Talk:Mongol invasions of Japan

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IsaiahP42.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sentence seems completely out of place
In the second paragraph in the Military Significance section (the paragraph after the quote), the last sentence is about Zen Buddhism that seems to have nothing to do with the remaining paragraph. (Nelsonheber)

Odd phrasing + seemingly apocryphal anecdotes
Anyone else think that the last paragraph of the first invasion section is oddly phrased. I would change it, but I simply do not know what was even intended. The anecdote mentioned sounds almost apocryphal and its source should probably be confirmed. Finally, shouldn't the rise of Zen Buddhism actually be in the significance section and not that of the first invasion which should more properly cover the actual military events? Fryslan0109 (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Japanese edition of Wikipedia has articles on all three priests who likely influenced Tokimune but I don't know who is Bukko. Perhaps Bukko is from one of Korean dramas or something. Please remove whole the paragraph. --Ypacaraí (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image
Sorry to remove your image. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. If you can find a way to put it back in so that it fits nicely on the page and formats properly, please go ahead. I don't know what sort of problem I was having. LordAmeth 00:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

7 November 2005 There is an interesting program on the Discovery Times channel entitled "Kublai Khan: Fall of the Mongol Hordes" about the invasion of 1281. The program is based on the work of a Japanese underwater archaeologist.

An examination of pieces of the ships found on the sea bottom reveals that the craftsmanship of the ships was not very good, not as normal. The implication is that the Chinese shipbuilders wanted to sabotage the mission and/or that Kublai Khan was in such a hurry to invade Japan that he didn't give the shipbuilders enough time to do the job properly. Consequently, in the typhoon, the ships broke up.

Further, most or all of the pieces recovered from the bottom were for riverboats, not for ocean-going ships with keels. The riverboats did not have keels, and would easily turn over in a storm.

Incidentally, they found one of the bombs as in the picture on the ocean floor. They would have been launched from catapults on the ships.

The program speculates that the defeat of the Mongols at that time would have led people on the continent to see that the Mongols could be defeated, thus encouraging subjugated peoples that they too might be able to successfully oppose the Mongols. (??)


 * I thought most Chinese ocean-going vessels didn't have a keel either but a flat bottom instead. Is that wrong? (82.135.66.208 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Invasions of Japan
See the Invasions of Japan section at Kublai Khan. Some of that information can update what's in the current article. Adraeus 23:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows how (I don't) should change the linked reference to "mongol compound bows". The Mongols did not have "compound" bows. Those are a late 20th century invention. The Mongols had "composite recurve bows" (so did the Tatars, Turks, people of India and others). The difference is VERY important technically.24.10.102.46 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that looked strange. Thanks for reminding me. I'll go change it. LordAmeth 11:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I was reading this article and clicked a refrence to the Battle of bun'ei, and I noticed a discrepency: This article states that the Mongols outnumbered the Samurai, and the article Battle of Bun'ei states they Mongols were badly outnumbered by the Samurai. I was wondering which is right? Caris42 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, another very important point that I somehow missed. I shall look into this tomorrow. Thank you for pointing it out. LordAmeth 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POV
"... due to their role in setting a limit on Mongol expansion, are arguably crucial events to world history as a whole."

Mongol Expansion had failed in other regions of the world before the invasion of Japan.

For example, in the Mongol invasions of Vietnam, first attempt failed in 1258, the 2 others later also failed too. The limit of Monggol expansion in the south direction, therefore, had been set at Vietnam-China border, indepedently and before Japan attacks. In fact, one attack to Japan was cancelled because of Mongol's resource redirected to Vietnam attempt (which were all failed). In this particular case, the failure in Japan is not a major cause ("their role in setting a limit") but rather a result from other Mongol activities in other regions (explicitly, Vietnam).

I think the introduction should be changed to reflect a more global view of the "world history". It is writing about "world history" viewed in the Japan eye.134.157.170.125 11:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know how Vietnam fought against Chinese expansion, not only against Mongolian dinasty. Actually I respect this.  The best way for you is to create and enhance the acticle of Mongol invasions of Vietnam.  After that, we can review these articles and modify them adequately.  --Corruptresearcher 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In Little Need of Divine Intervention reference
Hi!

I had previously referenced Thomas Conlan's [work] on the Mongol invasions of Japan (whcih included a translation and line art reproduction of the Moko Shurai Ekotoba), as well as provided a [link] to an essay from said book, in which Professor Conlan disputes the 'divine wind' explanation for the repulsion of the Mongol invasions of 1274 and 1281.

While I had perhaps been a bit clunky with my previous contribution, I feel that without reference to the book in question (which is also a useful source of English translations of relevant Kamakura-era documents) the reasons for disputing the numbers involved in the invasion - or for the success or failure of the Japanese in resisting the Mongols in theatre - are not adequately presented.

Could it be possible to include a reference to the title in question - as well as separate the issue of the debate from the Aftermath sub-section? --Nerroth 23:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any need to separate out the debate, as I phrased it as such, writing "Though it is not universally agreed upon, many scholars today believe..." This is a phrasing that quite clearly indicates that there is a debate, and that the ideas presented here are not the "facts" as seen from only one point of view, but are ideas that are very much still not agreed upon by scholars.


 * George Sansom, my primary source, and a rather well-known and respected expert on Japanese medieval history, writes: "Against these handicaps [those of Mongol tactics and technology] the resistance of the Japanese was ineffective and it was only their courage that allowed them to hold out until nightfall ... however, the Japanese were by no means defeated, since given time they could overwhelm the Mongols by superior numbers" (History of Japan to 1334, p 443). A few pages later, in reference to the second invasion, he writes: "How long the Japanese could have kept up this desperate and stubborn fighting we cannot tell; but it is clear that from June 23 to August 14, a space of over seven weeks, the long line from Munakata well into Hizen province was firmly held" (p 449). So, the Japanese certainly were at a great disadvantage, but I think that the claims of whether or not they could have survived without the kamikaze are quite debateable - they had plenty of time to prepare for the second attack, they had the courage and fighting spirit of the samurai (just look at half the WWII battles where we fought the Japanese and you'll see something of the difficulty in opposing their fighting spirit) and the katana, one of the greatest styles of sword ever invented. Perhaps most importantly, they had far superior numbers to the Mongol invaders.


 * More to the point, while Prof Conlan may be on to something, and may make some very good points, that doesn't change the fact that the core majority of academia and books on the subject represent the events a particular way. In scholarship, just about every topic under the sun has detractors; that is, there are papers, perfectly valid papers that make good points based on solid research, arguing against nearly every conventional theory of nearly everything one could possibly study. It doesn't mean that the conventional belief is entirely overturned.


 * As for the other matter, I think it ought to go without saying that medieval chronicles cannot always be trusted for the numbers involved. These were written, more often than not, as epic tales or the like, tales of bravery and courage and not intended as accurate historical descriptions. Just like the Bible and the Iliad, these stories were written to tell a story, and to express or teach a message, such as that of bravery and courage. No one present could have or would have accurately counted heads, anyway. A giant, imposing alien force from across the seas would be represented as such, its numbers exaggerated by the pure force and intimidation factor they exuded, as would the defending force. I hope that helps clear things up somewhat. ~


 * How would them having the "greatest styles of sword ever invented" make any differance if their enemy had superior bows and could catapult explosives at them? Did the Japanese fight mostly with bows, or did they run around with swords?  Also, the records of how many Mongols died comes from the Mongols themselves, they certainly having no reason to exaggerate things.  They knew how many people got loaded onto their ships, and how few came back.

Dream Focus 05:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible exceptions
Hi. I don't normally like to nitpick, and I apologize. But the phrase referring to World War II as a "possible exception" was quite intentionally phrased that way. Operations Olympic and Coronet were never undertaken, and the Home Islands were never invaded, unless one counts the Occupation. Thus, whether it counts as an exception or not is not decided. LordAmeth 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is so bullshit. This war never happened. The mongols NEVER owned that much of the world, this is simply mythological bullshit. I cannot believe WIKIPEDIA would put this bullshit lie on here...15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)~


 * And you got your facts from...? I'm assuming you believe the holocaust never occured either?

Someone has changed part of the article...when it talks about the second invasion and mentions starships and stuff. I don't know about what really happened, or I'd change it. 220.62.102.69 12:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I've reverted the vandals' changes. LordAmeth 13:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Khubilai Khan: Fall of the Mongol Hordes"
In this Discovery Channel documentary some fragments of the Mongol ships, as retrieved by Japanese archaeologists, are examined. It turns out that, in his haste to launch the invasion, Khubilai used a great number of shabby river boats that could not survive a taifun. They called the ensuing catastrophe the greatest in the history of naval warfare, claiming the lives of ca. 70,000 people. Perhaps the article should be updated accordingly. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a mystery to me is why Kublai Khan should have made a second attempt like that in exactly the same manner with the same equipment in the same lousy weather, after his first attempt had been so unspeakably disastrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryoko the pirate
What about Ryoko the pirate who chased off the Mongols during the Mongol invasions of Japan and became a heroine? Chris 19:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ? Huh? LordAmeth 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know much, I've only heard about a historical character connected to the events. I am sorry I don't have better information than that. Apparently she had been a prostitute, and through her deeds gained back her honor and won the respect of the Japanese culture at the time. Only little snippets I have heard. Chris 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I haven't heard of her... thought you were making a joke, making fun of the kinds of things people tend to add to articles with no references to back it up. Never mind. LordAmeth 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The second invasion bit doesn't tell of numbers. Also, what weapons were used by both sides?
Shouldn't the part about the second invasion mention how many were reported to be involved? The Mongols would've kept records on how many soldiers they lost.

I am also curious about how the Japanese fought back. Did they actually run around with katanas, hoping to get close enough to their enemy to slice off a head, before being shot to death by bows and catapulted explosives? How did the Mongol arrows stand up to Japanese shields and body armor? Did the Japanese have phalanx shield formations to protect them? Did the use formations of pikemen to intercept arrows, as they charged forward to their enemy? Did the ruling elite send vast numbers of peasant farmers forward to wear out the enemy, before rushing in with a proper military force to fight? Or did the Japanese fight mainly with bows of their own, which even if not as good as the Mongol's bows(I haven't googled around for a comparison chart yet) would've given them an advantage with their superior numbers. I believe with their culture, they could rally a lot of people to fight at a moment's notice easily enough. Dream Focus 05:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of medieval Japanese warfare has it that the majority of Japanese troops were spearmen and bowmen, though perhaps there was an exception at this battle. 207.5.159.199 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And there were no katanas in the time of Mongol İnvasion. Most of the things associated with the image of classical era samurai (arms and armor, bushido, budo etc.)were created or perfected much after the Mongol İnvasion. On the other hand, Mongols were battle hardened experienced cavalry wariors who fought in perfect harmony and had superior equipment with their cavalry sabers, composite bows and explosives. To be honest only thing saved Japan from invasion was the bad weather(not once but twice horrible typhoons)and poor sailing skills of Mongols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.204.159 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kublai's letter in 1266
Kublai Khan's letter to Japan in 1266 never says something like "as king of Japan under the Mongol Khan" or "Goryeo render thanks for my rule". Instead, it stated "let's enter into friendly relations with each other; nobody would with to resort to arms" and "Goryeo, as my eastern tributary, renders thanks for my ceasefire and restoring their land and people when I ascended the throne".--209.90.146.162 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Invasion
I have removed a couple of sentences that are such bad English that I'm not even sure what they're trying to say: " And Goryeo built ships on her own type. According to Goryeosa, Southern Song type ships are too cost and too late for due date, so build on my own type.'' --> Goryeosa 『高麗史』列伝巻十七 「若依蛮様則工費多将不及期」「用本國船様督造」http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/BIImgFrame.php?JP_NUM=50001638&VOL_NUM=00003&KOMA=125&ITYPE=0 Cerowyn (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody put them back. I'm guessing the writer was trying to say that sea-worthy vessels from the Southern Song region of China were too costly and would take too long to build, which is why they used river vessels. Rather than remove them again, somebody who reads the original language (It appears to be Japanese, but I'm not sure) and writes English well should read the source and provide a better translation. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Invasion vs conquest
In addition, with the exception of the Occupation of Japan at the end of World War II, these failed invasion attempts are the closest Japan has come to being invasion within the last 1500 years.

I have changed the second "invasion" in the sentence to conquered. Invasion being closest to Japan being invaded? It doesn't make sense. Japan was invaded by the Mongols twice, just not conquered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyashita (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo
The invasion(s) was famously described in Marco Polo's book... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP: Japan Re-Assessment Commentary
I downgraded the assessment for WP: Japan as well as WP: Military History. I found References lacking at several points. Coverage was also deficient, but a short section should fix it. The Mongol invasions of Japan were costly, and none of the samurai rulers wanted to bear the costs alone. Between the first and second invasions, the shogunate helped finance defensive coastal outposts in Kyushu, and helped pay the men who kept watch. The warriors of the Tohoku region were favored for this duty, and they earned respect for their vigilance. However, all these costs weakened the shogunate and contributed to its eventual downfall. If I can find sources, I'll be happy to include this in the text, because coverage won't be complete until this is mentioned. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers
500 troops invasion in 1274?!? (23000 headed to Japan, 22500 lost to the sea). Seems like an easy victory for Japan and hardly could be called as 'invasion' by numbers. 213.221.17.130 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

article is sorely needing English translations of sources, copyrights, page numbers ......
This article is way out of spec with the Wiki guidelines and appears to have been for a long time. This is the English Wikipedia, and we need English sources unless a unique piece of information can only be found in another RS that is not in English. This is for verification purposes, etc., etc. The Mongol Invasions of Japan are very well documented in a number of English sources and this needs to be addressed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Military Significance Section
The opening paragraph of this article is rather unclear, I think. It states that this invasion was one of only three instances, but it's not completely clear what it was an instance of. I think it's trying to say that it was one of three wars between Japanese samurai and foreign forces, but I'm not absolutely sure. If someone can confirm this, I'd like to reword it slightly. It also might be better to refer to them as two of four rather than one of three, since they are separate invasions (albeit strongly linked) or simply leave out mention of later invasions altogether, since they don't seem relevant as they occurred centuries later. If they are being mentioned, for what reason are conflicts from the 1900s excluded? And if they are being mentioned, why not a raid in 1019 by Jurchen Pirates? Is the fact that these four conflicts occurred during the era when Japan's military was based around the samurai particularly important? It kinda comes across as fluff.--Mr Bucket (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

More detail in Battles sections
The Japanese Wikipedia page has a lot more information available on the battles, so I would assume there's a lot that could added here beyond leader names and troop counts. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

.False information was added.
In 1266, the emperor of Japan sent a letter to Kublai Khan as a gesture of good faith prior to the upcoming invasion. In the letter, the emperor of Japan referred to himself as "The King of Japan", subordinating himself from the "Great Mongol emperor":

Cherished by the Mandate of Heaven, may the Great Mongol emperor accept this letter. I, the King of Japan, am merely the lord of a small country. The sovereigns of small countries, sharing borders with each other, have for a long time been concerned to communicate with each other and become friendly.

11:51, 10 June 2019‎ Ecthelion83 talk contribs‎ m 49,248 bytes +96‎  the second part of that quote seems like it's addressed from the Mongols to Japan, not from Japan's initial message to Genghis Khan

09:59, 14 May 2019‎ Ez7b4q talk contribs‎ m 49,146 bytes +4‎  Added link to Goryeo

09:57, 14 May 2019‎ Ez7b4q talk contribs‎ 49,142 bytes -18‎  →‎Contact

09:54, 14 May 2019‎ Ez7b4q talk contribs‎ m 49,160 bytes +247‎  →‎Contact

The editor is Korean..220.104.45.64 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In 1266, Kublai Khan dispatched emissaries to Japan with a letter saying:

Cherished by the Mandate of Heaven, the Great Mongol emperor sends this letter to the king of Japan. The sovereigns of small countries, sharing borders with each other, have for a long time been concerned to communicate with each other and become friendly. Especially since my ancestor governed at heaven's command, innumerable countries from afar disputed our power and slighted our virtue. Goryeo rendered thanks for my ceasefire and for restoring their land and people when I ascended the throne. Our relation is feudatory like a father and son. We think you already know this. Goryeo is my eastern tributary. Japan was allied with Goryeo and sometimes with China since the founding of your country; however, Japan has never dispatched ambassadors since my ascending the throne. We are afraid that the Kingdom is yet to know this. Hence we dispatched a mission with our letter particularly expressing our wishes. Enter into friendly relations with each other from now on. We think all countries belong to one family. How are we in the right, unless we comprehend this? Nobody would wish to resort to arms.

This information is correct. 220.104.45.64 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

16:49, 13 June 2019‎ Underbar dk talk contribs‎ 49,281 bytes +403‎  Undid revision 901686462 by 220.104.45.64 (talk) not an improvement undo

False information is favored by the Underbar. Look at View history. 220.104.45.64 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please try to keep the majority of sources to English
I realize that all the primary sources are in non-English sources, but there is enough information on the events in English now for the article to not have to rely on secondary or tertiary non-English sources. The majority of sources in this article are now in English. If you do choose to add non-English sources please try to keep them to primary or secondary sources and provide English translations of the relevant material. Qiushufang (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you really confirming the source? You say there are a lot of English sources about this war, do you correctly quote them? The information you edited about Takezaki and the main battlefield Akasaka and Torikaizaka is clearly wrong. Also, the date of the Mongolian invasion on this page is different from the date commonly known in Japan. Japanese sources should not be excluded. And the wrong description should be deleted.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are included in the references. Japanese sources should be included, but this is the English wikipedia, not the Japanese wikipedia. So when available English sources should be used, and when using Japanese sources or any other non-English sources, translations should be made available. Also please do not erase material without first reaching consensus. Qiushufang (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

they died in a tornado
thase it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F390:2A00:F836:2B80:AA20:5441 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of Yuan Dynasty.jpg

Remove the second letter
The quotation comes from https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E9%AB%98%E9%BA%97%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B7%E4%B8%80%E7%99%BE%E4%BA%8C

This is a biography of a minister called Li Zangyong:

Full excerpt: 八年，蒙古遣兵部侍郞黑的等，令招諭日本. 藏用以書遺黑的曰：「日本阻海萬里，雖或與中國相通，未嘗歲修職貢. 故中國亦不以爲意，來則撫之，去則絶之. 以爲得之無益於王化，棄之無損於皇威也. 今聖明在上，日月，所照，盡爲臣妾，蠢爾小夷，敢有不服？然蜂蠆之毒，豈可無慮？國書之降，亦甚未宜. 隋文帝時，上書云：『日生處天子，致書于日沒處天子』其驕傲不識名分如此，安知遺風不存乎？國書旣入，脫有驕傲之答，不敬之辭，欲捨之，則爲大朝之累，欲取之，則風濤艱險，非王師萬全之地. 陪臣固知，大朝寬厚之政，亦非必欲致之，偶因人之上言，姑試之耳. 然取舍如彼，尺一之封，莫如不降之爲得也. 且彼豈不聞大朝功德之盛哉？旣聞之，計當入朝，然而不朝，蓋恃其海遠耳. 然則期以歲月，徐觀其爲，至則獎其內附，否則置之度外，任其蚩蚩，自活於相忘之域. 實聖人天覆無私之至德也. 陪臣再覲天陛，親承睿渥，今雖在遐陬，犬馬之誠，思効萬一耳. 」

In Year Eight, Mongolia sent military officers including Heuk Chŭk as envoys to Japan. He (as in Li Zangyong) wrote to Heuk Chŭk: Japan is ten thousand li distant across the sea; although at times they have been in contact with the Middle Kingdom, never have they made annual visits to offer tribute and receive affirmation of their status. That's why the Middle Kingdom has not concerned itself with them either, reassuring the Japanese if they do come but letting them be if they don't. For they believed that to gain the acknowledgment of Japan did nothing to augment the morally reforming power of the king, while to lose it did nothing to diminish the imperial aura. Now our wise reigning sovereign (Kublai) is as the Sun and Moon which shine upon all, and everyone is his subject and his servant; would any crude fellow or petty barbarian dare not to submit to him? Yet even the wasp has its sting and the serpent has its venom, nor would sending a letter of state to them do very much good either... etc etc

This is referenced as Chong In-ji, Koryo Sa, Vol. 3 (1395, revised in 1451) (Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai 1909 ed.), p. 202, col. 1. in Lo, which uses the 3 volume Japanese version.

In other words, it's misattributed by Lo. Fangz (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This does not contradict Lo though. Lo says that the ministers sent letter to Korea to be transferred to Japan, not that it never addressed Koreans or was not read by the Koreans. Qiushufang (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This was not an official letter from the Yuan/Mongol court to Japan demanding that the Japanese submit. It was a private letter from a Korean minister to one of the Mongol envoys, arguing that the diplomatic mission should be canceled because Japan would not submit. To portray it as being from the Mongols/Chinese or for the Japanese is incorrect. It was not addressed to the Japanese, it was not sent to Japan. Lo's translation is mistaken. 153.33.184.31 (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's the point. The author is Korean. The receiver is Mongol. It's completely the other way round from what is being presented. It was not a letter addressed to the Japanese at all. Fangz (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Lo simply states that it was a letter sent to Korea for transfer to Japan, not that it was addressed to Japan. Nothing in the excerpt I can see says it was not transferred. Also don't think a Korean minister would be named Li Zangyong unless they are using pinyin for some reason, which makes no sense here since Heuk Chuk is apparently the Korean minister here. The writer here according to the passage is clearly Chinese (aka Yuan) and not Korean. I am going to trust Lo more than the personal interpretation of a passage in Classical Chinese which does not even directly contradict the content. This seems to be synth imo. Qiushufang (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's written as Li Zangyong because I'm using the Chinese version which is what is available on wikisource. There are other versions. I don't know what the proper romanisation of 13th century Korean is.
 * The letter is a letter written to Mongolian envoys telling them to desist with their mission. There is no interpretation that makes it a threatening letter to the Japanese. Why would the letter continue to say that sending the text is dumb? The rest of the excerpt explains how Li was punished for sending the letter. It is a biography of Li after all. Who gets punished according to you? Did Kublai punish himself? The envoys presumeably carried some kind of letter to the Japanese... but that *ISN'T* what is quoted in the biography of Li, because why would it?
 * Look, what exactly is going to convince you here? Do you want to look at the korean version? Go find it yourself on https://db.history.go.kr/KOREA/item/level.do?itemId=kr&types=r Fangz (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Primary, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. I have reported you for edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Goryeosa is a secondary source. Actually arguably tertiary, but I digress. Fangz (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And it quotes a letter written during the event, which is a primary source. Qiushufang (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By that argument Lo is a primary source too! But the important thing here isn't the quote, it's the contextual information, who the letter is sent to and by whom. 92.40.195.177 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Lo is not the one we are basing the entire argument on when it comes to inclusion or exclusion of content. Here the only thing provided is the letter. Again, the source does not state that Li Zangyong is Korean or that it was not delivered to Japan, which is original research. So neither the primary or secondary sources provide info which contradicts the deleted content. Qiushufang (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the rest of the entry.
 * Also primary sources rule only applies to addition of content. It does not mean you cannot use a primary source to verify a previously used source as invalid. 92.40.195.173 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's an encyclopedia entry on Li. https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%9D%8E%E8%97%8F%E7%94%A8/22151056 92.40.195.173 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you link me the policy on use of primary source to verify secondary sources? As far as I can see at WP:PRIMARY, it only says All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So we're not allowed to analyze or interpret primary sources at all. Qiushufang (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in the exact article you linked.
 * "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."
 * See also Don't Create Hoaxes:
 * "Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable to a reliable published source. If challenged, the burden is on the original author to prove the claims in the article."
 * I.e. the burden of proof is that you have to prove it for inclusion.
 * See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editorial_discretion and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_sources_are_wrong 92.40.195.174 (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry I missed that. Qiushufang (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)