Talk:Korean War of 1592-1598

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	I worked on this article on Wikipedia, and intend to maintain and develop it on the Citizendium.
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.

Intro

I've talked with Dr. Jenkins about this edit that he made. While some parts of the edit are fine, some other parts are disagreeable for one reason or another.

1) "waters; Korea was devastated." this shouldn't be much of a problem, we just need to elaborate on this b/c it sounds too abrupt. Also, it makes it sound as if the Korean military was defeated all the way - when there were few major victories on land & complete dominance at sea. It should be about the economic, cultural, & human losses.

2) "The Japanese leader Shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi" I had originally worded it as "Japanese leader" and then gave the link to "Shogun". I think that "leader shogun" is not proper, it sounds too awkward. If we were to refer to Hideyoshi as a Shogun, then we'd sound too ambiguous/erudite to people who have absolutely no idea about Japanese history. I think that "Japanese leader" or something equivalent is good enough.

note:I found out that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was not a Shogun. (Chunbum Park 15:11, 22 December 2007 (CST))

3) "; he fought Korea when it denied him passage." Stephen Turnbull in his Samurai Invasion & Kenneth M. Swope in his "Deceit, Disguise, and Dependence: China, Japan, and the Future of the Tributary System, 1592-1596" indicate otherwise - that So Yoshitoshi, the lord of Tsushima, in charge of communicating with Korea, lied to Hideyoshi that Korea was part of Tsushima & since Tsushima had submitted to Hideyoshi, that Korea would be part of Japan (all because he wanted peace between Korea & Japan so that his So family would keep their monopoly on the "lucrative" trade b/w the 2 countries). So it's more than just "denying Japan the passage"... Also, Hideyoshi did not fight in Korea - I think that the wording is too broad, like "Hideyoshi was leading the troops, & he was denied passage to Korea"

I see where Dr. Jenkins want to go - the effect on the Korean peninsula, & the whole storyline about how the war began could be summarized in the intro & make the intro more comprehensive. But we need to word them better so that they don't cause any misunderstanding. I'm not sure how to do that. (Chunbum Park 14:01, 14 November 2007 (CST))

historiography

The narrative for this article is fine. The historiography is problematical. Phrases like "against the predominant western view" and "popular belief regarding the history of gun" and "easily surpassed any of the contemporary conflicts of the European theater in terms of the size of the armies, the technologies, and the tactics deployed" should be avoided. To handle that material it is necessary to read a LOT of scholarship. In any case it's not very relevant. Richard Jensen 19:51, 21 December 2007 (CST)

I can see it that way too. Kenneth M. Swope presented the war against the thesis "Military Revolution" - I didn't make any of the words up. I'd also like a professional specializing in this field to handle this article. I did read in English some 10 articles from journals & a book + many websites. Oh & thanks for the compliment - I've worked a lot to make the narrative flow. (Chunbum Park 15:02, 22 December 2007 (CST))

Nice Work!

Its about time we had some Oriental articles! Nice work Chunbum! Denis Cavanagh 10:34, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Thank you. (Chunbum Park 16:18, 28 December 2007 (CST))

Indeed, this article is developing nicely. It's just the kind of military history CZ needs, so keep going! Richard Jensen 19:37, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Thank you. (Chunbum Park 15:45, 22 January 2008 (CST))

It's "draft of the week"! Hooray. Thank you for accepting my work. (Chunbum Park 11:12, 24 January 2008 (CST))

Wow, good work Chunbum, you've done an excellent job with this. Keep them coming! D. Matt Innis 18:51, 26 January 2008 (CST)

ambiguities & possible original research

1) Did some of the Japanese ships that carry cannons suspend them in air with ropes b/c the ships were too weak?

My dad told me that.... some drawings show Japanese cannons hanging on ropes.

2) Japanese wore armor? Many texts just describe the Japanese armor but doesn't really tell how much of the Japanese infantry were wearing metal/leather armor.

3) Was Lord Obunaga the only 1 to concentrate fire w/ muskets? I think he wasn't the only one.

(Chunbum Park 18:48, 26 January 2008 (CST))

Article title

I think that the title above is okay, but is there anything better - simply because I dont want people to think that this is some wikipedia page. The Wikipedias entry is also named "Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Also, the title leaves several other participants out when in fact China was a big participant in the war, and along with China came its tributary members like Ryukyu, Taiwan, etc.

Here are my suggestions:

• "Korean War of 1592-1598" (similar to Korean War of 1950-1953) (Google)
• "Seven-Year War (1592-1598)" (thinkquest entry)

(Chunbum Park 21:17, 3 February 2008 (CST))

I would be more worried about what it is most commonly referred to in history books, rather than what Wikipedia calls it. If it is most commonly known as the Japanese invasions of Korea, then that's where it should reside. --Todd Coles 21:44, 3 February 2008 (CST)

There is no established English title for this war. Many history books give a "description" (i.e. a biography about Hideyoshi would describe it as "The Invasion"). Others give a name along the line of "Japan's War with Korea". Wikipedia's title came after a long dispute focusing on neutrality. I think that Wikipedia's title is overly descriptive & it's a mistake b/c 1)it points out Japan & Korea as 2 participants but leaves out China & the international coalition of 5,000 troops 2) it's slightly more shifted toward Japanese historical context - the opposite (in Korean context) would be something like "Korea's Conflict with Japan".

Seven-Year War is my favorite because it's vague enough but it is at least used, somewhat, as a title rather than a description. Korean War is justified in the sense that it draws a parallel to the Korean War of 1950-1953, where there were many participants (UN under the leadership of US, USSR also secretly helped, China) but it happened on the Korean peninsula.

This book uses the phrase "Korean War", this book uses "Korea-Japan War", this book uses "Japan's Sixteenth Century Invasion of Korea", this journal article uses "Seven-Year War", and this too uses "Seven-Year War".

(Chunbum Park 23:04, 3 February 2008 (CST))

I recommend "Korean War of 1592-1598" because it has the dates and the geography so no one can possibly be confused. Richard Jensen 06:32, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Thank you, then I'll proceed with the article move. (Chunbum Park 16:07, 4 February 2008 (CST))

I know this is settled already, but just for the record, another reason not to use "Seven-Year War" is that it could cause confusion with the mid-18th-century conflict in Europe, North America, and elsewhere, often referred to as the "Seven Years' War." Bruce M.Tindall 13:25, 20 February 2008 (CST)

odd sentence

"Consequently the Chinese diplomats went to Japan and invested Hideyoshi, whose subordinates misled him into believing that the Chinese had come to surrender in person."

Is the verb "invested" correct? Should it be investigated, or arrested or something? I am confused by this sentence. David E. Volk 13:03, 20 February 2008 (CST)

"Invested" seems to be the correct verb -- it means "to install (someone) in office" or "to give a title to (someone)" -- although perhaps it should say "intended to invest" or "purported to invest". That is, the Chinese diplomats brought along documents in which the Ming emperor named, or "invested," Hideyoshi as "King of Japan." In other words, it was tantamount to a claim that the Ming had the authority to decide who was the legitimate ruler of Japan; that is, a demand by the Ming that Japan subordinate itself as a tributary state. Bruce M.Tindall 13:15, 20 February 2008 (CST)