Jump to content

Talk:Sinmiyangyo/Archive 1

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

2nd Paragraph

[edit]

At least the second paragraph of this article is copied verbatim from http://www.shinmiyangyo.org and I suspect the rest of the article is copied from somewhere else on the net. Should we delete the entry or just blank it? —Frecklefoot 17:09, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

yeah it was copied. uh.... i'll edit it (Wikimachine 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Citation

[edit]

The citations do not provide publisher, or the author. It's very vague. Could anybody fix that? Thanks. (Wikimachine 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

The text needs to be copy-edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]

I suggest that this page be moved to US Campaign against Korea, 1871 for better accessibility. The same thing has already been done to French Campaign against Korea, 1866.--Niohe 02:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There is no firmly established name in English for this event, so the Korean name is better as the title of the article. I think it makes more sense to use redirects for the several variants of United States Expedition to Korea of 1871 - incidentally, I can find no instances of US Campaign against Korea, 1871 anywhere, but it could be a redirect, too. Pinkville 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But you surely agree that the current title is not very elegant? US Campaign against Korea, 1871 is just one possible title of this article, if you can come up with a better title in English, I'm all ears.--Niohe 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't at all agree that the current title is "not very elegant". It's a Korean name and merely unfamiliar to most English speakers, like millions of other names of different origins used in English. Sinmiyangyo is no less elegant than Dubrovnik or Purim, etc. Two passable English titles would be United States Expedition to Korea of 1871 or United States-Korea War of 1871, both of which have been used in a handful of publications, but neither is authoritative or well established. One of the important aspects of this war is the fact that knowledge of it has been virtually erased from American History, and that fact is reflected in its lack of name. So I'd rather use the Korean name, following from such precedents as Ragnarök, Ramadan and other events that are known in English by the name of their language of origin. Pinkville 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. But we are not importing new words into the English language. Why don't we use United States Expedition to Korea of 1871 instead?--Niohe 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of importing a new word - Sinmiyangyo has already been used in English-language texts to refer to this war. In fact, it seems to be the only well-defined, established name for the conflict. [I've looked in many reference sources such as Library of Congress, various encyclopedias, etc.]. Pinkville 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search Results

[edit]
  • Google Web in 1st 30 results for Sinmiyangyo
  • Sinmiyangyo
  • English titles:
  • Google Web in 1st 30 results for US Aggression of Korea 1871
  • English titles:
  • English titles:

- These are mostly Korean tourist websites, written in bad English. Is that the standard we should adopt?--Niohe 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google Scholar in 1st page for Sinmiyangyo: 4

- That reference is to a non-academic website. The actual article doesn't use the term a single time.--Niohe 00:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google Scholar in 1st 70 results for US invasion of Korea 1871: None

Note: Most of the results for Shinmiyangyo were Korean government websites or tourist attractions. (Wikimachine 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I did a bit of research again today into the name variants and similarly found that "Sinmiyangyo" was the only established name for this conflict. None of the English descriptive names for Sinmiyangyo are well-defined and would certainly pose searchability problems. Pinkville 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Korea, Sinmiyangyo is the most common way of referring to the conflict, for quite obvious reasons. I have found no evidence that this event is referred to as such in academic sources so far. I just did a search on JSTOR on Sinmiyangyo and Sinmi yangyo and it yielded zero (0) results.--Niohe 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most academic works I have looked at, "Sinmiyangyo" is referred to as the "Korean expedition 1871", or variants thereof. Even the lead of this article refers to the incident as Korean Expedition. From browsing the web, I am also lead to believe that the incident was referred to as the Korean expedition by contemporary English-speaking observers and by the US government itself when it awarded honors to participants in the expedition.

--Niohe 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. It seems to have already been established above that the Korean name is Sinmiyangyo (with only four syllables). It is written 신미양요 in Korean. Though I don't speak Korean and my understanding of Korean phonology and the romanization of Korean is minimal, I think that "Sinmiyangyo" is the obvious romanization. (Indeed, apart from Yale, which I think is seldom used other than in linguistics, perhaps it's the only principled romanization.) So there's good reason for the name and its spelling. Alternatives suggested by Niohe include "US Campaign against Korea, 1871" (fifteen syllables) and "Korean expedition 1871" or a variant thereof. The orthographically conservative would want "U.S.", not "US"; people from the US seem to prefer "American". It could be "Campaign" or "campaign". It could be a campaign, an expedition, an attack, a retribution or any of various other things. Whatever it is, perhaps it must be accompanied by a year to distinguish it from later military adventures. (And Cheney and Rove still have time to start another one.) What complication! I see no reason to change this from "Sinmiyangyo". -- Hoary 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - Oh geez, what am I hearing? I thought that we were supposed to stick to English names in English Wikipedia. And I have to explain why? This is such a waste of time.--Niohe 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As often happens, it looks like Shinmiyangyo is a common English spelling, not conforming to the official romanization system. When I Googled "Korea 1871 -Wikipedia", the first site was http://www.shinmiyangyo.org/, and shinmiyangyo occurs several times in the first page of results. If you do want to use the Niohe's suggestion, it seems "Campaign" is used more than "Expedition" CronusXT 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be moved to an English name

[edit]

I looked at the links above, and as I said, most of them come from Korea. That Korean sites in English use transcribed Korean should come as no surprise - but that should not be the standard of Wikipedia; we should avoid Neologisms. Remember, this is English Wikipedia. Moreover, Google hits should be used with discretion and not as conclusive proofs

Now, I suggest that this page be moved to United States Expedition to Korea in 1871, which is a fairly common way of referring to the incident. Here is another source, on top of the ones I quoted above.

If you do not like the English title, please suggest a better one. But I hope we can go on and make this move soon.--Niohe 15:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any (necessarily constructed) English title for this article will be a neologism, since there is no definitive English name. As I mentioned, I've searched a number of authoritative reference works as well as Google, the results convincing me, at least, that any of the English terms for this conflict are spontaneous constructions, not accepted names/variants. Looking more closely at United States Expedition to Korea in 1871, there is only one Google hit for this (when I first mentioned this possible name I had found it in a handful of print publications), the web source being that which you linked above: the (US) Navy Department Library. That's certainly a reasonable source, but what about the U.S. Army Center of Military History and the United States Marine Corps, History Division which give Korean Campaign, 1871 and 1871 Korean Campaign, respectively? And what about The Journal of American History's mention of the (Unknown [!]) United States-Korea War of 1871 or Douglas E. George's Master's thesis on the Low-Rodgers Expedition of 1871? Or even the above-mentioned David F. Winkler article Marine amphibious landing in Korea, 1871, published in Sea Power, the "official magazine of the Navy League of the United States"? None of these, nor other examples I found, have much acceptance, the mass of them posing a tangle that is not likely to be easily unravelled. On the other hand, the Korean name for the conflict is well-established, easy to transliterate (and even pronounce) in English and can be found in the same form in many different sources, one being the Korean Government's National Heritage site. Retaining Sinmiyangyo as the name for the article is no different from retaining Purim as the name for the article that in English might otherwise be called the Jewish holiday that commemorates the deliverance from Haman's plot to annihilate all the Jews of the Persian Empire, or variations thereof. Pinkville 16:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I just can't believe what I am seeing. Purim is a word in the OED, Sinmiyango is not. End of story. The fact that there are various different ways of referring to this event in English is no excuse for importing a neologism into the English language. Now, pick the English name you like the most and then we move the page. And stop this incessant references to Google.--Niohe 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should have gathered by now that I don't agree that the page should be moved. And I don't respond to bullying. Pinkville 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Niohe, as you neither own this article nor are higher than Pinkville within some sort of editorial hierarchy here, your use of the imperative is somewhat absurd. I see one reasonable objection to the title as it is, which is that its meaning is not immediately clear to people who understand English and don't understand Korean (and thus the overwhelming majority of users of en:WP). Point taken. The other objection, that it's a neologism, doesn't stand up. Your attempt to use inclusion of the OED as the single criterion for validity of a name in English is ludicrous, as the OED neither purports to be nor in any way resembles a dictionary of names. (If the OED were used in the way that you seem to advocate, tens of thousands of articles would have to be deleted from WP.) One reason why "Sinmiyangyo" is little used in English-language contexts is that its referent seldom comes up in English-language contexts; when it does come up, "Sinmiyangyo" is a relatively common way to phrase it. Unlike, say, "Ssinmiyeongyi" (which my extremely limited knowledge of Korean suggests is a well-formed if nonexistent string of Korean), "Sinmiyangyo" is easy to read and pronounce for people who speak English and not Korean. It has just four syllables. Meanwhile, your recommended United States Expedition to Korea in 1871 has eighteen syllables, has arguable PoV problems in euphemizing a destructive and homicidal action as a mere "expedition", and is not obviously superior to any of several alternative formulations in English, none of which is anywhere near as short as "Sinmiyangyo". -- Hoary 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bullying anyone and you do not have a veto over this page. I am expressing frustration over the fact that I even have to justify a move from a title which makes no sense whatsoever to non-Korean speakers. Pinkville said earlier that this event has been erased from public memory. If you want this article to get more prominence (a sentiment I share) and make more sense to the average English-speaker, it is completely self-defeating to keep it under the present title.

In this regard it is completely immaterial that terms such as Ragnarök, Ramadan or Purim are used in the English language. All these terms are widely accepted and can be found in good dictionaries like OED. Sinmiyangyo is not yet an accepted term, and it is not our job to introduce new words into the English language. I simply cannot understand why so many people want to make Wikipedia into a dictionary.

Neither can I understand how and why choosing one of the suggested English names would create a neologism or constitute original research. United States Expedition to Korea in 1871 is a simple neutral description of the event which has been used in the past - we are not adding anything new or creating a new concept. Neither are we describing a recent event that is still developing and may be subject to a variety of different interpretations. Anyone with a basic command of English is able to understand what "United States Expedition to Korea in 1871" means. It is completely counterintuitive to list this article under Sinmiyangyo.--Niohe 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, please assume good faith and don't misrepresent me. I have never said that OED is the "single criterion for validity of a name in English." You know that.--Niohe 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of articles in Wikipedia have titles that are unfamiliar to most people (regardless of the language(s) they use). I'd be curious to know what percentage of English-speakers know the meaning of Ragnarök, Qilin, or more pointedly (because they're English terms), Pritchel, Collodion process, etc. Redirects from a selection of the English constructed names for Sinmiyangyo will work very nicely. There is no accepted term in English for this event, there is an accepted term in Korean that has been used in English texts as much or more than any English term. Pinkville 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really respond to anything I said. How am I to interpret that?--Niohe 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to find that I misunderstood your idea about the OED. I was misled by your comment Purim is a word in the OED, Sinmiyango is not. End of story. -- Hoary 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sinmiyangyo is not yet an accepted term: Oh? It seems to me to be an accepted term. No, not a widely accepted term, but an accepted term nevertheless. I simply cannot understand why so many people want to make Wikipedia into a dictionary. Me neither. I agree that some people seem to want to do this. I do not see it here. Neither can I understand how and why choosing one of the suggested English names would create a neologism or constitute original research. I don't think anyone has alleged this. If I seem to have alleged this, it wasn't intended. United States Expedition to Korea in 1871 is a simple neutral description of the event which has been used in the past - we are not adding anything new or creating a new concept. It has indeed been used in the past. However, the capital "E" suggests that it's a widely recognized name, and I don't think it is. I also don't see it as an obviously simple neutral description, unless the euphemistic use "expedition" is accepted as standard English. (Perhaps it is; I'm merely saying that there is room for argument here.) -- Hoary 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You are not being serious and you seem to prefer scoring cheap points. Go ahead. I refuse to engage into an argument as to whether we should use capital E or not. I have said that I can accept a wide range of different translations of the event (campaign, expedition, etc), and you chose to focus on a capital E.--Niohe 03:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think you are, exactly?! You can't ignore other editors and bolldoze your way through Wikipedia. I've moved the page back to its original title. You should probably take a little breather and cosider what you've done by moving this page precipitously, provocatively and in direct contradiction to the guidelines and decorum of Wikipedia. Pinkville 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are? I have given you due notice of my intention to move the page and I eventually did so. I have not ignored you and I am not the only editor who has supported a move to a better name. I have been involved in a number of discussions on pages where editors have defended the use of a neologism instead of an English term and these debates invariably end with a page move. This page is no different, and your choice to ignore Wikipedia policy by resorting to all kinds of spurious arguments is disruptive and borders on trolling. You do not have a veto over this page and you have not contributed anything constructive to the discussion beyond reiterating a point that does not conform with a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policies.

We have discussed a number of verifiable ways of rendering the name of this article in English and you still want to introduce a term that makes absolutely no sense to most non-speakers of Korean, by referring to Google hits and the use of the term Sinmyangyo in footnotes and tourist websites. I haven't seen a single example where an auhtortative history work refers to this event primarily as Sinmiyangyo Lee Ki-baik's excellent work on Korea history - which is full of terms in hanja and hangul - does not even list the term Sinmiyangyo. Can we just end this, and start discussing which English name of this article that is most preferable? Here is another policy, if you care:

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Borderline_cases

If we followed this policy, we would just translate the name of this article to "Foreign disturbance of 1871". Would that do? That is how Lee Ki-baik refers to the event. But note, we are still discussing how to render the name of this article in English, because this is English Wikipedia.--Niohe 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you due notice of my intention to move the page and I eventually did so. Oh, is this Niohepedia? Interesting - and novel - notion of collaboration. I'll ask you kindly again. Take a break for a day or two and come back refreshed. I'll do the same. Pinkville 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I not going to take a break, I am going to retire from Wikipedia. This is not just about this particular debate, but a decision that has matured over the last couple of months. I have had it. There is absolutely no point in getting involved in fruitless debates over very simple policy issues. To reivent the wheel every time like this a waste of my time and this is the last straw. And Administrators just stand by and watch Wikipedia degenerating into a discussion club. Dispose of the page any way you like. Good bye.--Niohe 15:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to go. Every time we lose a non-conformist, Wikipedia gets worse. Anyways, could those advocating Sinmiyangyo provide at least one English document (not from a Korean government website, or tourist site) that uses the term Sinmiyangyo? At the same time, remember "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." from WP:NAME. I'm pretty sure that almost no English reader can recognize the article by the term "Sinmiyangyo", so that "Sinmiyangyo" is an accepted term in the academia gives no effect. (Wikimachine 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Do note the phrasing: "the English form". But there doesn't seem to be such a (more or less stable) thing, although of course one can think of ways to put it in English.
Yours is a very reasonable request until the very last part, where you lose me. If you don't want something from a Korean government website or a tourist site or (I tentatively infer) any academic source, I wonder what would satisfy you. A non-academic (but why?), non-government Korean source? If it's not Korean, I'm afraid it would have to be academic, because for Joe Q Notkorean Public, Korean history pales beside, say, Paris Hilton.
That matter aside, "my" library is unfortunately closed for a couple of weeks. -- Hoary 12:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want sources either from non-academic or academic sites. (Wikimachine 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Here are some serious, even academic, examples in English by non-Korean writers. They happen to use the "Shinmiyangyo" spelling, i.e. with an "h".
also:
  • EON Images, in which the event is mentioned, but not named in English: "The U.S. subsequently launched a punitive expedition, referred to in Korean as Shinmiyangyo." Links are provided to both "Shinmiyangyo" and "Korean Punitive Expedition".
It's worth noting that several other English-language sources, while not using the term "S[h]inmiyangyo", at the same time do not provide a name in English, supporting my perception that there is no name in English for this event, but only spontaneous, ad hoc constructions to refer to it. Examples in which the event is described yet not named: the US Office of Naval History and Records, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, V. 2, 1963, pp. 144-145., The event was (not surprisingly) important enough in Korea to establish a name for it. If Americans (and/or other non-Koreans) had ever remembered the event there would undoubtedly be an accepted English name for it. So far as I can tell, Duvernay's and Sterner's essays are among the very few English-language descriptions of the conflict that run longer than a sentence or two. Sterner provides this bibliography:
  • Above and Beyond. Boston Publishing Company. Boston, MA, 1985
  • Beyers, W.F. & Keydel, O.F. Acts of Bravery. Platinum Press, Woodbury, NY, 1907
  • The Corean War. "Harper's Weekly, September 9, 1871
  • The Death of Hugh M'Kee. "Lexington Morning Herald". November 18, 1900 (Letter from Captain McIlvaine to his mother written June 22, 1871)
  • Hugh McKee, He Gained Immortal Fame. "Lexington Morning Herald. November 28, 1897
  • Runyon, Major C.F. Captain McLane Tilton and the Korean Incident of 1871, "Marine Corps Gazette, Volume 42, No. 2, February 1958
  • Tiger Hunt in Korea. "VFW Magazine", March 2000
  • Tyson, Carolyn A. Marine Amphibious Landing in Korea, 1871. Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headaquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, January 1966
I wouldn't expect any English-language sources published more than 10 years ago to use the term "S[h]inmiyangyo" for what I think should be obvious reasons, but I'll try to find these publications and confirm one way or the other. Pinkville 02:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be inventing a neologism in English. But this also applies to a name like "United States Expedition to Korea in 1871". If that name does not exist in reliable English sources then if that name is chosen it should be "United States expedition to Korea in 1871" (lowercase e). This turns it into a descriptive name like "end of World War II in Europe". If this type of descriptive name is chosen then see WP:MOS#Article titles:

If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware or Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface:


A dynamic loudspeaker driver’s chief electrical characteristics can be shown as a curve, representing the …

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After rifling through various English-language books on my shelves, I am struck by two things:
  • Most of the works avoid putting a name on the conflict, and many don't really mention it at all
  • Those that do use one of the names used by the participants, viz.:
    • In the Korean National Commission's Korean history: Discovery of its characteristics and developments, this is called the "Foreign disturbance of 1871"
    • In Eckert et al.'s Korea old and new, this is called the "American disturbance of 1871"
    • In Cumings' inimitable Korea's place in the sun, this is called the "Little War with the Heathen" (quotes and all), parroting a US headline of the time
Unfortunately, I don't think any of these approaches are productive for us. NPOV, not SPOV, is the way we do things here...
With regard to the proposal above, I find the word "expedition" problematic, and would personally prefer "incursion" (or perhaps "raid") as more accurately describing these events. -- Visviva 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages redirect here

1871 is usually used to specify the campaign since there are two. Corresponding French campaign is French Campaign against Korea, 1866. Old Japanese campaign is Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Jjok 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no standard name for it in English, there's no obvious and non-controversial noun for it in a constructed English name or description, it's about Korea and Sinmiyangyo is the standard term in Korean, there's little or nothing in this "New Discussion" that wasn't in the old discussion, so all in all there are good reasons to stop flogging the dead horse [pardon the cliche] and instead to "move on". -- Hoary 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, the fact that there is no single most common name for the expedition in English should not obscure the larger issue that we should try to find a good English name. I have already suggested a number of possible names and I am open to suggestions. This is about choosing a proper description in English, not anything else.
I find it puzzling that some editors focus on the use of capital "E", or find expressions such as "naval expedition" or "campaign" problematic. These are simple descriptions that carry no particular POV at all. I completely fail to see why an expression such as United States naval expedition to Korea of 1871 would be seen as taking any side in the conflict or being controversial. Could Hoary and the other editors provide any evidence that any of these expressions are controversial outside of this talk page? If you think "naval expedition" is a controversial term or POV, the burden of evidence is on you - not anyone else.--Amban 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term expedition is as old as European military history see: Anabasis and Anabasis Alexandri. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that.--Amban 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vivisva:

I have searched two of the most comprehensive databases for articles in the humanities and social sciences, JSTOR and Project MUSE - for "Sinimiyangyo", "Shinmin yangyo", "Shinmi yangyo", and "Sinmi yango", and they produced no results what so ever. Not a single one. The expedition may be referred to by different names in English, but based on academic sources, there is absolutely no case at all for using the name Sinmiyangyo.--Amban 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's boring to have this discussion all over again - especially when the revivers don't seem to have bothered reading the earlier discussion above. I posted links to three academic or at least serious English language websites that use the term Sinmiyangyo (although with an "h" after the initial "S"). Since there are no established English-origin names for this event, the use of the Korean name in an English context is the only precendent from which to draw.
In the earlier incarnation of this debate, I also posted several examples of non-English words and names that have WP articles. Dictionaries notoriously lag behind developments in language - one should not be surpised to be unable to find non-English names/terms that are newly finding use in English. Pinkville 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same to you. I have searched one database covering 300 academic journals and another database that "contains 669 journal titles and over 154,000 individual journal issues, totaling over 22 million pages of text" - and I don't find a single mention of Sinmiyangyo or any of its variants. Many of these texts goes as far back as 1865. Besides, we have another addition to the discussion, which shows that there is indeed room for using descriptive titles for articles that do not have one single name in English.

What is your answer? You have three "serious websites" that support your claim.--Amban 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and in case you were not aware of it, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Amban 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. A previous post had cited dictionary entries to support their argument, I wanted to forestall a return to that venue. Please read the discussion above to understand my point regarding the three serious websites - a phrase that hardly need any sarcastic quotation marks. My argument - of claim, if you prefer - is not based merely on three websites. I think it's quite reasonable that I don't want to reiterate what I've already said above, or go back to what I thought had been thoroughly discussed. Pinkville 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have never commented on my findings on JSTOR and Project MUSE a single time. I find this disconcerting, given the fact that Wikipedia is based on verifiable - and reliable - sources.--Amban 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no way surprised about your search results - the event is virtually unknown by any name outside of Korea. However, two of the webpages I linked are academic sources and the third is a serious - though not academy-based - historian. You will also find it impossible to find a definitive English name for this event in JSTOR and MUSE (though, I actually did find a mention of one of the Sinmiyangyo variants in MUSE many weeks ago!) because there is no definitive name in English. So why not follow the precedent set by such terms as Qilin, et al.
:Thousands of articles in Wikipedia have titles that are unfamiliar to most people (regardless of the language(s) they use). I'd be curious to know what percentage of English-speakers know the meaning of Ragnarök, Qilin, or more pointedly (because they're English terms), Pritchel, Collodion process, etc. Redirects from a selection of the English constructed names for Sinmiyangyo will work very nicely. There is no accepted term in English for this event, there is an accepted term in Korean that has been used in English texts as much or more than any English term. Pinkville 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Pinkville 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to printed sources, web pages are light weight. You cannot just shrug your shoulders and ignore the fact that Sinmiyangyo has no basis whatsoever in academic journals. You said that it takes time for these non-English terms to penetrate academic writing and dictionaries, but that is EXACTLY why we should not use new terms like that. What is known inside and outside Korea is immaterial to this discussion.--Amban 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And c'mon, exactly what does bringing Ragnarök or any of the other terms add to this discussion? I have already responded to that. Several of them can be found in standard encyclopedias and academic works. Sinimiyangyo is almost nowhere to be found, expect in glossaries in very specialized literature and on a bunch of predominantly non-academic websites. You have absolutely no case.--Amban 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Survey

[edit]
  • Reply - The guideline in its entirety refers to names for Wikipedia articles, explicitly listing person, country, town, film, book, or video game but giving no indication that the "subjects" of Wikipedia articles that the guideline covers should exclude events, or any other subject type. Pinkville 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

OK. Now, I formally request a move of this page to US Naval Expedition to Korea 1871. The reasons are:

  • The current name is not comprehensible to the average Wikipedia user.
  • The current name is not a well-established neologism for the event in question. It has no support whatsoever in academic databases, such as JSTOR and Project MUSE.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • While there are many different names for the event in English, we should choose an English name that best describes the event in a NPOV way, as per WP:MOS#Article_titles.

--Amban 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These points are all addressed above. Pinkville 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have no commented on point 2 and 4.--Amban 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those points were addressed by me and other editors (Hoary's comments are especially worth pertinent) in the original discussion. Pinkville 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, neither of you have responded to the JSTOR/MUSE search results or the fact that descriptive titles are permissible in Wikipedia. If I am not mistaken, I have responded to practically every point you have made.--Amban 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No answer? I guessed so. Here are some quotes from a number of academic journals, some very old and some quite recent. I daresay that different variants of "expedition to Korea" are the most common way of referring to this event in English. And judging by the number of hits you get on search terms like "US + expedition + Korea" in JSTOR, it is utter nonsense to say that the expedition is unknown :outside Korea.

  • Boleslaw Szczesniak. "Letters of Homer Crane Blake Concerning His Naval Expedition to China, Japan and Korea: 1869-1872." Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 13, No. 1/2 (Apr., 1957), pp. 1-38. "He accompanied the American expedition to Korea in the capacity of an official photographer."
  • David L. Anderson's review of Diplomacy of Asymmetry: Korean-American Relations to 1910, by Jongsuk Chay. The American Historical Review, Vol. 96, No. 3 (Jun., 1991), p. 972. "Chay describes accurately Low's menacing naval expedition to Korea in 1871..."
  • James B. Palais's review of The Rule of the Taewon`gun, 1864-1873: Restoration in Yi Korea, by Ching Young Choe. The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1. (Nov., 1973), pp. 130-133. "...dealing separately with the rise of Catholicism and the French expedition of 1866, Oppert's raid of 1868 and the U. S. expedition of 1871..."
  • Charles Oscar Paullin. "The Opening of Korea by Commodore Shufeldt." Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Sep., 1910), pp. 470-499."Rear-Admiral John Rodgers, proposed the sending of a naval expedition to Korea, similar to that of Commodore Perry to Japan."

I can get more quotes, but I would like to see the advocates of Sinmiyangyo to locate an equal number credible and representative academic sources, which refer to the expedition as Sinmiyangyo as the main name of the expedition.--Amban 01:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find on closer examination that most references to "US + expedition + Korea" (or variants thereof) lead to the Korean War of the 1950s or other events unrelated to the 1871 exhibition. I'm not interested in debating this issue any further. I've spent enough time on it already. Pinkville 01:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exhibition? What exhibition? Anyway, I didn't say that all hits relate to Korea, but you get a bunch and that is quite telling.--Amban 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Exhibition" may have been a typo for "expedition". (Not that hard to guess, really.) -- Hoary 14:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I am grateful you pointed that out. I would be more grateful if you added something substantive to the discussion.--Amban 14:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out that the current name is by far the shorter. -- Hoary 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...which is not a relevant argument. You do not have anything substantive to add, I conclude.--Amban 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relative lengths of putative titles for an article seem to me to be highly relevant to the merits of a proposal to rename the article from one to the other. You and others are of course free to regard it as unimportant (or not substantive). Is it relevant to the question of which name has been used in the literature in English on the subject? No it isn't, and I have not claimed that it was. I don't have anything substantive to add on that particular matter because the library I normally depend on has been closed for over a week, and has just reopened; I am not sure that I shall have time to look around for a day or two. -- Hoary 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the shortest response to most of your contributions to this discussion would be six syllables: 顧左右而言他. On a more serious note, of course the length of a title can be discussed, but in order support you insistence to keep the current name, you started to count syllables. Well the different nature of Korean and English makes it difficult to find any common ground or consensus on the basis of that argument. Other editors have actually suggested that the title be shortened along more reasonable lines and I am inclined to follow their suggestions so we can reach a consensus. You are welcome to join that discussion.--Amban 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For reasons I've stated elsewhere on this page. Pinkville 01:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that you (1) do not quote any Wikipedia policy in support of your argument and (2) that you have failed to respond to any of the points I have made thus far.--Amban 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proposed title has eighteen syllables rather than just four. -- Hoary 04:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of syllables is not a particularly relevant argument.--Amban 14:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a highly relevant one to me, and incidentally its importance (let alone relevance) is a matter that you seem to concede a short distance below. -- Hoary 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this requested move was made too quickly. I would only consider supporting this if it is clear that the name was a descriptive name and not a title and US was spelt out in full eg "United States 1871 naval expedition to Korea" or "United States 1871 campaign in Korea", or something similar. Was the US Marine Corps part of the US Navy at that time or a separate service? If the latter then the name should not include naval. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it clear that this is a descriptive title with strong support in academic literature. I actually think it was the navy (see link below), but if you want to delete navy, I am fine with that too. All I want is an English name that makes sense.--Amban 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought on this. The List of Medal of Honor recipients calls it the Korean Expedition what do the citations call the expedition/campaign? It would seem to me that whatever it was called in the citations would be a sourced English name for the expedition/campaign. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, earlier in this discussion, I did point out that this event usually is referred to as the Korean expedition, and I quoted the two links below. "Korean expedition" is a viable alternative to Sinmiyangyo, as long as we add something to it that qualifies it. That's how I came up with the current suggestion.
Hoary and Pinkville still have not commented on these two pages.--Amban 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we do need to disambiguate Korean Expedition, 1871 would be the obvious (and shortest) qualifier. I would, on the whole prefer Korean Expedition of 1871, so we don't have to set up a sort key. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The year "(1871)" can go into parentheses. That would make it in accordance with the article name for the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), also derived after much heated discussions.--Endroit 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have absolutely no problem with shortening the name of the article if that is a precondition for consensus, and putting the date in parenthesis is a possible alternative. I have one question: shall we also change the name of French Campaign against Korea, 1866 to something comparable or shall we leave it for the time being? In French Wikipedia, the article has been called Expédition en Corée du contre-amiral Roze since its creation, so I moved the English article some time ago to a similar name without any controversy. The two expeditions are linked and it would be neat - but not necessary - to keep them under similar names.--Amban 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Proposal - OK, I take it that we should have a shorter title of the article. What about Korean expedition (1871)? Then we leave room for other Korean expeditions to be move to Korean expedition (year).--Amban 01:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire to keep the title short and I'm sure your modification is meant well. But in a sense it seems worse to me than your original idea. "[Nation] [naval/military/etc] expedition to [Nation] [Year]" makes it pretty clear what "expedition" means. By contrast, "[Nation (adj)] expedition ([Year)]" does not. The sole nation that's named is here of course the victim/undergoer/scene/recipient, but it can look at first glance like the aggressor/perpetrator/adventurer/explorer/benefactor. Consider First Japanese Embassy to Europe (1862) for a moment; for the sake of concision, might one omit mention of Japan, or of Europe? In the appropriate context, I think one could omit either; but as a WP article, neither. -- Hoary 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a valid point, but now you have moved the discussion from what the shortest, and most verifiable English name of the incident is, to what the name of the incident should be. After some deliberations, some of us have come to the conclusion that variants of "Korean expedition" is a verifiable and reasonable way of rendering this incident into English. Perhaps not ideal, but that's not our job here.--Amban 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
within a work about US military activities, "Korean expedition" is understandable. But WP isn't such a work. (Likewise, within a work about incursions into Korea, "U.S. expedition" is understandable.) Yes, it (or variations on it) has verifiably been used. But this doesn't make its use helpful or reasonable here. Not only is it not ideal, it's not even close. For WP purposes (though not for some other purposes), it's pretty bad. It seems odd to substitute for an existing title (and a title that has already survived a longish discussion) either a verbose title or a title that can easily be misunderstood. You may wish to give further consideration to Jjok's proposal below of "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)". -- Hoary 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, you are not very constructive at all, which makes it hard to reach consensus.--Amban 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the argument that the title "has already survived a longish discussion" is a red herring - it would appear it has only done so by default. 81.104.175.145 10:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it seems that I'm not agreeing with you. If it's this that constitutes not being constructive at all, then OK, I'm not being constructive at all. Otherwise: I considered your proposal, I didn't like it, and I said why; I considered your new proposal, I liked it even less (while appreciating one element of it), and I said why. I'm happy with "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)", a suggestion that seems to have little interest for you. -- Hoary 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to agree on one name and as of yet there is no second "Korean Expedition" there is no need for "(disambiguation)" by year. The only reason for including the year would be to accommodate Septentrionalis' "Korean Expedition of 1871, so we don't have to set up a sort key." (Although I do not understand what he means. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to settle on one of these alternatives and move the page. There are actually a number of different expeditions, so a (year) disamb doies make sense. I have to run, hope to be back later today.--Amban 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about these?

Ganghwa Island incident (1866): French
Ganghwa Island incident (1871): US
Ganghwa Island incident (1875): Wae

Jjok 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with them as such, but can you back them up with any reliable sources?--Amban 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can believe the articles, each was an incident on or centered on Ganghwa Island. It could be claimed that "incident" is a dreadful euphemism, but it's a conventional euphemism and thus understandable (cf the ubiquitous "defense" to include offense, invasion, occupation, etc). Question of euphemism aside, it doesn't seem to push a PoV. The word "incident" has a lowercase "i", and there is thus no implied claim that this is an "official" (?) name. If the meaning isn't immediately clear, at least it's not misleading. So the proposal seems an acceptable one to me. -- Hoary 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Althought it would be most helpful if names of wars, campaigns and battles were consistent, that is not how military history names things. For example the "Battle of France" and the was not a battle it was a campaign. The "Western Desert Campaign" was fought in the eastern Sarah (the US military name "Egypt-Libya Campaign" is more logical but hardly ever used) and the "Battle of Berlin" was the last major offensive of World War II. It was fought on the Eastern Front which was a theatre. So good idea that it is, naming the three incidents by similar names for clarity is not Wikipedia policy or practice. Naming them after common names or using descriptive names when there is no common name is Wikipedia policy or practice --Philip Baird Shearer 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying here, but I think it's that names that are most commonly used in English for military battles, etc. that are widely known in the anglophone world are not consistent. Your examples seem to back up such a contention and I wouldn't argue with it. I don't see how it helps WP to choose the best titles for articles on military incidents that are very little known in the anglophone world. This incident has no common name in English. Terms such as "Korean Expedition" may be used, but they're hardly "common" and they're likely to be used in contexts that make it clear that Korea was the scene and not the perp, that it was in the 19th century, etc. The context is lacking in the title of a WP article. So, with no common name in English (and since several people oppose the common name in Korean), then please consider the neutral yet informative name "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)". -- Hoary 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you support Ganghwa Island Incident (1871), why don't you go ahead and do some research to support that alternative. Then we have something to discuss. Variants of the "Korean expedition" is as close as we get to a common name at this stage.
As to whether this incident is known in the Anglophone world is besides the point, and I don't understand why you reiterate that argument. --Amban 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, then I shall explain. An incident that is unknown in the anglophone world cannot have a common name in English. An incident that is hardly known in the anglophone world can hardly have a common name in English. Your favored term "Korean Expedition [qualifier]" can thus be only trivially commoner in English than "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)". -- Hoary 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary you opposed the name "US Naval Expedition to Korea 1871" commenting "The proposed title has eighteen syllables rather than just four". When it is changed to a suggestion of "Korean Expedition" you say "I appreciate your desire to keep the title short and I'm sure your modification is meant well. But in a sense it seems worse to me than your original idea. ..." and persumably you can not be supporting the current name as it does not include mention of nations or year. So are you now saying that you do not object to the initial proposal? If so please change your opinion in the survey. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I opposed "US Naval Expedition to Korea 1871". And I still oppose it.
The proponent of the change to that name now seems to have changed his mind about it. He still doesn't like the existing name but he has doubts about his proposed name. His latest proposal (I think) is tentatively "Korean expedition (1871)".
I appreciate his openmindedness and his willingness to express his doubts. I'd like to accede to his new proposal. But I can't: it strikes me as worse than its predecessor. In brief, although it's shorter it's very ambiguous. (Fuller explanation here (lower part) and here.)
I haven't yet chewed it over thoroughly, but Jjok's suggestion of "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)" strikes me as a good one. If that later became the proposal being voted on, I don't see myself as opposing it.
Jjok's suggestion aside for a moment, what's going on here? It's confusing, to say the least, when there's a discussion/vote such as this and the person who proposed the change makes a radical alteration to the proposal and expects the discussion/vote to continue rather than start afresh. (I do note that at least one vote was carefully positioned to agree with the original proposal rather than the altered one.) -- Hoary 08:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vote it is a survey in an attempt to build a consensus. As the discussion progresses hopefully everyone can agree on a compromise even if that compromise is not the name that most people wanted initially. What is important is that the resulting name fulfills Wikipedia policies and guidelines better than the previous name did. Often to build a consensus it is necessary for people to change the initial opinion that they expressed in the survey and I commend Amban for making such a change. As to the question of "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)" as a name what are the reliable sources that use this name or is it meant to be descriptive? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see where Hoary's latest objections are taking the discussion. I will respond separately to those objections. As I see it, we have three possible alternatives:
Of the above I prefer the first, since there are several Korean expeditions in the late nineteenth century and I think we should keep it clear which one we are referring to. It is not ideal, but the best I can come up with.
I am also open to Jjok's suggestion, but I'd like to see a couple of sources first. When I have time, I will check JSTOR to see what I come up with.--Amban 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to PBS: "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)" is descriptive. -- Hoary 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the other nineteenth-century expeditions? and do we have articles on them? (It looks like the French in 1866 might count as an expedition; but the Japanese in 1875 wouldn't: the Japanese ship was not sent to attack Korea, it was there anyway about its (supposedly) lawful occasions.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much care which of Amban's three short titles we use. We should not invent a descriptive phrase if there is an existing English name; especially if the existing English name is clearer to the non-expert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about expeditions. As for incidents, regardless of the Japanese intentions, they were party to what can be euphemistically termed an incident in the vicinity of the island. ¶ The name "Korean Expedition (1871)" doesn't explain whether Korea was agent or patient, doesn't name the other party, and (even when Korea is identified as the patient) doesn't indicate where in Korea it took place; it's a name that makes sense in a US history context but makes no sense in a Korean history context. "Ganghwa Island incident (1871)" makes sense in both contexts. -- Hoary 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sinmiyangyo hardly conveys any of that information to English speakers either. 81.104.175.145 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above remark.
And Hoary, this is déjà-vu all over again, you are not adding anything. If "Gangwha island incident (1871)" is you choice, please make an effort to verify that the name has some basis in English-language literature on the subject. And if you think that the agency in "Korean expedition" is unclear, I find it puzzling that you dismissed my first suggestion. We are not here to pass judgment on the most common or verifiable name in English, we are here to decided which of them suits Wikipedia best. If you want to change Wikipedia policy to give precedence to names which derive from the language where a historical event took place, by all means go ahead and try to change the relevant Wikipedia policy. But this is not the venue.
To everybody else, perhaps it is time to narrow in on a new name for the article. My choice would be Korean expedition (1871) in order to distinguish it from the French Campaign against Korea, 1866 and the Ganghwa Island incident. Do you think we are ready for a move? Please let me know.--Amban 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amban, your capacity for selectiveness in reading is mindboggling. You say And if you think that the agency in "Korean expedition" is unclear, I find it puzzling that you dismissed my first suggestion. Your first suggestion was "US Naval Expedition to Korea 1871", in which it is very obvious that it was the US that was the agent and Korea the patient. (And whatever other arguments can be raised for or against it, "French Campaign against Korea, 1866" is similarly clear in showing who stuck it to whom.) So no, I do not think we are ready for a move to your latest preferred title. ¶ You say: We are not here to pass judgment on the most common or verifiable name in English, we are here to decided which of them suits Wikipedia best. This assumes that the name must be "the most common or verifiable". The most commonly used name in English is one that assumes a US military perspective, and one that's unobjectionable within a US military history. However, WP is not a US military history; it's just as much a Korean history. In the context of Korean history, "Korean expedition (1871)" is, to put it charitably, bizarre. "Gangwha Island incident (1871)" is informative and neutral, and the lowercase "i" of "incident" is a reminder that it does not purport to be an established name. -- Hoary 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
???? Seriously, I have no idea what you mean by my selectiveness. Other editors have pointed out that your argumentation is inconsistent. I am loath to belabor the point.
Now, if you prefer Gangwha Island incident (1871), please come with some sources, so the discussion can move ahead.--Amban 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say apropos of "Korean expedition (1871)", that And if you think that the agency in "Korean expedition" is unclear, I find it puzzling that you dismissed my first suggestion i.e. "US Naval Expedition to Korea 1871". I dismissed the first suggestion for a reason unrelated to its specification of agent and patient. I see no inconsistency.
English allows the construction of noun phrases of the form "[placename] [noun] ([year])". For all I know, Jjok may have been the first person ever to string together the particular phrase "Gangwha Island incident (1871)". The phrase seems a good name to me. I don't prefer it to "Sinmiyangyo", but I do prefer it to either of your suggestions: it's a pretty straightforward and informative string, and not particularly long; it has a maximum of two syllables unfamiliar to the educated anglophone, and (perhaps trivially) it's a name that doesn't risk tiresome arguments over whether to use "US", "U.S.", "United States" or "American".
So all in all I think "Gangwha Island incident (1871)" should satisfy anybody, other perhaps a person dogmatically applying the rule of "most widely used in English", a rule that appears in this guideline (NB not policy) as If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. I'll take this as having been intended to cover incidents/expeditions too; let's not haggle over that. The same guideline also says: when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage. What we're discussing isn't a matter of translation, but note that the guideline itself points out that frequency of usage isn't all.
I too am loath to belabor points. I too am eager to "move ahead". For me, the way to move ahead is something other than the boneheaded application of a "rule" that will result in an uninformative title. -- Hoary 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinimyangyo, that is what I call an uninformative title. Ganghwa island incident is not a well established term for this event as far as I can, and you may call me boneheaded, but unless you can find a couple of sources supporting the name, I prefer that we shelve that suggestion for the time being.--Amban 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least for non-readers of Korean) Sinmiyangyo is a name. As a name, it's informative. Meanwhile, "Ganghwa island incident (1871)" is a description. Please read my paragraph above starting "English allows the construction". I'm sure you'd prefer to shelve the suggestion of a change to "Ganghwa island incident (1871)". I'd be happy to shelve the suggestion of any change to the title, but as long as you want a discussion of a change, I'm unwilling to have this particular suggestion shelved. -- Hoary 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has been dismissed, apparently, is that English-language sources for "S(h)ingmiyangyo" were provided (and they weren't mere blogs or equivalent, they were serious essays with substantial references - something very hard to find on the same subject elsewhere). There are no cases where any English language name of this event is established - only descriptive titles. There are precedents in Wikipedia - and elsewhere - to use names for subjects in the language of origin where no stable English equivalent is available. As for "Gangwha island incident (1871)", Hoary already noted that it as a descriptive title, not an established title - there being no such thing in English anyway, so the call for sources is inappropriate. Variants of "Korean expedition" are - frankly - absurdly ambiguous, and not merely a question of Hoary finding them mystifyingly "unclear", as the tone of Amban's comment suggests. Variants of "Korean expedition" would be correctly understood in precisely one country on earth - the United States, in any other country the title would likely be understood to suggest an expedition carried out by Koreans, and for readers in North or South Korea would be perplexing indeed. My earlier analogous examples of Ragnarök, Qilin, and Purim were dismissed out of hand - no substantial objection was provided. The event itself is almost nowhere to be found in English sources - so no surprise that Sinmiyangyo (and variants) are hard to come by. Way back when, I was among the first WP editors to create a (red) link to this event. At the time I used the term "United States naval expedition to Korea of 1871", but I was persuaded to shift to Sinmiyangyo because I couldn't see any non-knee-jerk reason not to use the established Korean name. I'm willing to be persuaded to some alternative - but, for the most part, I don't like what's been offered here. Any ol' (and fatally ambiguous) English name is not better than the established and precise Korean one. It's no excuse that because Western scholarship hasn't come to grips with its own history in Asia we should dismiss appropriate terminology. As with thousands of unfamiliar titles in Wikipedia, the article itself ought to provide the context and explanation for the name/subject, and after a moment of not knowing what to make of a title like pritchel, one reads on and comes to acquire some knowledge. Pinkville 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hate to debate a debate. But first things first, I have not dismissed your analogies to Ragnarök, Qilin, and Purim out of hand. Just go and read what I have said. Ragnarök and Purim both have entries in Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 edition. Qilin is a variant spelling of a word which is still known as Kirin in the OED. Yes, OED is not the sole authority on the English language, but it is better than anything you have come up with to defend Sinmiyangyo. You have yet to show us a single authoritative source that refers to this event as Sinmiyangyo. Yes, you have a couple of websites that refer to the Korean expedition as Sinmiyangyo, but these are of fairly recent origin. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new terms, we reflect reliable sources, preferably scholarly sources. And that is were you fall short.
But your position has nothing to do with verifiability or Wikipedia policy. You have a larger agenda, which is evident in your statement: It's no excuse that because Western scholarship hasn't come to grips with its own history in Asia we should dismiss appropriate terminology. First of all, you are wrong. There is literature on the subject. Some of it is very upfront about the role of US imperialism in the region. Start with Bruce Cumings. Second, it may very well be the case that Western historiography has not caught up with the role of US imperialism in a satisfactory way. We can discuss that at some other forum. But this is not the forum to set scholarship right.--Amban 01:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information, the name Ragnarök comes under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) and so is not a good example to use in ths debate because such names are used unless there is a common English spelling like Thor --Philip Baird Shearer 10:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that the debate is coming to a close and that the general argument is exhausting itself. The consensus seem to be to pick one of the shorter versions of the name, and suggest that we move it to Korean expedition (1871). Unless I hear any strongly dissenting votes from those who have voiced support of a move, I will go ahead and move the page within the next 12 hours or so. Hope that gives everybody the time to respond.--Amban 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I don't recall you being appointed the Authority for this page. The debate is not coming to a close - except, apparently, by your order. It is not up to you to define the parameters of the discussion or to characterise it according to your interests. I see no evidence of consensus.
Here's a quick summary of the existing and suggested titles for the article:
  • S(h)inmiyangyo - virtues: accuracy and precision; failing: not an English name
    • The failing is shared with other article names in WP, as I pointed out with Qilin, etc. Not a fatal flaw. The term has been used in English language contexts - including academic texts. (And here's an English language Korean newspaper article using the name Shinmiyangyo - or must we discount such sources? Versions of the same story are told - using the name Shinmiyangyo - in several other English language Korean news sources)
  • US expedition to Korea (1871), et al - virtues: accuracy and an English name; failings: overlong, there are many proximate variants, and it is less precise than S(h)inmiyangyo
    • No one variant with this styling is established in English, the variants can be found in various texts, often as ad hoc descriptors. This would be a descriptive title.
  • Korean expedition (1871), et al - virtue: brevity; failings: fatal ambiguity, imprecision, ethnocentricity
    • No one variant with this styling is established in English, the variants can be found in various texts, often as ad hoc descriptors. Agency is only (potentially) understood in the US and nowhere else. This would be a descriptive title.
  • Gangwha island incident (1871), et al - virtues: accuracy and precision; failings: possible confusion with Ganghwa Island incident of 1875
    • There may be no English language sources for this name or variants, which derive from the better established name for the Japanese-Korean conflict of 1875. This would be a descriptive title.
For a given WP article title, there may be a choice between a name from a language other than English and a descriptive name in English. If the latter is to be used, it must be accurate, precise and NPOV. The variants of Korean expedition (1871) therefore fail. The event is obscure in Anglophone scholarship (certainly vastly so in contrast to such events as the Second Opium War) and so no name for it has been established in English, only ad hoc descriptors. The Korean name is well established, however, and even appears in a handful of English texts, as well as English language news and tourism websites. Had there been a Wikipedia in the 19th century, there might have been a similar debate as to how to render 總理衙門 (Zongli Yamen) in English - from the start, the term has been maintained in its transliterated form, though that form has changed from Wade-Giles: Tsungli Yamen to Pinyin. But the option was always there to refer to the institution as Office in charge of Affairs of All Nations, perhaps abbreviated to OICAAN, or somesuch. A more recent example, perhaps? How about Oireachtas? Could be translated, but isn't (except in the first sentence of the article). The term has only been in use since the 1920s. I suppose after we're all done here we could head over to that page to move it to National Parliament of Ireland (1937-)... Pinkville 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amban announces: Unless I hear any strongly dissenting votes from those who have voiced support of a move, I will go ahead and move the page within the next 12 hours or so. I haven't voiced support of a move. Does that render any strongly dissenting vote of mine invalid?
I have, however, voiced opposition to "Korean Expedition (1871)" and the like. I've given my reasons for this. I've also voiced my willingness to have the article renamed "Gangwha island incident (1871)". So: I strongly dissent from the proposal to rename this article in any way yet devised that employs either the phrase "Korean expedition" or the phrase "Korean campaign" (for both, irrespective of capitalization). -- Hoary 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a library and I do not have time to respond to Pinkville's remarks at any length. As for Zongli yamen, an article I have helped to expand, I can say that the Zongli yamen has almost always being referred to as Zongli yamen in English - albeit in different spellings. To the extent that there ever was a debate, it was settled already in the 1870s and I do not feel any need to invent an English name for the Zongli yamen. The name is firmly established in the literature.
Well, yes, that was my point. The name is now firmly established, and was adopted at the earliest opportunity; I imagined a hypothetical 19th century Wikipedia in which there might have been a debate. If Zongli yamen (or Tsungli Yamen) was clear and practical enough for Anglophones then, and Oireachtas is accepted in Wikipedia now, why not Shinmiyango? Pinkville 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to establish new usages in English, simple as that. You want to write a book and an article about "Sinmiyangyo," go ahead and do it. If you have problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, go ahead and suggest changes. But this is not the venue.--Amban 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, S(h)inmiyangyo is not a neologism, it is merely rare - hardly a surprising fact since the event is rare in English-language scholarship. Compare with Oireachtas, which could be rendered in English, but isn't, even though nearly all WP articles on national houses of government are titled in English. There are reasons for Oireachtas to be an exception to the prevalent format, and I suggest there are reasons for the same with S(h)inmyangyo.; as the Naming conventions guideline says: If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Pinkville 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the authority of this page, but neither do Pinkville or Hoary have a veto. But I can say that this is the most deliberate attempt I have ever seen to disrupt the development of a consensus. There clearly is a consensus that the page should be moved, but instead of discussing what name should be chosen, two editors are trying to wear down other editors by extending the discussion indefitely. I am starting to suspect that these editors are not interested in reasonable consensus-building.
You might be wise to refrain from speaking for other editors. Jjok and Philip Baird Shearer continue to provide constructive content. And I am in no way trying to be obstructionist - I disagree with you (and your sweeping statements about the discussion), I disagree with moving the page, and I strongly disagree with your suggested new name (the Korean expedition proposal). Pinkville 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. All this talk about "being authority" and "bullying" that's just your civil way of expressing disagreement. How silly of me!--Amban 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not "being authority" (?!) - I never said that. I accused you of acting as a self-appointed Authority. "Bullying" is a term I used on 14 March in response to Niohe... though maybe you and she/he are one and the same? Regardless, the term hasn't been used since then by anyone on this page until you did moments ago. It's quite proper to criticise another editor's handling/railroading of a discussion in such terms - and you have attacked me and Hoary for being obstructionist, an accusation I flatly reject. I have written much on this page in an attempt to explain/defend my belief that the page should not be moved, only to have you repeatedly dismiss my comments (and with condescension), and to ascribe malevolent motives to my actions. These are examples of what I object to as an Authoritarian manner, as railroading, etc. So, would you like to approach this in a more constructive fashion? I made an attempt above (originally immediately followed by Jjok's helpful entry) to list the existing and proposed names for the article with their respective virtues and failings. Any interest in carrying on from there? By the way, Jjok's comment is pertinent and telling: Since I found some difficulty to find out what kind of consensus can be made through the survey.... Pinkville 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. -- Hoary 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if this offends the two editors, but that is what I feel. We may need to ask an adminstrator to take care of this move. It was clearly a mistake of me to come back to Wikipedia.--Amban 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: Pinkville states that the advantages of "Sinmiyangyo" are "accuracy and precision". May I ask if Pinkville has analyzed the term with the same rigor as he has analyzed other names for the event?
Now if we apply the Pinkville method of shredding names into pieces, we find that Sinmi is merely the Korean rendering of Chinese xinwei (辛未) in the Sexagenary cycle. In other words, Sinmi can refer to 1871, as well as 1631, 1691, 1751, 1811, 1871, 1931, 1991, 1811, 1931, and 1991. Yangyo (洋擾) is similarly vague about what power is involved, it just means "foreign incursion." If you want to be hypercritical of this term, it may just as well refer to a border clash between the Manchus and the Choson in the early 1600s or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
All very interesting, but is the term actually used for any event other than the one we're discussing? Pinkville 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your statement that Sinmiyangyo is accurate and precise. You were wrong and now you are changing the topic again.--Amban 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore more silliness, à la shredding names into pieces and changing the topic again. If, as I'm suggesting/asking, S(h)inmiyangyo is used in Korea only for this event, then it is both perfectly precise and accurate. Am I wrong? Is S(h)inmiyangyo used for events other than the one we're discussing? You haven't said that, you merely provided a direct translation of the term, much as I could translate Easter to a festival in honour of the (putative) Anglo-Saxon Goddess of the Dawn. Pinkville 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may need to ask an adminstrator to take care of this move. No. As it happens, I'm an administrator. But being an administrator doesn't and shouldn't give any additional weight to what I say. Ditto for any other administrator. Perhaps you had in mind some kind of external mediator, or a RfC. -- Hoary 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But back to the point: I don't feel that we are dealing with two editors that are trying to achieve any meaningful consensus and I'm getting fed up.--Amban 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and what I see is someone who zazzed by this page, believed that her/his desired change to the article name would be a snap, and got irritated that anyone should oppose her/his authority. But it doesn't really matter what I (or anyone else) think about the motives involved, does it. Pinkville 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, when I try to incorporate suggestions from other editors, then Hoary says that I am confusing the discussion. When I insist that we stick to WP:UE, you accuse me of trying to be the Authority.--Amban 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite obviously not the reason why I accused you of adopting an Authoritarian attitude. I explicitly responded to your rushing the debate, narrowing the options for a new article name to your preference, and boldly proclaiming that you would move the page in 12 hours - unless, as you said, there are any strongly dissenting votes to the move from those who have voiced support of a move - a formulation that is dazzling in its Orwellian logic. Pinkville 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful remarks; as if anything I did could not be undone. If you really are interested in being an anti-authoritarian hero on Wikipedia, perhaps you should choose you targets more boldly. Needless to say, I'm flattered by your undeserved attention.--Amban 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I may be harsh and you may find my attitude condescending. But I am trying to take responsibility for a discussion I have started and I am trying to bring it to a conclusion, in good faith. This page is about a historical event and there is no content dispute, so I think five days should be enough to establish consensus. You and Hoary are the only editors that oppose a move. If it is Orwellian logic to propose a move in line with what most editors have suggested, and to solicit suggestions from the editors who support the move, I am not sure I want to talk to you anymore.--Amban 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amban: when I try to incorporate suggestions from other editors, then Hoary says that I am confusing the discussion. Not quite. I can't think of anything I've written that in any way resembles this other than my comment above timestamped 08:00 4 June. (You'll find it if you search through the page for the string "Jjok's suggestion aside for a moment, what's".) I meant that the affair had seemingly become one of these odd WP votes that are sometimes claimed not to be votes, but are anyway about a fairly clearcut proposal (e.g. AfDs). As such, it had become confusing. Of course you're welcome to incorporate suggestions from other editors. Or even just to give them careful consideration before not incorporating them.
Amban: When I insist that we stick to WP:UE, .... Yes, WP:UE clearly recommends names most widely used in English in preference to names, however well attested in other languages, that are less widely used in English. But WP:UE says when there is no long-established history of usage of [a] term, then frequency of usage isn't all. Also, WP:UE is a guideline, not a policy; and lastly, Pinkville and I have objected to titles such as "Korean Expedition of 1871" for reasons that don't seem to have been addressed, other than by appeal to WP:UE or comments about our inferred motivation. -- Hoary 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary: Exactly what points have I not addressed?--Amban 00:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That "Korea Expedition (1871)" (together with minor variants thereof) is very unclear, not even indicating the relationship of Korea to the expedition. It could mean a diplomatic or conceivably military expedition by Korea, or a military, proselytizing, botanical or other expedition anywhere within Korea. When it's understood, it's clearly a Korea expedition from the US PoV; from the Korean PoV, it's a US expedition. I differ from Pinkville, or perhaps just from a hasty misreading of Pinkville's position, in hesitating to ascribe either name to ethnocentrism. Regardless of the ethnic makeup of the expected readership, "Korea expedition (1871)" would be an excellent name within a history of US military expeditions; "US expedition (1871)" likewise within a history of Korea. However, WP is neither of these and its article titles should not show biases that are large and unnecessary. -- Hoary 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to respond at any length to this, but I thought I had responded. Look, we are not here pass judgment on relatively well-established names, that's just not our job. Nowhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere have I encountered the requirement that names of wars and campaigns include both agent and patient. The Punic Wars were a series of wars where Rome defeated Carthage, no mention of Rome in the name.--Amban 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we're not here to pass judgment on relatively well-established names. But while "the Punic Wars" is well established, none of your suggestions for this article is well established. (Used, perhaps; well established, no.) -- Hoary 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the English language is concerned, they are more established than Sinmiyangyo. And I have provided a number of citations on this page to support my contention that "Korean expedition" is the most established name or description of this event. I can go as far back as the turn of the century and still find people referring to the event as Korean expedition, and I can give you references that date to the 1990s and they still use Korean expedition. Some of the Korean webpages that have been quoted here use Korean expedition to explain Sinmiyangyo. Before I even suggested to move this page, this article referred to the campaign as the Korean expedition. If that is not well-established for a relatively brief episode in East Asian history, I don't know what could possibly be called well-established.--Amban 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your measured reply. Well, hmm, the Nanjing/Nanking massacre comes to mind for a start. And the Marco Polo bridge incident. But I'll accept that this incident is about as well known as can be expected, that variations of the term "Korean expedition" are used, and that they're more used within English than is Sinmiyangyo. But this is as far as it goes, and I don't think it's sufficient. Above, you give four examples. I'll shorten them radically, but I think not misleadingly: Szczesniak, "the American expedition to Korea"; Anderson, "Low's menacing naval expedition to Korea"; Palais, "the U. S. expedition of 1871"; Paullin: "Rear-Admiral John Rodgers, proposed the sending of a naval expedition to Korea". In each, it's made clear that this is an expedition to Korea. All four provide the context that's lacking from "Korean Expedition (1871) and the like. -- Hoary 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reorganization of Requested move

[edit]

keep Sinmiyangyo

[edit]
  • Oppose - Unnecessary addition of non-English name, which has weak support in secondary sources.--Amban 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above. I myself almost never saw "Sinmiyangyo" in any English sources. (Wikimachine 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - Though moving to Shinmiyangyo might be an idea to fit the sources more closely. Pinkville 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - a no-brainer (WP:UE) 81.104.175.145 07:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Proper names do not require English titles, the Korean name (with or without the h) is often used in English sources, and there does not appear to be a common English name for this event. The government of the United States uses "Korean Campaign", which is almost absent from the choices below. Additionally, I'm unconvinced that the meaning of the Korean term, related to the battle, is equivalent to the English ones mentioned, which also concern the voyage. Dekimasuよ! 02:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to expedition

[edit]
  1. Oppose. Ridiculously vague. -- Hoary 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Supprt - viable title per WP:COMMONNAME. 81.104.175.145 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Vague. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Ridiculously vague. -- Hoary 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Vague. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support --Amban 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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))[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Oppose - would be a proper noun in this form. 81.104.175.145 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Fatally ambiguous and vague. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - reasonable, clear, readily understandable. The title doesn't have to give complete information, it just needs to be a suitable label for the article. --Reuben 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Good friend100 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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))[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Support - a viable title per WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps you'd like to move World War II to Campaign by UK, USA and USSR against Germany, Italy and Japan, to make sure all parties are named? 81.104.175.145 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Fatally ambiguous and vague. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Very well established in literature. Even Korean sources use this as a term.--Amban 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per my comments above. --Reuben 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Good friend100 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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))[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Fatally ambiguous and vague. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Just a variant of the previous name.--Amban 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per previous variant ... added in this edit by Reuben
  1. Support per above reasoning. (Wikimachine 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Oppose, because of its length. (Moreover, MoS:ABB would dictate "U.S.".) -- Hoary 07:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Overlong. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - a bit long, but OK. --Reuben 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support per above reasoning. (Wikimachine 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Oppose, because of its length. (Moreover, MoS:ABB would dictate "U.S.".) -- Hoary 07:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC) .... PS as a percentage, eighteen syllables is appreciably greater than the current four. -- Hoary 08:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument over length fails because it is completely and utterly irrelevant. 81.104.175.145 07:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Harsh words, IP! But strangely, almost 24 hours ago somebody using the same IP said [see not far below] that length would be an issue if it were the length were great, thus implying that length was relevant. Of course you're free to disagree with each other, but it would be less confusing if you logged in under different usernames. -- Hoary 10:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse my other self. As much as I try to prevent it, every now and again they escape and get up to mischief. Anyway, the two statements are not contradictory. The length issue is irrelevant, because we don't decide article titles by length. As I said (directly below), you might have a point if the proposal were to move it to something stupidly long, but six words is a reasonable length, and the fact that the current title has four syllables is neither here nor there. I'm also not seeing why the spoken length of a title makes a difference in a written medium. 81.104.175.145 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Length is not an issue here. It might be if the proposal were to move it to United States naval expedition centered predominantly on Ganghwa Island or thereabouts, but also to neighbouring areas of Korea too. Lowercase "n" in "naval", though. 81.104.175.145 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Overlong. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per my comments above. --Reuben 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support per above reasoning. (Wikimachine 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Oppose, because of its length. -- Hoary 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Overlong and oddly ordered. Pinkville 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - A bit long, but we already have French Campaign against Korea, 1866, which was moved to its present name without opposition.--Amban 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to campaign

[edit]
  1. Oppose because of its length. -- Hoary 07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Overlong and oddly ordered. Pinkville 11:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to others

[edit]
  1. Support - clear enough, but options above may be preferable --Reuben 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please only add new entry above and discuss below.

Discussion

[edit]

Since I found some difficulty to find out what kind of consensus can be made through the survey, I try to summarize the points. Jjok 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep or move?
  2. If move, to expedition, campaign, or something else
  3. How to describe US or not
  4. How to describe the year "1871", ",1871", "(1871)"
  5. E or e, C or c?
Here is my interpretation of the state of play:
  1. There is clearly a consensus to move the page.
  2. Most editors have expressed themselves in favor or "expedition".
  3. Most editors wish to shorten the title, so my guess is that
  4. I may be wrong, but (1871) seems to be the most straightforward way. I personally have no strong opinion.
  5. Most seem to prefer capital "E", but valid arguments have been raised against.
So the way things stand, we would move the page to Korean expedition, 1871 or Korean expedition (1871). These are my two cents.--Amban 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus is somewhat confused given the number of options and the several places where opinions might be registered. It might help to have a poll in several stages: 1. nominate potential titles; 2. everyone can register "support" for any subset that they find acceptable, including a note with relative preferences if they wish; 3. close after specified number of days. Allowing everyone to support as many of the options as they see fit can make it clear which ones are most broadly acceptable. --Reuben 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can use the reorganized poll by Jjok above, add any improvements as you see fir. When do you suggest we close the poll? I will go to behind the Great Firewall early next week and may not be able to take care of this anymore.--Amban 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently the only discussion in the backlog at WP:RM, so one or another administrator will likely take care of this close soon. You don't need to worry about resolving it yourself, and I would actively encourage you not to close it since you've been so involved in the discussion here. Dekimasuよ! 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so we do require an administrator for this WP:RM after all? Hoary - an administrator - just scoffed at the suggestion that we need an administrator to take care of this.--Amban 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did? The only remark I can think of that might have any bearing on this is one of those I made in this set. I hadn't been aware that this was a matter on WP:RM, and had interpreted the comment to which I was replying as one inviting the additional assumed wisdom (?) of an administrator. I didn't intend to scoff, and I don't notice any scoffing as I reread what I wrote. -- Hoary 06:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US-Korean conflict of 1871

[edit]
just an idea, as I find both "expedition" and "campaign" to fall somewhat short of neutrality. -- Visviva 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
I agree. "Expedition" and "campaign" may imply some sort of western imperialism where the western scouts explore into the deep uncivilized jungles of the west. (Wikimachine 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Of course, this was a clearcut example of an aggressive action by the US... Korea was a sitting duck, so to speak. Pinkville 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is far better than Sinmiyangyo, but not very well established in the literature. As for neutrality, I don't really see how expedition and campaign would fail in neutrality. It's just two words that indicate that one country is sending troops to another. We can deal with the question who was the aggressor in the article.--Amban 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinmiyangyo/Archive_1&oldid=1052812812"