Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty" and "the disruption of Japanese supply fleets by the Joseon navy"

The Chinese military recaptured Pyongyang. And the Chinese military pushed the Japanese army to seoul. Peace negotiations took place between China and japan. Siege of Ulsan, Sacheon, Suncheon, the main force was the Chinese military. The Chinese military was more important than the Korean military. Redfoxjump (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources I provided beg to differ: "His naval victories were to prove decisive in the Japanese defeat, although Yi was to die during his final battle in 1598."/"Just as a complete Japanese victory appeared imminent, Admiral Yi entered the war and quickly turned the tide." The sources clearly highlight the importance of the Korean military in this conflict. You can't make the assumption that the Chinese military was more important. Your edits are biased. Also, you clearly did not read what I wrote previously. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Retyping what I wrote previously so that you can hopefully read it this time around:

"The first part of the results section should be worded as "Strategic Korean/Chinese Victory", for the same reason that the belligerents section of the infobox lists Korea first and then Ming China. The contributions of both states were undoubtedly important in shaping the outcome of the conflict, however, Korea was physically far more involved than Ming China was, in terms of soldier count (172,000 vs 118,000), civilian involvement/militias, and the fact that the geographic setting of the conflict was in fact, the Korean peninsula. Redfoxjump's logic is faulty. He/she argues that Ming China made a larger contribution to the conflict than Korea did (a view that is very POV). Even if this were true, the fact that Korea was more entrenched/involved in the conflict means it should be mentioned first, in order to fairly balance the aspects of the conflict according to their respective prominence. For example, the American Revolutionary War page lists the United States first on the list of belligerents even though France was instrumental in defeating the British. Similarly, on the Vietnam War and Korean War pages, the nations that were most involved (South Vietnam/North Vietnam and South Korea/North Korea) are mentioned first. Consequently, this page should be no exception to this rule." BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Don’t delete the source. "Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134," "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive." Redfoxjump (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realize that you added a source. I had just been undoing your edits because of how POV they've been. Regardless, just because China's military played a crucial role in the war doesn't mean that the Korean military didn't. You cannot say that one military's efforts was more vital than the other. Also, even if that were the case, the state that was most involved in the war (in this case Korea), should be mentioned first like on every other military conflict page. You can't just change this consistency to satisfy your POV agenda. BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Korean/Chinese Victory

The first part of the results section should be worded as "Strategic Korean/Chinese Victory", for the same reason that the belligerents section of the infobox lists Korea first and then Ming China. The contributions of both states were undoubtedly important in shaping the outcome of the conflict, however, Korea was physically far more involved than Ming China was, in terms of soldier count (172,000 vs 118,000), civilian involvement/militias, and the fact that the geographic setting of the conflict was in fact, the Korean peninsula. Redfoxjump's logic is faulty. He/she argues that Ming China made a larger contribution to the conflict than Korea did (a view that is very POV). Even if this were true, the fact that Korea was more entrenched/involved in the conflict means it should be mentioned first, in order to fairly balance the aspects of the conflict according to their respective prominence. For example, the American Revolutionary War page lists the United States first on the list of belligerents even though France was instrumental in defeating the British. Similarly, on the Vietnam War and Korean War pages, the nations that were most involved (South Vietnam/North Vietnam and South Korea/North Korea) are mentioned first. Consequently, this page should be no exception to this rule.

I saw a page of the Korean War. The result is "Military stalemate". I will follow it.Redfoxjump (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Faulty logic. The Korean War did end in military stalemate. There was no clear winner. However, in THIS conflict, the Korean/Chinese side emerged victorious. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

primary sources "History of the Ming chapter 322" http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B7322 History of the Ming chapter 322 "前後七載(For seven years)，喪師數十萬(Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were killed.)，糜餉數百萬(Millions of cost of war was spent)，中朝與朝鮮迄無勝算(There were no chances of victory in China and Korea.)，至關白死兵禍始休。(By Hideyoshi's death ended the war.)"

That is your unverifiable translation of the source, in which you've likely taken pieces of information that best suit your POV agenda. The sources in English I provided call it a Korean/Chinese victory. "Thus the Korea-Japan War of 1592-1598 came to a conclusion, with the Japanese totally defeated and in full-scale retreat. The Korean victory did not come easily."/"His naval victories were to prove decisive in the Japanese defeat." BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Result Section Discussion Continuation

I added this section because it seems clear that a user has an issue with the current result section of the infobox, which states, "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory, Withdrawal of Japanese Armies following military stalemate[1][2]". This was decided upon as the result of a compromise made in a previous discussion that was open for more than a month, Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98)#Request for Comment: Conflict Result.

The current result section fairly represents all aspects of the conflict's conclusion, stating the final result first, "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory" and the supporting circumstances regarding that result directly below it, "Withdrawal of Japanese Armies following military stalemate". Please discuss here BEFORE recklessly changing the current wording. BlackRanger88 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

- The reasons for my edits on 24 March 2015, at 19:14 UTC [1]

As stated above, it is only reasonable that the final result of the conflict, which was a "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory", be mentioned first. The specific circumstances regarding the outcome should be mentioned later. It makes no sense to put the details first and then later put the final, yet most important, part of the result. Template:Infobox_military_conflict also explicitly says to avoid using confusing technical contrasting terms such as "Tactical Victory" and "Strategic Defeat" in the same result section.

Secondly, the result should say "Joseon/Ming victory" as opposed to "Ming/Joseon victory" purely out the need to proportionally represent the conflict. The fact is that Joseon was more invested in the war than the Ming Empire was, in terms of troop count and civilian involvement, as well as the fact the conflict took place on the Korean peninsula. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how "Tactical stalemate" by itself is adequate for the infobox results. The article, by name, covers the wide array of military efforts -- a full war, or even two wars depending how you look at it. An article focused on just a battle or two may be justified in only presenting the tactical results, but not one covering a war. I think a case could be made to skip the tactical completely in the infobox results, as the current wording is a bit long for such. But I don't want to upset the existing compromise. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:A D Monroe III, I also don't see the term "tactical stalemate" used in any English source that I've come across so far. As of now, the source that supports its inclusion is Redfoxjump's translation of a Chinese source, which I cannot verify as accurate. Does this mean it should still be included? BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

First, I don't think any statement about the tactical results is significant enough to include; only the final strategic results merit inclusion in an infobox for a war.

Second, if a case could be made to include something tactical, then yes, we'd need sources to support what those results were. Do we have one that actually says "tactical stalemate"? If so, is it a WP:RS? If so, is it WP:BALANCEd? I don't think we have any of these.

We do need something more than just "victory", as that might imply results going beyond returning to the pre-war status-quo. We currently have "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory -- withdrawal of Japanese Armies following military stalemate". That's fine by me. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

successful Japanese defense

The course of history.

Japan began the second invasion -> initial successes on land -> withdraw to the coastal regions -> Chinese and Koreans attacked the castles (ulsan, sacheon, suncheon) -> successful Japanese defense -> military stalemate -> Hideyoshi's death, limited progress on land, continued disruption of supply lines -> the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan by the new governing Council of Five Elders. Redfoxjump (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I trust then that the current wording in that section is acceptable?

"The fighting would continue on Korea's southern coast, due to the persistence of the Japanese forces, and both sides became locked in a ten-month long military stalemate."

The term "successful" should be avoided since the Japanese failed to secure their main objective. The defense in the south was a byproduct of the failed initial Japanese offensive. BlackRanger88 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Ulsan,

The Ming and Joseon forces retreated with 20,000losses. https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B7320 History of the Ming chapter 320 士卒物故者二萬

Second Siege of Ulsan,

the Ming and Joseon forces withdrew with heavy losses. Annals of the Joseon Dynasty 31-10-12-7 Chinese language http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=wna_13110012_007&tabid=w

Battle of Sacheon,

The Chinese Ming forces retreated with 30,000 losses, Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p. 222.

Siege of Suncheon,

the Ming and Joseon forces retreated with heavy losses.

Annals of the Joseon Dynasty Annals of the Joseon Dynasty Korean language http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=kna_13110012_007&tabid=k Annals of the Joseon Dynasty Chinese language http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=wna_13110012_007&tabid=w

"是時, 東路天兵二萬四千, 我兵五千五百十四名; 中路天兵二萬六千八百, 我兵二千二百十五名; 西路天兵二萬一千九百, 我兵五千九百二十八名; 水路天兵一萬九千四百, 我兵七千三百二十八名, 共計十餘萬。 資糧、器械稱是, 而三路之兵, 蕩然俱潰, 人心恟懼, 荷擔而立" eastern army (24,000 chinese and 5,500 korean), Central army (26,800 chinese and 2,200 korean)" western army (21,900 chinese and 5,900 korean)" 

而三路之兵, 蕩然俱潰, 삼로(三路)의 군대가 흔적도 없이 무너지니, 인심이 흉흉하여 보따리를 싸 가지고 있었다. All armies(eastern, central, western) were crushed. Redfoxjump (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your sources show that the Japanese managed to hold their positions in the south. However, as I said, "successful" should be avoided because the Japanese objective was not to defend the coast, but to conquer the peninsula. The wording I used is neutral: "However, the war persisted, as the Japanese managed to hold their position on the southern coast". This is a fair representation of what happened during the war and is NPOV. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not say "the Japanese forces succeeded in conquering the Korean Peninsula." In your logic, all of Japanese actions are a failure. Nobody can use the words "(Japanese) success, succeed, successful" on this page. Redfoxjump (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty. The Japanese were not successful in their primary objective, but they managed to prevent being pushed out of the coastal regions. That does not mean they failed in that respect. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits 29 April 2015

@User:159.18.26.96 I really don't understand what was so 'POV' about my recent edits. I added the word "remaining" and the transition "However" because they made the sequence of events during the war more clear. I simply employed a basic writing tool to usher in cohesion between sentences, which is especially useful when describing chronological events. I've provided an example below.

"The Japanese advanced... but were forced to withdraw. However, the Joseon/Ming forces were unable to dislodge the Japanese from their remaining locations..."

"The Japanese advanced... but were forced to withdraw. The combined forces, however, were also unable to dislodge the Japanese from their locations..."

The former is far more clear about the sequence of events that took place. It clearly illustrates a before and after, while the latter leaves ambiguity regarding the chronology of the events, which at first glance, I thought implied that the two events took place at the same time. It would be even better to add "However, following the withdrawal, the Joseon/Ming forces..." BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit: If you could show me what part of my edits you perceived as POV, I'd be more than happy to revise them. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - my note wasn't meant to imply that your edits were particularly POV; only that my revisions were meant to be more neutral than the previous wording. I had some issue with the grammatical flow itself, but the piece I was referring to with my comment was the phrase "despite these victories" - which to me suggested battlefield victories as the reason, when in truth the advance was blocked/halted as much because of supply difficulties, Japan realizing they could not advance given the odds and falling back to defense, etc. So when we say "only to be halted and forced to withdraw", we should not be suggesting that it was through "victories" (because other factors also influenced it). My revisions were only meant to generalize this point.159.18.26.96 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do you have any issue with the word "remaining"? You seem to delete it in each edit. I think it makes the writing a lot more clear. BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a bit, in that it confuses me as to what "remaining" refers to (i.e. remaining from what originally?). We either have to mention that they at one point had other fortresses and lost them in the withdrawal, or it is unnecessary to say "remaining" (because it implies there were other fortresses without actually mentioning them). If you feel strongly about including "remaining", I would also revise the first sentence as follows:

"The Japanese had initial successes on land, capturing several cities and fortress, only to be halted and forced to withdraw to the coastal regions of the peninsula. However, following the withdrawal, the pursuing Ming and Joseon forces were unable to dislodge the Japanese from their remaining fortresses and entrenched positions in the southern coastal areas, where both sides became locked in a ten-month long military stalemate."

I'm fine with the current wording, but am also happy to use the above if you prefer it.159.18.26.96 (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I do prefer that wording, because I think it's more clear. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"withdraw to the coastal regions of the peninsula" "following the withdrawal"

Overlap.

"remaining"

It is not required.

Redfoxjump (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose is to illustrate a clear chronology in the events that took place. The term "remaining" illustrates that the Japanese forces were not present in the entire southern coast, since they had withdrawn and were concentrated in the southeast, hence the term "remaining fortresses". BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"but the Ming army failed to dislodge the Japanese forces from Seoul and the southern provinces, "

It is the fact. do not hide the fact.

Redfoxjump (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Top Section: First Military Stalemate

"the Ming army failed to dislodge the Japanese forces from Seoul and the southern provinces, and both sides became locked in a military stalemate between Seoul and Kaesong. The first phase of the invasion lasted from 1592 until 1596, with a brief interlude that resulted in failed peace negotiations between Japan and the Ming during 1596 and 1597."

Quite frankly, this sentence is pretty one-sided. It also doesn't mention that supply problems were the cause of the stalemate. The following is far more concise and informative. To balance both aspects it should say:

"the Japanese forces failed to advance north, while at the same time, the Ming army failed to dislodge the Japanese forces from Seoul and the southern provinces, due to to supply difficulties on both sides, resulting in a military stalemate between Seoul and Kaesong. The first phase of the invasion lasted from 1592 until 1596, with a brief interlude that resulted in failed peace negotiations between Japan and the Ming during 1596 and 1597."

However, saying "the Ming army failed... while the Japanese forces failed..." is redundant.

"the Ming and Japanese armies became locked in a military stalemate between Seoul and Kaesong due to supply difficulties on both sides. The first phase of the invasion lasted from 1592 until 1596, with a brief interlude that resulted in failed peace negotiations between Japan and the Ming during 1596 and 1597." BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"the Ming army failed to dislodge the Japanese forces from Seoul and the southern provinces, "

It is the fact. do not hide the fact. Redfoxjump (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read a thing I wrote. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"but the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty,[20][21][22] as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets along the western and southern coasts[23][24][25][26][27] forced a withdrawal of Japanese forces from the northern provinces,"

This sentence describes the failure of Japanese. Redfoxjump (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely, because the Japanese attempted a counterattack. This must be mentioned as well to fairly balance all aspects. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The course of history.

Siege of Pyongyang　-> Battle of Byeokjegwan-> Battle of Haengju

Redfoxjump (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

First off, your recent edits have had way too many grammar errors. It's tiring having to try and fix them every time you make an edit. Please try to be mindful of that. Secondly, it was AFTER the Battle of Haengju that the Ming army moved to Seoul, which is where the first stalemate occurred. So really the "course of history" went as follows:

Battle of Haengju -> Ming army arrives in Seoul -> military stalemate arises between Seoul and Kaesong.

BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Pyongyang 1593-1-8 -> Battle of Byeokjegwan 1593-1-27 ->Siege of Haengju 1593-2-12 Redfoxjump (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Pyongyang 1593-1-8 -> Battle of Byeokjegwan 1593-1-27 ->Siege of Haengju 1593-2-12 -> recapture of Seoul -> military stalemate

Please read the source. "The despondent Chinese general Li Rusong resolved to return to the fray when he heard of the triumph at Haengju, and Chinese troops began to move south towards Seoul once again."

Also from the same source: "the Japanese army evacuated Seoul and headed south, its army crossing the Naktong River in early May" which is after the Battle of Haengju

BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits May 3rd

The combined Joseon/Ming efforts during the first invasion were to drive out the Japanese. However, the Joseon army and Ming army took two distinct roles during the first invasion. The Joseon army (not the Righteous army) spent the latter part of the first invasion defending against Japanese counterattacks while the Ming army was tasked with advancing southward and liberating the southern provinces. In this case, the Ming army was unsuccessful in their endeavors, primarily due to supply difficulties, which made them seek peace talks instead of continuing their assault. Because of this, the Joseon army can't share responsibility for the outcome here, since it was tasked with defending the northern territories and wasn't present during the offensive in the south. BlackRanger88 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are partial to Korean. The Korean purpose was always the withdrawal of the japanese forces. Redfoxjump (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not going to even respond to that first comment, considering how biased your own edits are.

It's clear that you don't understand what I'm trying to say, and that your own POV agenda motivates you to associate every unsuccessful endeavor with Joseon while diminishing any of the accomplishments that the Joseon military made during this conflict. I have yet to see one of your edits that breaks this pattern. Ascribing blame to an army that wasn't even there? If that's not POV, I don't know what is. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

All - I think we can agree that this edit war is getting a little extreme. From my perspective, I think we need to avoid making/emphasizing specific results of specific actions by one side that then leads the other side to try to counter-balance the tone by emphasizing or adding excessive detail for specific successful results of the other side (e.g. Japan did this successfully, but then Korea/Ming did this successfully, but then they failed at this, but then Japan failed at that... but then Korea failed at this even more...etc).

This is generally a fairly balanced campaign, with successes and failures by both sides. The intro and overview sections, in their current form, are fairly balanced in presenting this view. I'm concerned that if we keep adding individual results of individual actions we're going to overload the intro and overview with detail, and completely lose the clean summary we currently have in place. My recent edits have attempted to restore this balance - keep things neutral and high level, and present both point and counterpoint (again, high level). 159.18.26.96 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: If anyone feels that mentioning the specific battles in the overview is important, then I suggest we list them without commentary (e.g. despite unsuccessful offensive attempts by both sides (Battle 1, Battle 2, etc) neither side was able to...). My opposition to getting into that level of detail is that once you mention one battle you need to mention them all for fairness, and then we just revert to the back and forth edit warring that's been taking place.159.18.26.96 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment. Adding individual battles may prove counterproductive. However, after reading sources over the past few days, I do think that the Righteous army should be mentioned. The sources I read describe them as one of the primary reasons for the difficulty of the Japanese to maintain control over the provinces they were occupying. BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Battle of Byeokjegwan" is important

My sentence.

"The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, were repulsed by Japanese forces at Byeokjegwan. The Japanese froces were repelled by the Joseon army at Haengju fortress."

Redfoxjump (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Its fine in the Overview (where I've moved it), but its really unnecessary in the Intro. The Intro is just meant as a quick description of what the Japanese Invasions were all about - if anyone wants more detail, they'll see it in the Overview and the subsections that follow. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that the sentence is so excessive. In addition, the sentence is fair. Redfoxjump (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We should either a) condense the top section or b) delete the overview section. As it stands right now, the two sections are too similar and thus redundant. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC

You said."I disagree. It was an important factor in the Japanese withdrawal and should be included in the top section. Other military conflict pages such as the American Revolutionary War, the Spanish–American_War and others have longer top sections." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(15。92–98)&diff=prev&oldid=659505239 Redfoxjump (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why I gave two options. Either a) condense the top section and keep both or b) delete the overview BlackRanger88 (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that general approach and would support keeping both; the Intro section as a short summary, and the Overview as a slightly more detailed version of it. The Overview is where we can mention battles, lines of withdrawal etc. The Intro should just give the highest level summary of the Invasions; providing specific battle references this early on is not helpful in my opinion.159.18.26.96 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, I've shortened the Intro section a little bit by removing some of the detail already covered by the Overview. Now, in four brief paragraphs, the reader will know all the important points of the Invasion: who attacked, what was the goal, how the war progressed (invasion, stalemate, negotiations, second invasion, stalemate), and how it ended (withdrawal, peace). The Overview can then provide the detailed version of this summary, and include any high level details not covered by the Intro (key battles, important considerations, etc).159.18.26.96 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Other sentences are also duplicated. "but the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty, as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets along the western and southern coasts" "The pattern of the second invasion largely mirrored that of the first. The Japanese had initial successes on land, capturing several cities and fortresses, only to be halted and forced to withdraw to the coastal regions of the peninsula. The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, were unable to dislodge the Japanese from their remaining fortresses and entrenched positions in the southern coastal areas, where both sides became locked in a ten-month long military stalemate." Redfoxjump (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What he means is that only the most important information should be included (i.e. individual battles are not included). While I may not entirely agree with that, I think that it's best that we discuss any future additions on the talk page first before recklessly implementing them, in order to avoid a repetitive reverting cycle. BlackRanger88 (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the individual battles. Byeokjegwan and Haengju. Redfoxjump (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, I don't think we add any value, in an Intro, by saying (Korea attacked and was stopped, then Japan attacked but was stopped, then Korea attacked and was stopped, then there was a stalemate). Its the same thing as simply saying "there was stalemate" - including these additional details doesn't really change the conclusions. Again, this is just the Intro, all this information can be covered in some additional detail in the Overview, and in full detail in each of the subsections about each of these battles later in the article. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the sentence. I deleted the individual battles（Byeokjegwan and Haengju.）Redfoxjump (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits May 22nd (Resistance Actions)

While I don't disagree that the efforts of the militias were present throughout the conflict, I don't think its an aspect of this campaign that is critical enough to warrant inclusion in the high level summary. Every invasion of foreign territory will always face some form of local resistance, and this campaign was no different. Even if we decide to conclude that the Korean resistance was above average in its effectiveness, I don't think it in any way shaped the outcome of the campaign. Japan would still have conquered generally the same territory, and Ming/Korea would still have pushed them back to the same lines of defense, and Japan would still have withdrawn in the end regardless. Again - happy to include the statement in the Overview, but putting it in the Intro makes it seem like it was a decisive element of the war, when in my opinion (based largely on Turnbull) it was not. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as I respect the opinions of other editors such as yourself, academic sources take precedence over our own personal viewpoints. The source I provided details as follows, "The righteous armies that appeared in 1592 smashed the local rule distributed across Korea's eight provinces by the Japanese military. The righteous army activities were one of the most important factors for the frustration of the Toyotomi regime's ambition to subjugate Ming China and extend dominion over Korea." I will address some of your major concerns below.

You said, "Every invasion of foreign territory will always face some form of local resistance, and this campaign was no different."

Actually, the Righteous armies differed greatly from other forms of "local resistance" in that the Righteous armies were far more organized due to the fact that they were led and organized by yangban (which constituted Korea's aristocracy at the time), which substantially increased the impact of their efforts (an impact arguably more important than that of the actual Joseon army). Here are some more excerpts from the same source that support this assertion:

- "The righteous armies possessed a a severe military code that they themselves had created, and they strictly enforced it."

- "The fighting strength of the righteous armies was a greater threat to the Japanese forces than that of the regular army"

You said, "I don't think it in any way shaped the outcome of the campaign."

The source I provided directly contradicts this statement. "The righteous army activities were one of the most important factors..." They disrupted Japanese supply efforts on land and made keeping their occupied territories far more difficult, which undoubtedly constrained the Japanese expansion. While it is impossible for us to definitively know what would have happened without the presence of the Righteous armies, evidence suggests that the Japanese would have been more successful in attaining more territory on the Korean peninsula, since they wouldn't have to expend additional resources on fighting off the Righteous armies.

- Supporting this is an English translation of a quote by Toyotomi Hideyoshi himself, found in the same source. "the most frightening thing in Korea are the insurrectionists (ikki yakura)."

Finally - "in my opinion (based largely on Turnbull)"

While Turnbull is undoubtedly a valuable source on the topic, his source is not (and should not) be the only source considered. Turnbull focuses on several dimensions of the conflict while downplaying and even ignoring others, which of course is the case of most sources. As such, we must consider evidence from a wide array of sources, in order to grasp a full picture of the conflict. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets along the western and southern coasts[22][23][24][25][26] forced a withdrawal of Japanese forces from Pyongyang into Seoul. Afterwards, because of guerrilla warfare waged by Joseon civilian militias in the south[27] and supply difficulties hampering both sides, "

Your sentence is not fair. I will add my sentence if you add your sentence. Redfoxjump (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not fair? This is an encyclopedia. We're here to try and fairly balance all aspects of the conflict, not adhere to some sort of point system that you're making up. The sentence you added is redundant and POV, plain and simple.

"The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, were unable to dislodge the Japanese from Seoul and the southern provinces".

"Afterwards, with supply difficulties hampering both sides, neither the Japanese nor the combined Ming and Joseon forces were able to mount a successful offensive or gain any additional territory resulting in a military stalemate in the areas between Seoul and Kaesong."

Both sentences mention that the Joseon/Ming forces could not push out the Japanese. There is no need for two. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"Afterwards, with supply difficulties hampering both sides, neither the Japanese nor the combined Ming and Joseon forces were able to mount a successful offensive or gain any additional territory, resulting in a military stalemate in the areas between Seoul and Kaesong. "

Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army is included in "Ming and Joseon forces".

Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army was unable to dislodge the Japanese from Seoul and the southern provinces. Redfoxjump (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

By that logic we wouldn't even include the passage regarding the "contribution of reinforcements by the Ming" and the "disruption of supply lines by the Joseon navy" in the top section because they are included in the "Ming and Joseon forces". That one sentence does not come close to describing the impact of the righteous army and does not come close to matching the content of the source I provided. BlackRanger88 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army waged guerrilla warfare in the south. However, Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army was unable to dislodge the Japanese from Seoul and the southern provinces.

"neither the Japanese nor the combined Ming and Joseon forces were able to mount a successful offensive or gain any additional territory,"

it is redundant.

Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army is included in "Ming and Joseon forces"

Redfoxjump (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That sentence in no way accurately describes the contribution of the Righteous Armies to the outcome of the conflict. Did my edit say "Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army waged guerrilla warfare in the south. However, Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army was unable to dislodge the Japanese from Seoul and the southern provinces."? No, it didn't. You're just making stuff up.

I said "Afterwards, because of guerrilla warfare waged by Joseon civilian militias in the south[27] and supply difficulties hampering both sides, neither the Japanese nor the combined Ming and Joseon forces were able to mount a successful offensive or gain any additional territory, resulting in a military stalemate in the areas between Seoul and Kaesong", which is a fair representation of what took place.

All you did is omit an important component of the conflict that is described by historians as "one of the most important factors for the frustration of the Toyotomi regime's ambition to subjugate Ming China and extend dominion over Korea."

What you're doing is whitewashing the information, plain and simple. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanseong and Seoul

"(present-day Seoul)"

I added the sentences to each section for readers.

For example, Kublai Khan.

"Dadu, at modern-day Beijing, "

"Dadu (Chinese: 大都; Wade–Giles: Ta-tu, lit. "Great Capital", known as Daidu to the Mongols, at modern-day Beijing) "

"Dadu, present-day Beijing"

"Dadu (now Beijing)"

"Dadu (Beijing)"

Redfoxjump (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You should notice however, that the page mentions the modern name maybe once per section, not every time the historical name is mentioned. I'll adjust that accordingly. Also, in the top section, "however" is not used correctly since the previous sentence already notes that the Japanese forces were all concentrated in the south. BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)