Talk:Righteous armies

message: The article could use some coverage of uibyeong activities during the Japanese and Manchurian invasions of middle Joseon.  I believe that is when the term "uibyeong" first emerged, at least in its modern Korean meaning. Anyone want to take a crack at it? -- Visviva 08:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More background?

message: I will try to improve the article with my current knowledge but we need someone
who is better versed in this part of Korean History other Resistance Armies need to be added an Armies and order of battles needs to be improved as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easternknight (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be improved  

message: I edited out the claim that Britain supported Japan's colonisation of Korea and the assertion that Britain supplied weapons to the occupying force -- see here for more evidence that Britain did not play such a role :
Britain was unwilling to protect Japanese interests in Korea and likewise the Japanese were unwilling to support Britain in India. 
Hayashi and Lord Lansdowne began their discussions in July 1901, and disputes over Korea and India delayed them until November. At this point, Hirobumi Itō requested a delay in negotiations in order to attempt a reconciliation with Russia. He was mostly unsuccessful, and Britain expressed concerns over duplicity on Japan's part...''
The High Contracting parties, having mutually recognised the independence of China and Korea, declare themselves to be entirely uninfluenced by aggressive tendencies in either country, having in view, however, their special interests, of which those of Great Britain relate principally to China, whilst Japan, in addition to the interests which she possesses in China, is interested in a peculiar degree, politically as well as commercially and industrially in Korea, the High Contracting parties recognise that it will be admissible for either of them to take such measures as may be indispensable in order to safeguard those interests if threatened either by the aggressive action of any other Power, or by disturbances arising in China or Korea, and necessitating the intervention of either of the High Contracting parties for the protection of the lives and properties of its subjects.
The treaty laid out an acknowledgement of Japanese interests in Korea without obligating Britain to help should a Russo-Japanese conflict arise on this account. Japan was not obligated to defend British interests in India. 
My comment -- Britain softened its stance against Japan in 1905, but even then, they did not actively support Japan -- and the Treaty with Japan was all over by 1919.
Suggesting Britain backed the invasion and supplied the weaponry to occupy and control is a weak, unsubstantiated claim -- 
See the links here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Demise_of_the_treaty  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.83.217.56 (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2019 

message: Hi, the title is currently "Righteous army", but I think it should be plural.
Reasoning: While under WP:PLURAL, most article titles are generally singular, I think the various righteous armies are clearly a class of things. It's also immediately clearer that the scope covers multiple armies instead of just one toobigtokale (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural title