Talk:Battle of Noryang

message: As far as I remember, when I read his biography,
in his diary, he said that Won Kyun left only 12 ships after his defeat.
Doesn't this mean that 333 ships were defeated by only 12?
Just wondering. (Wikimachine 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When Admiral Yi destroyed 333 Japanese battleships with only 13 (one was his flagship) that was the Battle of Myeongnyang. The Battle of Noryang was won with the help of Chinese ships.
Good friend100 13:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more than 12 ships left? 

message: I'm pretty sure that somebody is playing pranks on English articles about Korea by purposely putting grammar and spelling mistakes on them. There are so many mistakes that so obvious. I hope that all of you other Wikipedians take close look at Korean articles for any improper changes in such manner. 
Take a look at this sentence:
"Shimazu and Konishi ordered the Japanese troops scaled Chinese ships."
It makes no sense at all. (Wikimachine 23:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now now, let's all assume good faith. Might be someone learning English as a second language, ya know? deadkid_dk 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already repeated this. Some users need to change their attitude toward Korea. Good friend100 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Commander Ii Sun Shin was not shot in the heart- he was shot under left armpit, and I believe he died of blood loss. It was a stray bullet, not an attempted assasination by Japanese commanders. Oyo321 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling & grammar corrections 

message: ===Trafalgar of the East===
I don't think this is true.
http://www.faber.co.uk/book_detail.html?bid=11411.
So, I removed the section on Trafalgar of the East. It refers to a Japanese battle much later in course of history.
(Wikimachine 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, firstoff, I am NOT KOREAN! I have no issues with them, but I am an American, and second, the "Trafalgar of the East" has been applied to both Noryang Point and Tsushima Straits. This is just my opinion, but Noryang Point seems to be more connected to Trafalgar than Tsushima is as Trafalgar and the Straits share one thing in common: a decisive naval battle that changed the balance of power for years to come. Noryang Point Was also a decisive naval battle that Japan would not recover from for  centuaries, and in Trafalgar and Noryang, commanders of the victorious sides (Korea and England) lost their commanders, who were considered to be the best their respective nations could field. Togo, the 'Japanese Nelson', did survive Tsushima. If you are going to compare Tsushima and Trafalgar, than I believe that it is justified to include Noryang in it too. ELV
My two sense is that Noryang is not like Trafalgar in a tactical or strategic sense.  It is like Trafalgar in a sense that a national hero died in his last battle in the last victory.  Field Marshall Monty Montgomery himself said that Admiral Yi died like Admiral Nelson.  WangKon936 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing out the article 

message: I don't think this is true.
http://www.faber.co.uk/book_detail.html?bid=11411.
So, I removed the section on Trafalgar of the East. It refers to a Japanese battle much later in course of history.
(Wikimachine 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, firstoff, I am NOT KOREAN! I have no issues with them, but I am an American, and second, the "Trafalgar of the East" has been applied to both Noryang Point and Tsushima Straits. This is just my opinion, but Noryang Point seems to be more connected to Trafalgar than Tsushima is as Trafalgar and the Straits share one thing in common: a decisive naval battle that changed the balance of power for years to come. Noryang Point Was also a decisive naval battle that Japan would not recover from for  centuaries, and in Trafalgar and Noryang, commanders of the victorious sides (Korea and England) lost their commanders, who were considered to be the best their respective nations could field. Togo, the 'Japanese Nelson', did survive Tsushima. If you are going to compare Tsushima and Trafalgar, than I believe that it is justified to include Noryang in it too. ELV
My two sense is that Noryang is not like Trafalgar in a tactical or strategic sense.  It is like Trafalgar in a sense that a national hero died in his last battle in the last victory.  Field Marshall Monty Montgomery himself said that Admiral Yi died like Admiral Nelson.  WangKon936 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trafalgar of the East

message: http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/s2.html
This source sites that Shimazu Yoshihiro did not participate in the Battle of Noryang. (Wikimachine 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shimazu Yoshihiro

message: http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/st.html
This source does not mention Tachibana Munishige participating in this battle. (Wikimachine 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tachibana Munishige

message: STOP the edits with the "Japanese victory". That is your own personal opinion and it is not true. Hello????? If you strongly believe that Japan won the Noryang battle, give a source or something. You cannot edit something important, such as the victor, without sufficient sources.
Korea and China won the battle of Noryang Point. Good friend100 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the Edits 

message: This article is a complete mess and does not meet wiki standards by a long shot.  I'm going to completely rewrite it and add reputable references.  WangKon936 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Reworks 

message: A truly accurate figure of casualties on the Japanese side may not be known because the Japanese do a poor job of recording events that were embarrassing to themselves.  The Chinese tradition of accurately recording disasters for the benefit of good governance for future generations is a tradition that the Japanese did not follow well.  However, the figure of 200 ships sunk and 100 captured is corroborated by Chen Lien's battle report given to the Ming court and in Yu Song Yong's "Book of Corrections."  The figure of 15,000 Japanese casualties is my personal estimate based on the number of ships sunk and the total number of Japanese involved in combat.  If you take the troop figures for the Shimazu, Tachibana, So and Wakizaka, plus naval personnel, you have about 20,000 men. WangKon936 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in the article that only 31 Japanese ships escaped. I think this is wrong however. Good friend100 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's wrong.  I'm not done with my edits yet.  Patience my friend. WangKon936 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of casualties 

message: The Ming fleet had two Korean panokseon ships which were given to them by Yi Soon Shin.  These two ships were boarded and destroyed by the Japanese during the battle probably because this was the first time that the Chinese had used the ships in combat and didn't know how to properly implement them and/or probably didn't have the proper weapons on board.  Ming commander Deng Zilong was in one of the panokseons and was killed along with the rest of his crew.  WangKon936 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ming Panokseons 

message: I have cleaned up a number of minor basic grammatical and stylistic issues, and I think that following WangKon's hard work, the article deserves to be bumped up to B-class. It is well-cited, as neutrally POV as I might expect it to be, covers the topic well with seemingly no major omissions, contains the appropriate and well-filled-out infobox, and has no major grammatical errors. Overall, I must admit, I still think the writing style is somewhat awkward, but it's more than readable enough to be informative. Still needs some work to bring it close to A-class though. Keep up the good work! :) LordAmeth 10:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the wordsmithing!  I agree that the structure still needs some work and I'll probably go back into it later.  It's not easy to take verbage from different sources and harmonizing them in one document.  This is a fairly well documented battle (considering the other battles of the Imjin War).  What else specifically needs to be done to bring it up to A-class? WangKon936 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the main things are the writing style (believe me, I understand the difficulties involved with this - my own writing is not the greatest), and citations. A-class articles are expected to have a good number of inline citations confirming individual assertions/facts. Beyond that, I'm really not sure - it depends on what the larger WPMILHIST community, i.e. those that participate in the review process, think. LordAmeth 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: The Chinese and Korean fleet did not attack the Japanese ships in melee combat until the later half of the battle. This accounts for the minimal casualties of the Korean and Chinese soldiers. The Chinese did not simply rush in before damaging the Japanese fleet with cannons. I changed that part in the article. Good friend100 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears clear that you haven't read the latest book on the Imjin War by Samuel Hawley who implies that close in ship to ship fighting did occur rather early in the fight. WangKon936 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engaging in melee combat 

message: I think this article can be moved to GA status.  Thoughts? WangKon936 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving this article to "GA" status 

message: The battle of Noryang didn't "decide" anything.  It does not fit in the description of a "decisive" victory as defined in wiki. WangKon936 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Noryang was not a "Decisive" victory 

message: Ming and Korea aimed to prevent the withdrawal of Yukinaga Konishi's army, but they failed to do so and lost various generals such as Deng Zilong and Yi Sun Shin. On the other hand, Japan succeeded in the withdrawal of Yukinaga Konishi, which was the original purpose, without losing any general-class personnel, although it suffered considerable damage. There are discrepancies in the history books about the losses of both armies, and I don't think it should be described as a victory for one or the other. Therefore, it should be described as "withdrawal of Japanese Navy". -- たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources provided overwhelmingly describe it as a victory. Unless substantial secondary sources that are not partisan, preferably in English, the change is not justified. Qiushufang (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This battle is a battle after the establishment of peace, and there is no point in deciding whether to win or lose. Victory is claimed in both Japanese and Korean histories, so it is not neutral to attribute victory to one or the other. たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseon and Ming Empire victory?