Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 3

message: *Imjin War variations: 1,421
*Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea: 515
*Imjin War without quotes: 34,300 + 800
*Hideyoshi Korea invasion without quotes: 22,200+
(Wikimachine 03:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total

message: Ladies and gentlemen, here is my scientific paper on LactoseTI's many controversies.
When Good friend100 (& I stated this around creation of universe) says that using "Hitler's Invasion...." is bad because "Hideyoshi's" has many negative implications & gives "Hitler's Invasion" as example, LactoseTI says that more important than such implications and personal viewpoints is the commonality of the word. But he doesn't provide his three examples of textbooks that uses the specific term "Hideyoshi's". No. They probably say "Japanese Invasion..." not "Hideyoshi's Adventure 2 for GameCube" (=Yoshi's Island?). And Google web search is completely against him. His life depends on Google Book, which happens to favor "Hideyoshi's" title. But he gives no reason why Google Book should be favored & can't answer my argument on why Google web search should be favored because users of Wikipedia come to web to find information from the web, not books & Google Book is beta & Google Book is systematically biased and doesn't cover all the books. (Wikimachine 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is it

message: *"Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea": 22
*"Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea": 61
*"Hideyoshi's Invasion of Chosun": 0
*"Hideyoshi's Invasions of Chosun": 0
*"Hideyoshi's Invasions of Joseon": 0
*"Hideyoshi's Invasion of Joseon": 0
*"Hideyoshi's Korean Invasion": 2
*"Hideyoshi's Korean Invasions": 3
*"Hideyoshi's Joseon Invasion": 0
*"Hideyoshi's Joseon Inavsions": 0
*"Hideyoshi's Chosun Invasion": 0
*"Hideyoshi's Chosun Invasions": 0
*"Hideyoshi's campaign": 6
*"Hideyoshi's attack": 0
*"Hideyoshi's incursion": 0
*"Imjin War": 191
*"Imjin Waeran": 95
====Total====
*"Imjin War": 286
*"Hideyoshi's Inavsions of Korea": 104
(Wikimachine 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English Only Pages Result With Quotation & -wikipedia & similar results omitted

message: *"Imjin War": 286
*"Hideyoshi's Inavsions of Korea": 104
(Wikimachine 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total

message: *Imjin War: 767
*Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea: 325
(Wikimachine 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Without Quotations

message: How about staying away from the discussion for a week? (Wikimachine 04:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets not. What...what is wrong with this name????? Oyo321 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's Take a Break

message: I think there was an argument over whether to name the page "Imjin Wars" or "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea"... so I moved it back to the older version, Seven-Year Wars".. Seeking to establish consensus if we need to rename the page either way. Deiaemeth 01:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deiaemeth, the move might cool the discussion a small amount, but in the long run, Seven Year War is not the best choice. It had already been decided that Seven Year War wouldnt be used because of several factors including the confusion of the name itself. Good friend100 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But no consensus has been reached. By the way, isn't Deiaemeth an administrator? (Wikimachine 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not move things (especially articles whose move would be as controversial as this) without first reaching consensus. In any case, I do not believe this article was ever before at "Seven-Year Wars" with an "s". It should be at Seven-Year War or Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. LordAmeth 03:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article has been already moved multiple times without consensus from its original title and I understand many editors are mad about that. So I've moved it back to it's original state (extra s was added by mistake, sorry!), to give the editors a fair ground and talk things out a bit. And no, I am not an administrator, and I don't intend to be one. So let's leave it at Seven-Year War for a while, and whether Imjin Wars or Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is better title should be discussed ... I know  Seven Year War is a confusing name, but it will have to do for the time being. Deiaemeth 04:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It had been discussed, gone through a thorough request for comments, and a consensus (per Wikipedia definitions) has been reached.  A couple of users are trying to start a movement for a new consensus, but so far have gained little ground.  Nearly everyone has agreed that Seven-Years War (not wars) is not the best name.  Just because some arguement breaks out doesn't mean to automatically flip to an older version.  Most likely, a straggler or two will (again) bring up this issue of trying for a Korean name in a few months--what then?  Back to the name no one wants again at that time?  —LactoseTIT 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do NOT look down on those who are trying to change the name of this article to its proper name. IMJIN WAR. Not Hideyoshi's Invasion or Seven Years War. I believe Seven Years War is already named after another war out if Asia. And what do you mean, "Korean name?" Then what kind of name should it be, ENGLISH? I'm dying of laughter here. Korea (Josun) suffered a lot in the Imjin War, and impacted Josun psychologically and geographically. Therfore Korea should name this war to her name of choice. And "back to the name that no one wants again..." doesn't make any sense, because I want that name. Oyo321 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that you emotionally want that name, and empathize with you.  However, this is English Wikipedia, and the guidelines here are quite clear--the English name must be used.  If you would like to title an article "Imjin War," I'm sure the policies at Korean Wikipedia are the same, and will allow you to do so. —LactoseTIT 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: LactoseTI, you are ridiculous. Consensus with exception with few users? I was one of the most active users on this article, and you and other JPOV editors took advantage of time while I was inactive. (Wikimachine 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please tone down the rhetoric.  Deteriorating to name calling isn't going to get us anywhere.  If you really try to see what's written on the page, you'll see answers to all of your questions.  Just because one or two books may use a different term in some places, don't set aside the fact that the vast majority use this term, or a variation of it.  There is no conspiracy to detect a moment where you might be missing--there was a RfA, discussion, and everyone agreed that Imjin War is not as likely to be known by English speakers.  Please thoroughly read those sections.  It might also help you find them if you didn't block copy/paste the same arguments repeatedly throughout the page. —LactoseTIT 10:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimachine didn't name call anyone. Oyo321 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying, "[You] are ridiculous," and accusing someone of being a "JPOV editor" are, in fact, two examples of name calling; in any case, that wasn't the main point of my post.  —LactoseTIT 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A couple of users are trying to start a movement for a new consensus, but so far have gained little ground". I think I haven't gone overboard. (Wikimachine 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name? 

message: Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is not the best title. 
It is merely a description that should be used in the first paragraph of this article.
For example, see 
"Gwak Jae-u is one of the most celebrated heroes of the Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea."
"Hideyoshi's Invasions left deep scars in Korea."
It isn't grammatically correct when used in a sentence. It doesn't work. An article of a war repeatedly uses the title of the war every now and then. But this title doesn't even work so that it is hardly used in the article itself. The only time it really appears is in the title, which is wrong. 
And the latter of the two examples can't even include the entire title of the war. I don't understand why when there already is a good title that makes sense, you use this title that isn't even used in books about this war. Good friend100 00:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you make essentially the same post a few times above here?  In any case, the former example is not grammatical only because you have chosen to use odd prepositions and is easily rectified.  Change "of the" to "from," "who participated in," etc.  The latter example is actually grammatical, though no one is suggesting the initial "i" in invasions should be capitalized.  Check out the multitude of fixed links that now link to this page with its entire name.  An acceptable alternative is to give alternative text.  This is what is generally used in difficult to place Wikipedia titles.  There is nothing ungrammatical about using the whole title in the latter case, it's just redundant--a perfect excuse to use the alternative text.  Very many high school texts describe it the way we have shown; also you can see any of the college texts we were discussing earlier.  The fact is the term you like is not used often in the English speaking world (you yourself have admitted this in the past when you were arguing in a different direction).  Do you honestly suggest that the majority of English speakers are more likely to know "Imjin War" than "Hideyoshi's invasions"? —LactoseTIT 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you honestly suggest that the majority of the world's english speakers actually KNOW about the Imjin War (excluding Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese)? Oyo321 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the majority have heard mention of it in class.  Out of those that did, they at least have a chance of finding it under the current name, and virtually none at all if it's under the Korean name instead. —LactoseTIT 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of your books that you've provided to substantiate your claim say "Hideyoshi's Invasions". They all proved my claim that the titles would be something like "Japanese Invasion" etc. Remember that as long as you don't have a title "Hideyoshi's Invasions...", there is no reason to title the article in that manner. Only reason to title the article with the term "Hideyoshi's" would be because that is so widespread. In fact, none of the books you've provided as examples use the title, and virtually none of the Google search results use the phrase as a title. It's mere description. If that's the case, let's put it in the article, and use the title that is more common. You repetitively claim that I "copy and paste" same arguments over and over again, when they haven't fully been answered. Please don't answer one argument indirectly with another argument. (Wikimachine 05:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a description 

message: I'm not sure if I have the "knowledge of the current situation" because I've been away from Wikipedia for such a long time, but this naming war is ridiculous. We should be debating issues over the article and history-not the name. The naming war for the "dispute" over Dokdo was reasonable-trying to preserve the correct name and owner of the rocks. Imjin War is the accurate name for this war, and its been around as far as I can remember. And reading the above arguments, "Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea" is obviously a misuse of the word. Hideyoshi himself wasn't physically in Korea to conquer it.
And don't you think "Imjin War" is easier to say and pronounce than actually literally describing the war as "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea?" 
We don't call the invasion of Europe by Nazi Germany as "Hitler's conquest to rule the world  eternally with the glorious Nazi regime." Oyo321 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do people keep bringing up the same flawed argument?  English speakers don't call it that so the article is not called that.  If they did, the article would be called that. —LactoseTIT 02:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, you keep bringing up same flawed arguments as well, avoiding the momentum of the argument that Oyo321 brought up. The fact is, nobody uses "Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea" as a title either. (Wikimachine 05:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess the answer is until you understand.  Just because you can create ungrammatical sentences doesn't mean you must create ungrammatical sentences.  Remove "the" from your example, and it becomes a perfectly accurate and much used sentence.  We have given multiple examples of other articles where descriptions are picked over names (often foreign names, like Imjin).  The idea is this is a name most English speakers would associate with the event--certainly more than would associate "Imjin" with it.  Then we move onto the naming conventions (again)... —LactoseTIT 06:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hideyoshi is a foreign word too. Oyo321 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: this is pathetic

message: Yay, I have just started Wikiproject Korea a few days ago! I have been pondering over what template should be used but the one I thought best is placed at the top of this talk page. Also, the link to WikiProject Korea is there.
The project is severely incomplete and I am asking if anybody can begin working on the project and helping expand Korea related articles on Wikipedia. Good friend100 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for creating the project! Oyo321 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Korea!

message: So Japan lost the war because Hideyoshi died? Some of you are getting the wrong idea. The text may be written as if Hideyoshi's life and death affected the war, it didnt. Thats just a mislead. The main reason why Japan lost the war is because of the Chinese allied help and of Admiral Yi. Good friend100 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To say his life and death had no effect on the war is a gross mischaracterization of history, which leads to severe minunderstanding.  Are you suggesting the withdraw just coincidently came extraordinarily near his death?  While commentators (such as yourself, perhaps) might debate what the "super main reason" was, it's undoubted that there were mnay--one of which definitely was the life and death of Hideyoshi.  If you are seriously pondering such a change to the article, I would strongly encourage you to first attempt to find some kind of credible source to back up such a unconventional statement. —LactoseTIT 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hideyoshi's death may have had some effect on the overseas soldiers' morale. But Japanese soldiers were not compelled to just surrender and leave, because the Emperor died. Japan continued the campaign, until they were defeated. On the other hand, if it was Hideyoshi's dying wish to "pull all the soldiers out if Korea" its a different story. Oyo321 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it was his order near his death, I guess it's a different story... —LactoseTIT 04:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it that hard to admit that Japan lost the war solely by itself? Good friend100 14:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hideyoshi? 

message: "It's a decent sized military conflict between Japan and China" LactoseTI, do you really know what the war was about? "Decent sized" did you read the article at all? Do you know how many soldiers Japan sent and how many ships they built? Not to mention the amount of supplies made either. "Japan and China"? Is this the reason why you look down on "Imjin War" because its a Korean name and Korea never fought in the war? Sure the Korean army was cut into pieces but it wasn't solely between China and Japan. 
Reasons why to use Imjin War
:*The name refers to the entire war, not neccesarily the first invasion.
:*The name is an english word.
:*The war is not all about Hideyoshi.
:*The name is clear. "Imjin War" in the Chinese charecters 壬辰倭亂 technically means "Invasion and chaos in Korea from Japan" so it doesn't neccesarily mean "first invasion".
:*Proper google searches show that Imjin War has more results.
:*Hideyoshi didn't play a major part in the war itself. 
:*"Hideyoshi's"? The war never took place in Japan, solely in Korea.
:*If "Imjin War" is POV then what about "Oei Invasion"? Is that POV as well, or do just keep it because it satisfies you that it is a Japanese name. Don't back off.
:*"Seven Year War" can be confusing with the European war of the same name.
:*Samuel Hawley's book Imjin War uses the name "Imjin War", although the book is published by the East Asiatic Society, it was up to Hawley who named the book this way. Thus, "Imjin War" is used as a title in history books as well.
:*Hawley's book is not for only Korean people.
:*"Hideyoshi's" is just a narrative description, not a title.
Reasons why to use Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea
:*Its the most commonly used.
:*Its a clear name.
:*Samuel Hawley's book was targeted for Korean audiences.
:*"Imjin War" is a Korean name and it is POV. (However this argument was already agreed upon before).
:*"Imjin War" only mentions the first invasion.
:*English readers will know what the war is about (obviously, its right in the title).
:*Most outside sources don't mention "Imjin War".
:*It is an english word.
Add more to this side if there are because I am obviously on the Imjin War side.
Ok guys, this is the second time. The Imjin War is the best title. The above supporting facts are not my own. I used other editors' comments. Good friend100 15:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't see anything here that is new, or hasn't had responses already--have you read the above talk page and archive thoroughly?  If you expect people to respond, perhaps you could raise a new issue, rather than simply cut/paste/rehash what has already been discussed at great length.  —LactoseTIT 15:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never wanted to summarize this again. What I did above shows that there is more supporting facts to move the article? If your "Hideyoshi's" title is the best, there should be more to support it right? Good friend100 14:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imjin War 

message: Hi all. I'm here to try and mediate the dispute over the naming of this article. From what I can see, both sides are putting forward good arguments and are discussing things rationally, which is great. However, I think a run on requested moves would allow the community to develop a consensus on where the article should sit. The side for moving this back to the old title should create the request, if this is a solution that you agree with. Does this seem sensible? I hope we can sort this out soon. —Xyrael / 15:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. Ok, since nobody will cooperate, how about a new title, like Japanese Invasions of Korea? or Japanese Invasions of Korea (1592-1598)? Its just a suggestion, but both titles both make sense and both sides will agree to it. It doesn't use "Hideyoshi's" and to satisfy the other side, it is in English. Good friend100 14:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a sensible suggestion. What do the other side think? —Xyrael / 17:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the other side disagrees then we'll just have to produce another title. The title I proposed is good and there is no reason for one side not to agree with it. Good friend100 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to see that discussions on moving this page are underway. I'll hover around; please call me if needed. —Xyrael / 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Isn't the poll supposed to end on 10/17/06, not 10/07/06? Or was my announcement of deadline unofficial ? (Wikimachine 04:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who moved the page explained it in the closing comment. See above, before the "Requested move" section. --Kusunose 06:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change