Talk:Turtle ship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Community: General discussion - Notice board Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions Navigation: Key topics - Browse - Portal
	This article: B quality , medium priority.
	Korea-related editing tasks you can help with: purge Create North Korea South Korea North Korean Cities Hyundai Electronics South Korea-China relations South Korea-India relations National Institute of Korean Language Districts of Seoul Improve North-South relations Korean people Poch'ongyo Jeung San Do Donghak Peasant Revolution Righteous army Independence movement Art Dance Gardens Literature Philosophy Mythology Calligraphy see also Pages needing attention and Stubs North Korea South Korea Sports Tourism Communications Kilchu Law Culture Politics Nat'l Assembly South Korea-U.S. relations Images Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) History of Korea Dangun Korean pottery North Korea South Korea North Korean famine Kim Tschang Yeul Japanese General Government Building, Seoul Jirisan Translate Korean Wikipedia articles: Japanese Wikipedia articles: 第一次日韓協約 第三次日韓協約 Discuss Portal nominations Votes Dokdo Complete List (edit)

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Origin 2 Flamethrowers? 3 Topic title 4 Proper noun 5 Video Game References 5.1 Poll on deleting/leaving "depiction in media" 6 Its got wood in it too

[edit] Origin

Does somebody have a source about the name "Turtle ship" being used since the 15th century? As this point the article is contradictory: Turtle ships are said to have been invented by Yong Sun-sin (1545-1598)... and I think this is the generally accepted story, but at the same time they are said to have existed since the 15th century.... PHG 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but "15th C" could be a slip and actually refer to "1500s."

A source for the 15th-century assertion has been added. -- Visviva 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flamethrowers?

An anon added the statement that the dragon heads could be used to set enemy ships ablaze. Does anyone have a reference for that? It's certainly a very interesting factoid, if true. -- Visviva 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

People have been adding that the dragon's head of the turtle ship shot out flame or spewed out smoke. I have not seen any reliable source for this so I keep deleteing references. However, it still keeps popping up. Before anyone adds this again, could they provide a reliable reference from Admiral Yi's own writting, his nephew's (Yi Wan) writtings, the Chronicles of Joseon or any other contemporary source? WangKon936 11:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Turtle Ship's dragon head did not spew out fire. It really did release sulfur gas to try and scare enemies into thinking the dragon was real. Also, the dragon head could carry a cannon too. I have no references but I have read books and discussed with others that this is true.

Good friend100

It certainly did not spew fire. The head was probably wood. However, it was a well known fact that sulfur gas came out from the head. I have also read books about it. HistoryManiac 10:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the dragon head made out of iron not wood? Good friend100 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We probably do not know the actual size of the head, but if it was to be large enough to encase a cannon, it would probably have been to heavy, and would have affected the center of gravity of the Turtle Ship, so I would agree that it would have been made of wood.

the turtle ship had two heads. one was an iron ramming oni head, and the other was a wooden dragon head.Odst 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic title

Removed the brackets from the topic ==The Immortal Yi Soon Shin (Historical Drama)== to this ==The Immortal Yi Soon Shin (Historical Drama)== per Wikipedia style.--Dakota ~ ° 02:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we need referrences to the Yi Soon Shin drama in this article? The topic itself does not directly discuss the turtleship. Someone should move this to the Yi Soon Shin article instead. WangKon936 10:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please move it. Pavel Vozenilek 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper noun

I know this is nitpicky, but is there any reason to use "Turtle Ship" rather than the simple "turtle ship"? -- Visviva 16:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "turtle ship" is a proper noun. Maybe Geobukseon if you want it capitalized? Tortfeasor 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game References

I find that the digression into video games rather jaring. It ought to be a separated out and linked to rather than inserted in the main article. --Lou 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No. we don't even need an article about turtleships in games. I'm deleting it. (Wikimachine 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

hmm the section was rather trivial but not completely irrelevant. many history articles have a short "modern depiction" section or somesuch. how about a very concise section at the end, possibly mentioning a few games in one sentence? Appleby 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern depiction doesn't mean video games necessarily. Wikipedia needs to look professional. Imagine. All this hard work & then spoil it with a sentence about video games? (Wikimachine 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine: Thanks for your hard work on many articles. My concern is this: I think we need more consensus before we delete the video game references. In my personal opinion, I rather liked to read about modern depictions of the turtle ship because it is A) interesting and B) rather rare for Korean history to be mentioned in mainstream western publications. I want to revert the deletion of the video game references until we have a little more consensus. (Also, personally, I don't think there is a need for a new article like "Turtle ships in video games" because I feel it is overly specific and redundant). Anyways, I hope that this is okay with you. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Tortfeasor 19:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. I guess I was too abrupt. Sorry and thanks. (Wikimachine 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Just wondering. Does anybody remember "depiction in media" in any of the articles in Encarta, Britannica, etc. about Turtle Ship? (Wikimachine 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)) Let's do a poll on whether to delete the section.

[edit] Poll on deleting/leaving "depiction in media"

Support: This is an encyclopedia, and this article is specifically about Turtle Ship. It is to be written in educational manner. Historical facts. That's it. Think like this. Would you ever trust Encarta or Britannica if they had a section on games for this subject? Never. Same here. Wikipedia should be no less professional & genuine & factual & historical & educational than any other encyclopedias. (Wikimachine 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose: While I think these 'in media' sections can often get somewhat overblown, the purpose of Wikipedia is, as you say, to be an encyclopedia. Wiktionary defines "encyclopedic" as "...having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge." So, for the most part, anything relevant to the subject should be included. Characters in Kabuki plays serve as fine examples - many figures depicted in Kabuki acquire interesting attributes or associations in that context, and this is important to understanding the modern-day perception and knowledge of that figure. To take a very specific example, Ichikawa Goemon was a real-life thief and criminal who would have been little more than a footnote in history if not for his transformation, in Kabuki and other fictional forms, into someone akin to a Japanese Robin Hood, and even given magical powers in some tales. LordAmeth 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey LordAmeth. 1 question. Does Encarta and Britannica cover those materials? Yes, an encyclopedia by definition is to be comprehensive, but, in this case, we got too comprehensive about something outside Wikipedia's purpose. (Wikimachine 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose deletion. My reasons are written above and I agree with LordAmeth that Wikipedia articles encompass a broad scope; and doesn't necessarily have to follow Encarta and Britannica in this regard. Tortfeasor 23:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. modern depiction can be significant, & in this case, the reality is that most non-koreans probably encounter the subject through video games. i had objected to the previous lengthy details on various games that overwhelmed the article, but the current version is a informative but brief summary & doesn't detract from the encyclopedic nature of the article, imho. Appleby 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Modern depiction is ok, unless the section is crammed with ads or information about the game itself. Good friend100 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia should remain historically fact-in fact such games sometimes have incorrect depictions or history of the Turtle Ship. I support a link to a game related with the Turtle Ship, but not in the article. Oyo321 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its got wood in it too

Not trying to sound biased, but the Turtle Ship's iron plating prevented only boarding., with it's spikes. Its also written to have deflected cannon balls, but at the velocity of a cannon ball shot and that the distance between ships was usually short, I don't think the metal plating would have blocked anything at all, rather denting or piercing. The sides of the ships are all made entirely of wood, so wouldn't a well placed shot make Turtle Ships as vulnerable as other ships? Oyo321 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)