Talk:United States expedition to Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Korean Expedition of 1871

Given the mess that the requested move became I am not supprised that Stemonitis wrote:

While there may be a general desire to move the page to a different title, until that new title can be agreed upon, such a move cannot be considered to embody the consensus.

However if we combine the two requested moves and look just at:

Korean Expedition of 1871
(and remove the IP address) we end up with:

  • Support Good friend100 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC
  • Support - Very well established in literature. Even Korean sources use this as a term.--Amban 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. --Reuben 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It is true that short names are useful; but can we compromise on Korean Expedition, which presently redirects here? We can lengthen it if we have to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for Korean Expedition (Seems to be used by the US military) and as Septentrionalis says lengthen it if we have to. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Expressed an opposition to this move and expressed a preference for the article to remain at Sinmiyangyo.

  • Oppose - Fatally ambiguous and vague. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because it doesn't make clear whether Korea was the perpetrator or the scene of the expedition, or (because of the lack of any mention of a second nation) even hint at the nature of the expedition, which could have been evangelical, scientific, etc. -- Hoary 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC) .... PS No, I would not like to move World War II to Campaign by blah blah blah as suggested below by 81.104.175.145, because the former is immediately understandable (and truly is a common name) for any L1 English speaker with at least moderate education, and is short, and also because the latter is selective. -- Hoary 08:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • [Oppose move], Support. Proper names do not require English titles, the Korean name (with or without the h) is often used in English sources, and there does not appear to be a common English name for this event. The government of the United States uses "Korean Campaign", which is almost absent from the choices below. Additionally, I'm unconvinced that the meaning of the Korean term, related to the battle, is equivalent to the English ones mentioned, which also concern the voyage. Dekimasuよ! 02:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This leaves two editors who expressed opinions which are not consistent with this name or with the current name.

  • Oppose because US made the expedition to Korea. This does not clearly indicate the actor of the expedition. (Wikimachine 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Support, an improvement over the current title, but I think the "E" should be lowercase. For the record, I would personally prefer "American disturbance of 1871." -- Visviva 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Can I interrupt in order to check something here? I get the impression that you think the votes to change the title in this particular way are five for, two against, and two ambiguous; and that you're going to pose the question again to those last two people in the hope of getting a result that's clearly 7–2, 6–3 or 5–4. Is this interpretation correct?
If it is, then what you're proposing is odd indeed. It excludes not only anyone else who just might have an opinion, but also such people as Dekimasu whose previous comment strongly suggests that he does have an opinion.
Or did you perhaps intend your last sentence to read "Hopefully this will give us a single clear alternative candidate for a new title, whose merits relative to those of the current title we can then debate"? -- Hoary 09:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Dekimasu's opinion thank you for pointing it out. The is to discuss the requested move outcome not to open up a new survey, so I am not looking for others to express an opinion. I think I have expressed the opinions of the people who expressed opinions in the survey, and were not using IP addresses, fairly. However I think that there are two people who were involved in the survey have not made it clear given just these two options, the most popular move option against not moving the article, which they would select. --

Philip Baird Shearer 12:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Hoary No I do not think we do not need to debate this further. I think all that could be said has been said between the people who took part in the survey. --

Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd rather choose Korean Expedition of 1871 than Sinmiyangyo. (Wikimachine 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry to pop in on a debate over a vote I wasn't originally involved in. For what it's worth, I like Hoary's idea that we hold a new vote; "hopefully this will give us a single clear alternative candidate for a new title, whose merits relative to those of the current title we can then debate".
My personal opinion, having never heard of this event before is this: (1) If "Korean Expedition" or "Korean Expedition of 1871" is a relatively common name in English language scholarship, then it's a proper noun, and Expedition gets capitalised. Likewise, if it's considered to be a proper noun, then we don't need to explain out the ambiguities in the title. The vast majority of events in history that have common proper names are called by names that don't specify such details. To take an example, the
French Military Mission to Japan (1867-1868) does not have a single common name in English, Japanese, or French scholarship, and in any case needs to be disambiguated from the missions France sent in other years. So, ultimately, this comes down to whether or not "Korean Expedition" is a proper noun. Note that Vietnam War and Korean War, by far the most common names for those conflicts do not mention years or the United States in their names. (2) If we do go by the Korean name, which I'm not entirely opposed to, it might be nice to split it out in whatever way possible to make the context a little clearer. I don't know any Korean, and looking at the word "Sinmiyangyo", it could mean absolutely anything. But "Iwakura Mission", "Boshin War", and "Meiji Restoration" at least have one English word in them to help the average reader understand what type of thing or event it is. Sorry for going on for so long. LordAmeth 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
If you think that's going on long, milord, you perhaps haven't fully comprehended the awe-inspiring archive. I mean: No need to apologize.
I like Hoary's idea that we hold a new vote; "hopefully this will give us a single clear alternative candidate for a new title, whose merits relative to those of the current title we can then debate". That wasn't actually my idea, rather, my second guess at what PBS might have meant. The guess seems to have been a wrong one. Now that User:Amban is behind the Bamboo Firewall, PBS is (I think) the keenest proponent of a change of name, and this proposed name appears to be his fave; it's the single clear alternative candidate (although in my opinion very far indeed from the best one).
If "Korean Expedition" or "Korean Expedition of 1871" is a relatively common name in English language scholarship.... It isn't. There is no common name, if only because this incident isn't often referred to (by any name). Amban has pointed out that the word "expedition" (sometimes in the phrase "Korean expedition") has been used in English-language scholarship. I've countered that in each of the examples that he gives, the context makes it clear that this is an expedition of the US or anyway a foreign power into Korea.
"Sinmiyangyo" [...] could mean absolutely anything. But "Iwakura Mission", "Boshin War", and "Meiji Restoration" at least have one English word in them to help the average reader understand what type of thing or event it is. Now that's an interesting idea. (I don't say I agree with it, but it is worth consideation.) Still, and while I don't want to be difficult, I'd point out that your examples here aren't explanations of Japanese names but are instead the accepted English names. (And what's accepted isn't necessarily good: "restoration" is really a fiction; it surely refers to the monarch rather than the nation, but even as far as the monarch was concerned this was a European-inspired reinvention:and that something like "Meiji revitalization" would be better.) So, "Sinmiyangyo incident/incursion/attack/...."? -- Hoary 13:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Korean expedition (and variants) is unlike Iwakura Mission, Vietnam War, and Korean War, in that the latter three are well established, specific and unambiguous. The word "mission", for example, implies agency - and the name "Iwakura" specifies the agent; the word "expedition" also implies agency, but the proposed title doesn't supply the name of the agent (rather, the target). Vietnam War and Korean War both indicate where the wars took place - not the particpants (both being complicated cases anyway), and in that are unproblematic and no different from many other names of conflicts, etc. The objections to Korean expedition aren't about pro forma lack of specificity, but about that lack of specificity being misleading or at least fatally vague. Pinkville 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This source suggests that it was initially a US diplomatic expedition to Korea that became a putative expedition, so perhapses a little ambiguity in what the expedition was (if not who the players were) is useful. --
Philip Baird Shearer 00:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
That puts me in mind of the fact that it's not so much the "expedition" that is important in this event, but rather the conflict between the US and Korea and that conflict's repercussions... another reason that "expedition" titles are not as useful as S(h)inmiyangyo. Also, "expedition" is a little one-sided... viewing the world (again) through the lens of the United States/Major Powers and not ecumenically. Philip, it sounds like you want to expand the discussion to include elements in the possible titles that have previously not been much discussed. Are you sure that's a good idea? Pinkville 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that currently it's 7:3 in favour, or did I miscount? I did read through the archive, and I'd be inclined to support the move as well (though I'm not sure if it would be needed or allowed to vote at this point). The issue is it seems kind of hard to determine the best name, so if you list out all the alternatives people go to their personally preferred one. The only consensus really seen from that previous vote seems to be the current name is not well liked. When pruning out the alternatives to the most favoured one (which I agree might not be the best), it seems this is the one people like. I'd also like to see that "E" demoted. Perhaps if we agree on this name, we could agree on the "E" vs. "e" separately? --Cheers, Komdori 13:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not behind the bamboo firewall yet, so you will have to bear with me for another day or two. Philip Beard Shearer and I are not the only proponents of a move, and I do not really see the point of having a new vote, really. We have already had two votes and there clearly was a consensus to move from the current name. Most people liked variants of "Korean expedition" and we are now in the process of figuring out which. Somewhat impatiently, I tried to suggest what I thought was the consensus a few days ago, but I was then accused of applying an authoritarian logic to the debate.
This is the way things have been going on here, LordAmeth. Every time a consensus is emerging, Hoary, who is an administrator and should know better, or his friend find fault with the proposed alternative and do everything they can do to prolong the debate. The end result is that people get tired and stop posting. Then Hoary and his friend can claim that there is no consensus and that the page should not be moved. Or they propose a new name that they know will not pass a vote, which further stalls the process. Abuse of process is what it is.
Yes, "Korean expedition of 1871" is not ideal and context does matter. As if "Sinmiyangyo" was clear from anything else but context. As if any name given to any conflict is self-evident. We are trying to identify an English name to the article, which will enable people to find the article and read more about this event. As I and several other editors have shown, Korean expedition is the name that has most support in English language literature on the subject. "Sinmiyangyo" will not do the job. Outside Korea, it is only known by a select group of people. Perhaps we should keep it that way?--Amban 14:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of points: (i) There clearly was a consensus to move from the current name. No there wasn't. (ii) Or they propose a new name that they know will not pass a vote. When proposing a new name, I did not know it would not pass a vote. -- Hoary 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can argue about the application of the word "consensus" in this context, but you know exactly what I mean. Besides, I find it curious that you - an administrator - flatter youself as being seen as

prolong discussions indefinitely. But the future of your adminship is something we can discuss on our own talk pages at some other point in time.--Amban 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


Comment - I just want to point out that there is already a separate article at Ganghwa Island incident on a separate topic. These two could be disambiguated with years, or with the other country involved (US-Korea on one hand, Japan-Korea on the other), but this is a tad more complicated than we might otherwise have thought. Just wanted to point it out. Cheers. LordAmeth 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was mentioned in the
Philip Baird Shearer 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This article should be moved to an english name

Sinmiyangyo is too ambigious.

As for the editors who opposed the move to another name, the new title can always be modified to something more satisfying. Good friend100 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another poll

Seeing the confusion as to who wants what, I'd like to open a poll to clearly see where this stands. Please don't start arguing here, instead, leave a comment for your reason. Write support to the name you think is best. Good friend100 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at Sinmiyangyo

From the poll already taken:

#Support - It's an established name, it's short, and it's unambiguous. (I'm open-minded about the addition of an "h", or other tweaks to the romanization.) -- Hoary 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support - Though moving to Shinmiyangyo might be an idea to fit the sources more closely. Pinkville 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Proper names do not require English titles, the Korean name (with or without the h) is often used in English sources, and there does not appear to be a common English name for this event. The government of the United States uses "Korean Campaign", which is almost absent from the choices below. Additionally, I'm unconvinced that the meaning of the Korean term, related to the battle, is equivalent to the English ones mentioned, which also concern the voyage. Dekimasuよ! 02:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    New or reiteration of support for Sinmiyangyo
  3. Support. ¶ It is indeed not commonly used in English. Its meaning is indeed not obvious to non-speakers of Japanese. However, it's used, it's appropriate, it's not misleading, and it's short. ¶ I'll take "Korean expedition or its variants" to mean "Korean Expedition (1871)" or a trivially different variant thereof, as this is what seems to be most popular on this talk page. It's true that this name would give some help to readers and it's also true that the event has been referred to in English as an expedition more often than as Sinmiyangyo. However, it does not seem to be an established name: when "Korean expedition" is used at all, it seems to be used in contexts that make it clear that Korea is the site and the US the actor -- contexts unavailable here. To me, "Korean Expedition (1871)" isn't obviously clearer or better than "U.S. Expedition (1871)" (which I like no better). ¶ One solution would be "U.S. expedition to Korea (1871)". I opposed that before, but it's certainly clearer than and preferable to "Korean Expedition (1871)". ¶ Another solution would be "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)": reasonably informative, neutral, and certainly not misleading. I liked that proposal (which wasn't my own) before and I like it still. However, it seems to have been ruled out. ¶ So: I have no objections to keeping the article at "Sinmiyangyo", which I'm sure is better than "Korean Expedition (1871)". -- Hoary 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Korean expedition or its variants

From the poll already taken:

# Support Good friend100 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
# Support - Very well established in literature. Even Korean sources use this as a term.--Amban 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support per my comments above. --Reuben 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. It is true that short names are useful; but can we compromise on Korean Expedition, which presently redirects here? We can lengthen it if we have to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support for Korean Expedition (Seems to be used by the US military) and as Septentrionalis says lengthen it if we have to. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'd rather choose Korean Expedition of 1871 than Sinmiyangyo. Wikimachine 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) -- (Expressed on this page)
    New or reiteration of support for Korean expedition
  5. Support I think sinmiyangyo is not commonly used by english speakers. Korean expedition and its variants are much more clearer. Good friend100 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support As per above.--Amban 14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Frankly, how many English users can make sense out of this convoluted romanization of a Korean word? Also, the Korean romanization gets absolutely no results from Google books.
    Cydevil38 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Support If this were a domestically Korean affair, I might be tempted to let it go with the native name. But for anyone approaching this from the US history or US int'l relations point of view, they would more likely than not be completely unfamiliar with the Korean term. LordAmeth 17:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support move to a name more used in English but neutral on new target name. —  AjaxSmack  04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that there is a Wikipedia consensus to move the page to an English name or description. I have moved the page to

Philip Baird Shearer 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Regarding the new poll: Umm, what?? How can the opinions be meaningful when one of the options is so vague? And how did my participation in the previous poll get transferred to this one without any action on my part, when the options are not the same? This does not seem right to me. --Reuben 22:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that your name is under the heading "From the poll already taken". I transfered it because you had expressed support for "Korean Expedition of 1871" (and similar) in both the inital
Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not that my opinion has been misrepresented. My questions/concerns were about the procedure, but I'm sorry to have contributed to the noise. Perhaps the only useful thing to say at this point is that I don't object to the current article title. --Reuben 08:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Expedition of 1871 is a dreadful title

Echoing Reuben, by what mechanism did the "choice" get reduced to two options? And it has to be said again, Korean Expedition of 1871 is a dreadful title. If the title must be changed from Sinmiyangyo, certainly United States expedition to Korea (1871) (or similar) is far better (unambiguous and supported by bibliographic sources) than the latest defacto title. Pinkville 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be less ambiguous, but it's also dreadfully inelegant. LordAmeth 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. Another reason I favour S(h)inmiyangyo. I find the proposed English-language titles arbitrary or ambiguous or inelegant. Pinkville 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poll may not have been hundred per cent ideal, but I think Philip did the right thing under the circumstances. If Pinkville really thinks that this move was not based on a correct mechanism, I wonder why he waited until now to voice his opposition. The outcome was hardly a surprise to anyone and Pinkville has had ample opportunity to comment on the last consolidated poll (or whatever we should call it).--Amban 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pinkville it was clear from the initial poll that the consensus was to move from Sinmiyangyo, what was not agreed in the initial poll was exactly what form the new name should take. We were still discussing that when Amban I think a little hastily constructed a second poll which I think muddied the water. However I have moved it to the name under the second poll "move_to_expedition" which garnered the most support. If further moves are required then we can discuss them but I for one would object to moving the page to "S(h)inmiyangyo" for all the reasons which have already been discussed, and although I will not actively promote placing United States at the start of article name neither would I object. --
Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope. There was no such consensus in the initial poll. Yes there was a majority, but (even by WP's slightly odd use of the word) no consensus.
I'm left puzzled by various things, e.g. how "Sinmiyangyo" is a "convoluted romanization". (I couldn't ask at the time, as our good friend Good friend100 had warned us Please don't start arguing here.)
Still, I think we can reach [WP-style] consensus on some elements here: I note the remark above The danger with these polls after polls is that people suffer from poll [fatigue] and I'd certainly agree with that. -- Hoary 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Hoary thinks that a vocal minority has the right to exercise a veto. That is a recipe for incessant discussion and complete deadlock.--Amban 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw in the initial (if this word makes any sense in this context anymore) poll was a few votes here, a few votes there... nothing resembling consensus. The logical/fair thing would have been to drop off the least popular choices and try to hone the remaining few... not jump to a choice between the existing name and one other (with some pretty serious faults, as I've expressed before). A little hastily constructed a second poll is too right. Yes, the logical/fair thing would have been to continue discussion - certainly as to how we should now proceed - and not to jump into another, even more ridiculous poll.
One little query regarding the new name... is there any supporter of Korean Expedition of 1871 who would care to address the issue of its striking ambiguity. The question hasn't properly been addressed, and I can't believe people would rather such a vague title than even an inelegant one like United States Expedition to Korea...? Pinkville 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Pinkville has made clear what he means by ambiguity. What other events could "Korean Expedition of 1871" possibly refer to? The current name is not perfect, but sometimes perfection is the enemy of the good.--Amban 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean after all this time and all the posts that Hoary and I made (and others I may have forgotten) the ambiguity issue is not at all clear to you? Okay, here goes: Korean Expedition suggests an expedition carried out by Korea/Koreans, not one undertaken by (an unnamed) someone else against Korea. Were Korea a mountain, or an uninhabited territory, the ambiguity would vanish (as it does with Everest Expedition or Antarctic Expedition) but Korea is inhabited, by Koreans, incidentally. Korean Expedition could refer to any event undertaken by Koreans,* there not being an obvious example (unlike Vietnam War, which is so well known to refer to the war conducted by the US in that country between the 1950s and the 1970s that further specification is unnecessary), which makes the title vague as well as ambiguous. This title is analagous to Kuwaiti Invasion of 1990 or Grenada Expedition of 1983. Hopefully those examples are sufficiently perplexing at first glance. Almost any of the other suggested titles for this article would be better than this one, I'm afraid to say. Furthermore, the Korean Expedition variants - from my research - have never been used as names for this event, only short-hand descriptions of it. United States Expedition to Korea of 1871, on the other hand, has been used as a name on a few occasions, so has Low-Rodgers Expedition of 1871, and others besides. Korean expedition appears in books, etc., but only in the same way that Germany's war appears as a short-hand description of World War II. See where I'm coming from?
*A 19th c. expedition of Koreans to climb Everest, perhaps... Pinkville 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know what you mean by ambiguity, I was just being dismissive and sardonic. But you didn't answer the question: what other event could "Korean expedition of 1871" possibly refer to?

Now, I don't want to be pedantic, but could you please enlighten us and tell us what policy or guideline states that events should be referred to in a way that makes agency unambiguously clear? I'm all ears.--Amban 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if we leave possible WikiLawyering aside, I see where you are coming from and you do have a point that the title of the article could be improved; but why didn't you suggest a name along the lines of

French Campaign against Korea, 1866? You had a golden opportunity to create a consensus around a name like that and you didn't take it. If you suggest that we lengthen or specify the current name, I see no reason why I shouldn't go with you and I think we could make such a move pass without a painful poll.--Amban 03:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, conciliatory, not dismissive and sardonic, eh? Let's keep it that way. I didn't propose a name along the lines of
French Campaign against Korea, 1866
 because I didn't believe one was warranted - I think S(h)inmiyangyo is the best title for the article. But I have several times expressed no great misgivings about variants of United States Expedition to Korea of 1871, and about variants of Ganghwa Island incident, etc. Both of which were swept aside in this latest rush to the polls.
And by the way,
WP:NC states: article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity... The Korean Expedition variants are the most ambiguous of those originally suggested. Pinkville 03:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, OK then! Thanks for pointing me to WP:NC, it seems that we may have a basis for an expanded consensus here. I'm curious what you will come up with, keep me informed. I'm not sure that I will be able to be abreast with the discussion for at least a week or so, but by the end of the month I hope I will be able to continue the discussion. Till then, ciao!--Amban 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"United States Korean Expedition..." is I think to be preferred to "United States Expedition to Korea..." because it keeps the phrase "Korean Expedition" in the title and that is used in some of the sources. An additional question is if the page is move to one that includes Unites States, should the word Expedition start with a lower-case "e"? --
Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The phrase "Korean expedition" is just that, a phrase. It's fine in the context of what the US was doing, just as "US expedition" is fine in the context of what was happening to Korea. Really, even if you like the current title and like "expedition" there's no reason to preserve the particular string "Korean expedition". If you do preserve it, you risk the misunderstanding that the US and Korea were partners in some expedition (to Japan? China?). And either way, there's no need whatever for the capital "e": this is not an established name (even though I concede that the phrase has been used), this is English and not German, and this is 21st-century and not 18th-century English. -- Hoary 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about United States expedition to Korea 1871 or US expedition to Korea 1871? Lets stop arguing over about capitalization and ambiguity. I think my proposals for naming is clear enough. Good friend100 11:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"US expedition" would be out, because of the (silly, IMHO) WP rule that U.S. must have dots (even though "UK" doesn't need them). Given a choice between United States expedition to Korea 1871 or U.S. expedition to Korea 1871 (note the dots!) I'll take the second as it's much shorter. -- Hoary 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second name better since its shorter. Good friend100 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why I opposed Korean Expedition of 1871 & proposed US Expedition to Korea of 1871. However, I favored Korean Expedition over Sinmiyangyo. Anyways, Korean Expedition is so US-centric b/c it already assumes that the readers see the article from the historical context of the U.S. (Wikimachine 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is it permissible? Although
WP:NCA says or implies that "Blah blah (U.S.)" is preferable to "Blah blah (United States)", it seems to suggest that "United States blah blah" is preferable to "U.S. blah blah". -- Hoary 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Use "United States" not "U.S." a redirect can always be created for "US fu-bar" and "U.S. fu-bar". BTW the old prohibition that used to be in the MOS was taken out (see
Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Somebody please make a move to U.S. expedition to Korea (1871). Is it okay for me to? (Wikimachine 03:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's just as OK for you as for anyone else. I'd be in favor of such a move. However, as pointed out very shortly above, it would, I think, infringe WP's silly naming conventions for titles, which (pace both Philip Baird Shearer and common sense) would instead dictate
United States expedition to Korea (1871). -- Hoary 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

History of United States expansion

I saw that Jjok included this article under Category:History of United States expansionism. I'm not sure that is an appropriate categorization, most of the other articles in the category deal with different wars where the US was not only at war with countries, but also expanded territorially. I don't see that happening here, the Korean expedition was more a Perry Expedition gone awfully wrong. (Do we need that article by the way?)--Amban 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, Perry Expedition is a joke. But considering the vast volume that has been written about the Expedition, and considering how little is covered on Perry's biography page, I think the article for the Expedition (as kept separate) could be very worthwhile if majorly expanded. LordAmeth 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling in Quotations

Before the 20th century, Korea was very often spelled Corea. That is how it was in 1871 in the official United States reports, without exception. When something is a direct quote, you must write it exactly, whether you agree with the spelling or not. In the case of Coreans, the spelling is not something that would confuse anyone as to its meaning, so there is no reason to change the quote.Bluelake (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I added [sic] ("This is the way the original material was") to the original spelling.[1] Fair enough? Bluelake (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Gibberish. Sgt Simpson (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rdeloe/writing_guide/printable.pdf

The difference in tones between English and Korean versions

There seems to be a large gap in understanding of the battles between two articles. I think this may cause neutrality dispute to both article. English version emphasizes American force's superiority in firearms, while Korean version gives some credit for military spirit of Korean(Joseon) soldiers.

Comparing the two articles,

English Version:

On June 10, 1871, the Americans attacked the lightly defended Choji Garrison on Ganghwa, along the Salee River. The Koreans were armed with severely outdated weapons, such as matchlock rifles. After they were quickly overrun, the Americans moved onto their next objective, the Deokjin Garrison. The poorly armed Korean forces were kept from effective range by American 12 pound howitzers. The American troops continued on towards the next objective, Deokjin Fort, which they found abandoned. The sailors and marines quickly dismantled this fortress and continued to Gwangseong Garrison, a citadel. By this time, Korean forces had regrouped there. Along the way, some Korean units tried to flank the US forces, but were beaten off again due to the strategic placement of artillery on two hills.
Artillery fire from ground forces and the USS Monocacy offshore pounded the citadel in preparation for an assault by US forces. Five hundred and forty-six sailors and one hundred and five Marines grouped on the hills west of the fortress (infantry troops were on the hill directly west of the fortress, while artillery troops on another hill both shelled the fortress and also covered the Americans' flanks and rear) keeping cover and returning fire. Once the bombardments stopped, the Americans charged the citadel, led by Lt. Hugh McKee. The slow reload time of the Korean matchlock rifles aided the Americans, who were armed with superior Remington rolling block carbines, to make it over the walls; the Koreans even ended up throwing rocks at the attackers.


Korean Version:

6월 10일(음력 4월 23일) - 미군 상륙부대는 포함 2척을 앞세우고 해병대원 644명으로 강화도 초지진(草芝鎭)으로 상륙하였고, 덕진진(德津鎭)을 점령하였다.
6월 11일(음력 4월 24일) - 광성진(廣城鎭), 광성보을 차례로 점령하였다. 진무중군 어재연 이하 600명의 조선군이 지키고 있던 광성진 전투에서 조선군은 수와 무기에서 우세한 미군에 맞서 장렬한 전투를 치렀지만,어재연 장군을 포함하여 243명이 전사하고 100명이 바다에 빠져 죽었으며, 20명이 포로가 되는 결과를 내는 패배를 하였다. 미군은 전사 3명, 부상자 10명이라고 한다. 하지만 군인정신 곧 적을 두려워하지 않는 용감함에서는 미군이 조선군에게 패한 전쟁이었다.
“ 조선군은 미군에게 돌을 던지고 창칼로 대적하다가 무기를 놓치면 흙을 던져 눈에 뿌렸다. 죽기를 각오하고 싸워 총에 맞아 죽기도 하고, 부상병은 스스로 목숨을 끊으니 포로로 잡힌 자는 한 사람도 없았다.

Additionally, it would be helpful to add some notes about Myeonje Baegab, which was a primitive form of bulletproof vest. Also, I have no idea why Choji Garrison is being described as had been located along the Salee River. There is no river called Salee River in Korea, and the water between Choji Garrison and the Korean mainland could be described as a narrow channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.66.106.14 (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a difference in tone. I imagine it could be rewritten with less-subjective wording. However, although words like "superior" are subjective and have a biased feeling, they are often accurate. Koreans kept their obsolete weaponry more out of choice than anything else; when Korea had relative peace, its military development suffered, so weapons did not progress past 16th century matchlocks and bronze breechloading cannons by the time of the 1871 action. It's interesting to note that many American officers' reports also praised the Koreans' fighting spirit. If Koreans and Americans had been similarly armed in 1871, the outcome of the fight might have been completely different.

The "Salee River" is from the French word for "salt". The Korean word for the Ganghwa Straits (the water between Ganghwa Island and the mainland) is 염하, which means "salt river". When the French came to Korea in 1866, they sometimes directly translated place names from Korean (and other times renamed places). When the Americans came to Korea in 1871, they based their charts upon the French charts and used many of the names from them. For instance, 작약도 was called by the French "Boisee" Island (Woody Island) and the Americans used that name. Bluelake (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Military victory"

This is nonsense. Wars aren't determined by how maby people are killed, but whether or not the objectives were completed. In this case they were not. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A country can succeed in their military goals but fail in their diplomatic ones. Conversely, you can also fail militarily but succeed diplomatically. To combine them is one dimensional and lacks nuance. The book Unequal Partners in Peace and War sums it up well: "This miniature war ended in a great military victory for the American force ... The mission, however, failed to achieve its main objective of opening the doors of the Korean kingdom." Spellcast (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When Korea finally opened up to foreign trade a few years later (including the US) under the threat of Japanese Naval action it's worth pondering how much that decision was informed by the memory of the destruction and casualties wrought in the 1871 expedition and whether it was more desirable to avoid a repeat by reaching an agreement,also it's worth noting attacks on US ships stopped after 1871. Is it feasible the 1871 expedition influenced that course, any thoughts. 82.29.135.200 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A better question might be, "Any references?" Carptrash (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States expedition to Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States expedition to Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the refimprove template in section Battle of Ganghwa.

There are now ten (at last count) citations in this section. If more are wanted, please use the "citation needed" tag on the specific item(s) in question. G41rn8 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits and article organization

There have been a number of recent edits to this article by

edit war
, but I think that there is a disconnect here over organization of the article and weight given to its content. I think discussion here is indicated.

The article, as it currently stands, introduces mission details concerning

lead section
, but does not explain who Low is until a later section. Either Low needs to be introduced in the lead or the details regarding him which are now in the lead need to be moved down into the body of the article.

Also, Casualfoodie, I have the impression that you would have the article paint Low more as an aggressor than this cited supporting source supports. The lead section now characterizes Low's mission as a "punitive campaign", based on an interpretation in the intro to the cited source of what it describes as "Low's own records", but does not mention "Low’s intent was to negotiate matters peacefully if possible" from the body of that source. This seems like

WP:DUE
.

Please discuss. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So specifically what info did I add, that you find to be unsupported by sources, is original research or is factually incorrect?

I think my edits were fairly necessary and neutral considering that the previous article had grossly ommited a fair amount of context such as the fact that the Americans shouldn't travel in their territorial waters with armed warships and why it was attacked and also America clearly wanted a trade treaty. Yet the previous article introduction didn't elaborate that Koreans had both rejected the offer for trade treaty and also informed on the reason why Koreans had attacked their gunboats. Yet the past article made it seem like America did not violate Korea's laws that reasonably prohibited foreign armed ships to travel on Han river and Korea was wrong to not give an apology and deserved to be punished by America. Low was the aggressor as the National Interest article suggested. He was the admiral who wrote his reasons for the campaign on how they cannot let the Koreans go punish Americans with their laws. And he was afraid that such a mentality would spread to China and they will see America as weak and be more assertive towards America if they felt they can get away with it. And he writes that a punitive action would end such thinking. It's his own self given explaination for why America should attack. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/forgotten-korean-war-1871-174724?page=0%2C1 Clearly he could have respected Korea's sovereignty and not sail armed warships near its capital. But he felt Americans shouldn't have to listen to such laws and show Korea that America is strong. My edits simply called out the facts but I left out all the warranted character attacks on Low and Americans on which National Interest and one Korean scholar has made towards America.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/past-forward/general-sherman-incident-of-1866/40D71B80CF4CE13914A41AB069956119 

the Korean campaign showed the United States adopting many of the most reprehensible aspects of nineteenth-century Western Imperialism. The American commanders felt entitled to “peacefully” enter Korean waters for survey and trade with heavily armed warships and ignore repeated diplomatic requests to respect Korean sovereignty. Low’s own records show the attack on the Ganghwa fort was motivated by a desire to demonstrate American power over what he considered to be a weaker nation, rather than out of any reasonable expectation that it would achieve the political objectives of his mission.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/1871-america-invaded-korea-heres-what-happened-24113 Casualfoodie (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I do agree with Wtmitchell that there needs to be improvements in organising all the information better. I propose a dedicated chapter on prologue or "background".. on that first chapter, Explaining that western powers had desired to open up Korea for trade and also a summary on the general Sherman. And give context on why Korea had such laws to prohibit foreign ships in Han river as they were attacked only months after the general Sherman incident by French warships and have reasonably grown cautious of foreign western armed warships. Source - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/forgotten-korean-war-1871-174724

That helps explain why they attacked the American warships later. And then America had sent Low to hopefully open Korea up for trade and also to investigate general Sherman disappearance... then Americans sent warships to sail on the Han river and was attacked. The Koreans sent letters to explain America was responsible for their attacks and shouldn't break their laws and a governor gave livestock to smooth things over. That's the summarised information for the 'prologue" chapter.

And then I suggest another dedicated chapter following that, on the actual "punitive campaign". Low decided that Koreans needed to officially apologize in a way that he desired. He writes that if they simply left just like that, the Koreans and Chinese would likely adopt dangerous thinking that would not be good for America future prospects. And that he needed to show military strength. National interest is a very reputable source that had used Low's own account of what he wrote for his rationale for the punitive campaign. He threw away the peaceful option and decided to settle it with violence. Obviously Low could had just acknowledged that America should not break Koreas sovereign laws and the river attack barely did any severe damage to them but he chose to want to make Koreans afraid by killing around 243 Koreans for that riverside ambush. Anyone impartial can see that he was the excessive aggressor here. He didn't respect Korean sovereignty and one doesn't go kill 243 men if you're not even being further attacked. He could have sailed away as barely any Americans were killed in the riverside ambush but he had wanted to intimidate korea to think twice about crossing America and hopefully to intimidate them to return to the negotiating table.

After that, I propose we add the final chapter on "aftermath". As both History vault and CFR sources perfectly sums that up. The Americans had hoped the victory would compel the Koreans to return to the negotiating table. Except the Koreans actually refused to even talk to the Americans and Instead sent reinforcements in large numbers instead to meet American troops, who later sailed away. And it wasn't until a decade later on 1882 that they finally made a treaty. https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-korean-expedition-1871-and-battle-ganghwa-shinmiyangyo

https://thehistoryvault.co.uk/the-american-invasion-of-korea-nope-not-the-one-in-the-1950s-the-one-in-1871/ 

The Americans hoped that their victory would persuade the Koreans to negotiate. It didn’t. Instead, they sent reinforcements in large numbers and armed with modern weapons. Recognizing that the odds had shifted, the U.S. fleet pulled up anchor and set sail for China on July 3. The United States would not get a treaty with Korea until 1882. That agreement came about in good part because the Korean king was hoping that U.S. support could help him preserve Korea’s independence from China.

I think organising the info by creating those 3 dedicated chapters in that order can help the readers understand the event and context alot better and extensively. But that's my take. Casualfoodie (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Wikipedia narrative.

Invasions of some empires are called "expeditions" when failed and "conquests" when successful.

And don't come with the standard response "you can make your own edits" as we all know that edits challenging the stolen empire are c̶e̶n̶s̶u̶r̶e̶d̶ "banned for vandalism". Enviousbarbarian (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_expedition_to_Korea&oldid=1208871172"