Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Imjin War

Imjin War
Hello, I just edited the entire Imjin War article by adding information on the Second Invasion and the timeline. I would like a review on how the article is doing but the timeline is still incomplete and I am currently looking for more information so I will try and finish it up. For the rest of the article, I need some feedback because I am struggling on improving the article. Thank you for the review. Good friend100 01:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
I have very little knowledge of the specific historical details here, so I can't comment too much on the exact content. However, some more general suggestions: Overall, though, this looks like it's well on its way! Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Inline citations should be added in large quantities throughout. This is particularly important in an article like this because of the occasional arguments that break out along national lines.
 * The timeline might be better off being moved to a separate Timeline of the Imjin War; otherwise, its presence will draw criticism of the article being too list-oriented.
 * The list of battles should be removed in favor of a standard-format campaignbox template. This might require a bit of work, as we seem to have a number of badly-designed or overlapping ones for this war (this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this); it would probably be worthwhile to merge them into a single template once you have a good idea of the order of the various battles.
 * The lead section can probably be expanded to two or three paragraphs.
 * The paintings are very nice; but a map of some sort (even if it's just a geographical map of Korea) would be very useful as well.
 * The very short sections later in the article should either be expanded or merged together to create longer and better-flowing blocks of prose.


 * Thanks for the review. But I don't know how to cite a reference of Wikipedia. Could you show me how? Also, I don't know how to create a campaignbox template. In fact I don't even know what a campaignbox template is. Thanks for the instructions, I appreciate it very much. Good friend100 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal preference for citation is Footnotes. It's fairly easy to use and quite versatile.  There are other methods, of course, but I'm not all that familiar with them.
 * As far as campaignbox templates go, there's an overview of how they function here; for your purposes, though, it might be easier just to start with Campaignbox Seven-Year War and add in the missing links to other battles, copying the existing format.
 * If you have any other questions, or if the explanations I've linked above aren't sufficient, please don't hesitate to ask. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a difference between a reference and a citation? When I look at certain articles, there is a reference section and a "notes" section. Also, can a "notes" section be used for referencing information? Thank you again. Good friend100 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reference


 * The "References" section is typically used to present an alphabetical bibliography, while the "Notes" section is used for footnotes (both those containing referencing information and more discursive ones). If every work that was used as a source is cited through a footnote, the "References" section can technically be omitted; but it's usually helpful to include one anyways, even if it does duplicate some information. Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. If you already didn't know, I am a high schooler. Currently, I am in an argument with someone over the Dokdo/Takeshima. He is increasingly making fun of my age and treating as if I know nothing because I am young. He is also indirectly making fun of my home country. I threatened to refer to an administrator but instead he calls me a baby. What should I do? thank you. Good friend100 15:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Links to the discussion, please? Admins really can't do anything based on general comments. Kirill Lokshin 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My talk page. The discussion first started with a user named "Komdori" asking me why I raised the question of Dokdo/Takeshima at the talk page of Yasukuni Shrine. For some reason, he left, and a user named LactoseTI claiming I am ganging up and spewing personal ideas. The argument went from there. Good friend100 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand. Its just that how he looks down on me because I'm young makes me angry. Just because you are young doesn't mean you cannot be part of Wikipedia, right?


 * "masturbatory diatribes". Thats how he treats me. What should I do? Should I ignore him and back off, or should I continue to reply? Good friend100 16:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on user's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I wil follow your suggestion. Good friend100 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the word "invaded" and "executed" POV? Good friend100 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be, depending on the circumstances. It doesn't jump out as particularly unusual, but there may be other factors.  It's an issue that should really be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Would it be ok if there should be something like "Japan invaded Korea in 1592" in the Imjin War article? Its because I am seeing users moving around on Korea or Japan related articles and deleting words like "invaded" or "killed" claiming they are POV. Should I revert them? Good friend100 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That one seems perfectly obvious to me. What word are they suggesting we use in place of "invaded"? Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Conflict" replaced "invaded". Good friend100 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's quite bizarre, as "conflict" isn't a verb. It seems quite clear to me that the conflict was an invasion; this is utterly unrelated to any questions of justification and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good Friend 100, if you are going to complain, at least give the appropriate facts. First, no one said "executed" was POV.  You wanted it to say the Yasukuni article to explicitly state that 14 convicted of class A war crimes were executed from Japan, and that 1,000 others convicted of class B and C war crimes were executed.  Not one of the B/C convictions resulted in execution, and no more than half of the class A convictions led to execution.  It's not a POV discussion, it's a factual discussion.


 * Also, in the same article, there was a list of sources for the war dead spirits. Some lines said thinks like, "Conflict between Japan and ...," while others were tantamount to saying "Japan's invasion of the world during the second world war." The list was changed to be consistent, to head off any accusations of POV, and also to head off a discussion over whether or not the actions were really constitutded "invasions" or not.  This had nothing to do with this conflict.  I'm not sure why it spilled over onto this page.


 * Good Friend 100, I am not "looking down at you." I know you are making some really! valuable contributions. I've said so repeatedly, and I don't want to discourage you.  However, in situations like this one--when Kirill Lokshin asked for an example--why did you simply fabricate one, instead of describing the situation like you were asked? LactoseTI 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lokshin,

Thank you for the past help. I feel that the Korea related articles are being attacked and messed around with. The editors that edit the articles are heavily changing the articles but they don't seem to be getting any better. What should I do?

Also, a user moved the Imjin War article to Seven Year War (Asia) without any vote or consensus of others. I strongly disagree with this title because it is confusing with other users and websurfers looking for information. Also, there are several wars with the name of "Seven Year War". "Seven Year War (Asia)" makes it seem even more vague.

The article seems to be in a mess, after a lot of hard work. I don't know what to do. Should I open a poll? Good friend100 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest opening a request for comments on the article. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again Mr. Lokshin.


 * About the Imjin War article, although the article is tagged from moving, a user has deliberately moved the article to Hideyoshi's Invasions without consensus from the other editors. I believe that I should revert the move and put up the tag again, but I am not sure because I don't want to create a move war. Good friend100 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If anyone was able to move it, it means that the article had already been unprotected—which means that some other administrator believed that consensus had already been reached. Talk to that admin, please ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you post the protect from moves template? thank you

Also, the user that deleted the tag is not an admin but one of the editors. He claimed that the argument was calm enough to delete it. Good friend100 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nihonjoe (an administrator) removed it. I believe you need to be an admin to add or remove it.  Incidently, he appears to have been right. LactoseTI 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, is an administrator; non-admins can remove the tag, but can't actually change the underlying page protection.  If you don't agree with his decision, it would be best to consult with him directly. Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the move tag was taken off because it was his favor? After reading his userpage, he seems to be Japanese, or really like Japanese culture. I think that his judgement is biased, because he stated that the discussion was "now stable and ok" even though it obviously is not. Good friend100 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, why not take it up with him directly? He's, as far as I know, a diligent admin; I very much doubt that he would have allowed any personal feelings to affect his decision. Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked on his talk page but simply told me to discuss in the discussion page of the article itself. I am not expressing any personal feelings. I simply disagree with the move. Good friend100 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I referred to WP:RM to request a move on the article. Good friend100 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lokshin, could you review the article of the "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" (Imjin War) again? Also, could you review the talk page and could you reconsider moving the article back to the original title? I wrote an argument at the bottom of the article and I believe I have every right to move the article back into its former name.
 * Article

Thank you Good friend100 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to move it again, please open a move request and try to get consensus for your preferred name. Moving it anywhere without the agreement of the other editors is practically guaranteed to start up the move war again, and I very much doubt that would be an enjoyable experience for anyone involved. Kirill Lokshin 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (Incidentally, we probably shouldn't keep having these discussions on an already-archived peer review; if you'd like to ask me something, just use my talk page.) Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)