text:
Talk:Yi Hwang

Removed poem
Accidie/Though thunder splits the mountains,/Deaf men will not hear / And though in the noonday Heaven /The sun burns white and clear,/Blind men will not see it./But we, thus eared and eyed,/Lack even the lame excuses/Infirmities provide./(Translated by Graeme Wilson)

 * Removed the above poem from previous edit due to lack of proper references. Also, finds it quite impossible (and unnecessary) to fill the content with every work of Yi Hwang. Nuyos (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Yi Hwang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110614035130/http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML43412.html to http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML43412.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yi Hwang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610014452/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=266705&v=43 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=266705&v=43
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610014515/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=180790&v=43 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=180790&v=43
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614035130/http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML43412.html to http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML43412.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Importance class
I have just reverted the importance class within the Philosophy project, back into HIGH, after having carefully read the description of the classes made by User:Carchasm who has changed it into LOW. I have added extensive bibliography, so that those who read may understand that this first-class Korean philosopher is really of high importance to the world philosophy, albeith he might not yet be sufficiently known to some. noychoH (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 * No objection here - thanks for adding sources! :)  - car chasm (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yi Hwang


text: Talk:Tongbulgyo

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Tongbulgyo


text:
Talk:Transport in North Korea

Any information on Korean Airports?
--195.245.232.21 09:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Would be appreciated

Rail link with Russia
poezda.net shows a train service between Moscow and Pyongyang via the Russia/DPRK border at Khasan/Tumangan, leaving Moscow on the 11th and 25th of each month. (If the link fails to work, go to www.poezda.net and do an advanced search on train 2.) --Kain 09:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No cars?!
No cars?! What kind of life is that?! That's what I like best of Europe and Mexico!!--Fluence (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Not a lot, no. On the plus side, you dont have to worry to much about getting hit by a car. Bonewah (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rail transport
Most countries have a "Rail transport in" page so I don't know why North Korea doesn't. I intend to move the rail transport text to the rail transport page. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No objections received. Text moved. Biscuittin (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

New Focus International Is a Dead Website and Might Not Be Credible
This article repeatedly cites New Focus International, which is a website that no longer even exists. The founder of the website of New Focus International, Jang Jin-sung was accused but acquitted of raping two women. According to this New York Times article fellow defectors doubted some of his claims about himself. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/world/asia/north-korea-metoo-defector.html

I read the archived article and it doesn't pass the smell test. The idea that you can walk up to a traffic cop with a bottle of beer and have them commandeer a car from the North Korean elite is too unlikely for me. So is the idea that it's even easier to buy gas from traffic cops who siphoned the gas as a kind of ticket, instead of just buying gas from a gas station. I think there needs to be another source, like another defector needs to back this up. North Korea might have a system that is corrupt and inefficient, but that doesn't mean you should believe everything you hear when the only source is a simple person. --47.145.107.214 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transport in North Korea


text:
Aurvandill

Aurvandill (Old Norse) is a figure in Germanic mythology. In Norse mythology, the god Thor tosses Aurvandill's toe – which had frozen while the thunder god was carrying him in a basket across the Élivágar rivers – into the sky to form a star called Aurvandils-tá ('Aurvandill's toe'). In wider medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, he was known as Ēarendel in Old English, Aurendil in Old High German, Auriwandalo in Lombardic, and possibly as auzandil in Gothic. An Old Danish Latinized version, Horwendillus (Ørvendil), is also the name given to the father of Amlethus (Amleth) in Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum. Comparative studies of the various myths where the figure is involved have led scholars to reconstruct a Common Germanic mythical figure named *Auza-wandilaz, which seems to have personified the 'rising light' of the morning, possibly the Morning Star (Venus). However, the German and – to a lesser extent – the Old Danish evidence remain difficult to interpret in this model.

Etymology
The Old Norse name Aurvandill stems from a Proto-Germanic form reconstructed as *Auza-wandilaz, *Auzi-wandalaz, or *Auzo-wandiloz. It is cognate with Old English Ēarendel, Old High German Aurendil (≈ Orentil), and Lombardic Auriwandalo. The Gothic word auzandil, translating the Koine Greek ἑωσφόρος (eosphoros, 'dawnbringer'), may also be related.

The original meaning of the Common Germanic name remains obscure. The most semantically plausible explanation is to interpret Auza-wandilaz as a compound meaning 'light-beam' or 'ray of light', by deriving the prefix auza- from Proto-Germanic auzom ('shiny [especially of liquids]'; cf. ON aurr 'gold', OE ēar 'wave, sea'), and -wandilaz from *wanđuz ('rod, cane'; cf. Goth. wandus, ON vǫndr). The latter probably stems from the root *wanđ- ('to turn, wind'), so that the etymological connotation is that of suppleness or flexibility. This theory is encouraged by the Old English association of the idea of 'rising light' with Ēarendel, whose name has been translated as 'radiance, morning star',  or as 'dawn, ray of light'.

Alternatively, the Old Norse prefix aur- has also been interpreted as coming from Proto-Germanic *aura- ('mud, gravel, sediment'; cf. ON aurr 'wet clay, mud', OE ēar 'earth'), with Aurvandill being rendered as 'gravel-beam' or 'swamp-wand'. According to philologist Christopher R. Fee, this may imply the idea a phallic figure related to fertility, the name of his spouse in the Old Norse myth, Gróa, literally meaning 'Growth'.

In less frequent scholarly interpretations, the second element has also been derived by some researchers from *wanđilaz ('Vandal'; i.e. 'the shining Vandal'), from a stem *wandila- ('beard'), or else compared to a Norse word for sword.

Origin
Commentators since at least the time of Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie, first published in 1835, have emphasized the great age of the tradition reflected in the mythological material surrounding this name, without being able to fully reconstruct the motifs of a Common Germanic myth. The task is complicated because the mythical stories of Orendel and Horwendillus appear to be unrelated to that of Ēarendel and Aurvandill. However, some scholars, including Georges Dumézil, have attempted to demonstrate that Saxo's Horwendillus and Snorri's Aurvandill are based on the same archetypal myth. Furthermore, the apparent discrepancies may be explained by the fact that derivatives of Auza-wandilaz were also used as personal names in the Lombardic and German traditions, as attested by historical figures who are named Auriwandalo and Aurendil by the 8th century AD. Thus, the Orendel of the Middle High German myth may have been a different figure sharing the same name.

At any rate, scholars Rudolf Simek and John Lindow contend that the linguistic relation between the Old Norse and Old English names may suggest a Common Germanic origin of the myth despite the absence of Aurvandill from the Poetic Edda. They argue that Aurvandill was probably already connected with a star in the original myth, but that Snorri may have modelled the story of Aurvandils-tá ('Auvandill's Toe') on the tale of the stars emerging from Þjazi's eyes while Thor throws them into the sky.

Old Norse
The Old Norse Aurvandill is mentioned once in Norse mythology, in Skáldskaparmál, a book of Snorri Sturluson's 13th-century Prose Edda, where he is described as the husband of the witch Gróa:

"Thor went home to Thrúdvangar, and the hone remained sticking in his head. Then came the wise woman who was called Gróa, wife of Aurvandill the Valiant: she sang her spells over Thor until the hone was loosened. But when Thor knew that, and thought that there was hope that the hone might be removed, he desired to reward Gróa for her leech-craft and make her glad, and told her these things: that he had waded from the north over Icy Stream and had borne Aurvandill in a basket on his back from the north out of Jötunheim. And he added for a token, that one of Aurvandill's toes had stuck out of the basket, and became frozen; wherefore Thor broke it off and cast it up into the heavens, and made thereof the star called Aurvandill's Toe. Thor said that it would not be long ere Aurvandill came home: but Gróa was so rejoiced that she forgot her incantations, and the hone was not loosened, and stands yet in Thor's head. Therefore it is forbidden to cast a hone across the floor, for then the hone is stirred in Thor's head."

This passage seems to be part of a larger story where Aurvandill is abducted by the jǫtnar; the thunder-god Thor confronts one of them (Hrungnir in Snorri's version) and eventually liberates Aurvandill, but leaves the scene with the weapon of the jǫtunn stuck in his head.

At the end of the story, Aurvandill's frost-bitten toe is made into a new star by Thor. However, it is not clear what celestial object is indicated in this passage. Guesses as to the identity of this star have included Sirius, the planet Venus, or the blue-white star Rigel, which could be viewed as forming the foot of the constellation Orion.

Gothica Bononiensia
The oldest attestation of this name may occur in the Gothica Bononiensia, a sermon from Ostrogothic Italy written in the Gothic language not later than the first half of the 6th century, and discovered in 2009. On folio 2 recto, in the context of a quotation from Isaiah 14:12, linguist P. A. Kerkhof suggested to see the word 𐌰𐌿𐌶𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌹𐌻 (auzandil) in a difficult-to-read part of the palimpsest. This reading, which has been accepted by various experts such as Carla Falluomini and Roland Schuhmann, translates the Koine Greek word ἑωσφόρος (heōsphóros, 'dawnbringer') from the Septuagint, which in Latin is rendered lucifer ('light-bringer, morning star'):

"... ... ... how Lucifer did fall from heaven, he who emerges in the morning ..."

Old English
The term ēarendel (≈ eorendel, earendil) appears only seven times in the Old English corpus, where it is used in certain contexts to interpret the Latin oriens ('rising sun'), lucifer ('light-bringer'), aurora ('dawn') or iubar ('radiance'). According to scholar J. E. Cross, textual evidence indicate that it originally meant 'coming or rising light, beginning of light, bringer of light', and that later innovations led to an extended meaning of 'radiance, light'. Philologist Tiffany Beechy writes that "the evidence from the early glossary tradition shows earendel to be a rare alternative for common words for the dawn/rising sun." According to her, the "Anglo-Saxons appear to have known earendel as a quasi-mythological figure who personified a natural phenomenon (sunrise) and an astrological/astronomical object (the morning star)."

Crist I
The lines 104–108 of the Old English poem Crist I (Christ I) describe the coming of Ēarendel to the earth:

The impetus of the poem comes from the Latin Advent antiphon: O Oriens, splendor lucis aeternae et sol justitiae: veni et illumina sedentem in tenebris et umbra mortis – "O Orient/Rising One, splendour of eternal light and sun of justice: come and illuminate one sitting in darkness and the shadow of death". Scholars agree that Ēarendel was chosen in Crist I as an equivalent of the Latin Oriens, understood in a religious-poetic context as the 'source of true light', 'the fount of light', and the 'light (which) rises from the Orient'.

Ēarendel is traditionally taken to personify in Crist I either John the Baptist or Christ himself, figuring him as the rising sun, morning star, or dawn. He is portrayed in the poem as the "true(st) light of the sun" (soðfæsta sunnan leoma) and the "brightest of angels [≈ messengers]" (engla beorhtast), implying the idea of a heavenly or divine radiance physically and metaphorically sent over the earth for the benefit of mankind. The lines 107b–8 (þu tida gehwaneof sylfum þe symle inlihtes), translated as "all spans of time you, of yourself, enlighten always", or as "you constantly enlighten all seasons by your presence", may also suggest that Ēarendel exists in the poem as an eternal figure situated outside of time, and as the very force that makes time and its perception possible.

Beechy argues that the expression Ēalā Ēarendel ('O Ēarendel') could be an Old English poetic stock formula, as it finds "phonetic-associative echoes" in the expressions eorendel eall and eorendel eallunga from the Durham Hymnal Gloss.

Blickling Homilies
Ēarendel also appears in the Blickling Homilies (10th c. AD), where he is explicitly identified with John the Baptist:

The passage is based on a Latin sermon by the 5th-century Archbishop of Ravenna Petrus Chrysologus: Sed si processurus est, iam nascatur Ioannes, quia instat nativitas Christi; surgat novus Lucifer, quia iubar iam veri Solis erumpit – "But since he is about to appear, now let John spring forth, because the birth of Christ follows closely; let the new Lucifer arise, because now the light of the true Sun is breaking forth". Since the Old English version is close to the original Latin, ēarendel can be clearly identified in the Blickling Homilies with lucifer, meaning in liturgical language the 'light bearer, the planet Venus as morning star, the sign auguring the birth of Christ'. In this context, ēarendel is to be understood as the morning star, the light whose rising signifies Christ’s birth, and whose appearance comes in the poem before the "gleam of the true Sun, God himself".

Glosses
In the Durham Hymnal Gloss (early 11th c. AD), the term ēarendel is used in specific contexts to gloss the Latin aurora ('dawn; east, orient') instead of the more frequent equivalent dægrima ('dawn'), with the hymns 15.8 and 30.1 implying that ēarendel appears with the dawn, as the light that "quite suffuses the sky", rather than being the dawn itself ("the dawn comes up in its course, eorendel steps fully forth").

The Épinal Glossary, written in England in the 8th century, associates ēarendel with the Latin iubar ('brightness, radiance' [especially of heavenly bodies]) as an alternative to the more frequent equivalent leoma (Old English: 'ray of light, gleam'). Two copies of the Épinal Glossary were made in the late 8th or early 9th century: the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary, which gives the equation leoma vel earendiI (≈ leoma vel oerendil), and the Corpus Glossary, redacted from an archetype of Épinal-Erfurt exemplar.

German
The forms Aurendil (≈ Horindil, Urendil), dating from the 8th century, and Orendil (≈ Orentil), dating from the 9th–10th century, were used in Old High German as personal names. A Bavarian count named Orendil is recorded in 843.

The Middle High German epic poem Orendel, written in the late 12th century, provides a fictional account of how the Holy Mantle of Christ came to the city of Trier that was probably inspired by the actual transfer of the Mantle to the main altar of Trier Cathedral in 1196. The style of the poem, characterized by its "paratactic organization of episodes and the repetition of poetic formulas", may point to an older oral tradition. The eponymous hero of the tale, Orendel, son of King Ougel, embarks on the sea with a mighty fleet in order to reach the Holy Land and seek the hand of Bride, Queen of Jerusalem. Suffering shipwreck, Orendel is rescued by a fisherman and eventually recovers the lost Mantle in the belly of a whale. The coat provides him protection and he succeeds in winning Bride for his wife. After ruling Jerusalem with Bride for a time, the two of them meet with many adventures. At the end of the story, Orendel finally disposes of the Holy Coat after bringing it to Trier.

The appendix to the Strassburger Heldenbuch (15th c.) names King Orendel (≈ Erentel) of Trier as the first of the heroes that were ever born.

The name also gave way to various toponyms found in present-day Germany, including Orendileshûs (in Grabfeld), Orendelsall (now part of Zweiflingen), and Orendelstein (in Öhringen).

Lombardic
The Lombardic form Auriwandalo appears as a personal name in the 8th century.

Danish
A Latinized version of the Old Danish name, Horwendillus (Ørvendil), appears in Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum (ca. 1200) as the father of Amlethus (Amlet):

Now Ørvendil, after controlling the [Jutland] province for three years, had devoted himself to piracy and reaped such superlative renown that Koller, the king of Norway, wishing to rival his eminent deeds and widespread reputation, judged it would suit him very well if he could transcend him in warfare and cast a shadow over the brilliance of this world-famed sea-rover. He cruised about, combing various parts of the seas, until he lit upon Ørvendil's fleet. Each of the pirates had gained an island in the midst of the ocean and they had moored their ships on different sides. (...)

Both gave and accepted their word of honour on this point and fell to battle. They were not deterred from assailing each other with their blades by the novelty of their meeting or the springtime charm of that spot, for they took no heed of these things. Ørvendil's emotional fervour made him more eager to set upon his foe than to defend himself; consequently he disregarded the protection of his shield and laid both hands to his sword. This daring had its results. His rain of blows deprived Koller of his shield by cutting it to pieces; finally he carved off the other’s foot and made him fall lifeless. He honoured their agreement by giving him a majestic funeral, constructing an ornate tomb, and providing a ceremony of great magnificence. After this he hounded down and slew Koller's sister Sæla, a warring amazon and accomplished pirate herself and skilled in the trade of fighting.

Three years were passed in gallant military enterprises, in which he marked the richest and choicest of the plunder for Rørik, to bring himself into closer intimacy with the king. On the strength of their friendship Ørvendil wooed and obtained Rørik's daughter Gerutha for his bride, who bore him a son, Amleth.

In view of Saxo's tendency to euhemerise and reinterpret traditional Scandinavian myths, philologist Georges Dumézil has proposed that his story was based on the same archetype as Snorri's Aurvandill. In what could be a literary inversion of the original myth, Horwendillus is portrayed as a warrior who injures and vanquishes his adversary, whereas Aurvandill was taken as a hostage by the jǫtnar and wounded during his deliverance. Dumézil also notes that, although the event does not take a cosmological turn in Saxo's version, Aurvandill's toe was broken off by Thor, while Collerus' (Koller's) entire foot is slashed off by Horwendillus.

In popular culture
The English writer J. R. R. Tolkien discovered the lines 104–105 of Cynewulf's Crist in 1913. According to him, the "great beauty" of the name Ēarendel, and the myth he seems to be associated with, inspired the character of Eärendil depicted in The Silmarillion. In 1914, Tolkien published a poem originally entitled "The Voyage of Earendel the Evening Star" as an account of Ēarendel's celestial course as the bright Morning-star. In a personal letter from 1967, Tolkien wrote:

"When first studying A[nglo]-S[axon] professionally (1913) ... I was struck by the great beauty of this word (or name), entirely coherent with the normal style of A-S, but euphonic to a peculiar degree in that pleasing but not 'delectable' language ... it at least seems certain that it belonged to astronomical-myth, and was the name of a star or star-group. Before 1914, I wrote a 'poem' upon Earendel who launched his ship like a bright spark from the havens of the Sun. I adopted him into my mythology in which he became a prime figure as a mariner, and eventually as a herald star, and a sign of hope to men. Aiya Earendil Elenion Ancalima (II 329) 'hail Earendil brightest of Stars' is derived at long remove from Éala Éarendel engla beorhtast."

Tolkien interpreted Ēarendel as a messenger, probably inspired by his association with the word engel ('angel, messenger') in both Crist I (104) and the Blickling Homilies (21 & 35), and his identification with John the Baptist in the latter text. Tolkien's depiction of Eärendil as a herald also has echoes in the interpretation of the Old English Ēarendel as the Morning-star physically heralding the rising of the sun, which finds a figurative parallel in the Blickling Homilies, where Ēarendel heralds the coming of the "true Sun", Christ. Another pervasive aspect of Tolkien's Eärendil is his depiction as a mariner. Carl F. Hostetter notes that, although "the association of Eärendil with the sea was for Tolkien a deeply personal one", the Danish Horvandillus and the German Orendel are both portrayed as mariners themselves.

In 2022, a group of scientists led by astronomer Brian Welch named star WHL0137-LS "Earendel" from the Old English meaning.

In the 2022 revenge-thriller film The Northman, written and directed by Robert Eggers, Aurvandill is portrayed by Ethan Hawke. In the film Aurvandill is mentioned as the Raven King, who is the father of Amleth, the protagonist of the film, portrayed by the Swedish actor Alexander Skarsgård. The film is based primarily on the medieval Scandinavian legend of Amleth, which is the direct inspiration behind the character Hamlet from William Shakespeare's 16th century tragedy of the same name.

title: Aurvandill


text:
Talk:Transport in South Korea

Fair use rationale for Image:Old Korail logos.PNG
Image:Old Korail logos.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Outdated road information
I've rewritten the section on roads, as the existing information was extremely outdated. Here's the original paragraphs: Domestic transportation improved greatly during the 1980s, and growth was evident in all sectors. The rapid improvement and extension of public roads and the increasing availability of motor vehicles contributed enormously to the mobility of the population. Approximately 51,000 kilometers of roadways spanned the country in 1988, 46.3 percent of which were paved. Express highways facilitated travel between major cities and reached a combined length of 1,539 kilometers in 1988, compared with 86.8 kilometers in 1967 (see fig. 11). The 1980s saw increased paving of roads and the building of ultramodern highways around Seoul (especially in the vicinity of the Olympic stadiums) and between Seoul and such major cities as Busan and Daegu. In 1989 the government announced that it would start construction on nine new expressways with a combined length of 1,243 kilometers. In 1996, when the expressways and two additional projects were expected to be completed, South Korea was expected to have twenty-one expressways with a combined length of 2,840 kilometers.

The total number of motor vehicles climbed rapidly in the 1980s. By 1987 there were approximately 845,000 passenger cars and 748,000 commercial vehicles, up from a combined total of about 744,000 in 1980. In 1988 South Korean automakers produced 504,000 vehicles for domestic sale and 576,134 vehicles for export. In the first nine months of 1989, domestic sales reached nearly 800,000 vehicles.

The expansion and rapid improvement of South Korea's long-distance highway system led to the growth of an expansive, affordable and frequent intercity bus system in the 1980s. In 1988 there were ten express bus companies operating a fleet of some 900 buses connecting all of the major cities of South Korea. Baeksu (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transport in South Korea


text:
Talk:Treaty of Shimonoseki

Li Hongzhang assassination
added sentence about consequences of assassination attempt and source for this (The Search For Modern China)... I'm new to this, so if the format is lousy, I'm sorry... --Aep 06:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LordAmeth mal-edits Treaty of Shimonoseki

 * Your elimination of my typesetting effects emphasis was probably about half right inasmuch as an article impacting five languages get confusing, and using such keeps me straight to the research. If you've got the time to waste, go for it.
 * However, since the user:Nik42 didn't tag the article Talk with POV objections, I had gone out and solictited 4 or 5 history savvy admins to give me a POV read there; so your timing !^$*&^$*%$%#$, as those requests went out yesterday. My comment in the talk evidently never got posted - my bad, but the damn server was down. Since you objected to this:
 * "The Treaty of Shimonoseki. This humiliation is regarded by many Japanese historians as being a turning point in Japanese external affairs - from this point on, the nationalist, expansionist, and militants began to join ranks and steer Japan from a foreign policy based on economic hegemony toward outright Imperialism (landgrabs). In time the once peaceful and mercantile Japan, transformed by mimicking the rapacious high handed Western powers in the coming decades - in one of history's more delicious ironies - would adopt a reverse racism and eclipse its teachers in applied Imperialism and cultural disdain. "

Without revising it's content to less emotive terms, I don't think I'm TOO IMPRESSED with your knowledge of history in that place and era, no matter what how you managed to snow your professors. One of my sources lived one or two towns over (Newton), taught at Havard most of his life, and wrote five revisions to his much reprinted books, so I suggest you review your history of the era. Especially since I've been heavily researching this area for nearly a month.
 * At the least, a competent job would assume you attempt to keep the content which is factual, however loaded the wording, and all of that is historically true. Period. I was editing late and was too tired to recast it into the four or five longwinded but less polite sentences at the time — and forgot about it. But it is accurate, if you choose to truly study your to supliment your educational wastepaper. Welcome to the bigs. This is the real world, and your school carelessness must be left at home with the sandbox.
 * Kindly be more careful in the future. You may be hell on wheels in D&D, but your history in this era is sadly lacking. Or did you just not care? For your edification, I've posted a partial list of my references on my page - follow the Flue Powder then scroll up, or use the TOC to:R-JW Project References.
 * User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 29 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Rude and Presumptuous

 * Excuse me. First of all, my intent was not to dispute the historical accuracy of your information, merely your excessive use of bold and italics. When have you ever seen such use in a professional academic work? I cannot recall ever seeing entire sentences in bold in a history text or in an encyclopedia. By placing things in bold, you emphasize a point, an argument; you emphasize one point of view. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you're confused as to what I mean about objectivity, see Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

 * Secondly, I find it incredibly rude and presumptuous of you to accuse me of not caring about the accuracy of the text, and to talk (write) to me as if I'm a child who dabbles in 'adult' historical matters. I have a degree in History and Asian Studies, and have quite a number of quite reputable sources which I use for my research. Your wording was 'loaded', and your use of bold text excessive. That is all. There's no need to attack anyone over this. LordAmeth 30 June 2005 03:01 (UTC)

 * I Moved this answer in between it's chronological sisters below at: Refactored into Order From Above, as we were posting and editing on top of each other at the same times, some chronology is wacked by ongoing work. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 30 June 2005 18:41 (UTC)

POV Check And Rebuttal Interleaved
The language employed by User:Fabartus is not reflective of a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and is not appropriate for an academic, encyclopedic treatment of the subject. See his revision as of 17:31, 29 June 2005 for 'loaded' phrases such as the following:

 * I'm relieved to hear that! At least the last thing I ever want to be accused of is being an Acedemic. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 30 June 2005 06:33 (UTC)

 * "Russian intentions were laid bare" (as if the Russians are plotting, scheming villains)

 * No, they were naked imperialists moving into a power vaccuum against a gutted, impoverished and outdated and all but non-existant Chinese Military. In this particular case, the Triple Intervention with its direct and overt threat against a Japan barely out of fuedalism by no less than three of the eras superpowers taken together with the Russians all but immediate move in the following spring to emplace defenses in Port Arthur, while starting the southern spur of the Machurian Railway tells most anyone that they were certainly hatching plans long in the making. Or perhaps you misfigure that the surveying and planning of a 550 mile railway is a matter of a few weeks work for my fellow engineers with the primative technology of THAT day? For the triple intervention to occur in a mere three days, they were also plotting together as the war progressed — Nicholas II just couldn't call up Cousin Kaiser Wilhelm and have a chat, at least not easily. We are talking Russia here. Even telegraphs were slow compared to todays tech. They had their heads together for months, and ploting was a required course in the days diplomatic world. Just ask anyone killed in WW-I! FrankB.

 * "the now naked and defenseless Chinese Empire" (is 'Chinese Empire' not sufficient?)

 * Sufficient in what respect? To show concisely to the casual reader unfamiliar with the subject matter that things were not well in the old kingdom? Then your phrase connotes strength, not weakness. So, not in context — if they could defend themselves the British, French, and Germans wouldn't have followed on the heels of the Russians to extort even more unequal concessions. No shield and no sword, that's naked indeed in the early days of modern weapons. The first Modern War is usually given as the American Civil War. This was the end of the first modern war with efficient machine guns and rapid fire artillery (Howitzers) plus half decent warships. Japan had already built enough light and medium industry that she could arm her self. Where were the chinese to get arms? FrankB

 * "Germany, France, and Great Britain had similarly exploited the Qing" (I am sure the British, French and Germans, seeking to secure trade opportunities in the Pacific, did not see it this way)

 * This comment is unbelievable from someone claiming a degree in Far Eastern Studies, what relavance to our task does what they thought about what they were about matter to those of us who see it three or four generations later? Do you think that the generally liberal polities in those countries today would be disconnected from their shameful past as a people? Some of them know the truth, the rest don't read much, and perhaps a reference to their dirty laundry will stimulate some of that useful practice. I can ask no more as a writer other than to connect in some way.  Are you as an American (I assume) proud of what we did to the Native Indians here? I'm not, and I'm pretty darned conservative. But I can look back and dispassionately acess what went on in grandfathers youth, and my Moms childhood without taking umbrige at a statement of fact. I doubt most Europeans would even blink at that, but we can ask a few. Bottom line: The Europeans were rampant raciests, not without a touch of noblese obligee — but "White Mans Burden" is certainly not a modern sentiment, and we are about writing a modern encyclopedia. If that puts egg on some nations face, then they should wear it as a caution with pride to remember their youthful follies. What do your professors call prohibiting a country to change its own tariff rates, and requiring extra-territoriality (Foreigners Not Subject to Courts of the exploited nation)?  Paddy Cakes? You must have skipped that lecture. FrankB

 * "Japan, transformed by mimicking the high handed greedy Western powers in the coming decades — in one of history's more delicious ironies..." (firstly, I do not find it at all ironic that a nation should seek to modernize and to expand; all nations do it sooner or later, if they wish to survive as major powers in the world, politically & economically, even if not diplomatically. Secondly, calling the irony 'delicious' is a blatant show of subjectivity.)

 * Modernize Yes, but the human rights abuses Japan piled up in the decades after the 21 Demands are as nauseating as anything that happened under Stalin or Hitler. Let me spell it out — this was in part a counterpoint as I was quite aware that presenting Russias record factually would seem biased. So this is counterbalance. As far as the Japanese pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, I couldn't agree more, they did a marvelous job, and would probably have developed a damn powerful economic hegemony if it hadn't been for the western powers playing Italian politics in Asia — or were you unaware that that is where the whole F*cked up balance of power welpolitik came from? Well they also taught Japan to be an exploiter, instead of an exploitee, and thats the POV you seem to have a problem with. FrankB

Where is the bias there? Favoring the Russians over the Japs? The Imperialists. Who? Still the point can be made better. BUT you took it out before I could get back to it. Maybe I should send you a bill. (See: Talk:Tsushima Strait) Now seriously, At least I replaced racist, but this was a work in progress... one I'd forgotten in the flame war over on Tsushima, and when I left that stubbed in this afternoon, I had to leave abruptly for some Dad duties. I think I explained to you that that sentence was constructed specifically to generate a reminder of what needed developed, and a nice concise succinct piece of work it is in THAT respect. It retriggers my thoughts when I was getting too tired to work longer that night just fine. Your changes are pretty vanilla, and I'm amused that I was editing this evening in the sections below while you were editing up there, AND I didn't even notice it missing. In any event, I didn't realize we were interleaving edits, so I'll have to take a hard copy to plan refinements. I will say this. I consider it rude that you didn't drop a note on my Talk that you were replacing the POV tag. Common courtesy when applying such a harsh editorial judgement, or a clean or a revert, would require that. As it is, you took a paragraph out that I'd worked hard to find and put back as 'notes', if you will. I must have rebuilt without the mnemonic, as I didn't miss it tonight. FrankB
 * Oh! I almost missed your comment on my 'delicious' comment. How? Thats an point (I guess made weakly) that the Japanese treatment of prisoners and occupants of their new terratories were treated very well by the standards of the Europeans, at the time of this treaty. Samo samo in the R-JW. But — then things began to slide and change.

 * "eclipse its teachers in applied Imperialism and cultural disdain to the torment and tragedy of her prisoners and subjegated peoples in the next four decades." (another grossly anti-Japanese expression that serves no purpose in this narrative, and which purports to place the Japanese above all others in their cruelty, as if no other leader or nation has ever done the equal of what Japan did.)

 * Actually, that's a mistake, as I realized after closing this edit to take my teen as Taxi-Dad. That Should be FIVE DECADES, not four. This is the casus belli of the Russo-Japanese War, not the day after it, ten years later. Are you ignorant of the thousands of Korean sex slaves the Japanese imported in those years, the abject and open racism they began to display to all their 'Coolies', including W.A.S.P. clergymen and catholics alike? Oh, they weren't avowed racists as a rule at this stage, but this was the start, and Teddy Roosevelt gave it a big push when he strong armed the Japanese into backing down on monetary reparations. Shrug. But that's history, and the history I'm trying to tell with all the background, not the sanitized white washed bland mush you seem to think the real world experienced, but the whole story, from many sources and POV. I guess you've never had the displeasure of being at a social function when a Korean and Japanese immigrants confront each other. That's some deep hate, and it had it's causes, tens of thousands of them at least. A KKK idiot couldn't hate a black President worse. Take a look at the non-sense I was just arbitrating over in Tushima Islands. Absolutely silly by our stanards, but Mr Tan and the Japanese writers obviously do not see eye to eye on much of anything. Look at the article length history - it hasn't grown much over 10% in over three hundred edits. I'm not looking to Piss people off, but I am looking to make them think and want to dig a bit deeper. FrankB

I do not mention these things with the goal of starting a flame war; I simply wish to see this article improve to an objective, academic, encyclopedic level of quality. LordAmeth 30 June 2005 03:01 (UTC)

 * Me Neither, at least on 2 of the three. But no one hates flamewars more. I've been mediating a doozy over in Tsushima Islands. Take a look at it talk and the User talk:Mr Tan, to see the lengths I've taken to stop one. But don't waste my time with POV tags. Suggest some alternate words if my academic prowess doesn't meet your freshly minted standards. Polish the language all you want, but preserve the facts. I call spades spades. The content is correct, and I don't have all that much respect for acedemics unless they can demonstrate some real world savvy and common sense. Most fail that test with being too meely-mouthed by using ten words when one word or phrase with meat will do. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 30 June 2005 06:33 (UTC)

Discussion Posts Moved Here
This was on LordAmeth Talk, but belongs here, so the chronological refactored second posting. FrankB

 * Rude Yes - and deliberately so. But the edit you did was unprofessional by the standards I care about, moreover, I told you above that it was a work in progress and that the paragraph you don't like was a mnemonic device. So why put a POV sticker on it tonight when a simple query would do. RU finished? Would have gotten an answer in minutes. I preview a lot. I'm not some single guy with loads of spare time, and your lack of professionalism (By not voicing your POV on my text on the talk, or by not fixing it without loosing content) is why I'm up at three am dealing with a person who's had less years than I read histories in a year. But what's this postering on your own user page. VANITY!!! If you're going to write me a note, do it where I might look, not on your own page to make yourself look good or something. Now as for the note you didn't mail:

 * Secondly, I find it incredibly rude and presumptuous of you to accuse me of not caring about the accuracy of the text, and to talk (write) to me as if I'm a child who dabbles in 'adult' historical matters.

 * That's the place you put yourself. All you had to do is ring the phone so to speak if you didn't want to take on the edit. I apologize on that part, but you shouldn't cut fact — no matter how damning you are of the words. You're an editor, you have a license to rephrase and extend. It says it right here on the cereal box. To me, that was rude. So let's go from here, and start over. FrankB

 * I have a degree in History and Asian Studies, and have quite a number of quite reputable sources which I use for my research.

 * What research? How is that material? Is the research on this material? So, I've got four degrees, we've got enough paper to clean our rear. Vanity. (I wrote that before I started over - really! )

Your wording was 'loaded', and your use of bold text excessive. That is all. There's no need to attack anyone over this. LordAmeth 30 June 2005 02:30 (UTC)
 * The bold I get a little carried away with. I like a reader to wake up, though, so we may have an irreconcilable difference in any event; but I've been cutting it back some, except I find it helps me compose and keep the points and their relationships straight. If you check the date I stubbed in that expansion, you'll see it's been a while. You couldn't necessarily see that I got back to it tonight in a section edit, and you were evidently editing the same time. I don't usually leave things unfinished, but I do think its damn rude to put any kind of template on an article without informing the writer who inserted the material you object to. That's just plain politeness and common decency.

(reminder, this heading copyed/moved from User Talk:LordAmeth)
 * Re: 'When have you ever seen such use in a professional academic work? I cannot recall ever seeing entire sentences in bold in a history text or in an encyclopedia.' Never, but since you fiddled with it, I can hardly go back and see whether the sentence in question was worth the emphasis. I must have thought so. I have seen quite a few such things in engineering materials, and I wasn't exactly writing to standards. This one just fell off the radar. I don't watch my watch list much. And I'm the last person you want to refer to worship 'acedemia', at least most of it. Give me someone I can respect. Someone that's done something. Not some pen pusher that hasn't a clue as to the real world, or the private sector. I'm writing for the school kids and lay readers. Let the acedemics look out for themselves in the faculty lunchrooms. If the material is too acedemic, it puts people asleep unnecessarily, and fails to impart the excitement of the knowledge. Thus, it's an art. A balance must be struck. FrankB
 * Had you considered that concise little sentence, professionally, dispassionately you would see that it had a lot of fact to say, albeit in high emotive terms. As an editor, you destroyed rather than adjusted it. That and the invitations to get a POV+feedback from some experienced parties taken together with Nik42 failing to drop me a note was a little much on a tight schedule. I apologize for getting snotty, but seeing a partial product subjected to such hasty criticism w/o even the mitigating courtesy of notification deserves some come down. The article was lost accidently, it was hardly dressed up and ready for company. FrankB
 * In the meantime, I left you a large edit to review, plus a few things to ponder in talk. I really don't care to get into a rancorous discussion on this or anything, but your instincts could make you a valuable collaborator if you want to put this onto a higher plane. I did get pretty shirty, but follow the links on the article talk, look over what I been through, and give it some thought. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 30 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)

Refactored into Order From Above

 * (The Link to here seems to not be working with the new software. This is not the first I've seen fail since the 'alledged upgrade', so I'm not sure how to tweak it! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB)
 * I do apologize for making such gross edits and not realizing that you were in the middle of working on it. I understand what that's like, leaving something for yourself to add to, and then finding that someone else has gone and changed it all. Also, the POV-tag thing, I didn't mention it in your talk page because I figured you'd notice it in your watchlist; it was the last thing I did before going to bed last night, and I was just tired and more than a little annoyed... just didn't occur to me to put it on your talk page. Again, I apologize.
 * As to everything else, yes I am aware of just about everything you mentioned. I just choose to discuss it in a different way. This is supposed to be an article on the Treaty of Shimonoseki, not an anti-Imperialist manifesto. What I mean to say is, every nation has dark elements in its past, every nation has done horrible things by today's standards. But that doesn't mean we need to hate every nation, and it doesn't mean we need to talk about their greed, their racism, their cruelty every time we talk about them. To respond to your point about the Native Americans, no I am not proud of what we did to them, I don't think anyone is. But I am proud that our ancestors defended themselves from external threats, and built up their country into what it is today. To some extent, at least, these things (the reservations, the Trail of Tears, etc) were done to secure the safety and prosperity of our nation, not just out of rampant greed and racism. And the same applies to just about all imperialistic efforts. Russia desired a warmwater port on the Pacific, the better to secure trade and to gain political influence, which every nation wants. Does that make them villainous racists and warmongers? You seem to make China out to be the defenseless angel in this scenario - did they not seize Manchuria and make Korea a tributary state? Did they not treat the foreign traders with enormous contempt, refusing them fair opportunities for trade? Did China not, a century or so later, tear itself apart condemning its people to terrible horrors, poverty, and mass killings in the name of Communism? No country is blameless, and by going out of our way to label them every time we mention them, we not only lose the objectivity we are supposed to maintain here as an encyclopedia, but we distort the purpose and meaning of the article. Again, we're here to discuss the causes & effects of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, not to argue the degree to which Russia, France, Germany, and Japan are evil, racist, greedy imperialists. Every country simply did what they thought was necessary for their own well-being.
 * If you need to see what changes I made, you're welcome to check out the history tab, and look back as far as you need to, to before I touched anything. LordAmeth 30 June 2005 11:12 (UTC)

Response (Not Posted due to length) on User Talk

 * (i.e. Moved before saved on User_Talk: LordAmeth User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 30 June 2005 18:41 (UTC)

OK I've seen your post on Talk:Treaty of Shimonoseki, and regardless of how crabby I was yesterday — again, big apologies on that on several different levels, Wiki has done amazingly bad things to the number of hours of sleep I've been getting — we appear to not be all that far apart. The main difference really seems to be that I want WikiHistory to emphasize hidden relationships glossed over by the drier styles of experts used to being peer reviewed by other experts, as I want the prose to provide enough 'glue contextually' that the lay reader can get important connections that aren't made in any of the usual terse references. This tendancy to gloss 'professional knowledge', is essentially why after six months of occasional edits as a AnomUser, I finally decided to get involved herein regularly. To give an example of what I mean as bad exposition, look at the Korean history sections of Tsushima Islands — JBell did some copyedit therein yesterday, but that history proceeds so often from term and title that it needs 'dumbed down' by appropriate expansion introducing terms smoothly et al. If you can step outside the shoes of your expert training, and glimpse what I mean by that, you will understand that that is essentially where I was trying to go when I FIRST modified the treaty article. In essence, I don't see the sins of the fathers as something that should be glossed, but as things that are needful reminders to where Homo Sapiens has been, and come from and through. The old saw, "A people that do not study their past, have no future", is very much something I believe whole heartedly, and the only soapbox I'm interested in occupiing. If you can forgive my over reactions, I'd welcome you applying your professional training to backstop my hacks.
 * "Russia desired a warmwater port on the Pacific, the better to secure trade and to gain political influence, which every nation wants. Does that make them villainous racists and warmongers? You seem to make China out to be the defenseless angel in this scenario - did they not seize Manchuria and make Korea a tributary state? Did they not treat the foreign traders with enormous contempt, refusing them fair opportunities for trade? "

 * To the sources I've read, in a word 'Yes', just not so bluntly. The authors had the leisure of booklength to work within, whereas we on Wiki need to distill that significe but (as I see it), and make the connections plain to the browsing readers.
 * I don't know what you did as a kid, but if you were interested enough in history to get a degree in the subject, you probably did as I did an skimmed from one topic to another 'linked' related topic — we call that browsing (then and now, I guess) of course, and Wiki is a perfect venue for such ad hoc dissemination of knowledge. A big motivator for me.
 * We do have the length on an electronic media to treat it far better than any printed encyl. work, and we should use that advantage!. Play to it, in fact.
 * There is certainly no question as to the racist/chauvanistic POV in that era (right up through the next seven decades at least!), but it is a poor weapon that does not point in both directions, so your comments wrt China's attitude and actions are certainly equally germane. In fact, some of that is totally new to me, and that's just the kind of filter that is valuable in making an article topnotch. I hope you realize by now that I'm not championing POV, but exposition in full. Toning down a poor choice of phrase is totally appropriate, it was the deletion that irked me, as I think my initial sally made clear. Still, that was wrong, I shouldn't have vented like that. I would be friends. I'm actually pretty easy going.
 * Perhaps you should work them into the article to balance the reminders of Imperialism I believe are appropo. In some ways, I'm in over my head on all these Far Eastern topics — its not an area I ever gave more than cursorary attention until recently, at least not to pre-WW-II and immediately preceding events, whidh tended to gloss this era; so it came as quite a shock to me to find that with all the WW-II reading I have done over the decades, how badly the fact that this treaty, the Triple Intervention, and the R-JW were presented as root causes. Your classes almost certainly did better there, but being an engineer, I'm a tad miffed and shocked that such things hadn't been laid bare in many many books.
 * The capstone of all that is I, a self-admitted Military History Junkie, had seen some mentions of the Battle of Tsushima, and the R-JW, but remember not one vanilla historically professional paragraph that devulged how important and why the events were important wrt to the later Japanese evolution as an Empire, I'd taken from those glosses only the terms without the glue that would have made the matters something to be looked into more fully as worthy topics on there own. Hence, the breadth and scope of the background when I did get a glimpse from Morrison was shocking in the extremis. So Frank wants to prevent that sort of shock, as this era in Japanese history is also a genesis of casus belli for the chain of events that lead to the present via WW-II — in this I'm only following the work of well regarded historians like the Warners and Reischauer, Nish and Morrison. So no soapbox. Just an attempt to get their conclusions out into the light of day. I'd welcome your help!
 * The article looks pretty good as far as I can tell from a screen reading. Have at it if you feel it needs adjusted. My mind pretty much still works on perusal of paper, and such further development almost always benifits from sitting a while. So do what you want. Again, apologies. I'll take a look again in a week or two and see if it needs any tweaking. On Wiki, none of us go unedited and second guessed no matter what!
 * User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB

Cede, Recede and Re-cede

 * I restored the term 'recede' (no hyphen) today into the Aftermath section. This is pretty acedemic, even picyune matter, but in my understanding, Ceding and Receding a terratory are complimentary operations - inverses.  The term 'Recede' is used authoritatively by one of the far east historians I cite (see above from six months ago or so), as I know, for the term gave me pause as well.  So I took time to consult a dictionary when it occured... a good month or so before my original edit on this article occurred.
 * Somewhat later in the 'Aftermath' paragraphs, someone has used a hyphenated form. Stylewise, my urge is to be consistant, but the matter is of little import. I let that occurance stand, as it does connote properly within the context of it's paragraph.  Someone with a better grasp of english grammer nuance is needed to sort this one out.  To my mind, the diplomatically technical 'recede' and the english construct 're-cede' are equivilent alternative usages... which, if I recollect my teachings should then revert to the hypenless form.  Someone else make this call please!
 * Fra nkB 19:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

common misconception in Korea
I asked more than 100 Korean people in Korea. All they said was Korea had been independent for 5000 years. They did not know Korea was a client state.... until Treaty of Shimonoseki 1895. What a surprise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.146.187.249 (talk • contribs).
 * Korea keep their culture and goverment all times. you must distinguish "diplomatic relation" and "conquered relation". china and korea relation were "diplomatic relation". conquered relation mean, 1. japan nuked by atomic bomb, killed about 500 thousand people, forced dismiss their army, and death penaty to their commander by other. 2. chinese slaughtered and raped and destroyed by mongol and "direct" controlled by other race. and treated as 4th grade slave. this means "conquered relation".
 * According to Treaty of Shimonoseki, China "recognizes" Korea's independence. "recognizes" mean "If someone says that they recognize something, they acknowledge that it exists or that it is true.". "china confirmed korea was already independence country. china remove influence to korea. just remove influence. this mean is Not independence ("seperate territory")". Replayamong23  —Preceding comment was added at 11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

...what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.250.69 (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pinyin
I tried to change the spelling of Chinese place names into Pinyin and got the answer that it "is for modern articles, not historical ones". The Wikipedia guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Place_names) state that

"Mainland China place names should be in Hanyu Pinyin."

They admittedly do go on to say

"These conventions are guidelines only, and there are examples of exceptions, so please use your discretion."

However, I cannot find any reference to historical articles being supposed to use Wade-Giles. Are there some other guidelines that state this? As I have some interest in working on China-related articles, I would really like to know. Anyway, such a proposition would open up the question of what is a "historical" article. You probably wouldn't typically find it in the articles on the dynasties, or on Zhou Enlai. In fact, I don't think you'd expect to find this sort of spelling other than when relating to Chinese foreign relations. Even there, we can find exceptions, such as Treaty of Tianjin. ErikRydbert (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Generally when discussing history, the historical name is used rather than the modern one. For example, we would say Rome invade Gaul rather than saying Rome invaded France.  We would say the Greeks fought the Persians, not the Greeks fought the Iranians.  For similar reasons we use tend to use the romanization that was in use at the time.  For that reason, you'll find an article on the Nanking Massacre rather than the Nanjing Massacre.  The convention isn't applied consistently.
 * I'm not having any luck finding guidance on it.
 * I opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History Hopefully there will be an answer. Readin (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does not it explain Yeongeunmun?
The symbol of the relation to China was destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeongeunmun 61.199.1.102 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Kana" in infoboxes are actually Romaji
In the infoboxes, Japanese names are given in Kanji and "Kana"; but the "Kana" are Romaji. I do not know any of the kana, so cannot supply the correct transcription. MayerG (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Treaty of Shimonoseki


text:
Talk:Tripitaka Koreana

Electronic version available?
There is an (at least one) electronic edition of the TK on CD (or DVD, dont know). The one I have seen seems to be named (beside Korean characters):
 * Tripitaka Koreana 2004
 * COPYRIGHT@2004 by The Research Institut of Tripitaka Koreana

I could still not find any way to get this, or even more information, an ISBN or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.117.55 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What language is the name?
What language is the name "Tripitaka Koreana"? Is it Latin, Sanskrit or something else? 98.110.10.64 (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Tripitaka is Sanskrit, Koreana is a Latin adjective form based on a borrowed place name. Of course the language of the text is Chinese... AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?
The RfC by Dorje108 states that:

"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Robert Walker (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tripitaka Koreana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocp.go.kr/english/treasure/dom_hae.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060206141217/http://www.buddhapia.com/buddhapi/news/campaign/haeinsa/e_p10.html to http://www.buddhapia.com/buddhapi/news/campaign/haeinsa/e_p10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506052257/http://www.ocp.go.kr/english/treasure/dom_hae.html to http://www.ocp.go.kr/english/treasure/dom_hae.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

this article strains credulity
How can anybody read this without realizing it's almost certainly a nationalist series of lies? such superlatives, such ridiculous claims, such implicit faith! They were damaged as soon as they were removed from their old home? they have survived 750 years in mint condition? they are the most important Buddhist corpus? give me a break! 2607:FEA8:AA03:9600:B943:EACD:F2A2:197F (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tripitaka Koreana


text:
Talk:Tumen River

Other names
What is its name in the Russian language and other languages of Russian Far East? Should better be included in the box. — Instantnood 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not know its Russian name while there is no link to Russian Wikipedia.--Jusjih 14:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Shipping
Is on the River Tumen navigable? Maxian D-C (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

namebox
That thing is awesome. Any chance it'll end up templatized? 76.106.103.106 00:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

river coordinates?
How can a river have such exact coordinates as shown at top right? Jidanni 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian / Manchu?
According to Chinese wikipedia, the original name for the river is not Mongolian - it's Manchu. The whole name is (transcribed into Hanzi) 土门色禽, which means 土门=ten thousand 色禽=springs/river sources. Are there more sources for this claim? If so, the article should be changed...

 * I believe the Mongolian and Manchu languages are related.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Development
As this river forms the border of China, Russia and the DPRK, it seems to be a potentially important subject. I hope to devote some attention to this article, but don't want to step on any other editors' toes. So please let me know if you have any concerns regarding the following. WikiProject Rivers suggests considering the following sections: Source; Course; Tributaries; Watershed (geography and distribution of drainage basins, location of mountain ranges, valleys, major cities, climate(s), water quality); River modifications (dams, diversion canals, bridges and culverts, roads, and other engineering projects); Natural history; Geology; History; and Economy. As the tripartite border is probably the Tumen's most important encyclopedic aspect, the critical sections may be history and economy. Viewing past entries, as well as articles outside of Wikipedia, issues of particular interest to the Tumen may be Paektu-san source, Yuan Hui / Anguin Treaty, Peking / Beijing Treaty / Convention, Battle of Lake Khasan, refugee issues, Changbaishan national park (China, with similar parks in Russia), border demarcations, navigability and navigation rights, Tumen River Area Development Programme, endangered species, and etymology.--Rpclod (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one of the problems is the excessive attention given to stray media reports about North Korean defectors. These reporters might not even have been to the Tumen River. They are hardly authoritative.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Murders
I wonder how reliable this source is: The angle is clearly sensational. The photo actually shows the Yalu River. The sources used are South Korean experts and an anonymous Chinese official. There are no Chinese sources cited. The other problem is that we don't know the scope of the problem overall. I don't doubt that incidents are happening — there is a similar account at the border article — but it's unclear what the extent of them is.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Include the Rason Special Economic Zone article
There's no Wikipedia article on the "Tumen River Economic Development Area".

There is, however, an article on the "Rason Special Economic Zone", which should be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:C100:84CC:E421:C561:900D:6A5A (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Mongolian origin?
https://www.warriorsandlegends.com/mongol-warriors/mongol-military-rankings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:91AB:BC01:7C5F:3CE1:FCC4:E976 (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Rivers meet?
, I think the Tumen and the Yalu both have their origin in Heaven Lake, Mt Paektu. Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 * @Jack Upland That's a misconception. I've verified in the Chinese version and other versions of the article, plus examining the Google map aerial photos, plus the Heaven Lake article too. They do not meet. Heaven Lake is a crator lake that does not have outlets. Mistakefinder (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Bridges

 * Street bridge to China.

Helium4 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The only one to Russia: Railway (2 gauges, 4 rails) to Russia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCcke_der_koreanisch-russischen_Freundschaft#Geschichte

title: Talk:Tumen River


text:
Talk:Ironclad warship

WHERE'S THE TURTLE SHIP??
Hello? the first ironclad warship (officially) is the Turtle ship by Yi Sun-sin, a Joseonese dude. the Ironclad warship only talks about the western hemisphere. DON'T YOU DARE LEAVE OUT THE EASTERN HEMISPHERE!!! They contribute a lot!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea2013 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three Things:
 * Please do not yell;
 * We need reliable sources to back up this claim;
 * There is nothing stopping you from adding this information. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's at turtle ship, not hard to find. If the reconstruction models are accurate, it's clear it doesn't fit the scope of this article. Perhaps some Korean authors see such a connection, but it seems tenuous and not made by any source I've read. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Anon editors are again trying to insert claims related to the Korean turtle ship. They should state their case here before adding this content to the article. The article as written deals specifically with steam-propelled warships, a category which does not include the turtle ship. As the link at the top of the article makes clear, Pre-modern armored ships are covered in the Pre-industrial armoured ships article.Dialectric (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The above editor Korea2013 (talk is correct, the world's first ironclad armored ships were the Korean Turtle Ships, that is an indisputable fact. And the information about Turtle ships is placed in the "Pre-Ironclad" section of this article which is appropriate considering that it was the predecessors of the 19th century ironclads that came after it.

Agreed, I (Hushak) am doing a national history day project on the Monitor and Virginia and I went to the USS Monitor Center for it. It says there that these "Turtle ships were the first ironclades" Hushak  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hushak (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

49.84.13.116 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Please don't add copyvio links even on talk pages. The History Channel isn't automatically a reliable source in any case. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 * History Channel documentaries are thoroughly researched and posting them here does not in anyway violate official Wikipedia policy. You are the one violating the rights of other editor's by deleting their edits, uncivilised conduct. 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 * But you aren't posting a History Channel link, you are posting link to an unofficial upload, thus a copyright violation. As for the History Channel, it simply depends on exactly what it is being used for. No matter how reliable, you can't remove another source just because one disagrees. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The removal of these Korean wooden ships was discussed and agreed upon many years ago (1). It was one of the steps necessary to get the article elevated to FA status in the first place. For these ships and others unrelated to the ironcald an article of its own was specifically created (Pre-industrial armoured ships). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Date
This was first made in the civil war. Get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.43.137 (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Gloire the first?
The British-built Mexican steam frigate Guadaloupe (1841) was iron-hulled and arguably "armored" with wrought-iron reinforcing plates around her gunports and sidewheel housings. --Solicitr (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I haven't ever seen anything refer to Guadaloupe as an ironclad, let alone the first. Gloire is universally cited by naval historians as the first true ironclad. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=11583
 * Here her (British) CO describes the experience of commanding an "iron steam frigate" to a wooden one. Guadeloupe and her half-sister Montezuma were certainly iron-hulled; it's less clear whether that counts as "armored." Also "The world's first significant iron warship was the steam frigate Guadeloupe, built by Laird for Mexico in 1842."(https://books.google.com/books?id=-5EeCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=mexican+steam+frigate+guadeloupe&source=bl&ots=iI4KXKNTRL&sig=Y2tuKmii9av0-mB4PBdHQB98lTk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPwrLF5KrKAhWDVyYKHZGkDbIQ6AEINTAI#v=onepage&q=mexican%20steam%20frigate%20guadeloupe&f=false). (The same source gives the East India Company's Nemesis of 1839 as the world's first iron-hulled warship, "significant" or not)

 * For the purposes of this article, I think that, while not claiming these as "ironclads," they should be mentioned as iron-hulled forerunners to the iron-armored warships of the 1850s. Solicitr (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, there's certainly a difference in terms of protective capabilities between the thin iron plates they'd have used on the hull with the 120mm and up armor plating used in Gloire and Warrior. Montezuma would have been little better protected than any other iron-hulled steamer.
 * It would be easy to add a reference to a few specific examples of iron-hulled ships in the second paragraph of the hulls subsection. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source citing the British as developing and building the first ironclad: https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-opium-wars-still-shape-chinas-view-of-the-west. Roland Of Yew (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Korean turtle ships since October 12
Someone changed the introduction of the article on October 12 to redefine "ironclad" to include the 16th century Korean "turtle ships", which are appropriately covered in the article Pre-industrial armoured ships. The word "ironclad" as used in English normally refers to the steam-powered ships of the 19th century. I propose restoring the introduction of the article to how it was before October 12 this year. This is a featured article, so this is particularly important. R3venans (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Link to wrong ship
the link to the Palestro in the Lissa section targets the wrong ship - it should be this one: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestro_%28cannoniera%29 --2001:A61:12C2:3D01:A04C:E5C4:F44:1BF7 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Turtle ship again
Anon IPs have recently been adding back in content describing Korean "turtle ships" as Ironclads. As has been discussed on this talk page in the past, these ships are appropriately covered in the article Pre-industrial armoured ships, and typically in English language sources Ironclad specifically refers to steam-propelled warships only, first used in the 19th century. While a few sources have been found which do describe the Korean ships as 'ironclad', this is not a mainstream view.Dialectric (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Concur. - BilCat (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Strongly Disagree, what you are proposing is disrespectful and degrading to the accomplishments and technological innovation of the Chinese and Korean engineers.  This is nothing more than unacceptable academic discrimination. Wikipedia is not about mob consensus, it's about historical accuracy based on academic references. Even the early European ironclads had sails along with low powered steam engines. Please read up about the Western European French ironclad Gloire and the British HMS Warrior (1860) both of which operated on sail power simply because their steam engine did not produce enough power.  Please take a close look at their pictures, both ironclad ships have large wind powered sails. Additionally many other European ironclads also had sails and hence qualify as "pre-industrial ships" by your subjective definition??  No hypocritical double standards please, just stick to the facts and the historical references.

Please read these historical academic sources, all of which state very clearly that Turtle Ships were the world's first ironclad ships:

1.) https://www.navyhistory.org.au/korean-turtle-ship/ 2.) http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1540.htm 3.) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~sford/research/turtle/ 4.) http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Turtle_ship 5.) http://navy.memorieshop.com/Korea/

103.17.199.179 (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Either the modern definition requiring steam power is used or we would need to include the range of Pre-industrial armoured ships. A google search turns up multiple descriptions of Viking ships with iron reenforcement as 'ironclad', and use of metal plating dating back to ancient Greece and Rome.Dialectric (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 * This is not your decision, and your subjective "definition" of what constitutes an ironclad is just your personal beliefs. You have neither academic qualifications nor references to back up your outdated beliefs. History books change every year as new archaeological and historical documents are discovered, so even if 50 years ago people believed that ironclads were invented first in Europe, knowledge of history changes now that we know about the history of the turtle ships. Hence, based on sourced references, the mainstream view now from all reputable historical sources such the Naval Historical Society of Australia, the National Geographic Society, the University of Hawaii, the University of Houston, the history book Duel of the Ironclads: The Monitor Vs, the Virginia, by Patrick O'Brien as well as the vast majority of other mainstream reputable sources all state very clearly that the turtle ships were "the first ironclad ships in the world" and there is absolutely no way within academic honesty that you can dispute or deny the overwhelming evidence supporting this. Please put aside your pride and arrogance and show some respect for historical accuracy based on legit historical reputable sources and not personal beliefs. Additionally the Viking, ancient Greek and Roman ships that you mentioned were NEVER FULLY COVERED BY IRON OR STEEL so they do not even come close to qualifying as "ironclad" ships, but in contrast, all historical sources state that the Korean Turtle ship was COMPLETELY COVERED BY IRON ARMOR on all sides of the ship making it indisputably the world's first ironclad ship. Please go read Admiral Yi Sun-Sin's personal diary, the Nanjung Ilgi, in which he states very clearly that "all important parts of the hull were covered with protective iron" implying a battleship fully armored on all sides of the ship. aka. ironclad. Evidently, you have chosen to ignore the historical sources, so please read the following sources for your enjoyment:

1.) "The Korean Turtle Ship is considered to be the first ironclad warship in the world, shaped like a turtle, invented and built by Admiral Yi Soon in 1592" -- Naval Historical Society of Australia

2.) "The Turtle Boat was ironclad" -- University of Houston

3.) "This turtle ship, so named due to its shape, is considered to be the world's first ironclad battleship" -- University of Hawaii

4.) '''"It was not an entirely new idea. About 250 years earlier, the Koreans had built "turtle ships." An iron lid protected the warriors inside" -- Duel of the Ironclads: The Monitor Vs, the Virginia, by Patrick O'Brien

27.100.16.45 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Claiming that another editor lacks ‘academic qualifications’ and has ‘outdated beliefs’ is focusing on the editor not the content. See No personal attacks. What academic qualifications do you have that make you an expert in this area? Please post verifiable info if you choose to reveal your qualificaitons. Sources including Samuel Hawley’s “The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China” (2005) p.602 argue that the Turtle ships may not have used iron plates, just iron spikes protruding from their roofs. Your University of Hawaii source is an undergraduate term paper. Patrick O'Brien's book which you cite above is a 30 page children's book for 8-12 year olds and in any case does not use the term 'ironclad'. http://navy.memorieshop.com/Korea/ is certainly not a reliable source. Use of sources such as self-published web pages and children's books weakens your argument. If you are an academic, please use published works of history scholarship / peer-reviewed academic sources to support your position. Dialectric (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Actually, Patrick O'Brien's book makes it very clear that the turtle ships were ironclad. And for your information it is not a "children's book," where did you even get that kind of false information? Your subjective definition of what constitutes a "children's book" is absolute nonsense! Additionally the University of Hawaii paper is NOT some "undergraduate" paper, it's actually part of graduate thesis that has been thoroughly recognized and approved by the professors and dean within the Faculty of History at the University of Hawaii.  Why didn't you try distorting and rewriting history by falsely claiming that the University of Houston paper is false??? Because you know you can't deny it, the University of Houston paper is reputable and legitimate, indisputable!  And why didn't you try your lame attacks against the legit sources published by the Naval Historical Society of Australia? Again, because you know you can't! You cannot deny and dispute a legitimate reputable source such as the Naval Historical Society of Australia when they clearly state that "The Korean Turtle Ship is considered to be the first ironclad warship in the world, shaped like a turtle, invented and built by Admiral Yi Soon in 1592." It would seem that you are making a very weak case for yourself by making lame attacks against legitimate and reputable historical sources that you can't deny or refute academically. Additionally, your academic standing is further weakened considering that the source you provided by Samuel Hawley's "The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China" is OUTDATED and OLD INFORMATION that was last published in the year 2005 which means that information contained in the book must have been written from sometime before 2005, maybe in 2003 to 2004 prior to it's publishing in 2005. ?????  It's the year 2017 now, an abundance of new archaeological and historical information has been discovered during the last 15 to 20 years. So rather than reciting and parroting back outdated and old information from 13 years ago on Wikipedia, you should know that knowledge of history or science is not static, but constantly changes as new information is discovered and added to our repository of information.  It is certain that you are quite aware that the majority of all the latest sources of information all state that Korean turtle ships were the first ironclads in the world, indisputable.  But of course, since you are currently experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance, it may take a little time for you to get used to it, but you will be okay! The information from University of Houston, University of Hawaii and the Naval Historical Society of Australia are all verifiable and undeniable. Please let go of your pride and arrogance and work towards making Wikipedia historically accurate instead of constantly posting up outdated and old information on Wikipedia, it's not helping! 27.100.17.113 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Duel of the Ironclads was published by the Walker Childrens imprint in 2003- even the publisher considers this a children's book. Shawn Ford's Undergraduate term paper for Hawaii dates from 1997. His CV shows he was an undergraduate at the time. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~sford/cv/ Your statements about these sources are demonstrably false. None of the sources you cite make any claim to any archeological evidence existing for the turtle ship, and certainly not new evidence since 2005. I see no need to continue this further unless you have scholarly sources or another registered user wants to take this discussion in a more constructive direction.Dialectric (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Still trying to attack the sources just because they don't conform to your view of "how the history of the world SHOULD BE" instead of how real history actually is? The Naval Historical Society of Australia is a reputable source that states very clearly that the turtle ships were the world's first ironclads.  Why don't you try attacking the legitimacy of the Naval Historical Society of Australia or the University of Houston paper??? You know very well that these are legit sources of information! Indeed, there is no need for you to continue your Eurocentric distortion of history, please put aside your pride and arrogant behavior and try to work towards historical accuracy. Wikipedia is no place for Eurocentric nationalism, please take that racist mentality and throw it in the trash because discrimination or antisemitism in any form is unacceptable. Because whether you like it or not, the true information about history will be known to the world. No one can cover up the historical fact that Turtle ships were the first ironclads in the world, regardless of whatever kind of semantic games you want to play with your subjective "definitions" of ironclad needing to be steam powered. Ridiculous, as the historical reality is that many of the early European ironclads were also powered by multiple sails to supplement the weak and underpowered early steam engines. Even you know this to be true. So please stop this academic discrimination and rewriting history with a Eurocentric twist and focus on real uncensored history. 27.100.17.113 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2019

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus, either with respect to the proposed move, or with respect to the counter-proposal to move the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ironclad warship → Ironclad – I think warship is redundant here. I can't think of a really accurate metric for deciding which of "ironclad" and "ironclad warship" is more common, but out of six books used as sources in the article that contain the word, five use just "ironclad" and only one uses "ironclad warship". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 11:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose as natural disambiguation, and instead move Ironclad (disambiguation) to primary. It seems based on the entries there and my understanding of the term, that the primary meaning of "ironclad" is as an adjective describing something either literally reinforced by armor or something that is generally resilient. The recent film and other media that use that term aren't doing so in reference to warships. -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I tend to agree with User:Netoholic the da page should be moved to the primary location. The term "ironclad", while often used by knowledgeable parties as a noun, is more often used as an adjective (ex. ironclad contract). IMHO readers unfamiliar with the term might be confused if the pagespace title were less clearly referring to this specific usage of ironclad as a modifier for this particular noun. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose per both above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirects are unimportant compared to titles. Adjectives don’t make for good titles.  Abbreviated jargon terms don’t make for good titles, even if they get used in running speech afterwards.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose for clarity, but also oppose disambiguation; we generally don't give much consideration to adjectives when considering primary topic, especially not an adjective as uncommon as "ironclad", and all the other topics are not as important as the warship. A primary redirect (status quo) is the best solution. -- King of ♥   ♦   ♣  ♠ 03:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, "ironclad" unadorned does refer to the warship type in practice, and the adjective isn't a useful encyclopedic topic (for e.g. ironclad contracts), more of a dictionary topic, so it's moot. Failing that, at least keep the primary redirect; definitely opposed to moving the disambiguation page when this article on the warship is what is meant. SnowFire (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ironclad has also redirected here for the past decade+ for what it's worth.  Calidum   06:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely inappropriate citing of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". No one here is advocating creation of a dictionary entry, but we also do not ignore that words actually do have alternate meanings, especially when many of them are represented on the DAB page. -- Netoholic @  20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. No real rationale for ending the primacy for the warship has been brought forth, and the proposed title is more natural, common, and precise. Red   Slash  04:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear common name and primary topic for Ironclad. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral on the rename but oppose disambiguation. According to the backlinkscount.py tool, there are 1236 mainspace links to Ironclad warship and 807 links to Ironclad. But some of the former will be piped (browsing, I saw at least one example of ), so I would guess the two terms are used roughly equally in articles. Based on my limited experience with this domain, it's not clear to me which of the two options best meet WP:CRITERIA. I oppose the disambiguation because, like Calidum, I find the adjective argument unsatisfying (per WP:NOTDICTIONARY), and I don't see any of the other entities listed at Ironclad (disambiguation) approaching the usage or long-term significance of Ironclad warship. Colin M (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It's the clear common and precise name, and primary topic for Ironclad, which already redirects here, thus the natural disambiguation is unnecessary. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FA concerns
A lot of uncited text has crept into this older featured article - for the featured article criteria, it'll generally all need cited. I also have some other concerns, specifically about the American Civil War content. CSS Arkansas certainly warrants a mention. IMO the tinclad should be mentioned as a derivative form. I'm also a bit unsure about the ending part of "The Union ironclads played an important role in the Mississippi and tributaries by providing tremendous fire upon Confederate forts, installations and vessels with relative impunity to enemy fire.", as it almost suggests that the ironclads were little hurt by Confederate shore defenses, despite the Battle of St. Charles incident with Mound City, the butt-kicking suffered by the ironclads at the Battle of Fort Donelson, and a few other incidents. I think it would be worthwhile to tone down the strength of that statement a bit.

It's also problematic that the Lissa section mentions that the ACW helped establish that ironclads could be sunk by ramming, but this is never mentioned in the ACW section (examples to mention would be things like USS Indianola or the Battle of Plum Point Bend). This article certainly has good bones, but needs some work to get up to featured standard. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ramming
Just looking at Brown's "Warrior to Dreadnought". To quote; "The introduction of the iron, armoured ship led to renewed interest in ramming, partly because the strength of the hull and the power of the engines appeared to make such attacks possible and partly because it appeared impossible to sink such ships by gunfire. The interest in sinking is a little strange since sailing battleships very rarely sank their opponents. Views on the value of ramming were reinforced by the sinking of the Cumberland by the Virginia (Merrimac) at Hampton Roads and even more by the confused battle of Lissa in which there were eight ramming contacts... Numerous accidental collisions with several ship sunk also seemed to show the power of the ram. It is now clear that these views were mistaken, but they were held strongly at the time and had a major influence on both tactical thinking and ship design...'" I would expect to find something similar in both Sondhaus and Beeler (though Sondhaus probably refers it back to Brown). The Land (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good bit to improve on here. Thanks for digging into this! Hog Farm Talk 00:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Repeatedly tried to ram one another"
As I noted at Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1, a skim of a modern work on Hampton Roads mentions only one intentional ramming attempt (by Virginia), with the other collisions being accidentally bumps from being too close. Monitor for one was not intended to ram at all. The current wording implies multiple intentional ramming attempts, with both ships participating. Is there a source that supports that implication? Hog Farm Talk 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

First Steampowered iron clad created in March 19th 1814
THE FIRST IRON-CLAD. Representation of the Armored Vessel, Patented by Thomas Gregg, of Pennsylvania, in 1814. During the war of 1812. This is from a newspaper dated from 1862 taking about the invention of the iron clad Steampowered warships.

During the War of 1812, he offered the US government his weapon system consisting of an ironclad steamship that could spray “liquid fire”—his version of the ancient Greek fire—onto opposing vessels while remaining impervious to enemy ships.

In the book Villainous Compounds Chemical Weapons and the American Civil War By Guy R. Hasegawa · 2015

https://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/623611 2601:407:4180:8D80:B0B4:DDFE:C8CB:B8BD (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there proof he actually made this, not just conceptualised it? Otherwise it's no different from how we don't credit the Da Vinci as having created the first tank. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2C18:9C26:B60A:4C71 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Early ironclad ships and battles" section feels very US-centered.
The subsection about the US Civil War is substantially (and unnecessarily) longer than the subsection on the Battle of Lissa. There is also very little mention of how these ships were used by the first nations to build them (France and Britain) and no mention at all of their use in the Paraguayan War, which is weird considering that it was still in the early years of ironclads and saw their usage in a different role than their usage in the US Civil War. 177.41.26.117 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ironclad warship


text:
Talk:Uisang

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uisang