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

message: I changed this title back into "Korena Naval Operations in 1597".
Yes, China sent a large fleet to Korea to help out Admiral Yi. It is also true that China played a major factor in forcing the Japanese to retreat.
But most of the battles until late 1597 and 1598, it was mostly Korean forces that won naval battles against the Japanese. Chinese forces really helped out in the Battle of Noryang, and not at the moment they came to aid the Korean soldiers. Good friend100 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Operations of Coalition Forces in 1597 

message: who put up the reference tab on the article?
a lot of the information I write comes from prior knowledge. Good friend100 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference tab 

message: This is a question I've always kept unanswered- whatever happened to turtleships? After their significant role as destroying the Japanese navy, why didn't the Korean government continue a production of these ships? Oyo321 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly states that they didn't need the Turtle Ships anymore. Read first, then ask. Good friend100 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, Korea had several weak kings and the military was ignored again. Consequently, the Japanese "invasion" happened in 1910 and Korea became annexed. It justs makes you think how Koreans are so ignorant sometimes; they had to suffer two invasions just to understand how dangerous their neighbor is. (I'm not bias, I'm Korean myself) Good friend100 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korea's Navy

message: How on earth do you cite a reference or a source???
I have no idea. Could someone explain the steps to cite a reference? Thank you. Good friend100 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference 

message: Hi, this is a very interesting article, though it is lacking in depth and references as the headline tab says. 
Read this: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v069/69.1swope.html
I think this is a more accurate and balanced account of the Imjin War than the stuff Stephen Turnbull writes. 
Cheers
::Thank you for the reference however it seems you need to be a member of some sort. Anyhow, the Stephen Turnbull stuff is still reliable. Its just that he is a historian on Japanese history. The book was written as part of his researches on Japanese history not Korean, and some of the stuff in his book are POV. Good friend100 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, thank you for the information. I think it will be a great help to the Imjin War article. Good friend100 12:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a help source for the Imjin War... 

message: Battle of Busan (1597)
I think it's supposed to be the Battle of Chilchonryang. It should be deleted. Taeguk Warrior 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I wonder where this came from. I agree it should be deleted along with all other "Battle of Busan (1597)" since they all are the Battle of Chilchonryang. Good friend100 12:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found this 

message: *:Image:Battle of Haengju.jpg (see talk page)
The fact that the deleted images can be found in books shows that these images are in fair use. It is highly improbable that these paintings were illegally printed in American books. If owners of the books Samurai Invasion and Imjin War took photographs of these paintings in the book it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these images are in fair use. All the deleted images were from national shrines and museums and not from private collections. Taeguk Warrior 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their place in national shrines doesn't mean they are not copyrighted... LactoseTI 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the talk page of the image; it's quite possibly a copyrighted image where such permission has not been granted.  In fact, as MangoJuice explains, "courtesy" quite probably suggests it is. LactoseTI 03:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (sigh) well, I guess it will probably be gone in a couple of weeks; just more cleanup work then.  No idea why you keep putting images in that are currently disputed, and likely to be removed. Some of us would like to improve the article.  Fine, as I said, I'm not going to "war" with you--it will work out on its own.  Since you seem dead set on borderline vandalizing the page, knock yourself out; if the image doesn't survive, it will disappear anyway.  I guess we can enjoy the (good) picture while it lasts... LactoseTI 03:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying the books probably obtained permission.  The book you yourself used as an example of how it is in "public domain" actually says they obtained permission!  The information from the probable copyright holder strongly suggests permission is necessary (this information was provided by you--the idea that they were thanked for their "courtesy" of licensing the image). LactoseTI 11:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taeguk, I'm afraid Lactose is completely correct. I have had this issue before; the government (or the organization maintaining the memorial) gave official written permission to the publishers of that book, and not to you or us (Wikipedia). It's a shame, and I also would love to have beautiful pictures on all of our articles, but that's the way the law works. Just because one organization has been granted permission to publish it, that does not mean that it is suddenly public domain. LordAmeth 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THE IMAGES ARE IN FAIR USE

message: Does anybody know how to get rid of the large gap between the title and the first paragraph? Thanks. Good friend100 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but as far as I know this can only be removed by hiding the table of contents.--Ryoske 04:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This is becoming extremely disruptive (not to mention making a number of people liable to be blocked for 3RR violations—yes, it does apply to moves).  I've protected the page from any further moves for the time being; I haven't the faintest idea what the best title is, but please discuss it and come to a consensus before moving the page all over the place. Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug through the page history and two people have been blocked for 3RR violations. Please play nice. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected from moves 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyotomi_Hideyoshi&diff=65058348&oldid=65053780
"Invasion of Korea was arguably successful...." Notice how the term Imjin War was removed to prevent people from linking to this page.
Taeguk Warrior 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was successful until Chinese troops came and Admiral Yi defeated the Japanese navy. Good friend100 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another classic edit

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

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

message: I remember reading somewhere once that Hideyoshi had plans for invading India as well once the conquest of China was completed, but I can't recall the source. He most likely didn't realize the huge scale of the two countries and probably thought his firearms-equipped army was invincible. Does anyone have an onhand reference for Hideyoshi's possible Indian ambitions?--Yuje 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chirp chirp? Anyone? --Yuje 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hideyoshi's ambition 

message: Damool and Appleby--you seem to be the only ones who disagree that there are other valid ways of calling this article.  It's extremely discouraging to edit something if the changes are just wiped out in a few minutes (you've done it to almost everyone involved here... regardless of if they are on "your side" or not).  As mentioned above, please talk about it here--you are the ones who want to make a change to remove the other clearly valid ways this article is called--the rest of us know that it shows up in textbooks this way and are therefore valid titles.  If you can't play nicely, we'll have to request the page be protected. Komdori 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second the motion.  There's no excuse for deleting alternate titles for which we're still discussing.  And I think there's 3 of them involved:  Appleby, Damool, and Dollarfifty.--Endroit 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think other people who support "Imjin War" have clearly stated that some of the other names are acceptable as alternate names.  For example Shogo Kawada says "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" is acceptable as an alternate name.  And Ginnre says "Seven-Year War" is acceptable as an alternate name.  Ginnre has a point, when he suggests that "Seven-Year War" is the most NPOV, by the way.  Also Good friend100 seems to be indifferent as to the alternate names being there, and has even helped me with the wording.  So clearly, those who support deleting them all outright are in the minority.  ... Which means, consensus appears to allow us to keep the alternate names in the first paragraph.  And you don't have consensus to delete them outright.--Endroit 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are valid names. But I never said that they could be used as the article's main name. Those names are ok for just stating as "alternative names" in the first paragraph. Good friend100 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If any editor is interested, this dispute seems to be akin to a similar problem going on at East Sea where there is a clearly majority English use of the term "East Sea" by reputable sources but for some reason is not acknowledged.  Any comments on the talk page there would be appreciated, espcially for the people who support another term other than Imjin War/s because there is a common(er) English name.  Thanks. Tortfeasor 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: East Sea is the Korean version, Sea of Japan is the version from Nippon. In Germany the Korean ambassador congratulates everybody publishing a renown map and using the Korean naming. You can use both names and just list both of them. Seems like some people are still living in ancient wartimes. Wandalstouring 20:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last chance, guys 

message: I don't think anyone here wants Imjin Wars. Taeguk Warrior 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At least move Imjin Wars to Imjin War 

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

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

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

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

message: Just reading from discussion I gathered that the current title is not actually a proper noun.  I think we should change it to Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea like Mongol invasions of Japan just to be consistent and because the reason given was that this was the most common English phrase, not English proper noun.  Tortfeasor 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in Texas Annexation, the title can be made into a proper noun, regardless of whether it is proper noun in common usage.  It's OK as is.--Endroit 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rarely, if ever, referred to as a proper noun.  Just a cursory look at a google book search .  No reason not to when it could be more accurate.  Tortfeasor 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Texas Annexation.  Events are typically capitalized in titles regardless of common usage.--Endroit 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing one example is pointless.  I could easily direct you to Sea of Japan naming dispute and Mongol invasions of Japan.  The discussion above acknowledged it wasn't a proper noun, Google books verifies that too, and there are examples where event are not "typically capialized".  I think it should be fixed.  Tortfeasor 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen it both ways (try looking beyond Google books).  Don't you think that considering the two are basically the exact same thing we might prefer the proper noun version?  LactoseTI 22:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support lowercased "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea". Napoleon's invasion of Russia, which has same naming construct, also uses lower cased 'i' and none of the articles other than this page listed in :Category:Invasions capitalize 'i'. --Kusunose 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  It seems to me that "invasions" should be lowercased (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)). -- Visviva 07:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Visviva & Kusunose.  I stand corrected.  And I respect you two's opinions as well.--Endroit 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper noun