Talk:Ganghwa Island incident

This incident is also in Korean. How is it that nobody found any Korean articles? And an English search on Google is totally not sufficient. Please do something because this is a one sided view of the situation. I'd like to see what Joseon's perspective was.

I am not sure if the image mentioned below has been originally added here or to the Imperial Japanese Navy article [1] so I am trying both - kind of think it must have been here... Anyway, there is a problem with one of the images: The landing of the Japanese marines from the Unyo at Ganghwa Island, Korea, in the 1875 Ganghwa Island incident[2]. The Japanese troops here land under the Kyokujitsu-ki (Morning Sun) flag (the one with sun rays). At the time of Ganghwa incident Kyokujitsu-ki was still an Army flag. There is another woodblock print showing this incident: The landing of the forces of the Unyo at Ganghwa Island [3]. Here the troops are landing under historically correct naval battalion flag while the ship sports - also historically correct - Hinomaru. Where did this picture (The landing of Japanese marines...) actually come from? The source quoted is somehow vague - "Saigo Takamori and Okubo Toshimichi"???
Wirza (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, maybe some kind of anachronism if you are right about the flag (I don't know about the chronology of the flag itself). The picture says in Japanese "Landing of the troops of the ship Unyo at Yeongjong Island" (near Ganghwa). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In Korean, the incident is known as ko:운요호 사건 "Unyo-ho sageon" meaning "Unyo incident" while the Japanese article is called ja:江華島事件 "Kōkatō jiken" which is the "Ganghwa Island incident".

Since this incident took place in Korea, wouldn't it be appropriate to go with the Korean naming and moving the article to Unyo incident? --Himasaram 05:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just checked on Google. "Gangwa island incident" has 432 hits, "Unyo incident" 32, which might suggest "Gangwa island incident" is the most accepted naming in English pages. Similar articles use an English, rather than Korean, designation, at least on the English Wikipedia: "French Campaign against Korea, 1866", "United States expedition to Korea (1871)". We could make a redirect from Unyo incident. PHG 06:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Google is IMHO an imperfect way to measure what term is used academically, especially with so few hits. I don't say we should use a Korean designation over a widely accepted English one. However it doesn't make sense to favor a Japanese one in this case. --Himasaram 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, these hits come from the English-language Google, not the Japanese-language one. Although imperfect, they are an indication of English usage. Would you have more information about academic usage? PHG 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with PHG. As the Japanese woodblock print, "Gangwa island" in the western documents will let us and future generation to find this historical event more easily. Are there any pictures left in Korean name? - Brionis 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The best way to measure the extent to which a name is the most used academically is to make a search in JSTOR. I don't have time to make the search myself, but very much doubt such a search would favor the Korean name.--Amban 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although the Japanese article is also called 江華島事件, it says that it is also called 雲揚号事件 in Japan. Perhaps that should also be included in the initial naming description.

I've just added two Japanese language references for some of the content, based upon research I've been doing. At its present state, the sentence "However, the Joseon Dynasty refused to receive the letter because it contained the Chinese characters 皇 and 勅" currently has three references, as follows:

japan815 Debate to conquer Korea (Korean)

国史大辞典編集委員会編, ed. 國史大辭典. Vol. 9. Tokyo: 吉川弘文館, 1988, p 503 (Japanese)

Oriental Studies at Oxford University MODERN EAST ASIA, CHINA, KOREA, AND JAPAN page 4; 2) Transition to Modernity I: What was done to Korea?

japan815 appears to be a personal site, and the Oriental Studies .pdf link is no longer valid. One can find a newer version via Oxford's website, however. I have thus deleted both these references. Is there any stipulation however over a need for referenced content on the English version of Wikipedia to be in English? B Gallagher (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply