Jump to content

Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Objections To Title

Hi. I'm disappointed that Appleby cheated his way into the articles.

But on the name, using "Mongol's invasion..." as precedent for this article is ridiculous. It sounds a little POV, and it should be Japan's invasion... if it were to truly follow the pattern.

And Korea under Japanese rule should be Japan's Annexation of Korea or something like that. Just because one article is named that way doesn't mean that this should be.

I originally advocated Seven Years War. Vague? So what. It's commonly used. You can't complain about a title of a historical event even if it's vague. Nobody cares.

I thought Imjin War was POV, but Hideyoshi's crap is even worse. Please, either on Japanese side, Korean side, or neutral... let's change it back to Seven Year War.

(Wikimachine 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

The fact is Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea showed up only 18 in 1st 5 pages. This includes any variations in the title, and some forum references. And some websites do not use this as the title but to refer to the war casually.

Seven Year War does not show up at all because it gets mixed up with French-Indian War.

Imjin War shows more than 20 in the first 3 pages. (Google)

Therefore Imjin War is the most appropriate title. (Wikimachine 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Finally, please don't get carried away by others' stupid arguments. They are biased, untrue.
Just think how outrageous it would be to name September 11th as Bin Ladin's Success In America'. Same thing applies here. I am very against this title, and I promise that I won't rest until this is changed.

(Wikimachine 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

While I also don't like it as much as some other titles, I think it's probably the best we can come up with. It doesn't need to be neutral, it has to be the most commonly used English. Look at the other google searches done showing the massive relevance of this topic. If you still have doubt, search for all pages including hideyoshi and invasion. Then search for hideyoshi invasion -imjin. You'll see that the vast majority of pages discussing this war don't use the phrase "Imjin" at all. Same goes for Seven Year War. Add besides that, look at English language textbooks... The fact is that no one would use such a phrase as "Bin Ladin's Success" (especially without the phrase "September 11") but many use a phrase about Hideyoshi's invasions without using Imjin. Komdori 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I can't believe someone typed "Chinese credit goes largely to assisting military reorganisation after the war." It was the organized Chinese armed forces that fought the Japanese invasion to a standstill when the Korean army had been destroyed and dispersed. The Chinese army had better armor, better weapon, advanced field artillary pieces and experienced cavalry. Give credit where credit is due.

Ahem, excuse me, unknown editor who has rudely not left his/her name, are you saying that China saved Korea from the Japanese? Yes, China played a very large part in helping to destroy the Japanese. But you cannot say that the Korean army "had been destroyed and dispersed". Korea was still fighting vigorously and many of them didn't consist of Chinese allied help. Korean irregulars were the most dangerous enemies to the Japanese. And their operations were throughout the entire peninsula.

I myself agree with Wikimachine. I will change the title by any means. And I WILL NOT stop until that has been done. The title has been changed to a POV name. I swear I will change it. Good friend100 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, this is a war. But we won't carry it out in uncivilized manner. We will specifically prove to you that Imjin War or its variations is used more commonly than Hideyoshi invasion variations. (Wikimachine 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Disclaimer: these searches have " enclosed around the search terms. Any data searches without usage of " will be rejected.

Disclaimer 2: these searches have -wikipedia.

Disclaimer 3: these searches were done through Google.

Imjin War Counts

  • Imjin War: 625
  • Imjin Waeran: 796

Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea Counts

  • Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea: 117
  • Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea: 144
  • Hideyoshi's Korean Invasion: 156
  • Hideyoshi's Korean Invasions: 84
  • Hideyoshi's Choson Invasion: 0
  • Hideyoshi's Invasion of Choson: 3
  • Hideyoshi's Invasions of Choson: 0
  • Hideyoshi's Invasion of Joseon: 11
  • Hideyoshi's Invasions of Joseon: 0
  • Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasion: 0
  • Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasions: 0

Total

  • Imjin War variations: 1,421
  • Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea: 515
  • Imjin War without quotes: 34,300 + 800
  • Hideyoshi Korea invasion without quotes: 22,200+

(Wikimachine 03:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

New Name Proposal: Imjin Waeran

As the data above shows, "Imjin Waeran" alone wields 1,400 searches (with " "). This name alone is more used than all variations of Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea combined. Therefore, I propose Imjin Waeran as the new title for the article.

If there are objections, please post them. (Wikimachine 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Try searching for English only pages. There were only 181 such pages with that title. More importantly--keep in mind there are 20,000+ pages out there with Hideyoshi Korea invasion on the page (not in quotes, but clearly those pages are talking about this conflict). This means your term rarely shows up to describe them. As discussed above, this term is simply the most generic term that we can come up with that describes nearly all of them. Virtually all of the pages you found include these terms; it's most likely the term that an English speaker would use to search. —LactoseTIT 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to say English only pages should be counted. These are English pages, but have Korean or Japanese words in them for reference to Korean or Japanese title of the war. If you say so, here's a new data analysis. Extend my argument above that only quote-enclosed search terms should be used because otherwise sites that do not use the wordings as the proper name for the war would come up. There is difference between "terrorist attack on September 11th" and "The September 11th Attack." (Wikimachine 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Imjin War without quotes: 78,000 Imin Waeran without quotes:1,440 (notice its relative accuracy to 1,400 with quotes.)

(Wikimachine 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

By the way, it's useless to say that we should come up with the most generic wordings for the title. Nice try. Nobody's ever advocating that. And this war has proper titles in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. It's not an insignificant war. What should we do to the Gulf War? Making it more generic would be US attack on Iraq in 1990. (Wikimachine 02:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
In English textbooks it is under the heading of Hideyoshi's Invasions or some such title. There are references above from the last time we had this debate. You're right, nobody's advocating most generic (including me). I never suggested it should be most generic--in fact, it shouldn't be--it should be the term most English speakers use. The Gulf War is the most common term used in English, that's why it's there. If most English speakers used "US attack of Iraq", it would be under that.
It's common practice to use English only pages (due to this being English Wikipedia).
The fact remains that the term you suggest would reflect a very small number of articles on the subject, and it's not the term an English speaker is most likely to enter into the search bar. It really doesn't matter that there are proper nouns for the war, since they are not in common usage outside the area (see the Mongolion Invasions article mentioned above).
You are right that "There is difference between 'terrorist attack on September 11th' and 'The September 11th Attack.',"--but isn't it clear they refer to the same event? —LactoseTIT 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't forget "-wikipedia" to your search--that and English only pages whittles your total down to 88, many of them irrelevant. —LactoseTIT 03:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the data, I redid all the searches with "-wikipedia". Now, for a typical English speaker, your argument should apply to articles with titles of other languages. In fact, no English speaker, without knowing something about this historical event would ever type Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. In fact, they will pursue to know its title. As for your school textbooks, forget them. Some textbooks don't even mention the event. Take it to one more level up. I wonder what professional papers use. That should be the question. (Wikimachine 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

P.S. Let's not power-tag our arguments. My searches do not dwindle to 88 & they are in fact relevant. Consider my efforts of using quotes. (Wikimachine 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Ah. The Mongolian Invasion example. That wasn't a single war. It was a series of war later labeled by Japanese historians as Genko, as due process of analyzing and organizing history. The first invasion was aroudn 1260, second 1280, and I remember it extending well into 1300. This war took 7 years. (Wikimachine 03:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

I agree with the Mongolian Invasion example. It shouldn't be changed to "The Mongol Invasion of the World", like a description for this article.
"Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" is a description and "The Mongol Invasion of the World" is a description. A description is not a name. Mongolian Invasion is a good anology to the naming of this article. The title of this article should be changed to Imjin War or similiar meanings.
And to begin with, this war is hardly known in English speaking countries. Apart from high school or college proffesors who may know the event, few historians like Stephen Trumbull have a knowledge toward the war. And Stephen Trumbull is a Japanese historian. He only wrote the book on this article because the Imjin War is part of Japanese history.
I agree that the article should be moved back to Imjin War or Imjin Wars. Good friend100 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Read the google searches above. They are to your standard of "most common". Clearly, Im,jin War is more common than Hideyoshi's. Good friend100 13:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Partly, it seems, since they are (originally) including old caches of Wikipedia which named it as such as well as (still) foreign articles (you really do have to do English only, and your number really does go down that much). This is a largely unknown war, but an English speaker (especially one who does remember something from school) is not going to find it by using Imjin in the title. Komdori 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, try removing "invasion" from your search--many sources list it as "Hideyoshi's expedition" or some such thing--if you just have Hideyoshi and Korea (which are really only going to appear together if it's talking about that event) the number goes much higher... Also see the google searches done in the [request for comment] the last time this issue came up. Also, in response to the Mongol war taking longer, so what? This was actually two smaller conflicts, not just one long war, too. There are many examples of phrases being used more than some rare proper nouns. Komdori 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Books counts shows that "Invasion of Korea" variations are more common. Going to the last page of the search, shows a more accurate result (Google searching has its peculiarities.)...:

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. --Endroit 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons Why Imjin Waeran Variations Should Be Used

  • Imjin Waeran is the predominant term in describing the word. Remember that we use Google web search, not Google Book, to find the most commonly used terms. Google Book searches for books, and books are not the only reference materials available. In fact, we should look at the web search results because Wikipedia users depend on web for answers. Google Book is a beta, and does not include all the books. Even if we concede we should use Google Book, we'll just add them to the web search results. Even then, Imjin War variations outnumber Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea variations.
  • There was no official vote on change from Imjin War to Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. Some editors argue that there was an informal discussion. This was not announced, and could not be participated by all users interested in the topic. By default, Imjin War advocates have 100% right to revert the title. (Only reason why I'm not doing this is so that we may avoid revert wars)
  • Usage of generic name should not be the case for this article. This war already has titles in different languages (Japanese & Korean & Chinese). Those titles should be used. Cross apply from #1 that Imjin Waeran is the predominant term. And even if we concede that it isn't, users can search this article through Google or Wikipedia. Just because Gulf War may not be the term that the internet users would type in the search engine doesn't mean that the article's title should be changed to US Attack Against Iraq In 1990. That should be a description or included in the article, but the title shouldn't change. Title of an article should not comply with the ease of the words. Mongolian example is not relevant because the Mongol invasion itself did not have a "name" in Korean nor Chinese. In fact, the Chinese characters that made up the title basically meant Mongol invasion of Japan.

(Wikimachine 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Imjin War roughly translates into ordinary English as the War of 1592. And Imjin Waeran translates into English as the Japanese War of 1592. They are pseudo-English / Korean words used mostly in the Korean context, and not used commonly in books, as shown by the Google Books counts. Such words are not fit to be used in Wikipedia titles.--Endroit 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As noted several times, please realize that English pages are the only ones that matter here, and you get very few "Imjin Waeran" matches when you do this.
Votes don't matter, this isn't a democracy--a consensus was reached.
That article should be moved from Gulf War if it wasn't the most frequently used term, even though it is a proper noun. However, if is the most frequently used term, and as such sits there. Read up on the naming policy.
"We" don't use any google searches to find the best name--the only thing google searches do is add some anecdotal evidence. There isn't a policy where google dictates the names of articles, and even if there were, the searches you did were invalid since they weren't of English only pages. Komdori 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Off of 1st point, that's exactly what I am saying. We shouldn't use generic, ordinary English.
Off of 2nd point, votes do matter, to a certain point, even if Wiki isn't democracy.
Off of 3rd point, Imjin Waeran is the most frequently used term, as shown by Google web search, and should be used. (Wikimachine 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
Are you even reading what others are writing? This is English Wikipedia--try searching English only pages. I just did--I searched for "Imjin Waeran" -wikipedia on English only pages. When I go to the last page, it is revealed there are only 89, which is similar to what was found before. Komdori 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is good that this article is not named Imjin War. I am very happy with Wikipedia. It seems very pro-Japanese. Maybe a lot of people dislike Koreans? The Japanese perspective is winning in ALL the articles! :) Many of the Americans are very friendly to the viewpoint of Japan here. I think it is good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.233.205.83 (talk • contribs), a Hanaro Telecom IP (Seoul, Korea).

  • The point of Wikipedia is not to favor the Japanese view over the Korean view, or any other view above another. The point is to be neutral and state the facts -- this is, after all, an encyclopedia. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 23:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous editor from Hanaro Telecom commented on Wikipedia's JPOVness. This is called systemic bias, gentlemen. Because Wikipedians in English version are mostly white Americans, Japanese viewpoints, historically incorrect or not, become promoted. I am part of the Wiki project of countering systemic bias, and I strongly believe I can't let this one go. (Wikimachine 01:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
As for the Book Search, even if we concede that it should be considered, look at the data.

Google Book Search Results

With Quotations

do not use OR OR OR..."

  • "Imjin War": 201
  • "Imjin Waeran": 4
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea": 33
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea": 118
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasion": 2
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasions": 1
  • "Hideyoshi's Choson Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Choson": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Choson": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasions": 0

Total

  • Imjin War: 205
  • Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea: 154

Organization of Arguments

Since there are so many arguments, and some accuse me of not answering or reading what others say, even though I did, I am going to outline all the arguments & point out the winning side.

  • Imjin Waeran hold 1,400 pages in Google. Victor: Imjin War
Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea variations hold 20,000+ results.
They must be quoted.
Imjin Waeran quoted must have -wikipedia.
Even when it has -wikipedia, Imjin Waeran is more common.
Fine. We'll use Book Search. On Google Book, there is more Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea variations than there is for Imjin Waeran or Imjin War.
Book Search shouldn't be used.
There's no rule saying Book Search shouldn't be used.
Book Search shouldn't be used because 1) it's beta and incomplete (may have systemic faults/bias) 2) it's book search, and book isn't only available reference 3) more users use internet than search books, and therefore accurate measurement of the stance that the English community is taking cannot come from books and professionals.
Even if we concede that Book Search should be used, Imjin War with quotation receives more results than Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea variations.
  • Must use terms that an English user would likely use. Victor: Imjin War
English users would never bother to look up this historical event unless they know some info about it. Furthermore, they will seek to know the proper name of the war. Therefore, the ease of the word shouldn't be factored in.
School textbooks use some variations of Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. Look at the Mongolian Invasions of Japan example.
While the Mongolian invasion was a series of wars waged for around 50 years, this war took only 7 & consists of 2 waves. It already has established names in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. And Mongol is not influential enough to advocate its own name for the event.
Imjin Waeran means "War taken place in 15xx". It's not even a proper name.
Imjin Waeran is in "Korean sense" proper name. Because Korean, Japanese, and Chinese use characters (& used to use characters), all words have some kind of meaning -unlike European language. But you can't complain about that. What I am against is how the article is a description, not the real title.
  • Must find English only pages. Victor: Imjin War
English only pages shouldn't be used because many pages make reference to the name of the war in Korean or Japanese. What good will English only pages do when the article themselves are in fact in English? We should take presumptive ideas without basis off of the debate.

Wikipedia does not try to make revolutions, only represent things as they are in the English community. Therefore, when there are more results from both Google and Google Book, Imjin War or Imjin Waeran should be used. We win -even if we concede everything else.

(Wikimachine 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Wow, kind of confusing--where to start... first, there is no reason they must be quoted. We are trying to find the term that most English speakers might put in to find the event. Are you honestly saying that your term, with it's 100 or so find out of the thousands of articles is the best? The fact is this is a minor war, and most people learn about it with a phrase, not a proper name. It's generally listed in high school and undergrad texts as "Hideyoshi's Invasions" or "Incursions" or "Expeditions" or whatever... that is the term most would put in to find it. We've been over all this... look at the RFC, which got opinions from lots of people.
There is no rule that things must be proper nouns--see "Mongol invasions of Japan" This event is not critical enough to most English speakers to warrant a name--hence the fact that the phrase is most appropriate.
The Google books search still showed the Hideyoshi's name coming out well ahead, and that's only with invasions--there's no reason other words wouldn't add to the total. We have to pick one, of course, so invasions is fairly representative. It clearly shows a result quite opposite to what you are suggesting... Look at any of the texts listed before the RFC... these are widely used books for college courses.

done on Google Book

"Hideyoshi's incursion of Korea" without quotations showed 4 results, of which none addressed the words as the title of the war, but only to refer to them out of English fashion.
"Hideyoshi's attack on Korea" without quotations showed 133 results, of which none addressed the words as the title of the war, but only to refer to them out of manner of writing.

(Wikimachine 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately your reasoning totally fails when put in the context of the naming policy. You don't put the article under the "proper name" if it's unusued often--you put it under what they would look for. They can read about the other names in the article. Read the policy. —LactoseTIT 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My reasoning is flawless. They must be quoted or else there is a possibility that the search results contain phrases that do not address the title as a proper name of the war, but only to refer to the war out of convenience.
High school example was already answered. Show me an specific example of a text book using "Hideyoshi's ..." junk.
Show me the link to the policy. There is no reason to disregard the war's proper name and favor a descriptive name when the proper name is more commonly used.
Even if you don't agree, please consider this. How offensive would it be to name World War II as Hitler's Invasion of Europe (in a theoretical world where that phrase was used more often than the title)? Same here. Hideyoshi's Invasion... has many bad implications that I do not need explain. Such include JPOV, Japanese imperialism, emphasis on Japanese war heroes, neglect of Korean participants, etc. Please understand. This is not a personal matter. I pledge I will succeed. (Wikimachine 03:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
As has been said repeatedly, it doesn't matter if it's a proper name or not. That's one of the flaws in your "flawless reasoning." Specific example? Look above, there are three high school/college textbooks referring to it as such. Since you bolded it, I'll bold it as well: The name should be Hitler's Invasion of Europe if that was the name most people learned or knew. It doesn't matter if you think it's "offensive" because it's a different perspective than yours. —LactoseTIT 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't find three high school/college textbooks in any of the discussion. Could you repeat them?

This isn't a personal perspective. It's systemic bias. And I am part of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. It's okay for Korea to be invaded, but not US. Same thing here. The title implies a scenario in which Japanese are subjugating Koreans, and promotes Hideyoshi. (Wikimachine 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

I don't find three high school/college textbooks in any of the discussion. Could you repeat them?

This isn't a personal perspective. It's systemic bias. And I am part of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. It's okay for Korea to be invaded, but not US. Same thing here. The title implies a scenario in which Japanese are subjugating Koreans, and promotes Hideyoshi. (Wikimachine 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

LordAmeth mentioned Turnbull, Sansom, and Frederic. There are many others as well. Bias/POV/etc. are all side issues with names--the names can be from a certain perspective--in fact they should be if that's the way people are likely to look them up. There is plenty of opportunity to educate in the text--but not in the title. —LactoseTIT 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat. The title has many bad implications. If it is true that title should not serve for educational purposes, as you say, then best we can do is use the most common title with the most NPOV sense. (Wikimachine 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

So what do you have. Your warrants. Your arguments. I've defeated every one of them. You are so contradictory. You switch back and forth between arguments. Once you advocated Google Book. Once I disproved that Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea was more common, you said it doesn't matter how many results are in Google Book, that we have to shift to text books. But you don't give me your three examples of textbooks. Simply, you are POV. Last thing you want is "Hideyoshi's" off of the title. Good luck with that. (Wikimachine 15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine obviously counts nonexistent books.
I encourage everyone to list the 201 search results for "Imjin War" in "Google Books":
Step 1: Search for "Imjin War" in Google Books
Step 2: Click "Next"
We only have 16 books, NOT 201:
  1. CONFUCIAN STATECRAFT (cl): Yu Hyongwon and the Late Choson Dynasty - Page 105
    by Palais J - Political Science - 1996
  2. Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary - Page 456
    by Richard Rutt - History - 1999 - 568 pages
  3. Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations - Page 116
    by Etsuko Hae-Jin Kang - History - 1997 - 328 pages
  4. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities - Page 18
    by Korea) Hanʾguk Yŏnʾguwŏn (Seoul
  5. Sources of Korean Tradition: Volume 2: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries - Page 243
    edited by Yongho Ch'oe, Peter H Lee, William Theodore De Bary - History - 2001 - 448 pages
  6. Sources of Korean Tradition: Volume 2: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries - Page 102
    edited by Yongho Ch'oe, Peter H Lee, William Theodore De Bary - History - 2001 - 448 pages
  7. Korea Annual
    Page 259
  8. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Volume 21 - Oregon State System of Higher... - Page 190
    by Allen Kent, Kent Kent - Language Arts & Disciplines - 1977 - 516 pages
  9. Diplomacy of a Tiny State - Page 337
    by Khoon Choy Lee - 1993
  10. Korean Affairs - Page 129
    by Seoul, Korea Hanʾguk Munje Yŏnʾguwŏn
  11. The Land of Scholars: Two Thousands Years of Korean Confucianism - Page 347
    by Kang Jae-eun - Religion - 2005
  12. The Guerilla Dynasty: Politics and Leadership in North Korea - Page 47
    by Adrian (Teacher of Korean Studies, Swinburne and Monash Universities, Australia) Buzo - 1999 - 320 pages
  13. Sourcebook of Korean Civilization: Volume Two: From the Seventeenth Century to the Modern - Page 46
    edited by Peter H Lee - History - 1996 - 876 pages
  14. Tenri Daigaku Oysato Kenkyūjo kenkyū hōkoku
    by Tenri Daigaku. Oyasato Kenkyūjo - 1971
  15. Korea and Globalization: Politics, Economics and Culture - Page 239
    edited by James B Lewis, Amadu Sesay - 2002 - 245 pages
  16. The Mill Is Burning - Page 112
    by Richard Matthews - Poetry - 2002 - 80 pages
That's it folks! There's only 16 books, not 201. Wikimachine obviously counted wrong.--Endroit 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you were going to point out a mistake, don't make me look villain at the same time. "Books 1 - 10 with 201 pages on "Imjin War". (0.00 seconds)"

There was an error with Google Book, not me. (Wikimachine 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

You don't listen to the other argument. I oppose using "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea". Hideyoshi is not the main charecter of the war. He didn't even fight in it. So what if he started the war. The war didn't circle around him.
Then what about Hitler? Ring any bells? Heard this before? Should WWII be called "Hitler's Invasion of the world" because he started the war? NO. The same applies here!!!
You can't just argue with the "commoness" of the word. There are other things to consider. Its not just about what word is used more. Its what makes more sense and also if the name means anything. The war took place entirely in Korea, the sexagenery cycle applies to the name as well. First the name, and now your squabbling over the number of books that use "Imjin War" or not.
And your arguments make no sense and contradict your previous statements. I thought you opposed using invasion since it is POV. I am sure you advocated NPOV in every article, but now? You technically agree to the word "invasion" in the usage of the title "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea"?
By your definition it should be called "Hideyoshi's conflict of Korea". Good friend100 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Goodfriend, your opinion is valuable only if you bother to read what's going on with the rest of the discussion. Wikipedia naming policy dictates that it should be Hitler's Invasion if that's what most people know it as. It should be named Good friend100's War if that was what most people knew or would type in, even though you have nothing to do with it. This has been explained before. If you want to keep letting us know what you think, a) familiarize yourself with the policies and b) read what others write before writing your own response. The "commoness" as you put it is, in fact, about the only thing that matters.
I don't believe I ever opposed using invasion here based on it being POV. Perhaps you're getting multiple discussions confused? —LactoseTIT 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. There had been a discussion about the usage of "invasion" because you thought it was POV. I responded with the Oei Invasion example. Good friend100 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you were just confused with the other article--of course, that was a different case, where there was a list of 10 things labeled conflict and one labeled invasion, which stood out. It had nothing to do with this article. Oei Invasion is a commonly used term in texts, and is the most likely term for (English speaking) people to know--that's why it's the appropriate name for that article, just like Hideyoshi's is appropriate here. —LactoseTIT 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You should listen to the other argument considering what Wikimachine is trying to deliver. All you say is a bunch of "thats it folks". How can the commoness of a word be all that counts? Then what is there left to respond? First of all, it isn't fair and there is definitely more to this then the commoness. Good friend100 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is it

Ladies and gentlemen, here is my scientific paper on LactoseTI's many controversies.

When Good friend100 (& I stated this around creation of universe) says that using "Hitler's Invasion...." is bad because "Hideyoshi's" has many negative implications & gives "Hitler's Invasion" as example, LactoseTI says that more important than such implications and personal viewpoints is the commonality of the word. But he doesn't provide his three examples of textbooks that uses the specific term "Hideyoshi's". No. They probably say "Japanese Invasion..." not "Hideyoshi's Adventure 2 for GameCube" (=Yoshi's Island?). And Google web search is completely against him. His life depends on Google Book, which happens to favor "Hideyoshi's" title. But he gives no reason why Google Book should be favored & can't answer my argument on why Google web search should be favored because users of Wikipedia come to web to find information from the web, not books & Google Book is beta & Google Book is systematically biased and doesn't cover all the books. (Wikimachine 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Google Book Error For Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea

As I visited all search result pages, I found Google Book to be false in its estimates for Hideyoshi's variations as well.

  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea": 77
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea": 14
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasion": 1 (of the 2, 1 does not treat the phrase as a title)
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasions": 1 (content is restricted, therefore I cannot confirm)
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Choson": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Choson": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasions": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's incursion": 0 (1 result, 'failure of Hideyoshi's incursion on the Korean peninsula', is not a title).
  • "Hideyoshi's attack": 0 (3 are content-restricted, but they do not relate to the Imjin War).
  • Imjin War & Imjin Waeran: 20

(Wikimachine 05:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC))



So now Wikimachine should understand what I said above....
Google Books counts shows that "Invasion of Korea" variations are more common. Going to the last page of the search, shows a more accurate result (Google searching has its peculiarities.)...:

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. --Endroit 05:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even before you say that, please explain to me why Google Book should be favored. Please answer all the arguments made in the preceding chapter. (Wikimachine 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Imjin War roughly translates into ordinary English as the War of 1592. And Imjin Waeran translates into English as the Japanese War of 1592. They are pseudo-English / Korean words used mostly in the Korean context, and not used commonly in books, as shown by the Google Books counts. Such words are not fit to be used in Wikipedia titles.--Endroit 05:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You are so frustrating. I already answered all that. It doesn't matter if something's pseudo-English or not. As long as it is used most commonly. For example, Samurai and Daimyo are completely Japanese, but they are used in Wikipedian articles. (please for God's sake, don't bring stupid arguments & face mine directly, please). I repeat: And Google web search is completely against him. His life depends on Google Book, which happens to favor "Hideyoshi's" title. But he gives no reason why Google Book should be favored & can't answer my argument on why Google web search should be favored because users of Wikipedia come to web to find information from the web, not books & Google Book is beta & Google Book is systematically biased and doesn't cover all the books.

This was said long time ago, and you avoided it up to now. (Wikimachine)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. That is why "Imjin" variations are to be avoided, because "Imjin" isn't an English word, and "Imjin" variations weren't proven to be used significantly more than "Invasion of Korea" variations, in English. The Google hits for "Imjin" appear to be boosted by mostly similar pages and also websites in Korea.
Google is flawed, however they've got slightly more of "Invasion of Korea" variations than "Imjin War" variations, in English pages. Again the result is in the last page, and uses "moderate filtering" and "-wikipedia".
Google Scholar has significantly more of "Invasion of Korea" variations than "Imjin War" variations, in English pages.
--Endroit 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


It should contain other search engines. Your scope into this is too small, considering that you are making your arguments based only on Google.
Ok then, the Imjin War roughly translates into the War of 1592. Thats in a literal sense. Imjin War is used to desribe the entire war in a descriptive sense. So then whats the "second Imjin War" called? There is no name used to call the "second war".
And in the article of this talk page, it describes the second invasion of the war as the Second War. Who on earth made that up? So in Korea and in Imjin War books, it is described as "Second War". Is that the best you made up because there is no proper name? Of course there isn't a proper name for the second invasion because it is all summed up in the name Imjin War. Understand what I mean?
Your commoness usage cannot be confirmed because your argument is only based on google. There are many other search engines such as yahoo!, dogpile, or askjeeves etc Good friend100 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've long ceased to be interested in the debate. The rules are there for a reason, I believe. They are not mine unfortunately, but that's just the way it is. Even though it is hard to deny that "The Imjin War(s)" is certainly the best title, for various reasons explained above, at more or less great lengths, "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" is also used by Korean scholars and experts, and if I'm not mistaken, google is still the largest search engine out there. Lee Hyun-heee, Park Sung-soo and Yoo Nae-hyun, in the recent "Hanguksa" (2005), do use the expression: "Japanese Invasion of 1592", p. 409 (English translation). So did Lee Ki-Baik, in his own time. If I were to write a book about the subject (which I actually am), I would call it "Imjin War", but this being wikipedia and all, why be unreasonable? Until more people write about the subject and usage changes in the English-speaking world, I have no objections to "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea", but after all, I think what really matters is the actual content of the article, rather than just the title. Sure enough, a title has connotations (especially one like this), but hopefully, people do read a little further than this. Shogo Kawada 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

because "Imjin" isn't an English word, and "Imjin" variations weren't proven to be used significantly more than "Invasion of Korea" variations, in English

Hello? Where have you been during this discussion? What I will explain has already been explained before at least five times.

"Imjin War" is a perfectly fine English word. Is it a non-english word because its a Korean word? Then how about "sushi"? "Tokyo"? "samurai"? "Oei Invasion"? All those articles must be moved to some other English word, right? Since "samurai" is not an english word it should be named with a real "english name" right?

I don't understand why you cannot see the anology between the two. Imjin War is a perfect English word and is the best candidate for the title of this article.

And your claim on the usage of "Imjin" is inaccurate. You cannot just make observations on google alone. Also, typing in "Invasion of Korea" would obviously bring more results since it can imply the Korean annexation in 1910 or the Korean War. Good friend100 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone typed in "Invasion of Korea" without also forcing it to be in the context of "Hideyoshi". Check out the searches that he did. Incidently, you wanting it to be an English word doesn't make it so--as Wikimachine pointed out, many of the references for Imjin are actually "Imjin Waeren," saying that "In Korean, this conflict is sometimes refered to as 'Imjin Waeran'", like, "in Japanese it's 'Bunroku no Eki', etc." The author then proceeds to refer to it as Hideyoshi's invasions, etc., for the rest of the work. As Endroit and Shogo Kawada point out, for clarity it's generally refered to using an invasion phrase. Leaving it here for clarity will enable most to find it--and those that actually are coming from a Korean background will find the article with no trouble using the redirect.
As for it taking place in Korea so it should be named with a Korean name (Imjin Waeran)--are you suggesting that the Battle of Okinawa should be renamed "Typhoon of Steel," "tetsu no ame," or "tetsu no bōfū" since Okinawans call it that? Or the Battle at Normandy to "Bataille de Normandie" since that's what the French call it?
No matter who looks it up, they generally aren't checking what Wikipedia calls it--they will be interested in the content, and there's ample opportunity to discuss the various names there. It seems clear that most refer to it with "Hideyoshi's invasions" at some point. If someone were to argue that all references to Imjin should be stricken from the article I'd be squarely on the other side of the debate. It clearly belongs in the article, just not as the title. —LactoseTIT 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If the people will be interested in the content and will learn all the names used to describe the war, then why did you move the article and begin this? Keeping Imjin War and discussing all the names used in the article would have been good enough for you right? Good friend100 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimachine's Replies

See Naming conventions (use English). What they mean by English words is Latin alphabetized (not Korean alphabet). And if the non-English word is more common then the English word, the non-Englished word should be used. (Wikimachine 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
Those "Google flaws" are actually omissions of similar pages. (Wikimachine 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Even if I concede, here data goes on Google

  • "Imjin War": 246
  • "Imjin Waeran": 258


  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea": 82
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea": 22
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasion": 4
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Inavsions": 10
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Choson": 3
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Choson": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Choson Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Choson Invasions": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasions": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Joseon": 2
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's attack": 0 (9 total of which were irrelevant)
  • "Hideoyshi's incursion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's campaign": 1 (17 of which only 1 referenced the phrase as title)

Total

  • Imjin War: 504
  • Hideyoshis' Invasions: 124


(Wikimachine 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Again, you don't explain why we should use Google Scholar but not Google. Google Scholar is beta, and can have systemic bias. For example, some results on Google Scholar includes Google Book. For reasons explained above, we shouldn't use Google Book. Same appleis to Google Scholar because its results are professional papers that common English speaking people do not use. (Wikimachine 00:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

You continue to use AND OR. They shouldn't be used because they include phrases or sentences that do not address Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea as a title. This is 3rd time repeating. (Wikimachine 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Google Scholar results

  • "Imjin War": 15
  • "Imjin Waeran": 18
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea": 25
  • "Hideoyshi's Invasions of Korea": 2
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Choson": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Choson": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasion": 2
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasions": 1
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasions": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Choson Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Choson Invasions": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's campaign": 0 (of 6)
  • "Hideyoshi's incursion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's attack": 0 (of 1)
  • "Imjin War": 33
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion": 30

(Wikimachine 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Even on Google Scholar, Imjin War outnumbers Hideyoshi's Invasions. (Wikimachine 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

So then, based upon Wikimachine's research, is "Hideyoshi's Invasions" more common? You believe that the most important thing is the commoness of the title right? If this is true, then "Imjin War" is the best option for a title. Good friend100 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And "Invasion of Korea" outnumbers "Imjin War" in both cases, as I have shown above. Wikimachine has failed to prove that "Imjin War" is used more often than "Invasion of Korea". Also, just a few hundred uses of the word "Imjin" on the Web (mostly used in the Korean context) do NOT prove common English usage to begin with, for a word not even defined in any English dictionary.--Endroit 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Endroit, even before you say that, please answer my argument on why quotations should be used. Here it goes again. I'll explain to you word by word, precisely, why your way of searching does not work.
Usage of AND brings incorrect amount of web searches because "Hideyoshi" can be found anywhere in the article, separately, from "invasion of Korea" or other variations. This means that the results will show phrases that do not treat "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" as a title of the war, but only mere way of reference, with due manner of English writing. We need to find web searches that treat "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" as actual titles. Only way to ensure it (even then, half of the articles do not treat those phrases as titles) is to use quotation marks. And look at all those quotation variations. My way is the best way to search. (Wikimachine 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
Your understanding of Wikipedia naming convention is completely wrong. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE WORD IS IN DICTIONARY. Even Good friend100 mentioned it, and YOU DON'T REPLY. You know how pathetic this discussion is becoming. (Wikimachine 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Organization of Arguments Final

  • Use English words in Latin alphabet, unless the foreign translation is more common. Then use transliteration. (this means that, as long as "Imjin War" advocates prove "Imjin War" to be more common, "Imjin War" advocates win in this argument as well). Consensus Agreed
  • Google. Google Scholar and Google web favor Imjin War. Google Book favors Hideyoshi's Invasion. Reasons why Google Book and Google Scholar shouldn't be used have not been answered.
  • Searches shouldn't be limited to English only pages because they are all used in English context, even though they may provide Korean and Chinese characters for the titles for higher educational purposes. Has not been answered
  • Use of quotations. Use of -wikipedia. Going to final pages to all pages other than those omitted. All agreed except use of quotations. Reasons why quotations should be used have not been answered.
  • Omission of "Hideyoshi's" in the title as it might be offensive, POV, and systemically biased. Has not been answered.

The arguments are written from "Imjin War" advocates' perspectives. Per rules of forensic debate, if they are not answered, "Hideyoshi's" advocates are conceding the arguments.

(Wikimachine 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

This obviously shows a lack of understanding on how Google operates.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions also says this:
  • Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
With a few hundred uses of "Imjin", "Imjin War", etc. on the web, the usage of the word "Imjin" only leads to confusion among English users. Those who understand these issues have already reached consensus except Wikimachine and Good friend100.--Endroit 01:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't need prior knowledge to read and understand articles in Wikipedia. Also, I am pretty sure Wikipedia's goal is to make the most informative and educational encyclopedia. If an english user (if any) knew the war and searched for it, they should find the article named as "Imjin War". If that user does not know the meaning or where the word came from, he can read the article and learn from it. Goal achieved!
I read once another editor write down that Wikipedia is not here to teach people new names. Then whats the point of the article? The best and most clear choice is "Imjin War". If people have no idea what the Imjin War is, they should learn it that way, just as they learned what sushi is, instead of some description like "rice rolled in seaweed".
"Hideyosh's invasions of Korea" is just a description, and of course english speakers would "recognize" this article, because the title of "Hideyoshi's" obviously gives it away. For reasons already stated, Imjin War is the best title for this article.
Again, look directly into the Imjin War side argument instead of avoiding it. Wikimachine is literally waving a flag and shouting in your face about the final conclusion of the argument and why your arguments are not strong enough.
The bottom line of the advocacy of "Hideyoshi's" is probably because you believe that "Imjin War" is POV. Regardless of its commoness, this discussion started with your complaint of the POVness of the title, which you know is not.
Why do you think this description is such a good title? It doesn't make sense when there already is a good title and instead use something like this?
Its even worse because Hideyoshi is not the main charecter of the war, he didn't even fight as a general. Hideyoshi is just responsible for masterminding the war. And thats it. Do you personally think Hideyoshi is the most important person in the war? Good friend100 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Good friend100, per your comments about teaching with a name--please see the [naming policy], most importantly article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. You even suggest yourself that English speakers would most easily recognize Hideyoshi's invasion. If you would like to change the policy, please file a motion on the policy page, not this one. —LactoseTIT 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And you seem to be too caught up with using "invasion". Just because of the truce in the middle of the war, it cannot really be two separate invasions. Because Japanese troops still occupied and fought Korean irregulars in Korea, it wasn't really a truce. There was fighting still going on, regardless of an official or unofficial truce.

It is a war and should be called a war. And Imjin War should be used as a title. Using invasion should be restricted to the article. It should say something like "Hideyoshi invaded Korea in 1592 and again in 1597". As I already mentioned before, "invasion" is just a description and should be used in the article. Good friend100 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Good friend100. There are other users who agree with me, including Shogo Kawada. And Hideyoshi's Invasion... variation is used from context of Japanese history, in particular with Hideyoshi's life. Therefore, we can't use Hideyoshi's variations especially when many more important characters such as Admiral Yi participated in the war. (Wikimachine 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
And yes Good friend100, it's really frustrating because Endroit and others avoid answering my arguments one by one directly. Why? Because they have none against them. So I even did organization of arguments. Even then they avoid them. What should I do? Pretty ridiculous. (Wikimachine 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

The discussion is well into 3 days. I'll give the JPOV editors 1 more day to answer my arguments directly, which are listed above as organization of arguments. I am tired of them avoiding my arguments. After 1 more day, I'll begin to change the article back to Imjin War. Revert war will begin. (Wikimachine 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Its not supposed to be a revert war...
Its how we will organize our argument to persuade to move the article. Good friend100 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I got a warning for saying that. Scratch it. But you see how pathetic they are in avoiding the arguments. (Wikimachine 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
And here I thought this discussion was over and resolved. This is rather sad, especially coming from editors with such potential. What can possibly be so important about an article title that it is worth such a disproportionate investment of time and bandwidth? -- Visviva 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimachine--if you read the discussion, you'll see that all of your questions actually have been answered. a) the transliteration isn't the most common, in fact. The consensus is opposite of what you believe. The main reason is the faulty techniques you used in google searching (for example, not searching English only pages). b) Google itself does favor Hideyoshi, but the scholar and book sources are useful, too--as you (or someone) pointed out, this war is little known. Most English speakers learn about it in school, but they generally don't make webpages about it. What's important is how they would know this conflict. c) Limiting to English-only pages is accepted practice. They aren't all English pages, or in the English context. That search includes French, Spanish, etc. pages. d) Quotations aren't always appropriate. When you are comparing a very commonly used descriptor with a relatively unused proper noun, including quotes on a single incarnation of the phrase is not going to give you good results. e) POV/bias/etc. are unimportant for article titles--read the naming policy. The important thing is that it's the most commonly used phrase. You can debate what is most common, but it doesn't matter what the phrase is, or how "offensive" you might feel it to be. This has been repeated about a half dozen times on this page--hopefully you'll see it this time around. I know you don't like the name, but I also don't see how it would get in the way of anyone learning--in fact, this name helps people find the article, and then can describe how and why others call it by different names. —LactoseTIT 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Prove to me that at least one of the searches for "Imjin War", "Hideyoshi's Invasions..." have non-English pages with non-English contexts. You haven't answered my replies to why we shouldn't use English pages only. (Wikimachine 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

And teach me how to search English only pages. (Wikimachine 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

English Only Pages Result With Quotation & -wikipedia & similar results omitted

  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea": 22
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea": 61
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Chosun": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Chosun": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Joseon": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasion": 2
  • "Hideyoshi's Korean Invasions": 3
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Joseon Inavsions": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Chosun Invasion": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's Chosun Invasions": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's campaign": 6
  • "Hideyoshi's attack": 0
  • "Hideyoshi's incursion": 0
  • "Imjin War": 191
  • "Imjin Waeran": 95

Total

  • "Imjin War": 286
  • "Hideyoshi's Inavsions of Korea": 104

(Wikimachine 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Without Quotations

  • Imjin War: 767
  • Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea: 325

(Wikimachine 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

P.S. I would like to congradulate all of you for discussing about the title of the article for so long.

On Microsoft Word, 71 pages. 31,970 words. 154,342 characters. 871 paragraphs. 2,751 lines. Congradulations. (Wikimachine 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

"Invasion(s) of Korea" vs. "Imjin War(s) / Waeran" - revised

Google has more of "Invasion(s) of Korea" variations than "Imjin War(s)" variations, in English pages. The result is in the last search page, and uses "moderate filtering" and "-wikipedia".
Google Scholar has significantly more of "Invasion(s) of Korea" variations than "Imjin War(s)" variations, in English pages. Again, the result is in the last search page.
--Endroit 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Books has significantly more of "Invasion(s) of Korea" variations by far. The result is in the last search page.

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. --Endroit 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use AND or OR. They distort the searches. (Wikimachine 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

If you don't understand how the AND / OR operators work, you should ask somebody for help.--Endroit 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know how AND or OR works, but it still distorts searches for some reason. (Wikimachine 16:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

The results are fine. Ask for outside opinion on this.--Endroit 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, results are not fine. You and I are getting different results. You aren't answering my arguments on why ONLY quotation searches should apply.

Here it goes again for 4th time.

Usage of AND brings incorrect amount of web searches because "Hideyoshi" can be found anywhere in the article, separately, from "invasion of Korea" or other variations. This means that the results will show phrases that do not treat "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" as a title of the war, but only mere way of reference, with due manner of English writing. We need to find web searches that treat "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" as actual titles. Only way to ensure it (even then, half of the articles do not treat those phrases as titles) is to use quotation marks. And look at all those quotation variations. My way is the best way to search.

Please somebody answer that above on why quotations should be used.

(Wikimachine 16:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Ask others for opinion on that too. Really. The consensus on this talk page seems to be reached already, so you should really ask for outside opinion.--Endroit 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But look at this [1]

It shows how google is flawed on AND and OR system. (Wikimachine 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine, I am not sure how you're coming up with your totals. hideyoshi "invasion of korea" -wikipedia comes up with at least 341 good matches (they are almost surely all talking about the conflict in question) and only 216 for "Imjin War" -wikipedia. There are 231 "Hideyoshi invasion," and 114 for "Hideyoshi's invasion." This is also ignoring the miscellany of "Hideyoshi's campaigns," etc.
You need some examples of why we need English only? Your searches include these among others:

한국학 용어,용례 사전 - [ Translate this page ] 한글, 한자, 문화관광부 지정표기, M/R 표기, 시대. 임진왜란, 壬辰倭亂, Imjin waeran, Imjin waeran, 조선. 영문 의미 1 :. Imjin War. 용례 1 : ... www.aks.ac.kr/glossary/glossary_detail.asp?g_code=5122&page=2&c_code=6&search_field=&keyw... - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

영문 요약 ( English Resume ) : A Study of the Jeseung Bangryak ... - [ Translate this page ] 영문 요약 ( English Resume ) : A Study of the Jeseung Bangryak (制勝方略) - Focused on the Military Defensive System on the Eve of the Imjin Waeran ( 壬辰倭亂) (Hidehyoshi Invasions) - 논술 : 삼별초와 (三別抄) 그의 난에 (亂) 취하야 (완) ... success.yesinsa.co.kr/content/jour/content_159641.html - 71k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Surely we don't want to count them, do we?
I've already conceded that we use English only pages. (Wikimachine 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Please don't separate Hideyoshi's and Invasion of Korea. Then the articles do not address the phrase as a title, but presents it only to reference the war, per due manner of English writing. (Wikimachine 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

As long as it is refering to that conflict, it's valid. We are condensing down what most people would search. —LactoseTIT 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That shouldn't be used for 2 reasons.

  • In 100% of the cases, pages that refers to Imjin War treat the phrase as a title. But in your case, half of the results could use the phrase only as manner of speech, and then use the title Imjin War. We need "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" if that's what you are advocating.
  • Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is destined to have more results because Hideyoshi and Invasions of Korea being separate allows for the phrases to be out of context, and still be in the results. (Wikimachine 18:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
I really don't think (m)any articles that talk about "invasions of Korea" in the context of Hideyoshi are going to be about something else. The thing is it doesn't have to be a proper noun title; since it's a way of describing the war, and it's how most English speakers learn of it, it's the best choice. —LactoseTIT 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The website could be hosting an article briefly describing the life of Hideyoshi & then refer to the war as "attack on Korea". In this case, the article does not admit that the title is "attack on Korea" or some other variations. It's just manner of English. What you are advocating, LactoseTI, is a title, not a description. Any kind of description fits well into the article itself, and we've already discussed on how it's easy enough to search "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" and come upon "Imjin War" (below). Or even when it is one phrase, the article might not be advocating that phrase as a title, but only per due manner of English writing. For example, it would be repetitive to say Imjin War all the time so the article writes "Hideyoshi's Invasion".

What you are advocating, "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea", is already given much leniency, in that there is already a high possibility that it's not referenced as a title.

Therefore, only my way of search can work. Really, you have no reason against it. Don't you want the best results? Most accurate? Then why oppose my way of searching, when yours have significant flaws in it already -clearly pointed out by me -5th time now.

And Wikipedia Naming Convention specifically states that it is not a law. Compromises can be made depending on situations. It does not cover NPOV aspects of the title. That only commonness of the word matters is flawed reasoning. (Wikimachine 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Since I generally respond to most queries, probably this is the 6th time now that I point out that your search misses many if not most of the articles discussing this event. Since there is the technical reason that the vast majority don't use such a set phrase, are you willing to set them all aside and just use a foreign language set phrase that will catch a small percentage of the actual articles discussing this?
I might also add (again) that this is not a common thing to learn--you don't learn about it by webpages--but most learn about it in school. And Imjin War is virtually unheard of there. A few webpages made by some interested parties is not going to outweight the entire educational system. In additiona, as Shogo pointed out, even Korean scholars use the Invasions term for clarity when their work is being read by a worldwide audience.
There is nothing that says that titles need to be neutral, especially where the neutrality is the point of view of who's doing the invading and who's getting invaded. —LactoseTIT 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

LactoseTI, the distinction in your advocacy is "Hideyoshi's". Without "Hideyoshi's", we might as well advocate Japanese Invasions of Korea or Korean and Japanese War etc. "Hideyoshi's" is key in your argument. Without it, your title has no purpose. No existence.

And only way to ensure "Hideyoshi's" is included in the title of this article is to prove that "Hideyoshi's invasion" variations are common. If not, there is absolutely 0% uniqueness. Only way to prove that is through my way of searching -so that searches are not out of context, so that you prove Historians and people usually use "Hideyoshi's" along with the invasion of Korea. (Wikimachine 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Compromise

Since nobody seems to be agreeing with each other I hope this will.

I think instead of arguing over this, we should produce a new title. I propose that Japanese Invasions of Korea variants are the best option to reach consensus. Good friend100 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. (Wikimachine 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

I think this title may be confused with the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910, but that can be solved by Japanese Invasions of Korea 1592-1597. If this is too long for a title, then a disambiguation link or a statement can be placed at the top of the article. Good friend100 16:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Consider the POVness of Imjin War as well. (Wikimachine 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

But I don't like the "invasion" part. Let me think of a better word. (Wikimachine 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Doesn't "Japanese Invasions" imply other events other than the imjin waeran? KiteString 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, we can add the date. Good friend100 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I overlooked that. I agree then. I'm just not so comfortable with what "invasions" suggests, like wikimachine said. KiteString 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese and Korean War (1592-1597) sounds better. Takes "French and Indian War" as precedent. (Wikimachine 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

I think that is a very good title. I just think it sounds like the article is on a timeline, so may I suggest "Japanese and Korean Wars of 1592-1597"? KiteString 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

anything like that. thanks for your opinion, KiteString. (Wikimachine 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

I agree with the title, KiteString, but wouldn't the title be too long, or maybe outside readers might have not learned it that way, even if we reach consensus. Good friend100 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
One thing you're kind of overlooking is that this is a purely fabricated title for a topic which does get referred to quite frequently as Hideyoshi's invasions... most English speakers (who remember) would know it by this name--most people, Good friend100 included, have suggested this is the case. If Wikimachine diagrees, he'd be about the only one (see the RFC where we got some opinions from outside editors as well). It's not like this doesn't have an established name--some variant of "Hideyoshi's campaings" or "Hideyoshi's invasions", etc.
Incidently, Goodfriend and Wikimachine--what do you exactly mean by consensus? The Wikipedia definition (which has clearly already been reached) or just an option with which you agree? —LactoseTIT 17:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your "Hideyoshi's" title is purely from Japanese historical context, and that is not neutral. I am completely ready to engage in the previous arguments. (Wikimachine 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

"Consensus usually involves collaboration, rather than compromise. Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed." (Wikimachine 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

A fabricated title, maybe. But the variants are better than something nobody agrees upon. Also, the newer titles make sense. A reader wanting to find out about the war can understand the title. It is not irrevelent. Good friend100 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe after finding the article they'd say, "Oh, that makes sense...," but they wouldn't search for it to start with. Also, titles do not need to be neutral--just what most English speakers would search--please read up on the naming policy. —LactoseTIT 18:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't you see that the war is not automatically recognized as either "Imjin Wars" or "Hideyoshi's Invasions?" LactoseTI, Just as you said, "There is plenty of opportunity to educate in the text". Why shouldn't we use that title and explain how it could go either way? KiteString 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, KiteString. And from my experience, "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" showed up "Imjin War" article for Wikipedia. And, LactoseTI & Endroit, before we discuss this, we need to settle down on which way of searching is better. (Wikimachine 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Your search results favor yours and mine favor mine. (Wikimachine 18:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

The newer title is self explanatory.
Also, when I first came upon the article, I searched for "Imjin War". The search brought me to this article, which at the time was named "Seven Year War". I knew that the Seven Year War was named for its timespan and also as another name for the war. Good friend100 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it agreed that Japanese Invasions of Korea 1592-1597 variants should be used? Good friend100 20:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, unless you feel "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" is such a variation--I don't believe your suggestion is an appropriate name based on Wikipedia's naming policy. I might add consensus building almost always takes more than a day. —LactoseTIT 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, cross apply from above that Wikipedia naming convention is not a law, but only models to be followed upon. Compromises and fixes are possible. In this case, we need to consider the neutrality of "Hideyoshi's", which is completely from Japanese historical point of view -the war had more than one participant. "Hideyoshi's" results mostly come from biographies on Hideyoshi, and we all know the war consists of more than just Hideyoshi. And it seems that you are conceding that Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is not a name, but a common description used by English speakers.(Wikimachine 23:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
[2] Here, it clearly states that naming should also be NPOV. (Wikimachine 23:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
"Descriptive names

Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.

For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name." (Wikimachine 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

"The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term."

The naming convention itself advocates Google. (Wikimachine 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

It still stresses The most common use of a name takes precedence. The Google test does come squarely behind the Hideyoshi title. What's more, it is just one test--one, I might add, that doesn't "rule" the discussion here, since everyone admits that these articles aren't reflective of the majority of people who learn about it.
With all your POV talk, I think it might be important to remember one point--is anyone here suggesting that this event would have happened if Hideyoshi did not exist? In all likeliness, no. He, therefore, is the central character from any point of view.
Let me rephrase--do you truly, honestly believe that a majority of English speakers in the world would be more likely to type in "Imjin War" rather than "Hideyoshi's invasions"? If so, you may have forgotten a bit from your high school history (as evidenced by a few of the books we've sourced for you). —LactoseTIT 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you copy and paste your high school history book reference here?

By the way, your argument on why Hideyoshi is the central character cleary shows you are POV. If you learned Japanese history enough, you will learn that other factors such as import of Portuguese guns, need to support the large army through continuous conquest, etc. forced Hideyoshi to initiate the attack.

It's like saying, if there was no God, there wouldn't be anything else so we need to make God's Hideyoshi's ... crap as the title.

And we've discussed on how whether you type Imjin War or Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea or Seven Year War, you can still find the article on Wikipedia easily.

Even then, Google search as per my way of searching (which you haven't denied as the better way of searching) favors Imjin War.

And even if I concede neither outnumbers the other in commonality, there is something called "descriptive titles must be NPOV". I have 3 levels of offense, LactoseTI. You aren't winning in any of them. (Wikimachine 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Hideyoshi's motivations are generally believed to be his old age and desire for a legacy. If he didn't exist, it's unlikely the event would have happened. Why throw the term "point of view" around? We're dealing in cited and accepted facts here.
Existential thought aside, the reason this title is best is because most high schoolers and undergrad students learn of it through this name (which hits pretty much all English speakers). By definition, that's what it should be. As I mentioned--this isn't a point of view debate--Hideyoshi is the most (perhaps the only) critical factor to this event. It doesn't matter what country you're in, or who's side you're on.
For a detailed response to the rest of your arguments, including why your way of google searching isn't the best, see the rest of this page. —LactoseTIT 00:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer my arguments above. (Wikimachine 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)) Yeah. I've answered your google arguments on the section above. Please take a look at it. (Wikimachine 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

"LactoseTI, the distinction in your advocacy is "Hideyoshi's". Without "Hideyoshi's", we might as well advocate Japanese Invasions of Korea or Korean and Japanese War etc. "Hideyoshi's" is key in your argument. Without it, your title has no purpose. No existence.

And only way to ensure "Hideyoshi's" is included in the title of this article is to prove that "Hideyoshi's invasion" variations are common. If not, there is absolutely 0% uniqueness. Only way to prove that is through my way of searching -so that searches are not out of context, so that you prove Historians and people usually use "Hideyoshi's" along with the invasion of Korea. "

Here. (Wikimachine 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Let's Take a Break

How about staying away from the discussion for a week? (Wikimachine 04:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Lets not. What...what is wrong with this name????? Oyo321 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Close Analysis Of LactoseTI & Others' Actions

If you haven't noticed, LactoseTI and Komdori have gone around Korean historical articles & made edits concerning Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. In many cases, those changes were very unnecessary, but they are persistent in using the terms "Hideyoshi" and "invasion".

I think that this is to promote "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea", which is unnecessary less people actually use "Hideyoshi's invasions" or if Hideyoshi was really that important character. I pointed out that if they don't quote "Hideyoshi's invasions" in Google search, then they are not advocating "Hideyoshi's invasions", they are advocating "invasions" without specificity to Hideyoshi -thus no reason to use that title. They are very evasive, and haven't answered this point yet. Isolationist, you might say.

Therefore, they are taking 2nd approach to justify the title, which is putting emphasis on Hideyoshi as THE main character and main cause of the war. In the article Korea, they did the same thing. I also think that Komdori is a sock puppet, and especially a straw man for LactoseTI. They edit the same articles, and, even though Komdori's user page states that he is a Korean, his edits are definitely JPOV.

Just some of the thoughts. (Wikimachine 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Undoubtedly I'm not the only one that has fixed the link on some of the pages that link to the articles. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Please see your talk page, where I posted a few days ago my rationale for striving for neutrality, and I don't agree with people like Good friend100 who have argued (to me) that we should "fight fire with fire" by leaving Korean POV edits to "combat" Japanese POV edits because a "neutral stance and neutral edits just makes the Korean position in the article weaker."
Please point out any straw man arguments I've made--I believe all my arguments are sound. Your "points" have been responded to (and refuted) repeatedly. But I thought you had called for a 1 week break on this discussion (two days ago)? Komdori 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I did call for 1 week break, but I was relating the argument above to the "mastermind", POV issues.
Main reason for calling for 1 week break was that LactoseTI was approaching isolationist policy by avoiding my argument (repeated above), and I did not want to get this thread of discussion annulled. (Wikimachine 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

samuel hawley

How come, Samuel Hawley uses "Imjin War" in his book of the war? Considering how an English author uses "Imjin War", this article should be moved back to Imjin War. So, is Imjin War not an English word?

I already said, Imjin War is the best and most clear name for this article. Also, read the description on the front cover:

Japan's Sixteenth Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China

That basically is "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" without Hideyoshi and save the China part. Remember that this is a description, ring any bells? This is supposed to be a title, not a description. Imjin War is the best name and you know it. Just because of the reason that its a Korean word and that it only mentions the first invasion, and that it isn't common. Then how come Hawley uses Imjin War? If Hawley knew Imjin War was not as "common" as "Hiudeyoshi's Invasions of Korea" then why would he use the title? So as your definition that "Imjin War" just describes the first invasion, I guess, Hawley just wrote the events up the year 1593 right? Your claim doesn't make sense when considered to other titles. The Imjin War, although it only describes the first invasion, it is used to describe the entire invasion as a whole. It is not practical to name the 2 invasions differently and make a separate title for them.

I disagree with this title. The article must be moved to Imjin War. You simply disagree with it because its a Korean name. You obviously support whatever presents the Japanese side better since all your arguments defend the Japan side.

Also, Hideyoshi's is just awkward when used in articles in Wikipedia.

For example, "During the Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" or "During Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" it doesn't flow with the sentence and the latter technically is a description when you remove the link to the article and used as part of a sentence.

Ex. "During Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, Japan landed in Busan 1592". This is not a title. Its a description.

Also, how come notable authors like Hawley's or Turnbull's don't use "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea"? If they are supposedly more common than "Imjin War" how come the authors don't use it? Hawley uses "The Imjin War" making the case stronger and Turnbull simply uses "Samurai Invasion", a general title but with the date on it. No Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea.

Imjin War is the best title. Don't just skim over this long passage because I am just babbling all over. Imjin War is the most consise and accurate name for it. The above case is all true and I believe I have every right to move this article back to its original and correct name. Good friend100 22:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(repeat of argument presented, unanswered)
"LactoseTI, the distinction in your advocacy is "Hideyoshi's". Without "Hideyoshi's", we might as well advocate Japanese Invasions of Korea or Korean and Japanese War etc. "Hideyoshi's" is key in your argument. Without it, your title has no purpose. No existence.
And only way to ensure "Hideyoshi's" is included in the title of this article is to prove that "Hideyoshi's invasion" variations are common. If not, there is absolutely 0% uniqueness. Only way to prove that is through my way of searching -so that searches are not out of context, so that you prove Historians and people usually use "Hideyoshi's" along with the invasion of Korea.

(Wikimachine 01:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

(repeat of accusation presented, unanswered)
LactoseTI and Komdori have gone around Korean historical articles & made edits concerning Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. In many cases, those changes were very unnecessary, but they are persistent in using the terms "Hideyoshi" and "invasion".
This is to promote "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea", which is unnecessary less people actually use "Hideyoshi's invasions" or if Hideyoshi was really that important character. I pointed out that if they don't quote "Hideyoshi's invasions" in Google search, then they are not advocating "Hideyoshi's invasions", they are advocating "invasions" without specificity to Hideyoshi -thus no reason to use that title.
Therefore, they are taking 2nd approach to justify the title, which is putting emphasis on Hideyoshi as THE main character and main cause of the war.

(Wikimachine 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Finally, they say "consensus, consensus", but that is only if they are responsive. Remember that if you are not responding to my arguments (presented some 2 weeks ago), then you concede them. Then I have right to change the article's title. (Wikimachine 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC))
We've been over this, extensively, before. "Imjin War" is not used by 99% of historians writing on Japan. It may be common among the Koreans, and among those who study Korea. But in the Japanese academic community, I wouldn't be surprised if very few have heard of it. "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" as a title, written exactly that way, you are right, is not exactly a title. It is a description. But it is a meaningful and useful one. Nearly every history book that addresses the events calls them Hideyoshi's invasions or Japanese invasions of Korea or the invasion attempts by Toyotomi Hideyoshi... or something equivalent. Personally, I've given up on arguing with people over the proper title of these things. We debate and debate, and inevitably it always comes back to a discussion over again months later... there's always someone who's unsatisfied. I'm going to go back to writing articles now. LordAmeth 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Who cares about historians writing on Japan. Let's consider some writing about Korea. This is called systemic bias. (Wikimachine 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC))
You're absolutely right. Using the Korean name and ignoring the terminology used by Japanese historians is systemic bias. LordAmeth 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, that's exactly what I am saying, except that in this case terms used by Korean historians are neglected while terms used by Japanese historians are not.
I am not just another user, I've been very active in this article. And the whole time I returned to this discussion only one more Wikipedian joined (KiteString). And I will not accept isolation policy. If you don't answer my arguments, then you are conceding them, and gives me full privilege to revert the article's name.
You haven't answered this: "LactoseTI, the distinction in your advocacy is "Hideyoshi's". Without "Hideyoshi's", we might as well advocate Japanese Invasions of Korea or Korean and Japanese War etc. "Hideyoshi's" is key in your argument. Without it, your title has no purpose. No existence.
Who cares if it's a meaningful description, it's not used by any historian & no books (shown by LactoseTI) address the war as thus. Japanese Invasion of Korea (1592-1598) is just as descriptive.
Do not forget the google search framework arguments.

(Wikimachine 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine, look beneath your comments when originally presented for answers to most of them, offered by many different users. As for me--I changed the links of several pages to match the current name. Relinking from Seven-Year War to Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea is helping things, not hurting them.
As for the books... Hawley's is published by the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch (and even in the context of Korea, he can't resist adding the subtitle, "Japan's...invasion of Korea"). As for Turnbill's "Samurai Invasion," it seems he thinks (probably rightly) that it will sell better than "Hideyoshi's Invasion"--and it clearly targetted toward the lay person since it says "Japan's Korean War" on the cover. He has also written, "Samurai: The Story of Japan's Great Warriors," "Samurai: The World of the Warrior," "The Samurai Sourcebook," "The Samurai and the Sacred," "Samurai Warfare," etc. As a notable person known for his interest in samurai, are you surprised that he picked "Samurai Invasion" for his title? The layperson hopefully will remember when they learned about "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" from school and think it sounds exciting.
The bias argument is not well founded--you can't claim, "English speakers use the wrong word, so although few if any will ever find the article recognizable based on the name, we'll use that to counter it." That's not how it works. It's meant to help counter the bias in the articles themselves. I agree there is perhaps some bias in this article--since the majority was written by those coming from an interest in Korea, there is indeed much bias here. Almost all battles are presented from the Korean commander's perspective--what about the reports the Japanese heard? See the "Naval battles of Yi Sun-shin" section--and nearly all the subarticles on the battles. I give a lot of credit to those who have started them, many still in stub form, but there is clearly a bias that needs to be fixed. It's just not the one about which you're talking--and it goes in the opposite direction. —LactoseTIT 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Off of 1st point by LordAmeth, I was only presenting the hipocracy of the "Hideyoshi's" advocates.
  • Off of the 2nd point, As for the books... Hawley's is published by the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch (and even in the context of Korea, he can't resist adding the subtitle, "Japan's...invasion of Korea"). As for Turnbill's "Samurai Invasion," it seems he thinks (probably rightly) that it will sell better than "Hideyoshi's Invasion"--and it clearly targetted toward the lay person since it says "Japan's Korean War" on the cover. He has also written, "Samurai: The Story of Japan's Great Warriors," "Samurai: The World of the Warrior," "The Samurai Sourcebook," "The Samurai and the Sacred," "Samurai Warfare," etc. As a notable person known for his interest in samurai, are you surprised that he picked "Samurai Invasion" for his title? . Where is "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea in any one of the books that you've mentioned?
You know, I am not that fooled easily. I am a debater, and know what's going on in a discussion.
  • Off of the 3rd point by LactoseTI that "list of naval battles by Admiral Yi" is an example of systemic bias, remember that that's an article written specifically for Admiral Yi. That is a subsection for the Admiral Yi article. That has no relevance. (Wikimachine 02:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC))
As I said, it's no surprise that they use the Korean name in a Korean book. I gave as examples nearly all of the battles --almost all are from the Korean perspective; more information needs to be added to make it balanced. The articles as is are a good start, we just need more. —LactoseTIT 11:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Hawley is Korean? So what if the book is published by the Asiatic society. The book was written by an English author. Also, it doesn't make a difference who published the book. It is up to the author to make a title and Hawley chose Imjin War because he believed that was the correct name. Authors don't make titles to appease publishers.

Its just your excuse to turn Samuel Hawley's book into "Korean" while it is really true that books use Imjin War and "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is never used". Stephen Turnbull uses Samurai Invasion and "Japan's Korean War" but that was probably because Turnbull is a Japanese historian and an expert in that field. As I said, it is up to the author to decide the name of a book.

Definitely, it shows that Imjin War is used more than "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" in books and articles. Considering that you can't find "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" in any books about the Imjin War, Imjin War is the BEST title, with already stated reasons that doesn't seem to be understood. Good friend100 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow down--we've already seen that Hideyoshi's invasions is much more common in books, articles, etc.; we were just talking about the titles of these two particular texts. Incidently, authors title's are definitely colored by their publisher (and their intendend audience, for that matter)--in fact, in many cases the author has absolutely no control over the title. —LactoseTIT 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Page name?

I think there was an argument over whether to name the page "Imjin Wars" or "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea"... so I moved it back to the older version, Seven-Year Wars".. Seeking to establish consensus if we need to rename the page either way. Deiaemeth 01:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deiaemeth, the move might cool the discussion a small amount, but in the long run, Seven Year War is not the best choice. It had already been decided that Seven Year War wouldnt be used because of several factors including the confusion of the name itself. Good friend100 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
But no consensus has been reached. By the way, isn't Deiaemeth an administrator? (Wikimachine 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC))
Please do not move things (especially articles whose move would be as controversial as this) without first reaching consensus. In any case, I do not believe this article was ever before at "Seven-Year Wars" with an "s". It should be at Seven-Year War or Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. LordAmeth 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has been already moved multiple times without consensus from its original title and I understand many editors are mad about that. So I've moved it back to it's original state (extra s was added by mistake, sorry!), to give the editors a fair ground and talk things out a bit. And no, I am not an administrator, and I don't intend to be one. So let's leave it at Seven-Year War for a while, and whether Imjin Wars or Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is better title should be discussed ... I know Seven Year War is a confusing name, but it will have to do for the time being. Deiaemeth 04:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It had been discussed, gone through a thorough request for comments, and a consensus (per Wikipedia definitions) has been reached. A couple of users are trying to start a movement for a new consensus, but so far have gained little ground. Nearly everyone has agreed that Seven-Years War (not wars) is not the best name. Just because some arguement breaks out doesn't mean to automatically flip to an older version. Most likely, a straggler or two will (again) bring up this issue of trying for a Korean name in a few months--what then? Back to the name no one wants again at that time? —LactoseTIT 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Do NOT look down on those who are trying to change the name of this article to its proper name. IMJIN WAR. Not Hideyoshi's Invasion or Seven Years War. I believe Seven Years War is already named after another war out if Asia. And what do you mean, "Korean name?" Then what kind of name should it be, ENGLISH? I'm dying of laughter here. Korea (Josun) suffered a lot in the Imjin War, and impacted Josun psychologically and geographically. Therfore Korea should name this war to her name of choice. And "back to the name that no one wants again..." doesn't make any sense, because I want that name. Oyo321 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you emotionally want that name, and empathize with you. However, this is English Wikipedia, and the guidelines here are quite clear--the English name must be used. If you would like to title an article "Imjin War," I'm sure the policies at Korean Wikipedia are the same, and will allow you to do so. —LactoseTIT 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
LactoseTI, you are ridiculous. Consensus with exception with few users? I was one of the most active users on this article, and you and other JPOV editors took advantage of time while I was inactive. (Wikimachine 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
Please tone down the rhetoric. Deteriorating to name calling isn't going to get us anywhere. If you really try to see what's written on the page, you'll see answers to all of your questions. Just because one or two books may use a different term in some places, don't set aside the fact that the vast majority use this term, or a variation of it. There is no conspiracy to detect a moment where you might be missing--there was a RfA, discussion, and everyone agreed that Imjin War is not as likely to be known by English speakers. Please thoroughly read those sections. It might also help you find them if you didn't block copy/paste the same arguments repeatedly throughout the page. —LactoseTIT 10:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikimachine didn't name call anyone. Oyo321 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Saying, "[You] are ridiculous," and accusing someone of being a "JPOV editor" are, in fact, two examples of name calling; in any case, that wasn't the main point of my post. —LactoseTIT 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"A couple of users are trying to start a movement for a new consensus, but so far have gained little ground". I think I haven't gone overboard. (Wikimachine 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

just a description

Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is not the best title.

It is merely a description that should be used in the first paragraph of this article.

For example, see

"Gwak Jae-u is one of the most celebrated heroes of the Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea."

"Hideyoshi's Invasions left deep scars in Korea."

It isn't grammatically correct when used in a sentence. It doesn't work. An article of a war repeatedly uses the title of the war every now and then. But this title doesn't even work so that it is hardly used in the article itself. The only time it really appears is in the title, which is wrong.

And the latter of the two examples can't even include the entire title of the war. I don't understand why when there already is a good title that makes sense, you use this title that isn't even used in books about this war. Good friend100 00:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you make essentially the same post a few times above here? In any case, the former example is not grammatical only because you have chosen to use odd prepositions and is easily rectified. Change "of the" to "from," "who participated in," etc. The latter example is actually grammatical, though no one is suggesting the initial "i" in invasions should be capitalized. Check out the multitude of fixed links that now link to this page with its entire name. An acceptable alternative is to give alternative text. This is what is generally used in difficult to place Wikipedia titles. There is nothing ungrammatical about using the whole title in the latter case, it's just redundant--a perfect excuse to use the alternative text. Very many high school texts describe it the way we have shown; also you can see any of the college texts we were discussing earlier. The fact is the term you like is not used often in the English speaking world (you yourself have admitted this in the past when you were arguing in a different direction). Do you honestly suggest that the majority of English speakers are more likely to know "Imjin War" than "Hideyoshi's invasions"? —LactoseTIT 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you honestly suggest that the majority of the world's english speakers actually KNOW about the Imjin War (excluding Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese)? Oyo321 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the majority have heard mention of it in class. Out of those that did, they at least have a chance of finding it under the current name, and virtually none at all if it's under the Korean name instead. —LactoseTIT 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
None of your books that you've provided to substantiate your claim say "Hideyoshi's Invasions". They all proved my claim that the titles would be something like "Japanese Invasion" etc. Remember that as long as you don't have a title "Hideyoshi's Invasions...", there is no reason to title the article in that manner. Only reason to title the article with the term "Hideyoshi's" would be because that is so widespread. In fact, none of the books you've provided as examples use the title, and virtually none of the Google search results use the phrase as a title. It's mere description. If that's the case, let's put it in the article, and use the title that is more common. You repetitively claim that I "copy and paste" same arguments over and over again, when they haven't fully been answered. Please don't answer one argument indirectly with another argument. (Wikimachine 05:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Of course my arguments are repetitive to you. Its because you keep giving me the same response. Good friend100 19:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

this is pathetic

I'm not sure if I have the "knowledge of the current situation" because I've been away from Wikipedia for such a long time, but this naming war is ridiculous. We should be debating issues over the article and history-not the name. The naming war for the "dispute" over Dokdo was reasonable-trying to preserve the correct name and owner of the rocks. Imjin War is the accurate name for this war, and its been around as far as I can remember. And reading the above arguments, "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea" is obviously a misuse of the word. Hideyoshi himself wasn't physically in Korea to conquer it.

And don't you think "Imjin War" is easier to say and pronounce than actually literally describing the war as "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea?"

We don't call the invasion of Europe by Nazi Germany as "Hitler's conquest to rule the world eternally with the glorious Nazi regime." Oyo321 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep bringing up the same flawed argument? English speakers don't call it that so the article is not called that. If they did, the article would be called that. —LactoseTIT 02:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
At the same time, you keep bringing up same flawed arguments as well, avoiding the momentum of the argument that Oyo321 brought up. The fact is, nobody uses "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" as a title either. (Wikimachine 05:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Its just a description, like I said about 10 times before. Are there any notable history authors that clearly use "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea". No. Even Stephen Turnbull, a famous Japanese historian doesn't even use that and instead uses "Samurai Invasion 1592-1598". If Hideyoshi was the famous charecter in this war, wheres his name? Of the few Imjin War books published, I have never seen Hideyoshi's used as part of a title. As I said, this description is best for the first paragraph of the war.

The name doesn't fit in smoothly in any sentence (which by the way, the article hardly even mentions the name in the body itself) and its not used in published books. Is it still not clear? And how is this flawed? Your arguments are flawed. If "Hideyoshi's" is the best title, it should be the best title for any English author.

English speakers don't use "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea". They don't say "Oh the Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea happened in 1592" (which is also grammatically incorrect). Anybody can know what this article about. The name is self explanatory in the form of a description. A description is not used for a title. You think it is used because the name is clear. Of course it is clear because its self explanatory but nobody uses this as a title. It is simply used as a description.

How many times do we have to go over this? Good friend100 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the answer is until you understand. Just because you can create ungrammatical sentences doesn't mean you must create ungrammatical sentences. Remove "the" from your example, and it becomes a perfectly accurate and much used sentence. We have given multiple examples of other articles where descriptions are picked over names (often foreign names, like Imjin). The idea is this is a name most English speakers would associate with the event--certainly more than would associate "Imjin" with it. Then we move onto the naming conventions (again)... —LactoseTIT 06:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hideyoshi is a foreign word too. Oyo321 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Korea!

Yay, I have just started Wikiproject Korea a few days ago! I have been pondering over what template should be used but the one I thought best is placed at the top of this talk page. Also, the link to WikiProject Korea is there.

The project is severely incomplete and I am asking if anybody can begin working on the project and helping expand Korea related articles on Wikipedia. Good friend100 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the project! Oyo321 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi?

So Japan lost the war because Hideyoshi died? Some of you are getting the wrong idea. The text may be written as if Hideyoshi's life and death affected the war, it didnt. Thats just a mislead. The main reason why Japan lost the war is because of the Chinese allied help and of Admiral Yi. Good friend100 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To say his life and death had no effect on the war is a gross mischaracterization of history, which leads to severe minunderstanding. Are you suggesting the withdraw just coincidently came extraordinarily near his death? While commentators (such as yourself, perhaps) might debate what the "super main reason" was, it's undoubted that there were mnay--one of which definitely was the life and death of Hideyoshi. If you are seriously pondering such a change to the article, I would strongly encourage you to first attempt to find some kind of credible source to back up such a unconventional statement. —LactoseTIT 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hideyoshi's death may have had some effect on the overseas soldiers' morale. But Japanese soldiers were not compelled to just surrender and leave, because the Emperor died. Japan continued the campaign, until they were defeated. On the other hand, if it was Hideyoshi's dying wish to "pull all the soldiers out if Korea" its a different story. Oyo321 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As it was his order near his death, I guess it's a different story... —LactoseTIT 04:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are we even debating this? Are we trying to emphasize the fact that Hideyoshi was influential in beginning the war, "acting"/"doing"/"instructing" the war, and "ending the war" as well? Are we trying to legitimize the importance of Hideyoshi, the must that Hideyoshi appear on the title, and that "Hideyoshi masterminded the war" must be on the introduction? Those with common sense, please don't even try to get into these things, because, if you do, you are further strengthening the nonsense by participating in it. Make it another world. Another universe, disconnected from reality and reason. Make it separate. Isolate it. Make it a trivial issue that must be dismissed, and corrected without interference. (Wikimachine 02:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Is it that hard to admit that Japan lost the war solely by itself? Good friend100 14:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Intervention

I strongly urge everyone to come to a consensus on the issues at hand. I have been asked to intervene but do not think this would come to any use. I recommend the mediation cabal. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll send a request there. (Wikimachine 03:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-22 Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea Naming Dispute
I don't know how to change the name of the article, but if anyone does, change it to "Imjin War." I was obviously not asked for an opinion when someone changed the article title, so we should either have a poll, or just change it off the bat. Oyo321 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Umm oops I forgot to announce that I have already done a mediation cabal request.. sorry about the trouble Wikimachine. But checking your request, its a lot better than mine, so I appreciate that. Also, you might want to add that you want to end this because it is severely setting back the progress of this article. Good friend100 03:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Imjin War

"It's a decent sized military conflict between Japan and China" LactoseTI, do you really know what the war was about? "Decent sized" did you read the article at all? Do you know how many soldiers Japan sent and how many ships they built? Not to mention the amount of supplies made either. "Japan and China"? Is this the reason why you look down on "Imjin War" because its a Korean name and Korea never fought in the war? Sure the Korean army was cut into pieces but it wasn't solely between China and Japan.

Reasons why to use Imjin War

  • The name refers to the entire war, not neccesarily the first invasion.
  • The name is an english word.
  • The war is not all about Hideyoshi.
  • The name is clear. "Imjin War" in the Chinese charecters 壬辰倭亂 technically means "Invasion and chaos in Korea from Japan" so it doesn't neccesarily mean "first invasion".
  • Proper google searches show that Imjin War has more results.
  • Hideyoshi didn't play a major part in the war itself.
  • "Hideyoshi's"? The war never took place in Japan, solely in Korea.
  • If "Imjin War" is POV then what about "Oei Invasion"? Is that POV as well, or do just keep it because it satisfies you that it is a Japanese name. Don't back off.
  • "Seven Year War" can be confusing with the European war of the same name.
  • Samuel Hawley's book Imjin War uses the name "Imjin War", although the book is published by the East Asiatic Society, it was up to Hawley who named the book this way. Thus, "Imjin War" is used as a title in history books as well.
  • Hawley's book is not for only Korean people.
  • "Hideyoshi's" is just a narrative description, not a title.

Reasons why to use Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea

  • Its the most commonly used.
  • Its a clear name.
  • Samuel Hawley's book was targeted for Korean audiences.
  • "Imjin War" is a Korean name and it is POV. (However this argument was already agreed upon before).
  • "Imjin War" only mentions the first invasion.
  • English readers will know what the war is about (obviously, its right in the title).
  • Most outside sources don't mention "Imjin War".
  • It is an english word.

Add more to this side if there are because I am obviously on the Imjin War side.

Ok guys, this is the second time. The Imjin War is the best title. The above supporting facts are not my own. I used other editors' comments. Good friend100 15:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see anything here that is new, or hasn't had responses already--have you read the above talk page and archive thoroughly? If you expect people to respond, perhaps you could raise a new issue, rather than simply cut/paste/rehash what has already been discussed at great length. —LactoseTIT 15:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I never wanted to summarize this again. What I did above shows that there is more supporting facts to move the article? If your "Hideyoshi's" title is the best, there should be more to support it right? Good friend100 14:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi all. I'm here to try and mediate the dispute over the naming of this article. From what I can see, both sides are putting forward good arguments and are discussing things rationally, which is great. However, I think a run on requested moves would allow the community to develop a consensus on where the article should sit. The side for moving this back to the old title should create the request, if this is a solution that you agree with. Does this seem sensible? I hope we can sort this out soon. —Xyrael / 15:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Ok, since nobody will cooperate, how about a new title, like Japanese Invasions of Korea? or Japanese Invasions of Korea (1592-1598)? Its just a suggestion, but both titles both make sense and both sides will agree to it. It doesn't use "Hideyoshi's" and to satisfy the other side, it is in English. Good friend100 14:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a sensible suggestion. What do the other side think? —Xyrael / 17:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they disagree. I'll send the request. (Wikimachine 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

If the other side disagrees then we'll just have to produce another title. The title I proposed is good and there is no reason for one side not to agree with it. Good friend100 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to see that discussions on moving this page are underway. I'll hover around; please call me if needed. —Xyrael / 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pic for Korean soldier

There used to be a pic of Korean soldier in full armor dress that everybody liked. But because of its uncertain copyright status, it was deleted.

Here's my way of countering the copyright laws. I actually drew the soldier. With oil pastel. Should we replace the pic of Korean soldiers lined up in full dress? I don't like it because they are not in full armor & they don't have the standard-issue three-pronged tridents. They have these ugly blades on tip of the spears. (Wikimachine 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Wow, that's a heck of a lot of work--and a great job. You drew this by hand rather than by converting with Photoshop, etc., right? I'm not an expert on how different something has to be to be considered not a derivative work, but I'm hoping (and believe) this is far enough away. Can you post a link to the picture you roughly based it on (I lost the link)? —LactoseTIT 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this picture is really good. It sure would brighten up the article. But the only reason why I didn't like the original picture of the drawing is because the picture only shows the side view of the Korean soldier.
Does anybody know how to use the "Prnt Scrn" key? If someone could provide a step by step key to take a picture of an online screen, that would be very helpful, thanks. Good friend100 14:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Here's the link[3]. Actually, I see that I made a few mistakes. Let me fix the pic & then upload a newer version. (Wikimachine 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Seeing them side by side, it's undoubtedly allowable to use that image if you choose to release it. I'm curious to see what fixes you're making. —LactoseTIT 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikimachine your artwork is truly amazing. You should become a second Rockwell! Oyo321 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have further pictures you want to release? (picture-hunter) Wandalstouring 21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. I released another for Gyeongbokgung . (Wikimachine 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
I could send you another one, but I don't think it will be related to Wikipedia -unless it should be placed in an article related to art. (Wikimachine 23:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
Here

Name Change

Isn't the poll supposed to end on 10/17/06, not 10/07/06? Or was my announcement of deadline unofficial ? (Wikimachine 04:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

The user who moved the page explained it in the closing comment. See above, before the "Requested move" section. --Kusunose 06:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–1598)/Archive_3&oldid=1087184077"