Talk:Korea and Japan

Article Checklist for "Korea and Japan"

Workgroup category or categories	History Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	No
Checklist last edited by	Matt Innis (Talk) 14:28, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Chumbun, I see what happened now: Dr. Jensen suggested that you write about Korea and Japan, and started a page for you. Then you uploaded a giant Wikipedia article. Well, that's really not going to work so well. Unless you possess the ability (which would be surprising in any teenager) to review and rewrite that huge amount of material, it would be best that you simply start over. We're really not so much interested in simply replicating Wikipedia here. If you really want to use the Wikipedia material, then I would recommend that you import it one section at a time.

See CZ:WP2CZ for more. --Larry Sanger 15:48, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Oh, if that is the case, sure. In fact, I was attempting to rewrite the entire article - almost like from scratch, but I still need my previous work to avoid redoing all that amount of research. You see all the sections that are heavily cited? I wrote them.

By the way, Mr. Sanger, I have a question - should I keep those cites (a ton of them) or should I delete them? I read somewhere that Citizendium allows "notes" only for very special reasons. (Chunbum Park 17:12, 23 October 2007 (CDT))

I'd encourage you to do it section by section. I also wonder if there is a better name for the article. Does this just concern the history of international relations between Korea and Japan? If so, perhaps a more precise name is in order.

Many of the citations might be retained, but it's hard to say. It depends on what purpose the citations serve. I would actually have you show a few paragraphs to Dr. Jensen; he'll have a better idea of what really needs to be supported with a citation. --Larry Sanger 18:32, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

No it was a war, but the article's significant part explains the relations b/w the 2 countries in the 17th century. We might just keep the citations for the draft page so that people know I'm not making stuffs up - especially when I haven't gone to college. We could remove the non-essential ones for the approved version. (Chunbum Park 09:46, 24 October 2007 (CDT))

OK, have at it! --Larry Sanger 10:10, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Grammar

I may be wrong, but doesn't "series" imply more than 3, etc? It was basically one single war - the fighting continued all throughout the years of 1592 and 1598, but the there was a huge peace negotiation inbetween the 2 major "invasions" (1592-1593, 1597-1598) - the second one basically being a massive wave of reinforcements. With this in mind, could anyone see if the recent changes were okay?(Chunbum Park 16:32, 1 November 2007 (CDT))

I agree that series is not our best choice. I was concerned with the conflict in the singular and plural tense with 'invasions.. was' vs 'invasions.. were'. You can clarify it better. --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:53, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

I tried to rephrase the lede. See if that works. Richard Jensen 16:59, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

That's better. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:41, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Let's keep that change. This is what I learned in English - that if a subject is plural, and the predicate nominative singular, then the "verb" goes with the number of the subject, even if the two are in contradictions with one another. Right? Maybe that was missing. (Chunbum Park 17:17, 2 November 2007 (CDT))