Talk:Turtle ship/Archive 2

Wooden crest below anchor - Dokebi?

I've changed the description of the wooden crest in the "Structure" section of the article. Being that this is a Korean creation, it having a crest shaped like a "Oni" face seems unlikely - since an Oni is a creature from Japanese folklore. I see the crest/second face in the picture and it looks like a Korean mask, or a Dokebi if anything. Also, the 2nd google book search link, reference #6, Fighting Ships of the Far East (2): Japan and Korea Ad 612-1639 By Stephen Turnbull, has a passage on page 19 that simple says "The dragon head is now much more prominent, and a second face has been added below." - it doesn't decribe what it looks like, until there is consensus or challenges, I'll leave it as just "face" for now.wonstereo 08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry. I was going to change that, but I think it was better to write oni than dokebi, to show what that face actually looked like. be sure to describe what the face is made of. Odst 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Iron Cladding Continued

• [refers to May 2007 Talk:Turtle ship/Archive 1#Iron cladding or not discussion]

In spite of the thorough treatment and resulting consensus and understanding that's been achieved in above discussions, unsupported reversions have been made. I will try to make repairs to these reversions. If anyone can help, that would be much appreciated.melonbarmonster 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits made. Although there are far more detailed descriptions in above discussions, for convenience's sake here's two major problems that were repaired:

1. Personal opinionated commentary by editors were deleted. Referenced commentary or opinions from appropriate references is fine. But editors should not be including their own opinions and writing essays supporting their own opinion. WP:NPOV dictates "let the facts speak for themselves".

2. Quotes taken out of context from Professor Bak and Kim's articles. This is just POV editing at its worst. This is detailed extensively above.melonbarmonster 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

POV reverting by Gun powder Ma

Gun Powder Ma has again made wholesale reverts that ignore the extensive discussion and the ensuing consensus, see WP:CON that has been reached in this talk page regarding the iron cladding section. I have attempted to engage in discussion each time I've returned the iron cladding section to its last state on consensus only to have Gun Powder Ma make unilateral, disruptive reverts again and again. Latest unexplained revert was [1].melonbarmonster (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Pros and Cons (Part II, if you like)

• [refers to April 2007 Talk:Turtle ship/Archive 1#On Pros and Cons discussion]

I am afraid, but you may have get a false impression from the discussion. There was never a consensus reached as you claim, and actually I even started the whole discussion and provided already many arguments (see Talk:Turtle ship#On Pros and Cons)). Users like Lactose or Good friend 100 have already supported my point that there is no conclusive evidence for iron-cladding. If so, feel free to provide it any time.

Before your edits, the section "pros and cons" was pretty comprehensive. Your unilateral removal then aimed at practically cutting out of the cons, making the section unbalanced and one-sided. You cut out primary sources, as well as opinions of historians. Where was that approved in the discussion? Hence my revert to the original version.

Please stop now that destructive habit of removing material. Again, I request you, instead of continuing to aim at throwing out material which has supported by research, be constructive and add your own sources, preferably English, of course. Provide (translations of) primary sources, provide POSITIVE evidence for iron-cladding. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the talk page. For starters, on the issue of removing text, I'm not trying to "prove" iron-cladding. If you read my comments above you'll see that I had asked for personal commentary and editor opinion to be removed per WP:NOT#OR so that the referenced facts can be presented without bias. Personal opinion and commentary from referenced sources are fine. An editor's personal commentary or opinion however, is not fine and do not belong in this article whether they be pro or con iron cladding.

In any case, I'm willing to recontinue this discussion with you and try to reach a new consensus but please understand that the last time I saw you participate in this talk page was almost a year ago in April 13th of last year.

Since then the discussion has gone without you and you have missed an extensive portion of the discussion. At the end of May a consensus was established per WP:CON. All other parties to the dispute have accepted this and the article and the talk page remained in a state of consensus EXCEPT for your monthly whole-sale reverts.

Again, we can try to reach a new consensus but in the meantime I would like to ask that the article remain at its last state of consensus. Even if you don't acknowledge consensus was reached, please don't make wholesale reverts that have been explained and discussed in this talk page. I do want to hear your responses to the reasons that were given for those edits rather than trading reverts back and forth. Thanks.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Fine, your suggestion to start things on the talk page is fair enough. I do not quite agree with you, though, that any "consensus" then was reached, since the course of the discussion amply shows that it was basically a 1 on 1 situation with you and LactoseTIT, who strongly objected to your views.

Why don't we start at looking for historical evidence for the turtle ships' iron-cladding? The problem is there is little to none. Yi Sun-sin is apparently claimed to be the inventor of the iron-cladded roof, but actually his comprehensive war diary is absolutely silent on this. He simply does not refer at all to such a roof, not even when he described his ship in detail. Nor does his nephew Yi Pun in his history of the Japanese-Korean War. That is strong evidence against the existence of such proofs, which IMO has to occupy a top place in the section, as an introducing line.

Second point to stress is that Yi Sun-sin is a Korean national hero, and, as such, the iron-cladding has long become a matter of faith in Korea, rather than facts. But Wiki is no place for national myths, however strong and 'accepted' they may be in their home country. Therefore my strong and lingering objections against what I view as constant attempts at introducing national mythology as facts into Wikipedia. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and participate on this talk page. It doesn't matter what your or my judgment or opinion is on the evidence for or against iron cladding. The sources should be presented objectively without YOUR or MY COMMENTARY and WITHOUT YOU or ME drawing conclusions. Let the readers draw their own conclusions from historical evidence. The quoted historical and modern evidence for and against are presented without you, me or anyone else's opinions and commentary. Leave it alone. Wikipedia isn't a place for you to footnote and make arguments or draw conclusions.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm begginning to get a little suspicious on this article, as I've read the previous comments in this talk page. Which would only add to my suspicion considering some of the things I've read on Stephen Turnball. The article makes it seem he is against iron cladding, when in fact he is a little on the "pro-iron cladding" instead. He stated...

"The armament of the turtle ship is described below, but the most intriguing feature concerns its turtle-like carapace. The accouns of Yi and his nephew confirm the presence of spikes, which are curiously missing from the 1795 drawings, but instead the Chwasuyong ship has a pronounced hexagonal pattern on its 'shell'. The War Memorial Museum concluded that this was a representation of hexagonal armour plates from each of which a spike protruded. We noted in the previous volume that armour plating was not unknown on Chinese fighting ships, and Japanese sources mention the turtle ship being 'covered in iron'. There is also some fascinating circumstantial evidence from the Japanese side that strongly suggests that the turtle ships were firmly believed to be armour plated. Tokugawa Ieyasu, the future shogun of Japan, managed to avoid service in Korea, but was nonetheless expected to do his bit for the war effort. One way in which he exercised this was to respond to a request issued by Hideyoshi in 1593 to supply iron plates for use in building warships, so that the turtle ship could be countered on its own terms." -pg 20 of Fighting Ships of the Far East

Gnip (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So anyway I downloaded Bak Hae-Ill's article as melonbarmonster said, and my suspicion was proven correct, and thus I was really dissapointed. Gun Powder Ma, I thought you were better than that. The author supported the idea of the turtle ship as an iron armoured ship, not the other way around! Gun Powder Ma gets the credit for quoting correctly, but giving only part of the quotes, and thus giving out half-truths, isn't very professional. To put an end to this, let me quote him in several passages

"Prof. I. s Hong's conclusion, however, seems reasonably accurate: that the turtle-boats, as iron-clad warships, were developed by Yi Sun-sin at the time of the Japanese invasion"

"with regard to fire tactics, it should be pointed out that bare planks with spikes, which would tend to hold the fire projectiles from rolling off, would be more dangerous than planks without spikes. Certainly the only fireproofing available for the turtle's back at that time would have been thin iron sheets. Nevertheless, Yi Pun's record is one of the most reliable sources dating from that time, so his extensive description of the turtle-boats has been copied by subsequent writers without question, while the oral tradition of the iron-clad turtle boats has been largely ignored because of a bias for the so-called academic point of view"

Anyhow, getting a professional source that talks about the lack of iron-plates on the turtle ship is all and well, but this author does not, but is pictured otherwise. To be neutral one shouldn't go out looking for information on pre-determined opinions, but just to look for information in general. How are people supposed to trust you on anything else you edit? As a fellow editor, I advise you stop this before someone less forgiving than me bans you.Gnip (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Gunpowder Ma, there is no conclusive evidence..but that doesn't mean we can decide how we can interpret that. People have generally credited the turtleship having the first iron armor in the world, regardless of its intended purpose. Its generally known that the turtleship had iron armor. It doesn't mean that we needed people to come here and completely ruin the article by writing that turtleships had no armor and turning this article into another POV war. Good friend100 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Iron cladding contiued

Please respect the editing process and refrain from adding commentary and personal opinion into the text of the article. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this.

The historical references regarding of iron cladding pro and con are presented in the in quotation WITHOUT ANY COMMENTARY ON WHETHER IRON CLADDING EXISTED OR NOT. The Turnbull quotation is included since Turnbull's personal opinion is from a valid published reference. Please respect the fact that your personal opinion, or mine, on the question of iron cladding is not valid reference. Please refrain from adding your personal commentary or interpretations of quoted sources in the text of the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued blind reverting by Gunpowderma and explanation of my edits

Gunpowderma has refused to participate in any substantive discussion and has been making inexplicable reverts for some time now. I'm writing this down for the sake of documentation. Please see above.

I have made compromises and deleted all editor commentary on the issue of iron cladding of turtle ship. Editor opinions should not be injected in the text for iron cladding or against iron cladding. The historical sources and referenced sources are quoted alone without anyone's personal commentary. Please help prevent blind reversions. Also fraudulent referencing of Bak's Korea Journal article has been readded to the text without any explanation. That has also been deleted. I have made edits in bits and pieces to explain each of my edits all of which I've already explained in detail above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Roofing of the ships

Even if the turtle ship had armour, for which there is little evidence, it was NOT - repeat NOT - necessarily the first case of iron armoured ships. Other possible prior incidences include the carrack Santa Anna (1522) and the Japanese Atakebune (1578). The only direct indication of iron roofing may be the Japanese reference, while the two main sources on the war, one from the admiral himself, does not refer at all to iron-cladding. I would like you, Melobarmonster, to refrain from further unilateral editions before presenting here evidence. Please also refrain from further tailoring sources to your own end, sources which, in fact, state the opposite. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008

What are you smoking? The article has referenced QUOTATIONS without your personal commentary nor mine. That's the MOST objective way to present the evidence. Do your original research elsewhere and stop your ridiculous reverting and participate in this talk page and actually respond to substantive issues that have been explained and outlined above.

Your continuing to revert a fraudulent referencing of Prof. Bak's article is especially repugnant and make everyone here question your credibility with the Turnbull reference.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. I don't think you have come back from Wiki exile after you have been banned for four days to behave like that. I propose we both together rephrase the article in a way which leaves the READER the choice whether the ships featured iron cladding or not. We represent both views without giving conclusions. What about that? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing that you're pretending that you've somehow come up with a proposal that I've been trying to maintain in spite of your disruptions. Please stop pretending as if you haven't been injecting personal commentary to the article as well as fraudulently referencing Prof. Bak's article. Good grief.

You also need to address WP:NOT#OR instead of pretending it doesn't exist. You are not supposed to present your personal views or conclusions in wikipedia articles nor am I supposed to present mine. This isn't a personal essay where you argue and try to convince readers of your particular POV. That is why I have refrained from injecting my personal commentary and interpretations of references as you have continually done.

The current references, be it pro or con, are QUOTED without anyone's biased explanations and commentary. I have proposed and tried to maintain this naked presentation of the evidence and asked you to leave it be so that the readers can draw their own conclusions without your interference multiple times. This is the best way to allow readers to come to their own conclusions.

Instead of playing dumb and revert warring please explain why you have a problem a naked presentation of the evidence and why you think your own personal commentary and conclusions should be included in the text when no other editors' have done so.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you simply follow WP netiquette and comment on contents, not on editors? I am going to edit the article so that both, conflicting viewpoints, are included:

• undo fabrication of evidence: Bak-Hae-Ill does not - repeat NOT - claim the turtle ship to be the world's first ironclad (the article is right in front of my eyes).
• more neutral heading since the term ironclad is anachronistic (see Hill) and even outright disputed (see Stephen Turnbull) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I'm commenting on you is that until your last edit, you continually ignored WIKI policies and content issues, specifically WP:NOT#OR and injected your personal opinion and commentary in the article as well as fraudulent references regarding Bak's article when EVERYONE else has refrained from doing so. Unless you're able to justify why your personal commentary should be be included when no other editor has done so, you have no right to argue and make arguments in the text of this article.

As for the claim that Prof Ha's article does not contain claims of the turtle ship being the first iron clad ship, I've checked Bak's article and you're right. Although we can probably find another source to claim this, I'll agree to leave this claim out of the article for the sake of cooperation.

However, your changing of the subsection to "deck shielding" is unacceptable. The evidence both pro and con are regarding iron cladding not deck shielding. That is not a matter of opinion but of fact. What is a matter of opinion is whether you believe iron cladding existed or not based on the evidence and that is for the readers to decide on their own without your interference nor mine.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The term iron cladding is already problematic, since it suggests an ironclad which, according to the Hill reference you removed without explanation, is reserved for the 19th century ships. Even more, Turnbull disputes very much that any iron-cladding existed at all, and the fact that the two Korean main source, the admiral and his nephew, are silent on the matter is further proof of its absence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No Original Research

Please review WP:NOT#OR. The article should not contain my personal opinions on whether iron cladding existed or not. The article should also not contain your personal opinions on whether iron cladding existed or not. That is why the article contains referenced information in QUOTATIONS without your personal commentary nor mine. This is a NEUTRAL compromise and allows the readers to reach their own conclusions without interference from either POV.

If you disagree with this, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you feel that YOUR personal opinion and commentary should be included when others' opinions and personal commentary are not. I have explained in detail every one of my edits regarding Bak and Turnbull. You need to participate in this discussion if you want to make changes to the article instead of blind and disruptive reverting.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Turnbull review

In light of repeated attempts at adding fraudulent referencing of Bak's Korean Journal article(as I documented above) and Gnip's comments above regarding the Turnbull's references regading iron cladding, there needs to be a check on the Turnbull reference to make sure that it is referenced appropriately. Unfortunately, a book isn't as accessible as online references. I will try to get my hands on the Turnbull book myself but if you have access to this book, please do a check on the Turnbull citations to make sure it's legitimate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Gun Powder Ma

The dispute is about the question how to present the evidence for and against an ironclad roof in a neutral way. I would favour a version like this which not simply lists quotes, but also puts them into a context. The current version offers a partial view, since it is (deliberately?) quiet about the fact that the supposed inventor of iron-cladding, admiral Yi Sun-sin, actually does not mention any iron-cladding on the ships in his war diary. Nor does ever the second main Korean source, his nephew Yi Pun. Thirdly, it should be made sufficiently clear to the reader that the earliest depictions of the turtle ships date from 1795, that is from two hundred years after the war, and that their authencity is questioned on the grounds that they do not portrait the spikes mentioned by Yi Sun-sin and Yi Pun. In its present form, the section, as a bare listing of quotes without context, has IMO little value as an encyclopedic entry. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Admiral Yi mentions iron cladding in his war diary or that Pun Yi mentions iron cladding. The article also does not claim authenticity shouldn't be questioned, etc.. All of that is for the reader to decide from an unbiased presentation of the facts... without my interpretation, interference nor Gun Powder Ma's. The list of evidences is also not a partial view but a comprehensive list of all referenced material that have surfaced in the history of this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The list leaves out important information without the reader cannot form an opinion. One example: Bak Hae-Ill writes (p.35): "Then what contemporary records by actual observers are available to us today to enable us to learn the structural aspects of Admiral Yi's turtle-boats as they appeared in the first period of the war? After carefully weighing all the data, pertinent information comes mainly from two sources. He then proceeds to quote comments by Yi Sun-sin and Yi Pun on the iron spikes, but says nothing - repeat NOTHING - about any contemporary references ironcladding. Since he explicitly states that he is giving the "pertinent" evidence on the structures of the ships, and since his article is titled "Iron-clad turtle boats", the conclusion is unavoidable that Yi Sun-sin and Yi Pun, the two main Korean sources on the war, DO NOT mention any iron-cladding at all. This argument by silence is perfectly viable in view of Bak Hae-Ill introducing comment, and reveals your simplistic insistence on 'just giving the quotes' as in fact heavily partial towards the view that the ships featured iron decks - which, as the contemporary record shows, they did not.

GPM is arguing against a straw man when he complains,"Yi Sun-sin and Yi Pun says nothing - repeat NOTHING - about any contemporary references ironcladding."

For some strange reason, GPM can't seem to acknowledge that I've claimed, and the text of the article ALSO claims "nothing - repeat NOTHING - about any contemporary references ironcladding". No one is claiming and the article of the text doesn't claim that Yi Pun or Yi Sun-sin mentions iron cladding in their perspective writings.

The problem is that Gun Powder Ma disagrees with Prof Bak's analysis. He thinks Prof Bak, or anyone reference that holds the position that the Turtle Ship was ironclad is simply false and he wants to prove and argue why he's right and the references are wrong in the text of the article. What Gun Powder Ma is either ignoring or simply doesn't get is that Prof Bak's opinion is legitimate for inclusion in the text of the articles per WP:CIT whereas Gun Powder Ma is an EDITOR who is not allowed to argue and draw opinionated interpretations and conclusions and argue against analysis of references in the text of the article. That is original research per WP:NOT#OR. I'm not allowed to make arguments and analyze the analysis of reference in the TEXT of the article and neither is Gun Powder Ma.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that you have difficulties in accepting that Bak has found no evidence for iron-cladding in all contemporary Korean sources. Bak set out to present, in his words, "all pertinent sources" related to the "structural aspects" of the turtle ship, but he just found no literary evidence for iron-cladding. It is a perfectly viable Argument from silence to deduce from that, that iron-cladding was NOT mentioned in Yi Pun or Yi Sun-sin's record, because if it was, it would have been mentioned by Bak. This is logic, and has nothing to do with original research.

I propose the line in the article should run as follows: "A close examination of the contemporary sources by Bak revealed that the two main Korean sources, Yi Pun's war records and Yi Sun-sin's war diaries, are silent on the subject of iron-cladding/do not mention any iron-cladding of the ships." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your analysis is rather wrong but I don't even have to get into it... because.... You're engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Please read WP:NOT#OR. Bak's published opinion is referenced and appropriate for inclusion in article per WP:CITE. Gun Powder Ma's criticism and interpretive opinion of Bak's analysis is editor opinion and doesn't belong in text of the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Melonbarmonster

The current version is already a comprised version from previous versions that is an objective presentation of all the referenced information related to iron cladding pro and con. It doesn't contain "context" for iron cladding and it shouldn't contain "context" against iron cladding. That is because injecting editors' personal opinion and commentary is a direct violation of WP:NOT#OR and WP:SOAPS. Wikipedia isn't a place for editors' to make arguments or a place for editors to draw interpretive conclusions regarding references in the text of the article.

The current version allows readers to see the referenced information for themselves without MY interpretation and POV spin NOR Gun Powder Ma's POV spin or interpretation as prescribed by WP:NPOV which states "let the facts speak for themselves". There's no reason that Gun Powder Ma should have the privilege to inject his own POV commentary and conclusions in the text of the article when all other editors have refrained from doing so.

Furthermore, Gun Powder Ma's suggestion would flare up an unnecessary POV edit war that would degrade the quality of this article.

Lastly, there are individual problems with Gun Powder Ma's commentaries that he has injected into the article in his past edits. E.g.: Prof Bak's Korea Journal article was fraudulently referenced. Editor Gnip has also questioned the credibility of Gun Powder Ma's references(specifically Turnbull)in this talk page. There were other bogus references that were actually not supported by the given reference which I tracked down individually and checked(except the Turnbull reference since it's a book) and explained in the talk space above.(Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to point out that Melonbarmonsteer has now for over a year tried here to enforce his views on other editors, too often by blaming other editors of ...whatever, as also LactoseTI had to find out (see Talk:Turtle ship/Archive 1#Iron cladding or not. Sadly his recent banning for four days hasn't changed that.

Secondly, I have all quoted sources at hand, including Turnbull, while Melonbarmonster evidently has not. In fact, Melonbarmonster has simply taken my quotes, and then removed all referenced comments which do not suit his position. His bogus reference to Bak Hae-Ill that the turtle ship "is also considered by most to be the first iron-clad ship in the world" [2] was simply fabricated. I looked it up, p.34 does not say such a thing, in the whole article Bak makes no such sweeping claims in fact. I feel his opinion that an encyclopedic entry should only present bare quotes, is better suited to Wikisource. Here, in that article, the evidence obviously needs to be interpreted, otherwise it creates a false image of the evidence (see example above). Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am guilty of having been banned in the past. Groups from 2CH(infamous Japanese forum board popular among Japanese black van right wing crowd) have gotten me banned multiple times by baiting me into revert wars in multiple articles. Nonetheless, it's rather ad hoc to bring that up here though and shows lack of good faith(WP:AGF).

The bogus reference GPM is claiming I made about the Turtle ship being the first iron clad ship is not my reference. Some other editor put it in the article and I assumed it was legitimate and reincluded it when fixing GPM's reverts. When GPM pointing out to me that such a claim wasn't in Bak's article, I agreed with him and the claim is no longer in the article[[3]]. The fact that GPM is claiming this as "bogus referencing" only degrades his own credibility.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion by Bradv

Thank you both for your comments, and for doing so in a civil manner. I'm going to bed now, but I'll share my thoughts in the morning. —BradV 06:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some initial observations:

• Please remain civil. Discuss the article, not the editors.

• On sources: The best way to summarize primary sources for inclusion in the article is to refer to secondary sources. If the two primary sources of information neglect to mention something, or disagree on something, find a secondary source that addresses this discrepancy and summarize its contents in the article.

• There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what constitutes original research. If, in the example given above by GPM, it is clear that the source does not mention ironcladding, it is appropriate to mention that. According to WP:OR: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing." Charges of original research or improper synthesis are valid only when the meaning of the source material is changed, or when conclusions are being drawn that are not supported by the source material.

• Right now, the section on deck cladding does not present the controversy at all, or even any background to the discussion. Presenting the discussion in prose format is preferable to simply quoting the source material. When the information is presented in such a way that the reader is encouraged to reach a certain conclusion, there is nothing wrong with identifying that conclusion or summary of the source material in the article.

• The fundamental policies at play here are verifiability and neutral point of view. The guideline on original research is consistent with those two policies. What that means is that if the information presented is verifiable and neutral it cannot be considered original research.

• I would suggest the following format for presenting the material:

1. Use prose format, not bullet points.
2. Present the controversy in a paragraph - e.g. "While it is clear from the available sources that the roof of the ship was covered with iron spikes to prevent boarding, it is not clear whether the decking of the ship was made of wood or iron."
3. Work it out. Present any available evidence in favour or against, or simply take the majority position and don't present it as a controversy.
4. Don't just quote it, summarize it. Wikipedia is more than just quotations of source material, it is an encyclopedia. Block quotations are, and should remain, rare. —BradV 17:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing." That is the key here. Summarizing source material is very different from Gun Powder Ma's past edits. An objective summary is very different from using referenced material to make arguments and claims beyond the claims made by references. Building novel arguments and drawing interpretive conclusions for one side is synthesis and a violation of WP:OR as well as NPOV, etc.. I would have no problem with an objective prose presentation of a summary of all relevant secondary sources. But only if that were easy. There have been a lack of interested editors to make this happen and POV edits claiming that iron cladding definitely existed or that it definitely didn't exist were the only edit versions that existed before. Edit proposals and consensus building is the only way to move forward at this point IMO.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for efforts, Bradv. I feel vindicated that we should use continuous text and refer to secondary sources. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources have been used all along and going with a prose presentation doesn't justify your past edits. Personal feelings of vindication aside, BardV's comments don't constitute a condoning of editor original research and synthesis. Like I said this leaves us where we were over a year ago.. having to work out an objective presentation of the facts. There should be more time for further comments and discussion and then proposals for edits made, discussed and consensus sought.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

iron armor

"Until further information comes to light to the contrary, the likeliest conclusion is that Yi Sun-sin's turtle ship was armored only insofar as it was constructed of heavy timbers and covered with a thick plank roof studded with iron spikes - which against the light guns of the Japanese was armor enough."

Are you kidding me? This doesn't sound like unbiased at all. Also, whoever rewrote this section should realize that everything they mention comes from one historian named Samuel Hawley. I'm sure he certainly represents every east asian historian out there. One source doesn't cut it and leave paragraphs like the one above out of here. Whoever thinks they found a solid reference in Hawley, I suggest you cut the crap and help make the article nonbiased.

Don't you guys have anything better to do? It seems like the only reason you are here in wikipedia is to stomp on this article. Good friend100 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you checked out the THIRD OPINION above? This is direct quote from Hawley which you simply deleted. You also deleted another relevant information almost verbatim taken from Sawley, namely that, despite running many thousand pages long, the annals did not contain a hint on any iron-cladding. Thirdly, you deleted the neutral introducing sentence which User talk:Bradv proposed above ("While it is clear from the available sources that the roof of the ship was covered with iron spikes to prevent boarding, it is not"). Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, did you read my post or not? Simply because one historian says something doesn't mean he's the standard we go by. Disruptive behavior? The entire section is tilted to your POV. You think you like to uphold nonbias yet when you find a reputable source, you shut your ears and have no wish to help make it nonbiased. You always claim to be nonbiased yet here you are only wishing to promote the views of your own opinion. I don't understand what is wrong with trying to make the section unbiased. Is my edits not good enough? Good friend100 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I took out

Until further information comes to light to the contrary, the likeliest conclusion is that Yi Sun-sin's turtle ship was armored only insofar as it was constructed of heavy timbers and covered with a thick plank roof studded with iron spikes - which against the light guns of the Japanese was armor enough.

again.

Whoever wrote this is making a final conclusion about the iron, which has no place for this. Leave final conclusions like this out of here. Putting a historian's view into context is biased and even if we should put it back, I think its fair enough to write that its HIS opinion and not everyone agrees with him.

So Gun powder ma, whats the problem here? Is this cut not good enough for you? I believed you were neutral before, so whats wrong with you now? Why are you masking your own views with Hawley's and trying to insert it in here? You know, there are many Korean historians who have the exact opposite views as Hawley's. Do you think it would be neutral for me to sprinkle all kinds of opinions from a Korean historian into this article and trying to pass it on as common belief? I'm sure you would object, and it would be funny that you would because you are doing the exact same thing right now. Good friend100 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, what you are aiming to take out is a quote. And the introducing line of the section follows the suggestion by the third opinion, and I don't see anything wrong with it, because: Hawley's book is the most recent and to date most comprehensive English treatment of the Imjin War. He has addressed the question of the ironcladding specifically on several pages. And his findings that there is insufficient evidence for iron armour are corrobated by two other authors. How can you rewrite the section without knowing the secondary sources at all? Isn't this absurd? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your too fixated on Hawley's theory and dismiss sources that says otherwise. If anyone has objections say them now, I'll be re-adding "iron-clad" back to the respective articles. Akkies (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient evidence for iron-cladding

I base the choice of words "insufficient evidence" for iron-cladding on three sources which dealt with the problem. All three came to that conclusion.

• The English historian Stephen Turnbull (Stephen Turnbull, “Samurai Invasion. Japan’s Korean War 1592-98” (London, 2002), Cassell & Co ISBN 0-304-35948-3, p. 244):

The most cherished belief of all about the turtle ship is that it was the world's first ironclad battleship. It is accepted by all authorities that the curved 'turtle shell' of the roof was covered with spikes to discourage boarding, but this is all in the historical record that implies armour plating except for the iron reinforcements noted above between joints in the bulwarks. These are, however, little more than large-scale versions of the iron brackets to be found at the corners of Korean and Japanese chests of drawers, so it is unlikely that these would lead to claims of the turtle being an ironclad ship.

• The historian Samuel Hawley (Hawley, Samuel: The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China, The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, Seoul 2005, ISBN 89-954424-2-5, p.196f.):

Until further information comes to light to the contrary, the likeliest conclusion is that Yi Sun-sin's turtle ship was armored only insofar as it was constructed of heavy timbers and covered with a thick plank roof studded with iron spikes - which against the light guns of the Japanese was armor enough.

• The Korean historian Roh Young-koo (Roh, Young-koo: "Yi Sun-shin, an Admiral Who Became a Myth", The Review of Korean Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2004), p.13)

The Turtle Ship was originally an improvement on the Joseon military ship, Panokseon, covered it with wooden planks so that its crews were protected from the enemy’s matchlocks. Iron spikes on the cover prevented the enemy climbing on the ship. Therefore, evidence is insufficient to see it as an ironclad ship. All records in the late Joseon period basically do not present obvious evidence that the Turtle Ship was an ironclad ship. Furthermore, in various records praising Yi Sun-shin, the Turtle Ship was not particularly mentioned as being an important part of the story.

Note that the Korean historian uses the expression "evidence is insufficient" for iron armour, the same as employed in the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing

You're engaging in synthesis. Sources on iron cladding is inconclusive and mixed as you can tell from even the quotations you posted here. Looking up and posting ONLY references that support your POV is synthesis and original research. Instead of arguing for or against iron-cladding, our job here is to accurately reflect sources. Please exercise a measure of good faith and make appropriate changes to you edits so that we can avoid needless edit wars and waste our time arguing for POV sources when we both know full well that references are inconclusive and mixed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources are there and I am willing to engage in a constructive discussion on them, but not on your usual unsubstantiated cannonade of personal accusations and eccentric interpretations of WP regulations. Last post of mine under such a heading. Your edit history shows that you mainly come to Wikipedia in order to obstruct progress on this article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to stop POV arguing by you and others by stripping the article of personal commentary and original research which is not allowed on wikipedia. I applied this to your POV as well as POV arguing for iron cladding. I am asking you to exercise a little objectivity and fairness by holding back on arguing against iron cladding. The evidence is inconclusive and mixed. Stop trying to present only one side of this by researching for your position which is synthesis and original research. If you don't make changes voluntarily then we will have to restore the article to its last state of consensus and only keep portions of the article as agreed by consensus by all editors involved per WP:CON and pick up where we left off after the last RfC which would require the article be changed to narrative form of the quoted material from citations. If you, me and everyone here exercised a little good faith and presented all sides then we would all save ourselves needless bickering.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another look at the armor issue.

I have not read over the exact items of debate over references and wording and all of the talk that has been placed here to date. I don't see any value in taking the time to look at every disagreement and argument. I have read over the references about the armor and it's clear to me that there is no strong evidence that armor plating was ever on these ships. There is still the possibility that armor was there but it looks very unlikely, as there are strong arguments in the sources that it did not exist.

However, the article should be written in a style that allows the reader to decide whether there was armor or not. The editor should not present the argument in any way that would influence the readers decision. Entering phrases such as "If the armor existed" or "since the armor was not there" etc leads the reader to a decision. Overall this article needs more inline citations and the Decking section seems to be very close to a verbatim copy of two of the sources I've looked at but in its present state it does not lead the reader in any one direction. --Brad (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your view. That the decking section looks close to Hawley is the logical result from a) the way the author himself presenting the material, leaving little headway for variation, and b) my intention to give a faithful as possible account of his findings. In this light, I take your observation as confirmation that my rewritten section is generally NPOV and faithfully reflects the given references. Now for Melonbarmonster2's partial revert for which he did not give reasons:

• Caption: The disputed character of the iron armour is corrobated by the sources. This is relevant to the replica pic, since the reader has a right to learn that the reconstruction is widely to be consider not to be faithful.
• "While contemporary sources indicate": It is not true that only Hawley said that, more authors said something to that amount. I am going to add the references.
• "In Japanese sources, an "enigmatic reference" mentions": I leave out "enigmatic", even though it is a verbatim quote. it was, however, only a single Japanese source.
• "Hawley, however, analyzes that": D'accord
• Removal of quote: I am going to restore the quote until Melonbarmonster2 explains on what grounds this was removed. If there are meaningful quotes to the contrary effect by scholars, I support their inclusion. Hawley summarized the objections of the critics very well here, and I don't see no reason why his conclusion should be excluded just because editors who have a different view weren't able in one and a half year to support their contrary views by scholarly sources.
• "while North Koreans seem": sourced statement, no apparent reason either to remove that, either. I hope that, by tackling the open issues one by one, we can conclude this lengthy controversy soon. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

stephen turnbull

I just added counter references to Hawley. I think its been enough that only one author is referenced in the passage, with quotations that are his own interpretations. If there is anything you would like to point out, please do so, instead of blindly reverting it back to your own version. I have written it in a neutral and unzealous way. If you feel that is not so, please mention here. thanks. Good friend100 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Undo strong and unrefrenced POV: "It should be clearly noted that while contemporary authorities celebrate the turtle ship as the world's first ironclad ship". Instead of rewriting blindly the passage to your own gusto, you are invited to first engage here in discussion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in a revert war nor do I want to argue with you. But if you think that any edit that you don't like can be simply erased, I'm asking an administrator to look at this.

Your controlling the article as if you own it and require permission from anyone else who isn't on your side. I'm simply adding to the opposite sides argument, which is hardly present in the section. Surely you are trying to maintain non-bias? Will you please tell me how that is bias? It is POV when you prevent others from adding information that balances the article's current bias. I also dislike it that you simply undo my ENTIRE edit without reviewing it at all.

Good friend100 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to ask you what is wrong with my edit?

• All my edits are referenced using a reputable source by Stephen Turnbull (there is an appendix which specifically deals with the turtle ship)
• I did not overhaul the entire section in a bias in favor of ironcladding
• I did not remove any passages regarding Hawley's argument
• I did not write anything that is unreasonable to an observer

What more do you want? More specifically, what is wrong with my edits besides the one you pointed out? I left it removed because I myself thought it was biased, after looking at a day later. Everything else you don't have a comment on so I left it there. Good friend100 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have Turnbull before me, and you clearly distorts his views by taking only those of his arguments which suit your case. In fact, Turnbull is ambiguous, presenting equally pro and cons, without providing a final verdict. If anything, le leans more towards the view that the iron plates did not exist (p.244):

It is accepted by all authorities that the curved 'turtle shell' of the roof was covered with spikes to discourage boarding, but this is all in the historical record that implies armour plating except for the iron reinforcements noted above between joints in the bulwarks.

In this light, I am now confronted with the choice of either reverting your partial edit, or giving all the cons Turnbull lists, too. The later, however, will make a mess of the section, so I am going for now for the former, until you present Turnbull in a balanced way. On a personal note: the English WP is no place for perpetuating national legends and myths, however strong they may be believed in their country of origin. What people may write in the Korean WP has no bearing here. I am a bit irritated by the way you return solely for this article to the WP... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Hawley's book. How do I know that you simply took out favorable parts from him and kicked it in here? And don't even think about accusing me of coming here specifically for this. It just makes it clearer that you don't want to cooperate. Either that or your looking for a reason to kick me out. Well I WILL be gone soon because I don't have time.

I'm only visiting here and unlike you, I don't have a lot of time to bicker over little things in every article that I watch. I simply remembered the bias in this article and that is what caught my mind. Anyways, what do you want me to do? Since you reveal that you have Turnbull's book but make no move whatsoever on your own to make the article less biased, I don't think its possible that your going to accept any of my suggestions unless they are watered down to your taste. Good friend100 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And why are you mentioning Wikipedia Korea? I never visit there. Also in Turnbull's book, he writes that we "should not rule out a limited amound of armor plating in 1592". So he isn't entirely ambigious but does present both sides of the case. Good friend100 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I requested the support of two editors to solve this dispute on this very talk page, and I provided most of the sources which are quoted as pro and con iron-clad. You, in contrast, have provided none so far, and your history shows you returning just for this article. These are just the facts.

I added the other half of Turnbull's dialectic argument to present his argumentation in a more balanced way. Dialectic means, as you well know, the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I said, I've been only visiting this article because I don't really have much time to go look at other articles. Is that a problem? Because you keep bringing it up. Is there a rule here that I have to go work on a variety of articles? If there is, then I missed it, and I'm sorry I'm bothering you (and anyone else) about it.

And I'm also sorry to point out that I find your point about dialectic incredibly hypocritical when all this time, there were incredibly long strings why there was no iron plates and absolutely no counter arguments at all. While it may seem like neutral logic, most of the argument is comprised of Hawley's own interpretations and beliefs. Good friend100 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wanted: Evidence pro iron armour

Currently, there is real danger that speculation and subjective interpretations get again the better part of the section. So could you please summarize the evidence pro iron-cladding? Because I only count

• a short Japanese reference to "ships covered in iron" (but could just refer to the spikes)
• the interpretation of the 1795 depiction (which was created 200 years later, and is proven beyond doubt to be inaccurate in important details)
• a 1880s Korean official who was ordered to "built an ironclad like the turtle ship" (but the ship refused to float, and at that time the Western design was already on all seven seas, quite possibly influencing the Korean mindset then)

Is that all for the claim of "the world's first ironclad"? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using condescending wording about Korea's "claim" on ironclad armor. I don't care whether you think Koreans are selfish or not, but the majority of Koreans simply view the iron plates as a major part of Admiral Yi's ingenuity, its only the nationalists who believe that the idea of iron cladding belongs to Korea only. So you should stop, or leave because keep this kind of rhetoric up and I'll ask an administrator to warn you.

Do you think I'm one of the nationalists? I'm only trying to make the article more balanced. I don't care whether or not the turtle ship was the first ironclad ship, I just want to make sure that there is a balanced argument and let the reader know that there is a possibility that iron plates did exist, thats all. Good friend100 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And who do you think you are to conclude that Turnbull is speculative? Your interpretation or your beliefs about his writing has no ground in whether or not his information is "correct". Hawley has his own interpretations, but that doesn't mean he is "speculative". Therefore, I want to re-add the reference about the 19th century French Navy, which I don't understand why you keep removing. Good friend100 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, we can talk via email about all issues or non-issues concerning Korea, if you feel that way (I am nowhere condescending), but I would like to know from you whether the three points above are all that imply iron amour? Because if they are we can cut in the interest of the reader the whole section short, give these three reasons, and then move on to the abundant evidence against iron amour. Please do not compare Hawley's logical reasoning with Turnbull's erratic style. Most of what you add now is conjecture by Turnbull along the line 'we don't have evidence for ironcladding, but we cannot rule it out'. That is little more than a logical truism that lacks actual substance and is thus hardly encyclopedically relevant. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that you have the right to conclude that Hawley is "logical" and Turnbull is "erratic"?

Clearly, you are convinced that there wasn't any iron plates because of the big piece of evidence put forth by Hawley. Theres nothing wrong with that, but your trying to inject your belief into the article itself instead of trying to show both sides of the argument. Do you believe that I am trying to put nationalistic beliefs into the article? It seems like you are, since you are vehemently axing out or watering down any of my edits. Again, I want to point out that I AM NOT. I just want to make the section less biased and make it so that the reader make his/her own judgement, thats all I want to do. Good friend100 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Obvious Misuse of Sources

(Before I get started, please don't take offence) So far Gun Powder Ma has repeatedly misused sources. A while back he used Bak Hai-Ill to “disprove” the existence of iron-plating in turtle ships, yet Bak Hai-Ill actually took a very pro-ironcladding stance. The evidence for this is already in this discussion page, if you guys actually checked (which I don’t think anyone did). Now he states that the only “evidence” he sees for iron-plating on turtle ships are, and I quote:

• “a short Japanese reference to "ships covered in iron" (but could just refer to the spikes)

• the interpretation of the 1795 depiction (which was created 200 years later, and is proven beyond doubt to be inaccurate in important details)

• a 1880s Korean official who was ordered to "built an ironclad like the turtle ship" (but the ship refused to float, and at that time the Western design was already on all seven seas, quite possibly influencing the Korean mindset then)”

Yet if Gunpowder Ma really did read Bak Hai-Ill as he claimed, he would know that the author claimed that the upper hull of the turtle ship should be fire-proof, and the only thing capable of that is “thin-sheets of iron”. Also, Gun Powder Ma misused Turnbull’s evidence of the 1880 reconstruction. Stephen Turnbull used that case as a case AGAINST ironcladding, but at the same time he mentioned that the reconstruction never mentioned just how much iron the ship took, which could be anywhere from partially ironed to completely ironed. Besides, the ship was supposed to be able to compete with ironcladding ships of the late 19th century after all. Thus, though Gun Powder Ma quoted Turnbull, he misused his information. Furthermore, Gun Powder Ma when quoting Turnbull used very selective quoting. I will give his full quote:

“The most cherished belief of all about the turtle ship is that it was the world's first ironclad battleship. It is accepted by all authorities that the curved 'turtle shell' of the roof was covered with spikes to discourage boarding, but this is all in the historical record that implies armour plating except for the iron reinforcements noted above between joints in the bulwarks. These are, however, little more than large-scale versions of the iron brackets to be found at the corners of Korean and Japanese chests of drawers, so it is unlikely that these would lead to claims of the turtle being an ironclad ship. However, the claim that the turtle ship was the world’s first ironclad battleship has long been supported in Korea, and such a belief may also have been shared by the Japanese who suffered its attacks, as shown in the words ‘covered in iron’ in the Angolp’o account quoted earlier. Also, in February 1593 the Japanese government ordered the daimyo to supply iron plate for use in building warships, possibly as a reaction to such reports. Tokugawa Ieyasu’s provision of iron plates for this purpose was his main contribution to the war effort.”

Gun Powder Ma only provided the first part in order to prove that Turnbull was more against ironcladding than pro ironcladding. But as you can see, if GPM quoted the full paragraph, the attitude toward ironcladding would change a lot. Turnbull’s stance can further be seen by this quote from another book of his, called “Fighting Ships of the Far East”, pg 20:

“The armament of the turtle ship is described below, but the most intriguing feature concerns its turtle-like carapace. The accounts of Yi and his nephew confirm the presence of spikes, which are curiously missing from the 1795 drawings, but instead the Chwasuyong ship has a pronounced hexagonal pattern on its ‘shell’. The War Memorial Museum concluded that this was a representation of hexagonal armour plates from each of which a spike protruded. We noted in the previous volume that armour plating was not unknown on Chinese fighting ships, and Japanese sources mention the turtle ship being ‘covered in iron’. There is also some fascinating circumstantial evidence from the Japanese side that strongly suggests that the turtle ships were firmly believed to be armour plated. Tokugawa Ieyasu, the future shogun of Japan, managed to avoid service in Korea, but was nonetheless expected to do his bit for the war effort. One way in which he exercised this was to respond to a request issued by Hideyoshi in 1593 to supply iron plates for use in building warships, so that the turtle ship could be countered on its own terms.”

So here’s two problems I have with the guy. First he uses Bak Hae-Ill as a valuable source in order to disapprove the use of iron-cladding in Turtle Ships. But when I showed that not only did he misuse the source, but Bak Hae-Ill was also pro-ironcladding, Gun Powder Ma now wipes poor Bak away and never mentions him again. He even left out all the evidence that Bak made and GPM must have read. Even if he out of pure happenstance only read the part of Bak that was convenient for GPM’s opinion, he should still know Bak’s stance because GPM used Samuel Hawley as a source. And Samuel, in that same source, also claimed that Bak was pro-iron cladding, very clearly in fact. Now he is treating Turnbull just like how he treated Bak Hae-Ill. Granted I’m not a big fan of Turnbull, but one still should have the common decency to twist what a hard working historian have to say about a subject matter. It's also funny that he accused Turnbull's pro-ironcladding evidence as "mostly speculative" without even going into detail about what Turnbull stated, and when he did it was either misused(such as the 1795 depiction in the three points GPM mentioned) or only part of his evidence. Perhaps if he gave the full picture people would realize that Turnbull's evidence is no more speculative as those of Roh's or Samuel's. To GPM's credit all three rely mostly on circumstantial evidence, and thus are pretty speculative. Needless to say, whether they are speculative or not, this belongs as a personal opinion and shouldn't have a place here. It's unprofessional.

Frankly, I’m surprised that someone with obviously no real interest in non-Western history would have sources such as those of Roh-Young koo. Sources like those are very hard to find, and only the most serious historians would ever bother to look for those. Which is why I’m suspecting he got his hands on some nifty search function that I don’t know about. However, his source from Samual and Roh are correct, which was an improvement from last time (about a year back). This is why I left Wikipedia for about a year, and I returned hoping for some moral improvement. Gnip (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have long given the Hawley article to User:Brad101, and he basically agrees that Hawley sees only little evidence for iron amour. I would also do the same for some users, but there is nothing to suggest that their use of this source will be less creative than that made of Turnbull. I don't know what the overall problem is here, but I guess it has at least partly to do with the fact that Admiral Yi-sun is worshipped in South Korea as a national hero, and that the belief in him ironcladding his ship is thus strong, although the actual evidence is small as Turnbull, Hawley and Roh-Young koo all explicitly say so. However, this article is publicized in an encyclopedia, and therefore encyclopedic standards should be applied here despite possibly strong emotions involved. As for your arguments, if have found more than the three points above, feel free to add them. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, if you read the entirety of my article, you will realize that I am not against Samuel Hawley. What I am against, is your misuse of sources with Turnbull and Bak Hae-Ill. Their reasons for pro-ironcladding, which you claimed to have read, is much different than what you have posted. With all due respect, that type of attitude is a major chip on your shoulder (considering I have read articles made by PericlesOfAthens and know that this isn't the only time you misused sources). Nor is Hawley and Roh's evidence for the nonexistence of plate iron any better, simply because so few sources talk of the turtle ship. Placing the idea of one author over the other is unprofessional and would not be within an "encyclopedic standard" as you claim. I have already summarized Turnbull and Bak's full ideas beforehand, for any user who was mislead by previous matters and have wrong ideas about their claims. I repeat, putting one evidence as "better" than the other is NOT within encyclopedic standards. That is for the jury(the audience) to decide. We only summarize the ideas made by both sides. Btw, how did you find Roh's article anyway? It's not that common. If you found it in a special way I would like to know of it, as it will help me in my historic research in the future.

Anyway, the most unbiased way to display both sides of ironcladding, personally, is this. One section would be pro-ironcladding and one section would be anti-ironcladding. For each side, the counterargument of how each and every evidence is "weak" would be discarded and left for the reader to decide. This is so much better than the junk with have now in which everything's mixed up in one huge mesh, probably because so many people fought over it. For the pro-ironcladding side, we would use

1) Japanese ships describing Turtle ships as "covered in iron"

2) Japanese ordering the shipment of "iron plates" so they can fight turtle ships on their own terms

3) The need for the roof of the turtle ship to be fireproof

4) The existence of iron-plating in previous Chinese/Japanese ships

5) The 1795 drawing

Now for the anti-ironcladding side we have

1) The extreme cost of having iron-plated turtle ships

2) The ability for the hull to be fire-resistant by the use of saltwater instead of iron

3) The sunken reconstruction of a 19th century turtle ship

4) No mention of iron-plates in Yi Sun-shin's discussion

As I said, lets not litter each side with POV on how the evidence is weak, that's for the audience to decide, not any of us. That's what we have now and no sane person can read through something like that without getting a headache. The best way to display both sides is with the use of Ockham's Razor, the simpler the better. Gnip (talk) 2:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I ignore your attempts at ad hominem and come directly to your proposal. I agree that the current section is winding, but the clear-cut pros and cons you seem to envision don't work either. As for pros, 1), 2) and 5) are far from being clear, unambiguous evidence (see above). 3) is no reason at all because there actually existed a multitude of methods in pre-modern naval warfare to make wooden ships comparably fireproof (vinegar, soaked leather, etc.). On 4) please elaborate. As for cons, 2) I don't understand and 4) is ambiguous (they wanted to built one (kind of pro), but it did not float (con)). 4) is the argument against ironcladding par excellence: no contemporary source, including the purported inventor, mentioned any iron amour! As such it definitely needs the prime place in any section. The reader needs to know: we are talking here about something for which there is not a shred of evidence in Korean sources, not a shred. Not to strongly emphasize this fact would be pure POV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just listing what the authors said, Gun Powder Ma. As such, it's not POV, but only the professional pursuit of "encyclopedic standards". If you think it's "unambiguous", "unclear", or "belongs to somewhere else" sadly that's still only what you think. If an author used an argument as a con, then I'm putting that source in the con section. And if you think the evidence is "not good enough", I can't do anything about that. Historic papers take place over individual opinion. You previously forced others into such standards until I discovered that you were falsifying sources. But why don't you practice such standards as well? I've stated this already. It's up for the reader to decide, not you. If the pro-ironcladding arguments are as bad as you believe, then I'm sure the reader will come to that conclusion too when he read these pro-ironcladding arguments. It's not up for you to merely erase them, especially when you used the same exact sources to back up your arguments. You can't just use authors for POVs that you agree with and ignore the rest. I'd think the arguments I listed for both sides are pretty understandable, at least for you, as the authors you claimed to have read had described each one in their books. As for the "ad hominem", I think you're talking of my accusation of your misuse of sources. If you don't like it, then don't give false ideas of what the authors stated. You're not the only one who read those books, and as such your actions are bound to get caught sooner or later by someone, even if I ignore it. Just be happy I'm not an administrator. What do you expect me to do. Should I apologize for pointing out that the author's point of view differ from what you made them out to be? By all means, get an administrator if you would like. I don't think he or she will smile upon how you used Turnbull and Bak's sources in the wrong light. Gnip (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.197.84 (talk)