Talk:Korean War of 1592-1598: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chunbum Park
imported>Chunbum Park
Line 18: Line 18:
The historiography is problematical. Phrases like "against the predominant western view" and "popular belief regarding the history of gun" and "easily surpassed any of the contemporary conflicts of the European theater in terms of the size of the armies, the technologies, and the tactics deployed"  should be avoided. To handle that material it is necessary to read a LOT of scholarship. In any case it's not very relevant.  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:51, 21 December 2007 (CST)
The historiography is problematical. Phrases like "against the predominant western view" and "popular belief regarding the history of gun" and "easily surpassed any of the contemporary conflicts of the European theater in terms of the size of the armies, the technologies, and the tactics deployed"  should be avoided. To handle that material it is necessary to read a LOT of scholarship. In any case it's not very relevant.  [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:51, 21 December 2007 (CST)


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

Revision as of 16:04, 22 December 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Fought on the Korean peninsula from 1592 to 1598 between Japan and the Chinese tributary alliance (Korea, China, Ryukyus, Java, etc.), and resulted in Japanese retreat. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories History and Military [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Korea
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English
Fountain pen.jpg
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
I worked on this article on Wikipedia, and intend to maintain and develop it on the Citizendium.
Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

historiography

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

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