Talk:Turtle ship

message: We need more pictures and architectural layout of this ship, we seriously lack detailed information.--Korsentry 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article, you'll see that not much is known because the closest resembling ship was drawn 200 years later. Presumably none have been found on the sea floor either. So most of it is educated speculation and academics disagreeing with each other. Actually Hawley is not even professional historian , but his book was reviewed in academic journals . And Turnbull's books are written for the general public too. Perhaps there's more serious work in Korean. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  more pictures and graphs 

message: 15th ~ 19th century?, I always thoughts it was used only in Imjin war (16th century), where is source for used until 19th century?--Korsentry 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  in service 

message: The decking section remains problematic.  There are conflicting sources and there is no consensus regarding iron plating on decking of the turtle ship.  The section currently reads like a research article using references to argue for why the turtle ship was not iron clad.  I tried to reword the section to get rid of POV presentation of referenced facts without deleting useful references.  I will continue to work on rewriting this section to have it be a neutral presentation of referenced information rather than an opinion piece.  
One chronic problem in this section has been editors drawing their on conclusions and interpretations using references which is original research and synthesis appropriate for writing research papers but not for wikipedia articles.  Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Korea articles have (as many others do) a set of nationalistic stalkers/edit warriors and sock farmers. The turtle ship is a frequent nationalistic symbol, especially an anti-Japanese one. I agree that the page is problematic and its source of nationalistic reification is the reason there's so much seemingly unusual activity on the topic. Ogress smash! 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't think that's a helpful perspective.  This is not about nationalism or Korea, Japan or whatever POV propaganda and engaging sock puppets and the like. I'm sure this article has had problems with such but this section has always had an issue with editors turning this into an opinion piece about iron cladding or lack thereof and using references to draw their own conclusions.  I'm hoping to have this section be a more neutral presentation of facts and references cited.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was merely pointing out that despite its military history interest, it's an object of fraught ideological meaning and as such, motivates editors in a way that is different than other articles about historical ships and the like. Ogress smash! 18:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Were Wikipedia not multiple editable, a more concise section with a single conclusion (plate or no plate) might be possible.  But given the nature of Wikipedia, this is a well written article, including this deck section that leaves it to the reader to conclude whether or not the ship was iron clad.  If Ogress (or anyone else) can document the POV that turtle ships are a national symbol of pride for some of Korea, that is worth adding to the section Turtle Ships Today.  Thanks.  GeeBee60 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you necro a year-old thread? Do not do that. Ogress 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued problem with decking 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Turtle ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202053733/http://www.korea.net:80/News/News/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20080410025&part=106&SearchDay=&source= to http://www.korea.net/News/News/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20080410025&part=106&SearchDay=&source=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Turtle ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010213607/http://www.tabula-rasa.info:80/JamesAdams/treasure_trove/koreanTurtle/korean_ts.htm to http://www.tabula-rasa.info/JamesAdams/treasure_trove/koreanTurtle/korean_ts.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I’ve looked at the sources in the article regarding the armor plating issue and noted that the article is written in a way that is clearly biased towards very fanciful and unfounded ideas of the construction of turtle ships. The article is in no way neutral but presents a picture of  false balance. In this case, both arguments are not equally valid, either in terms of cited sources or the strength of the underlying arguments. It’s not just case of X vs Y number of sources, but rather poorly-argued older sources relying on “oral tradition”, speculation and nationalist bias vs newer sources that rely on contemporary primary sources and proper contextualization.
I’ve nerded out really hard on galley and early modern ships for the past 15 years I have some idea of what kind of sources that Western historians rely on primarily: contemporary written sources or illustrations, archaeological evidence, and fully functional replicas built with traditional techniques. The theory of the turtle ship as an ironclad is supported by none of these.
I’ve looked up all currently cited sources. I’ve read all but one of them myself and verified not just the cited pages, but also how they cite sources. Regarding how they support the notion of turtle ships being “the first ironclads” or covered in some kind of metal plating, I’ve split them into three categories:
Sources that argue for:
*Bak (1977); cites primary sources but simply dismisses them in favor of the “oral tradition of the iron-clad turtle-boats [that] has been largely ignored because of a bias for the so-called academic point of view”; Bak’s points are very clearly addressed by Hawley (2005)
*Kim (1989); the article refers to primary sources, but provides no citations and says only that the turtle ships were “heavily armored” based on the 1795 illustration
*Needham (1970), page 683-684
Sources that are skeptical or argue against:
*Dickie (2009), ‘’Fighting techniques of naval warfare’’, page 95-96
*Holz (2009)
*Hawley (2005), pages 193-199; includes a lengthy critical analysis of available primary sources and a very cogent explanation that the iron cladding came about as “a symbol of national pride”, not because there was any proof
*Roh (2004), page 13
*Turnbull (2002), page 244
Turnbull (2002) is the only source I haven’t actually been able to read for myself, but the summary in previous talk speaks for itself. Also, in The Samurai (1996), Turnbull clearly describes that the issue of iron cladding or not is “difficult to prove either way” (page 205) and overall just ignores this since the outcome matters more: that the turtle ship did it’s job quite well.
Sources that don't matter
Remaining sources used to support iron plating and any other details about how the ships were constructed are not relevant in my view. They don’t cite any sources at all, are focused on different matters, lack independent analysis, or simply ignore 
They are effectively just “padding” that add additional footnotes but no further proof either way. In regards to this article topic, they are only relevant to cite to explain or exemplify how popular the topic is as such; they can only support claims about coverage, not the actual history of how the ships were constructed. They lack independent analysis or useful insights. In some cases, they actually don’t cite any sources at all! Here’s a list of those currently cited that in my view do not live up to standard criteria as reliable sources.
*Bowman (2000), pages 211, 645
*Burdick (2010), page 178
*Elisonas “The Ineparable Trinity” in Hall in The Cambrdige History of Japan (1991), pages 277-278
*Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia (2000), page 1776
*Nolan (2006), page 878
*Parker (1996), page 109; Parker has one huge note (77) that covers several paragraphs where he lists rather vaguely lists Jeon (1974), Underwood, Needham, Park (1978), Sadler and Turnbull (1977) as detailing “the use of firearms at seat during the Korean War” but then ends the list with “It must be said that none of these works on the subject are definitive”.
*Seth (2010); pages 147-148
*Swope (2005); page 16
I have not been able to access Timelines of World History, but I’m not going to bother since it’s clearly described as aimed at “history aficionados, trivia buffs, or anyone with a curious mind”. It’s not a reliable source in the context of understanding the minutiae of historical shipbuilding. Peter Isotalo 14:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and presentation of sources