Talk:Ōei Invasion

B.C.Mayfield The sources that were used to state so sadamori's surrender were valid and clearly state it. You cited one entry of a lost battle on tsushima as explanation for the loss of the entire invasion. however the intent was not to take and control the island it is clearly stated several times as a "punitive expedition" for the pirate raids that occurred. In addiction to the fact sadamori is recorded to have sent a letter of surrender to the joseon court as well as send various tribute this conflict should not be simply stated as a "defeat". Several other entries indicate intent to launch a second attack which would have occurred had sadamori not sent the letter of surrender. This invasion achieved its intended result and was not an invasion of conquest, it is logical to me that it should be considered a victory for joseon. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%8Cei_Invasion&oldid=1001618074 review the sources again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayleks (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a problem from a neutral point of view to conclude that Korean victory. In B.C.Mayfield's reference and previous reference, there are descriptions in which Koreans at that time admitted that Korea was at a military disadvantage and that Korea was ultimately defeated. Also, the Korean army has more deaths. In addition, the activities of pirates continued even after this war, and finally they calmed down by the treaty after 24 years. In addition, the Sō clan has obtained exclusive rights to trade. Another problem is that you insist on using the word "retreat" only when the Japanese withdraw, and to use the word "victory" when the Korean forces withdraw.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reaction, let me divide my contention into two parts for the convenience of the discussion.

I suppose the account Ayleks presented for me to read is this.

It is true that on the 20th of 9th month 1419, a man called Toitatorō who purported to be an envoy of Sō Sadamori came with a letter proposing a surrender, but the Joseon court were suspicious about his legitimacy and honesty and rejected his proposal.^[1][2]

On the 10th day of 1st leap month 1420, another man called Jiōkaito (or Shin Kaidō) who claimed to relay Sō’s willingness of his surrender and this time, even an incorporation of Tsushima to Joseon.^[3]

This time, the Joseon court accepted his proposal and placed Tsushima under the subordination of one of Joseon’s provinces.^[4]

However, the Sō clan’s attitudes and dialogue persistently irritated the Joseon court for they were not of the surrendered nor of the subordinated.^[5][6]

They seemed to negate the incorporation of Tsushima to Joseon.^[7]

These inconsistencies led the Joseon court to interrogate the envoy of the Sō clan called Kurian (or Kyurian) to clarify the situation.

Upon interrogation, Kurian denied the legitimacy of Shin Kaidō (Jiokaito)’s request for incorporation.

Kurian additionally stated, "Tsushima is a Japanese border land, thus to attack Tsushima means to attack the main country (Japan)." The Joseon court replied, "The Court did not mean to contend your territory."^[8]

After the situation had clarified, the Abdicated King of Joseon made a conciliatory proposal to restore the relationship between Joseon and Tsushima back to normal.^[9]

These are what we can learn from the Record of the Joseon Dynasty. Taking those series of events into consideration, I cannot conclude it was a victory of the Joseon troops.

I suppose you should take account of the original Record as a whole, not extracting a piece.

—B.C.Mayfield (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Ayleks comment above, I’d like to point out the following,

• Sending tribute to the Joseon court had been a long standing custom in exchange for the Sō clan to maintain their exclusive trading privilege with Joseon, not the result of the invasion. It had started well long before the invasion even took place.

• Ayleks pointed out the account I presented was only about a single lost for the Joseon troops, but that defeat has a decisive meaning, for it resulted Joseon troops to be expelled from the most part of the island and triggered the whole troops retreat from Tsushima. And that’s the reason why the Joseon court were worried about the impression it would give to their Chinese hostages.

• If the Joseon troops were so victorious, why had they withdrawn their troops before accomplishing the mission, the surrender of the Sō clan? It’s illogical to see raiding a few ports on Tsushima makes the whole invasion victorious, especially they later met a counter-attack and repelled by the Tsushima side.

• I do not believe we should evaluate a historical incident by their inward intention, but outward action. I assume Ayleks’ point is, because it was a punitive expedition, their intention was at punishing the Sō clan, and it actually gave a certain amount of damage to the clan, their whole "Eastern Punitive Expedition" is entitled to be called victorious, how they retreated does not matter. But, in the medieval period, the invading side calling their own action "punitive" is common practice to justify their action. If that logic applied, all of the invasions, however defeated, could be called victorious for the invading side since their "punitive" nature of some kind.—B.C.Mayfield (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The pirates' activities have ceased, which cannot be called a defeat.

How was this a "defeat" when the Koreans ultimately obtained their objectives? Tprtm (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Qiushufang I believe all the cited information using primary sources are related to either direct casualty numbers or death numbers and no longer an issue of original research. Seeking feedback on the necessity of the maintenance tag Ayleks (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this article is no longer primarily primary source but it could use more inline citations. Large portions of the article contain no inline citations. Qiushufang (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator has imposed a word limit on this discussion as a contentious topic restriction. Comments exceeding the limit may be collapsed. Diffs, links, and brief quotations are excluded from word limits unless excessive. Maximum of 500 words per participant

I'm pretty sure this was discussed a few years ago, but since we're rotating back to this point on MOS:MILRESULT. The sources presented by both the Korean and Japanese sides point a contradictory picture on the results of the Ōei Invasion. Both sides for example don't even agree on the general ballpark for losses on each side. Korean records^[1][2] and Japanese records provide completely contradictatory statistics on who lost how many. Now, I somewhat get the IP/Editor's point that the Japanese side could use better sources, but even Korean records disagree on whether they actually won the expedition or not. This source specifically says some Korean court officials believe they were defeated (though its debated if they meant from just a military sense, as it is possible to lose a battle and win a war).

Also, I strongly disagree with the actions on deleting Japanese sourced material, as they didn't provide an actual explanation nor attempt to discuss it with editors. Since historians generally appear to be in dispute on the outcome of the expedition (given that both sides later signed a treaty and arguably each side got at least some of what they wanted) the "inconclusive" results seem fairly appropriate. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Inviting @Cinderella157 and @Recentcontributor2026 to provide their thoughts (though I do understand the latter, having been blocked for two weeks, cannot respond at the moment). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Usernames are case sensitive. I'll invite RecentContributor2026. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

My bad, i didnt capitalize that C. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Cinderella if you aren't interested in the discussion (or plan to delay response until RecentContributor joins in) can you please let us both know? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I was waiting patiently. The body of the article indicates the invasion was inconclusive, though a See Aftermath result may also be acceptable. The infobox is a summary of key facts from the article. Therefore, the body of the article needs to reflect what the infobox says the result was. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to gauge if you were interested in the discussion. We can wait then until Recent returns to the convo Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad to discuss on this topic here. Now, as for the article, it has a Japanese side of history with its section. However, last time I saw, it only had once source, which was almost completely irrelevant to what was written. Historical articles like this needs to have proper citations, which I did not see. That was why I deleted them, for they are not valid information without evidence if we are making encyclopedia here. I hope this makes sense to you all. RecentContributor2026 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this is not addressing the key points that were initially raised. We have official Korean government sources that are not sure if that battle was a victory for Korea, we have Japanese and Korean sources that contradict each other on statistics, this is overall a bit of a messy thing. Not to mention your initial edits tried to change it from "Inconclusive" to "Korean Victory" Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. To talk about this issue, I believe I am actually addressing the very key points that needs to be raised here. It seems like other users here are supporting the section of the article (section "According to Japanese sources") that lacks citation, and I was addressing this very issue. Also, your explanations need some specific explanations and examples. They are too broad and ambiguous. My citations included sources from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (encykorea.aks.ac.kr) which is created by Academy of Korean Studies. The other source I used was from a site created by National Institute of Korean Study (contents.history.go.kr). It seems like users here decided to overlook and delete the citations and information from these sources that I contributed, which raises some questions. In order for your claims (battle is inconclusive) to be valid, some questions must be made. My questions are 1) Why did you and the users here in this community decide to oppose my attempts to add information from legitimate sources? 2) Specifically, what are your "official Korean government sources" that you claim to have? for they were not cited in any sections under the part of the article talking about Japanese version of this incident. 3) Why is it that there are no citations on the section describing the Japanese version of this incident (section "According to Japanese sources")? Any information that is not properly cited does not belong here 4) Also, during the time of this incident, as seen in the article Korean forces numbered 17000s while Japanese side was 600s. When the incident happened, Japanese retreated to the mountains after the ambush. The number of soldiers indicate that any claims of thousands of Korean soldiers dying are unlikely and lacks validity. Again, the Japanese view section (section "According to Japanese sources") lacks citation to validate its claims. I would be happy to continue to discuss this issue on this article further. Thank you for your time! RecentContributor2026 (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to add one more thing, any Korean sources official or not indicate that Tsushima surrendered and became a tributary/client state administered by Gyeongsang Province of Joseon kingdom. No Korean sources indicate that the outcome was inconclusive. This was why I am asking you to specify what official or government Korean sources you claim to have. RecentContributor2026 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

RecentContributor, I already gave the citation, I will give it here again, lets look at the exact words:

"좌의정 박은이 계하기를,

"좌군 절제사 박실이 대마도에서 패군할 때 호위하던 한인(漢人) 송관동(宋官童) 등 11명이 우리 군사가 패하게 된 상황을 자세히 알고 있으므로, 중국에 돌려보내서 우리 나라의 약점을 보이는 것은 불가합니다.""

Left State Councilor Park says in my translation of it: "There are 11 Chinese who escorted Army Commander Park Sil during his defeat at Tsushima, are fully aware of the circumstances surrounding our army's defeat; therefore, it is unacceptable to send them back to China and expose our country's weaknesses."

We have a direct record from a Joseon source (a high ranking one at that) that calls it a defeat recorded in the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty.

Your point on the lack of Japanese sources is not convincing, yes, we do only have one source in the "according to Japan" section but by that same logic, we only have two sources in the "According to Korea" section. Not to mention, the source in the Japanese section does appear to be an authenic second hand source (Kang, Etsuko H. (1997). Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, p. 275.) and is arguably more reliable than the two sources in the Korean section (one of which is just flat out not a citation it just cites the Samguk Sagi without actually making it a real citation). Also, we don't even actually have a source on the size of the Japanese force, the article only addresses the size of the Korean force. Given that a lot of academics consider this a Korean diplomatic victory but militarily the Koreans were likely defeated this is why the status result is Inconclusive. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate you responding and continuing this conversation, for it is necessary to have a logical discussion and put our best efforts to build this encyclopedia.

1) To address your citation of quotes from Korean history:

"좌의정 박은이 계하기를,

"좌군 절제사 박실이 대마도에서 패군할 때 호위하던 한인(漢人) 송관동(宋官童) 등 11명이 우리 군사가 패하게 된 상황을 자세히 알고 있으므로, 중국에 돌려보내서 우리 나라의 약점을 보이는 것은 불가합니다.""

I read this article before, for it is referring to not the entire campaign but one battle during the campaign. The way this incident unfolded was like this:

The Joseon army of more than 17,000 soldiers landed in Tsushima. The campaign resulted in the beheading of 114 enemy (Japanese soldiers) and the capture of 21, as well as the burning of 1,939 houses and over 100 Japanese ships. Then the Japanese troops retreated to the mountains. The Korean army picked a few of their men and sent them to find the Japanese troops. During this process, just as the article you cited in Korean, they were defeated in a battle, not the entire war. Korean army lost more then hundred men, not by thousands. However, if you look at the entire course of war, the Korean commander prepared for long term war, and the Tsushima's lord communicated sign of surrender. My evidences is from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture from Academy of Korean Studies. (URL: https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0014343)

The passage from Korean history you cited only refers to a portion of the incident which I already mentioned, but does not prove that a) Japanese forces won the war nor b) they killed thousands of Korean troops.

• • • If you wish to prove that the war is inconclusive, do not use Korean historical sources, for they documented in detail how Tsushima's lord was defeated in this war, and Tsushima became a client state administrated by local Joseon government of Gyeongsang Province***

2) As for your source, (Kang, Etsuko H. (1997), if you just state your source without giving me access to take a look at it, it is difficult to verify and agree with you. Since you were able to copy and paste the quotes from the Korean source, which still did not support your argument, you need to show me where in this particular source it corroborates your argument.

3) Samguk Sagi is a source for ancient three kingdoms period in Korea. They mention Silla, Paekche, and Goguryeo. It does not mention the incident we are talking about, which happened in 1400s in Joseon Dynasty.

Overall, the so-called evidences you provided did are not only futile but also even irrelevant. If you cited Samguk Sagi (ancient history) to prove a point in an incident that happened in 1400s, that means you have not done any proper research on the very source you are trying to use. So far right now, your argument that 1) this war is inconclusive and that 2) thousands of Korean troops died are both not proven in any convincing way despite your mentioning of certain sources.

I must ask, since there are no citations for the section regarding the Japanese view of this incident, can you provide some evidence that is concrete, relevant and accessible?

Thank you for your time. RecentContributor2026 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

1) You appear to be applying a POV Push/your interpretation of the source. The source flat out says "군사가 패하게 된 상황을 자세히 알고 있으므로" which means "the circumstances behind our military's defeat" which implies the campaign (the military's defeat) not the battle. Not to mention, your citations are from the Korean narrative of the campaign, when the article clearly points out how the Japanese and Koreans had entirely different narratives of the campaign. Japanese sources are plentiful and their side argues on various points and declared it a victory. Frankly I don't agree with the Japanese narrative (nor the Korean narrative) on this campaign, not to mention the objectives of both sides are hard to even quantify given that the Korean expedition's intent was more punitive than conquest.

2) Im sorry to say this but you appear to be a bit inexperienced with Wikipedia and its starting to get frustrating to have to repeatedly do this (I had already shown you the first source in my opening talk page discussion and I had to repaste that source). It's in the Wikipedia page, its the number 25 on the citations, if you click on the link it goes to here and the citation is for page 275. I didn't "provide" the citation because you can easily just check the article to see what sources there are.

3) Same point as the second point, again I'm don't mean to offend you but you have to learn how Wikipedia works before trying to edit on here. Furthermore you are not understanding my argument.

I am not citing the Samguk Sagi, I am pointing out how your argument that the "Japanese section has only one source" isn't a proper argument when the Korean section literally has only two sources. The Korean Section has TWO SOURCES, one of them, Citation #26, is from the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty. Citation #27, is not even an actual citation. Whoever put in that source just wrote: "South Korea's current claims of sovereignty over Tsushima Islands is based on notes in the "Silla Bongi" [Silla section] (新羅本紀), in the Samguk Sagi [Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms] (三國史記, completed in Korea in 1145), and the Sejong Sillok [Annals of King Sejong] (世宗實錄, 1431."

Do you understand what I am saying here? The Korean section is about as poorly sourced as the Japanese section. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Also are you using AI/machine translation to communicate with me? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Also I just want to emphasize again you said: "Overall, the so-called evidences you provided did are not only futile but also even irrelevant. If you cited Samguk Sagi (ancient history) to prove a point in an incident that happened in 1400s, that means you have not done any proper research on the very source you are trying to use...

I really caution you against using such aggressive language towards me. I want to point out, that you misinterpreted my argument to begin with (when I clearly said I wasn't citing the Samguk Sagi but pointing out the Korean section did) and when I provided sources multiple times. Given that you were banned for two weeks for your edits (and behavior, as you were edit warring) on here Id strongly recommend you do not use such aggressive language or personal attacks as you can get banned indefinitely for such behavior. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you are taking this process personally.

I am sorry to hear that you do not feel happy about my disagreements with your claims, but in logical discussion both parties must understand that they have a right to state their views and question that of the other party. However, in order to build an encyclopedia together, I must address the faults of your logic. The whole point of being here is to have a logical discussion.

However, all the points you just made are not only emotional and false, but it also deviated our discussion from our logical debate. In order for us to move forward together to make this encyclopedia, you cannot get defensive and accusatory like this for simply disagreeing with your perspectives.

So far, you have not addressed any of my questions. If you believe that I am wrong, please prove with evidence. I wish to pivot this discussion back to the history we are talking about. Can we do this together so we can build this encyclopedia? RecentContributor2026 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

To add one more thing, you keep using Korean sources to point out to the battle in Tsushima's mountain area where Korean forces were defeated, thus losing more than hundred men. This is a fact that I already acknowledged, but it does not support your argument that the war is either won by Japanese or inconclusive. All Korean sources, both modern and from 1400s indicate that Taushima's lord ultimately surrendered and agreed to become a client state under Joseon kingdom. Also, Korean sources (both ones you cited and have not cited) does not corroborate the assertion that Korean army lost more than one thousand men in this war. Instead of just throwing different historical documents, try to organize them and find me exactly where it corroborates your assertions.

Thank you. RecentContributor2026 (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not taking this process personally, you are trying to make me take this personally. Let me again quote you word for word what you said. You said: ""Overall, the so-called evidences you provided did are not only futile but also even irrelevant. If you cited Samguk Sagi (ancient history) to prove a point in an incident that happened in 1400s, that means you have not done any proper research on the very source you are trying to use..."

You are accusing me of "not doing proper research" and called the sources I provided "so-called" and its very aggressive language. Your editing on this topic in general has been very aggressive, and you have made insulting comments. On June 11, you said both this and this. You have constantly accused multiple editors now of just "distorting historical facts" and "deleting factual information." Despite your rather hostile attitude I have tried to the best of my ability to try to actually talk to you.

Not to mention, you keep "critiquing" my logic even though you are clearly not respecting my opinion (nor other editors given how you tried to edit war when you first started editing on this page).

I already addressed most of your points, you started the conversation by arguing that the Japanese side did not have relevant enough sources so that it warranted deletion (and somehow that this logic meant that it was appropriate to change the outcome from "inconclusive" to "Korean victory") but I pointed out that the Korean section is equally if not more poorly sourced. You asked me to provide sources, I provided sources both from Western/Korean academics and historical Korean government sources as well as Japanese sources multiple times.

Meanwhile you are unfortunately ignoring most of my points. Are you just going to ignore that the Japanese narrative (which I have cited now multiple times) and Japanese encylopedias are somehow not important while you keep citing Korean ones? You say that none of my sources claim the Joseon forces lost thousands. Now I personally do not believe the Joseon forces lost thousands, but Japanese sources clearly do. It's cited within the Oei Invasion page infobox statistics itself, as well as on the multiple sources I gave you.

Not to mention, I pointed out how you completely misunderstood my point on the Samguk Sagi (and how the Korean section is poorly sourced) and you haven't even addressed that. Nor have you answered my questions on if you are using AI. I want to add on this, I find it very strange that you keep alternating from somewhat more "human-like" responses such as when you misinterpreted my arguments on the Samguk Sagi (from which I gathered you are not a native English speaker) to more "robotic" responses such as your latest ones where you sounding more AI-like.

Frankly this is getting tiring as this is a very unproductive conversation given that Recent is dedicated on changing this from "Inconclusive" to "Korean Victory" purely off Korean sources (while ignoring Japanese and Western sources) which indicates some significant bias, if @Cinderella157 or @ToBeFree want to chime in (or let me know if you think this is entering WP:Bludgeon, POV push, etc, please let me know. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I currently can't investigate this and if there's behavior to be reported or dealt with administratively, that should be done at WP:ANI anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the comment + the recommendation. Hopefully it doesn't escalate to that level. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, are you a wikipedia user or are you the administrator? It seems like Sunnyediting99 reached out to you on this subject. We are currently having a historical discussion and have conflicting views. I am making an effort to continue this discussion logically by questioning the validity of his perspectives in this debate. Unfortunately, I think he took it a bit personally, so I am trying to calm him down to lead him back to the logical debate we have here to build this encyclopedia together.

Feel free to ask me if you have any questions RecentContributor2026 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, you are not even addressing the issue and just vaguely stating and claiming that you stated some sources.

You stated that you provided Western/Korean academics and historical Korean government sources as well as Japanese sources multiple times. However, you did not point exactly to where in these sources where it has any quotes, statement or evidence that corroborates your argument regarding the result of the war and the number of casualties.

Can you be more specific in providing me exactly where? (Name of the source, link, where and what it states, etc.) So far anything that comes close to this you provided did not corroborate your claims or are even irrelevant, such as mentioning Samguk Sagi (a source on ancient times) as an evidence to explain your perspective on something that happened in 1400s. This is why I had the impression that you did not even properly research before stating your argument in this debate. RecentContributor2026 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Firstly, I have been observing this discussion and the back-and-forth is a bit WP:TLDR to someone not actively participating in it. I am also at a language disadvantage given the languages in which the sources are written. My observation from reading the invasion section is that there a very different claims from either side as to who did what to whom. As a result, one could reasonably conclude that both sides are claiming a victory (even if not explicitly stated) and the result was not conclusive one way or the other (ie it was inconclusive). Alternatively (per MOS:MILRESULT), we might direct the reader to a section of the article (eg the see Aftermath option) to read the conflicting information or we might vacate the result parameter in the infobox and just let the reader read the article.
  Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the article should be complete without the infobox. I would hope that editors with the capacity to access sources concentrate their efforts on improving the article rather than focusing on the infobox. The result of the campaign should be self-evident to the reader in the absence of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I will have to disagree with the claim that the war has an inconclusive ending. ALso, there is no evidence provided to support your claim.

  The Japanese side's claims (under section, "According to Japanese sources") first of all lack citation. Can someone provide some evidence first? If we are building an encyclopedia, we cannot have a section that has one citation, which isn't too relevant to the claims made.

  Also, judging from the sheer number of soldiers 17000 Korean troops vs 600 Japanese troops, the Japanese claims of winning or having inconclusive outcome of this war is just impossible. If they actually managed to win or draw in anyway, the Lord of Tsushima would be as well known as Horatio Nelson or Yi Soon Shin. Therefore, I would be skeptical even if I come across any historical sources from the Japanese side. However, we cannot even get to that point since no evidence is provided.

  Anyways, I wish to continue discussing here to build the encyclopedia. Thanks for your input! RecentContributor2026 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Your third paragraph is nothing but WP:OR. It doesn't matter what you think the result would be based on numbers, what matters is what WP:RS say the result was. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate both Cinderella and Cdjp1's inputs, I have a bit of a language advantage in that regard since I can read/speak/listen to Korean (though I can't for Japanese). That said, the Korean sources themselves have mixed interpretations. One of the sources I provided above clearly states that the Koreans thought they had lost the military campaign. Despite Recent's denial, the language source clearly states "our military lost" which isn't referencing a battle but the military as a whole. But then later sources (the ones Recent is citing) do point out that Tsushima 'surrendered' to Joseon, though the Japanese deny this. The Japanese, like the Koreans, claimed an outright victory. Given that Western academic sources are a bit ambiguous as to who won (though id be open to finding more sources on this) the current result of "inconclusive" or "see aftermath" would be suffice. Neither side frankly has the academic/uncontested backing to claim victory.

  Beyond that, to Cdjp1's point, a lot of Recent's points are either very POV pushing with a pro-Korea bias or original research. Not to mention, history has shown multiple times where a small force has decisively defeated another one. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  As for your statement, "the Koreans thought they had lost the military campaign":

  You are repeating the same claim I refuted a while back. You keep referring to the battle where the Korean forces lost and lost more than hundred men. However, as I mentioned before, I am talking about the result of the war, not a specific battle within it. I already clarified that the Korean forces lost a battle, but after that, since they were occupying the Tsushima Island, they planned for war of attrition (long-term), and Tsushima's lord begged them to withdraw, signaling surrender to the Korean military leaders. The Korean sources indicate that Joseon kingdom and Lord of Tsushima mutually agreed that Taushima becomes a client state under Joseon kingdom. (Source URL: https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0014343)

  Sunnyeditting99, so far, after I refuted your claims and pointed out that the sources you brought did not support your claims in this debate. Despite my efforts to bring us back to a logical debate, instead of reengaging with logic, you continue to take this personally, make accusatory remarks, try to reach out to the administrators for help, repeat your claims that I already refuted, fail to do any proper research, and only bring in evidences that do not fully support your argument.

  I am trying to communicate to you that we need to remove any sections without sufficient evidence/citations and add more information with citations. I am trying to communicate to you that according to the sources we have so far, this war's outcome is not inconclusive as you claim. Also, the numbers of death of Korean soldiers that Japanese side claims are distorted and impossible judging from the given information on the page.

  So far, you gave me a continuous impression that you do not have the maturity nor understanding to continue with this history discussion here judging from numerous personal, emotional, and accusatory remarks. If you wish administrators to intervene, I will be happy to bring them here to arbitrate and judge for themselves after reading what you posted so far.

  Let me know if you are ready to build an encyclopedia together. RecentContributor2026 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I already cited evidence to you three times already, do you not click the links I give you? Japanese Encylopedias all flat out refuse to call the Oei invasion a victory for Korea.

  Here is Ōbunsha Dictionary of Japanese History: "In 1419 (Oei 26), the Joseon Dynasty invaded Tsushima.

  Korea, which had been plagued by Wokou (Japanese pirates) since its founding, attacked Tsushima with 227 warships and a large army of 17,000 men in an attempt to strike at the Wokou's base , but soon withdrew."

  Here is Japanese National Language Dictionary: Meaning, Reading, Examples, and Synonyms of "Ōei Invasion": "and subsequently, the lord of Tsushima, So Sadamori, was granted the right to control and manage trade between Japan and Korea."

  This list goes on and on, it's on the links I provided when I started the discussion and I brought this up multiple times. If you are incapable of clicking links on Wikipedia then it is frankly impossible to have a discussion. The Japanese side denies surrendering to Korea, the Korea side claims they did, but the Japanese side does not mention an actual captiulation/Tsushima becoming a client state of Joseon.

  Not to mention, you keep applying your own bias and original research onto this topic, the Korean source clearly says: "군사가 패하게 된 상황을 자세히 알고 있으므로" that means "the circumstances behind our military's defeat" and it is referencing the military, not a specific battle.

  I reached out to admin precisely because your actions. We already have two other editors here (Cinderella, Cdjp1) who are critical of your actions and reasoning. You are merely engaging in more personal attacks now on my character. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

ToBeFree, as you protected this before, please see the article edit history, particularly since protection was lifted. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, re-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)