Talk:United States expedition to Korea

message: 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)
thread_title: This article should be moved to an english name

message: 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)
replies: text: #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)

text: # Support Good friend100 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: # Support - Very well established in literature. Even Korean sources use this as a term.--Amban 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Requested move poll and the second poll under Talk:Sinmiyangyo/Archive_1#move_to_expedition" at 21:00, 7 June. I made the assumption that you had not radically changed your opinion in three days and the name of the article is now specifically at a name for which you expressed support. The danger with these polls after polls is that people suffer from poll fatigue and there is a danger that they become open to manipulation -- "I have lost the poll so I'll keep holding them until I get the result I like". This is not meant to be a vote it is meant to be an attempt to build a consensus. Unless you wish to change your opinion (which of course in this process of building a consensus changing opinions is to be encourged) to one of wishing that the article stayed at Sinmiyangy, I do not think that you opinion has been unfairly represented. If it has then my apologies for misrepresenting your opinion and please correct it. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Another poll

message: 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)
thread_title: Keep at Sinmiyangyo

message: From the poll already taken:
:# Support Good friend100 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: # Support - Very well established in literature. Even Korean sources use this as a term.--Amban 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Requested move poll and the second poll under Talk:Sinmiyangyo/Archive_1#move_to_expedition" at 21:00, 7 June. I made the assumption that you had not radically changed your opinion in three days and the name of the article is now specifically at a name for which you expressed support. The danger with these polls after polls is that people suffer from poll fatigue and there is a danger that they become open to manipulation -- "I have lost the poll so I'll keep holding them until I get the result I like". This is not meant to be a vote it is meant to be an attempt to build a consensus. Unless you wish to change your opinion (which of course in this process of building a consensus changing opinions is to be encourged) to one of wishing that the article stayed at Sinmiyangy, I do not think that you opinion has been unfairly represented. If it has then my apologies for misrepresenting your opinion and please correct it. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Move to Korean expedition or its variants

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History of United States expansion

message: 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)
thread_title: Spelling in Quotations

message: 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)
thread_title:  The difference in tones between English and Korean versions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A better question might be, "Any references?" Carptrash (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Military victory" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120508063134/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/danfs/c11/colorado-i.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c11/colorado-i.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100407175236/http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/marine_amphib_korea.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/marine_amphib_korea.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041011181532/http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/sherman.htm to http://www.kimsoft.com/2000%5Csherman.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929064742/http://ganghwa.x-y.net/xy_bb/board.php?id=gang&board_sec=0&page=1&mode=view&no=69 to http://ganghwa.x-y.net/xy_bb/board.php?id=gang&board_sec=0&page=1&mode=view&no=69
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed the refimprove template in section Battle of Ganghwa.  

message: There have been a number of recent edits to this article by  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)
thread_title:  Recent edits and article organization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Classic Wikipedia narrative.