Talk:Yi Sun-sin

message: I swear, Wikipedia should make users take a simple spelling test before they're allowed to edit pages. Capitalize proper nouns, people's names. Learn the difference between past and present tense and proofread your edit before you submit it. Simple things could do wonders for these kinds of issues in articles.
By the way, if you're not sure about something, don't mess with it. Share your views on here and discuss it.ShihoMiyano (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little clean up on the article today.  I hope it meets with everyone's approval.  It seems that large sections of the text were written, relatively well, by a non-native speaker, or by someone translating from (presumably) Korean.   There are a lot of the same grammar and style issues all over the text. --Be gottlieb (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling and Grammar Issues 

message: I think we need to make a simple standard way to transliterate korean into english. The system used currently is confusing and unnecessary. The "oo" sound, for example, needs to be agreed on as to whether it's written as "oo" or "u" and the "uh" sound as "eo" or (if "oo" is written as "oo"), "u".ShihoMiyano (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "He was praised by the king personally and was given many honors." I deleted this in the "Legacy" part of the page because it is very contradictory to what is known, Correct me if I'm wrong, but King Seonjo did not favor Yi Soon Shin and his titles/honors were awarded after he died. ShihoMiyano (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever screwed with the article around the Battle of Myeongnyang, I hate you.ShihoMiyano (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there are quite a few unsubstantiated claims made in this article. I tagged one 'citation needed', but there are plenty others.--Be gottlieb (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise Page 

message: There have been a number of unexplained edits made to this and related articles by User:Kkkiii (contributions). In particular I point to this edit, which left the article to suggest that Yi Sun-sin died three days before he was mortally wounded. I'm not familiar with this subject myself but the user seems to have a history of these sort of edits so I would ask those with more knowledge here to keep an eye on the article. Flowerparty talk 13:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't start talking emotional. We are here to discuss the article on Admiral Yi. Also, Japanese war crimes are already known throughout the world and we all know they can't hide it. Good friend100 02:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained edits 

message: I’m not attached to any particular romanization, but the naming should at least be consistent.  Reading an article about Yi/Lee Soon/Sun[-][ ]Sin/sin/Shin/shin is confusing.  So if you change his transliteration, please change it throughout the article.  Thanks.
crism 22:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the references to Yi Sun-sin that weren't in quotation marks, or in the title of a book or movie to the spelling suggested by the title, for consistency.  It might be a good idea to put a note a the beginning of the article to explain... something like Yi Sun-sin's name has been spelled in a variety of ways, for the purposed of this article, the spelling Yi Sun-sin is used because...--Kewp 05:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...because what? McCune-Reischauer (1939) strongly discourages setting a hyphen between syllables of name, and "Sunsin" is not ambiguous in terms of orthography and pronunciation. – Wikipeditor 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Lee is Chinese pronunciation of Yi. Right? Koreans pronounce the name as Ii Suun Sin , but to fit it into English language, they spelled it Yi Sun Sin.
(Wikimachine 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Lee, Rhee, and Yi are Korean and Li is the Chinese equivalent
Good friend100 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, by far, Google gives the most hits for "Yi Soon Shin". And that's basically how it's pronounced in english. You really can't make a mistake pronouncing it when it's spelled like that. Except if you say "yee" instead of "ee". ShihoMiyano (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent naming 

message: I've removed the passage in the intro that goes something like "His Battle of Hansando is one of the top four ranked battles in naval history."  There had been a citation needed tag there hanging for weeks, and no one seem to be interested in providing the citation.  But I'd argue that even if there is a source cited, this kind of statement is obviously subjective by nature and should not be refered as a fact.  And anyway it wouldn't belong in the intro anyway.  If whoever really want it to stay, put it in the the section about the battle of Hansando, along the line of "so and so has ranked it among the top four battles in naval history."  Uly 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top four ranking battle

message: 3 to a stern, 6 to a side, and 2 at the bow?
ridiculous. it was 2 to the stern, 2 to the bow, and 11 to each side.
i've posted the evidence. (Wikimachine 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  # of cannons. 

message: It's instereting to find that in this article there is no mention of China and Chinese navy. Chinese navy fought a lots with Japanese along with Korean navy. For example, in the battle on Nov. 19, 1598, Chinese navy sent out a fleet of 450 battleships, larger than Admiral Yi's fleet. The commander in chief of the China-Korea fleet is Chinese Admiral Chen Lin instead of Admiral Yi. And another Chinese Admiral Deng died too during this battle. But if you read this article, you will find that there is no contribution of Chinese at all!
::Well you should check the Battle of Noryang article. Chen Lin, even with all these ships, sailed straight into danger and had to be rescued by Yi Soon Shin's flagship more than once. He even told his soldiers to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy. Personally, I think he's hardly better than Won Gyun, except for the fact that he, argueably, respected Admiral Yi. If you think about it, do you think the Chinese would leave the command of such a big fleet to a smaller state? I doubt they'd follow Admiral Yi's orders even if he was the commander-in-chief.ShihoMiyano (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello everyone. I made a lot of changes for Admiral Yi (check the history). I have just realized that you are right! The reason why I did not write in China's part in his story because I solely wanted to concentrate about him and his victories and his part in the Seven Year War. If you want to read more about China's part of the Seven Year War, I am planning to revise the entire article of the Seven Year War. Check it out in about a week and I will fill in China's part. --Good friend100 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's right. This is about Admiral Yi. China's role in the war should be under the Seven Year War article. (Wikimachine 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to refute your arguments because they are all true, no doubt, but your position is too biased. Feel free to write as you wish, but respect others. Oyo321 03:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese role

message: Just like in the Turtle Ship article, this is stained with commercial ads. I mean, who cares about the modern depiction of this prominent historical figure in a movie called Chungoon and display the picture?
Let's try to be professional. Look at Japanese historical figure- articles.
They are not stained with games and movies. They pertain to the historical figures themselves.
Anyone interested in this cleanup ought to read what I posted on the discussion for the Turtle Ship article.
Thanks? Don't you all agree? (Wikimachine 22:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Cleanup 

message: Look WikkiMachine or w/e. The Chinese or Ming barely did anything except just sit there in Chosun and get grains from the poor farmers. And WHAT THE HECK 450 BATTLESHIPS?! Those are lies Ming sent only maybe between 50-100 ships but 450? LOL. Here we go again Chinese getting credit because China is larger than Korea and Japanese getting all the credit because...what, because they have "cool" samurais? WikkiMachine i strongly disagree that China didnt even help Chosun at all. And all they did was conspire with the Japanese so they can get gold. Go watch Yi Soon Shin on WYBE. Theres a drama about "The Seven Year War" and what i see is lazy Ming officers doing nothing and chase Chosunese women. All Ming did was to discredit Yi Soon Shin AND conspire with the Japanese and get in the way of Chosun. I say again WikkiMachine i strongly disagree AND wherever you get these stories i strongly suggest that you look somewhere else. -KoreanHistorist
OMG are you actually citing a friggin MOVIE as reference. Now I'm not predisposed against any side (I'm half Chinese btw, getting that out of the way) but I want to see some proper and at least more credible reference apart from a movie that is obviously SUBJECTIVE. Whodhellknew 02:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to second that. Ming navy, though, small as it may be, did offer more help than the Ming army, which pretty much took advantage of Chosun's pitiful plight to suck up a lot of money. So I have to agree with Koreanhistorist, and everything he says is true-except that a reference to a Korean Imjin War drama isn't liable to be credible evidence. Oyo321 03:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHINESE ROLE 

message: Um, I don't know how we will edit this if a compromise is settled, but WHAT IS YI??? Thats a totally chinese name. There is no such name in Korean. Why can't we change the names to "Ii" or Lee??? This is very disturbing, and I'm not tolerating the fact that Ii Sun shin is spelled with a chinese character as his surname. Somebody help me work on it or start a poll. Oyo321 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the name "Yi" is stuck and it might be comfusing if it was "E Sun-shin". I really don't like Yi because its so chinese. Good friend100 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should begin a poll. Its incorrect historically and lingusitically. I propose we change his name to "Ii Sun Shin," or "Lee Sun Shin." If today's Lee is the equivalent to his name, then it should be the same for "Yi" Sun Shin. Oyo321 23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Polls are irrelevant.  Please see the [Wikipedia Korean Naming Conventions]. Komdori 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yi(이), according to the korean alphabet, is pronounced the same way as you would say the english letter "E". For whatever reason, it can be spelled "Yi" or "Lee", but the spelling of the name is usually up to the individual. Of course, we can't go and ask the admiral himself, but it is widely accepted that the spelling be "Yi". Yi may sound foreign, but the fact is, many people can't differentiate between asian cultures; their first guess will likely always be Chinese. His first name, however, should be written either as "Soon-shin" or "Sun-shin", not "Sun-sin", for obvious pronunciation reasons. Be reasonable, we can't change someone's name just because someone doesn't like how it's spelled. ShihoMiyano (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yi Equals China name

message: Togo Heihachiro? As in General Togo of Japan during WWII? I have never heard of Heihachiro, nonetheless compared to Admiral Yi. His article on Wikipedia doesn't even mention Admiral Yi. Heihachiro's place seems to be written in to show how "tactical Japanese commanders can be". Its inappropiate, especially for an admiral who killed Japanese soldiers, to be compared by a Japanese commander.
Even with a source, I believe that the comparison is not widely known and Nelson's comparison is the best, since both their strategic capabilities and similiar death are good reasons. I don't think that Heihachiro has a strong comparison or likeness to Admiral Yi other than they were both skilled at strategy. I deleted Heihachiro from the first paragraph because of hte above reasons. Good friend100 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're confusing Togo Heihachiro of Battle of Tsushima fame, with Hideki Tojo aka the WWII PM of Japan/General of the Imperial Armies.  Other than that, I'm sort of dubious about the whole "his military exploits is often compared to other famous admirals" part of the article, since it's unreferenced, and doesn't say who does the comparing, nor for what they're compared.  (Nor, by the way, does the article on Nelson compare him to Yi.)  --Zonath 21:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I didn't know there were two people with the name of "Togo". I deleted the section about him. Good friend100 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have seen such comparisons, but it's usually done by people who are trying to introduce the character to people who know other admirals of similar strategy.  Togo and Nelson are compared a lot, so as he's similar to one it explains why some compare him to the other.  Zonath--I think you're right, though, about the comparison section--I don't feel it adds a lot, and perhaps could be eliminated--or maybe converted into links at the bottom in the "see also." Would that be too odd? LactoseTI 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm personally of the idea that this whole article deserves a thorough rewrite to remove or rephrase some obviously problematic language.  I'd drop in a  tag, but I'd really like to start discussing improvements here before outsourcing the job to someone else.  As for the Nelson reference -- I don't think dropping it altogether would necessarily be a bad thing.  After all, the article mentions that Yi Sun-shin is an admiral -- inviting comparisons to other admirals just leads off into POV-land.  I say drop the reference altogether rather than placing a link to Nelson's article into the 'see also' section -- that's what Category:Admirals is for.  We could also drop in Category:Killed in action for good measure. --ZonathYak 09:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me.  Having such a comparison in there also seems to invite others to add even more comparisons, even if it's a rare or "one time" comparison done somewhere. LactoseTI 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heihachiro 

message: After an extensive period of research, I have determined The turtle ship is in fact, the first ironclad warship in world history. There is no tangible record in any other historical accounts, besides in the "Nanjungilgi" , "seonjo sillok", and other books I have yet to read. The Earliest dated Ironclad vessel dates 1592, which is the legendary turtle ship, constructed during the joseon regime. The ridiculous nonsense of an ironclad O atake-bune, is a false claim. The "Nihon maru", the only O-atake bune at that time, built by warlord guki Yoshitaka as a gift to hideyoshi, was armed with an Iron head to ram into enemy vessels, but that relating to an ironclad plating is highly Irrelevant.  There was a certain vessel dating 1608 feudal Japan, which was an encased refit of the "kobaya" , that probably gave rise to the Japanese claim that they had created an ironclad vessel before the Koreans did. 
As much of the world regards the C.S.S Virginia and the U.S.S Monitor as the first ironclad vessels, most do know in fact, they were actually wooden frigates plated with iron only on the TOP. 
Should those vessels be regarded as Ironclads The geobuksun, or "turtle-ship", deserves the title as an Ironclad vessel.
If there is any error in my part, please give me some correspondence titled EDWARD.
::Thanks for your input. I agree totally. (Wikimachine 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ironclad" 

message: I was looking around in a Korean bookstore the other day , and I saw this book about the turtle ship. It was this elaborate black book with a picture of an oversized turtleship.
My computer does not have Korean text, so..
geobukson sinhwa easo yeoksaro by kim jung jin and nam kyung wan
Thanks for your recommendation. Is it in a Korean book store? (Wikimachine 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys need to read this book!!!!! 

message: I've noticed that there's no Wikipedia entry for Yi Sun-sin's friend, Minister Yu Seong-ryong. Can someone start a stub at least?
hes not important. screw that politician.
This anonymous user should apologize. (Wikimachine 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yu Seong-ryong?

message: what happened to the picture of Admiral Yi? Good friend100 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed by a vandal. It's now restored. --Kusunose 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh no 

message: Recently, while browsing through the Chosun Ilbo, I discovered an article with significant proof implying that King Sunjo, after hearing of Admiral Ii's death, supposedly did not show any reaction whatsoever. According to the books of government recorders, King Sunjo did not seem to care about Admiral Ii Sun Shin untimely death. This is reinforced by his horrible distrust and torture of Admiral Ii. 
There should be an article on it, and I have inserted it. It is important for us to know that Korean governments in history have always had some loser conspiring and hating those who have accomplished so much. Factional fighting continues today. Oyo321 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's either because the Western faction(political faction) convinced the king that Yi Soon Shin sought his throne or because the king grew suspicious of Admiral Yi due to his popularity with the common people. Recall that he did leave his palace and his people in order to save his life. ShihoMiyano (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: King Sunjo the grateful one

message: I am also noting more and more references to the "Immortal Ii Sun Shin" drama. It is NOT an asset or resource to true history. There are MAJOR FLAWS in the drama, and it proves nothing, except the commercial value and the satisfaction of the audience, neither of which was fully achieved. Immortal Ii Sun Shin holds no true facts, and I will delete pathetic references to it immediately.
IMO, the drama was a typical failed Korean drama-dragged out and long, poor graphics, and terrible flow and historical truth. It was very dramatized, unable to achieve any great recognition. Oyo321 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Korean navy actually wore varieties of colors of uniforms, depending on province. the eastern army wore blue, the western army wore white, the north army wore black, and south red. The capital's army wore yellow. I am pretty sure the navy went by these standards. Those blue guys with the water symbols on their chests are fake, or at least i think it is.Odst 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False Depiction

message: Its either Yi or Lee. Li is Chinese. Admiral Yi is not Chinese. He is Korean. Good friend100 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I'd argue to spell his first name as Soon-shin or Sun-shin, just not Sun-sin. ShihoMiyano (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Admiral Yi

message: Its Yi Sun-sin 
we need to keep this article consistent with all the other articles on Korean people. Good friend100 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the move was done by cut and paste so I have requested a history merge by using . After its completion, let us move this article by usual procedure (WP:RM). --Kusunose 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv move 

message: I history-merged from Yi Sun-sin as asked. Anthony Appleyard 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly why did you history merge when we are going to move the page back to Yi Sun-sin? (Wikimachine 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On 14 October 2006, annon cut-and-pasted form Yi Sun-sin to Yi sunsin (this article), I asked a history merge as I thought we should merge history before renaming this article to prevent further mess. Now that the discrepancy of article name and talk page name is fixed and the edit history is in the single page, moving this page is less complicated than before. --Kusunose 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: we should request a formal move back to Yi Sun-sin. Good friend100 01:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history-merge 

message: There it says that Yi Soon-shin's sword lies in a museum with a picture, but it's hard to believe considering forums don't make convincing references. And I remember a rumor about his sword being really long, possibly 5-6 feet.
ShihoMiyano (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I was recently at the National War Memorial Museum (in Seoul) and I do seem to remember several long swords there (several, sorry don't recall whose).  They may not be genuine, and if so it seems improbable that they were ever used in actual battle.  Koreans are passionate about big things being easily handled by their ancestors.  I wish I could remember the tale about a southern King who used a 6 foot dolmen for throwing practice... seems like a Paul Bunyun-like story. Darkpoet (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I checked, Yi Sun-shin's swords (he used a pair) were said to be larger than normal (maybe not 5-6 feet, but probably something closer to 4.5-5 feet in blade length), but I was also informed that the actual swords had been lost (or stolen). Any exhibit claiming to show Admiral Yi's swords may in fact be displaying replicas. And don't make generalizations about entire nationalities (e.g. "Koreans are this or that"), as it tends to discredit your own perspective (rightfully or wrongfully).Ecthelion83 (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently visited the Hyeonchungsa (Yi Sun Shin memorial shrine in Asan, Korea). The museum there had two swords (treasure no. 326), each measuring just a bit over 6' (195cm) according to the museum, which seems about right from eyeballing it. They looked identical to those pictured in the forum post mentioned above. The museum claimed the swords were authentically his, rather than replicas, but went on to speculate "it seems the sword was made for his spiritual training rather than actual use in battles." Anyway, I don't see any reason to mention the swords in the article, but I thought I'd post the info in case anyone was interested in the identity of the mystery museum. (Or at least the museum they're in now.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.204.51.226 (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yi Soon-shin's Sword 

message: I added another section explaining Admiral Yi's death and the final battle at Noryang Straits because I thought that it should be known why Admiral Yi went into that battle and, of course, how he died. Also to let others know that his 13 ships had grown to 82. There might be things that could be worded better, so if you can, word it better.
Also, I've been correcting grammar, spelling, and other inconsistencies in the article as well.
ShihoMiyano (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Final Battle And Yi Soon Shin's death 

message: Could we decide on using either Joseon or Korea in the article? I think it'd be better to use Joseon in terms of accuracy.
ShihoMiyano (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for Joseon--except if one wanted to actually say something like "modern day Korea" in reference to a particular place. Geeman (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried my best to change it in the first few sections, but some are really hard to exchange, like, when it says "koreans", I don't know how to change it unless "joseonese" works.ShihoMiyano (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea or Joseon? 

message: I have added a sentence at the end of the section mentioning the Liancourt Rocks dispute mentioning the fact that this dispute is ongoing and added a link to the dispute page.  I refrained from revising the sentence which caused me to make the revision.  If someone with a more experience in Wikipedia politics and wording would like to merge the two sentences into a single NPOV sentence it would be greatly appreciated. Mamechishiki (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV for Liancourt Rocks dispute 

message: I do believe that's very necessary. A huge long article like this with a total of 11 citations (mostly from two sources). That doesn't speak very much for the article's credibility.
I would flag it but I don't know how :( ParallelPain (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone flag this article for not enough citation 

message: Someone please set up archiving for this discussion page, it is way too long, and a lot of discussions ceased years ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Be gottlieb (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive this discussion page! 

message: I know this has been mentioned a few times indirectly, but I'm not sure if you can change the title, but that would be great, because technically his name is Yi Sun-Shin not sin. I don't know who made it Sin, but that is wrong. Also, it would be great to change it as many times as possible throughout the article.  Yisoonshin12 (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: I am a Korean for clarification. I usually don't do any wiki editing(this is my first time), but Admiral Yi my most admired figure. And upon reading this article, I found how one-sided the article is.
If you happen to come across the initial version of this article written before 2005, it does make you puke over the nationalistic views lurking all over it. At least current version is more fair than the first one.
Anyway, just few points... Please do NOT edit this article if you have no freaking clue of what you are talking about! All you do by over-praising Yi is disgracing his name!
1. 戰方急 愼勿言我死 Yi's last will.
How the hell is is interpreted as "We are about to win the war -- wear my armor and keep beating the war drums. Do not announce my death."?
Who was this smart idiot that came up with his own version of the admiral's will?
It is translated as, "the battle is at its height. do not announce my death.(direct translation: the battle is pressing. be cautious not to announce my death)"
Beat the drum? wear my armor? OTL don't make me laugh.
"今臣戰船尙有十二 出死力拒戰則猶可爲也, 戰船雖寡 微臣不死則不敢侮我矣."
'...I still own thirteen ships, therefore, as long as I am alive, the enemy shall never be safe in the Western Sea'
Hello? Can you read numbers? He says 12. Not 13. And yellow is not mentioned in this context. (If I recall correctly, it's perhaps in other sentence.)
In Korean, it's often quoted as "I still have twelve battleships, and I'm still alive.(or your humble servant still lives.)"
2. In full translation, it should be "I still have twelve battleships. If we fight to death, we will defend the enemy. Although our numbers are small, the enemy will not take us lightly as long as I'm alive."
I suck at English, so someone with proper English please translate it correctly. I will just edit the number.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.20.182 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points. and the article is biased in Korea's favor 

message: This aprt of the text is ridiculous and insulting  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.67.7 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  " He ate Cheetos". Really?   

message: This article deserves nomination for the "my dick is bigger than yours" award. Why? The entire article literally reeks of overzealous nationalist sentiment and a strong desire to prove Yi against other, arguably more distinguished generals. For instance the legacy section is peppered with supposed quotes of praise from RN and IJN, but it makes no attempt to verify those claims. For all I care, I could say it here now that Yi invented naval warfare and I'm sure those ferverent Korean nationalists would give me the seal of approval...
It's just so sad that English wikipedia has simply become a playground for the Korean nationalists. I can't visit a single Japanese or Chinese related article without some Korean claiming some absurd "fact". Go to a page about Imjin War and there's some random "facts" about Chinese and Japanese atrocities. Go to Katana and there's some Korean claiming that katanas are Korean technology. Go to an article about Bohai and there are Koreans spewing hatred against China for claiming that Bohai was a vassal (a fact confirmed by Japanese texts). I can go on. My point? When anyone contributes an edit that claims "Japanese looted, raped, cut ears, cut dog heads off, burned villages..." that just seems awfully lopsided. It's the 1500's, people. English were raping, killing, beheading and burning villages, yet strangely claims of such are required to provide proof while this Korean one gets a free pass without sources.
Why isn't Wikipedia doing more to stop these baseless claims? Even more worrisome is why Wikipedia community isn't doing more to counter these aggressive nationalists. NPOV exists here for that exact reason.
24.52.233.220 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could try identifying specific problems, citing sources, and drafting improvements instead of going on bizarre xenophobic rants about phantom "Korean nationalists." 174.21.85.231 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world is wrong with you people? There is no issue with neutrality, so I will remove the template above the article. Admiral Yi has indeed been compared to Napoleon and Horatio Nelson by Japanese and Western historians as well as Admiral Togo. Read the legacy section please. All claims are cited (aka Samuel Hawley). (Chunbum Park (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an article! 

message: This line in the First Campaign section seems unnecessarily dramatic. --Slowlikemolasses (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "But this was all about to change." 

message: Change the link that says Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks to reflect the WP:NPOV about sovereignty dispute in the article title.
Smells like kim chee (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I resolved it, not by changing it (that would use the same name twice in a single line), but by rewording the sentence in question.  "Liancourt Rocks" is now the only term used in this section.  Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 25 October 2012 

message: That is why he is respected because the unchanging allegiance to the country despite the the situation baekuijong groups.
SHOULD BE
That is why he is respected because the unchanging allegiance to the country despite the situation with the baekuijong groups.
24.214.23.189 (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Sentence removed per next edit request. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 29 April 2013 

message: Additional request, remove "That is why he is respected because the unchanging allegiance to the country despite the the situation baekuijong groups." which is not in correct English, has an undefined word, adds nothing to the article, and doesn't follow the form of the paragraph it ends (sentence is near top).
68.113.126.251 (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 04:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 2 on 29 April 2013 

message: Much of the article at the moment simply does not qualify as neutral. Examples:
# The first section of Japanese Invasions of Korea (1592–1598) references no sources, yet makes statements such as "In some records, it is stated that he went as far as to personally fulfill some of his soldiers' dying wishes. He demonstrated his loyalty to the people by treating them with respect and fighting amongst them even when endangered. Because of this, Admiral Yi became immensely popular among his soldiers and the Korean people, who often provided him with intelligence reports at great risk to themselves."
# Later section on turtle ships: "One of Yi's greatest accomplishments was resurrecting and improving the turtle ship (거북선; 龜船). With his creative mind and the support of his subordinates, Yi was able to devise the geobukseon, or Turtle Ship. Contrary to popular belief, the turtle ship was not actually invented by Admiral Yi; rather, he improved upon an older design that had been suggested during the reign of King Taejong." This not only references no sources (who said resurrecting and improving the turtle ship is 'great'?), it also uses the non-neutral phrase, 'with his creative mind and the support of his subordinates ...'. This line is not necessary to the narrative; its inclusion is POV.
# Here's another example from the section of the Battle of Myeongnyang: "The Japanese assumed that this was a Joseon scouting ship and the pursuing it would lead to the location of Admiral Yi, giving them an opportunity to destroy the courageous admiral and the remnants of the Joseon fleet." The description '... destroy the courageous admiral' is also unnecessary and POV. If the Japanese were headhunting Admiral Yi, then the word 'courageous' can be deleted; if (as common sense implies is more likely) they simply wanted to destroy the rest of the Joseon fleet, then the sentence could be written as '... destroy the remnants of the Joseon fleet'.
I understand that Admiral Yi is a great Korean hero, but articles on such people still have to be neutral, see e.g. the article on the Turkish national hero, Mustafa Kemal Atartuk. Since the wording of the text on this page is not neutral (and not in encyclopedic tone to boot), I'm tagging for NPOV. Banedon (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV July 2013 

message: Please Change 
"...Commander-in-Chief (도원수; 導元帥) of the Joseon military, who in, turn sent the message to King Seonjo. King Seonjo,..." 
to
"...Commander-in-Chief (도원수; 導元帥) of the Joseon military, who, in turn, sent the message to King Seonjo. King Seonjo,..."
Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_turn
165.91.237.107 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of "In turn" 

message: I think in the translated poem, "as I've sit on the watch-tower awhile" should be "as I've sat on the watch-tower awhile". The former is ungrammatical. But I don't want to change it myself without being sure. Oconnor663 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  poem translation error? 

message: Under the section "First Campaign," please remove the last sentence of the first paragraph "But this was all about to change."  It is unnecessary and compromises the article's encyclopedic tone.
Nodrokov (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Stickee (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015 

message: Yi Sun Shin profile picture is wrong. That profile picture is not Yi Sun Shin.
https://www.google.com/search?q=portrait+of+yi+sun+shin&biw=1536&bih=748&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI37K8ztjFyAIVCjQ-Ch2V1QI5#tbm=isch&q=Yi+Sun+Shin&imgdii=zOBWIcYhsQrs6M%3A%3BzOBWIcYhsQrs6M%3A%3BERFzaf3aulsk-M%3A&imgrc=zOBWIcYhsQrs6M%3A
You should add this image as a profile.
We can also upload drama image of Yi Sun Shin
https://www.google.com/search?q=portrait+of+yi+sun+shin&biw=1536&bih=748&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI37K8ztjFyAIVCjQ-Ch2V1QI5#tbm=isch&q=%EB%B6%88%EB%A9%B8%EC%9D%98+%EC%9D%B4%EC%88%9C%EC%8B%A0&imgrc=VO-eXw4Y9PMxWM%3A  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klee146 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2015 

message: Please delete the parts of the section on Battle of Myeongnyang as it factualizes certain aspects of the battle that has no proof/is being disputed. 
1. 
   "Myeongnyang Strait had currents so powerful that ships could only enter safely one by one, of which the Japanese were unaware."
*The strait is 292m across at the narrowest point. The record of the battle itself in the Admiral's journal describes multiple warships engaged in battle and entire Joseon navy making a all out offense near the end of the battle. Unless a evidence can be provided, it appears "ships could only enter safely one by one" is a vast exaggeration by whoever first wrote the article.
*Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myeongnyang#Second_phase_.28south_flowing_current.29
2. 
   "The strait was sufficiently narrow that steel defensive chains could be laid across its entire width, which Admiral Yi could use to restrict the Japanese fleet's movements."
   "The steel chains were tightened to restrict movement of the Japanese ships, and the Japanese found themselves unable to fight effectively against the superior Joseon archers and cannoneers."
*The usage of chains across the strait is under much dispute, and as a matter of fact, it is mostly regarded to be a fiction now a days. The earliest records that claim chains were used to trap the Japanese navy against the current are dated 150 years AFTER the battle. In contrast, the records from those who lived through the war (including the journal of Admiral Yi himself which contains very detailed records of the battle) mentions nothing of chains. 
*Additionaly, the above claim "The strait was sufficiently narrow" is a vast understatement.
#The strait is 293m across at the narrowest point - considering the chains had to be installed securely on either ends, the chain would had to be WELL OVER 300m. The chain would have to be not only be 300m+ in length, but also THICK, STRONG chains that would not snap against pressure of a large bulk of Japanese navy being swept against it by strong currents. It is very unlikely that 300m+ of chains of such specification/limited usage would been avaiable for collection on demand in 1500s Korea - and it is equally unlikely Joseon Navy would've been able to collect such a large amount of metal and forge the chains of required specification in time. 
#Not only the chain itself, the either end of the chain also had to be VERY securely fixed to hold against the massive force being applying against it by the Japanese fleet. This is not a small operation, especially if you consider this took place in 1500s. The Admiral Yi's own journal states the decision to make a stand at the strait was made on 15th of September 1597, and he relocated his base from Byeokpa to Jeonra Woosooyeong. This is THE DAY BEFORE THE BATTLE. Which sugguests even if Adrmiral Yi had to prepared the steel chains of sufficient length and durability without even deciding where the battle would be held, he still had to carry out the operation of secreuly installing the chain across the strait, relocating his forces to a new base and preparing for the battle in ONE DAY.
*Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myeongnyang#Chain_or_iron_rope_across_the_strait
3.
   "The unpredictable current immediately wreaked havoc on the Japanese; many of their ships collided with each other or sank outright while sailing through this strait. And the Japanese ships that made it through were met by 13 Joseon warships obscured by the shadows of the surrounding hills, ready with archer and cannon fire."
*According to the Admiral Yi's journal, the above is NOT an accurate description of the battle. He recorded that his flag ship held the strait on its own at the start of the battle as the other ship commanders were scared and stayed as far as 2km away from the strait. Two more ships eventually joined the battle after the Admiral raised the rallying flag, and the three ships help off the Japanese fleet trying to board them. Witnessing the three ships sink multiple Japanese ships, the rest of the Joseon navy picked up the courage and joined the battle.
*In the journal, there are no mentions of "unpredictable current immediately wreaked havoc on the Japanese" at the start of the battle. If anything, Japanese naval tactics were much focused on boarding the enemy ships - and at the start of the battle the currents were towards the Joseon Navy and would've been only helpful for the Japanese.
4.
   "What they did not know was that they were being lured into a masterfully devised trap."
*If you consider the above points, asides from the fact that the Japanese navy got lured into a narrow strait with strong currents where they could not take advantage of their vastly larger navy, it really isn't much of a "masterfully devised trap." Rather, the admiral Yi himself admitted in his journal that the victory was a "miracle". The above sentence sounds to narrative for a Wiki anyway...
(As a matter of fact, its probably the best if the entire heading got replaced with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myeongnyang.)
Kjl1009 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. As this involves a large removal, I'd rather see a discussion first. Mdann52 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015 

message: Admiral Yi died after a stray bullet was shot.
70.104.136.241 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016 

message: Hello, new editor here so can't make this change myself.
Yi Sun-sin also appears in the historical strategy game Europa Universalis IV (which has its own Wiki page and is as notable as the Civilization series), as an admiral with the highest possible in-game statistics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endcrohns (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cultural/media reference 

message: 112.216.146.130 (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Hello, the article's English spelling comes from the romanization of Korean, that is, the translation from Hangul into the Latin alphabet. I'm not sure which convention was used to arrive at the Sun-sin spelling but I'm sure it is one that is regularly used across Wikipedia. But the proper forum for your request is Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for correcting the spelling 

message: Citation needed under 'Modern depictions' on 'Video games'. The official site with 'yi sun-shin' is here:  https://web.mobilelegends.com/hero/detail-30?country=en Redjenka (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018 

message: Could somebody please clarify (either here or in some article section to which we can wikilink, perhaps with the help of a suitable anchor) what is meant by Left and Right Provincial Navies, for the benefit of those of us readers who are not experts on the 16th century Korean Navy. It also seems to confuse some of our editors here (I assume the current wikilinking of 'Left Jeolla Province' is an instance of this). It especially matters at this time, when the Japanese invasion of Korea article is on our front page. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left and Right Provincial Navies 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lee Soon-shin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 07:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lee Soon-shin" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In this entry, it is stated that Admiral Togo praised Yi Sun-sin. However, the only historic source that exists to back up this claim is a South Korean one. There are no historical Japanese sources that provide concrete proof that Yi Sun-sin was praised by Togo. In Japan, the claim that Togo praised Yi Sun-sin and belittled Admiral Nelson is considered as something that is nothing more than a myth. The Wikipedia entry about Yi Sun-sin is greatly misleading and it contains lots of toxic nationalism and Korean right-winged bias. I would like to request some parts of this Wikipedia article be changed to have more objectivity and less nationalism and speculation. The 2 things that need to be changed immediately are 1.the nationalistic and biased tone of this article and 2.the section that states that Togo praised Yi. Additionally, there is no Japanese evidence to suggest that Yi is looked up to by Japanese people. If Japanese people look up to Yi, then please show a Japanese source that says so, not a South Korean one. Joe Blake1234556 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019 

message: In the section: "Reactions by Joseon government", there is a spelling error in the second paragraph, last sentence. "Materiel" should be spelled "Material". Atthedropofahat (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . See wikt:materiel. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020 

message: 223.62.22.6 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020 

message: During my lecture of this article as old as me, I noticed that in the part "Battle of Myeongnyang" there was a contradiction in the first paragraph:
: Admiral Yi located the 13 warships and rallied the 200 surviving sailors. Together with his flagship, Admiral Yi's entire fleet totaled 13 ships, none of which were turtle ships. In the belief that the Joseon fleet would never be restorable, King Seonjo, sent an edict to Admiral Yi to abandon the warships and take his men to join the ground forces under General Gwon Yul. Admiral Yi responded with a letter written "...your servant still doth have twelve warships under his command and he is still alive, that the enemy shall never be safe in the West Sea (the Yellow Sea being the closest body of water to Hanseong)." Does anyone knows which quantity was it, 12 or 13?
:: Nobody has a clear answer for this. Some say 12 but sone say 13. But it is possible to say 'about 13'
TijuanaHelper22 (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it 12 or 13 warships? 

message: The caption below the drawing of the Admiral gives
the text that is on the drawing, but has 8 characters
while the drawing has 7. The character 陳 has been added.
Could someone explain this?
EinkomischerKauz (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption on Drawing of Admiral 

message: Add Admiral Yi-Sun-Sin's campaign from Empire:Dawn of the Modern World to the video game section
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires:_Dawn_of_the_Modern_World#:~:text=Admiral%20Yi%20Sun-Sin%27s%20defense%20of%20Korea%20against%20Japanese%20invasion%20in%20the%20early%20modern%20period%3B
https://empireearth.fandom.com/wiki/Empires:_Dawn_of_the_Modern_World#:~:text=The%20campaign%20of,Sun-sin%27s%20life.
 Blackwatch94 (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021 

message: This article contains completely inappropriate gushing about Yi, among other problems. Many lines either consciously or unconsciously describe him as "great" and explicitly boast about his fame, charisma, and achievements. I've marked it with a cleanup template but can't help right now. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Gushing

message: Theres one more video game that has yi sun sin as a playable character - Empires Dawn of the Modern World, possibly omitted in the main article 05:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games 

message: It has been said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea that this article is in an horrible state. @User:Toobigtokale. In my opinion the topmost problem is the poor quality of the sourcing. Using a better *set* of sources is a prerequisite for anything else. Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yi_Sun-sin&oldid=1184272416. 
Best regards,  Pldx1 (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Using "duke" to refer to Yi Sun-Sin's posthumous title is incorrect. While the 公(gong) in 忠武公(Chung-mu-gong) does mean duke, attaching the character to a posthumous name would make it have a different meaning. When 公 is attached to a posthumous title, art name, etc., it's just used as an honorific to speak highly of the person given that title (typically either old, high status, or dead). Therefore I think that all references to "Duke Chungmu" should be changed to an alternative, such as "Lord" instead. If no one objects, I will make this change in the next week or so. Eclma01 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Duke Chungmu"