| Revision as of 12:04, 30 November 2006 editGeeman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,358 edits Semi-protection request← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:21, 2 December 2006 edit undoGeeman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,358 edits Koreas with Chinese help or Chinese with Korean help.Next edit → | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
| OK, folks, I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection for this page since the (anonymous) user who continually reverts the page has not entered into the discussion to justify those changes, but continues to revert it anyway. Oh, well. ] 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | OK, folks, I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection for this page since the (anonymous) user who continually reverts the page has not entered into the discussion to justify those changes, but continues to revert it anyway. Oh, well. ] 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Koreas with Chinese help or Chinese with Korean help. == | |||
| To avoid another session of reverting, I'd like to get some opinions on a particular bit of prose in this article. The source of contention is whether the text should read that during the failed attempt to invade China through Korea Toyotomi's forces were defeated by "by Ming China with the help of Korean forces" or if it should read that they were defeated "by Korean forces with the help of Ming China." I would argue that since the conflict took place in Korea the latter is most appropriate. The counter argument (if I'm understanding correctly) is that the situation is comparable to the United States conflict over much of the same land in the 1950's. The Chinese participation in that conflict is by implication more significant than that of the North Koreans (again, if I'm understanding correctly) so the article should prioritize Ming China's involvement over the Korean forces for that reason. However, I would argue that the example of the U.S. in the 1950's really works better to support the second version of the sentence. The 1950's conflict is, after all, commonly called The Korean War, not The War of Chinese Intervention or something along those lines. It would be more appropriate to say things like "South Korean and allied forces" (which is, in fact, an example from the WP article on The Korean War) rather than "American forces with the support of South Korea." Homeland forces are generally given primacy in such descriptions even if they are outnumbered, unless they are so few as to represent a token force (like, say, the Kuwaiti troops in the first Gulf War.) Even though American forces eventually outnumbered those of French and British in the European Theater of Operations during Second World War the struggle was not renamed the Second American-led World War, nor was the theater or operations renamed something like The American Expeditionary Theater. Likewise, one would not say that "French naval and ground forces with the aid of American colonists defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War." | |||
| In any case, this particular change strikes me as a kind of passive revisionism, but I could be reading more into it than merits.... Anyone else have an opinion on this matter, or a clarification of the opposing argument if I got it wrong? ] 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:21, 2 December 2006
 | Military history: Asian / Japanese Unassessed | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Japan Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Template:Korean requires
Template:FAOL
|hangul= parameter.
It is missing that during his regime Japan invaded Korea(Chosun). Xaos
Please: When posting an article try to remember that part of teaching is not to assume. Therefore, please put in the country names etc. so as to clearly identify who, what, and where you are talking about.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.30.148 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 January 2003 .
Forgive me if I am mistaking Toyotomi Hideyoshi for somebody else. Did he not instigate a "sword hunt", disarming anyone who was not a recognized Samurai? I've probably remembered this in some oddly garbled form, but maybe you can figure out what I am referring to, even though I sure can't. My vague recollection that such a sword hunt consolidated a long period of domestic tranquillity in Japan, at the cost of individual liberty. Or I think I read something like that. Does this make any sense? (if so maybe some mention could be made, I'll have to see if I can find my source...) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:32 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, i recently updated the site. Hideyoshi did require all non-samurai to disarm and give up their weapons. And indeed it did have long lasting effects. During the Sengoku period, it was much more common for peasant revolts. Hideyoshi effectively rid Japan of this problem. - jkorath@yahoo.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkorath (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 October 2003.
Excellent work at the last part now that the article has more than mere timeline. -- Taku 04:06, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
The present Osaka Castle dates from 1931, not after World War II as the photograph tagline asserts. Zogmeister 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Bad" changes
Unfortunately, shogun is not actual ruler, but just the practical ruler--the emperor is the actual ruler... Komdori 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The crest is the symbol of Osaka Prefecture, but I don't believe it was the crest of Hideyoshi. Rather, it's an abstract design based on that crest. Does anyone have further information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.3.87.224 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 May 2004.
--That crest is not house of Toyotomi .please look at this site(http://www2.harimaya.com/sengoku/html/toyo_k.html ) That house crest called "Go-Shichi-no-Kirimon"."Go" means "five","shichi" is "Seven", and "kiri" is "paulownia".
symbol of osaka, the orginal is "Sen-nari-hyoutan". "Sen-nari-hyoutan" is house of toyotomi's "seal of horse". It looks like flag. when daymyo-procession daimyo ride on horse but ordinary people weren't knew its face, and long procession hide it. "sen-nari-hyoutan" talled "Our daimyo is in here!". so, crest of osaka is not house of Toyotomi's crest. (from:http://www.nga.gr.jp/symbol/ohsaka/ohsaka.html) (Seal of horse:http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/TENJI/virtual/oumajirushi/) (sorry, I'm japanese....I can't speak and write english well) --kashiwama—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.70.13.96 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 April 2006.
Appropriate use of kanji
I added kanji to the text, mostly proper nouns, and was later taken out. What I did may or may not have been appropriate. Is there a discussion somewhere on what standard applies in Misplaced Pages to the use of foreign characters in entries in other languages. Or if there is a discussion for Japanese in particular.
- Hi Silentcity, You can find a discusssion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names in Kanji next to the person's article link (which covers more than the title suggests). As you'll see there, there's discussion on both points of view. My post is the most recent (I think) but does not appear to have concluded the discussion. Why not read it through, think it over, and see where you stand on the matter of providing kanji in various contexts. Fg2 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Popular Culture
As per WikiProject Military history Popular Culture guideline,
- "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. If present, the section should be a prose discussion of the subject's cultural significance, cited from reliable sources. In particular, the following should be avoided:
- Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia)
- Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research)
- This tends to be a problem in articles on military hardware (i.e. weapons, vehicles, etc.); for example, the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument, are certainly notable.
I suggest getting rid of the popular culture section. It sounds pretty ridiculous. Listing every movies and games like Samurai Xtreeme Superhowerkdsf stuffs and junks is stupid. (Wikimachine 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
- Because this issue pertains to large numbers of articles, I've raised the topic for discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan#"X in popular culture" sections of articles. Fg2 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would make getting rid of popular culture sections in articles much easier, Thanks. (Wikimachine 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC))
Regarding Yi-Sunsin
There is a problem with this article regarding the use of Yi-Sunsin's name in the section describing Toyotomi's failed invasion of China through Korea, and I'd like to address the issue in the discussion page so we might put a stop to this continual reverting. The argument for removing Yi-Sunsin appears to be based on the impression that he was not very significant in Toyotomi's life, which I think is debatable. However, even if we accept it as true simply mentioning the name of the admiral who opposed Toyotomi's attack does no harm to this article and leads to articles that describe the events more fully. The text that keeps getting removed does nothing to describe Yi-Sunsin personally, nor does it elaborate upon the admiral's victories. It simply states that the troops under Toyotomi were countered by the navy under Yi. That's a pretty standard way of describing such conflicts, and is far cry from diverting attention away from Toyotomi. The use of Yi-Sunsin's name is no more distracting or out of place than mentioning von Rundstedt is in the biography of Patton. So aside from the fact that Yi-Sunsin's actions were more signficant than I think is being assumed, I think the reference to the admiral should remain because it is nothing more than simple statement of fact. Can someone give an example that shows why Yi Sunsin should NOT be mentioned in this article?
- I can't imagine how an article of this length on Hideyoshi can leave out a brief mention of Yi Sun-shin. From the anonymous editor's history, however, and the pattern of the edits on the other articles, I'm inclined to think it's a nationalism/vandalism problem, not a good faith dispute. Goguryeo 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. I suspect the solution here might actually be to elaborate upon the nature of Yi's victories in this article and make it clear that the admiral's efforts effectively ended those of Toyotomi and, arguably, had a negative effect on Toyotomi's legacy. Such an elaboration would be a good elaboration on Toyotomi and address the issue of Yi Sunsin's significance in his life.
Yi Sunsin's destruction of the Japanese fleet cut off the supply lines of Toyotomi's land forces, effectively strangling the invasion on the Korean peninsula.
- Something like that might be appropriate. Geeman 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the mention on Yi. It was ultimately Admiral Yi who repelled the Japanese(I'm not downgrading Kwon Yul or Kim Shi-min). Good friend100 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
To South Koreans. I publish Li Rusong from a neutral standpoint. He is a person that Japan recaptured Pyongyang and Japan. If you are neutral, it is likely to agree with this opinion.
- I also agree Yi's mention should probably be expanded, certainly not deleted. I have no problem with adding properly written information on Li Rusong information, but the Japanese nationalism agenda and revert wars have to stop. Korealist 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yi is deleted, and Lee is added. (Yi was not able to defend landing of Japan. However, LEE has regained a Korean peninsula.) A topic not related to the life of Toyotomi Hideyoshi is made to end by this. This treatment is a benevolence to the South Korean. Please consent.
- It should be informed that it is largely through Admiral Yi's efforts that the Japanese retreated. His attacks on Japanese supply ships weakened Japanese forces on land, which prevented them from successfully attacking and fighting Korean/Chinese forces.
- Also, although you are right that Admiral Yi did not stop the Japanese from landing, he stopped the Japanese from further occupying Korea. Good friend100 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's worthwhile to mention both Yi and Lee in this article. We needn't delve into their relative contributions to Toyotomi's defeat but their names should be mentioned for those who want to get more information on the conflict. Yi did not manage to defeat Toyotomi's land forces, but would the defeat of those forces have happened the way it did if not for his efforts? It's worth including Yi if only to fully describe the nature of that conflict. Geeman 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection request
OK, folks, I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection for this page since the (anonymous) user who continually reverts the page has not entered into the discussion to justify those changes, but continues to revert it anyway. Oh, well. Geeman 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Koreas with Chinese help or Chinese with Korean help.
To avoid another session of reverting, I'd like to get some opinions on a particular bit of prose in this article. The source of contention is whether the text should read that during the failed attempt to invade China through Korea Toyotomi's forces were defeated by "by Ming China with the help of Korean forces" or if it should read that they were defeated "by Korean forces with the help of Ming China." I would argue that since the conflict took place in Korea the latter is most appropriate. The counter argument (if I'm understanding correctly) is that the situation is comparable to the United States conflict over much of the same land in the 1950's. The Chinese participation in that conflict is by implication more significant than that of the North Koreans (again, if I'm understanding correctly) so the article should prioritize Ming China's involvement over the Korean forces for that reason. However, I would argue that the example of the U.S. in the 1950's really works better to support the second version of the sentence. The 1950's conflict is, after all, commonly called The Korean War, not The War of Chinese Intervention or something along those lines. It would be more appropriate to say things like "South Korean and allied forces" (which is, in fact, an example from the WP article on The Korean War) rather than "American forces with the support of South Korea." Homeland forces are generally given primacy in such descriptions even if they are outnumbered, unless they are so few as to represent a token force (like, say, the Kuwaiti troops in the first Gulf War.) Even though American forces eventually outnumbered those of French and British in the European Theater of Operations during Second World War the struggle was not renamed the Second American-led World War, nor was the theater or operations renamed something like The American Expeditionary Theater. Likewise, one would not say that "French naval and ground forces with the aid of American colonists defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War."
In any case, this particular change strikes me as a kind of passive revisionism, but I could be reading more into it than merits.... Anyone else have an opinion on this matter, or a clarification of the opposing argument if I got it wrong? Geeman 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Categories: