This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States expedition to Korea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 10, 2012, June 10, 2014, and June 10, 2016. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Given the mess that the requested move became I am not supprised that Stemonitis wrote:
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:
Expressed an opposition to this move and expressed a preference for the article to remain at Sinmiyangyo.
This leaves two editors who expressed opinions which are not consistent with this name or with the current name.
User:Wikimachine expressed a desire for a name that included "United States" as did User:Visviva. I am going to ask them that given a choice between only Sinmiyangyo and Korean Expedition of 1871, which do they prefer? Hopefully this will give us a clear consensus of whether the page should remain here or be moved. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 someone who doesn't listen to consensus. I know that the remark on your talk page is supposed to be an expression of self-mockery, but the joke appears differently in the light of how you have conducted this discussion. I'm not saying that my conduct is beyond reproach and I know that admins are just as free to express their point of view as ordinary editors. However, as I understand it, admins are supposed to facilitate the development of consensus and not 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)
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)
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)
From the poll already taken:
From the poll already taken:
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 Korean Expedition of 1871 as that was the most popular name in the requested move process now archived. If people wish to change this to either a descriptive name and/or add in the United States to the page name, then please discuss this further. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Absolute Gibberish. Sgt Simpson ( talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
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:
Korean Version:
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)
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)
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)
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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)
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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)
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)
There have been a number of recent edits to this article by Casualfoodie and myself. These edits could be taken as an 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 Frederick Low in the 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 original research to me. I think this needs to be toned down or, if retained, supported more directly by some other source IAW WP:DUE.
Please discuss. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States expedition to Korea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 10, 2012, June 10, 2014, and June 10, 2016. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Given the mess that the requested move became I am not supprised that Stemonitis wrote:
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:
Expressed an opposition to this move and expressed a preference for the article to remain at Sinmiyangyo.
This leaves two editors who expressed opinions which are not consistent with this name or with the current name.
User:Wikimachine expressed a desire for a name that included "United States" as did User:Visviva. I am going to ask them that given a choice between only Sinmiyangyo and Korean Expedition of 1871, which do they prefer? Hopefully this will give us a clear consensus of whether the page should remain here or be moved. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 someone who doesn't listen to consensus. I know that the remark on your talk page is supposed to be an expression of self-mockery, but the joke appears differently in the light of how you have conducted this discussion. I'm not saying that my conduct is beyond reproach and I know that admins are just as free to express their point of view as ordinary editors. However, as I understand it, admins are supposed to facilitate the development of consensus and not 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)
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)
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)
From the poll already taken:
From the poll already taken:
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 Korean Expedition of 1871 as that was the most popular name in the requested move process now archived. If people wish to change this to either a descriptive name and/or add in the United States to the page name, then please discuss this further. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Absolute Gibberish. Sgt Simpson ( talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
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:
Korean Version:
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)
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)
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)
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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)
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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)
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)
There have been a number of recent edits to this article by Casualfoodie and myself. These edits could be taken as an 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 Frederick Low in the 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 original research to me. I think this needs to be toned down or, if retained, supported more directly by some other source IAW WP:DUE.
Please discuss. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)