Talk:Imjin War

Split proposal

Propose splitting off the second invasion section into a new article called Chŏngyu War. Article is over 24,000 words right now; well over the WP:SIZERULE of 15,000 for basically mandatory splits. For some more context, see the above move discussion. seefooddiet (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet I think it makes more sense to cover the invasions together, as I'd imagine the vast majority of readers (as do most sources I've seen) view the two invasions as one event, and will accordingly read about both together. It's more efficient for those readers if the information is covered in one article with 24k words rather than two with 24k+some thousands of words of necessary redundancies between them. WP:SIZERULE is for readability, and we shouldn't follow it if it'll make information less readable. Kaotao (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree. 24,000 is just too long; a split needs to be made somewhere. Do you have an alternate idea for where we could split or do something else to get the length of the article down? seefooddiet (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet I don't think there's anything that comes close to the Chongyu war in splitability, and splitting that section wouldn't have a significant impact on readability. The section for the Chongyu war is only about 3,300 words long, half the size of the background section. and a quarter of the Imjin war section, which already consists mostly of summaries. I think copyediting is the only solution. Kaotao (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If sources treat them as one event, why not split it into articles focused on the major campaigns / battles / events / treaties that comprise the wars? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper It already has been. Most of this article is comprised of proportionate summaries of battles with their own articles. Kaotao (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe in addition to an article dedicated to the second invasion called Chŏngyu War, there can also be an article for the first invasion called Imjin War (1592–1593). Then this current article can serve as a high-level overview. _dk (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is the solution. Kaotao raises a fair point and I need to think about it. seefooddiet (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with Kaotao that the two invasions should be covered together and that copyediting is the solution, but this article is entirely too long and the fact of the matter is that any copyedit will have to significantly pare down the article. See, for example, how the Napoleonic Wars article (which is still very long) is split into subarticles about War of the Third Coalition, Peninsular War, War of the Fifth Coalition, and so on. _dk (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking we have two possible actions that could even be taken together:

1. Split off an article for the first and second invasions. Imjin War would be the parent to both articles and only contain high-level overviews. Would need to think of an adequate title for the first invasion; I'm not sure if Imjin War (1592–1593) is the best but it may be. The second invasion would be Chŏngyu War.
2. Remove a significant chunk of the unsourced writing. I think this would be uncontroversial. There's a lot of it and at that volume it's daunting to expect people to try and source.

seefooddiet (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet I'm not sure if I agree with the first action. The Imjin and Chongyu war sections are already summaries, and to summarize those summaries would make the information of the actual wars in this article superficial. If someone's powering through 6k-8k words before getting to the actual meat of the article, I doubt they'd be sated by a summary of a summary; then we'd have the same issue of determined readers (the only ones for whom word count matters) reliably being inclined to read the new split-off articles, which would have to have a higher word count than the sections they came from.

Splitting both off is probably the most effective way of getting this article's word count, but I'm not sure if hitting the 15k mark would be worth it. This is a very different case from the Napoleonic Wars article, since 6 of its sections have their own article, and this article has two splittable ones, one of which would be a quarter of the size of the other. If the two sections, especially the second, could be fleshed out considerably, it might be more prudent to split them, but that doesn't seem likely; Korean Wikipedia's article on the Chongyu war is rather short.

As for action 2, good idea, including the "significant chunk" qualifier; a lot of important information, such as the first mention of the hwacha, is unsourced. Kaotao (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain, will do more thinking. I'm not sure I fully agree but I understand where you're coming from.

Side note, but the Korean Wikipedia is often a pretty poor metric for how we should cover things. It's pretty underserved because the community is split due to the prevalence of Namuwiki. Many critically important Korea-related topics on it are actually really underserved. seefooddiet (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to say even a "summary of a summary" serves an important purpose since not all readers are interested in reading all there is to know down to the details due to time constraints and attention spans. The interested reader would have the choice to dive into the subarticles as many levels as they like, and this is usually the way Wikipedia deals with long and complicated conflicts. _dk (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I partially agree with this. I also think the total volume of text on a thing spread across articles is less of a worry and not necessarily restricted by Wikipedia guidelines. But I think Kaotao's point has some merit too. seefooddiet (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Underbar dk I suppose that is a useful niche. My main concern was that any summaries would end up functioning as pitfalls for readers willing to read through the very lengthy background section, but maybe I overestimated how consequential that would be compared to the potential benefits. I'm willing to agree to the two invasions being split off. Kaotao (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would not split the article. "Imjin War" is the only search term that everybody (well, me) knows and looks up. It is just a practical matter, folks! G41rn8 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say the name of the article is not an obstacle for a split given enough disambiguation. See for example Eighty Years' War and its subarticles Eighty Years' War, 1566–1572, Eighty Years' War, 1572–1576, Eighty Years' War, 1576–1579, and Eighty Years' War, 1579–1588. _dk (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Name

I think must be the Name of the article Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598) because there are proper nouns that are used in other than İmjin War Ömereditss (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you rephrase? Grammar difficult to understand seefooddiet (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the page title to be *Japanese Invasions of Korea (1592-1598)* because *Imjin War* is not the only name used for the war. Ömereditss (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

See the recent move request above; we follow Wikipedia's policies on WP:ARTICLETITLEs in order to determine the titles of articles. seefooddiet (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Result

@Ömereditss I don't think you know how wikipedia works. You need a reliable source to prove such a claim. You cannot just claim yourself "oh yeah it was this because I think so". Setergh (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It's almost universal consensus by historians that the Ming and Joseon won the war, Hideyoshi's objectives as labeled in this page clearly wanted to 1) militarily conquer Joseon and then 2) take over China. The fact that Korea and China sustained massive losses doesn't necessarily mean that they lost the war. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw I've basically never heard the opinion that Ming and Joseon lost the war. I think even the most hardcore Japanese nationalists don't believe that Japan won it. seefooddiet (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I provided sources. I simply searched up the war and got inconclusive results, there wasn't any bias. Setergh (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you were being biased. I meant that this opinion you're putting forward is extremely unusual. What sources did you provide? Do they explicitly call this a victory, or are you perhaps employing WP:SYNTH and inferring conclusions that aren't explicitly stated? seefooddiet (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You've mixed something up here. I made this heading to stop someone putting forth a "Strategic Japanese victory" without source (and breaking WP:RESULT). What I did do is provide 3 sources for inconclusive, which you can find in the aftermath section with quotes. Setergh (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Each source only mentions the Imjin War in passing as part of their larger narrative and topic which are all related to modern geopolitics. None of them are dedicated monographs or works on the Imjin War or written by experts on the topic. They do not hold the same weight as other sources and their use is inappropriate for such a relatively well established topic such as this. Qiushufang (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I am addressing both of your comments in this.

Firstly, I don't know why you're changing the result without consensus. It makes it much more tedious to try and view the sources I put. Consensus is not "Oh wow, more people are on my side so I can do this!". You haven't even given me time to breathe or respond.

I'll go source by source.

Source 1: It is a source dedicated to understanding East Asian history. Yes, it uses that as a way to understand the modern US–China relations, however it clearly states "Examining the rise and fall of East Asian powers over 1,500 years". It focuses on East Asian history, denying that is absurd. It is written by a Korean American political scientist and another (East Asian I think?) research scholar on international politics. Even Stanford University states "Xinru Ma’s research focuses on nationalism, great power politics, and East Asian security with a methodological focus on formal and computational methods". The source mentions that two different people say the war ended in no one's favour (although I couldn't find anything about them). I will also refer to your argument about "subdue", which is very weak. Forcing them to retreat does not mean they were put under control entirely (which no, is not for us to analyse). Therefore you can't try and pick out a source piece by piece.

Source 2: I'd like to know why you think this can't be used. I don't exactly see the problem with it, and could you please point out to me what wikipedia rule exactly states to go against this? Even though yes, it is published by the United States, I don't see any bias. And I mean, how is this not quite a major source?

Source 3: Written by yet another person with both a B.A in history and phd in international relations.

I'd also like to point out that the current source used for a Joseon and Ming victory even mentions how Japan benefitted it, clearly removing room for discussion. I do not deny that it does clearly state a Joseon and Ming victory however.

You make an argument about how none of the sources focus on the Imjin War. I'm rather certain a book called "Korea and East Asia: The story of a Phoenix" also doesn't only focus on the Imjin War. You for some reason don't even provide me with other sources which state a Joseon and Ming victory, which I would be very open to.

"The end of the conflict itself ends definitively as a Japanese military failure with their army both beaten on land and at sea. Characterizing such an end as a disputed result, even with the vast devastation, goes against all known logic I've seen on wiki military conflict pages. By that logic, the result of nearly every raid by steppe nomadic groups could be considered a disputed result regardless of whether or not they were ultimately repelled." What are you getting at?? Yes, it was a clear military defeat. So? This is clear WP:OR, I have gone by sources, not by my own opinion, unlike you. I also don't know what the hell you're on about with raids, and "all known logic I've seen on wiki military conflict pages", because if so, then I'd recommend checking military conflict pages out a little more. If I have sources which go against the presented result, of course it means it'll be disputed?

"Changing the results section to anything other than a Joseon and Ming victory would also require the backing of historians who have been acknowledged as experts on the subject as the opinions of the current ones as far as I know all side on the victory of the Joseon-Ming forces." So who is an expert according to you? You fail to argue against the 3 to 1 source imbalance. And as I said, if you know about opinions that say it was a Joseon and Ming victory, provide them.

I'd like to point out, I very simply searched up "Imjin War" on google and checked out sources. I found three with an inconclusive result, zero with a Joseon and Ming victory. Therefore, however you seem to be looking at these sources, you just seem to magically be dodging the ones that go against your desired result. If I really wanted to, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd manage to find many more which support my proposed result. Waiting to hear back. Setergh (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on the one who makes the additions to justify their inclusion, not on the one who removes. You do not have consensus, as you have pointed out. You are the one who wants to include this information, not all of which should be simply because it is verifiable, so the onus is on you to reach consensus on others and not our responsibility. Your description of the sources confirm that they are not texts which focus specifically on the Imjin War, but rather East Asian history and geopolitics, which I've noted. Kenneth Swope specifically addresses the myth of Japanese success and the Joseon-Ming victory in his dedicated monograph on the Imjin War (A Dragon's Head and a Serpent's Tail, 2009):

Also addressed are the naval battles that marked the climax of the war and ensured victory for the Sino-Korean allies. p. xiv

Most importantly, the discussion focuses on how the allied victory contributed to continuing notions of the superiority of the Chinese tributary system of foreign relations and their further codification by the Ming’s Manchu conquerors, to their great detriment, some two centuries later. p. xiv

The memory of the war in Japan is much more problematic. Even though Japanese forces retreated without retaining a single inch of Korean territory, for over four hundred years some have praised the conflict as a Japanese victory, clinging to the myth that had it not been for the untimely death of Hideyoshi, all of Korea, and possibly China as well, would have fallen to Japanese hands. This interpretation has been echoed by modern writers in Japan and elsewhere. They also directly attribute the weakening of the Ming to its eventual defeat at the hands of the Manchus nearly fifty years later. Yoshi Kuno goes so far as to say that Japan’s demonstration of its military invincibility prevented anyone from invading the nation for the next 250 years, completely ignoring the wider international context. p. 297

Note that Swope has written a dedicated text on the conflict, calls this as a victory for the Chinese and Koreans, and addresses the framing of this conflict as a victory for the Japanese as a p0erpetuated myth. Qiushufang (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was a clear military defeat. So? This is clear WP:OR, I have gone by sources, not by my own opinion, unlike you. I also don't know what the hell you're on about with raids, and "all known logic I've seen on wiki military conflict pages", because if so, then I'd recommend checking military conflict pages out a little more.

I would be interested to see an example of a military conflict where the invader is definitively repelled, no reparations or further diplomatic concessions are made by the defender, and the result is not considered a victory for the defender. I would have serious doubts about the veracity of sources in this case. Statements by sources which do not adhere to common rationale are not warranted for inclusion simply because they exist. Qiushufang (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Polish–Ottoman War (1620–1621) in the Battle of Khotyn (1621). I will respond to the rest of the points brought up tomorrow. Setergh (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The Polish–Ottoman War (1620–1621) has been templated with WP:OR and more citations needed. The lead for Battle of Khotyn (1621) describes a mixed diplomatic end to the conflict with the results section appropriately linking the Aftermath section even though it states that it was a Polish-Lithuanian victory. This in no way adheres to the "no reparations or further diplomatic concessions" point made about the Imjin War. There were no concessions made by the Koreans or Chinese to the Japanese. The Japanese were simply military defeated. Neither Joseon or Ming made any concessions to Japan at any point. It was not a mixed result. Qiushufang (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

"Other wars have x" isn't a strong argument here, and leans towards WP:OR. Every individual page relies on scholarly consensus for that respective topic. What other pages do will almost always be weaker than that. seefooddiet (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who asked for an example. Qiushufang (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you (notice the indent level), I was replying to Setergh seefooddiet (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I want to point out the issues here that I have with your claims. Source 1: I believe you are misunderstanding the points everyone here is raising. Your sources do not in any way shape or form focus on the Imjin War at all. "Examining the rise and fall of East Asian powers over 1,500 years" is an incredibly broad and vague category and it's really not defensible. We can talk about the Tang Dynasty during the 700s AD, we can talk about the Mongol Empire in the 1200s AD, etc etc due to the sheer broadness of 1,500 years. There are historians dedicated specifically to the Imjin War who have written hundreds of pages and dedicated years of research who are the best sources.

Source 2: Wikipedia's policy generally does not recommend government sources and prefers academica over government. Additionally, the sourced material is from 1988, given that the source is 37 years old and historiography has changed in the nearly four decade interval the source itself is very dated.

Source 3: Just because the author has a BA and PhD doesn't make them an expert, and again, the source you cite is again incredibly broad. Not that this means authors should be discredited but because of the sheer boldness and audacity of the claim.

Here is a list of sources that are 1) Focused solely on the Imjin War or in the general era 2) Accreddited by non-government institutions, such as universities or are historians and 3) very recent or somewhat recent.

1) Hawley, Stephen (2005), The Imjin War: Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China, Royal Asiatic Society-Korea Branch directly actually addresses your points.

"Hideyoshi’s armies returned to Japan at the end of 1598 with little to show for their nearly seven years of war. True, they had taken many Korean slaves who were subsequently put to work in the fields back home or sold for cash in the markets. They had captured Korean potters with advanced skills who would enrich Japan’s own ceramics industry. They had brought back a large supply of hand-crafted movable type, invented by the Koreans two centuries before, a prerequisite for the brief efflorescence in Japan’s own publishing industry that would follow....All these cultural enrichments, however, were poor compensation for the tens of thousands of Japanese troops who lost their lives in the conflict (a reasonable estimate is seventy to eighty thousand men, some killed in the fighting, most the victims of hardship and disease), and the untold wealth and resources that had been sucked out of Japan’s economy to support the entire affair. Nothing less than the conquering of vast new lands could have justified such a tremendous expense, and that Hideyoshi’s armies had failed to do.

So we have source #1 here from a historian who wrote a 700+ page book solely on the Imjin War who directly acknowledges your claims (that Japan did have some benefits from the war, such as gaining slaves, gaining technology, etc) but also pointing out that the war was still a total failure and defeat for Japan due to tens of thousands of dead soldiers, massive amounts of money used by the Japanese daimyos to try to conquer Korea and defeat China. Hawley also mentions in earlier pages that Hideyoshi's clan downfall was in part due to the sheer effort Japan had to make from the war.

2) Turnbull, Stephen (2002), Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War 1592–98, Cassell & Co, ISBN 978-0304359486, OCLC 50289152

"At the end of the sixteenth century the Japanese samurai set their sights on a new foe. Their target was China, their route through Korea. The Japanese were contemptuous of the Koreans; there would be no resistance, and a huge samurai army set off for Pusan in 1592, certain of easy victory. But the Koreans, who had known only peace for two hundred years, rose to the challenge, and there followed devastating and terrible war. The Japanese advance to China was stalled, while Korea was occupied in an uneasy arrangement with the Japanese. A second Japanese invasion in 1597 unleashed new devastation, but ultimately the samurai warriors were defeated by the combined strength of the Korean and Chinese armies."

Also he says (this is in the Wikipedia page for the war itself) "Contrary to Toyotomi Hideyoshi's intentions, the cost of the Japanese invasions of Korea significantly weakened the Toyotomi clan's power in Japan. After Hideyoshi's death, his young son Toyotomi Hideyori became head of the Toyotomi clan. However, the losses suffered by varying daimyōs during the campaign were a contributing factor to the imbalance of power in Japan after the war. As the western-based daimyōs of Kyushu and western Honshu (partially by geographic convenience) contributed the majority of the forces used during the Korean conflict, it left the pro-Hideyoshi alliance weakened for the eventual struggle with the mostly eastern-backed forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu (who himself never sent forces to Korea). Tokugawa would go on to unify Japan and establish himself as shogun in 1603, following the decisive Battle of Sekigahara against a coalition of mostly western-based daimyōs."

Again addresses the key reasons behind the war, Hideyoshi didn't invade Korea to gain pottery or slaves, he invaded Korea because Korea was in the route to China, his objectives were to conquer China by first conquering Korea which was in the way. And again, this is another very huge and comprehensive piece of literature dedicated solely to the war.

3) I see Qiushufang has mentioned Swope so I won't add onto that other than that it points out the myth of Japanese victory.

4) Haboush, JaHyun (2016), The Great East Asian War and the Birth of the Korean Nation, Columbia University mentions this too in its opening.

"The Imjin War (1592-1598) was a grueling conflict that wreaked havoc on the towns and villages of the Korean Peninsula. The involvement of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean forces, not to mention the regional scope of the war, was the largest the world had seen, and the memory dominated East Asian memory until World War II. Despite massive regional realignments, Korea's Chosôn Dynasty endured, but within its polity a new, national discourse began to emerge. Meant to inspire civilians to rise up against the Japanese army, this potent rhetoric conjured a unified Korea and intensified after the Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636." Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

True, they had taken many Korean slaves who were subsequently put to work in the fields back home or sold for cash in the markets. They had captured Korean potters with advanced skills who would enrich Japan’s own ceramics industry.

This touches on my point about nomadic invasions and raids. If the standard for a disputed conflict is that the invading force made out with any kind of benefit such as slaves or other booty, regardless of whether or not they had suffered a military defeat or achieved their aims, then virtually every single conflict with a nomadic polity or invasion force inflicted massive damage on the defending party could be considered disputed. Hideyoshi's intention for invading Korea was to conquer Joseon and possibly the Ming dynasty after that. They failed by means of military force and were militarily pushed out of Korea. No concessions whether diplomatically or monetarily were made by Korea afterwards. It's simply an unmitigated defeat. Providing three sources or even more that state otherwise does not somehow negate basic rationale even if they are considered reliable sources. Qiushufang (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't take it too seriously when changing the outcome of this war. I also stated why I changed it, but when I realized it was wrong, I reverted my edit. I don't understand why you keep insisting on this. Also I'm not claiming that this was a strategic Japanese victory either. Ömereditss (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

In this comment you say it's a strategic Japanese victory seefooddiet (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I only said once that it was a strategic Japanese victory. After Setergh warned me, I did not interfere with the outcome of the war. Ömereditss (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Setergh side note but mind the tone, reads needlessly heated. keep it professional please seefooddiet (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologise. I'll read and respond later today. Setergh (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

there is no need to discuss this issue, I thought it was wrong to write strategic Japanese victory there and I already took back my edit Ömereditss (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not say that Minq and Joseon lost, I stated that although the Japanese withdrew from Korea, I stated that it was a strategic victory that they caused the other side too many casualties. Ömereditss (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but it destroyed the country leading to Japan exerting influence over it for the next few centuries. Setergh (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That claim doesn't even hold up at all, the war ended in 1598, Japanese colonization didnt happen until the late 1800s, and there were multiple factors that were the real reason that happened. At multiple points the colonization could have been altered (say the Qing won in 1895, the Korean policy of neutrality wins out in the early 1900s, or Russia defeats Japan in 1905) and something different could have happened.

This is the equivalent of saying that the English defeating the Spanish Armada in 1588 is why the Spanish lost the Spainish-American War in the late 1800s. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This line of analysis is WP:OR and I also disagree with it. Joseon and Japan were pretty significantly disengaged from each other until the mid-1800s. The beginning of clear Japanese influence over Joseon happened relatively suddenly in the mid-1800s, beginning around the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876. You're also trying to make an explicit cause-and-effect inference over the span of centuries; difficult to do in historiography. seefooddiet (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Glad you have a similar take @Seefooddiet, I was thinking this was WP:OR though ive never seen this claim ever made. The most ive seen for disputes is over the 1592 Battle of Busan for this topic. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You've also suddenly removed my sources? You aren't meant to change anything before consensus is reached. If you have tons and tons of sources which go against an inconclusive result, I'll gladly check them and if they do indeed state so as an overwhelming majority I'm willing to come to a compromise. Although, whatever you're doing seems to be insanely one sided and completely disregards the sources I've put. Setergh (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue what happened and what didn't. The first person started going on about something that infringes on WP:OR, talking about the military goals of Hideyoshi and why they mean it was a Joseon and Ming victory.

There are 3 different sources provided for an inconclusive result in the aftermath and conclusion section. Argue with the sources, not me. Setergh (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Typically I would agree that three sources is more than enough, but for an event of such an international nature with a body of work stretching back hundreds of years, I don't think this is appropriate. One of the sources cited is a journal the United States Army, for goodness sake. Another one is a political work on how East Asian history applies to US geopolitics. None of the three sources are actually focused on the Imjin war and mention it only in passing. Their framing of the conflict's result as no side actually won the war, since neither side was able to subdue each other also makes no sense considering that the Japanese were the aggressor while Joseon and Ming were the defender. What do they require for it to be considered a Joseon-Ming victory? Conquering Japan? These opinions do not hold the same weight as dedicated monographs and experts on the subject.

I've written some of the article linked pages here and none of the monographs on the topic I've consulted, upon which the vast majority of the English articles are based on, like Kenneth Swope and Stephen Hawley, characterize this conflict as a mixed result. The end of the conflict itself ends definitively as a Japanese military failure with their army both beaten on land and at sea. Characterizing such an end as a disputed result, even with the vast devastation, goes against all known logic I've seen on wiki military conflict pages. By that logic, the result of nearly every raid by steppe nomadic groups could be considered a disputed result regardless of whether or not they were ultimately repelled. Changing the results section to anything other than a Joseon and Ming victory would also require the backing of historians who have been acknowledged as experts on the subject as the opinions of the current ones as far as I know all side on the victory of the Joseon-Ming forces. Qiushufang (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This is absolutely 100% false. Qiushufang (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)