Talk:Righteous armies

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.

Military history: Asian / Korean C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force

More background?

The article could use some coverage of uibyeong activities during the Japanese and Manchurian invasions of middle Joseon. I believe that is when the term "uibyeong" first emerged, at least in its modern Korean meaning. Anyone want to take a crack at it? -- Visviva 08:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article needs to be improved

I will try to improve the article with my current knowledge but we need someone who is better versed in this part of Korean History other Resistance Armies need to be added an Armies and order of battles needs to be improved as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Easternknight (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

April 2019

I edited out the claim that Britain supported Japan's colonisation of Korea and the assertion that Britain supplied weapons to the occupying force -- see here for more evidence that Britain did not play such a role :

Britain was unwilling to protect Japanese interests in Korea and likewise the Japanese were unwilling to support Britain in India. Hayashi and Lord Lansdowne began their discussions in July 1901, and disputes over Korea and India delayed them until November. At this point, Hirobumi Itō requested a delay in negotiations in order to attempt a reconciliation with Russia. He was mostly unsuccessful, and Britain expressed concerns over duplicity on Japan's part...

The High Contracting parties, having mutually recognised the independence of China and Korea, declare themselves to be entirely uninfluenced by aggressive tendencies in either country, having in view, however, their special interests, of which those of Great Britain relate principally to China, whilst Japan, in addition to the interests which she possesses in China, is interested in a peculiar degree, politically as well as commercially and industrially in Korea, the High Contracting parties recognise that it will be admissible for either of them to take such measures as may be indispensable in order to safeguard those interests if threatened either by the aggressive action of any other Power, or by disturbances arising in China or Korea, and necessitating the intervention of either of the High Contracting parties for the protection of the lives and properties of its subjects.

The treaty laid out an acknowledgement of Japanese interests in Korea without obligating Britain to help should a Russo-Japanese conflict arise on this account. Japan was not obligated to defend British interests in India.

My comment -- Britain softened its stance against Japan in 1905, but even then, they did not actively support Japan -- and the Treaty with Japan was all over by 1919.

Suggesting Britain backed the invasion and supplied the weaponry to occupy and control is a weak, unsubstantiated claim --

See the links here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Demise_of_the_treaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.83.217.56 (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plural title

Hi, the title is currently "Righteous army", but I think it should be plural.

Reasoning: While under WP:PLURAL, most article titles are generally singular, I think the various righteous armies are clearly a class of things. It's also immediately clearer that the scope covers multiple armies instead of just one toobigtokale (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was proposed in this section that Righteous army be renamed and moved to Righteous armies.

result:
Moved per consensus seen below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Righteous army → Righteous armies – Per WP:PLURAL, I think the various righteous armies are a class of things. It's also immediately clearer that the scope covers multiple armies instead of just one. I myself was confused about which army this would be about until I read the lead. toobigtokale (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. The Night Watch (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SINGULAR. I don't think the exception to titles being rendered in the singular form as a "class of things". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand due to grammar; could you rephrase? toobigtokale (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess at what your point means (plural should be classes of things, not a single class), I disagree.
The examples given in WP:PLURAL support my argument, and it's an acceptable standard.
- Articles on groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together (preceded almost invariably by the word "the"), such as the Florida Keys, the Americas, or the Rivers of New Zealand.
- Things like Maxwell's equations, Legendre polynomials, Chebyshev polynomials, [the] Cauchy–Riemann equations, etc
The first bullet clearly applies here. The second bullet shows that a single class of things can be plural ("Maxwell's equations" is a single set, not multiple sets). toobigtokale (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of other similar articles using plural (varying quality, I know examples alone don't imply a standard, but they can be used as supporting evidence)
You can see in several of these uses they're clearly a singular class of things. toobigtokale (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007 Response? toobigtokale (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Paine Ellsworth Earlier today, I disambiguated this article for the sake of clarity, but seem to have accidentally stepped on some toes. I apologize for that. My impression was that this ~~RfC~~ discussion was about whether to change this article name from the singular to the plural. Disambiguating it from other uses of those terms, I thought, was irrelevant to that.

This article's hatnote led me to find three more notable uses of the term "righteous army" during the Boshin War, Russo-Japanese War, and in the hostilities prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War. There are semantic differences between the Chinese characters used for the Korean righteous armies (義兵) and the eponymously translated Japanese/Japanese-affiliated militias (義軍) that are very challenging to differentiate in English. Because of that, the name of this article ought to be revised with a disambiguator whatever the outcome of this ~~RfC~~ discussion's question. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that had to be done, editor CurryTime7-24. There is some controversy when an article is renamed to any title while a formal move request is still open. Your new page has been dabified at Righteous army (disambiguation), so nothing is lost. In cases like this, undiscussed page moves should be minimized, and since "Righteous army" is now the base name for this article's subject, this article is considered to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for its subject. To move this page to a qualified Righteous army (Korea) will require a fresh move request at some point after this one has been closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. From a quick perusal of the article, it seems that the righteous armies were loose, grassroots forces that organized at various times on an ad-hoc basis; consequently, I think the plural title best conveys these nuances (whereas a singular title might give the impression of a specific individual army, or an organized force with consistent activities). I also agree with the nominator's argument that the righteous armies are "a group or class of specific things" as outlined by WP:PLURAL. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.