Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Contradiction?

In this article it says: "Chinese also demonstrated massive use of rocket-propelled arrows(which by this time were seldom used by Koreans in war), notably during the Siege of Pyongyang in January 1593. During siege actions, Chinese deployed rattan shields and iron pavises (large shields), reputed to be musket-proof."

however in the article for hwacha it says "Hwachas saw action most extensively during the Japanese invasions of Korea against the Japanese soldiers. They were mostly placed in fortresses or citadels,[notes 3] and used in defensive manners. These proved to be powerful in many battles, and were most prominent in the Battle of Haengju, in which 3,400 Koreans repulsed 30,000 Japanese with the help of 40 hwachas." Also the first sentence doesn't have a source it seems. --119.194.128.193 (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

--

The Hwacha was found in manuels, but we (so far) lack account of it's use in battle. we do however, have real sources on the Ming using rocket arrows. such as the letters of Song YingChang .

such as..

12/21 1592 to Li RuMei Li RuBo (the brothers of Li RuSong) (a letter that laid out their plan to attack PyongYang, it seems the allied forces carried out something like what was written here though with some variation)

僕已定弄火攻一策 (your humble servant have arranged a fire attack tactic) ...... 先放毒火飛箭千萬支 (first release the poisonous rocket arrows in the tens of thousands) ... 繼放神火飛箭 (after that release the incenderies rocket arrows)

15 May 2010 (RollingWave) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RollingWave (talk • contribs) 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese losses

The infobox claims there were more than 140,000 casualties on Japan's side. That's almost as much as the size of their invading forces. Was Japan really practically killed off by the end of the war? Any sources about this matter?

chery (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's most likely BS, from what I can see in the first war their casaulties were mostly their navies (which ad like 10k or so in strength) and their first division that was hit pretty hard in PyongYang (that was about 18k , though they couldn't have suffered much more than half of their numbers)

That was about it in the first war, in the second war they lost a lot of people in Noryang , but outside of that it seem to be again their navy, and then nothing out of the oridnary of battle losses.

The fact was, pretty much all but 1 daiymo made it back home alive. if they were to really lose half of their entire force you'd figure at least more than one daiymo would be killed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RollingWave (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit on a few things

A. gave battle of PyongYang and Byeokjegwan their own section with some edits, will put up reference soon. (though it is of actual Ming and Josen era sources)

B. Added a later development section to more clearly line up the events between the Ming entering to the begining of peace talks

C. Moved the battle of Haengju behind the battle of Byeokjegwan for clarification of timeline. since Haengju happened after Byeokjegwan and was a directly related battle . —Preceding unsigned comment added by RollingWave (talk • contribs) 03:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

additional updates

A. Added a subsection for battle of Jiksan, widely noted in other part of the article yet somehow lacking it's own section. mostly based off the description in the Annals of Seonjo (referenced)

B. Minor edit to siege of Namwon by putting in the name of the Ming commander (Yang Yuan)

User:RollingWave —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

Also forgot to meantion, added 5 additional reference in the reference section, namely..

1. Research by Li Guang Tao , one of the most cited research in the Chinese world and was what Kenneth Swope based his work on (obvious if you read the thesis version of his work)

2. 3 primary Korean source that pretty much all the Korean / Chinese works are drawing from, namely the Annals of King Seonjo, 中興誌 and 亂中雜錄

3. The letters by Song YingChang himself, 經略復國要編, it is published in China and Taiwan.

(RollingWave)

Also, the quote =Emperor Wanli responded that "the Kampaku's conquest of Choson would be stepping board to advance into China". = I am almost 100 % certain that this quote was said by Song YingChang during his speech in the court advocating for reinforcing Korea, not the other way around.

RollingWave (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have put several reference in the article to the parts that I wrote (namely, PyongYang / Byeokgjwan / Jiksan / later developement section ), out of chapter 238 of the history of Ming (the biography of Li Ru Song, I linked it to the version on Wiki source). there's a few part that i'll probably need to draw upon the source of Seonjo as well later.

I'll try to get the Chinese aspect sourced up as best as I can, since that seem to be one of the most sorely lacking aspect of this article.

(RollingWave (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Purposal on a subsection change

I'd like to hear other people's take here, but I think we should change the title of the battle of Sacheon section, because it was obviously just part of a greater offensive. the Ming army had seperated into 3 different rout in September of 98 and each lead an attack on one of the remaining key fortress at the time, with Ma Gui heading the northern rout against Kato at Ulsan (not to be confused with the same pair matching it up earlier in the year), Dong Yin Yuan against the Shimazu force at Sacheon , and a massive combined land / sea effort against Konishi's position at Suncheon. Only Sacheon was decisive before the Japanese forces decided to try and retreat back across the sea but that does not diminish the importance of the overall campaign.

I purpose that we change the title to either something like "The final offensive" or "The Autumn offensive of 1598"

(RollingWave (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Since no one bothered to talk I've made a edit, mostly on seperating the stages of the second invasion more properly . and also adding a little more detail to the battle of Sacheon quoting out of the Ming commander's biography in the History of the Ming (quoted from wikisource link)

(RollingWave (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Ming intervention

A. Should seperate their battles much like it was done elsewhere, the side war list out Ming battles individually but it was not done so in the main content. and in fact only a very short description (and very wrong description at that ) exist.

B. although I done a partial edit to the Ming section already, it's still messed up, the battle of Byeokjegwan was NOT the contiuation of PyongYang, PyongYang happened on 1/08 , Byeokjegwan happened on 1/26, it doesn't take 18 days to chase troops from Pyongyang to the Seoul on horse (the Ming marched from the Yalu river to PyongYang in a little over a week, the distance is fairly close to the same. and they weren't in a all out chase ) and in fact the Ming already took Kaesong in between this.

C. I'd also like to know where the part on the Ming wearing leather armor and got slaughtered came up from, since the description from the Korean side was actually that the Ming and Japanese both lost 500 or so, the Ming record says that they actually killed more (but also lost more, they're tally was something like 2000 killed to 8000 killed japanese) , the Japanese had this one wild record of the Ming losing 20k but that would have been about double of the entire allied forces that was involved in that battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RollingWave (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

D. As all we have known actually for now, koreans falsified histories producted by their pitiful dignity, and so they overdraw themselves about their effect in the war. That's why you have seen many laughable writings in this article. Because of their inferior feeling.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.5.87.164 (talk) 1:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

E. As all we have known actually for now, chinese falsified histories producted by their pitiful dignity, and so they overdraw themselves about their effect in the war. That's why you have seen many laughable writings in this article. Because of their inferior feeling. This is actually closer to the truth. The chinese had very little impact on the Imjin war. However this article makes it looks like they were relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.71.226 (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not written anything on the Chinese side that is seriously out of context with what was written in the Korean first hand sources (I have read through a good portion of the Annals of Seonjo and Yu Seong-ryong 's Jingborok. though obviously there are some contradicting details even among similar sources) I quoted out of the history of Ming mostly out of simplicity sake (since it's directly linked in wikisource) instead of requiring me to retype out stuff from old books.

In fact, the Korean sources actually documents the Ming military's actions and deeds (both good and bad) much more thoroughly than the Chinese sources (such as, the battle of Jiksan was meantioned extremely briefly in Ming documents, yet it was a huge part in the annals of Seonjo during that particular month). so unless we're going to argue that the Korean sources themself are all messed up, I'd suggest you would do well to simply quote out from said sources to point out if anything I wrote has been false.

(RollingWave (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

further suggestions

The naval battles being grouped into their own subsection can be rather confusing, as it often does not correlates with the the other events properly, despite the fact that they are obviously related events.

Would it make more sense to break up the important naval battles that impacted the war on land to more properly fall in line with the time frame? for example Chilcheollyang –> Namwon –> Jiksan -> Myeongnyang  ?

(RollingWave (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC))(TB|RollingWave)

added Qian ShiZheng

I added another Ming general in the war, Qian ShiZheng, an interesting figure who also have a book still around on his actions in the war. to the side bar and a stubb article on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RollingWave (talk • contribs) 08:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Some edits

I changed the second invasion part a bit, integrating the naval battles into the timeline of the other events, since in the second war they were much more closely tied together, so it doesn't make that much sense to have a seperate section when the events were clearly influencing the other battle directly.

Also rewrote the last part on the battle of Ulsan a bit.

(RollingWave (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Intervention of Ming China

There's definitely very odd information and source is not even legit. [Viewing the crisis in Choson, the Ming Dynasty Wanli emperor and his court was initially filled with confusion and skepticism on how their tributary could have been overran so quickly, this combined with the fact that they were still dealing with a military rebellion in Ningxia, resulted in a slow response. The local governor at LiaoDong though eventually acted upon King Seonjo's request for aid by sending a small force of 5,000 soldiers led by Zu Chengxun. This cavalry force advanced almost unhindered and even entered Pyongyang, where they were badly defeated by the Japanese troops in the streets, one of their main generals, Shi Ru, was also killed.[144]] I've checked the source, this sentence must be re-written to historical accuracy.--KSentry(talk) 00:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes that source is from an much older edit, I'll try to put up a more legitimate source to that paragraph, and might be required to start a article on the rebellion of Ninxia which occured in 1592 March to September, coinciding with the first phase of the Japanese invasion. I don't think there is much factual problem with the sentence though, the records of the Ming during that time suggested that they were not totally well aware of what had happened in Korea and were unable to fathom how people they generally percieved to be nothing more than Pirates could have overran a well established State. There were even fact finding missions send into Korea during the early months. (RollingWave (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC))

Illustration of Japanese Fleet leaving for Korea

I own a japanese woodblock print that is a six panel (60" wide) illustration of the japanese ships massed and sailing off for korea that you might like to add to the site. The sails have the crests of the generals. E mail me if you would like an image of it. Japanese prints (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Togo worships Admiral Yi. A famous lie.

in Japan: for example, Admiral Togo, famed for his success at the Battle of Tsushima during the Russo-Japanese War, called Admiral Yi the greatest naval commander in history. Strauss, Barry. pp. 20

This information is an imitation. This information does not have original Sources. Since a Korean wants to make a hero, fake information is made. 221.184.35.206 (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If "a Korean wants to make a hero," why are they citing "fake information" from a non-Korean source? 174.21.85.231 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"legitimate Japanese imperial line"?

This paragraph, towards the beginning, is confusing:

Since Hideyoshi came to hold power in the absence of a legitimate Japanese imperial line, he sought for military power to legitimize his rule and to decrease his dependence on the imperial authority.

It's "in the absence of a legitimate Japanese imperial line" that I'm puzzled about. Does it mean merely that Hideyoshi was the de facto ruler of Japan despite the fact that he wasn't Emperor? Or was there some sort of confusion about the imperial succession at this time? --Jfruh (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From what i can see and conclude as per Hideyoshi#Pinnacle_of_power and own knowledge, the ending of the old sengoku period and Hideyoshi's rise was not that of those with a royal bloodline as he was born to a peasant family. It says titles were gifted to him, recognizing his power and judgement which led to the most prestigous yet non royal title of Regent(Prime Minister per se). Ogimachi was the monarch when Hideyoshi came to "power". So its really down to judgement whether he is a de facto ruler as the Monarchy didnt have so much control and were often perceived as figureheads from observers outside of Japan, with the clans having most power. See the aftermath of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sekigahara to follow the next Regents "rise" but maybe the use of the word Imperial is the wrong word? None the less if you can think of a change to it, any ideas? thx--CorrectlyContentious 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with him not being able to ask the Emperor to make him Shogun. One had to have a tie to one of the three semi-regal Japanese families, all who were tied to the Minamoto clan, from which the first Shogun came. The most he could be was Kwampaku, and later Taiko - both civilian administrative titles. Since he could not be Shogun - supreme military governor of Japan granted by the Emperor to rule in his behalf - he had to do it via de-facto force.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is too long!

I came here from WikiProject East Asia to look at what could be done to improve this article for a GA ("good article") review. My first impression is that it's just too long. It has 97kB in "readable prose size," 30 more than World War II, which is itself a GA, and is about the most complicated war in human history.

As WP:SIZERULE says, articles that reaches 100kB "should almost certainly be divided." The most obvious place to cut (and there's a lot to cut) would be in accounts of battles. There are nineteen sections titled "Battle of...", to which you can add various "sieges," "campaigns," and "counter-offensives," for a total of about 30 subsections. Since most of these battles have their own page, we wouldn't lose much by merging them into two much-shorter narrative sections, one for each of the two invasions. The most important battles should of course be linked to in the text. And since there's already a Timeline of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), a List of naval battles during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), and a List of battles during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), readers interested in the details would still have plenty of resources. For comparison, WWII simply has one section called "Course of the War," with one sub-section for each year. What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Noses or Ears???

"the large number of noses collected during the campaign was enough to build a large mound near Hideyoshi's Great Buddha, called the Mimizuka, or the "Mound of Ears""

...so which was it? A mound of ears or a mound of noses? I'll change this if no reply in 48 hours _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Second Siege of Ulsan

Please look at the template. The article is divided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592-1598) Knsn57 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Casualties and combine two section

I see the reference of Korean and Chinese casualties is on the page 230 from Stephen Turnbull. Actually I have this book, "Samurai invasion—Japan's Korean War" which is written by Stephen Turnbull. I checked page 230. On page 230, the data is 185,738 Korean casualties and 29,014 Chinese casualties. This is just on page 230. I didn't check other pages of this book and other books.Thus if there is another data which is from another page, you can notice me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I combined Siege of Ulsan and second Siege of Ulsan because the main article of Siege of Ulsan contains the whole contents of these two sections. Then the second section just have only one sentence which is too short for a section. For the time, I keep the time two battle Thus, people will not confuse with the time these two battle happened. —Miracle dream (talk • contribs

Please look at the template. The article is divided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592-1598) Knsn57 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see anything in your link. Can you tell me what this link about? Then actually Siege of Ulsan and Second Siege of Ulsan are all included in article Siege of Ulsan which is the main article in the section of Siege of Ulsan. Others can read the detailed information in the main article of this section. Thus, we can combine them and moreover the section about second siege is only one sentence.- Miracle dream (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edit Reversions

1. the title of "King of Japan"

Yoshimitsu Ashikaga was awarded the title of "king of Japan" by the China emperor in 1404. However, IP User 159.18.26.14 was to rewrite the title of the King of Japan has been awarded in 1375. (Although it is a basic knowledge of Japanese history, This year In Japan, where disturbances between the Northern and Southern Courts had not been contained (in particular in Kyushu district including Hakata), Imperial Prince Kanenaga (Kaneyoshi) of the Southern Court who received a messenger from Ming was sealed as 'King of Japan'.) I present the Ohio State University academic papers [2], and pointed out his mistake. But, IP User 159.18.26.14 ignored this academic papers. And he deletes this academic papers and he continues to rewrite his opinion. And IP User 159.18.26.14 does not present the basis of his opinion. Juzumaru is wanted for IP User 159.18.26.14 to present a basis and to participate in the discussion.　　　--Juzumaru (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

If you have specific changes to make, backed by specific (valid) references, then I do not at all oppose them, and where you provide valid points, I am happy to work with you on improving the article. I have already tried to do this in the past - especially in sections that appear historically unfairly one-sided. I think the problem I and many others have with your mass edits is that you continue to reverse many valid corrections and changes (even grammatical ones) that others have made earlier, as well as continuously insisting on specific wording that often says the same thing but is less focused and/or grammatically weaker than what was there before. Some edits are also occasionally very POV. These unrelated mass edits undermine the credibility of other changes you suggest that may be legitimate but are otherwise buried deep in one massive entry. 159.18.26.14 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have re-incorporated your point concerning the date of Japan's entry into the tributary system as correctly reading 1404 (rather than 1375 as was referenced earlier). 159.18.26.14 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

2. Plot against Admiral Yi

In 1593, Yi Sun-sin, who was the Naval Commander of the Three Provinces, was removed from his post because of repeatedly ignoring orders and Won Gyun was appointed the successor. However, IP User 159.18.26.14 was to rewrite as this

The Japanese were well aware of the risks that the Korean navy posed to their supply lines, and it has been speculated that they played a role in Korean court politics so as to limit this threat by sabotaging the Korean leadership. The removal of Admiral Yi, who was responsible for much of the Korean naval success in the first phase of the invasion, was the principle objective, as the success of the Korean navy was largely a result of his leadership efforts. The plot relied primarily on taking advantage of infighting within the Korean court in order to demote Yi by making use of the laws that governed the Korean military. A Japanese double agent working within the Korean court falsely reported that a Japanese daimyō Katō Kiyomasa would be landing an invasion force on a certain date and suggested that Admiral Yi be sent to lay an ambush.

(Although it is a basic knowledge of Japanese history, Japan downplayed Korea Navy. An example, Wakizaka Yasuharu, who confronted him was a samurai of 30,000 Koku. (Soldiers led by wakizaka was the scale of 1/7 of Kato kiyomasa.) Then, Kiyomasa was overthrown by a slander of Ishida Mitsunari during this time. Kiyomasa was discharged from army, and was ordered to be in home confinement. Kiyomasa did not have the surplus energy about Korea.

As a basis for my opinion, I have presented Sungkyunkwan University academic papers, and pointed out his mistake. But, IP User 159.18.26.14 ignored this academic papers. And he deletes this academic papers and he continues to rewrite his opinion[3]. （Then, I have presented article of Yi Sun-sin of encyclopedia. He also removed this source.[4]）And IP User 159.18.26.14 does not present the basis of his opinion. IP User 159.18.26.14 does not discuss the Japanese history. And IP User 159.18.26.14 continues removing many treatises. (he names this act "POV".) Juzumaru is wanted for IP User 159.18.26.14 to present a basis and to participate in the discussion.　　　　--Juzumaru (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Did you read my comments and explanation above? Again, if you have specific edits then please incorporate them, but do not make wholesale changes to the entire article and justify it here on the basis of one specific sub-point. Your recent edits needlessly rewrite the introduction and overview, make changes in a number of sub-sections, and reverse perfectly legitimate edits others have made including typos and grammatical corrections. There is no reason to do this. 159.18.26.14 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

3. entry to China

Originally, "Kara iri" (唐入り, literally "entry to China") of this article was explained as this.

the war was also called "Kara iri" (唐入り, literally "entry to China") in Edo period (17–19C) because Japan's ultimate purpose was the conquest of Ming China although the armies of Toyotomi Hideyoshi were confined to the Korean Peninsula for the duration of the war.

The IP user rewrote this description as follows. [5]

the war was also called "Kara iri" (唐入り, literally "entry to China") in Edo period (17–19C) because Japan's ultimate purpose at the commencement of the invasion was the conquest of Ming China, although the armies of Toyotomi Hideyoshi would ultimately change their objectives and be confined to the Korean Peninsula for the duration of the war.

The purpose of Toyotomi Hideyoshi did not change until the end. I presented IP User 159.18.26.14 three evidences [6].

1.Annals of the Joseon Dynasty

• According to the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty The 91st volume (August 7, 1597)[7], General of Pyongan Kim Ung So(金應瑞) asked about the purpose of Hideyoshi. Japanese Messenger has answered conquest of Ming China. (偵探人進告曰: ‘賊將豊茂守說稱: 「宜寧守將欲與相戰, 則雖堅守如鐵石, 當湯消若春雪, 不如出避山城之爲愈也。 若入全羅, 則盡殺人物, 雖禽獸, 亦不免焉。 大明四百州, 亦欲呑倂,)
  

2.Order of Hideyoshi Toyotomi in 1597

• In 1597, Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered commanders of Japan.[8] According to the order, "Luring in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula the Chinese military, and destroy it. After that, conquest of China (自然大明国者共、朝鮮都より、五日路も六日路も、大軍ニて罷出、於陣取者、各令談合、無用捨可令註進、御馬廻迄にて、一騎かけニ被成御渡海、即時被討果、大明国迄可被仰付事)"
  

3.Japan–South Korea Joint History Research Project in 2010

• The report of the Japan–South Korea Joint History Research Project, which was founded by the South Korean government and the Japanese government in 2010, written like this.[9] "派兵の目的はあくまで明国の征服であったとして「大陸侵攻」と称すべきとする。(The purpose of sending troops is conquest of Ming china. Therefore, this war should be called the "Mainland invasion".)"
  

Again, IP User 159.18.26.14 ignored these Historical records and academic papers. And IP User 159.18.26.14 deletes these Historical records and academic papers and IP User 159.18.26.14 continues to rewrite IP User 159.18.26.14's opinion. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzumaru (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

---

As my earlier comments in response to your posts above appear to have been largely ignored, I’ll repeat the major concerns with your edits one more time by citing specific examples:

1) Issues with changing sentences that were grammatically correct by making them grammatically incorrect/awkward without adding any value: for example, “one of the Three Kingdoms” was for some reason changed to “the one of the three kingdoms” (note the double "the"). Similarly, “who were adept in ranged combat” was changed to the more awkward “who fare fairly well in ranged combat”

2) Issues with inserting sentences that are generally not understandable: for example, “...the Korean army employed arrow was offered from China behind field...” - not sure at all what this is meant to say?

3) Issues with inserting generally subjective, charged, POV terminology: for example, “a crushing defeat”, “having caused serious damage to”, etc.

Fundamentally, a majority of your revisions to this article have nothing to do with the reasons you are providing for discussion here in this talk forum. Making a Wikipedia revision of which only a small portion may be legitimate, but which contains a majority of changes that are questionable is bound not to be accepted by other Wikipedia contributors. As I stated before, the goal here is to preserve and protect what is already written and improve upon it, and where you make a legitimate point I and others have already attempted on many occasions to incorporate your concern into the article. These mass edits, however, are generally unjustified.

159.18.26.14 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Please answer my question. "What is the purpose of the dispatch of troops by Hideyoshi Toyotomi?" I want to know about why IP User 159.18.26.14 rewrite. --Juzumaru (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Generally, please take note of my concerns above. Also, let's be clear that with regard to your edits I am typically only reverting to what was written (and accepted) before; I am not inserting new theories or ideas (unless sourced), and only making edits to clarify certain points or improve certain explanations.

As to your specific question: I think everyone agrees that the initial goal was some form of an invasion of Ming China through Korea. Once Korea refused passage to the Japanese, it become an invasion of Korea to then later invade Ming China. During the actual invasion however (and I think this is where you and I may have some disagreement) it is logical that the goals and objectives changed. Given the realities in the later years of the campaign, and the fact that Japan accepted a status quo peace in 1598, they would have very likely accepted something less in a peace settlement than the actual conquest of all of Ming China - hence it is not incorrect to say their objectives changed. It would actually be illogical to suggest that in 1598, with Japan limited to forts in south Korea and preparing to withdraw, their objective was still the conquest of Ming China. The existing statement (which I've revised to attempt to make it even more clear) is quite balanced on this (i.e. the initial "ultimate objective" was Ming China, but the "immediate objectives" changed during the war):

"...Japan's ultimate purpose at the commencement of the invasion was the conquest of Ming China, although with the reality that the conflict was largely confined to the Korean Peninsula for the duration of the war, the armies of Toyotomi Hideyoshi would alter their immediate objectives throughout the campaign."

Let me know if you still have a concern with this.

159.18.26.14 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this description "they would have very likely accepted something less in a peace settlement than the actual conquest of all of Ming China". Thank you.--Juzumaru (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

4. Destruction of the palace of the three

The Seoul citizen was panic when a Japanese army approached a Seoul. Annals of the Joseon Dynasty (Vol.26 / April 14, 1592) written like this.

都城宮省火。 車駕將出, 都中有姦民, 先入內帑庫, 爭取寶物者。 已而駕出, 亂民大起, 先焚掌隷院、刑曹, 以二局公、私奴婢文籍所在也。 遂大掠宮省、倉庫, 仍放火滅迹。 景福、昌德、昌慶三宮, 一時俱燼。 昌慶宮卽順懷世子嬪欑宮所在也。

The Palace was on fire (都城宮省火), Generals ride palanquins and ran away(車駕將出), The mob plundered in the city.(都中有姦民, 先入內帑庫, 爭取寶物者) 亂民(Baekjeong)(Korean people of the lowest rank) uprising, set fire to 掌隷院(changnye)(The Korean government office which manages the slave) (已而駕出, 亂民大起, 先焚掌隷院、刑曹, 以二局公、私奴婢文籍所在也) Gyeongbokgung Palace, Changdeokgung and Changgyeonggung,And, government office was set on fire. (遂大掠宮省、倉庫, 仍放火滅迹。 景福、昌德、昌慶三宮, 一時俱燼。昌慶宮卽順懷世子嬪欑宮所在也。)

I quoted this books, was described this way.

Annals of the Joseon Dynasty has been described that three palaces, Gyeongbokgung Palace, Changdeokgung and Changgyeonggung, had been reduced to ashes before the Japanese army entered the castle and Baekjeong(Korean people of the lowest rank) welcomed the Japanese army as liberation forces and set fire to changnye(The Korean government office which manages the slave) won in which status ledgers for Korean slaves had been kept

However, IP user deleted this quotation and rewrote in this way.

During this time, the main Korean royal palaces Gyeongbokgung, Changdeokgung, and Changgyeonggung were all burned down, and Deoksugung was used as a temporary palace.

Please explain the reason for this rewriting. --Juzumaru (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

It's not my wording - that's just what was there before and seemed generally accurate. While I still object to the changes to the Introduction and Overview, I have no problems with your expansion on this point (to indicate how some of the destruction was internal). Your wording on this, with a few small grammatical corrections, is now inserted into the latest version. 159.18.26.14 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I also made a slight modification

5.What is the definition of a clear victory?

About Final allied offensive of 1598, Quoting the annals of the Joseon Dynasty,It is written in this way. "The battle was a clear victory for the Korean and Ming forces, and resulted in the loss of over half of the Japanese fleet." However, the quote has written like this.

軍門都監啓曰: “卽者陳提督差官入來曰: ‘賊船一百隻捕捉, 二百隻燒破, 斬首五百級, 生擒一百八十餘名。 溺死者, 時未浮出, 故不知其數。 李總兵一定死了云。 敢啓。” 傳曰: “知道。”

Chinese military Messenger reported.(軍門都監啓曰). Admiral Chin has announced it (卽者陳提督差官入來曰). " I captured 100 enemy ships and destroyed 200 ships.(賊船一百隻捕捉, 二百隻燒破) 500 Soldiers killed and 180 soldiers with the captives. (斬首五百級, 生擒一百八十餘名) Number of drowning is unknown (溺死者, 時未浮出, 故不知其數). Korean director Yi Sunshin died." Korea official said. I know.(李總兵一定死了云。 敢啓。” 傳曰: “知道。”)

this report is not writing it as a clear Korean victory. Japan army succeeded their purpose （Japan army remained on the Korean peninsula withdrawal) .many Chinese and Korean Commander was killed, None of the leaders of Japanese military was killed.--Juzumaru (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

---

I'm always very sensitive to these articles being written with exaggerated results or overstated victories, but I think it's difficult to find a source that would claim the Noryang Battle was not a victory for Korea/China. Even with the current reference, the larger Japanese fleet lost over half its ships to a smaller enemy fleet - tactically, at least, it was a victory. I agree, though, that calling it a "clear victory" is poorly worded. How about:

"Despite suffering high causalities, in the end the battle was a tactical victory for the Korean and Ming forces and resulted in the loss of over half of the Japanese fleet." 159.18.26.14 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

---

What is the purpose of Battle of Noryang ? After the war, Konishi Yukinaga's Army trapped in Suncheon, could not escape to Japan. Shimazu Yoshihiro and others went to Suncheon to rescue Konishi.China and Korea ambushed Japan in Noryang to prevent escape of Konishi Yukinaga's Army. As a result, China and Korea are prevented to escape the Konishi Though none of Japanese officers were killed, Chinese Admiral and Korean Admiral Korean was killed Japan army. Was Japan not able to achieve the purpose of this battle? --Juzumaru (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Then, this description is not Ming China's record. "Only after the battle did the soldiers learn of Yi's death, and it is said that Chen Lin was so shocked when he heard the news, he fell down many times on his way and lamented that Yi died in his stead" This description is necessary for this article? --Juzumaru (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure it makes sense to debate this here, but from the sources I've seen Noryang is always presented as a Korean/Ming victory. We can debate the extent of the victory, and I think the recent wording edits are more accurate than they were before (no longer says "clear victory", etc). However, the fact remains that a smaller Korean Fleet defeated the larger Japanese Fleet and forced it to withdraw. I'm not sure how else you could characterize this - personally I think 'tactical victory' is fairly accurate, and doesn't comment on the strategic implications one way or the other.

Entirely agree with your second point. The personal statement about Chen Li is speculative ("it is said") and not relevant to the battle description. I have removed it. 159.18.26.14 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Generally speaking, the official records of the Korean / Chinese on their own losses were quite reliable, as their registered soldiers had to be accounted for. Though obviously the reports of enemy losses could certainly be dubious, especially in the case where battles happened on sea and most of the bodies could not be recovered. The recorded loss of the allies in Noryang was minuscule, despite the fact that they lost 2 of their primary commanders.

It is interesting to note that none of the prominent Shimazu samurais appears to have perished in Noryang, though that has generally held true through out the war and was a reflection of the nature of two sides, the leader of the Japnese were noblemens who carried serious political consequences if they fall in battle, the Ally leaders had no serious status in the courts and were often completely expendable.

So if you take the ally records at Noryang on the Japanese losses literally (which obviously can be debated, but I have not seen Shimazu records stating their losses in said battle.), then it's difficult to argue that the Allies somehow lost the fight, the value of Yi and Deng's life simply can not be weighted on the same scale as the prominent Samurai's in terms of political effect.

Yi's goal was originally to keep Konishi from escaping, however the entire point of that was to keep as many Japanese as possible from escaping, by sending what appears to be 10-15k Japanese to the bottom of the sea in the ensuing battle if the records were to be believed, it seems that he achieved that perfectly fine.

(RollingWave (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC))

Defeat of Zhu Chengxun

This is also one of the rewriting of the IP user 159.18.26.14.

Before rewriting
Following the fall of Pyongyang, King Seonjo requests the assistance of the Ming Dynasty, who send 5,000 soldiers led by Zhu Chengxun, but Zhu suffered a crushing defeat in the Battle of Pyongyang.

After rewriting
Following the fall of Pyongyang, King Seonjo requests the assistance of the Ming Dynasty, who send 5,000 soldiers led by Zhu Chengxun

I presented a historical basis, But this historical documents also was removed by IP user 159.18.26.14. Why would you want to remove the results of the battle?.. --Juzumaru (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Two issues:
1) The sentence is unnecessary in the Capture of Pyongyang section because it happens later (and is discussed in a later section). I have removed the entire reference to the Ming reinforcements from that section since its appropriately addressed later below.
2) In the Intervention of Ming China section, where this reinforcement issue is discussed, it's already made clear that the attack was a failure. The sentence reads:
"The local governor at Liaodong eventually acted upon King Seonjo's request for aid following the capture of Pyongyang by sending a small force of 5,000 soldiers led by Zu Chengxun. This cavalry force advanced almost unhindered and managed to enter Pyongyang, but was promptly and decisively defeated by the Japanese troops in the city. One of their leading generals, Shi Ru, was killed in this engagement."
I/// think this addresses the point accurately? 159.18.26.14 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Peace talks between Japan and China

Peace talks of this war has been negotiated between Wanli Emperor and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. However, IP user 159.18.26.14 was rewritten as this

The war stalled for five years during which the three states attempted to negotiate a peaceful compromise .

The three countries？ I guess that it has added Korea to Japan and China. I quoted source of the Korea Education Center.[11]（Even a Korean insists that Korea was not able to participate in an ending of this war.）

At this point in 1593, the war entered a stalemate during which intrigues and negotiations failed to produce a settlement. As the suzerain of Joseon Korea, Ming China exercised tight control over the Koreans during the war. At the same time, Ming China negotiated bilaterally with Japan while often ignoring the wishes of the Korean government.

But this source also was removed by IP user 159.18.26.14. Then he was again overwrite the "three states"... --Juzumaru (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I'm not entirely sure what specifically was written before, but I have no issue with most of the recent changes you've made (including the the "three countries" correction above) - they're all generally positive improvements. I've followed up with some minor grammatical edits (and removed one duplicate sentence). My one concern is the "Naval Power" section; it's meant as a general description of technology and force strength, so I removed the detailed references to the results of any one specific battle (since they are all described in detail later below).159.18.26.14 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC) ===About delete the

About Death of Hideyoshi

I delete some editions because of repetition not non-reference. Actually, at first I did not try to delete the data added and just deleted the non-reference thing. Then IP 159... noticed me all these information added has been mentioned in previous sections. These edition just about three battle but actually these three battles has three sections to describes. These sections gave the battle descriptions, the strength, casualties and even a link to articles. There is no necessary to repeat it again. The things I deleted are the battles of Suncheon Japanese Castle, the Sacheon Japanese Castle, and the Ulsan Japanese Castle. If check the articles, will see that there are three sections which named Battle of Sacheon, Siege of Suncheon and Siege of Ulsan which were just near this sections. Then these three battles did not have much relationship with the death of Hideyoshi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This article should be a profile article and someone even want to delete contents about some small battles. Thus. if a battle has been described in a specific section, there is no need to describe it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the details of the three battles in the Hideyoshi section - they are already described in separate sections earlier, so if we have additional information to add it should be incorporated into those specific sections. The Hideyoshi section only deals with his death as a major factor in the decision to withdraw; there is no need to restate the detailed military situation here beyond a generic statement that they were generally in a stalemate. 159.18.26.14 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Result section of the infobox

Can anyone clarify if the two results listed in the infobox correspond to the results of the two distinct invasions? In other words, does "Tactical Stalemate" refer to the result of the first invasion (1592-1596) and does "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory, Withdrawal of Japanese Armies" refer to the result of the second invasion (1597-1598)? It really doesn't make sense if both are results of the conflict as a whole. If so, this needs to be made clear as it is currently ambiguous. BUjjsp (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Since no one responded, I will be adjusting the "result" section of the infobox accordingly. The guidelines set forth by Template:Infobox military conflict explicitly 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. If there are digressions, which I'm sure there will be, please comment below before reverting the edit, so that we can discuss a more permanent solution. BUjjsp (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There was quite a discussion about the result about a year or so back (unfortunately, I think most of the discussion took place via back and forth comments alongside edits so there is no record of it in Talk). In short, the consensus was that i) there was a military (tactical) stalemate ii) failure of Japan to achieve its objectives constituted a (strategic) victory for Korea/China iii) the withdrawal was key to the results as it indicated the manner by which the campaign ended. The disagreement over whether to view the campaign on a strategic or tactical level was the reason both points of view were included. Given your observations about the guidelines for infoboxes, your edits appear reasonable. I suppose calling it a "Strategic" Victory accurately implies it wasn't necessarily a tactical one, although I do feel that the term "Tactical Stalemate" best represented the actual military result. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes sense as to why there was no discussion regarding the matter in the infobox. I do understand your concerns, but I believe that the infobox should be as transparent regarding the final result as possible, which in this case was Japanese withdrawal, in order to avoid confusing readers. I think that the body of the article on its own does a good job of explaining the military stalemate that persisted until the end of the conflict. What do you think? BUjjsp (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please look. Other articles use "stalemate" and "victory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Artemisium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_El_Alamein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_West_Henan%E2%80%93North_Hubei Redfoxjump (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in edit warring, why don't you take a look at what Template:Infobox military conflict says. It states in the 'result' section, that using 'contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"' should be avoided. This means that the three articles you listed are in conflict with Template:Infobox military conflict. The three pages you provided are not good evidence. In all three cases, the "tactical stalemate" claim is not sourced. Comment here before reverting edits please so that we can discuss further. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Military stalemate. Withdrawal of Japanese Armies" It does not contradict. http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B7322 History of the Ming chapter 322 "前後七載(For seven years)，喪師數十萬(Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were killed.)，糜餉數百萬(Millions of cost of war was spent)，中朝與朝鮮迄無勝算(There were no chances of victory in China and Korea.)，至關白死兵禍始休。(By Hideyoshi's death ended the war.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfoxjump (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not at all acceptable. The result section fails to detail which side prevailed in the conflict. Strategic Ming/Joseon victory (which shows that it was not a tactical victory) needs to be included regardless as it was the final result of the conflict. End of story. Please stop recklessly undoing edits until we come to a final decision regarding the issue. We want to avoid edit warring please. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tactical Stalemate. Strategic Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Armies" Former sentence is neutral. Your sentence is not neutral. "Strategic Korean/Chinese Victory.Withdrawal of Japanese Armies" It is a big change. Please edit after a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfoxjump (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not neutral. Tactical stalemate should not be included in the final result as explained in the Template:Infobox military conflict guideline. The final result was a strategic victory by the Ming and Joseon forces and withdrawal of the Japanese armies. Use of "Strategic Victory" already implies that it was not a "Tactical Victory". I'll be starting a Request for Comment. BlackRanger88 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

Seoul was known as Hanyang at the time Staygyro (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Conflict Result

Which should be used as the result of the conflict?

1. 'Strategic Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Armies'

2. 'Tactical Stalemate. Strategic Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Armies'

Please read the discussion above for information as well as Template:Infobox military conflict 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier above, I was fine with the original text (option 2), but feel that the revised (option 1 "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Armies") is an acceptable choice, in keeping with the Wikipedia template guidelines. Noting that it was a "Strategic" victory, in combination with noting the "Withdrawal", correctly implies that it was not a tactical victory for China/Korea, and that the war did not end through any battlefield victory but through Japan's decision not to further pursue it. The use of "Tactical Stalemate" is not in any way incorrect, but given the above, may be a little redundant/repetitive.

As a compromise, perhaps also consider "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Armies following military stalemate" as an option.159.18.26.96 (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I like that compromise as well. I think it satisfies both sides. Thanks for bringing that up! BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well since it seems as though no one else felt the need to add to the discussion, I'll go ahead and put in the compromise that user:159.18.26.96 suggested: "Strategic Korean/Chinese victory. Withdrawal of Japanese Armies following military stalemate". I think it should satisfy all concerns. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

History of the Ming told. "There were no chances of victory in China and Korea.)，" http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B7322 History of the Ming chapter 322 "前後七載(For seven years)，喪師數十萬(Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were killed.)，糜餉數百萬(Millions of cost of war was spent)，中朝與朝鮮迄無勝算(There were no chances of victory in China and Korea.)，至關白死兵禍始休。(By Hideyoshi's death ended the war.)" Redfoxjump (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that part of the passage indicates that a military stalemate arose just before the conclusion of the conflict. However, the final result was a Strategic Joseon/Ming victory that came with a withdrawal of Japanese forces. The source you provided does not justify whitewashing the result of the conflict by placing the final result at the bottom of the section. Furthermore, I've asked you MANY times now to discuss on the talk page BEFORE continuing to engage in edit warring. I even set up a specific talk page section where I thoroughly explained why I thought your edits were not appropriate, so that we could discuss the issue instead of resorting to Wikipedia:Edit warring. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

disruption of Japanese supply lines

Supply line from japan to busan was not disrupted.

"" The Battle of Busan of 1592 (or more accurately, the Battle of Busanpo or Battle of Busan Bay) (釜山浦 海戰) was a naval engagement that took place on 1 September 1592. It was a Korean surprise attack on the Japanese fleet stationed at Busan, and its main objective was to regain Busan for the Joseon forces, which would have directly cut the supply lines of the Japanese army. The attempt was ultimately repulsed and the Korean fleet retreated. The control of Busan would be maintained under Japanese control, along with control of the sea lanes from Japan to Busan, until the end of the war. While a tactical victory for the Korean navy, the battle was a strategic victory for Japanese forces, who retained control of the Busan area and the vital supply lines back to Japan. The Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, which summarized the battle as follows: "李舜臣等攻釜山賊屯, 不克。 倭兵屢敗於水戰, 聚據釜山、東萊, 列艦守港。 舜臣與元均悉舟師進攻, 賊斂兵不戰, 登高放丸, 水兵不能下陸, 乃燒空船四百餘艘而退。 鹿島萬戶鄭運居前力戰, 中丸死, 舜臣痛惜之。". This can be translated as follows, "Yi Sun Shin and his fleet attacked Busan where the enemy forces stationed, but failed to defeat them. Since Japanese soldiers were often defeated in sea fights, they gathered in the fortress in Busan and Dongnae, which guarded the naval ships. Yi Sun Shin and Won Gyun attacked the Busan bay on vast numbers of ships, but the Japanese soldiers did not fight, and climbed to higher position and shot an arquebus. Thus Josen marines were unable to land then after burning 400 empty ships, Yi's fleet retreated. 鹿島萬戶 Chong Woon(ko) was shot and died during the hard fighting, and Yi Sun deeply regret the lost." "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfoxjump (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Take note on how the text read "disruption of Japanese supply LINES" There was more than one supply line, not just the main one from Busan to Japan. This fact is referenced many times in the body of the article.

"typically held the field in most land engagements, but were eventually hampered in their advances as their communication and supply lines along the Western Korean coast were intermittently disrupted."

"the Korean navy would continue to harass and inflict losses on the Japanese supply fleets throughout the duration of the war."

"The Korean navy was again to play a crucial part in the second invasion, as in the first, by hampering Japanese advances on land by harassing supply fleets at sea."

I'm simply reiterating it at the top of the article as one of the factors that contributed to the Japanese military's retreat to the coastal areas of the peninsula. I'll change the wording to say "supply efforts" as opposed to "supply lines" to be more general so that there is no confusion. BlackRanger88 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this if you need more proof.

""Yi's successes gave Korea complete control of the sea lanes around the peninsula, and the Korean navy was able to intercept most of the supplies and communications between Japan and Korea."

This direct quote shows that there was no doubt regarding the Joseon navy's interference with Japanese supply efforts. This should clear up all disagreement you have with this change in the article. Please remember that repeated removal of sourced information is a violation of Wikipedia policy and is a form of vandalism. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Redfoxjump: Stop recklessly undoing edits and consult with the other involved editors first. I've warned you many times now. I've retyped the text in question below.

"the disruption of most of the Japanese supply fleets by the Joseon navy"

1. Your primary source does contradict the text I used. All it says it that the supply line from Busan to Tsushima wasn't disrupted which is not what the text says.

2. Stop saying "supply from busan to japan was not disrupted". I never said it was. The wording I used does not say it was. Read carefully please.

3. Why do I have to show the "number of Japanese ships"? That is irrelevant. I said MOST of the supply fleets were disrupted, which is the wording used in the source I provided. "the Korean navy was able to intercept most of the supplies and communications between Japan and Korea."

4. Intermittent is not appropriate. The term means, "occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or steady." The conflict over the supply line from Busan to Tsushima was one exception. In reality, the Joseon navy defeated MOST of the supply fleets which is exactly what my source and the text I used says. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If I can jump in - I think the issue is that while naval supply lines were in many cases interrupted, especially along the west coast, the most important one, the supply from Japan to Busan was rarely affected to any significant degree. It was the shortest route from Japan to Korea, and at the extreme limits of Korean naval operational range (since the unconquered naval bases in which the Korean navy needed to dock/resupply itself were all along the unconquered west coast). The issue of supply lines was therefore more a factor in Japan not being able to advance northwards into Korea (since they couldn't move supplies up the peninsula), rather than an issue of Japan not being able to supply themselves along the southern coast. I am fine with removing "intermittent", but I think saying "most" overstates the effect of the problem and makes it seem like they were almost entirely cut-off, which wasn't the case. Can I suggest we go back to BlackRanger88's initial proposed revision?

"but the disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Joseon navy"159.18.26.96 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with that wording. I initially made the change because User:Redfoxjump added an unsourced term that was not made from a neutral point of view. The word "most" (referring to the supply lines) is used in the source I provided, but to compromise I am willing to omit the term so long as inaccurate terms such as "intermittent" are not used. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"disruption" is clearly wrong. If the japanese supply lines were completely disrupted, all Japanese would have starved to death. Supply line from japan to busan was the most important. it was not disrupted. Redfoxjump (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it say "completely" disrupted? No, it does not. As I said before, read carefully.

Did you even read what I wrote before? The wording DOES NOT SAY that the supply line from japan to busan was disrupted. Stop bringing this same irrelevant point up. You clearly haven't understood a thing I've said. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"intermittent disruption of Japanese supply lines at sea" This article is consistent with the article of overview. "their communication and supply lines along the Western Korean coast were intermittently disrupted." Redfoxjump (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Where is your source that uses the term intermittent?

You said, "'disruption' is clearly wrong". Yet you assert here that "their communication and supply lines along the Western Korean coast were intermittently disrupted".

Sounds like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"disrupted" and "intermittently disrupted" are different. Redfoxjump (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"disruption of Japanese supply lines at sea" It will include "line from Japan to Busan". Redfoxjump (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed the word. "disruption" to "damage" Redfoxjump (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

But won't the "damage" include the line from Busan to Japan as well? I think it would be best to follow the source wording, "the Korean navy was able to intercept most of the supplies and communications between Japan and Korea"

We could change the current wording to "the interception of most of the Japanese supply fleets". Using the word "most" shows that not all supply efforts were intercepted. I think that will satisfy both issues. Tell me what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with "but the disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Joseon navy" or some variation of it to indicate it was partial, but not "damage". Just grammatically, supply lines can be interrupted or disrupted, but not "damaged". I think "disruption" already suggests it was partial - disruption is a temporary interruption, not a complete blockade or destruction. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the use of the term, "disruption", but the user Redfoxjump clearly is not. That's why I suggested using the term "interception" to satisfy all editors involved. Also, regarding your change from "Ming intervention" to "numerical superiority", I've never seen a source that cites the Joseon/Ming force's numerical superiority as a definitive reason as to why Japanese forces withdrew to the edge of the peninsula. From my knowledge, the Japanese were far better at fighting on land and were very successful in defeating land forces despite having a size disadvantage. As such, it doesn't seem as though numerical superiority had much of an impact on the outcome of the conflict. "Ming intervention" is more appropriate because

it's a lot more broad and thus encompasses all of the Ming forces' contributions to the conflict. Tell me what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would actually be my concern - it's too broad and imprecise. The Japanese advance had few setbacks until Ming forces arrived, at which point they became outnumbered and the advance stalled. While the reason for that numerical superiority was "Ming Intervention", the use of that term could imply any number of (incorrect) things: Ming contributed higher quality troops, they had better technology, they applied diplomatic pressure that led Japan to back off, they cut off supplies, they attacked Japan on another front, they invaded Japan, etc... The main direct contribution of their intervention was in fact providing additional troops, of equal and likely lesser quality - which sums up as numerical superiority as the cause.

I think the current wording is fairly accurate as it is; I would avoid debating specific wording unless its clearly incorrect or misleading. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If impreciseness is the issue, may I suggest, "as well as the contribution of reinforcements by the Ming Dynasty"? I think this satisfies both concerns. Frankly, I think the current wording is misleading, since "numerical superiority", as a cause of withdrawal, is not cited in any historical source I've seen. As I said before, "From my knowledge, the Japanese were far better at fighting on land and were very successful in defeating land forces despite having a size disadvantage. As such, it doesn't seem as though numerical superiority had much of an impact on the outcome of the conflict." To be clear, I'm saying that the fact itself that the Ming/Joseon forces numerically superior is really not a major reason that contributed to the outcome of the conflict. The contribution of Ming reinforcements however, is important, since without them it is likely that the Joseon forces would not have been able to launch their counterattack. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with your clarified wording. The distinction you are making is that Ming intervention simply provided more men to Korea, and not necessarily that Ming intervention resulted in a larger Korea/Ming force compared to the Japanese, which is very fair and a helpful distinction to note.159.18.26.96 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe "disrupt" needs to be qualified in any way; the word inherently already means less than completely block or destroy. "Disrupt" means interrupt, impede, cause confusion, etc. -- something that negatively impacts the normal flow, but without destroying it. In this case, cutting the sea supply lines, even it were only for a while, and even if other supply lines were utilized afterwards, can be well described by the single word "disrupt". --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:A D Monroe III Woops! I made an edit to the wording in question before I saw your suggestion and sources. I chose to follow the source wording and used: "the interception of Japanese supply fleets by the Joseon navy".. I agree that "disruption" is a perfectly acceptable term, however the user Redfoxjump clearly has a problem with it. Given these circumstances, what do you think about the new wording I used? BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the "interception" wording as well. (BTW, those source weren't mine -- were added previously.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually think "disruption" is much better than "interception" - and I don't know why we would want to move away from it. As you both pointed out, disruption already implies it was temporary/sporadic - not complete/total (which I think is the main concern in this debate). 'Interception" is a vague term to use here and I don't think it resolves the underlying issue. Agree that we don't need any additional qualifiers on "disruption", but I would stick to its use.159.18.26.96 (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

References