Mary Elizabeth Berry, Hideyoshi (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982). For a recent biography of Oda Nobunaga, see Jerouen Lamers, Japonius Tyrannus: The Japanese Warlord Oda Nobunaga Reconsidered (Leiden: Hotei Publishing, 2000); for Tokugawa Ieyasu, see Conrad Totman, Tokugawa Ieyasu: Shogun (San Francisco: Heian, 1983).

2. See Jahyun Kim Haboush, "Dead Bodies in the Postwar Discourse of Identity in Seventeenth Century Korea: Subversion and Literary Production in the Private Sector," Journal of Asian Studies 62, no. 2 (May 2003): 416.

3. See Ha Tae-hung, trans., Nanjung Ilgi: War Diary of Admiral Yi Sunsin (Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1981); and Lee Chong-young, ed., Imjin Changch'o (Admiral Yi Sunsin's Memorials to Court), trans. Ha Tae-hung (Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1981). Recently, another extremely important document, the account of Korea's prime minister during the war, Yu Sŏngnyong, known in Korean as the Chingbirok, has also been translated into English as The Book of Corrections: Reflections on the National Crisis During the Japanese Invasion of Korea, 1592-1598, trans. Choi Byonghyon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002). For a more complete discussion of the historiography of the conflict, see Kenneth M. Swope, "The Three Great Campaigns of the Wanli Emperor, 1592-1600: Court, Military, and Society in Late Sixteenth-Century China" (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2001).

4. The standard English-language treatment of Japan's initial adoption of firearms is still probably Noel Perrin, Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879 (Boston: David R. Godine, 1979). For a comparative look at Japan's adoption of European firearms technologies, see Geoffrey Parker, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1800, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 140-45.

5. Sun Laichen, "Ming-Southeast Asian Overland Interactions, ca. 1368-1644" (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2000). Sun is currently expanding his field of inquiry to include Korea, and his preliminary research suggests the same conclusions.

6. On the transfer of firearms technology from Japan to China, see Kuba Takashi, "Juroku seikimatsu Nihon shiki teppō no Min-Chō he no dempa: Banreki Chōsen no eki kara Banshu Yo Oryo no ran he," Toyo Gakuho 84, no. 1 (June 2002): 33-54. On the Dutch connection with Korea, see Shin Dongkyu, "Oranda jin hyōryu min to Chōsen no seiyo shiki heiki no kaihatsu," Shi'en 61, no. 1 (November 2000): 54-71. I would add that some of the assertions made in this second piece seem questionable, given that some of the weapons attributed to the Dutch were in fact copied by the Chinese from the Europeans a century earlier and probably transmitted that way.

7. Of course, Parker is not without his critics. For an overview of the discussion concerning technology and the military revolution, see Bert S. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 201-35. Also see Clifford J. Rogers, The Military Revolution Debate (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1995).

8. The virtues of civilian control over the military had been extolled in China since the time of Confucius (551-479 BC). Traditional Chinese histories were written by civil officials, who tended to denigrate the influence and achievements of their military counterparts. Periods of military ascendancy were cast as aberrations of the natural order of things. This bias has tended to influence, consciously or not, subsequent scholarship on the Chinese past.

9. There are also a number of works in progress on various aspects of the war, in addition to my own.

10. Stephen Turnbull, Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War, 1592-1598 (London: Cassell and Co., 2002). The quotation appears on page 86.

11. See Chŏson Wangjo sillok (Sŏnjo sillok) as compiled in Li Guangtao, ed., Chaoxian "Renchen Wohuo" shiliao, 5 vols. (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1970), 15 and 18. This is a collection of Korean historical materials, most of which are derived from the official dynastic histories of the Yi dynasty.

12. For example, see Kitajima Manji, Hideyoshi no Chōsen shinryaku (Tokyo: Yamakawa kōbunkan, 2002), 92-98. In fact Hideyoshi's presumed motives for the invasion itself are still very much a matter of debate and range from a desire to monopolize foreign trade to a desire to weaken would-be rivals in Japan to the quest for eternal glory, to name a few. For more on this, see Swope, "Three Great Campaigns," 187-90; and Samuel Dukhae Kim, "The Korean Monk-Soldiers in the Imjin Wars: An Analysis of Buddhist Resistance to the Hideyoshi Invasion, 1592-1598" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1978), 8-11.

13. For a summary of Japanese interpretations of the war going all the way back to the Tokugawa (1603-1868) period, see Kitajima Manji, Toyotomi seiken no taigai ninshiki to Chōsen shinryaku (Tokyo: Azekura shōbo, 1990), 24-82. Also see Ishihara Michihiro, Bunroku keichžōno eki (Tokyo: Hanawa shōbo, 1963).

14. A number of these family chronicles are still extant in Japan and some have been published. For a representative example, see Yamamoto Masayoshi, comp., Shimazu kokushi: History of the Feudal Domain of the Shimazu clan, 10 vols. (Tokyo: Seikyō kappan insatsujo, 1905).

15. Kawaguchi Choju,Seikan Iryaku (1831), in Wu Fengpei et al., comps., Renchen Wohuo zhi yi shiliao huiji, vol. 2 (Beijing: Quanguo tushuguan suowei fuzhi zhongxin chubanshe, 1990), 471-74. Rai Sanyo, Nihon gaishi, 2 vols. (1827; reprint, Taibei: Guangwen shuju, 1982).

16. See Zhang Tingyu et al., eds., Ming shi (1739), 12 vols. (Taibei: Dingwen shuju, 1994), 8358.

17. For an example of the lingering influence of traditional historiography in contemporary treatments of the war and the Wanli Emperor, see He Baoshan, Han Qihua, and He Dichen, Ming Shenzong yu Ming Dingling (Beijing: Beijing yanshan chubanshe, 1998), especially 98-121. A more balanced appraisal can be found in Fan Shuzhi's biography of Wanli. See Fan Shuzhi, Wanli zhuan (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1993), 227-55.

18. See Parker, Military Revolution.

19. A number of scholars have taken up these issues recently in the field of Chinese history, and an impressive body of work is starting to come out. For an overview of these trends, see Hans van de Ven, ed., Warfare in Chinese History (Leiden: Brill, 2000), in particular the introduction by van de Ven, 1-32, and the conclusion by Jeremy Black, 428-442.

20. See Yoshioka Shinichi, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu," Chōsen gakuhō 108 (July 1983): 71. In his excellent study of Korean weaponry, J. L. Boots asserts that the Japanese shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu (1358-1408) received a matchlock from the Portuguese as early as 1368. See J. L. Boots, "Korean Weapons and Armor," Transactions of the Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 33, no. 2 (December 1934): 25. Moreover, although the Portuguese are generally given credit for introducing firearms into Japan, Japanese sources written by famous gunsmiths from the early seventeenth century state they learned the art of gunnery from China, not Portugal. See Joseph Needham et al., Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 5, part 7, Chemistry and Chemical Technology: Military Technology; The Gunpowder Epic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 390-91. Some argue the Japanese largely discarded earlier technologies when Portuguese weapons were introduced.

21. Needham, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 5, part 7, 71.

22. See Sun, "Ming-Southeast Asian Overland Interactions," 31, 75.

23. Boots, "Korean Weapons and Armor," 1.

24. Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 478-79. It should be added that the Koreans did embark upon a haphazard and generally ineffective program of military reforms after these engagements in anticipation of a possible Japanese invasion. See Swope, "Three Great Campaigns," 194-97. Also see Yu Sŏngnyong, Chingbirok (ca. 1630; published 1695), 257-470, in Wu Fengpei et al., Renchen Wohuo zhi yi shiliao huiji, 281-87.

25. This appraisal comes from a letter Hideyoshi wrote to two of his generals in Korea and is translated in Yoshi S. Kuno, Japanese Expansion on the Asiatic Continent, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1937-40), 1: 323. Kuno's work contains many important translations, but it should be used with caution because it is heavily influenced by the nationalistic Japanese fervor of the 1930s. This work and other sources on the Korean campaign are discussed at length in Swope, "Three Great Campaigns," chapters 4-6; and in Kenneth M. Swope, "Rhetoric, Disguise, and Dependence: China, Japan, and the Future of the Tributary System, 1592-1596," International History Review 24, no. 4 (December 2002): 757-82.

26. Zhang et al., eds. Ming shi, 2264-65.

27. Ibid., 2264.

28. Chosŏn Wangjo sillok as cited in Sun Laichen, "Ming China and Korea, c. 1368-1600: With Special Reference to Gunpowder Technology," unpublished conference paper, 9-10.

29. Li, ed., Chaoxian "Renchen Wohuo" shiliao, 1.

30. See Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 507.

31. Sin Kyŏng, Zai zao fan bang zhi (ca. 1693), 2 vols. (Taibei: Guiting chubanshe, 1980), 71.

32. See Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, 51; Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 509; and Kuwata Tadachika and Yamaoka Shohachi, eds., Chōsen no eki, vol. 5 of Nihon no senshi (Tokyo: Tokuma shoten, 1965), 255.

33. Korean fortresses are discussed at length in Wilbur Bacon, "Fortresses of Kyŏnggido," Transactions of the Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 37 (1961): 1-63. Japanese-built fortresses in Korea, known as wajŏ, are treated in Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, and in ōta Hideharu, "Gumbu ni yoru Bunroku-Keichō no eki no jokaku kenkyu," Gunji shigaku 38 (September 2002): 35-48.

34. Kuwata and Yamaoka, eds., Chōsen no eki, 68.

35. Ibid.; and Yoshioka, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu," 71.

36. See the chart in Yoshioka, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu," 78.

37. See Sasama Yoshihiko, Jidai kosho Nihon kassen zuten (Tokyo: Yuzankaku shuppansha, 1997), 249.

38. Ibid., 245.

39. An example can be found in Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, 211.

40. Yoshioka, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu," 74.

41. Ibid., 75.

42. Ibid., 71.

43. Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, 89-90; and Yoshioka, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu," 71-72. All of these models were fairly small and portable. Heaven-mark cannon were fired by fuse and discharged both lead balls and arrows. Earth cannon were slightly smaller than Heaven-mark models, and though they also used fuses, they only fired bundles of arrows. Black-mark cannon were also fired by fuse and discharged both lead balls and bundles of arrows, being slightly larger than Heaven-mark cannon. Finally, Yellow-mark cannon were the largest of all and fired lead balls and giant arrows.

44. Yoshioka, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu," 80.

45. Boots, "Korean Weapons and Armor," 21-24.

46. Technical details on all these firearms can be found in Yoshioka, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu."

47. Sasama, Jidai kosho Nihon kassen zuten, 247-48.

48. Yoshioka, "Bunroku Keichō no eki ni okeru kaki ni tsuite no kenkyu," 72.

49. See L. Carrington Goodrich and Chaoying Fang, eds., Dictionary of Ming Biography, 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 173-74.

50. See Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, 149.

51. See, for example, Sin, Zai zao fan bang zhi, 79.

52. Ibid., 93.

53. Yu, Chingbirok, 285-87.

54. Boots, "Korean Weapons and Armor," 15.

55. See the illustrations in Boots, "Korean Weapons and Armor," and Turnbull, Samurai Invasion.

56. Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 520.

57. Li, ed., Chaoxian "Renchen Wohuo" shiliao, 2.

58. Boots, "Korean Weapons and Armor," 4.

59. Ibid., 4-8.

60. Ibid., 9-10. Much more information on Japanese archery can be found in G. Cameron Hurst, Armed Martial Arts of Japan: Swordsmanship and Archery (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998), 103-43.

61. The Ningxia mutiny is discussed at length in Swope, "Three Great Campaigns," chapter 3; and in Kenneth M. Swope, "All Men Are Not Brothers: Ethnic Identity and Dynastic Loyalty in the Ningxia Troop Mutiny of 1592," Late Imperial China 24, no. 1 (June 2003): 79-130.

62. Zhuge Yuansheng, Liang chao ping rang lu (1606) (Taibei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju, 1969), 239-40.

63. See Mao Ruizheng, Wanli san da zheng kao (1621), vol. 58 in Shen Yunlong, comp., Ming-Qing shiliao huibian, 83 vols. (Taibei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1971), 33. Also see Gu Yingtai, Ming shi jishi benmo (1658), reprinted in Lidai jishi benmo, 2 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1997), 2375.

64. Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 557.

65. See Mao Yuanyi, Wubei zhi (1601), 22 vols. (Taibei: Huashi chubanshe, 1987), 4762-4821. A picture of the falcon boat can be found on 4797. Also see Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, 94.

66. Horace H. Underwood, "Korean Boats and Ships," Transactions of the Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 23, no. 1 (1934): 59.

67. Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 554.

68. Underwood, "Korean Boats and Ships," 55.

69. Ibid., 58-59. I should add that as far as armor is concerned, Korean armor tended to be leather or even just padding with metal plates sewn in it. Japanese armor varied widely according to station and rank but was generally better, while Ming armor could be anything from simple paper/padding to chain mail, though it was most commonly some variation of studded leather.

70. Mao, Wubei zhi, 4775.

71. See Li Guangtao, Chaoxian Renchen Wohuo yanjiu (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1972), 34-35. Fujian is the southeastern coastal province that faces Taiwan. The larger Fujianese boats typically carried over one hundred men and were equipped with catapults, cannon, and great bows, though they sometimes had trouble dealing with small, fast ships. See Mao, Wubei zhi, 4778.

72. Goodrich and Fang, eds., Dictionary of Ming Biography, 173-74.

73. Li Rusong's biography can be found ibid., 830-35. The biographies of the entire Li family can be found in Zhang et al., eds., Ming shi, 6183-98. Also see Kenneth M. Swope, "A Few Good Men: The Li Family and China's Northern Frontier in the Late Ming," forthcoming in Ming Studies 49 (2004).

74. Zhuge, Liang chao ping rang lu, 245.

75. Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 575-76.

76. Mao, Wanli san da zheng kao, 34.

77. Zhuge, Liang chao ping rang lu, 248.

78. See Wang Chongwu, "Li Rusong zheng dong kao," Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 16 (1947): 343-74, 345.

79. Gu, Ming shi jishi benmo, 2375.

80. Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 579.

81. Mao, Wanli san da zheng kao, 35.

82. Other sources say he retreated to Yonkwang Pavilion. See Li, "Li Rusong zheng dong kao," 346.

83. Some sources maintain that Li Rusong sent Konishi a letter saying he would allow the Japanese a chance to retreat because of excessive bloodshed on both sides. According to this version of the story, Korean forces stationed along the Taedong mistook a cannon blast in the city for the signal to attack so they cut down the Japanese as they retreated. See Li Guangtao, Renchen Wohuo yanjiu, 77, and Wang, "Li Rusong zheng dong kao," 346.

84. Kawaguchi, Seikan Iryaku, 579.

85. Cited in Zheng, Ming dai Zhong-Ri guanxi, 597. On Korean observations of the utility of firearms, see Li, ed., Chaoxian "Renchen Wohuo" shiliao, 256-57.

86. See Zheng, Ming dai Zhong-Ri guanxi, 597.

87. See Li, ed., Chaoxian "Renchen Wohuo" shiliao, preface, 15.

88. Mao, Wanli san da zheng kao, 36.

89. See, for example, Turnbull, Samurai Invasion, 143-48.

90. The debate is summarized in Wang, "Li Rusong zheng dong kao," 363.

91. For a complete discussion of the failed peace talks, see Swope, "Rhetoric, Disguise, and Dependence."

92. Mao, Wanli san da zheng kao, 53.

93. See Li Guangtao, "Ming ren yuan Han yu Jishan da jie," Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 43 (1971): 1-14.

94. This quote is taken from chapter 16 in Nihon gaishi and is cited in Li Guangtao, Ming-Qing dang'an lunwen ji (Taibei: Lianjing chuban shiye gongsi, 1986), 828. Examples of Hideyoshi's regret and disappointment over failing can also be found in Li, ed., Chaoxian "Renchen Wohuo" shiliao, preface, 16-19.

95. See Li, Dang'an lunwen, 831.

96. Ibid. Also see Park Yune-hee, Admiral Yi Sun-shin and His Turtleboat Armada (Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., 1978), 227-28, on the Japanese generals' desire to withdraw and their recommendation to Hideyoshi.

97. For more information on Chen Lin, see Goodrich and Fang, eds., Dictionary of Ming Biography, 167-74, and Zhang et al., eds., Ming shi, pp. 6404-8.

98. Zhang et al., eds., Ming shi, p. 6405.

Thank you, thank you for the information. I think it will be a great help to the Imjin War article. Good friend100 12:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this

Battle of Busan (1597)

I think it's supposed to be the Battle of Chilchonryang. It should be deleted. Taeguk Warrior 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder where this came from. I agree it should be deleted along with all other "Battle of Busan (1597)" since they all are the Battle of Chilchonryang. Good friend100 12:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of pictures

Taeguk Warrior: No one is arguing that the pictures aren't good--they're great pictures! Unfortunately they don't qualify for inclusion under Wikipedia:Fair_use. Komdori 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture you have deleted are fair use. I have found them at the Korean national museum. There is a large problem growing at, not only the Imjin War article, but in the entire History of Korea articles.

Several users are deliberately deleting information and slapping "no reference" signs all over the article. This is making the Korean articles look bad and it is weakening them. I see this as another way to vandalize the Korean articles, as what happened to the Dokdo talk page. This is ridiculous and it is annoying to see everybody use "NPOV NPOV NPOV" as an excuse to delete information that is true and informative.

NPOV is not going to save you. And it is not going to hide your history. Japan has done many war crimes in the past and you can't just get away with it by pasting euphemistic words on the articles. True information is true information and it must be kept that way. Good friend100 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, please read about the good faith policy at [Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith]. I want to help improve the encyclopedia. These pictures are good pictures, and add to the articles. No one claimed they were POV based. I don't think I've ever used a "no reference" tag. Read the policies about those pictures carefully, and you'll see it has no political motivation at all, but instead is trying to stick with Wikipedia:Fair_use.

Although totally unrelated to this discussion, I have not made many (any?) changes about Japanese war crimes. I am not certain if this was a comment directed at me, but if so, perhaps it would be better discussed on my talk page. I also am unaware exactly why you are assuming people's backgrounds?

I definitely am not trying to "get away" with any war crimes :S What I am trying to do is improve the quality of both Korean and other articles on Wikipedia. Komdori 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Give a specific reason why this tag is not valid for the pictures that have been deleted. Taeguk Warrior 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The person thats treating me because of my background is Latose IT. Good friend100 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I never pointed out specific people about the Korean or Japanese articles. It feels, after checking all those Korean and Japanese articles that have stuff deleted or changed, gives the impression that the articles are becoming worse. Tell me then, after all those edits on the name, content, or pictures, does the article look any better? Or have better information? I don't think so. This argument about the name just made the Imjin War weak and it is in a worse condition, now that nobody can edit it (be they good or bad) because of the template. Good friend100 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Those images I have removed from the article are not used for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs. They also lack detailed fair use rationale. --Kusunose 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures greatly enhance the article and it helps the reader understand a lot more visually. Some of the battle pictures you have removed are from the national museum in Korea. If the pictures are not useful for "critical commentary on the work in question" what kind of pictures would be eligible? Good friend100 01:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And the painting from the Battle of Haengju is at the Haengju Memorial (see here). The fact that these paintings can be found on dozens of non-personal Korean websites, especially news websites, most certainly shows that Korean law allows for this. Taeguk Warrior 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war is not considered fair use. This is applicable to those images I removed. --Kusunose 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100--no one is saying that having those pictures wouldn't be nice additions. There are literally millions of copyrighted images and other works that would enhance the encyclopedia. The fact that many violate their copyright and are not prosecuted doesn't change the fact that they are unfortunately unusuable by this project.

Wouldn't you like one of the articles you work on to become a highly rated one? That's doubtful if there are images and content with dubious copyright status. Even though it might make the page look less nice, believe it or not these people are helping improve the quality. LactoseTI 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then whats with the deletion of the irregular forces image? Sombody deleted it and I can't even find it now. Good friend100 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

THE IMAGES ARE IN FAIR USE

• Image:Battle of Haengju.jpg (see talk page)

The fact that the deleted images can be found in books shows that these images are in fair use. It is highly improbable that these paintings were illegally printed in American books. If owners of the books Samurai Invasion and Imjin War took photographs of these paintings in the book it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these images are in fair use. All the deleted images were from national shrines and museums and not from private collections. Taeguk Warrior 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Their place in national shrines doesn't mean they are not copyrighted... LactoseTI 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is why this tag is used. Taeguk Warrior 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See the talk page of the image; it's quite possibly a copyrighted image where such permission has not been granted. In fact, as MangoJuice explains, "courtesy" quite probably suggests it is. LactoseTI 03:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) well, I guess it will probably be gone in a couple of weeks; just more cleanup work then. No idea why you keep putting images in that are currently disputed, and likely to be removed. Some of us would like to improve the article. Fine, as I said, I'm not going to "war" with you--it will work out on its own. Since you seem dead set on borderline vandalizing the page, knock yourself out; if the image doesn't survive, it will disappear anyway. I guess we can enjoy the (good) picture while it lasts... LactoseTI 03:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence

Do yourself a favor and read this. Taeguk Warrior 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As you suggest, there is strong evidence that it is not free, and Wikipedia errors on the side of caution. Perhaps a better way of putting it is there is no strong evidence that it is free. It's too bad; it would be nice to have the picture. LactoseTI 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You are telling me all these paintings from national museums and shrines were illegally printed in books and illegally posted in non-personal websites such as news websites? Maybe. But probably not. Taeguk Warrior 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the books probably obtained permission. The book you yourself used as an example of how it is in "public domain" actually says they obtained permission! The information from the probable copyright holder strongly suggests permission is necessary (this information was provided by you--the idea that they were thanked for their "courtesy" of licensing the image). LactoseTI 11:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Taeguk, I'm afraid Lactose is completely correct. I have had this issue before; the government (or the organization maintaining the memorial) gave official written permission to the publishers of that book, and not to you or us (Wikipedia). It's a shame, and I also would love to have beautiful pictures on all of our articles, but that's the way the law works. Just because one organization has been granted permission to publish it, that does not mean that it is suddenly public domain. LordAmeth 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Seven-Year War

This page should be under Seven-Year War (it's as far as the last discussion got) but it won't permit it to go there... I guess someone is playing games with the page moves? I am still "newish" to this kind of thing in Wikipedia... any help restoring it to the correct name would be appreciated. It's only here because I wasn't sure if it wasn't able to move _at all_ and now that I realize it can, I guess it's a weird flub.

In the English speaking world, it's clearly called Seven-Year War--it shows up in history books that way, and there have been several games, etc. released in the US and UK with this name about this war. Asking for help... Komdori 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the search engine, "imjin war" korea turns up about 773 on google, "seven year war" korea turns up about 23,000. Both have a lot of wikipedia caches in them, but still... what's more, the Imjin War can refer to the first of the two invasions instead of both, as well, so it's not really right, either...

I know you'd like to see things in your native tongue, but unfortunately, it just isn't done in English Komdori 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why we moved the page is because it was confusing with the European Seven Years War. Also your reasoning is incorrect. Just because this is English Wikipedia doesn't mean that foreign words cannot be used. "Sushi" is Japanese and their is an article on it. I don't think any English speaking users would understand if it was "Japanese Rice in Seaweed" as an "English" name. Good friend100 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Komdori has a point - this is the English Wikipedia, and we really ought to call it by the name used most commonly in English-language texts. Since this is a Japanese-Korean conflict, calling it by the Korean name, you must admit, is somewhat biased. And as for it being confusing, that's what disambiguations are for. There are a ton of things on Wikipedia that have similar names and are thus confusing. LordAmeth 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, none of my sources (Turnbull, Sansom, Frederic) contain the word "Imjin" anywhere in their contents. They refer to the conflict most often as "Hideyoshi's attempts to invade Korea" or "Hideyoshi's campaigns in Korea" or any number of other permutations, describing the conflict without naming it. I really don't care where the article lives, provided there are sufficient redirects and disambigs (the link here needs to stay on the Seven Year War disambig page). But I stand by my assertion that (1) Imjin is most definitely the Korean name of the conflict, which would never be used by an English-language scholar of Japanese history such as myself, and (2) simply because something is confusing is not a good enough reason to leave the article at a more obscure name. LordAmeth 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that the article must be moved, then set up a poll. The name of Imjin War is a specific name for this article. Good friend100 02:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to set up a poll before a move. As it was Seven-Year War, originally, the appropriate thing to do is to move it back, and then have a discussion on whether or not to move it to some foreign language title. Komdori 02:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If people are so concerned about the fact that it is difficult to keep the names straight, Seven-Year War (Asia) makes it pretty clear. I agree with LordAmeth--I have never seen it under Imjin War; usually Hideyoshi's Invasions or some such phrase. I guess if there are a lot of Koreans who object to it slanting it toward sounding like a "Japanese only" event, we should use the neutral term. I'll have to look through some books to see what they call it--I do recall hearing "Seven-Year War," but Hideyoshi's Invasion is much more common--never "Imjin." LactoseTI 02:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Seven Year War Asia makes it pretty clear"? This title is terribly vague now that nobody is familiar with this name. The Imjin War occurred only in Korea. "Seven Year War" is used by the west, because the name "Imjin" is unfamiliar to them. Good friend100 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And "Injin" is used only by Korea--not outside--because it is familiar to them but not the rest of the English speaking world. I have gone through a set of history books that at least mention it, and all of them use "Hideyoshi's Invasions," "Hideyoshi's Expenditions," or some such thing. I saw one that said an "Asian Seven Years War" but that's about it. I guess we'll get a poll open and just hope that it's not sabotaged by parties who don't keep an open mind. LactoseTI 04:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever ends up happening with the title of this article, can we at least please try to keep the formatting nice? As of right now, there is a ton of blank space on the left before the start of the article, probably as a result of the auto-formatting carried by all those ugly templates at the top. LordAmeth 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I have been trying to fix, or ask someone to fix.Good friend100 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Move the article

There has been no consensus with the rest of the other editors. Please move the article back to Imjin War.

Open a poll or something instead of this name. Now, its even more vague to other people. Seven Year War (Asia)? What does that mean??

Disambiguation is used when articles of the same name cannot be moved to another title. This article clearly has a name for it. The Imjin War article. Its just an excuse to downgrade this article with that "This is an English Wikipedia". Then I suppose every single article that is not an English word must be deleted.

Good friend100 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree there has been no consensus; it should go back to what it was originally, or better yet be changed entirely. It was moved inappropriately without consensus in the first place. LactoseTI 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For English uses of Imjin War, see, for example: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8995442425/sr=8-1/qid=1153281436/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6067816-5147312?ie=UTF8 http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9899/Feb22_99/imjin.htm http://researchboard.jp/kenkyukai/Hinrich%20abstract.pdf http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0605Franks.html http://www.geocities.com/makkawity.geo/magnit.html Dollarfifty 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that it is NEVER used, just not really in history books, academic literature, or anything originating from outside the region. LactoseTI 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep this in perspective, the policy in general is that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," not what the majority of Korean speakers would recognize, even if they might have the most interest in the content. It's a decent sized military conflict between Japan and China, and most people HAVE learned of it--they just don't remember. They have no chance at all if it's under a foreign name. LactoseTI 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

if you're gonna claim more common usage, please provide evidence. i get the following:

• Korea "Imjin War" -Sweden -Indian -Wikipedia 1,350 hits
• Korea "Seven Year War" -Sweden -Indian -Wikipedia 456 hits

for google scholar, i get something like 12 vs. 22 for "seven year war", but most results for "seven year war" are lowercase, common noun phrase, not capitalized proper name. in fact, i only see 3 or 4 uses of "Seven Year War" as the proper noun name for this war. Appleby 04:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And for Hideyoshi Invasion -Sweden -Indian -Wikipedia [1] you get about 26,400. You aren't going to find a good way to google compare these--the more common term isn't a term, but a phrase--so you'd have to add up all variations into one. Just the point is an English speaker is unlikely to grow up learning "Imjin War" unless they are Korean. LactoseTI 04:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for google, how about these searches (I think this is about the best we'll get):

• Hideyoshi Imjin [[2]] (27)
• Hideyoshi invasion [[3]] (520)

and for google:

• Hideyoshi Imjin -Wikipedia [[4]] (1240)
• Hideyoshi invasion -Wikipedia[[5]] (35,200)

It's not really conceivable that a discussion of the events could NOT mention Hideyoshi. LactoseTI 05:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We are looking for the proper noun name of this event, not a description that belongs in the article. you are searching individual unconnected words, which is of no help in finding the proper name. "Hideyoshi Invasion" gets 50 hits in google [6] Appleby 05:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is just not described that way... if you have a thousand books that use the phrase "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" and the like, that's what everyone knows. Just because two people say "Imjin War" as a set phrase doesn't make it a better article title. The main point is that it seems that there the google search above shows that 97% of the pages discussing the event don't NOT mentioning the word Imjin LactoseTI 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The probable reason why "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" or "Seven Year War" is used is because it makes more sense to English readers and the term Imjin is probablt unknown to them. Obviously nearly all the English books on the war would use those terms. Good friend100 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So am I to understand you now are on the side who says it should be moved back away from using Imjin? Wikipedia policy says we should use the one which is most familiar to those who use English texts. Komdori 22:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? I support using the "Imjin War" as the name. >Komdori

Google searches can help determine what word is used more, but Google is crude for accurate information. Google searches do not determine everything. Good friend100 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the naming policy page. I think they were referring to the fact that based on your above statements, perhaps without realizing it, you are ironically endorsing keeping the page where it was (at least moving it off of any term that involves "Imjin"). LactoseTI 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Korean users are obviously making this into some sort of a bizarre "Korean pride" sort of thing. Moving the article to a different (more common) name does not "downgrade" the article. And even if you could argue it would, it doesn't really matter to Wikipedia Guidelines (do read them, btw). Please try and widen your horizons and not just look at this from a strictly Korean nationalistic perspective. Mackan 16:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The title "Seven Year War" can be confused with the European "Seven Years War". Also, the word "Seven Year War" is a perspective from the Americas or Europe. "Seven Year War" is just a name pasted on by English historians since the word "Imjin" could be unfamiliar to English speaking countries.

And its not all about nationalistic perspectives. The war took entirely in Korea and the invasion was started with the attack on Busan. "Imjin War" is definitely the more appropiate name.

Good friend100 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia's naming conventions. Yes, the word Imjin is unfamiliar to English speakers, which is why, on the English language Wikipedia, the more common name 7 year war should be used. Mackan 03:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "Imjin" is unfamiliar because they don't know about it. English historians just use the word "Seven Year War" because it best suits English speaking countries.

I have to repeat this all the time. "English language Wikipedia". Ok, then I suppose every foreign word must be written into English words again. One example is sushi. I don't think just because this is "english wikipedia" they would write "rice wrapped in seaweed".

Just because this is English wikipedia doesn't mean that all words must be English. There are thousands of words that are in the English vocabulary that come from latin, French, German, etc.

"Seven Year War" is just a term used in English speaking countries. Good friend100 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, most instances of the use of this expression (usually, "Seven Years' War") refer to European history, I seem to remember. Too ambiguous. I believe historians use it in a particular context. Shogo Kawada 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend, you just don't get it--sushi is at sushi because most (ignorant, if you like) people know it under that name. Many people are exposed to this event in school, but never under this name. Ironically, the reason "Imjin War" started was to be politically correct and not call it an "Invasion." The fact remains that since most people do not know this name (as you admit) it doesn't belong here--we don't use wikipedia naming to "teach" people. Komdori 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you mean Wikipedia is not used to teach people? Then what is the purpose of an encyclopedia?

And sushi is not the only example. I wrote above that many other English words come from different countries. How is "Imjin War" not the correct term? What should the Oei Invasion be called then? The "Korean invasion of Tsushima"? Of course not.

The original name of this article didn't have an "invasion" in it. Good friend100 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sushis is an interesting example... After all, it was indeed served as "raw fish" in Japanese restaurants for quite a while (in the US). Retrospectively, it is a ridiculous name, and it's a good thing that "sushi" is now used, thanks to a few people (more than consensus). If Wikipedia's not meant to teach, what's the point really? "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" seems an okay title, but "Imjin Wars" seem to be the most accurate expression. It covers the nature of the conflict better (plural+war), the geographical location, and does leave the possibility of an interpretation. "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea", which is probably the most often used expression (as shown below by one user), is too unilateral, and rules out too many important agents of the conflict. But it's still better than "Seven Year War". Shogo Kawada 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed proved below that Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea (or Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea with the s) is more commonly used than Imjin War (or Imjin Wars). I will go ahead and add this name to the first paragraph of the article. Although I won't mention it in the article, Imjin War is usually used in the Korean context, and Invasion of Korea is usually used in the general context.--Endroit 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

space

Does anybody know how to get rid of the large gap between the title and the first paragraph? Thanks. Good friend100 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I know this can only be removed by hiding the table of contents.--Ryoske 04:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Its because the article looks really bad. Good friend100 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. The gap wasn't there before. Taeguk Warrior 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protected from moves

This is becoming extremely disruptive (not to mention making a number of people liable to be blocked for 3RR violations—yes, it does apply to moves). I've protected the page from any further moves for the time being; I haven't the faintest idea what the best title is, but please discuss it and come to a consensus before moving the page all over the place. Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dug through the page history and two people have been blocked for 3RR violations. Please play nice. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Seven-Year War/Hideyoshi Invasions/Imjin War

This is a dispute about what to call this article. It was originally entitled Seven-Year War, changed recently without reaching consensus to Imjin War, and has suffered a move war recently. A consensus is being sought on what might be the best name (other options welcome!) 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I have never seen it under Imjin War; usually Hideyoshi's Invasions or some such phrase... It's a decent sized military conflict between Japan and China, and most people HAVE learned of it--they just don't remember. They have no chance at all if it's under a foreign name. LactoseTI 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Imjin War occurred only in Korea. "Seven Year War" is used by the west, because the name "Imjin" is unfamiliar to them.Good friend100 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• [W]e really ought to call it by the name used most commonly in English-language texts. Since this is a Japanese-Korean conflict, calling it by the Korean name, you must admit, is somewhat biased. And as for it being confusing, that's what disambiguations are for...For the record, none of my sources (Turnbull, Sansom, Frederic) contain the word "Imjin" anywhere in their contents. LordAmeth 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend the "Seven Year War" or some close derivative, as the English name. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems from the actual evidence given (not personal opinions) that "Imjin War" is the most common English name for this topic. Dollarfifty 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the evidence seems to be pointed directly opposite to that. Hideyoshi's _something_ is more common in English; I think "Seven Year War" is about as neutral as you can get--it's what shows up in at least a couple of high school textbooks, for sure. The fascination with Hideyoshi is due to the fact that he is behind the whole thing, much like Caesar or Alexander. It's also more popular in English (from American and British sources) because (unfortunately) high schoolers and college students spend almost no time on Korea at all, instead focussing on China and Japan. Since Korea is smack dab between them, all the "important" events get covered this way, but nonetheless Korean-language based names just don't make it out into the world. If I'm not mistaken, the policy isn't just to find the term that's most likely encountered online, anyway, but by an average person. If a person ever DOES see this, it will be in a (probably dusty) book, not online, and it won't use the Korean name. Komdori 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hideyoshi's _something_ is not the name of the war, it's a narrative description. The Google results show that "Imjin War" is the most common capitalized proper name of the event, in English. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common English name, not a made-up descriptive phrase to be "politically correct". Sushi is not "neutral" because it is called "Chobap" in Korean, and it is described as "seaweed roll" in English. But the article is not named "Chobap" or "Seaweed Roll." It is named "Sushi" because that's the most common in English. So, this article should be named "Imjin War" for the same reason, because it's the most common English name, especially in scholarly usage. Dollarfifty 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The fact remains that the vast majority of articles and sources that talk about this conflict do not even mention the word Imjin. If 95%+ of all sources don't mention the name, how can it be the best one? What's more Imjin refers to the first invasion--not the pair. Komdori 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• proper google and google scholar searches actually show "imjin war" is the more common English name for this war (see above). no need to rely on anecdotal evidence or personal testimony of wikipedians. please provide evidence that "Seven Year War" is actually the more common name. even if both were roughly the same in usage (which is not the case, afaict), the disambiguation consideration should weigh in favor of a distinctive name. unlike the korean "imjin waeran", the english use of "Imjin War" encompasses both invasions of the seven years, so accuracy is not a problem either. Appleby 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would suppose that's because it's not really considered a war in most descriptions of history. I would suggest looking in the major history books on East Asian history. Lord Ameth mentioned a few. This is a somewhat insignificant event, much more important to Koreans and Japanese than the rest of the world (since it really only affected them, and at a time when their interaction with the rest of the world was rather minimal). It's not surprising that you are having trouble finding a name in google--it's usually described with a phrase, not a name. It's technically not even a "war"--for that reason it's described as "Hideyoshi's invasions" or a variety thereof. I would suggest the best idea is to move it there, but if this is impossibly "POV" based to you, then a more neutral term, such as "Seven-Year War"? 04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper google searches don't really back up what you said. I might also add that just by you saying that the English use of "Imjin War" (the rough translation of Imjin Waeran, which does NOT mean both wars), it doesn't make it so. LactoseTI 04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

in what sense do the searches not back up what i said? searches for the proper noun "Hideyoshi Invasion" turns up negligible results. look at the google scholar results for "Imjin War". they give the years encompassing both invasions. in the mean time, we're still waiting for your objective evidence of a more common english proper noun, other than your personal testimony. Appleby 05:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is just not described that way... if you have a thousand books that use the phrase "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" and the like, that's what everyone knows. Just because two people say "Imjin War" as a set phrase doesn't make it a better article title. LactoseTI 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell: it seems that there the google search above shows that 97% of the pages discussing the event don't NOT mentioning the word Imjin LactoseTI 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

that seems a pretty silly way of using google. search for imjin -hideyoshi gets 85,700 hits, which would mean hideyoshi's not mentioned in most of the pages that describe this event. again, we're looking for the proper name, & "Imjin War" is the most common, in general and in scholarly use. Appleby 05:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Try "imjin war" -hideyoshi, and you get only 648 results--about domestic Korean issues. Searching for "Imjin" and "-hideyoshi" will return unrelated results about the river. It's not the most common; aside from google, try finding a book that mentions it. Try the books mentioned by LordAmeth. That use as a "proper noun" that you keep spouting is actually referring to the first incursion, not even the pair of them. It's a translation from Korean, so not surprising that it shows up in many English language materials written by Koreans--but in English language history texts it doesn't show up. You've been given three major examples of print sources where it doesn't that a majority of people encounter.

Are you seriously suggesting that any discussion of those events can possibly exist not mentioning Hideyoshi when he is the sole cause of the conflict? Do the math--over 95% of them don't even mention the WORD Imjin, even by your dubious google searches. LactoseTI 05:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in mind we're talking about two campaigns here. The first started in the "imjin" year of the 60 year Chinese cycle. It's why we talk about the FIRST battle being called the "Imjin war" (from the Korean perspective). The second invasion followed years later, and to say that it's lumped into the first (when not even Koreans do that) doesn't make sense. Many of the results you might find with Google are not referring to the wars as a pair... Komdori 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop repeating misinformation. Look at the results at Google Scholar. Scholars use the term "Imjin War" to mean the 1592 – 1598 events. You are confusing the Korean word imjin waeran with the English "Imjin War". Two different things. Dollarfifty 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I'm not the one who is confused. While it may be true that some (small group of) people use the term in that way, it's clearly not the majority; Chinese and Koreans alike use that term to discuss the first invasion, but not the second. Some discuss its role in leading to the next, but it's not a general term. Komdori 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because the Imjin War only refers to the first invasion, that doesn't mean it should be removed. Articles use the war "Imjin" to mention the entire war, and most people in Korea call it by this name.

"Imjin War" does not have to nessecarily have to refer to the first invasion. There is flexibility to this name.

The war never took place in Japan, only in Korea.

The name Imjin War stuck, and a vague, unclear, "Seven Year War (Asia)" makes it even worse since nobody outside of Wikipedia will probably understand it. Good friend100 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should be moved back to "Imjin War", not "Imjin Wars", because that's the most common English name for the two invasions combined. Komdori, just look at Oei Invasion. Is that a "neutral" name? Is that an "English" name? Do you want to change that name to "Yi Jong-mu's Invasion"?

I do apologize for commenting again; I imagine the purpose of organizing this into a formal RfC was to cut down on the back-and-forth arguing. I would like to thank LactoseTI for organizing this. Hopefully we can get it resolved soon. I do have one more comment though. For those who are arguing that it took place in Korea, and should therefore be known by the Korean name here, in the English Wikipedia, I feel the need to point out that it is a Japanese-Korean conflict, not a domestic Korean one. Sino-Japanese War is listed under the English name, not the Chinese, Japanese, or Korean name. Vietnam War is listed under that English name, not in Vietnamese or French. The Russo-Japanese War, also conducted almost entirely in and around Korea, is also listed under an English language name, not in Russian, Japanese, or Korean. Again, I apologize to those who are more familiar with accounts taken from the point of view of scholars of Korean history, but out of those sources written from a Japanese (or even general Asian) history point of view, 99% of them do not mention the term Imjin War or Imjin Waeran at all. Only a very few I'd imagine even mention the term Imjin at all. Take a look at your average source on the Mongol invasions of Japan. Most sources will call it that; only very few, of a more esoteric and scholarly nature, will even mention terms like "bunroku no eki". LordAmeth 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that that's your personal impression from the books you personally read (I'm sure everyone can provide their personal experience and opinions), but actual Google searches and Google Scholar searches show something else objectively. "Imjin War" is the most common name used by English-speaking scholars to describe the invasions. "Imjin War" is not a Korean word, it's English. Just like Oei Invasion and Sushi are appropriate English article titles, as others have pointed out. As obscure as it is, it is still the most common name in English. There has been no evidence otherwise, other than personal testimonies. Dollarfifty 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I don't think "Imjin Wars" is much more different than "Imjin War". I suggest using either one. Good friend100 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to weighing in a second time (or more), I'll post a second comment. As Good friend100 notes, Imjin is so familiar to English speakers, and that's part of the point. Another part is that, although you'd like to believe it, Imjin only refers to the first half, and generally is used by Koreans. I have no doubt that we will need to leave a redirect there, but the article should not stay.

I hope people will keep an open mind about this. It seems that there are a very few who are being very inflexible. Why not consider that it should be changed to something besides Imjin--since Google, Google scholar, and all the print sources indicate that the term Imjin appears rarely when describing this topic in English texts, and native speakers of English would be very unlikely to encounter this event under that name (as Komdori, LordAmeth, GoodFriend 100, and I agree). I was going to mention Washington's_crossing_of_the_Delaware, but I like the example Mongol invasions of Japan even better... even though there are proper noun names for those invasions, and Google and Google scholar will show them if you search, this phrase is how the vast majority of textbooks describe the event. That situation is virtually identical to the situation here. LactoseTI 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have checked Google Book Search and Google Scholar. Results are:

• "Imjin War": 9 from Google Book Search, 15 from Google Scholar; searched with "Imjin War"
• "Hideyoshi Invasions": 58 from Google Books, 20 from Google Scholar; searched with "the Hideyoshi invasions" -"Hideyoshi's invasions" Korea
• "Seven-Year War": 27 from Google Books Search, 54 from Google Scholar; searched with "Seven-Year War" Korea

"Imjin War" is not the most common English name for this topic, it seems. Also note searching "Imjin" on Britannica, Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia comes up nothing relevant to the topic.

I agree LactoseTI that Mongol invasions of Japan is a good example. Let's use a descriptive name such as "Japanese invasions of Korea". --Kusunose 06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

please do the searches correctly. we're looking for the proper noun, not a descriptive phrase. all the following searches are done with Korea and Japan and without Sweden or French, (the other, more famous Seven Year Wars):

• "Imjin War" OR "Imjin Wars" google books 18
• same at google scholar 12
• "Hideyoshi Invasion" - "Hideyoshi's Invasions" google books 3 of 20 are verifiable as capitalized proper nouns rather than a narrative description
• same at google scholar none of 16
• "Seven-Year War" at google books 1 of 10
• same at google scholar 1 of 9

so "Hideyoshi Invasion" or "Seven Year War" are almost never used as the name of this topic, but the "Hideyoshi invasion" and "seven-year war" are good descriptions of the Imjin War to use in the body text. Appleby 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Imjin War" is not a Korean language name, any more than Battle of Bun'ei, Battle of Kouan, Oei Invasion, etc., are Japanese language names. These are the English proper nouns, and therefore most neutral. Appleby 06:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to weigh in again, but I was just wondering if anyone whos is arguing for Imjin was bothering to read the comments the rest of us are putting. It seems fairly uncontroversial that these events are usually not described with Imjin, but your main point seems to be that they are usually described with a a phrase, and that there happens to be a proper noun that is rarely used. There are multiple examples where using a proper noun is wrong, and this is such a case because, as others and I have mentioned:

* Few of the descriptions out (percentage wise) there use the term you want

* Even though you are finding instances of "Imjin war" it is often referring to only the first half

The examples you give, Appleby, are names that show up in US and UK texts (Oei Invasion), that's the difference. Now it seems you are ceding the point that these events are referred to not using Imjin, but by something else (albeit perhaps not by a proper noun).

To turn this into a productive comment--how about just using "Hideyoshi's campaigns" or "Hideyoshi's invasions"? They were his pet project and I strongly believe that it is unlikely to find any source out there describing the event that doesn't use it (perhaps not right next to each other, perhaps using a slight variation (incursion, invasion, whatever)). Isn't that the entire essense of the naming convention? To name it in a way that most people would recognize? I'm trying to have good faith here in people's ideas, but it seems that the people that are dead set on Imjin are just saying they think it's what the event should be named (not the article) and even though few know it under their name, they want to "educate by renaming to an relatively unused term." Why? LactoseTI 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The thought that "Imjin" is not a common term is not true. And why use "Seven Year War", even if its more NPOV, when there is another term to keep it from being confused with the European wars of the same name? Good friend100 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an example but last year, a book was published by Samuel Hawley: The Imjin War: Japan's 16th-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China, published jointly by the Seoul Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society and The Institute of East Asian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. I think most of the (academic) research on the invasion of Korea is not called "Seven Year War". I just looked up Amazon and none of the 3 pages of research results mention anything about the Korea-Japanese-Chinese conflict, only stuff about European powers and America. Most researchers (who, I daresay, tend to validate authoritative uses of historical expressions), to my knowledge, use "Imjin War(s)". Shogo Kawada 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice, it was published by the Seoul Branch--it's because it's targetting Koreans, who have learned that term, not English speakers. Check out children's (high school/middle school) textbooks, and you will not find the term Imjin (ever, I think; rarely at best). Komdori 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a former academic, and currently in publishing, and having read the book (which really was just an example), I can tell you for a fact that it's not meant for a Korean-speaking audience. Also, I have to admit I do think an academic book has more authority than children's textbooks. I am not against the use of "Seven Year War", which basically leaves me quite indifferent, BUT, if you look up Amazon.com, there is not a single instance of the expression as a reference to Hideyoshi's Invasion, as it is sometimes called. And I thought wikipedia was based on consensus.

Shogo Kawada 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Imjin War mentions only the first invasion". Umm yes it is but that is not a good enough reason for not using "Imjin War". Specifically, it means the first invasion, but nearly everybody calls it "Imjin War" describing the war itself as a whole. Also, just because "Imjin" is a foreign word doesn't mean it cannot be used. There are several wars that are named in foreign words. Good friend100 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose Invasion of Korea or variations such as Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea. Looking through Google Books, we have:

• 435 instances of "Hideyoshi" "invasion of Korea"
• 48 instances of "Hideyoshi" "invasion of China"
• 119 instances of "Imjin War"
• 6 instances of "Hideyoshi" "Seven Year War"

--Endroit 19:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

copy and paste from above for your convenience, since you obviously missed it Appleby 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC):

please do the searches correctly. we're looking for the proper noun, not a descriptive phrase. all the following searches are done with Korea and Japan and without Sweden or French, (the other, more famous Seven Year Wars):

• "Imjin War" OR "Imjin Wars" google books 18
• same at google scholar 12
• "Hideyoshi Invasion" - "Hideyoshi's Invasions" google books 3 of 20 are verifiable as capitalized proper nouns rather than a narrative description
• same at google scholar none of 16
• "Seven-Year War" at google books 1 of 10
• same at google scholar 1 of 9

so "Hideyoshi Invasion" or "Seven Year War" are almost never used as the name of this topic, but the "Hideyoshi invasion" and "seven-year war" are good descriptions of the Imjin War to use in the body text. Appleby 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My search results show that Invasion of Korea is appropriate as well, with more hits than any of the others which you mentioned.--Endroit 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

no, it shows that hideyoshi's invasion of korea is a common descriptive phrase (lowercase) of the event most often called the "Imjin War" in english. the title should be the commonly used name, not a descriptive phrase. sashimi is under Sashimi, not raw fish. Appleby 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't prove much. Korea was invaded an impressive number of times. So of course, there will be more hits than any of the others. Shogo Kawada 19:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Look again at my link above. (Please go ahead and click them!) The search is for "Hideyoshi" AND "invasion of Korea", which effectively yields the desired results. There are virtually no other hits for other invasions.--Endroit 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

look again at my links above. please go ahead and click them. the search results show that while it can be described as a seven-year war, an invasion of korea, or whatever other phrase, the most common name is "Imjin War". the most common english name for raw fish is sashimi. the proper title is the most common name, per wikipedia policy WP:NC. Appleby 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Appleby. All you're saying here is that we need to throw out the others besides "Imjin War", because you think the others are not names. "Invasion of Korea" and "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" are indeed used as names AND description. But the point is this: "Invasion of Korea" is used most often in general, even in cases where "Imjin War" is never used. Usually "Imjin War" is used in the context of Korea. And "Invasion of Korea" (or "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea") is used in the context of Japan, China, and in general.--Endroit 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it was not very clear and I didn't click indeed. Of course, "Hideyoshi Invasion of Korea" will yield the greatest number of results. I don't have any objections to calling the article "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" personally (when I do have some to the furiously inaccurate "Seven Year War"). About the use of this expression, read above Shogo Kawada 20:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am revising my Google Books count, by going to the last page of the search, as that seems to produce a more accurate result. (Google searching has its peculiarities.)...:

• 204 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "invasion of Korea"
• 76 instances of "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" OR "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea"
• 37 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "invasion of China"
• 22 instances of "Imjin War" OR "Imjin Wars"
• 6 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "seven year war"

Invasion of Korea comes out on top, while Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is 2nd place. However, because Invasion of Korea is used in the context of "Hideyoshi" anyways, Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is a more appropriate name.

Also invasion of Korea outnumbers Imjin War(s) by a factor of 9 to 1. Hideyoshi's Invasion(s) of Korea outnumbers Imjin War(s) by a factor of 3 to 1. Also, Imjin War(s) is usually used in a context where the word "Korea" occurs prominently in the book title, topic, chapter title, etc., proving that it is used mostly in the Korean context, and not in the general context.--Endroit 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

that's interesting. since when has going to the last page of the search been considered "more accurate"? really grasping at straws, aren't we? seeing how it happend in korea, having the word korea might indicate a neutral, accurate description of the war, don't you think? also, as explained above, i fixed the intro so that the most common name is bolded and capitalized, while non-name descriptive phrases about the named event are not bolded nor capitalized, per wikipedia style guideline. Appleby 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you click "Next" or "Previous" repeatedly and count everything, you'll see what I mean... that "going to the last page shows the accurate count." Also, Appleby keeps deleting Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea due to a technical argument, that he doesn't think it's a proper noun. If you capitalize it, it IS a proper noun, and also qualifies as the most common name. The above links show many instances of this usage (all capitals) anyways, and there's no need to delete them. Moreover, it IS a valid candidate for this article's name.--Endroit 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

adding "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" in the body text itself seems perfectly fine to me. After all, the title is still "Imjin Wars" which I still think is the best, regardless of the fact that the former has more occurrences on google (after all, sushi was called "raw fish" by a majority of people, in the English-speaking world, for a long time, which certainly didn't make it right).Shogo Kawada 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say that the Imjin War was Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, and also a seven-year long war. But as Appleby pointed out, only Imjin War should be fully capitalized as the name, as in 30 scholarly articles and books. Almost none of the sources, even in Endroit's searches, capitalize it in the phrases "invasion of Korea" or "seven year war". Damool 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Capital or not, Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is the most common English name, more common than Imjin War by a factor of 3 to 1. This qualifies it to be mentioned and bolded. So what's the reason for not bolding it if it's the most common? Why hide such valuable information from Wikipedia readers?--Endroit 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's hiding anything, use the phrase if you want. But pretty much none of the sources you found treat "Hideyoshi's invasion" as the name, so we shouldn't either. "Korean War" is a name and should be capitalized and bolded, "North Korea's invasion of South Korea" is a description of the same war, and should not be capitalized or bolded. Damool 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We have many articles with descriptive names. There is no rule that dictates an article name should be a proper noun. For example, we have Mongol invasions of Japan, French intervention in Mexico and Napoleon's invasion of Russia in Category:Invasions. --Kusunose 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I put a section for discussing this at the bottom. It does appear in capitals in many textbooks--your example is flawed because no texts talk about "North Korea's invasion of South Korea" (unlike how texts DO talk about Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea). Komdori 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hideyoshi's..." gives too much of a POV look of the war to people that have no knowledge of the war. Ok, so what if he started the war? Hitler started WWII by attacking Poland. Is WWII called "Hitler's Invasions of the World"? No.

And we arn't hiding "valuable information" of the title. Bolding it as an alternative name in hte first paragraph is good enough. Good friend100 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

errors

"the Japanese army dominated land with the Korean Navy dominating sea"

I am pretty sure someone added this sentence to the article. Please make sure your additions make grammatical sense. I have found many of these kinds of sentences throughout the article. To edit the article is to make it better, not just slop some bad words onto it. Seriously. Its not funny anymore. The article has been weakened already. Good friend100 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Civility. While I agree that sentence is not the best, it is more or less grammatical. Why discourage others from adding content? Don't sit around and complain, but do something about it--if you think you can do better, improve the wording so the article can be even stronger! LactoseTI 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because idiots like Komdori keep on making bullshit edits. Here is a classic example among many. This has got to be one of the dumbest edits I have ever seen. Hideyoshi's goal was to conquer China in the first place. That's why he asked Korea to move his troops through the country. People are destroying all of Good friend100's edits. Taeguk Warrior 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I improved the article to my best. I added the entire "Second Invasion" because all it consisted was of like 4 paragraphs. I only complain because the edits don't seem to help the article. The article doesn't seem to be getting any better. >Lactose TI

Stop using nasty words like "bullshit". Even if it is "bullshit" don't use those words. It doesn't help at all. Of course Komdori's edits in the link is Japanese POV but everything can be explained. >Taeguk Warrior Good friend100 02:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Message to Komdori

Stay away from this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imjin_Wars&diff=65034110&oldid=65014954

Everyone take a look at how he changed "Japanese Chaos" into "Chaos". Simply amazing. Taeguk Warrior 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Imjin Waeran" means Japanese 1592 to you? Put the change back with Japanese still there; what about the other changes? At least attempt to be accurate--why insert words that don't exist? Komdori 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Komdori, please stop. You are only losing credibility. Damool 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this dumbass. Taeguk Warrior 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually speak Korean? Did you know there are many, many Imjin years? It doesn't mean that specific year. Please, learn Korean, or stop telling us what the language means. If you're going to spill your own (wrong) ideas all over, we'll have to request the entire page be protected from editing until we can firmly settle that what you're saying is wrong.

Incidently, if Korea "controlled" the sea, how did Japan get so many troops there? "Dominate" is much better since it is right, where your wording is wrong. What is your native language? Apparently neither Korean nor English? Komdori 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Japanese sentiment

Ok, let's try it again.

• 왜놈(倭놈, Waenom) — Means "short bastard" or "shortie". This term refers to the ancient name of Japan given by China, Waeguk (倭國) (see Wō above). Koreans also use this term to make fun of the common stereotype there of Japanese people being short.

Taeguk Warrior 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you try to pay attention to what's going on? I know what "Wa" means. It was removed when trying to fix the gigantic flub of translating Imjin to the year, which is a pure and simple translation error... I added [Japanese] back when I realized I had deleted it.

And how does that relate to reverting all the other changes? Could you learn to fix just the small thing that you disagree with rather than destroying the whole thing? Komdori 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS

You are cleary trying to make this look like a misunderstanding which it isn't.

"What part of "Imjin Waeran" means "Japanese" to you?"

You didn't know what the character meant. Now you're changing your story. Taeguk Warrior 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

With a name like "Komdori," what would make you think I wouldn't know the character? I made a typo, and didn't know how to do the strikeout. I looked it up (how to do the strikeout, and put the original text back) because you (ignorantly) didn't read the REST of the argument I've been making through this whole post, which is talking about the year. It was also the point of the original change.

Keep in mind... Everyone's bound to make a typo or two when trying to fix the flurry of bad changes here... I try to have good faith, but gee you guys make it tough... Komdori 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again. Please see Sexagenary_cycle. Pay particular attention to "Imjin." I'll refrain from using foul language, but I will suggest it might improve your understanding. My issue with your translation is that you are making it sound like it's a general term referring to a year, when it's not. I have no problem with including Japanese there. The idea is that these mistranslations lead to mistakes later on. Didn't you notice that I put the term "Japanese" back? See the partial revert; by "it doesn't exist" I meant the second year number, which I left. Komdori 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Komdori's edits are "euphemisms". Japan invaded Korea with little apparent reason other than to conquer and that message cannot be covered forever. But, the Korean side, shouldn't attack the Japan side. That is not nessacery. Of course, anti-Japanese sentiment comes from the looting, raping, pillaging, etc from the Japanese invasions.

There are other ways to argue for a better article that explains what happened during the war.

For example you can add references, make edits to the article, and write in new sections. Screaming on a talk page helps protect the article from becoming a Japanese POV article but that is only a temporary solution.

And stop making bad edits on the article. Only edit it if you have a reference or you know it will help the article. Good friend100 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on any side. The thing is I wasn't even trying to make it a euphamism--as for that edit that I think you're talking about, I was trying to say that Japan was interested in Korea as more than a land bridge--they wanted to conquer that land, too. I was adding something which might even be considered Korean POV by some, I suppose, but instead you've succeeded in making sure that no one thinks this way--the only valuable things in Asia must be Japan and China, according to you people. Don't immediately assume someone's trying to stomp you out.

Don't you think it might be nicer for people who know more about Korean history (often Koreans) to figure out how to word things in the least POV way as possible? Then no one else can come along and complain, and eventually change it dramatically. Komdori 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the Imjin War article a lot. The Second Invasion section and nearly all the subsections under it was written by me. Unfortunately, there are users who believe the wording is POV and try to "soften" the words up so it doesn't make Japan look as bad.

The point is, no one can hide the fact that Japan invaded Korea with little apparent reason other than to conquer and to hide it means that you cannot face the truth. A dark chapter in a country's history of course makes a bad impression but it doesn't make that country a bad nation. Facing the truth shows you are at least forgiven by some. Good friend100 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another classic edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyotomi_Hideyoshi&diff=65058348&oldid=65053780

"Invasion of Korea was arguably successful...." Notice how the term Imjin War was removed to prevent people from linking to this page.

Taeguk Warrior 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was successful until Chinese troops came and Admiral Yi defeated the Japanese navy. Good friend100 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

new battle

Just to let you guys know, I wrote a new article on the Battle of Chongju. Expanding on it might be a good idea. Thanks for your help. Good friend100 22:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

please revert

Why did you delete the irregular forces picture? The site allowed me to use it. Now whats the problem?? Good friend100 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG!!! The image is copyrighted and I have permission to use it. This is ridiculous. What is the problem now??? Is this the "Delete all Korean images Movement" that somebody started? It makes me mad that this image was deleted. Good friend100 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Imjin War vs. Seven Year War

Imjin War vs. Seven Year War

Reasons to use Imjin War

• It is an English proper noun therefore is neutral.
• It is clearer since there already is a European "Seven Year War"
• Imjin War is a flexible name and most people that use it refer to the entire war itself.
• Articles that mention "Imjin War" have the entire length of the war (1592-1598).
• "Seven Year War" is only used in the west since most English speakers are not familiar with "Imjin".
• Most historians use "Imjin War".
• Imjin War took place entirely in Korea.
• "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" and other variations are just narrative descriptions of the war.
• Claims Imjin War is more commonly used.

Reasons to use Seven Year War

• It is an English word.
• "Imjin War" can be bias since it is a Korean word.
• "Imjin War" only refers to the first invasion.
• "Imjin War" is only used in Korea.
• English speakers would be unfamiliar with "Imjin".
• Claims most outside sources don't even mention the word "Imjin War".
• Claims Seven Year War is more commonly used.

Summarized reasons. Add more if I missed any.

"but nonetheless Korean-language based names just don't make it out into the world." Ok, Komdori. That is your own personal opinion. So, you mean to say Korea is a weak country and China and Japan overpower it. Do you have any sources for this??

Ok then, China's population is 1.6 billion. Korea's population is almost 50,000,000. Remember the olympics? Korea won the gold medal over China in the table tennis finals. So, does this mean China can't beat a puny country like Korea when its population is 260 times more than Korea?

The more ironic thing is, your username means "bear" (곰도리) in Korean. Good friend100 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's true that in reality Korea has been the shrimp of Asia throughout the past thousands of years, not quite like a bear or a tiger.

• "Whales fight, shrimp crushed". That stark sokdam (proverb) tells you how Koreans traditionally viewed their geopolitical fate. A glance at the map explains why. A small peninsula sandwiched among Russia, China and Japan, and with the United States too playing a key role, Korea for the past century or more was mainly a victim of others' designs. In 1945, two of the whales freed it from a third - only to tear the shrimp in two." [7]
• "Koreans, over their history, have seen their small peninsula as a shrimp among whales, and used clever tricks rather than direct confrontation to survive." [8]
• "The Koreans like to say that their peninsula is like "a small shrimp surrounded by big whales." Indeed, the Korean peninsula is 102 times smaller than the territory of Russia and 44 times smaller than that of China. Even Japan's total land area is 1.7 times larger than that of Korea. The combined population of North and South Korea, 68 million people, is still significantly smaller than the populations of neighboring China (1.3 billion people), the Russian Federation (148 million people), or Japan (128 million people)." [9] --222.3.77.88 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yow, try to tone down the personal feelings here--we're talking about a name, not an issue of "Korea pride," whatever that might be... It doesn't matter if Korea has a population of 10 billion, the fact remains that most people in the West learn Asian history through China and Japan--since by studying them, you cover almost all the "important" events/contributions of Korea. Since people learn from this perspective, it's unusual that words come into English through Korean. (We'll leave aside the issues of whether state-sponsored athletes should be considered amateur and whether ping-pong is even a sport or not ;) - I don't think either belongs on a talk page about naming for this article. Don't take things personally, it's not an issue of how "big and mighty" Korea is, it's an issue of what English speakers will most recognize. (And yes, my name is Korean; I'm not sure why that is ironic?)

Some things about your list--incidently, "Seven Year War" is a proper noun, too, as is "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" and "Hideyoshi's Korean Campaigns." Also, just because something is a proper noun doesn't make it neutral. I'd also insert most *Korean* historians use it, but it's really immaterial--as you said, since most English speakers don't know it, it automatically kicks it out of contention by the Wikipedia style guide. Komdori 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your name is ironic. You have a Korean name and show you are Korean while you support names other editors want. Naturally, a Korean would support "Imjin War". The Imjin War is a dark chapter in Korean history and most Koreans look at it shamefully (considering what the Japanese did). But look at you. You even go on the Dokdo talk page and support "Liancourt Rocks" and the Takeshima side.

Yes, "Imjin War" can be POV since it is a Korean name, but first of all, most English speakers don't even 'know about the Imjin War. Like you said, "Korean words never go out into the world". Good friend100 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Many, but not all do not know about this war. However, those that do--those that actually paid attention in their history classes--will not have learned it by this term. It doesn't seem to make sense to file an article under a term people who know about the war will not know.

I considered not responding to the portion of the comment directed at me personally--I suppose it belongs on talk pages instead of here--it really has nothing to do with this article. Since it was brought up, though:

Liancourt Rocks has nothing to do with this issue; it's a totally different situation.

In any case, I think for myself--after knowing all the information. I don't just blindly support a position, even if it makes my "national team" stronger--an encyclopedia should be accessible--and filing articles that are important under obscure, unknown titles will not get them more well known; quite the opposite, it will condemn them into even further obscurity. Don't brand me as "unpatriotic" just because I don't support your view. Komdori 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by population

Actually Korea's population is over 70 million. Even though that is half of Japan's population, if you combine North and South Korea together its popultion is among the top 20 in the entire world along with a lot of other Asian nations. Most people assume population is proportional to land mass but Asian countries have the most people. Also Japan's population is going to be half the size by 2100 (see Demographics of Japan). Hahahaha. Taeguk Warrior 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually South Korea's birth rate is even lower than that of Japan. "Korea Records World’s Lowest Birthrate... Korea’s birthrate is dropping to the lowest in the world. The average Korean woman last year had 1.16 children during her fertile period between the age of 15 and 49, even less than the previous all-time low of 1.17 recorded in 2002, the National Statistic Office announced Wednesday. Korea's birthrate climbed briefly to 1.19 in 2003." [10] "The United Nations said South Korea will have a larger proportion of elderly among its total population than Japan by 2050. We feel the gloomy outlook triggered by Korean women's "birth strike." [11] --222.3.77.88 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's ambition

I remember reading somewhere once that Hideyoshi had plans for invading India as well once the conquest of China was completed, but I can't recall the source. He most likely didn't realize the huge scale of the two countries and probably thought his firearms-equipped army was invincible. Does anyone have an onhand reference for Hideyoshi's possible Indian ambitions?--Yuje 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Chirp chirp? Anyone? --Yuje 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this page be protected?

It seems to me that there is no disagreement that "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is a valid name for this event. Nonetheless, Appleby and Damool seem to want to remove this from the list. Please discuss why you feel that this doesn't even warrant mentioning as a possible name--despite the fact that it appears likely this will actually become the name of the article in the near future.

(On a side note, personally I prefer "Hideyoshi's Korean Campaigns," but I think the former is the *best known* out there.)

Damool and Appleby--are you honestly trying to say that this is a totally invalid name?? If these two can't stop reverting for the sake of making the article just the way they want to see it rather than the best it could be, I suppose we need to file for protection until we can get it resolved. Why don't you guys go over to some Korean page, and have your fun there? I love Korea as much as the next guy--and I try to have good faith in your edits--but it seems you really aren't even trying any more, but are just being mean spirited... Komdori 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep confusing the name and the description. There is no disagreement that "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea" is a common description for this event. There has been no evidence that "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" is a common name. I see Appleby's version (before Endroit's revert) had used the description that you want so fervently, as a description, just as in your citations. I don't think anyone's preventing you from using whatever phrase to describe it, but we can't add incorrect information about the name. "Korean War" is the name, "North Korea's invasion of South Korea" is a description. Damool 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) carefully. "Capital letters" is not a criteria here for "common name." And yes, it seems you are suggesting to hide the fact most scholarly references call it "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" (or "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea"). If it's referred to in such a way, it's a name, whether you like it or not. Perhaps you don't understand English well enough, as you seem to have trouble grasping what a name is. Wikipedia guidelines call for the most common name in English, as the article title, capital or not. Anyways, the least you can do is mention "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" (or "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea") and bold it.--Endroit 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty ironic to some Japanese editors. I hear users at articles related to Japanese expansionism saying that "invasion" is POV. And now here, several users say "Imjin War" is POV because its a "Korean" word and want "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" instead. What do they really want? It gets confusing to others if we keep changing the name of this article. Good friend100 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't start slinging mud, Good friend100. There's no need to act like you've only heard it since you're a participant in many of the articles on Japanese pre-WWII expansionism. ANd I haven't seen anyone claiming that the word "invasion" is POV on any of those articles. That said, I can find only 21 GHits for "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea", so it doesn't appear to be in common usage at all. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, try "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" without the s in "invasion". I got 67. Better yet try "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" OR "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" (with or without the s). I got 76 for that. And I got fewer Google Books hits for "Imjin War" OR "Imjin Wars".--Endroit 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe: Also please look for descriptions of this event in general. Unfortunately, this event is pushed in a corner as "insignificant" in most history books, but people really do learn about it. It's just that when they do, they hear the phrase "invasion of Korea" and Hideyoshi somehow. If you search for those terms, you see that there are many, many descriptions of it. Very, very few ever use the word Imjin. Should we ignore the fact that most people will never be exposed to the event with that name and call it that anyway? As I mention below, I think it's similar to Mongol_invasions_of_Japan. Komdori 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions says "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name)."

Proper nouns "are the names of unique entities. For example, "Janet", "Jupiter" and "Germany" are proper nouns. Proper nouns are capitalized in English."

Wikipedia:Manual of Style says "The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold. Also, try not to put other phrases in bold in the first sentence. An exception to this arises when an article has alternative titles, each of which an editor puts in bold; for example, Río de la Plata: The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: "River of Silver"), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes [La] Plata River. "

"Hideyoshi's invasion" is almost never a proper noun, according to Endroit's own searches. The word "invasion" is not capitalized. We can't turn a common noun into a proper noun if the sources don't do that. This other phrase describing the event should not be in bold. It's not an alternative title like Rio de la Plata/River Plate. Come on.

I think we can find a compromise by the example of the Oei Invasion. The Japanese-derived proper English name is the title and first bolded name (because it took place in Japan), and then the translated Korean name is bolded as the alternate title. We should do the same here (except, of course, it took place in Korea, so vice versa). Dollarfifty 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea" may be used with small letters (as a name which isn't a proper noun), but it's still more common than "Imjin War" (as shown in Google Books). So it's argued to be an alternate title for this article, and so should be bolded (capitalized or not). Alternately, "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" can be made into a proper noun, by capitalizing. Regardless, "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" (or "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea") is the most common name which meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and qualifies as a title for the article. The "capitalization"/"proper noun" issue is inconsequential.--Endroit 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. Something can't be "made into a proper noun, by capitalizing" because we feel like it. It is almost never capitalized in the real world. Imjin War is shown to be the most common name of the subject. Dollarfifty 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of articles are often capitalized, when it is a unique identifying name for an event. (For example, Texas Annexation comes to mind.) But as I said, that is optional. "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea" (with the small letters) qualifies as the article title also, regardless.--Endroit 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dollarfifty: Did you see the link to the description of what a "name" is? The capitalization isn't done since we feel like it, but because most editors in most books in the English speaking world do it this way. Oddly, even the people who want "Imjin war" admit this. I might go so far as to admit that in Korea Imjin is the most often used word to describe this event. Even there, though, it's often with a lowercase "w"--the point is it doesn't matter. Please read the discussion where we mentioned the Mongol_invasions_of_Japan... they use the lowercase titles since it is the most commonly used moniker describing this event. This article is no different. Komdori 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We should also list "Seven Year War" as an alternate title, bolded. We have a redirect coming here from there, so it only makes sense that this is in the list as well as "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea". Komdori 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Seven-Year War" was the original title of this article, and hence should be bolded as well, until a decision is reached. I personally have no preference for it. But I sense that many people may vote it down though, in the near future.--Endroit 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand all this fuss. The war has an English name, Imjin War, just like the Korean War or the Oei Invasion. Of course there there are many ways to describe it, such as Hideyoshi's invasion, Hideyoshi's invasions, the Hideyoshi invasion, the Japanese invasions, Japan's invasion, Japan's invasions, Japan's war on Korea, Japanese attacks against Korea, Japanese attacks against Korea and China, Japanese incursions, Japanese troops' invasions, seven-year war, Japan-Korea war, and infinite number of others. So go ahead and use any of these phrases in the article. But the name is the name, look at what the Korean War is titled, and look at what words are bolded. What's the problem here? Damool 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the countless English speakers who learn about this war never learn about it with the name "Imjin." The motivation behind the naming conventions is to use a name with which most native English speaking people are familiar as the article title. They learn about it at school. LactoseTI 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"English speaking people are familiar with the war?" You have to be kidding me. The war itself is unknown to nearly all of the west.

I suggest keeping "Imjin War" as a title for the article and instead write down "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" or "Seven Year War" as alternative titles also used.

You need to understand that "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is just a description! Not a name. And its common sense to use another available term (Imjin War) when this war can be confused with the European Seven Years War. Good friend100 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the following editors support "Imjin War": Appleby, Damool, Dollarfifty, Good friend100, Oyo123, Shogo Kawada.

And the following editors support "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" and/or "Seven-Year War": LactoseTI, Komdori, LordAmeth, Kusunose, Endroit, Stifle.

All 3 names belong in the first paragraph since we have significant support for all 3.

Out of the first group of editors, a few militant editors keep deleting "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" and "Seven-Year War" from the first paragraph. I believe those deletions are bad-faith edits, and warrant some kind of admin intervention, and a sockpuppet check.--Endroit 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you count "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea" and "seven-year war" together? And please don't capitalize those phrases as if they're proper nouns, since they're not, according to your own search results. Which "side" started the move war without any discussion, and keeps trying to make opposed changes unilaterally without consensus? There was a month of stability following a pre-discussed move. Who is showing bad faith? Damool 05:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Because we are talking about alternate names in the first paragraph, and there seems to be significant support to mention all 3 of them there in bold. Therefore, if you delete (or un-bold or un-capitalize) any of them, your edits are in bad faith. Damool and others: Please consider this a warning, that I will seek appropriate intervention if you delete any of them in the future.--Endroit 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consider this a warning. Don't make any opposed changes without consensus. Damool 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your warning is moot, as there's no consensus to delete any of the cited names. The additions of names are properly sourced. However, your deletions would seem to be in bad faith, since you have no consensus to delete them. We'll see.--Endroit 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Including "Seven Year War" and "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" are ok, just so long as they are only bolded and just written as alternative names. Writing something like "The Imjin War is also known as the Seven Year War and Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea. Good friend100 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: On the Seven-branched sword page, the bolded alternate names were deleted because they were in the infobox of translations of alternate names already. That might cut down on some of the clutter of bolded names in the first para? Tortfeasor 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article name MUST be kept Imjin War

Seven Year War is the last appropriate name for the Imjin War. First off, the Seven Year War is already a name for another war that lasted seven years. And the name of the war should not be written by how long it was waged. Its like calling the Korean War, "3 Year War." And I'm not saying that most westerners really know about the Imjin War, but the name of it should at least be about who and when it took place, but thats probably invalid, since there were countless wars between Japan and Korea and it would be very confusing.

Don't understand it. Why is the Seven Year War more accurate than the Imjin War? Nobody in Korea or Japan or China calls it that. A poll should be raised. A subtitle of "Seven Year War" is highly uneccesary. Oyo321 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

People on wikipedia don't "vote" for which wins; it's just a tool to figure out what the consensus is. Right now it seems pretty clear that there isn't a consensus; hence, the request for comments rather than a poll. To be blunt, it doesn't matter a whit what anyone in Korea or Japan or China calls it. What matters is what people who are native English speakers are most likely to recognize it as, which is clearly not anything with Imjin in the title. What's not clear is to what exactly this article should be moved--Seven Year War is indeed a valid name for it. Your criticism about not naming wars after the length is pretty weak; there are scores of wars named this way, so it is definitely valid. I agree with Komdori that "Hideyoshi's Korean Campaigns" or something sounds very nice--but also most people might more clearly recognize it as "Hideyoshi's Invasions." I think I could join the growing consensus that this name a) (most importantly) is what most people would most likely have learned it as and b) describes the conflict succinctly and more or less accurately.

Good friend100 and others on the Imjin side even admit that Westerners don't know it with this name; unwittingly, perhaps, they seem to have joined the consensus for keep (it was moved to Imjin without discussion)... LactoseTI 02:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you people to understand that "Imjin War" is a strictly Korean term, and that even the most educated, knowledgable and well-read Japanese history scholars will NOT know it by that name? Just because it happened in Korea does not mean that Japan was not involved. Hideyoshi was a major major figure in Japanese history, and his name is quite recognizable to even the most casual student of Japanese history. I've said it before, and I am repeating it again for those who did not get it the first time: Within the field of Japanese history, there are many many more sources that refer to this conflict as "Seven Year War" or "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" than as anything involving the word Imjin. LordAmeth 02:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you people to understand that "Imjin War" is a perfectly fine English proper noun, just like any other English word like "Oei Invasion"?

Seven Year War is too confusing with the English Seven Years War, especially to people who have absolutely no knowledge of the war. And "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is just a fancy description of the war. And its pretty ironic too. First, I hear that "invasion" is POV and should be changed to "conflict". What is it that you really want? "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is simply a description of it, not a title. People describe it as the "Invasions of Korea".

The biggest problem is, you need to understand that the war itself is vague and unknown to nearly any English speaking country. "Imjin War" is a good name that gives the war its position among other wars with its own original name. If westerners don't know about the war, then they'll have to get familiar with the term "Imjin War". Just because westerners don't know about the war doesn't mean they can never learn about it.

Simply, its just a matter of time until English speaking countries like the USA will get familiar with this war. Good friend100 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether most people know about the subject. Most people don't know about 90% of the article topics in Wikipedia. But scholarly journals and books most often use Imjin War as the English name. This dispute doesn't seem to be about accuracy. Damool 05:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Good friend100 (and Damool)--people do learn about this war in the West. They simply don't learn about it using Korean terminology. Since that's the case, the most recognizable name is not Imjin. Can you suggest a reason why the Wikipedia policy should be abandoned in favor of your "pet name"? Komdori 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your insult of the name calling it a pet name by myself. You don't understand, just because the Wikipedia policy says "common name" that is not always the case. This "common name" should be sacrificed for accurate information, which is calling it by its name.

Others have explained this already! "Seven Year War" can be mistakened with the European one while "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" is just a description.

Another thing about "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is that the war didn't circle around Hideyoshi. Yes, he united Japan and started the war, but he is not the "main charecter". This title sounds like its all about Hideyoshi and how he invaded Korea. That can be slightly POV too. Good friend100 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think that common names should be sacrificed for lesser used official names, I suggest you make a post to alter the Wikipedia naming policy. The assertion you made about how it "should be sacrificed" seems to be made unilaterally by you against the Wikipedia community; if you wish to pursue this line of thinking, you should first push for a global change of the encylopedia convention and then apply it here. There are many articles (examples given above) where the common name is chosen above the lesser used "official" names--that's the whole motivation of the policy. Alternatively, perhaps you can offer some stronger reason why the policy should be abandoned here rather than "some people use this relatively unknown proper noun to describe the event."

If Hideyoshi wasn't the main character, I'd like to know who was--the whole conflict was his orchestration. Even after gaining control of the military, he never completely shed the hunger for power he had when starting life as a lowly peasant. The most concrete and substatial example of this is his campaigns in Korea and his continual thirst for ever-increasing domination, even when it meant unrealisitc expectations. There is nothing POV about this--it is not only the way the conflict is introduced in Western history books, but is one of the main points from a historical perspective.

Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is just a description? Yes--just like many other common names... it's good to finally be settling on the fact that it is indeed a valid description for the event. It seems that slowly the consensus is gaining steam. Komdori 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then start a poll to change the article title you think is appropiate. Good friend100 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe a consensus has been reached? Wikipedia is not a democracy... please read m:voting is evil. Komdori 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Komdori learned about the war from a Western history book. 'Hideyoshi's...' suggests that the war is described by Japanese point of view. Then how much did you learn about Korean point of view about that war? Japanese perspective has been dominant in such western history books, but it is not neutral. Do you mean it should keep going like that? Isn't it a purpose of WP to introduce things from a neutral point of view? I think Hideyoshi's.... is too Japanese POV. The name has been like so and the war has been introduced to the Western history book that way largely from Japanese sources. That's a fact, but it doesn't justify to set the article name so because, as you know, it's Japanese POV. What's wrong with abandoning that not properly weighed view now? Ginnre 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

With you here, supporting the "Imjin Wars" title (even though I don't agree with what you say about Japanese POV), we are a majority now.

The following editors support "Imjin War": Appleby, Damool, Dollarfifty, Good friend100, Oyo123, Shogo Kawada, Ginnre. (7)

The following editors support "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" and/or "Seven-Year War": LactoseTI, Komdori, LordAmeth, Kusunose, Endroit, Stifle. (6)

But maybe we should change the title to "Editing Wars", or "Japanese Invasion of the Korean Point of View". Shogo Kawada

And a "majority" is of course meaningless, since Wikipedia is not a democracy (see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not). Clearly, Ginnre must be on the side of Seven Year War, since that is the only name that doesn't show the name of either foreign word/name. Ginnre: are you suggesting we list articles throughout the encyclopedia under tags that no one knows to avoid the pretense of learning history from "one side"? This seems opposed to the naming guidelines...

What's more, Hideyoshi's invasion is not a POV title since it is "his" invasion regardless of if you are some poor schmuck sitting in Korea about to be invaded or if you are someone in the Japanese military about to do the invading.

Anyway, I have no clue from where this POV discussion came--the guideline says to use POV titles if it is the most common way to refer to an event ie, if it is the way most English speakers would recognize it. By definition, it means (pretty much) that you must use the Western (ie English) way. Sorry, but if you don't like it, try joining the Korean wikipedia--this is English wikipedia... Komdori 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And as for your so called majority... let's break it down. The ones who agree that it is called "Hideyoshi's Invasions" in Western books far outnumber those who don't (Good friend100, Ginnre, etc. have admitted if you learn from an English book it is described this way). The issue is whether we should be trying to change how people call this event by using Wikipedia--which is NOT the purpose of it. Komdori 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All I said was isn't it the time to change that custom of always too much Japanese-weighed point of view in western literature regarding Japan/Korea issues. Regardless of wide spread or not, 'Hideyoshi's...' suggests that the article gonna be who he was, what he has done, and what has been done to him. In my opinion, it's just bad idea to concentrate on this one person. In the entire context of the war, is it so important whether it was Hideyoshi or not who invaded? It is important that there was a war initiated by Japan and occured in Korea and there was this and that aftermath in both countries. So how should the title be set? I don't think there gonna be a clear cut. Personally, I prefer Imjin war, but if it's too Korean POV as you think, Seven year war is, with its all drawbacks, better than Hideyoshi's... I know you prefer Hideyoshi's campagne. How nice a name concealing all the brutalities and just showing his ambition. You want the world to be taught as the name you prefer? Ginnre 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Seven Year War" should definitely not be used. I already told you, it gets too confusing to people outside Wikipedia because there already is a European Seven Years War. I already suggested, just write the alternative titles in the first paragraph. Thats good enough.

The editors here, you are too narrow minded. "English wikipedia english wikipedia" No, the internet does not revolve around the USA or any English speaking country. The internet is global. English is one of the most common languages and many people learn it. You need to look at this from a perspective of the entire world. Not just English speaking countries. Good friend100 20:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, most native speakers of English who learn about this war learn about it from Western history books. Please read the Wikipedia naming guidelines. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not agree with you in terms of naming--the consensus in this encyclopedia is to follow English guidelines. The Korean wikipedia follows the most common name as it appears to Koreans--as someone else suggested; perhaps you'd be happier editing there? LactoseTI 11:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I only edit English Wikipedia because it is a lot more informative and popular. And are you trying to push me off as a loner who just edits at places he likes? think again, because I'm not backing off just because you decide to be a big mouth. Good friend100 03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push you anywhere. You seem unhappy with Wikipedia's naming policy, which happens to disagree with the name you like. I was suggesting that you might be happier in an environment where your point of view is likely the consensus--that of the Korean Wikipedia. You choose to ignore the policy outright--it seems you know that the majority of editors would disagree with changing it in general. LactoseTI 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

concentration

This talk page is concentrated too much onto the title of the war. We need to move on other subjects in the article. Isn't this what the talk page is for? Not enough editing is made to this incomplete article. Good friend100 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I couldn't agree more. I'll complete the references when I'm back, sometimes later in the afternoon. Shogo Kawada 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I have no idea how to do references.

Peoples!!! we need to start moving our attention over the article. The Imjin War article needs more work on it. Good friend100 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Last chance, guys

Damool and Appleby--you seem to be the only ones who disagree that there are other valid ways of calling this article. It's extremely discouraging to edit something if the changes are just wiped out in a few minutes (you've done it to almost everyone involved here... regardless of if they are on "your side" or not). As mentioned above, please talk about it here--you are the ones who want to make a change to remove the other clearly valid ways this article is called--the rest of us know that it shows up in textbooks this way and are therefore valid titles. If you can't play nicely, we'll have to request the page be protected. Komdori 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll second the motion. There's no excuse for deleting alternate titles for which we're still discussing. And I think there's 3 of them involved: Appleby, Damool, and Dollarfifty.--Endroit 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

it's not obvious to me that there is consensus for anything, except that the article title should stay Imjin War. look at the history and see who consistently starts the revert wars, knowing that their edits are actively opposed. since when is it required that any title being discussed must be added to the articles without consensus? you two have consistently started the move/revert wars in this article, even as discussions have not resulted in consensus in your favor. talk about collaboration and bad faith. Appleby 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think other people who support "Imjin War" have clearly stated that some of the other names are acceptable as alternate names. For example Shogo Kawada says "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" is acceptable as an alternate name. And Ginnre says "Seven-Year War" is acceptable as an alternate name. Ginnre has a point, when he suggests that "Seven-Year War" is the most NPOV, by the way. Also Good friend100 seems to be indifferent as to the alternate names being there, and has even helped me with the wording. So clearly, those who support deleting them all outright are in the minority. ... Which means, consensus appears to allow us to keep the alternate names in the first paragraph. And you don't have consensus to delete them outright.--Endroit 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I see I was being overly optimistic when I only protected it from moves...

Please stop with the revert-warring (and that goes for everyone involved). All that will wind up happening is that the article will get protected—probably on the wrong version—until the discussion has fully concluded. Given that there are many productive edits which could be made to the article, I don't think that would be the best outcome here. Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

They are valid names. But I never said that they could be used as the article's main name. Those names are ok for just stating as "alternative names" in the first paragraph. Good friend100 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And please, we don't need to accuse or point out certain people. Which, in your case, just pointing out the other side supporting "Imjin War". Good friend100 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I work mainly with Asia and Pacific military history articles, I read everyone's discussion here with interest. To be honest, I don't think you all will be able to resolve your differences over the title. Imjin Wars I think is a better name for the conflict since it mainly took place in and around Korea and this name is often used in English sources. However, I've personally seen Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea and Seven Year War used more often in the western sources that I've read. So what are you all going to do? This edit conflict is seriously keeping this otherwise fairly good article from progressing as much as it could be. I suggest, seriously, flipping a coin or doing one round of "rock, paper, scissors" to determine the name (or whatever version of these can be done over the Internet). And then move on. By the way, whichever title is decided on, all of the alternate titles should be listed in the intro. If someone keeps deleting them then I think no question that that is vandalism. Cla68 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If any editor is interested, this dispute seems to be akin to a similar problem going on at East Sea where there is a clearly majority English use of the term "East Sea" by reputable sources but for some reason is not acknowledged. Any comments on the talk page there would be appreciated, espcially for the people who support another term other than Imjin War/s because there is a common(er) English name. Thanks. Tortfeasor 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

East Sea is the Korean version, Sea of Japan is the version from Nippon. In Germany the Korean ambassador congratulates everybody publishing a renown map and using the Korean naming. You can use both names and just list both of them. Seems like some people are still living in ancient wartimes. Wandalstouring 20:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

At least move Imjin Wars to Imjin War

I don't think anyone here wants Imjin Wars. Taeguk Warrior 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Imjin Wars" is not too bad. Good friend100 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography + References

I've just added a bibligraphy section, and cleared a few unreferenced statements. It's tedious work, and I hope somebody else will do it. I've used the Turnbull book primarily, as it combines and compiles )astutely) a balanced number of Japanese and Korean source books. So anyone, I think it's time to take out that annoying "this article does not quote its sources/references" as I'm currently doing the job.--Shogo Kawada 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the "unferenced" tab. I've looked up and added quotes and citations to ground some of the statements that needed it. Shogo Kawada 06:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Size

Hello, i have changed the size of the table at the top of the article because I have met difficulties with my 14' inch monitor and i found hard to read the article properly with the previous size. I hope this modification be stable.--HappyApple 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would just like to say good job to the editors doing their best to improve the Imjin War article. Although we have a lot more to do, I think we have succeeded in improving the references section, checking the images, and adding information to the article. Thanks everyone! Good friend100 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulsan

The statement "A river around the fortress in Ulsan prevented the allied forces from laying siege on the fortress from all sides", which was unreferenced, is actually false. Ulsan is located on a large estuary, and as such, is next to a river that gives easy access to the sea. BUT, the river doesn't flow around the city. Countless maps show the allied Ming and Joseon forces attacking on all sides. Shogo Kawada 22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on the title again, anyone?

I'm afraid the consensus has slightly shifted, due to Damool and Dollarfifty being confirmed as sockpuppets of Appleby. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby. I will like to measure the consensus again, throwing out the confirmed sockpuppets....

• The following editors support Imjin War: Appleby, Good friend100, Oyo123, Shogo Kawada, Ginnre, Taeguk Warrior. (6)
• The following editors support Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea and/or Seven-Year War: LactoseTI, Komdori, LordAmeth, Kusunose, Endroit, Stifle. (6)

Does anybody else want to clarify their position?--Endroit 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A canvas of my English-language print sources does suggest that something like "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea" is most standard (a surprising number of books manage not to give the war a name at all). If this article is to be renamed again, I would support that title. In general,though, I would like to see an end to the unfortunate practice of moving well-established articles like this one without prior consensus. -- Visviva 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, in terms of quantitative usage, Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" is definitely more standard. More recent publications (articles, papers and books) seem to favor "Imjin War" (singular), but it doesn't prove that it's right. However, I still support this title, rather than "Seven-Year War" (and its variations) in particular, because of its atrocious ambiguity. And Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea", despite being more standard, ignores the "War" dimension of the conflict (and Chinese intervention notably), which is an important preliminary remark in Stephen Turnbull's authoritative book, "Samurai Invasion".

Also, even though the war was masterminded by Hideyoshi, the taiko did not actually set foot in Korea (I don't think the article mentions that, I need to check). I think reducing the conflict to one single agent would be very reductive, and historically wrong. Responsibility for the war, at least militarily was delegated to a number of generals. The title also completely ignores the Korean protagonists, "side", if you want. Finally, ".. Invasion of Korea" also ignores the professed aim of the conquest: China. I think "Imjin War(s)" conveys the less subjective connotations, is the pithiest (it actually is a good title), and is actually used by English speakers (if not as often as "Hideyoshi.. and so on"). Shogo Kawada 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases article names on "most standard" English--since that's what most people would recognize. You yourself mention that this is "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea"--and so this should be the title, with the rest of what you've discussed being details. Ignoring the aim of the war is immaterial--there is also evidence he intended to extend it to India, etc. Basically, he wanted to conquer the world, starting with Korea. Since that's as far as he got, that's where the name sits in most books. (Also, try not to use the word "protagonists" in a war--some might say the Japanese were the "protagonists".) LactoseTI 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's... is too strong on only one person. The war was not like that. In addition, the name does not suggest anything but Japanese point of view on this international event. This name is much more nonsense considering that even Japanese name for the war doesn't contain Hideyoshi. Ginnre 14:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ginnre, your statement is factually incorrect. This event was quite literally the production of a single man. It would never have occurred without his existance, so the ware really "was like that." As you said, the Japanese name for the event doesn't include his name--which just gives credence to it being the "most commonly used name" since it was made independently of the Korean (Imjin) name and the Japanese.

To be honest, it doesn't matter one bit whether you think it's an "appropriate" name or places to much emphasis on Hideyoshi--the issue is how it appears in the multitude of history books and how most English speakers (not just Korean or Japanese ones) would recognize it. LactoseTI 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is factually incorrect? Was he the all-round player in that war? Did he ever step on Korean soil? I don't care how important Hideyoshi is in Japanese history, but single person can never characterize any war entirely. Without Hitler, WWII would never happen, but the war was not Hitler's invasion.

And your honesty shows no more than improper Japanese heavy influence for western world regarding Japan/Korea issues. They simply have not been aware of what Koreans say about those issues. When Japan occupied Korea they got only Japanese references for those issues and after WWII, those early (western) references are used to produce modern works. By and large, it was like that. But these days, as more and more Korean references are available, the entire situation is changing to a more balanced view. This naming war is just reflecting this current trend. What is wrong with more balanced view? You wanna keep that Japanese dominance in old days? Ginnre 16:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps it might be worth noting the consensus in a slightly different way. Based on the above comments (throughout the page):

• The following editors believe Imjin War is the most commonly used phrase for English speakers to learn about this event: Appleby, Oyo123. (2)
• The following editors suggest Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea and/or Seven-Year War is more commonly used: LactoseTI, Komdori, LordAmeth, Kusunose, Endroit, Stifle, Good friend100, Shogo Kawada, Ginnre, Visviva, Cla68. (11)

I'm not sure if I've missed anyone--and I didn't mean to assign anyone without support. Moving Ginnre was "iffy" although he seemed to indicate that books outside of Korea and Japan did not use Imjin. I didn't move Oyo, although he also seems to think the main reason not to move it is that people in Japan/Korea don't use this. I think both statistics are useful--to see those that suggest while it's the most commonly used title in English, we might wish to depart from Wikipedia naming styles for some reason. Hopefully this will stimulate some discussion.

The people who acknowledge it's used in English but want to move it anyway seem to be of the opinion that articles should be named with as NPOV names as possible. It is my interpretation of the naming guide that the intention is to name it with what people know, and then explain the details in the article. LactoseTI 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I said I prefer Imjin war the most. And I said Seven year ... is better than Hideyoshi's. Don't be misunderstood. And what I said is that even if Hideyoshi's is the most common name for the war as some of you insist, that naming is historically wrong and these days it looks like more and more english books call the war Imjin war as that name is more appropriate. Therefore, Hideyoshi's cannot be the title in any case. It's like to call WWII Hitlers' invasion.... Ginnre 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you said, "It looks like Komdori learned about the war from a Western history book. 'Hideyoshi's...' suggests that the war is described by Japanese point of view. Then how much did you learn about Korean point of view about that war? Japanese perspective has been dominant in such western history books, but it is not neutral. Do you mean it should keep going like that? Isn't it a purpose of WP to introduce things from a neutral point of view?"

This implies that you would like the most neutral title, "Seven-Year War"--the above comment is the first time you said you like Imjin better (to my knowledge). And in either case, just because the title is "wrong" doesn't mean it should be under the "right" one--you seemed to acknowledge the fact that (even though you don't like it) native speakers of English are most likely to encounter this event under "Hideyoshi's Invasions." LactoseTI 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write like that with my writings, read all messages before you write. The following is what I wrote several days ago as reply to Komdori's comment that he prefers 'Hideyoshi's campagne' as the title;

'Personally, I prefer Imjin war, but if it's too Korean POV as you think, Seven year war is, with its all drawbacks, better than Hideyoshi's...'.

By the way, how nice a name, Hideyoshi's campagne. Why not using it? Ginnre 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that, though it doesn't really matter since you seem to indicate acknowledgement of the fact that most native speakers who HAVE heard of this event have NOT heard of the word "Imjin". Hmm... "Hideyoshi's campaigns" sounds nice (lines up well with Caesar's campaigns, etc.) but I think "invasion" shows up more often. Per your example, WWII would be listed under Hitler's Invasion if that's what most English speakers knew the conflict as. Unfortunately, even though "Hideyoshi's Invasions" might not sound the best, it is indeed the most often used. Wikipedia is not around to "teach" people the "right" name for things. LactoseTI 17:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" not what is the most neutral title. LactoseTI 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lactose, I think you misinterpreted my comments. I do support "Imjin War(s)". I said I didn't object to "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea". There's a world of difference. I recognize it is more standard in terms of usage, the same way as "raw fish" was more common than "sashimi" a few years ago. Historically, for the reasons I've mentioned (and please do not dismiss them as details, as they are mentioned in numerous history books.... and why would I waste time writing details?), "Imjin War" is more correct. So, once again, do no make me say what I didn't say. And once again, if Wikipedia is not around to "teach" people the "right" name for things (sic)... or events, for that matter, then what is it for?

At any rate, there's also, a few lines above, a mention of how Wikipedia IS NOT a democracy... so you might want to revise the polling thin, as I doubt it's going to change anything. Frankly, I'm tired of this discussion, and I think we're wasting a lot of time arguing here, instead of actually WORKING on the article. Shogo Kawada 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret: "I recognize it is more standard in terms of usage," is the key here. The naming of articles doesn't teach, the articles' bodies do. Read a few lines up for the key quote from the naming policy. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but a clear consensus seems to be forming where most people are agreeing that it shows up in English more often this way. If most people called this event "Flibbit's Revenge" out of ignorance, it should show up that way as the article title. LactoseTI 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, the rules are the rules... I strongly disagreee with this one in particular, as I'm convinced it spreads a "wrong" interpretation of the events (it is, itself, an intepretation, oh, and I like the "Flibbit's Revenge" example, because I think that's how "Hideyoshi's ..." sounds)... but so be it, I'm not here to change the rules anyway, and I think the actual content matters first and foremost. Also, some (authoritative) Korean historians do use the expression as well ("Hideyoshi's Invasion..", not "Imjin"). If we move the article, I suggest a few introductory lines about Imjin War. What "Imjin" means, who uses it, and why. Which would also be a good way of referencing the article a bit better, right from the beginning. Shogo Kawada

I agree; the origin of the Imjin name is especially important since the area has many battles fought on top of it (in WWII, etc.) so how it got its name should be mentioned. All three, in my opinion, should be mentioned, but the title should be the one that occurs most frequently in English. Redirects obviously need to go here as well. LactoseTI 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, LactoseIT, first you write that Wikipedia is not a democracy and shouldn't be decided on the consensus and majority, and yet you write down the list to support your own case in this discussion. What is it that you really argue for?

And its already been mentioned before. Yes, the war was solely started by Hideyoshi because of his pet project but what did he do? Was he the main charecter of the war? No, he was not a general, and he never went to Korea. All he did was simply rise up to power, order for the invasion preparation, and order the attack. All the battle plans were left to his generals.

"Wikipedia is not around to "teach" people the "right" name for things." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia is supposed to teach. If somebody was confused about correct title of the war and looked up on Wikipedia, he/she would find "Imjin War". So, that person would say "Oh, so this war is called the Imjin War" and learn the right name. You cannot assume that everybody is aware of this discussion and that everybody will assume this "Hideyoshi's Invasion" name. You cannot assume what sort of things people will learn from Wikipedia.

I totally disagree with the name Seven Year War. It is unclear. I already mentioned several times that this title can be increasingly confused with the European wars of the same name. "Imjin War" is the right title. It can be Korean POV, but it doesn't curve someone's impression that Korea is the "center and main charecter of the war". Why keep changing the name? It makes it confusing to outside readers. And why use "Seven Year War" when there is already another good name to clarify it? Good friend100 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but instead works by consensus. When a clear consensus forms (as seems to be the case here) it's valid. 6-5 or 5-6 might not be so directing, but 9-2 is a little different. Perhaps with this vague consensus we should consider moving the article with the caveat that discussion can continue and it can be moved again if a new consensus is reached.

Good friend100--perhaps you care to alter Wikipedia's naming policy? If you wish to propose a new naming policy, please post to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. As it stands now, your argument holds no water. As it is now, you are incorrect: the names of articles should not teach, but instead be the most common things English speakers know. Please read the policy. Komdori 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's misleading. Why did you count Imjin war against 'Hideyoshi's and Seven war'? What is breakdown between Seven year war and Hideyoshi's? If you count Imjin war and Seven years against 'Hideyoshi's...How's that count? Ginnre 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely against "Seven Year War", which is not a scholarly term and is, (for the umpteenth time), confusing and misleading. I do not know of a single book that refers to Imjin/Hideyoshi's Invasion/War as "Seven-Year War" in its title. Shogo Kawada 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it; it shows up mostly in high school/middle school books. That being said, I just don't think it's as common as Hideyoshi's Invasions. I think it is mostly done to make an analog to the European one. I don't like such comparisons since the conflicts have little similarity besides the fact that theyh were conflicts that (in some ways) lasted 7 years. The consensus above (I think) is heavily weighted to Hideyoshi's Invasions (or some variation thereof). LactoseTI 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're so pushing and arbitrarily interpreting. Where is consensus for Hideyoshi's? It's ridiculous. Ginnre 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... I agree 11-2 sounds like a pretty good consensus. Even if a person or two flips to the other side (somehow) it's still 9-4 or whatever, a very strong consensus that the most commonly known name in English has nothing to do with the word Imjin. Komdori 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't get what I'm saying. Read before write. That 11-2 is misleading. First, separate Seben year war and Hideyoshi and then count each name separately. I and Shogo Kawada were not that 11 part. Ginnre 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shogo Kawada agreed that according to the rules (as written) it would best be not listed under Imjin, though he did express disappointment/disagreement with the naming policy. Ginnre--you also seemed to suggest that most English speakers do not learn about this war with the name Imjin (you mentioned that those who learn from Western history books (the majority of English speakers) learn a different name). If you would like to change your statement, feel free and I'll move your name over to the other side, but the consensus is still fairly stable. LactoseTI 06:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. First separate Hideyoshi's from Seven years, and then talk further. I indicated that westerners may learn about the war in high school under Hideyoshi's... because you said so. I didn't say any more than that. It has nothing to do with the consensus here. Ginnre 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First you say "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and now you start using this made up vote that you decided for yourself as your support. If you want to do a consensus set a poll and let everyone decide for themselves. I can't believe it! Good friend100 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no vote--made up or otherwise. It's just a summary of the opinions on this page. It was geared toward stimulating discussion. Votes are meaningless/pointless in many cases (same with any kind of poll). It's nicer to come to a consensus by discussion. Good friend100--are you changing your statement? I thought you said that most English speakers do not learn the term Injim war. If you'd like to change your statement, it would be nice if you could offer a reason. LactoseTI 06:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because I mentioned that "Imjin" is not learned a lot in English speaking countries does not mean I totally agree with you. Every statement you make has something to do with me "admitting that Imjin is not common". Don't use it as if I declared to everybody in Wikipedia.

Komdori's "vote" is just made up by himself/herself. It doesn't have any meaning. Good friend100 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where Komdori had a "vote", but I did make a note the growing consensus on the page. The only thing that matters is what English speakers would recognize. Since a consensus seems to be forming as to what they would recognize, it seems we will luckily be able to move this page/deprotect and finish this discussion soon. It seems pretty undisputed that English speakers don't know the word "Imjin" as much as some other alternatives. LactoseTI 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To a regular English speaker, I would translate "Imjin War" into English as the "War of 1592".... Which shows that "Imjin War" is only pseudo-English, and not really English. "Imjin War(s)" wouldn't be an easy-to-understand title for most English speakers. That's probably why you see many people commenting that the title shouldn't have the word "Imjin" in it, especially since "Imjin" only means 1592 in the context of this article.--Endroit 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

LactoseIT> Since you always insist "Imjin" means the first invasion only. Good friend100 02:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Were you addressing Endroit's comment? I'm not sure why you mentioned my name. Anyway, Imjin is a Korean word which (in this context) means 1592. For more details, read the article itself. LactoseTI 03:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but Hideyoshi's invasions is highly inaccurate. If you says Imjin isn't correct due to the fact it only points out the war that starts on 1592, however Hideyoshi's invasions is even more confusing since Hideyoshi's invasions in Japan is also part of "Hideyoshi"'s Invasion. I think it is best the Imjin war title is kept or seperate the two part wars. Changing it to Hideyoshi's invasion doesn't solve any problems. User:Hospitallier 23:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point. However, the fact is that most people learn of this event with some incarnation of Hideyoshi's Invasion, so they are most likely to recognize it with this name. Perhaps a move to Hideyoshi's Invasions (Korea)? LactoseTI 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Imjin (it is simple, it is in use, it distinguishes, it does not stress on single persons) and link from the other names. Why do things have to be so complicated. Wandalstouring 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Joseon naval campaigns of 1592

This section needs serious expansion and correcting. Very very incomplete, unreferenced (I didn't have the time to look up numbers, dates, etc. as I did for the second invasion, but I will, very soon), and so on... There's still a lot of work to do on this article... I feel a bit discouraged at the thought. Shogo Kawada 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is incomplete mainly because I think that the main article is horribly incomplete in the first place. The section needs good summarizations of the naval battles and their results.

Don't feel discouraged. When I first read this article, it was terrible so I fixed it up a lot. The article is a lot better than before, but I'm telling you, we need more participation. Good friend100 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the naming controversy will bring in some "new blood" to help invigorate the article. While you might not be happy that the change to Imjin turned out to be controversial/unpopular, at least you can take solace in the fact that it got peoples' attention. LactoseTI 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The naming dispute is not outweighed by the number of new editors. Good friend100 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You care so much that it be named your name that you'd rather give up the increased attention? If there is one more editor on this article because of this issue, it more than outweighs any trouble with what the article is called. Don't you want the encyclopedia the best it can be? The naming guidelines were made with that in mind! Komdori 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about "my selfishness on the name of this article". I'm just pointing out that this argument has no "good effect". It doesn't attract more attention and it doesn't help the article. Trying to convince yourself that this argument is a good help is pretty narrow minded.

You seem angry but theres no need to be angry. Good friend100 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100--why do you always accuse people of being angry? Don't make things personal. It seems that you're kind of sulking because it seems that someone notice the article had been moved to a bad name (Imjin War). I don't understand how seeing the bright side of things is narrow minded. I see several editors contributing who never did to this article before this issue... that kind of suggests a positive effect.

Have you familiarized yourself with the Wikipedia naming policy? I think it's a bit of a shame that you obviously spend a good deal of time making edits/suggestions, but as Komdori notes you just ignore the policies that don't fit in with "what Good friend100 thinks would be nice". You agreed that English speakers don't learn the phrase Imjin, and Wikipedia policy is very explicit to therefore not name it that way. LactoseTI 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think its a shame for me to not know anything? Is it that ironic to you? Or is it just funny?

I don't think I made any personal opinions or suggestions for the title.

This positive effect, like I already said, does not outweigh this messy discussion. All that happens is some insistence without source and you're just bogging the article down. I already reminded that we need to move on to other things in this article. The suggestion to make a new title was quite a long time ago. The edits have slowed down too much. I'm tired of reading words like "shameful" or "ignorant" all over the place. Good friend100 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh; why not follow my suggestion and move this personal stuff to a personal page? It has nothing to do with this article. All I meant was it was a shame that you put so much effort into something without bothering to read/understand the main guidelines. Either that, or you're choosing to ignore the principles on which the encylcopedia is based--the established naming convention and the process for changing that convention if you believe it is wrong.

I agree with the idea that even a single new editor interested in this article makes all discussion worth it... it's always nice to have some new involvement. LactoseTI 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The involvement is positive when the newcomers begin editing the article instead of jumping into the discussion and making things wild. Good friend100 02:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

REVERT

???

Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. There is a tag to protect the article from moves and you have deliberately moved the page to your own liking.

The "consensus" you have is just your own point of view, gathered by quotes of other editors claiming that they show "consensus of using Hideyoshi's Invasions".

This is extremely unfair and rude to the other editors still in debate for the title. Yet, you simply move the article and write down to "discuss" first, then move. REVERT now. There has been no true consensus that everybody agrees on.

A consensus should be represented by every person and they should think for themselves.

Just moving the page to what you think is good doesn't mean everyone else agrees. There should be a consensus everybody agrees on. REVERT. Good friend100 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An admin removed the tag and the page was moved per consensus.

Based on the evidence, I doubt there is any chance consensus will shift to the original title, but it might shift to something slightly different. I think the article is clearly where most people think it should be, which is a good place during more talk--the floor is open to discussion on new titles. LactoseTI 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is outright ridiculous. Some consensus thats not even agreed by everybody cannot be accepted. I still can't believe the rudeness of the move without any agreement. Instead some claim about how "everybody thinks that the title should be Hideyoshi's Invasions". REVERT. Good friend100 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down; if you feel so strongly about it, why not continue the discussion. You and others have agreed that it's the most common thing that English speakers know. Perhaps you didn't realize it (since you like a different name), but unfortunately that means you agree with the consensus. LactoseTI 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. Komdori's consensus is just made up to what he wants. I support Imjin War, not "Seven Year War" or some other. I disagree with his consensus. Isn't a consensus supposed to be agreed by everyone? Good friend100 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As one ornery person can just hold out forever, Wikipedia consensus does not necessarily involve everyone--but as many as possible. The consensus is even more tilted now--one of the only ones on the opposing side (Appleby) is gone (banned permanently).

You say you support one name, but you basically in the same breath admit that the name you want shouldn't even be considered (it's not the way more English speakers learn about it).

It doesn't have to be "over"--if you want to try to build a consensus for something besides the current title, please start! LactoseTI 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Starting a "true consensus" other than the one Komdori keeps advocating would not be a good time to do it right now because I already know the outcome. Its going to be rejected with the same comments and debate circling around it again. Good friend100 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? It's a bad time to hold a poll because you doubt the name you want would win? I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't understand your reasoning. Komdori 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is: which is a better title that "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" ? (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions)?

Also as I have said, "Imjin Wars" can be translated into standard English as the "War of 1592". That means "Imjin Wars" is only a pseudo-English name, and certainly not easily recognizable enough by the majority of English speakers.

And so according to my count, we have 3 in support of "Imjin Wars" and 9 in support of "Hideyoshi's Invasion" variations.

Regarding the consensus, the consensus was never in favor of "Imjin Wars" to begin with, because of sockpuppetry by a now banned user. And this revert-war and the ensuing move-lock would have never happened if it weren't for those sockpuppets. So I think it is correct that the status quo should be "Hideyoshi's Invasions" "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" and if people want to change it, they should do a poll.--Endroit 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The new title is ridiculous. I thought we agreed "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" was the most standard. All of a sudden, somebody decides "Invasions" sounds better. I'm going to move the page RIGHT NOW.Shogo Kawada 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I believe that any "Hideyoshi's Invasion" variation or "Invasion of Korea" variation would seem to be OK. However, Shogo Kawada has a point there because "Hideyoshi's Invasions" may be confused with "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Kyushu" as well. Since "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" was already discussed, it is definitely within the agreed consensus, and a more accurate title as well. I have no problems with that move.--Endroit 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, I think "Hideyoshi's Invasions (Korea)" or "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" sounds best; this is relatively minor though; I don't think anyone will object to the Korea added on (for the very reason you mentioned). Even with this title, perhaps we make a note about the other invasions, and link to them (where are they--just on his page?) LactoseTI 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing--I just noticed that when Shogo Kawada moved it, it went to a singular form--is it just me or should it be plural? I mean, there was more than one invasion... LactoseTI 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. it's just ridiculous. Who had the authority to change the article title? Hideyoshi's ... was the most inappropriate name. And why did this all happen so quickly? Where was consensus? Ginnre 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All the "Imjin War" side editors are where you are. I have already referred to an admin and requested another look at the name. Some bogus "consensus" that Komdori thinks is right was the reason.

And ironically "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is POV. While you screamed all over that the Imjin War name was Korean POV POV POV this name has got no attention to that.

"Hideyoshi's"? Yes, of course it was Hideyoshi's project of a conquest of Korea, China, and on and on, but he is not the central charecter. He started the invasion right? Then what about Hitler? Should WWII be called "Hitler's Invasion of the World"? Have I not already explained? You don't listen, but simply state what you think is right so nobody has anything to say but sit their with their jaw open with disbelief.

To the other editors. I hope you are happy with what you got. I suggest you now concentrate on the article itself, which has been very quiet after this move war. There are many editors to this article. However there are not enough contributions to the article. Good friend100 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't because it a POV name, it's because it was an uncommon name. Please see the discussion that took place. You are the one who's not reading--it's been explained to death that it doesn't matter what you would like as the name, it's what is most used. It should be called "Hitler's War" if that's what people call it. Komdori 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper noun

Just reading from discussion I gathered that the current title is not actually a proper noun. I think we should change it to Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea like Mongol invasions of Japan just to be consistent and because the reason given was that this was the most common English phrase, not English proper noun. Tortfeasor 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As in Texas Annexation, the title can be made into a proper noun, regardless of whether it is proper noun in common usage. It's OK as is.--Endroit 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is rarely, if ever, referred to as a proper noun. Just a cursory look at a google book search [12]. No reason not to when it could be more accurate. Tortfeasor 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So is Texas Annexation. Events are typically capitalized in titles regardless of common usage.--Endroit 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing one example is pointless. I could easily direct you to Sea of Japan naming dispute and Mongol invasions of Japan. The discussion above acknowledged it wasn't a proper noun, Google books verifies that too, and there are examples where event are not "typically capialized". I think it should be fixed. Tortfeasor 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways (try looking beyond Google books). Don't you think that considering the two are basically the exact same thing we might prefer the proper noun version? LactoseTI 22:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support lowercased "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea". Napoleon's invasion of Russia, which has same naming construct, also uses lower cased 'i' and none of the articles other than this page listed in Category:Invasions capitalize 'i'. --Kusunose 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that "invasions" should be lowercased (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)). -- Visviva 07:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Visviva & Kusunose. I stand corrected. And I respect you two's opinions as well.--Endroit 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What consensus was there for Hideyoshi's? There wasn't. Or explain to me.

Before the title change I requested to separate Seven year war from Hideyoshi's and count again. What was the consensus you're talking about? Alleged 11-2 count was Seven year war plus Hideyoshi's vs Imjin war. If it were the consensus, why was Hideyoshi's put forward without any mention on Seven year war? Can anyone explain clearly why Hideyoshi's were put forward? If not, we have to go back to Imjin war and try to reach a real consensus before moving the article. Ginnre 02:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was originally under Seven-Year War. If you are suggesting to "go back" to something before this discussion even began, that's to where we would need to go. Luckily, it doesn't really work that way. The article is where it is, now, and considering the disruptive nature of moves, they should always be undertaken with caution. So what name would you like? If you feel so strongly against it, try to start re-building a new consensus. The current name is the product of many editors' efforts--if you can put something forth that doesn't violate the Wikipedia naming policy and justify it, I'm sure we're all open to it. Don't look so much to the past; look to the future. LactoseTI 02:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't very well-structured, but there did seem to be a clear consensus for this title (Hideyoshi's...), given the known problems with "Seven-Year War". -- Visviva 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am still convinced "The Imjin War(s)" was the best title, but "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is the result of a consensus, and is, indeed, more standard (most often used by English, Japanese. and Korean -speaking scholars), and should be the one in use here, according to Wikipedia's policy. Shogo Kawada 19:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The change of the title from Imjin war to Hideyoshi's... just shows a distorted naming of an historical event regarding Japan and Korea by westerners. It was argued that even if the name was inappropriate, it must be used because it has been so. However, without that argument, it is as ridiculous as naming WWII as Hitler's invasion.

Imjin war is not that rarely used any more, either. As scholars study about the war more from Korean source, it would soon be inevitable to call the war Imjin war. Ginnre 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As said earlier, if the mainstream populous called it "Hitler's Invasion," it would be under that name. They don't; they call it "World War II," so that's what it's in here as. Why not start a new section in the talk page below this with a title, something like "proposal to change to X," and give your reasoning. However, I doubt you will get consensus to change the article's name by arguing along the lines of, "It's less rare than it used to be." LactoseTI^T 02:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't suggest a new poll. As you said, the argument for Hideyoshi's was it's the most commonly used name in english speaking world. I doubt if it really is, but some of you said so, so I accept it as-is.

What I'm saying is the name is no more good than Hitler's invasion for WWII. If the war happended in Europe or in America, nobody would name it like that. It just shows how distorted the naming in english speaking world has been for events relating Japan and Korea at the same time. And if it is so, Hideyoshi's will be used less and less and Imjin war will be used more and more. Until then. I'll call it a day. Ginnre 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)