Talk:Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876

message: The date is incorrect, the Treaty Of Kanghwa was signed on 1876 February 27.  
128.59.233.147 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking in again to have discussion about this before I make some revisions. Is anyone following this article? Thanks. Computer1200 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Background" section. Please do not revert until you have discussed here. I tried to get discussion going since September 2010. The section was not giving an unbiased account of the background of the treaty, but an account that diminished Japanese duplicity and intent to begin the process of stripping away Korean sovereignty. That is not the fault of western powers, although Japan did copy some of the methods of western powers.Computer1200 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: First of all, there is literally one citation for the whole article, after only the first sentence, citing one whole book without citing the specific page of reference. This is not OK — nor does it help us trust the integrity of the material in any way. 
Further, the entire Background section is unnecessary. There is no need in this article for such a huge emphasis on Western powers, though, to be sure, the patterns of western imperial coercion were being copied by Japan. But that should not dull the record of aggressive hegemony that Japan exercised in c19 all by its own volition. Again, it cites zero (0) credible sources. The emphasis on the West and then the statement that Japan was simply responding to humiliation is dubious at best, and should certainly be backed up with credible sources and citations.  Computer1200 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking in again to have discussion about this before I make some revisions. Is anyone following this article? Thanks. Computer1200 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Background" section. Please do not revert until you have discussed here. I tried to get discussion going since September 2010. The section was not giving an unbiased account of the background of the treaty, but an account that diminished Japanese duplicity and intent to begin the process of stripping away Korean sovereignty. That is not the fault of western powers, although Japan did copy some of the methods of western powers.Computer1200 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge problems with this article 

message: This article needs a lot of work.  There are many factual errors I can see upon first glance such as the statement that the Unyo fired first, which aside from being inaccurate is illogical as the whole purpose behind provoking the incident was to get the Koreans to fire first.  I'll edit the article after I gather sufficient resources if no one has any objections.Umetaro 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article needs revising 

message: I fleshed out the detail of the Unyo incident.  As Umetaro points out, the Unyo did not fire first, though from a Korean perspective it may as well have; its actions were entirely provocative.  There were also many spelling and idiomatic errors that are typical of translation, and I corrected those.  If there are other factual errors, I'll leave those to others more qualified than I.  Davidcharlesfreund 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made a few changes 

message: This treaty is also known as the "Treaty of Ganghwa", but this may not be the best choice for the article name in our English-language Wikipedia. 
In the current version of the article, a credible source is cited which verifies that Treaty of Ganghwa is a suspect or questionable article name -- see Chung, Young-lob. (2005). ; excerpt, "... the initial opening of Korea's borders to the outside world came in the form of the Korea-Japan Treaty of Amity (the so-called Ganghwa Treaty)."  
The following Google search data is relevant, but not necessarily  dispositive in terms of a Wikipedia article name.  It is noteworthy that the raw search data seems to confirm Chung's published analysis.
; Google search topic, Treaty of Ganghwa?
: About 2,210  results
; Google books search topic, Treaty of Ganghwa?
: About 164 results
; Google ---> Treaty of Kanghwa?
: About 7,900 results
; Google books ---> Treaty of Kanghwa?
: About  3,990 results
; Google ---> Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876?
: About 12,100 results
; Google books ---> Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876?
: About About 11,200 results  results
Does the name for this article require further discussion?  Does  Japan-Korea Treaty of 1882 (with a redirect from Treaty of Ganghwa) represent a better name for this article in the context of Korean diplomatic history between 1876 and 1910?
Compare Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested Move and Unequal treaty. --Tenmei (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is best article name?

message: The first sentence says:
: The Japan-Korea Treaty of Amity, also known as the Treaty of Ganghwa or Treaty of Kanghwa, was concluded between Japan and Korea in early 1876."
This is supported by an inline citation with an embedded hyperlink to Chung, Young-lob. (2005). .  An excerpt explicitly verifies the sentence; and the neutral verb "to conclude" is informed by the underlined phrase: 
:"... the initial opening of Korea's borders to the outside world came in the form of the Korea-Japan Treaty of Amity (the so-called Ganghwa Treaty).  With the conclusion of the treaty, the ports of Busan, Inchon, and Wonson were immediately opened ...."
An anonymous editor dispute the use of the verb "negotiated." Instead, that unidentified contributor edited the sentence to explain that the treaty was forced upon Korea:
*  diff  10:48, 25 October 2010 217.5.161.202 (7,956 bytes) (FORCED)
*  diff  09:57, 28 October 2010 217.5.161.202 (7,925 bytes) (The treaty was forced upon Korea by Japan) 
*  diff  12:47, 29 October 2010 217.5.161.202 (7,895 bytes) 
The edit summaries of my reverts explain that this cited source does not support this wording change. 
*  diff  15:21, 25 October 2010 Tenmei (7,903 bytes) (Undid revision 392764537 by 217.5.161.202 POV -- not verified by citation) 
*  diff  18:17, 28 October 2010 Tenmei  m (7,903 bytes) (Undid revision 393393101 by 217.5.161.202 revert -- edit inconsistent with source cited)
* diff 15:21, 29 October 2010 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (7,902 bytes) (Undid revision 393599462 by 217.5.161.202 revert -- edit inconsistent with source cited, see talk page) 
In the absence of another cited source, the sentence as it now stands is consistent with WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Tenmei (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence