Talk:Toyotomi Hideyoshi/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

How come articles about Japanese samurai give little attention to how their names have changed since their bith to death unlike articles about Roman patricians who are explicitly given their whole set of names in the introductory paragraph? 118.93.57.21 (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is missing that during his regime Japan invaded Korea(Chosun). Xaos

Please: When posting an article try to remember that part of teaching is not to assume. Therefore, please put in the country names etc. so as to clearly identify who, what, and where you are talking about.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.30.148 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 January 2003 .

Yes, we all know the world is dying to know anything about whenever Japan invades Koreans. In fact, there's more characters written on this article about his expeditions to Korea than his rise to the pinnalce of power. 118.93.57.21 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

- That's because the article is mostly written by Koreans and their sympathisers who could care less about Hideyoshi's exploits in Japan compared to what he did on the continent. That's Wikipedia, a collective of amateur 'historians' (LOL What?) with too much time on their hands like myself. Most of the discussions that go on here are utterly rubbish. When you raise an argument, a counter-argument usually begins with 'I don't believe' with no reason given. When more than enough other users also post 'I don't believe', you lose the argument and yield to their revision of fact. Heck, if anyone actually bothered to give reasons for discussion on Wiki, they would have jobs by now and not bother to edit here. But of course they don't have jobs, that's why they are editiong of wiki. I am a bum BTW.Kilimanjaronum (talk)

---

Forgive me if I am mistaking Toyotomi Hideyoshi for somebody else. Did he not instigate a "sword hunt", disarming anyone who was not a recognized Samurai? I've probably remembered this in some oddly garbled form, but maybe you can figure out what I am referring to, even though I sure can't. My vague recollection that such a sword hunt consolidated a long period of domestic tranquillity in Japan, at the cost of individual liberty. Or I think I read something like that. Does this make any sense? (if so maybe some mention could be made, I'll have to see if I can find my source...) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:32 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, i recently updated the site. Hideyoshi did require all non-samurai to disarm and give up their weapons. And indeed it did have long lasting effects. During the Sengoku period, it was much more common for peasant revolts. Hideyoshi effectively rid Japan of this problem. - [email protected]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkorath (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 October 2003.

He didn't rid Japan of the problem of peasant revolts. He rid the gentry and the samurai of the problem of peasant revolts. It is not clear that peasant revolts were in any way unjustified nor that they were doomed long-term to fail. He made tyranny easier. Which was certainly helpful to himself, as he was a tyrant. He also made it impossible to do what the samurai class as a whole had done, which was to rise up from peasant to armed retainer. The samurai's were not of noble or gentle origin. Their ancestors had been armed peasants. By disarming the peasants he froze them in place. Even so, their was some leniency. A trusted lower-class person could get his daimyo's permission to carry a weapon on a long trip and this permission was often granted. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work at the last part now that the article has more than mere timeline. -- Taku 04:06, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

The present Osaka Castle dates from 1931, not after World War II as the photograph tagline asserts. Zogmeister 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, shogun is not actual ruler, but just the practical ruler--the emperor is the actual ruler... Komdori 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi was never Shogun, he was given the title of "Kampaku" (Regent) because of his (perceived) low birth. The Shogun was the de facto ruler not the Emperor. The royal family were virtual hostages in their residences. The only thing they provided was "the Mandate of Heaven" to allow the Shogun to rule. It was an uneasy but extremely formal relationship that has no real Western parallel. The Shogun knew it was better to recognize the Imperial divinity and the Emperor knew not to push it too far. - Anonymous

The crest is the symbol of Osaka Prefecture, but I don't believe it was the crest of Hideyoshi. Rather, it's an abstract design based on that crest. Does anyone have further information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.3.87.224 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 May 2004.

--That crest is not house of Toyotomi .please look at this site(http://www2.harimaya.com/sengoku/html/toyo_k.html )　 That house crest called "Go-Shichi-no-Kirimon"."Go" means "five","shichi" is "Seven", and "kiri" is "paulownia".

symbol of osaka, the orginal is "Sen-nari-hyoutan". "Sen-nari-hyoutan" is house of toyotomi's "seal of horse". It looks like flag. when daymyo-procession daimyo ride on horse but ordinary people weren't knew its face, and long procession hide it. "sen-nari-hyoutan" talled "Our daimyo is in here!". so, crest of osaka is not house of Toyotomi's crest. (from:http://www.nga.gr.jp/symbol/ohsaka/ohsaka.html) (Seal of horse:http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/TENJI/virtual/oumajirushi/) (sorry, I'm japanese....I can't speak and write english well) --kashiwama—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.70.13.96 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 April 2006.

I heartily disagree with there being 'NO WESTERN PARALLEL'... his name is the Pope and he still lives in Rome... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.166.206 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You won't find a single Reliable Source that agrees with your view that the Catholic Pope is somehow the same as the Japanese Emperor or that there is any Shogun-like counterpart in the west. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I added kanji to the text, mostly proper nouns, and was later taken out. What I did may or may not have been appropriate. Is there a discussion somewhere on what standard applies in Wikipedia to the use of foreign characters in entries in other languages. Or if there is a discussion for Japanese in particular.

Hi Silentcity, You can find a discusssion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names in Kanji next to the person's article link (which covers more than the title suggests). As you'll see there, there's discussion on both points of view. My post is the most recent (I think) but does not appear to have concluded the discussion. Why not read it through, think it over, and see where you stand on the matter of providing kanji in various contexts. Fg2 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As per WikiProject Military history Popular Culture guideline,

"In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. If present, the section should be a prose discussion of the subject's cultural significance, cited from reliable sources. In particular, the following should be avoided:

• Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia)
• Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research)

This tends to be a problem in articles on military hardware (i.e. weapons, vehicles, etc.); for example, the Mauser K98 and the M1 Garand may appear in any World War II film, and their many appearances don't warrant an exhaustive list. On the other hand, a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument, are certainly notable.

I suggest getting rid of the popular culture section. It sounds pretty ridiculous. Listing every movies and games like Samurai Xtreeme Superhowerkdsf stuffs and junks is stupid. (Wikimachine 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Because this issue pertains to large numbers of articles, I've raised the topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#"X in popular culture" sections of articles. Fg2 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That would make getting rid of popular culture sections in articles much easier, Thanks. (Wikimachine 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Removed the pop culture section for ya, Wikimachine. SuperGerbil 02:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article regarding the use of Yi-Sunsin's name in the section describing Toyotomi's failed invasion of China through Korea, and I'd like to address the issue in the discussion page so we might put a stop to this continual reverting. The argument for removing Yi-Sunsin appears to be based on the impression that he was not very significant in Toyotomi's life, which I think is debatable. However, even if we accept it as true simply mentioning the name of the admiral who opposed Toyotomi's attack does no harm to this article and leads to articles that describe the events more fully. The text that keeps getting removed does nothing to describe Yi-Sunsin personally, nor does it elaborate upon the admiral's victories. It simply states that the troops under Toyotomi were countered by the navy under Yi. That's a pretty standard way of describing such conflicts, and is far cry from diverting attention away from Toyotomi. The use of Yi-Sunsin's name is no more distracting or out of place than mentioning von Rundstedt is in the biography of Patton. So aside from the fact that Yi-Sunsin's actions were more signficant than I think is being assumed, I think the reference to the admiral should remain because it is nothing more than simple statement of fact. Can someone give an example that shows why Yi Sunsin should NOT be mentioned in this article?

I can't imagine how an article of this length on Hideyoshi can leave out a brief mention of Yi Sun-shin. From the anonymous editor's history, however, and the pattern of the edits on the other articles, I'm inclined to think it's a nationalism/vandalism problem, not a good faith dispute. Goguryeo 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I suspect the solution here might actually be to elaborate upon the nature of Yi's victories in this article and make it clear that the admiral's efforts effectively ended those of Toyotomi and, arguably, had a negative effect on Toyotomi's legacy. Such an elaboration would be a good elaboration on Toyotomi and address the issue of Yi Sunsin's significance in his life.

Yi Sunsin's destruction of the Japanese fleet cut off the supply lines of Toyotomi's land forces, effectively strangling the invasion on the Korean peninsula.

Something like that might be appropriate. Geeman 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the mention on Yi. It was ultimately Admiral Yi who repelled the Japanese(I'm not downgrading Kwon Yul or Kim Shi-min). Good friend100 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To South Koreans. I publish Li Rusong from a neutral standpoint. He is a person that Japan recaptured Pyongyang and Japan. If you are neutral, it is likely to agree with this opinion.

I also agree Yi's mention should probably be expanded, certainly not deleted. I have no problem with adding properly written information on Li Rusong information, but the Japanese nationalism agenda and revert wars have to stop. Korealist 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yi is deleted, and Lee is added. (Yi was not able to defend landing of Japan. However, LEE has regained a Korean peninsula.) A topic not related to the life of Toyotomi Hideyoshi is made to end by this. This treatment is a benevolence to the South Korean. Please consent.

It should be informed that it is largely through Admiral Yi's efforts that the Japanese retreated. His attacks on Japanese supply ships weakened Japanese forces on land, which prevented them from successfully attacking and fighting Korean/Chinese forces.

Also, although you are right that Admiral Yi did not stop the Japanese from landing, he stopped the Japanese from further occupying Korea. Good friend100 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to mention both Yi and Lee in this article. We needn't delve into their relative contributions to Toyotomi's defeat but their names should be mentioned for those who want to get more information on the conflict. Yi did not manage to defeat Toyotomi's land forces, but would the defeat of those forces have happened the way it did if not for his efforts? It's worth including Yi if only to fully describe the nature of that conflict. Geeman 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that Koreans and pro-Korean editors have prime control over this article. Any editor suspected of being Japanese or Japanese educated should be approached with the presumption that they are nationalists and/or vandals.118.93.57.21 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In terms of his own legacy in Japan and the Legacy of the Toyotomi clan in particular I do not think that the "Immortal Yi Soon-Shin," as much as I admire him, had really much of an effect at all on Japan...

Hideyoshi actually achieved his main goal in Korea, which was to disarm his own country by burning the resources and men of the newly conquered regions of Kyushu and Chugoku, so that they would be weak and unable to rebel against his central government in the near future (just look at how many of the invaders were from Kyushu and Chugoku versus the number from the Kyoto area or the Kanto... the success or failure of the invasion, while a stated goal, was in the long-term plan insignificant. The main problem is that one can't just order his own generals to execute a large proportion of their men and throw their weapons into the ocean. It is much easier to send them to fight an enemy they cannot defeat (i.e. Ming China). A parallel to this ideology can also be seen in the Korean/Chinese/Mongol invasions of Japan where Kublai Khan was essentially doing the same thing... Both had the hopes of conquest sure, but either outcome suited their aim of disarmament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.166.206 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, folks, I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection for this page since the (anonymous) user who continually reverts the page has not entered into the discussion to justify those changes, but continues to revert it anyway. Oh, well. Geeman 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To avoid another session of reverting, I'd like to get some opinions on a particular bit of prose in this article. The source of contention is whether the text should read that during the failed attempt to invade China through Korea Toyotomi's forces were defeated by "by Ming China with the help of Korean forces" or if it should read that they were defeated "by Korean forces with the help of Ming China." I would argue that since the conflict took place in Korea the latter is most appropriate. The counter argument (if I'm understanding correctly) is that the situation is comparable to the United States conflict over much of the same land in the 1950's. The Chinese participation in that conflict is by implication more significant than that of the North Koreans (again, if I'm understanding correctly) so the article should prioritize Ming China's involvement over the Korean forces for that reason. However, I would argue that the example of the U.S. in the 1950's really works better to support the second version of the sentence. The 1950's conflict is, after all, commonly called The Korean War, not The War of Chinese Intervention or something along those lines. It would be more appropriate to say things like "South Korean and allied forces" (which is, in fact, an example from the WP article on The Korean War) rather than "American forces with the support of South Korea." Homeland forces are generally given primacy in such descriptions even if they are outnumbered, unless they are so few as to represent a token force (like, say, the Kuwaiti troops in the first Gulf War.) Even though American forces eventually outnumbered those of French and British in the European Theater of Operations during Second World War the struggle was not renamed the Second American-led World War, nor was the theater or operations renamed something like The American Expeditionary Theater. Likewise, one would not say that "French naval and ground forces with the aid of American colonists defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War."

In any case, this particular change strikes me as a kind of passive revisionism, but I could be reading more into it than merits.... Anyone else have an opinion on this matter, or a clarification of the opposing argument if I got it wrong? Geeman 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "by Korean forces with the help of Ming China" is more appropiate. It should be noted that although the regular Korean army was nearly destroyed, they still operated in Korea. Also, we cannot forget about the irregular units that fought. Good friend100 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the Yi Sunshin is not an important a person for Toyotomi Hideyoshi. For instance, please look at Harry S. Truman. The name of Jeong Ilgwon is not being written in this article. (Jeong Ilgwon commanded the South Korea army in Korean War. ) And Yi Sunshin is not being written in the biography of ToyotomiHideyoshi at all.

Hideyoshi's forces occupied much of the Korean peninsula only to be beat back by Allied Forces in China and Korea. This campaign contributed to the final loss of Toyotomi authority.

I think that this content is the best. The Tyotomui clan lost a lot of money and trust due to the failure of this war.

If it introduces Yi Sunsin in the standpoint of Hideyoshi, Yi is an admiral killed by Shimazu Yoshihiro. (He was killed by Yoshihiro though Yi Sunshin attacked Shimazu Yoshihiro to obstruct the retreat of Japan. )--ShinjukuXYZ 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that Jeong Ilgwon does not have a biography in the English Wikipedia. He is only mentioned once that I found, in the article Korea under Japanese rule. I'm afraid I can't personally contribute much to our knowledge of Jeong Ilgwon, but perhaps if that oversight was corrected he would be duly mentioned in Truman's biography.... The various leaders who opposed Toyotomi's invasion, however, are better documented, so mentioning them in this article can be done with some support, especially since it indicates specifically how they influenced Toyotomi's legacy. Geeman 04:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please write various leaders in the Japanese invasions of Korea. Yi Sunshin doesn't have a big influence on ToyotomiHideyoshi. Yi Sunsin is not VIP for Toyotomi Hideyoshi's life.

By the way, George Washington captured Charles Cornwallis. Who did Yi Sunsin capture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShinjukuXYZ (talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think that's the right question. The question is: Did the failure of the invasion have an influence on Toyotomi's legacy?

Yes, I wrote. Hideyoshi's forces occupied much of the Korean peninsula only to be beat back by Allied Forces in China and Korea. This campaign contributed to the final loss of Toyotomi authority. However, Yi Sunshin is not being written in the biography of Toyotomi Hideyoshi.(Taikōki) --ShinjukuXYZ 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If so, then it is reasonable to mention the major figures in that failure. I can't really say if that meets the standard being proposed here ("a big influence on his life") because in all honestly I'm not certain how that term is being used.

Therefore, he is not a major figure. He was not able to prevent Japan from landing. And, The retreat of Japan was not able to be obstructed. It did not have a definite influence on the war though he helped a Chinese army. --ShinjukuXYZ 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is really quite vague and highly subjective. How could any two people on opposite sides of a war but who never directly fought each other in personal combat satisfy that standard? It's such a debatable way of forming the argument that I don't see how anyone could prove or disprove it. What objective criteria can be applied to determine when someone was "a big influence" and when he was not? That aside, I honestly don't think the burden here is on anyone who wants to mention the leaders who took part in the historical events that are discussed in this biography.

Please explain simply. What influence did Yi Sunshin give Toyotomi Hideyoshi?

Rather, it is that someone should provide a substantial and material argument as to why those people are not worthy of notice. Is their participation in question? Does their inclusion detract from the Toyotomi article somehow?

the Korean naval forces under the Korean Admiral Yi Sun-sin decimated the Japanese naval fleet. Yi Sunsin's destruction of the Japanese fleet cut off the supply lines of Toyotomi's land forcesThis is an exaggerated expression. The majority of a Japanese army was killed in the war against China. It is unpleasant that ToyotomiHideyoshi is used to advertise such South Korean's nationalism.

The comparisons to Truman, Washington and some other biographies all strike me as being rather inapt, but even if they are comparable, I think they work better as support for the argument that these names should be mentioned in the Toyotomi article rather than excluded. What is being suggested should be changed in this article is a very standard method of biography exemplified in the articles on either of those two men. Why mention the people who led the opposition to the invasion initiated by Toyotomi?

Why should I introduce them?　Please look at Japanese invasions of Korea if you want to know details.

The answer is that without doing so the historical record is incomplete, it takes very little room or effort do make a more complete document, and because the without doing so the biography reads like an attempt to sanitize or ignore the history.

I think that the South Korean is using the fame of Toyotomi Hideyoshi for nationalism. Yi Sunshin is obviously exaggerated.

A few sentences noting that a defeat occurred can and should contain the names of the prime movers in that defeat in an encyclopedic docoment, particularly an electronic one since we can link them together so easily to create a more complete picture of the period and people involved.

I do not oppose writing Yi Sunshin in Japanese invasions of Korea at all. Yi Sunshin is unbalanced if it thinks about the life of Hideyoshi.

It's so standard a structure that it strikes me as more than a little peculiar to challenge it. If Toyotomi and Washington are comparable it is like suggesting we write a biography of Washington without mentioning Cornwallis, and in that biography the conflict should be defined as a French victory on American soil that was supported by Americans. It just reads as incomplete and backwards. Geeman 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for an improper expression if you felt it unpleasantly.--ShinjukuXYZ 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it is largely through Admiral Yi's efforts at sea that the Japanese lost the war. Also, who is Shimazu Yoshihiro? You mention that he killed Admiral Yi. Is he a general? There is not a specific person who killed Admiral Yi during the Battle of Noryang. We know that he was killed by an arquebuse bullet, mostly likely a Japanese soldier who shot him while the Japanese ships retreated.

Anyways, it doesn't hurt to include Admiral Yi in the article. He was a significant factor to the war. Admiral Yi can be mentioned once about his effort at sea. Its not like the "South Korean" is trying to insert a lengthy paragraph of Admiral Yi's heroic deeds or how he destroyed Toyotomi. By the way, labeling editors as "South Korean" is a remark that shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. Good friend100 13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not have the knowledge of the history of Japan. And, to advertise South Korea, you edit the article on Japan. I am very regrettable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShinjukuXYZ (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that the South Korean is using the fame of Toyotomi Hideyoshi for nationalism. Yi Sunshin is obviously exaggerated.

This is probably the heart of the matter, so I'm going to go ahead and focus in on it. If there are additional points made above you'd like me to address please let me know and I'll give it a go. When it comes to the issue of South Korean and/or Japanese nationalism I think we should be cautious. It is possible to show such nationalism by use of the language just as easily as it is by omission, and in all honesty I think the edits that have been made to this article do both. Defining the conflict as "China with the help of Korean forces" in a conflict that started and ended on Korean soil and removing the names of the opposition leaders strikes me--a neutral reader of history who is unaligned to any of those nations--as an attempt to minimalize Korean participation. If the language characterized the invasion as brutal or imperialistic or the leaders who opposed it as noble or heroic I'd be more inclined to agree with the above assessment, but naming the domestic troops first and mentioning the names of the men who led them does not by itself strike me as an attempt to change the history in favor of one nation or another. The text that described the invasion more fully is a pretty standard method of writing such history, contains no overt nationalism that I detect, and uses links to those events and people rather than characterizes them in the article itself. If it is an attempt to associate names with the fame of Toyotomi (who, amongst the readers of an English encyclopedia is probably not all that well known, I'm afraid) then it is a pretty low grade attempt to do so. Geeman 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed discussing with you. Finally, I think that I should remove the article on Mr. YI. It doesn't explode if there is no fuse. --ShinjukuXYZ 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I edited the sentence about Korean help from China yesterday. Thanks for your input on this, Good friend100 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten the paragraph in hopes of dealing with this situation in a way that will be satisfactory to all. I think part of the problem was the language "with the help of" which made something of a judgement call and introduced a NPOV problem. I think a simple statement of the facts is a better approach than trying to characterize the events. (The paragraph was also organized in a rather awkward fashion after the recent changes, so I hope this is better.) Geeman 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yi Sunshin was added by 70.32.253.197 at 05:49, 7 November 2006. It is regrettable that the user who repeated the edit battle of Yi Sunshin

doesn't explain. --ShinjukuXYZ 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hideyoshi's forces occupied much of the Korean peninsula only to be beat back by Ming China with the help of Korean forces.
• Eight commanders of Toyotomi Hideyoshi (八道国割) annihilated the Korean army. (The most excellent admiral yi sunshin in the history of Korea is included.)
• However, the Ming Admiral Li Rusong drove out the Japanese army from Seoul and Pyongyang.

• Member of Seven Spears of Shizugatake Kato Kiyomasa and Fukushima Masanori fought bravely. However, Toyotomi clan's auditor Ishida Mitsunari did a low evaluation to them. Kato nad Fukushima hated Ishida. Therefore, they helped Tokugawa Ieyasu, and fought against Ishida Mitsunari because of the battle of Sekigahara. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShinjukuXYZ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Are these quotes or references to other articles or secondary sources? I don't understand why they appear here. Geeman 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you insist that Ishida Mitunari and Kato Kiyomasa were excellent relations? The reason why Ishida Mitusnari resigned Bugyo of Toyotomi is that Kato and Fukusima started assassinating Ishida. This is famous true in Japan. [1]

By the way, a Japanese army annihilated the admiral in Korea. Why do you write that a Japanese army was killed by a Korean army?Who was killed by Korean people?All of the eight commanders are not killed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShinjukuXYZ (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The text that you keep reverting is neutral and states the facts clearly. I'm afraid you've been unable to make a clear, cogent argument as to why it should be removed. To be blunt, the burden is on you to explain why it should be removed, not on anyone who thinks mentioning Korean forces fighting in Korean territory should not be mentioned in an article about someone who instigated an invasion of Korea. Please make a cogent argument or refrain from removing factual and NPOV text from the article. Geeman 07:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To our regret, you are cooperating in South Korean's nationalism. Japan and China stopped fighting for a while. The damage that the South Korea army had given Japan was a little. (Of course, it is assumed that North Korea and South Korea gave Japan large shock. )The admiral of naval forces of Korea was annihilated. Insisting that South Korea gave Japan large shock disregarding these facts has impossibility. Yi Sunshin is not being written in the biography of Toyotomi Hideyoshi as a fundamental matter. I recommend his activity to be written in the Korea invasion of Japan. It will be able to agree. --ShinjukuXYZ 14:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no name of Yi Sunshin in the biography of general Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Could you explain the reason to add information not general?Is it because you are a fan of Yi Sunshin?　(I do not oppose publishing the article on Yi Sunsin in the Korea invasion. )

See also - Wikipedia Japan Toyotomi Hideyoshi ,Talk Toyotomi Hideyoshi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShinjukuXYZ (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, at least you haven't accused me of cooperating with North Korean nationalism. Wouldn't that be just a handful....

OK, since this is all about me all of a sudden rather than about the historical events and facts, let me go ahead and do what I don't normally think is relevant and say that I am neither Korean nor Japanese. Usually, I don't think my nation of origin is important enough to mention, but since the above comments were made it should be clear that I have no great relation to anything South Korean other than the same casual historical interest that I have with many Asian countries, including Japan. Of those two I have always been more interested in Japan and have dedicated much more time to that nation's history than Korea's. Even were that not the case, though, I'm not a really a very patriotic person in the first place (not in the nationalistic sense, at least) and have very few nationalistic convictions regarding even my own nation. Though I do find Yi Sunsin interesting, I find Toyotomi interesting as well, and that is the basis of my participation here. So to be honest, you're suggestion that I am "cooperating with South Korean nationalism" strikes me as more than a little humorous... and pretty revealing.

So revealing, in fact, that I have to respond that I find the preceding comments to be based much more clearly on your feelings of nationalism than mine. Opposing just mentioning Yi Sunsin in this article is secondary to the fact that according to your edits, Koreans were hardly involved at all in an invasion that began and ended in Korea. It's gotten to the point that you've had no regard for others' contributions on this site, deleting even just the appearance of the word "Korean" from the text, leaving behind weird, ungrammatical or confused text. For example, "Combined Korean and Ming Chinese forces..." The Ming Chinese forces combined? Were they seperate? With whom did they combine? This process has gotten worse over time. If your more recent edits stand, the article cannot even mention the fact that Koreans participated. At least in previous edits you recognized that Koreans fought in the invasion of Korea, even if it was the somewhat sanctimonious "Ming Chinese troops with Korean help...." Now they can't even appear in combination with the Ming Chinese troops.

Bear in mind that that the deletion above was to a rewrite of the text meant to deal with your comments on this talk page and in hopes of finding some sort of truthful compromise, but without regard to that process you've continued to delete relevant (even the self-apparent and well known) historical facts. The response to your question above is (as I've already said) that if Toyotomi's attempted invasion of China through Korea is worth mentioning in a biography of him then it is standard procedure to characterize those events as has been done, and to mention not only the people involved in the opposition but also their leaders. It's just a standard way of writing history. At least the one common to Wikipedia. NOT including such information speaks more to an agenda than including it.

Unfortunately, my attempts to accomodate your views have been met with increasingly incongruous replies and growing intolerance, which makes it pretty clear what the problem really is. So I've gone ahead and requested mediation here since it's clear that at this point we're crossing into what I would characterize as contributions being vandalized. I screwed up the recent request by including only my own name amongst the "involved parties" section, so I'll put it up again when I have time. I hope a mediator can find some sort of common ground here. Even though I think I am really neutral on the subject (since I have no personal bias towards or against the nations and events described) I think a third party really should have a look at things. So in closing, I would suggest you examine your own efforts and agenda rather than make accusations about others.... Geeman 09:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know this was a rather long reply, but please don't break the above text up when responding to it (if you respond, that is) like that in the text for the section above. Some folks might prefer to read it that way, but I have difficulty understanding the text when broken up like that (even the stuff I wrote.) I know that may make it a bit difficult to respond, but I'd appreciate it if you'd leave my paragraphs as they are and quote them rather than cut them up. Thanks. Geeman 09:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I got a message to sign my name in order to continue the mediation. What specifically is it for?

That's my mistake. I submitted a mediation request to address the issues that have been discussed and continually reverted on this page, but I didn't fill out the page/form properly, so I'll have to resubmit it. Geeman 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please think simply. This article is Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Yi Sunshin doesn't appear in information on universal Toyotomi Hideyoshi.Toyotomi Hideyoshi ,Talk Toyotomi Hideyoshi I do not understand the reason why you recommend Yi Sunshin. You have a strong authority. I scare it very much....　--ShinjukuXYZ 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am confident of the history of Japan and the knowledge of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. However, I do not have the decision right. Therefore, I will finally follow you. I regret not to be able to persuade you....　--ShinjukuXYZ 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For instance, "Decimated" is a groundless expression. (As for the fact, most Korean armies are being killed by a Japanese army. However, the Japanese doesn't intend to boast of it. )It is very regrettable that Toyotomi Hideyoshi is made the tool of the advertisement by the person who doesn't have the respect in Toyotomi Hideyoshi. --ShinjukuXYZ 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Decimated" does have some characterization value to it to be sure, but I don't think its an inaccurate one. In fact, it's is arguably a mild term given the actual numbers of Japanese losses in the naval battles. Technically, "decimate" means to destroy 1 in 10, though the word more generally is used to describe the destruction of a large percentage. In some of the naval battles (which are fairly well described on WP) the Japanese forces were completely destroyed and/or routed. In others losses were 80-90% turning the "decimate" definition upside down as only 1 in 10 survived....

I do, however, disagree with the characterization of the efforts to include the names of leaders who opposed Toyotomi's invasion in a paragraph dedicated to describing effects of the failure of that invasion to Toyotomi's legacy even including Koreans amongst that opposition as "nationalism" or "advertisement" and that it shows disrespect for Toyotomi. Simply mentioning the names of leaders (or just that Koreans opposed an invasion of Korea) shows no disrespect. This whole issue boils down to answering this one question:

• Is the invasion of Korea significant enough to warrent being mentioned in Toyotomi's biography?

If so, an accurate description of that event should include a few names of the people who were involved. Without mentioning those names Toyotomi's legacy reads as a rather silly document. We shouldn't mention a naval commander who opposed an naval invasion of a mainland nation instigated by the leader of an island nation? Listing Koreans first as defenders of Korea in an invasion of Korea diminishes Toyotomi? I just can't see how I can agree with any of that. Geeman 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, it's is arguably a mild term given the actual numbers of Japanese losses in the naval battles. "　Please write daimyo that concretely receives damage. Daimyo of Japan uses the balance sheet that is called Kokudaka system. (The advertisement of the South Korea government and the balance sheet of Daimyo of Japan are greatly different. )If you write Daimyo, I examine Kokudaka. As a result, a correct number of damage might be understood. We will approach the goal. Please look at "To Korean".--ShinjukuXYZ 11:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The history book on universal Japan and the biography of Toyotomi Hideyoshi write the confrontation of Ishida Mitsunari and Kato Kiyomasa. Moreover, the episode that Kato Kiyomasa made the prince in Korea a captive is famous. The episode that Shimazu Yoshihiro gave China big damage is famous. The confrontation of Kato Kiyoma and Ishida Mitsunari is one of the causes of the battle of Sekigahara.

It says many times. I do not oppose writing Yi Sunshin in the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Could you consent to it?--ShinjukuXYZ 11:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just I don't think including a single link to a general article is enough. This article right now describes the invasion quite rightly as "two ill-fated campaigns through the Korean peninsula toward China." To give the reader a truthful understanding of Toyotomi's invasion of Korea one has to note that it was opposed by the Koreans themselves and include at least one military leader. Otherwise, the "ill-fated" nature of the invasion is unexplained. How or why was it ill-fated? Why did it fail at all? It gives the impression that such an invasion was not opposed by the invaded country (like, for example, the French after the Allied Normandy invasion) and that the government of that invaded country might have supported it. I think Yi Sunsin is the most appropriate military leader to mention because his role in the battle conveys the most information. An invasion of mainlan Asia from Japan requires a massive naval component and, despite the insistence that he did not have "a large effect" on Toyotomi's life, Yi's leadership was the most significant in the opposition of the invasion. If this article is to describe the situation truthfully the paragraph should include his name. Geeman 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm "admiral of Korea was annihilated by Japan". I think you should read the article on Admiral Yi Sun-sin and find out about the 23 battles he won out of 23 battles. Unless you are mentioning Won Kyun and the Battle of Chilchonryang, that sentence has no relevence. It even says in the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) that Admiral Yi was a chief factor in defeating the Japanese.

Also, I do not see why this has become such a brig problem. Including a sentence about Admiral Yi or Korea does not mean Koreans are here to take over the article on Hideyoshi. Nor does it mean that it shows Korean nationalism.

Please stop arguing over this, it would be a lot more helpful to take our time to discuss how to make the Hideyoshi article as a whole better. Good friend100 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To our regret, this article is an article on Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Could you speak the topic of Toyotomi Hideyoshi? (If you have the knowledge of Toyotomi Hideyoshi)　I regret that the Korean not interested in Toyotomi Hideyoshi uses and advertises the fame of Hideyoshi... --ShinjukuXYZ 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only state again that I am interested in Toyotomi and couldn't care less about promoting any sort of Korean agenda. Geeman 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ShinjukuXYZ, STOP the ethnic labeling of calling editors on the opposing party "Korean". This is against Wikipedia policy and your disrespect can lead to further trouble. Firstly, this article is not here to advertise Hideyoshi as you see it. This article is to inform the reader about Hideyoshi and his life. Including in information about the Japanese invasions is not going mess this article up. Good friend100 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence is corresponding to the insistence on North Korea and South Korea. However, it is not true.

Commander in Korea

• Admiral Yi Sunsin　(Death)
• Admiral Won Gyun　(Death)
• Admiral Lee Eok Gi (Death)

The great British Admiral, Lord Nelson died at his greatest victory, the Battle of Trafalgar, but that does not diminish the importance of the victory or his brilliance in command. Another British Admiral, Admiral George Ballard, wrote: "It is always difficult for Englishmen to admit that Nelson ever had an equal in his profession, but if any man is entitled to be so regarded, it should surely be this great naval commander of Asiatic race who never knew defeat and died in the presence of the enemy ...", extolling Admiral Yi Sunshin in The Influence of the Sea on the Political History of Japan. Doc Rock 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At the Sea Battle of Hansan Island the fleets of Wakizaka Yasuharu and Kuki Yoshitaka suffered great losses to Admiral Yi Sunshin. Wakizaka fled all the way to Kimhae and Kuki survived despite having had his mast shot away. Does the fact that Wakizaka lived to 1626 and Kuki to 1600 credit their reputations over Admiral Yi's? I think not. Survival is not the measure by which success is gauged. Was Admiral Yamamoto inferior to Admiral Kimmel??? Doc Rock 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Commander in Japan　(八道国割)

• Konishi yukinaga (alive)
• kato Kiyomasa (alive)
• Kuroda Nagamasa (alive)
• Mouri katsunobu (alive)
• Fukusima Masanori (alive)
• Kobayakawa Takakage (alive)
• Mouri terumoto (alive)
• Ukita Hideie (alive)

(1)Has it made a mistake in this information? Please answer Yes or No.

(2)Which South Korea or Japan was annihilated?　Please answer Japan or Korea.　

--ShinjukuXYZ 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to understand that just because all the Korean commanders were killed in battle doesn't mean that the Korean army was destroyed as well. Admiral Yi died at the end of his 23rd battle, which resulted in a victory. Also, you have only named three naval generals of Korea. There are many more generals of Korea that have not died.

Anyways, it doesn't matter whether all the Korean generals died or not. That doesn't show who got defeated. Good friend100 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if data is presented, it doesn't admit. However, concrete data is not

presented. Should we compete for the size of not the discussion but the voice?　

(1) Yes, those facts are correct. Though, as Goodfriend100 has noted, those deaths do not tell us much about the overall outcome of the naval campaign. Listing three deaths amongst the opposition leadership is hardly revealing of the overall outcome of the campaign.

(2) I think it's more appropriate to say Japan's navy was decimated. Annihilated is too strong a word. It would be appropriate to mention the Korean naval losses also to give some context.

Is it the contention that the names listed above tell us which side won the campaign? Geeman 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's explain details of this war in Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598).(How many of naval forces in Japan and naval forces of Korea were concretely killed?) Will you write the influence that Toyotomi Hideyoshi received in this war? --ShinjukuXYZ 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's ambition to make Korea his and to conquer China (and perhaps beyond) was entirely stymied by Admiral Yi's preventing the Japanese invasion forces being resupplied by their ships turning the sw corner of Korea and coming through the Yellow Sea to western Korean ports and China.

I think the "Japanese invasions of Korea" article does a pretty good job of listing the specific numbers lost on either side (to the extent that those numbers are known, that is.) What this article should do is just describe the losses on either side. The Japanese fleet was "decimated" is a good example of how to do that. It's not a bad idea to include the fact that the Korean fleet also suffered heavy losses, but the numbers appear to be heavily in favor of the the Japanese fleet, so making particular mention that the much smaller Korean fleet was largely destroyed is not all that notable....

In any case, the significance of the naval conflict in the invasion of Korea is that because of the failure of the Japanese navy to secure supply routes the Japanese land forces were ultimately defeated. This would not be notable in a biography of Toyotomi were Japan not an island nation and Korea not the stepping off point for invasions between Japan and the mainland for several centuries. Imagine, for instance, the situation was reversed and the Mongols invaded Japan. Certainly Japanese land forces fought bravely to throw the Mongols back to the sea, but it was ultimately the failure of the Mongols to come up with a lasting naval supply lines to support their invasion that led to their defeat (give or take a couple of storms....) If one is going to mention the failure of an island nation performing an invasion of a continental region without talking about naval forces then one gets an incomplete picture of the events.

The signficance of those facts to Toyotomi's biography is that the failure of the invasion diminished his clan's power and his personal legacy to the point that the Tokugawa government was able to take over. Thus, the sentences regarding Yi Sunsin and the opposed Korean troops have a direct influne not only to Toyotomi's decision making (his choice to withdraw troops rather than reinforce the invasion) but also his legacy in Japan. Geeman 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Toyotomi led a brilliant military and political life, but at the end of his life he made a tragically bad decision not once but twice. Maybe it was his age or ambition that got the better of him, but what's most important is to accurately portray the nature of that invasion. I think the best way to do so is with the sentence desribing the success of Yi Sunsin because though the admiral had no personal interaction with Toyotomi and was not the person who led the troops who were ultimately successful, his efforts were the most influential in the overall campaign. All those facts and their relevance to Toyotomi can be included in this article on Toyotomi with a couple of sentences like the ones that have previously been included. Geeman 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Kublai Khan. The name of Hojo Tokimune is not being written. Please look at Toyotomi Hideyoshi. The name of Yi Sunshin is not being written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShinjukuXYZ (talk • contribs) 12:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

The point is that Hideyoshi failed in his invasions largely because of Admiral Yi. One sentance explaining that doesn't seem to have a problem. Good friend100 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that a Japanese army withdrew by Yi sunhin?　He was not able to prevent Japan from landing. And, he was not able to prevent Japan from retreating. The Japanese commanders was not interested in great victory of Yi Sunshin. The record of Japan is being written about the large army in China. Especially, a lot of commanders are writing the episode encircled by a Chinese army in the record.

Out of curiosity, if he had prevented the naval forces from landing would that be sufficient to include him in the biography? It doesn't really matter, because I don't know how that became the standard. I'm hard pressed to think of any naval landings ever actually prevented from landing in modern times or historical. Preventing a force from landing would be nice for Yi Sunsin, and pretty much miraculous as it would have required he know beforehand where such an invasion was to land, when it was to be launched, etc.

As for the Kublai Khan article I would argue that the comments you've made regarding the signficance of Yi on Toyotomi's life would actually be appropriate for a comparison between Hojo and Kublai. Were Hojo's influence as dramatic as Yi's not mentioning him in that invasion would be as strange as editting Yi's name out of this article is. Geeman 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, could you write what influence Yi gave Toyotomi Hideyoshi?　I will verify it. lease write concrete data. However, please note the difference about the record of South Korea and the record of Japan. For instance, the record of Japan is an opposite in the episode where Yi Sunshin sank 133 warships. --ShinjukuXYZ 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The hero in Vietnam Trần Hưng Đạo is being written for Kublai Khan. He is an admiral who completely won Mongolia. Hojo did not influence Fbirai compared with him. --ShinjukuXYZ 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to understand that Admiral Yi was Admiral of only the southwestern area of Korea. Won Kyun, the incompetent one was the one responsible for failing to fight the invading forces. Also, it is true that Admiral Yi did not stop the Japanese from landing, but he is the one responsible for destroying Japanese supply ships and harrasing Japanese communication lines. This put an enormous stress on the land troops who did not recieve enough reinforcements, supplies, weapons, etc. Good friend100 15:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oda Nobunaga, even while attempting to reunite Japan, expressed his vision, ultimately, to conquer China.

Hideyoshi's Vision of Conquest Oda Nobunaga declared in 1582 that once he had made himself master of all the sixty-six regions of Japan, he would next conquer China by force. His successor, Hideyoshi, appears to have taken on that vision together with his master's vision of unification of all Japan under the emperor.

In 1578 when Hideyoshi was being sent against Mori Terumoto in Chugoku by Oda Nobunaga, Hideyoshi told Oda that after conquering Chugoku:

" . . . I will go on to take Kyushu and take the whole of it. When Kyushu is ours, if you will grant me the revenue of that island for one year, I will prepare ships of war, and prepare provisions and go over and take Korea. Korea I shall ask you to bestow on me as a reward for my services, and to enable me to make still further conquests; for with Korean troops, aided by your illustrious influence, I intend to bring the whole of China under my sway. When that is effected, the three countries (China, Korea and Japan) will be one. I shall do it all as easily as a man rolls up a piece of matting and carries it under his arm."

Toyotomi Hideyoshi, 25 July 1591, in a letter to the Portuguese Viceroy of India: "It is our desire to extend our ruling power over the Great Ming. A plan has been completed for sending our warships and fighting men to China. It will be carried out before many days. After completing our heavenly mission of conquering China, we shall readily find a road by which to reach your country."

There is further documentary evidence of Hideyoshi's intentions to subdue China in correspondence written by him in 1586 and 1587. Moreover, Jesuit Father Luis Frois accompanied his Vice-Provincial, Gasper Coelho, on a visit to Osaka in 1586 and recorded that Hideyoshi had expressed his intention to put Japan in order and then entrust the affairs of Japan to his brother, Hidenaga, while he would turn his attention to the conquest of Korea and China. Hideyoshi added that he had already given orders for the construction of two thousand ships for this purpose.

In 1591 Jesuit Alexandro Valignano brought Hideyoshi a letter from the Portuguese viceroy in Goa. A portion of Hideyoshi's reply appears above and shows that his intentions were to conquer not only Korea and China, but that his vision, or his bravado, stretched beyond even to India.

Hideyoshi also sent a letter to the Governor General of the Philippines in 1591. He stated that Korea and the Ryukyus were already sending tribute to Japan and threatened to attack the Philippines if they did not do likewise. In 1593 Hideyoshi sent a similar letter to Taiwan in which he mentioned that he had already attacked Korea and that a Chinese embassy had come to surrender to him. He claimed that the Ryukyus and the Portuguese (Namban) were already sending him tribute.

So, I think we can safely say that one of Hideyoshi's key ambitions was the conquest of China and that he also envisioned the conquest of Korea as key to accomplishing this ambition.

The early stages of the Bunroku no eki / Imjin Waeran, were extremely successful if success is evaluated by conquering land and reducing fortresses; however, despite Konishi and Kato's going through Korea like grain through a goose, Korea was not brought under control. Konishi had apparently secured the pathway through Pusan all the way to P'yongyang and tried to secure his lines of support by erecting a series of fortifications all along the main route back to Seoul. Manning each of these fortifications however, reduced the size of operating forces. Moreover, so much of Korean agriculture had been destroyed and over foraged by the Japanese and then the Uibyong/Righteous Armies that forage was inadequate to support the Japanese armies, let alone the Righteous armies and/or the Korean peasantry. This situation was further exacerbated by disease in the Japanese camps and the bone-numbing cold that the Japanese warriors, many from Kyushu, were unaccustomed to and ill-prepared for. The Uibyong, furthermore, were increasingly successful in attacking and destroying supply trains attempting to provide logistical support to the north through Pusan and over land. One of the the few shortcomings of Hideyoshi's plan for the invasion was that each army should support itself by forage!

Under these circumstances, the success of Hideyoshi's main ambitions to conquer China and make Korea his own turned on the ability of the Japanese fleets to sail around the southwest corner of Korea and move through the Yellow Sea to supply Seoul, Kaesong, and P'yonguyang and beyond AND THIS NEVER WAS ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED DUE TO THE LEADERSHIP AND BRAVERY OF ADMIRAL YI SUSHIN!!!!

Finally, Chinese General Li Rusong, was soundly defeated by the Japanese at the Battle of Pyokchegwan and fled in nterror all the way back to Kaesong. He subsequently sent a letter to the Wanli Emperor asking tobe relieved of command for "health reasons." The Chinese subsequently sued for peace with the Japanese and "sold out" Korean interests to get themselves out of the jam they were in.

FYI, I have spent six years of my life in Japan and one in Korea. I taught Korean language, literature, and history at Indiana University and Japanese language and literature at Colby College. My doctoral dissertation dealt with this period and I've also written a monograph about the naval aspects of the Bunroku Keicho no eki while at the United States Naval War College. I believe that Hideyoshi and Admiral Yi are both figures of world wide importance as key players in 16th century world history. Doc Rock

Nice info, is it from a book or is your own? Good friend100 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Info's from a monograph which I wrote over eight weeks while I was studying at the US Naval War College in 1991. I have it in a WORD document, less the many maps and illustrations, and with the footnotes kind of messed up toward the end--result of a computer crash several years ago. Doc Rock

Thanks for these comments Doc Rock. I've been avoiding describing in too much detail the overall goals of Toyotomi had in invading the mainland because I think it might distract from the specific details being debated here, but it does bring up a good point regarding the "big picture" of Japanese history. The goals expressed by Toyotomi would have a very interesting resurgence in the 20th century... and meet with even more disasterous results. Such information is worth mentioning here, though, because it points out the importance of a full description of the invasion under Toyotomi. Geeman 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This long sentence has love to Yi Sunsin. However, I cannot comment because I am not interested in Yi Sunsin. By the way, which Battle of Shizugatake or Battle of Yamazaki do you evaluate high? --ShinjukuXYZ 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Yamazaki is probably more interesting because it has more drama to it. If I were, say, making a movie about one or the other that'd be my choice. It's kind of hard to evaluate them as a victory or example of Toyotomi's skills since the results of the second (Shizugatake) might not have been so dramatic had he not won the first. Why do you ask? Geeman 06:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

True, Geeman, I have read before that Toyotomi's imperialistic ideas carried on to modern Japan. Eventually Korea did succumb to Japanese power in 1910. We would have to reference to Japanese expansion during the 20th century and mentions of imperialism, etc. Good friend100 13:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is tempting to do that, but we should be careful drawing such a broad historical analogy. I personally see a connection between Toyotomi and later Japanese expansionism, but pointing out a parallel to events more than three centuries later under different world historical circumstances is a bit of a stretch. Would it make sense to include something like that in the cultural legacy section? That section has a lot of info on what aspects of Toyotomi's influence were kept by the Tokugawa. A sentence describing the fact that the Tokugawa were isolationist and that Toyotomi's expansionism would not return until the 20th century (give or take a few decades) might be appropriate.... Geeman 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree to you. Hideyoshi ruined Akechi Mitushide. Hideyoshi made the successor duel of Oda Nobunaga advantageous by this battle. By the way, the name of Yi Sunshin seems not to be being written in Luis Frois's letter. He is analyzing for the epidemic and frostbite to have afflicted a Japanese army.--ShinjukuXYZ 13:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from what the Dutch Wikipedia seems to deem important in discussing Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea in 1592: " Invasie van Korea: Hideyoshi gebruikte diplomatie om de relatie met de Ming dynastie (het huidige China) te verbeteren. De Japanse kustpiraten, de Wakō, die actief waren in de Gele Zee en de Zuid-Chinese Zee, werden aangepakt. In 1592 begon hij zijn plan voor annexatie van Korea met de Slag om Bunroku. Binnen een maand liepen Hideyoshi's generaals bijna geheel Korea onder de voet. De Koreanen, onder leiding van Yi Sun-shin en met hulp van Ming China, verdreven de Japanners in december [1592.]http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyotomi_Hideyoshi"

Translating the Italicized portion loosely: "The Koreans, under the leadership of Yi Sun-shin and with the help of Ming China, dispersed the Japanese in December 1592." Doc Rock 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Toyotomi Hideyoshi is not Dutch. The South Korean is desperate. Please become logical. --211.3.126.12 12:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the excerpt. I think we should take note of the translation in particular for use here. At least, it supports both that Yi Sunsin should be mentioned in this bio and how the Korean/Chinese (or Chinese/Korean) stuff should be written up. Geeman 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why bother mentioning Yi Soon-Shin?

In terms of his own legacy in Japan and the Legacy of the Toyotomi clan in particular I do not think that the "Immortal Yi Soon-Shin," as much as I admire his brilliant victories, had really much of an effect at all on Japan...

Hideyoshi actually achieved his main goal in Korea, which was to disarm his own country by burning the resources and men of the newly conquered regions of Kyushu and Chugoku, so that they would be weak and unable to rebel against his central government in the near future (just look at how many of the invaders were from Kyushu and Chugoku versus the number from the Kyoto area or the Kanto... the success or failure of the invasion, while a stated goal, was in the long-term plan insignificant.

The main problem for Hideyoshi is that one can't just order his own generals to execute a large proportion of their men and throw their weapons into the ocean. It is much easier to send them to fight an enemy they cannot defeat (i.e. Ming China).

A parallel to this ideology can also be seen in the Korean/Chinese/Mongol invasions of Japan where Kublai Khan was essentially doing the same thing... Both had the hopes of conquest sure, but either outcome suited their aim of disarmament.

-Just my two cents (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.166.206 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And without a Reliable Source (you won't find one) that is all your statement is worth. Kublai had every intention of conquering Japan and not to "use up excess forces" - the loss of valuable tumens in that campaign was a severe loss. Hideyoshi may have had a very large force at his disposal with 'nothing to do' but he had every intention of invading and conquering China, and not simply get alot of warriors killed off. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, the link above the the mediation request page is repaired. I picked the names of those who have participated in the threads for the topics as "Interested Parties" but I haven't repaired the links on those individuals pages yet. I'll get to that as soon as time permits. In the meantime, if folks want to sign up on that page you need sign the page that the link above goes to or use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Toyotomi Hideyoshi 2. Though I think I'm pretty objective on this issue, a presumably more objective eye might be a good thing to throw into the mix. Geeman 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The verification of Yi Sunshin was being written in Wikipedia of Japan. I refer. (I am not interested in Yi Sunshin. )[2] --ShinjukuXYZ 08:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

About Yi Sunshin

The editor must select the policy first. a or b

a.The value of Toyotomi Hideyoshi was to have united Japan. b.The value of Toyotomi Hideyoshi was to have conquered Korea.

About Yi Sunshin 2

I have the knowledge of ToyoyomiHideyoshi. However, I am not interested in Yi Sunsin. Please explain the influence that he gave Hideyoshi concisely together with the source. I introduce your opinions to a well informed editor about Yi Sunsin of Japan.

And, when knowledge concerning your Yi Sunsin is not correct, you must correct the page of Yi Sunsin. If you do not correct it, I correct the article on Yi Sunsin as your deputy. --ShinjukuXYZ 12:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer for your policy is both a and b. And I have already explained why Admiral Yi influenced Hideyoshi. Admiral Yi's navy prevented the Japanese fleet from delivering all of their reinforcements, supplies, weapons, etc and it strained the Japanese army on land. Also, Admiral Yi put pressure on Busan by destroying Japanese ships in his battles. Good friend100 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, please write information on a. which Battle of Shizugatake or Battle of Yamazaki do you evaluate high?

Next, You must offer information based on the source. I request the investigation to a well informed user about Yi. You should add the result to Yi Sunsin. I want to contribute to an accurate article on Yi though I am not interested in Yi Sunhin. --ShinjukuXYZ 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense meant, but I fail to see the relevance of one's appraisal of the relative merits of Shizugatake or Yamazaki to Yi Sun-shin's relevance. Above, I offered my points on how important conquest of Korea and China were to both Nobunaga and Hideyoshi. I submit that the conquest of China was Hideyoshi's life ambition and that it was effectively frustated by Admiral Yi's effectiveness in denying the Japanese fleet access to Korea's west coast ports.

One might argue that the Japanese forces reached their culminating point of victory with the taking of P'yongyang and the nearly simultaneous loss of sea access to the west coast of the Korean Peninsula. This was abetted by their squandering the concentration of their remaining force by sending Kato Kiyomasa off into the wilds of Hamgyong Province where he hunted princes, tigers, Jurchens, and taxes while the critical war raged in the southern three provinces and slowly strangled the Japanese effort.

The Japanese war aims were too great for the force invested and for the way the force was expended. The war aims were only adjusted downward years later when the more moderate aims, too, were extremely difficult to achieve although they might have been obtainable in 1592. The Japanese had passed their culminating point of victory before the armies of Li Jusung crossed the Yalu. Konishi Yukinaga may have sensed this more readily than those in Seoul and much more readily than Hideyoshi across the sea. The delayed command and control represented by Hideyoshi in Japan, coupled with the lack of unity of command in Korea, insured that the flexibility required to meet the changing circumstances would not be available. The Japanese had made strategic blunders and lost their opportunity.

For Culminating Point of Victory cf the Mudville Gazette quoted next[3]: [However strongly an offensive may start out, it inevitably weakens as it advances from its original base. The need to provide garrisons, to maintain the lines of supply and communications, the greater physical strain on troops in the attack, all degrade the aggressor's force. Meanwhile, the defender falls back upon the sources of his strength. Every offensive, however victorious, has a "culminating point." If the defender has enough time and space in which to recover (and Russia offered an excellent example, which Clausewitz noted long before Napoleon's disaster there in 1812-13), the aggressor inevitably reaches a point at which he must himself take up the defense. If he pushes too far, the equilibrium will shift against him. The aggressor, in his own retreat (often through devastated territory), cannot draw on the defender's usual sources of strength -- physical or psychological.

Moreover, public opinion is more likely to favor the strategic defender, since significant conquests by one contender will threaten the rest. Eventually, the conqueror will reach a "culminating point of victory" at which his successes provoke sufficient counteraction to defeat him. Doc Rock 20:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important that Toyotomi Hideyoshi fail in the China conquest. However, Yi is not a leading part of this war. Please do not mix it. --211.3.126.12 12:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Several folks have put up information here explaining why Yi is important to this article, but I'm going to try to spell it out one more time. It is important not just that his conquest of China failed but also that it failed before it left the Korean peninsula. That indicates not that it was simply a failure but more accurately characterizes the invasion as a disaster. It is also important to note that an invasion of the mainland from Japan requires a naval component. It is important to note that the invasion failed to leave Korea largely because of Yi. If the failure is important then the logical conclusion is that Yi is important. It needs to be mentioned again that this is a very standard wikipedia way of compiling such material. The sentence that keeps getting removed is short, can easily link to other articles where more details are available, and tells the story in a more complete fashion. The current edit is unsatisfactory because it fails to note those simple facts. Further, it is incomplete and inconsistent as it describes Admiral Li Rusong leading an army, but fails to mention any naval component to the war. As it stands this article is incomplete and, frankly, is tainted by deletions that appear motivated by racism. So, at this point I'm going to have to insist that some sort of explanation beyond "is not important" be offered by those who keep removing the material regarding Yi in this article. Specifically, why isn't Yi important enough to even be mentioned in this article? Geeman 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, folks, I've just edited this article to include a lot more detail about events in the last several years of Toyotomi's life. Most of this information contains links to other WP articles so the reader can get a pretty good picture of the overall period if they care to take a look. I do hope that this will help deal with some of the issues that have been discussed here, mostly in relation to the naval aspect of the Korean campaigns, but the major problem, I think, is that the article as it was only dealt briefly with the last eight years or so of Toyotomi's life. We jumped from "he took a title" to "he invaded Korea" then he died. In fact, the timeline was a little off in that section, but that aside that period alone is worthy of its own section in the article. It also makes more sense to seperate it from the "Pinnacle of Power" section since it describes his decline, and without a decline there can really be no "pinnacle" if you take my meaning. Geeman 18:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on Tyotomi Hideyoshi has been changed by the article on the Hideysohi invaded Korea. I am regretted. This part is edited by a lot of language versions within four lines. (Do not include it in South Korea. ) I will positively participate in this article though I thought that I should pull out the fuse of the edit battle. --ShinjukuXYZ 08:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

is the section really neccessary about the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)? The article is about Hideyoshi himself and we do not need to go into detail about the entire war. Good friend100 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up. I certainly don't think it needs to be called "Invasion of Korea" because that section includes more information than just the invasion, and such a title makes it read as if that was all that happened during those last 7-8 years or so of his life. Honestly, that title has been bugging me ever since I wrote it. It's innaccurate and misleading, so I've changed it. "Decline and Death" is more accurate (if somewhat unkind...) and parallels the two previous section titles ("Rise to Power" and "Pinnacle of Power") more neatly. Perhaps, "Decline, Death and Succession" would be better?

That said, I think that when it comes to the material in that section its all pretty pertinent to the man himself, and contains links to pages that are often pretty important to him. (Shimazu Yoshihiro, for example.) Hideyoshi appears in every paragraph of that section, though a couple paragraphs do, admittedly, detail the war more than describe Hideyoshi's participation. However, I think that detail helps explain why the invasion had such an impact on Hideyoshi's legacy and the decline of his clan, so I hope it stays more or less intact for that reason. Those paragraphs are a very brief summaries of the invasion, so it's got a lot of "bang for the buck" if you will.

In the long run, I think the best course of action is really to add more details connecting up the events to Toyotomi himself. For instance, his negotiations with the Ming Chinese and Korean courts should be included as well as more information in the previous two sections detailing his rise to power. Because those sections are rather thin the detail in the third section seems out of order when, in truth, I think it is about right.... Geeman 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following text has been added a couple of times. It's grammatically bad, of course, but I'd be happy to fix that if it weren't also factually questionable. I hadn't heard that the Japanese fleet (of 500 ships) was encircled (by 60 Korean and 80 Chinese ships) at the Battle of Noryang Point before, nor that they broke free and rescued the Japanese army. The article on the Battle of Noyrang Point is notably silent on either of these issues, and it just seems like an odd characterization. Does anyone have sources for this information?

Japanese forces were encircled by military forces in China and Korea. Shimazu Yoshihiro was killed Yi-sunshin, and succeeded in the rescue of a Japanese army. Shimazu Yoshihiro was called "Demon-Shimazu (鬼石曼子)" by a violent fight of a Korean peninsula.

Also, I think we should keep the facts that we do know; the retreat was to Busan and the number of ships destroyed/captured. However, if the above is correct I think they could be incorporated into the previous account, and that information should be added to the article that describes the battle more fully. Thanks. Geeman 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The text is inaccurate in detail--Konishi's Japanese fleet was bottled up by a combined Chinese-Korean fleet with the lead Chinese Admiral in the center and a second Chinese admiral leading the left wing. The right wing was led Korean admiral Yi Sunshin. A Japanese vessel broke out/was allowed to break out? Help was brought back led by Japanese Admiral Shimazu to attempt to relieve the blockade. After the Japanese ship broke out, Admiral Yi took his wing out to intercept the Japanese fleet which he believed would come to aid Konishi. He did this at a physically advantageous location and inflicted great casualties on the Japanese fleet over an eight + hour battle, near the end of which he was mortally wounded by a musket round. The Chinese admiral of the left group also was killed in the fierce battle. While the Japanese sources claim that less than 50% of their fleet was destroyed, the Korean sources claim that over 50% was destroyed. In either case, nevertheless, a significant number of Japanese ships were sunk and lives lost, while the Sino-Korean fleet suffered fewer casualties while losing two of its leaders. Konishi escaped with his life only to lose it not long after at the behest of Tokugawa Ieyasu. One source might be Samuel Hawley's The Imjin War. Doc Rock 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Ed4linda. Your assessment is pretty near to what I was thinking on the subject. However, it should be possible to incorporate some of the ideas expressed in this account as pertinent to Toyotomi--though at the moment, I confess, I'm at a loss as to how.... I will give it some thought and see if we can cover the concerns of all involved as much as possible. Geeman 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The text "When Hideyoshi died, the dream of a Japanese empire throughout Asia died with him. It was not until the twentieth century that the Japanese would again attack Korea and then China." has recently been removed, and while I don't have a particular quarrel with it, there is a quote that I think shows the relevance... but I'm afraid I'm having trouble actually finding it. It was, I think, from a Meiji expansionist who commented that the dream of that period was a return to Hideyoshi's dream of a conquest of mainland asia. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Geeman 09:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation in the Korean Peninsula of the 19th century and the situation in the Korean Peninsula of the 16th century are quite different. I do not understand the reason to write these two different strategies at the same time. --ShinjukuXYZ 08:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some specifics as to the nature of the first Sino-Japanese war that are strikingly similar to Toyotomi's invasion; however, the reason for mentioning the 19th century invasion is not to compare the strategies, but to point out that Toyotomi's vision (which he got largely from Nobunaga) would not reappear in Japan for several centuries after it was effectively abandoned by Tokugawa. Geeman 08:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the right Hideyoshi from the Samurai Warriors game? I make a habit of reading up on the historical chracters in the Dynasty Warriors and Samurai Warriors games. The Dynasty Warrior characters usually have a note highlighting that they were in the games, which is helpful in identifying if I'm reading the right articles. (As a westerner, I have trouble distinguishing the often similar names of people from China and Japan), I think I've found the right Hideyoshi here, but I can't find a mention of if he is the one featured in Samurai Warriors. DarkSaber2k 11:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the right Hideyoshi. For some reason, this article doesn't have mention of his SW 1 or 2 appearance. Wingedregent 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What improvements would be necessary to bring this article up to A class? Fg2 02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mentioning several different possible backgrounds behind Hideyoshi - Historian Kenneth M. Swope asserts that HIdeyoshi was a Chinese.
  • Hadn't heard that idea. Don't know if mentioning it would be an instance of undue weight. To balance this idea it might be necessary to name lots of people who hold the mainstream idea (that he was Japanese). In any case, an interesting assertion! Fg2 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Insofar as this is a Wikipedia article, not a forum, I'm not sure that I would agree that this idea be mentioned, because I'm not even sure that it is of any real relevance to Hideyoshi's achievements. On this particular issue, I would prefer to be cautious rather than bold. <g> Spventi 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relate his constant push for greater military power w/ his lack of royal status. --> japanocentric world order that I found in an article about Japanese invasions of Korea - you can find these in JSTOR.
  • Have yet to do. Fg2 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ieyasu closed the country to the rest of the world not too long after Hideyoshi's death, so I think that declarations of a Japanocentric world order dating from this time would be rather premature. In addition, there are other, more concrete factors that help explain Hideyoshi's ambitions, including the need to conquer new land in order to properly reward his own vassals. Spventi 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Don't divide the articles into xxx pinnacle decline & death. More subtle & yet descriptive
  • This makes me squarely face my limits as a writer! Can you make some suggestions? Fg2 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• More inline cites & references.
  • I've cited many facts. If any that I missed are likely to be challenged, please let me know and I'll see if I can find something in my sources. Fg2 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You've done a great job improving the article overall, but the large number of relatively innocuous citations to a single source should be reconsidered. I see no reason to make citations for such well-known things such as the building of a fort at Sunomata or the seige of the Azai and Asakura. Mind you, I'm not being critical; only trying to point out that citations are most useful for obscure facts or things that can be confirmed in a limited number of sources.Spventi 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Good point about citations. Regarding Hideyoshi, one caveat is that he is so often portrayed in popular media that various things are probably taken to be fact that aren't. Compare to details about the life of Miyamoto Musashi, which were invented by modern writers of historical fiction. That's part of the reason for citing things that are, as you pointed out, well-known. Fg2 12:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Cultural legacy almost sounds like historical one to me. How about "cultural" & "historical", and then add some stuffs about his importance in Japanese & foreign culture - frequent appearance of Hideyoshi in Japanese & Korean texts/pics maybe?
  • I'll continue to think about how best to handle this. Meanwhile I rewrote the section to give it more focus.
• more trivia or don't have it at all
  • It's gone. Fg2 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Explain more about which emperor ruled while Hideyoshi was in power. Did the emperor die/live, - the emperor disappears 1/2 way through the article.
  • Good point. I'll look into this. Fg2 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Please remember that the emperor was not particularly relevant to the actual rule of the country, nor were there any major movements to return political power to the emperor at this stage of history. The emperor is an important figure at the start of the Muromachi_shogunate and during the Meiji Restoration, but much less so at this point in time. Anyway, I hope my comments don't sound negative, because I think you are doing a fine job. Keep it up.Spventi 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Agreed that the emperor was not the ruler, nor was there a restoration movement. Still, Hideyoshi actively sought not only the sanction of the emperor but also his companionship, actively patronized him and his court, and derived prestige from the relationship. Probably worth elaborating on these points. Thanks for the kind words! Fg2 12:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Wikimachine 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. As you know, the article wasn't written by an individual, or even a committee. These suggestions will be valuable for unifying the article, and for avoiding loose ends and oversights. Fg2 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There are tons that could be said about Hideyoshi's role as a unifier, establishing many of the structures and policies and nation-building ideologies and conceptions which would be carried on by Tokugawa Ieyasu. The same goes for notions about the Japanocentric world order. Think about it this way: had Hideyori actually succeeded his father and established a Toyotomi regency in place of the Tokugawa shogunate, what would Hideyoshi's legacy look like? It would look a lot like Ieyasu's does in actual history. I do not wish to suggest that these elements overpower the rest of the article - this is still fundamentally a biography - but these are certainly elements which could be expanded on. I don't consider myself intimately knowledgeable enough about this stuff (or, I apologize, interested enough) to expand on this myself, but I have a few journal articles in mind which I would be happy to share with anyone interested, starting with Mary Beth Berry's "Public Peace and Private Attachment" and Arano Yasunori's "Formation of a Japanocentric World Order". LordAmeth 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also worth more attention. Thank you for the suggestions! Fg2 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we make a section called Depictions in Fiction for his in-game appearances? Most, if not all, of the Samurai Warriors and Dynasty Warriors Characters have them, so I figured why not add one for Hideyoshi? He did appear in other games beside SW as well.Wingedregent 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Such things quite frequently and easily grow out of hand. A list of which games he appeared in is surely all but meaningless, and any more detailed descriptions of his depiction in these games is quite irrelevant to his actual historical life. Are there any games that focus directly on Hideyoshi, or does he simply appear alongside other historical figures, in games like Samurai Warriors? LordAmeth 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In Onimusha: Dawn of Dreams, he's the new Demon king after the defeat of Nobunaga, so that's one. Other than that, he appears with other historical figures in Kessen 3, Samurai Warriors, Sengoku Basara,and Nobunaga's Ambition.Wingedregent 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has extensive collections of articles on video games, and they are the right place to include information about characters. This article is about a historical person, not about game characters, so we should not add a section for in-game appearances. If Samurai Warriors does not have an article about Hideyoshi, you can start an article or a section in an appropriate article. Fg2 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. LordAmeth 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I just wanted to ask before I made one. Thanks for clearing that up for me!Wingedregent 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The article currently states: "By tradition, he was born in what is now Nakamura-ku, Nagoya (at the time, the location was in Aichi District, Owari Province), the home of the Oda clan."

This is a bit nonsensical, however, because Aichi District did not exist at the time. The place aichi-gun existed, but Aichi District is the name of a modern municipality that did not exist at the time.

So, I would like to propose that this sentence be changed to read: By tradition, he was born in aichi-gun (modern day Nakamura-ku, Nagoya), the home of the Oda clan.

Spventi 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Did Aichi-gun (愛知郡) exist at the time? Because Aichi District is simply a translation of that, and not a separate, different, administrative division. LordAmeth 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite disagree. According to the Japanese Wiki, references to 尾張国愛知郡 date as far back as the 8th century. The English wiki article on Aichi District is, however, clearly about a modern administrative division that did not exist in the 16th century. Because of that, I would further submit that the historical place name aichi-gun should not be "translated," but rather written in romaji. Spventi 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to disagree with - it's a question of whether or not Aichi-gun existed back then, not an assertion of any opinion for you to disagree with. As for whether it should be translated, I agree with you that I'd prefer "Aichi-gun" over Aichi District; if it were up to me I'd write it in romaji not in translation. Nevertheless, that's what Aichi District denotes - the precisely identical concept to 愛知郡。LordAmeth 14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Districts_of_Japan? I don't see how can you say that if you have, but whatever. Spventi 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Um.. I have read that. But it doesn't matter whether Wikipedia (as it stands today, because things could change) chooses to represent districts only by describing the modern administrative districts; that doesn't change the fact that such as place as 愛知郡, commonly translated into English as "Aichi District" has existed for a much longer time. To be honest, I really don't care whether or not we include the description "Aichi District" in the article; it's just too minor to be worth arguing about. But as I see you have a MA in Japanese Studies as I do, I find it hard to believe that you should be basing your opinions on how Wikipedia represents things rather than on your knowledge as a scholar of Japanese studies. It doesn't matter what Districts of Japan says; it matters what the actual situation is in the world. LordAmeth 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand what a homonym is. As a scholar, I would no more render the historical place name 愛知郡 as Aichi District than I would render 尾張の国 as the Country of Owari. Now, if you want to make the argument that it should be called the "Aichi district of Owari," (note capitalization) I would agree that is an acceptable approach, but your argument is nonsense. Spventi 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about why we would use two different names for 愛知郡. The Japanese write 愛知郡 for the historical and the modern. Is there a reason for the English Wikipedia to use different names (one English, one not) for the historical and the modern? By Wikipedia convention, 郡 is rendered in English as "district." To transliterate the same character as the Japanese gun would make it inaccessible to readers of English who don't know Japanese.

It would also be reasonable to expand the article on Aichi District, Aichi to include a history section detailing the places that were formerly in it. How does this sound? Fg2 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Inhomeyoshi, Can you give the reason for removing the photograph Image:ToyokuniJinjaNewVersion.jpg, which is relevant to this article? Fg2 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could include Hideyoshi's death poem?

[4]

or

[5]

--Gwern (contribs) 02:57 13 March 2008 (GMT)

The Japanese Wikipedia includes it. This site quotes Mary Elizabeth Berry's book. It's the same as the one at samurai-archives. Fg2 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC) -- actually, samurai-archives references Berry. Fg2 (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd include it. In fact, I think all daimyo and shogun articles should include their poems. It gives another scope to their lives and are often quoted within fictional works. Sake neko (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Because of his low birth and high nobility, Toyotomi Hideyoshi had quite a few names throughout his life." But nobility is about inherited status—it's impossible to be both low-born and high nobility. Shouldn't it say something like "Because of his low birth, and the high position to which he rose…"? A. Parrot (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

the introduction lists his death as september 18, while the death and legacy section lists it as august 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.47.162 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)