Talk:Korea and Japan

To do. Please write a brief definition or description of this article at Korea and Japan/Definition.

Metadata here

Chumbun, I see what happened now: Dr. Jensen suggested that you write about Korea and Japan, and started a page for you. Then you uploaded a giant Wikipedia article. Well, that's really not going to work so well. Unless you possess the ability (which would be surprising in any teenager) to review and rewrite that huge amount of material, it would be best that you simply start over. We're really not so much interested in simply replicating Wikipedia here. If you really want to use the Wikipedia material, then I would recommend that you import it one section at a time.

See CZ:WP2CZ for more. --Larry Sanger 15:48, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Oh, if that is the case, sure. In fact, I was attempting to rewrite the entire article - almost like from scratch, but I still need my previous work to avoid redoing all that amount of research. You see all the sections that are heavily cited? I wrote them.

By the way, Mr. Sanger, I have a question - should I keep those cites (a ton of them) or should I delete them? I read somewhere that Citizendium allows "notes" only for very special reasons. (Chunbum Park 17:12, 23 October 2007 (CDT))

I'd encourage you to do it section by section. I also wonder if there is a better name for the article. Does this just concern the history of international relations between Korea and Japan? If so, perhaps a more precise name is in order.

Many of the citations might be retained, but it's hard to say. It depends on what purpose the citations serve. I would actually have you show a few paragraphs to Dr. Jensen; he'll have a better idea of what really needs to be supported with a citation. --Larry Sanger 18:32, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

No it was a war, but the article's significant part explains the relations b/w the 2 countries in the 17th century. We might just keep the citations for the draft page so that people know I'm not making stuffs up - especially when I haven't gone to college. We could remove the non-essential ones for the approved version. (Chunbum Park 09:46, 24 October 2007 (CDT))

OK, have at it! --Larry Sanger 10:10, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Grammar

I may be wrong, but doesn't "series" imply more than 3, etc? It was basically one single war - the fighting continued all throughout the years of 1592 and 1598, but the there was a huge peace negotiation inbetween the 2 major "invasions" (1592-1593, 1597-1598) - the second one basically being a massive wave of reinforcements. With this in mind, could anyone see if the recent changes were okay?(Chunbum Park 16:32, 1 November 2007 (CDT))

I agree that series is not our best choice. I was concerned with the conflict in the singular and plural tense with 'invasions.. was' vs 'invasions.. were'. You can clarify it better. --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:53, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

I tried to rephrase the lede. See if that works. Richard Jensen 16:59, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

That's better. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:41, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Let's keep that change. This is what I learned in English - that if a subject is plural, and the predicate nominative singular, then the "verb" goes with the number of the subject, even if the two are in contradictions with one another. Right? Maybe that was missing. (Chunbum Park 17:17, 2 November 2007 (CDT))

Wrong idea....

I actually began this article on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Then a former Yale professor (or 1 of the Ivy leagues) Jensen suggested that I write the article somewhere else because we'd have to choose a correct title for the article... and he created this page for me.

Apparently, the introductory information that I'm putting up right now makes the article seem like as if this article dealt with the relations between Korea and Japan - which is a quite nice possibility, but I intended to write this about the war that took place between Japan, Korea, and China b/w years of 1592 & 1598.

I personally think that all the contributions by other editors were pretty nice & that we should keep the article & the intro as they are, but I guess it's about time for me to move what I've written so far to [[Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Any comments? (Chunbum Park 16:20, 6 November 2007 (CST))

there is the issue how to write a new encyclopedia for college students interest in the history of Korea as a whole, not merely one short war. We need big-picture overviews, and should not try to compete with Wikipedia for very small details. Richard Jensen 17:33, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Oh, that could be true too. But also this war was a major war, it's just not known well in the west. It was, according to Kenneth M. Swope from Ball State U, Asia's 1st world war. Stephen Turnbull, or was it Swope,... some western scholar said that the big irony is - the Korean War is called the Forgotten War but this war, which caused much more destruction on the Korean peninsula than the Korean War, is completely unknown in the west. The magnitude of the war was bigger than the Korean War & competes w/ WWI & WWII. What do you think? (Chunbum Park 13:37, 7 November 2007 (CST))

I'd like to add, in Japan, Korea, & China, everyone knows about this war & many people still know several details about the major battles in this war. Many of the significant national historical figures came out of this war (i.e. Admiral Yi, Hideyoshi). I really think that, - and yes I understand that an encyclopedia should not treat everything like Wikipedia but should treat them on the surface level for many convenient reasons, this war stands completely by itself. (Chunbum Park 13:44, 7 November 2007 (CST))

I am willing to work on both articles at the same time. I'm afraid that China will have to play a big part in this article. Also, I think people got the wrong idea about the "Chinese counterattack" repelling the Japanese troops. It builds this sense that it was just a simple swipe across the board. In fact, the Koreans, by the time the Chinese arrived, mobilized themselves & built citizen armies & fought alongside the Chinese. And the "counterattack" was in fact 100s of battles, offensives and counter-offensives, etc. (Chunbum Park 16:31, 8 November 2007 (CST))