Talk:United States expedition to Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States expedition to Korea article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Korea     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force WikiProject United States (Rated B-Class) United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Korean Expedition of 1871 2 This article should be moved to an english name 3 Another poll 3.1 Keep at Sinmiyangyo 3.2 Move to Korean expedition or its variants 4 Korean Expedition of 1871 is a dreadful title 5 History of United States expansionism

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'd rather choose Korean Expedition of 1871 than Sinmiyangyo. (Wikimachine 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

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 Iwakura Mission is commonly known as such in scholarship, and the years and countries involved are not specified. On the other hand, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

This was mentioned in the Talk:Sinmiyangyo/Archive 1#Requested move along with French Campaign against Korea, 1866. Lets not go there again! --Philip Baird Shearer 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Another poll

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

It may be less ambiguous, but it's also dreadfully inelegant. LordAmeth 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

I like the second name better since its shorter. Good friend100 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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))

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)

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 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#U.S.) So I guess it has not been synchronised in naming convention yet. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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))

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)

[edit] History of United States expansionism

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 not only invaded 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)

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)