Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 1

message: Well what should be appreciated is the determination of japanese. after all a bunch of infighting people seperated by islands,were brought to the understanding,that they belonged to one nation called japan.and all these was possible due to people like noobunaga and hideyoshi.and a considering the numbers i think it was extremely courageous of japan to have ambitions to conquer vast lands of Manchuria and other areas controlled by the ming.
though,this campaign lost steam twice,one should know that the feeling still remained with the japanese till world war 2.
of course,efforts of yu-soon-shi should also be appreciated for thinking ahead of the times.
another thing being,hideyoshi requested the ming for a partition of korea,one south and the other north,well you know what korea is today.
--Jayanthv86 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan was ambitious

message: What in the world happened to the Yi Soon Shin's article?
:: It's under Yi Sun-sin. LordAmeth 00:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article disappeared?

message: Thank you for your detailed article on the Imjin War. I cannot reconcile the chronology for the initial invasion. In the main article, it is stated that the Japanese landed from 25-26 May, and captured Seoul on 12 June. Yet the articles for individual battles have the siege of Busan on 13 April, the battle of Sangju on 24 April, and battle of Chunju on 28 April. All of these battles shoud be, I presume, subsequent to the initial invasion landings. The two chronologies appear in conflict. Is this because different calendars are being used?
--Iacobus 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion chronology

message: The article called Oda Nobunaga "shogun." That is a title neither he nor Toyotomi Hideyoshi held, so I deleted it. 
Also, I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "the court of Hideyoshi" in the section titled "The Interlude." It implies royalty, which Hideyoshi was not. When used in a Japanese context, "court" refers to the Imperial court. Any suggestions? Squidley 20:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite not holding the title of shogun, I am sure that Hideyoshi held some sort of equivalent to the bakufu court. I am not sure what term one should use; I'd prefer "court" over "cabinet," though, depending on the context, "circle of advisors" or the like might work. LordAmeth 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits 

message: There's reference in this article about Ming Troops from Ryukyu, however, the Ming never had troops stationed in the Ryukyu islands.  This must be an error.  
Concerning the Ryukyus, Hideyoshi requested they send troops to help the invasion of Korea, but the King refused, citing their lack of resources (although the greatest factor was their allegiance to the Ming).
I agree. (Wikimachine 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troops from Ryukyu? 

message: There seem to be a lot of missing details about Ming fighting.  Were they not supposed to have destroyed the Japanese main food and supply depots to force the invaders to halt their first campaign?
It seem rather strange in the article if the Japanese are winning on the land and suddenly decided to stop.
:That could be in process of participating in battles itself. Admiral Yi cut down all the Japanese supplies because he was protecting the west side of the peninsula, and that is the confluence of most of the rivers from the peninsula. (Wikimachine 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ming action 

message: Is there documentation to back up the claim that the Ming insulted the Japanese Emperor and Hideyoshi? I have just never heard of this element is all, and it seems like the sort of thing one might add as a subtle vandalism... Maybe if you got a user account, instead of continuing to post by IP, I'd be less likely to think you a vandal. Sorry to come off so accusatory - it wasn't my intention. LordAmeth 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a Japanese and have read a lot of books on Japanese history, but I haven't seen such thing. -- Ypacaraí 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insults... 

message: Would it be suitable if added some info of reviving the invasion of China and Korea during Japan Imperialism in World War 2? I remember I read somewhere before that the reason why Japan wants to conquer China was to honor Hideyoshi's dream of conquer China.
:I disagree. Pretty vague. (Wikimachine 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreshadow of Japanese invasion in WW2 

message: Was it 38,000 ears or was it 38,000 noses?  There are a number of sites that say noses.  Are they still in Japan or have they been returned to Korea?
Both. Japanese generals were pretty barbaric back then and believed ears and noses were honorable prizes to the emperor
Good friend100 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ears or Noses? 

message: The article protrays a great deal of detail and chronological events, but it would be helpful for readers to understand the odds through PICTURES and MAPS. Also, more references would be helpful. Colonel Marksman 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for images

message: In 1593 General Wakizaka of Japan was beaten by Yi Soon Shin and humiliated. So he was ordered to lead the forces to capture Jinju Fort which was a bridgehead to conquering Chosun. Wakizaka attempted his men to climb over the walls of Jinju Fort, but the garrison commander Hwang Chin led his men bravely by shooting arrows at the incoming japanese, throwing rocks at the climbing japanese and pouring hot water over the japanese. The women and children supplied the soldiers guarding the wall with rocks. After 6 days the seige of Jinju was over and Wakizaka became frustrated and fell back a few miles back. But sadly even though Jinju Fort won and survived its seige, Hwang Chin was dead, he was shot by 2 bullets in the chest and died a day later. He is famous for guarding Jinju Fort well and survivng 2 bullets in the chest when no less man of Chosun could have withstand a single bullet. Hwang Chin was 22 years old when he died. Go search Hwang Chin in the Wikipedia searchbox and you will see a article written by me. 
-KoreanHistorist
thanks. try to use "(~ ~ ~ ~)" (w/o spaces) (Wikimachine 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jinju Fort 

message: I don't see any mention here about the numerous Koreans (mostly slaves and lower classes) who joined the Japanese to fight against Joseon?  I'm no expert on the matter, but Jinju's National Museum mentioned this despite their otherwise extremely jingoistic tone, so I can only presume there's some truth to the matter. Jpatokal 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably there were some. (Wikimachine 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koreans fighting on the Japanese side? 

message: "In a couple of hours, Busan and Tadaejin fell."
As far as I remember, Busan fell the next day at dawn when the Japanese destroyed the gate and rushed in. Isn't that right? Thanks. I can't find the battle details right now. (Wikimachine 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...maybe Tadaejin fell in a couple of hours since it was a medium sized castle with a small garrison. Busan probably took a longer time to fall but I don't think it took over a day get captured. Good friend100 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Seoul was undefended. It was empty because King Seonjo fled to Pyongyang the day before. There were no soldiers defending Seoul (what a shame...) Good friend100 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of Busan and Seoul

message: from a cursory search, i can't find any major sources that refer to this war as "seven year war."  the far more common name seems to be "imjin war," unless i missed something obvious? Appleby 21:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bought a game that was titled "Seven-Year War". That was around 1998. We ought to keep "Imjin" in redirects. (Wikimachine 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: True you are correct. But we should make a section in the article about what it means. also we should put the Korean (임진왜란), Chinese, and Japanese way of saying it. Good friend100 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to second what "Goodfriend" has said. We ought to include a section on what the war is called in Korean, Japanese, and Chinese, if for no other reason than because it is interesting. However, I would like to point out that just because Google has trouble distinguishing the Seven-Year War and the Seven Years' War, it doesn't mean that "Seven-Year War" has no merit or validity as a name for this conflict. LordAmeth 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the Imjin War (Korean: Imjin Waeran) or the Bunroku Campaign (Japanese: Bunroku no RanEki) only refers to the first invasion and the Jeongyu War (Jeongyu Jaeran) or the Keicho Campaign (Keicho no RanEki) refers to the second? "Seven-Year War" is better because it includes both. "Japanese invasions of Korea" (a la Mongol invasions of Korea and Mongol invasions of Japan) might be a good name as well. --Kusunose 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While we are discussing, I suggst reverting to the "Seven-Year War". It may be ambiguous but more accurate than "Imjin War". --Kusunose 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 1. It may be confusing but it is accurate and commonly used term. Searching '"Seven-Year  War" Korea' (excluding "wikipedia" of course) outnumbers "Imjin War" . We just need disambiguation. 2. This is English Wikipedia. How common in Korean has less importance than the English usage.  3. Sorry, I erred Japanese terms. And to clarify, I'm not proposing Japanese terms as the page title. --Kusunose 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest that the article should be kept as "Imjin War" First, the "Seven Year War" can be confusing with the one in Europe and Imjin War sounds more interesting (in my opinion). Good friend100 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I change my stance. This would be unfair to any Japanese, seeing that the article's name is in Korean. (Wikimachine 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Appleby. Plus the war is a bigger part of Korean history and it took place eintirely in Korea. Good friend100 13:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: Somebody seriously needs to stop editing this article without thinking.
There is a entire paragraph in the "Chinese Intervention" section describing a battle.
This is the article about the Seven Year War! Not about a single battle. Battles can be described in the battle articles at the end of the article.
Also, some users do not revise their work. I have just completed a bunch of grammer problems
in the article. People!!!! Revising an article is to make it better, not make it worse. 
Please discuss anything in the discussion page. Good friend100 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing issues

message: I just finished rewriting the entire section of the "Second Invasion" It took me a while but i think it made the article a whole lot better. I still need some help for editing the "Siege of Ulsan" article and the "Sacheon" article, both from the Second Invasion.
Also, I need some help on reorganizing the structure of the article itself. 
Thanks guys Good friend100 04:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some help 

message: This article is getting very long, and therefore should likely be split into two or more articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say it's all right. Good suggestion though. We are all aiming to make this into a featured article, and all featured articles are long. (Wikimachine 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, featured articles are generally longer, but they are not wordy. There's a difference between having a long article that is clearly formatted and full of good information, and an article that is just long. This one is just long and needs some tightening up in ordeer to have a chance at FA status. It will take a little work, but I think you can do it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I disagree removing the "Battles of Imjin War". This article is about a war, and battleas are the most important part of the war because everything happened around them. Good friend100 18:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But the main article does not have headings for all the battles during the war. There are no naval battles in the article either. This is where I am worried about the structure of the article. We cannot write captions of all the battles but we cannot leave out any battles either. Also, we need to discuss what Korean/Japanese citizens were doing, or modern portrayals, etc etc. The article only contains several battles. Also, we must remember that the list of battles are still incomplete. We need articles on Battle of Hwangsoksan, Battle of Pyokje, Battle of Uiryong, etc etc. The timeline is incomplete as well. Good friend100 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you on the increasing length of the article. I also agree with creating a separate page. But the link to the timeline and battles should be very clear, because, in my opinion, the timeline and battles are the most important about the article. The timeline helps the reader understand the flow of the war. Good friend100 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article

message: Thanks again for editing the article. I think the most important thing is to reorganize the entire structure of the article. When I read through the article, it was hard to understand the flow of the war through 1592-1598. We need more dates and we need to arrange the article a little more chronologically as well. 
We need to edit the article. It looks complete because I just finished adding the "Second Invasion" section but it is severely incomplete. The structure of the article is messy and the article itself is not very smooth like other articles. 
The best part of the article is the beginning section of the article with descriptions of the Korean and Japanese armies and war preparations so I don't think we need to really concentrate on that section.
Good friend100 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: The picture is better than the one before but it can do better because we only get to see one side of a Korean soldier. Is there anyone that can get a good picture of a frontal picture? thanks. Good friend100 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean soldier 

message: There's a comparison of the Korean army w/ Japanese army and then at the bottom of the article is a list of weapons used by the two forces.
I think it's a little too repetitive. (Wikimachine 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No i disagree. Admiral Yi greatly influenced the course of the Imjin War. Information about Admiral Yi is important. Good friend100 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your effort in making the timeline. But I think that who's important is based on perspective. Japanese could write about Toyotomi Hideyoshi or other Japanese generals as well into the war. Admiral Yi's life includes events before the war as well. Events in the war -aren't they battles or important political decisions? (Wikimachine 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 2 sections

message: Hey guys. I would like to comment that there's a tendency among the Wikipedians here to make this article like a... movie or a story.
And it sounds too POV. There are too many junks like
"Koreans fought bravely..."
"capturing Seoul was now imminent..."
"Admiral Yi is a symbol of great pride for Koreans..."
Let's state the fact clean and move on. Right? Thanks. (Wikimachine 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, the tone of the article is not formal. We need to write in a more formal tone because this is an article in an encyclopedia, not a script for story-telling to little 6 year olds. Good friend100 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to all Wikipedians 

message: The section about Japanese Naval Retreat discusses how Chen Lin was assigned to lead the Chinese forces.
But in the Chen Lin article, it shows that the person lived around the Three Kingdoms Period.
We're totally anachronistic here. I don't think it was Chen Lin. Does anybody know about this extensively? Thanks. (Wikimachine 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has trouble finding true facts. I found a picture for Li Rusong and that picture was really a picture of Admiral Yi Sun-sin. It really annoys me to find that users are writing down false information about an article. Good friend100 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 error detected 

message: At the top of the discussion page, it shows that the Imjin War is part of Wikipedia's Military history project. But how come it doesn't have a rating on its quality and importance? Does anybody know who rates the article? thanks Good friend100 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings