Talk:Bank of Korea (1909–1950)

Naming of article
The bank was named "Bank of Chosen", certainly from 1910-1945, and for the most part during the American occupation, when it was sometimes called "Bank of Chosun" -- and not "Bank of Joseon". It is referred to by this name by almost every English language historical source. To name a few (excluding Japanese sources in English):



The transliteration "Joseon" is used on occasion by modern Korean writers, but this is English Wikipedia, not Korean Wikipedia --MChew (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (ec) You said you had a discussion which implies there was a consensus for your page move, but "none". "Bank of Chosen" is neither English words nor "Japanese", Chōsen Ginkō in Japanese. I will look into the books to confirm your claim.--Caspian blue 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You moved the page again.--Caspian blue 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not refuted the above. The name Bank of Chosen is well referenced. Bank of Joseon is not the name by which the bank was referred to during its existance as an arm of Japanese imperialist control of Korea, nor is it the name commonly used in western scholarship. --MChew (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done checking the sources that you present, to sum up - you're cherry picking for your POV, and "Bank of Chosen" is not "well referenced". Except two books, the books have no mention of "Bank of Chosen", but "Bank of Korea", or Chosen Jinko (with macron in parenthesis), the Japanese pronunciation or Korean pronunciation. So please do not insist over the spurious source. According to your logic and your sources, the name should be at "Bank of Korea".
 * McNamara, 151p. Bank of Korea and Bank of Chosen
 * Chung, 131p "Bank of Korea" is prevalently used than a few mention of "Bank of Chosen"
 * Kenneth B. Lee no result of "Bank of Chosen", but 150p "Bank of Korea"
 * Calder, 79p. no result of "Bank of Chosen", but Bank of Korea, only one mention of Chosen Jinko.


 * If you insist that the "Romanization", Joseon is not mentioned in the book, I would like to ask you how come you conclude that "Bank of Chosen" is well referenced more than "Bank of Korea"? Please tell me.--Caspian blue 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also research on other names in Google books.
 * Books 1 - 5 of 5 on "Bank of Joseon"
 * Books 1 - 50 of 72 on "Bank of Choson"
 * Books 301 - 305 of 455 on "Bank of Chosen"
 * Books 151 - 179 of 279 on "Bank of Chosun"
 * 301 - 350 of 1,212 on "Bank of Korea" Japanese.

So given the research, and your books, "Bank of Chosen" is not the "well established" name referring to the bank. The other names are of course "well-referenced" with "English sources". Moreover, the articles omits the fact that the bank was jointly established by the Korean Empire before the annexation in 1910. So I don't see why your insistence should be kept for the article.--Caspian blue 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conversely, I do not see your insistence on the transliteration “Joseon”, which by your own research is the least commonly used when compared with Chosen/Choson/Chosun. Please watch your accusations about “spurious sources”. Your google search on Bank of Korea included many, many references to the modern post-1950 Bank of Korea which has no relevance. Yes, by pure translation, the name for this article should be “Bank of Korea”, but to use this name would create obvious confusion with the modern-day post-1950 Bank of Korea, rather than the Japanese colonial period bank. What it comes down to is how to transliterate the Japanese colonial period 朝鮮銀行. During the 1910-1945 period,the name “Chosen Ginko” (i.e. “Chosen Bank” / “Bank of Chosen”) was the name used throughout most of the bank’s existence. As you point out, some of the English sources which use “Bank of Korea” also add “Chosen Ginko” in parenthesis. Shall we go with “Bank of Korea (Chōsen Ginkō)” if you find “Bank of Chosen” so objectionable? --MChew (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My moves were essentially procedural ones just to reverse of your unilateral move (your first message to this page is just your declaration, not "discussion"), so my attempt for going back to the original title could not be a ground for your accusation. I have been not insisting on keeping the title, "Bank of Joseon" per the research. I rather said that "Bank of Korea" is more prevalently found than "Bank of Chosen". Moreover, don't forget about the fact that Japan still calls Korea (both North and South Korea) "Chosen" in Japanese, and that the bank existed until 1950 after Korea was liberated in 1945, so if you insists that most of the bank was under the Japanese occupation period, so the bank should be named with the Japanese pronunciation is just wrong. You know that I object to the "Bank of Chosen" because it is neither English nor here is Japanese Wikipedia, then what ground you believe that Bank of Korea (Chōsen Ginkō) is the second choice? That is also beyond the naming convention. I also found that "Bank of Korea (Choson eunhaeng)" in "English books", so I guess you can happily consider to include this new alternative. I also correctly pointed out on the "spurious sources because you said "Bank of Chosen" is well referenced by "English scholarship" which is simply false according to the research. Joseon Dynasty is not named "Chosen Dynasty", so "Bank of Joseon" is consistent with the article. Some sources say that the current Bank of Korea is based on the bank, merge could be an option if you seem to be so knowledgeable of the topic even though you obviously missed many points that I raise.--Caspian blue 04:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your objection to the name “because it is neither English nor here is Japanese” makes no sense. Likewise “Bank of Joseon” is "neither English nor Korean”. What about all of the existing Korean bank articles; i.e. Shinhan Bank instead of Shinhan Eunhaeng or Kookmin Bank instead of Gungmin Eunhaeng, etc? Or all the Japanese bank articles: i.e. Mizuho Bank instead of Mizuho Ginko? If the issue was simply procedural since you claim to have discovered that “Bank of Korea” is more prevalent, they why revert to the uncommon “Bank of Joseon” name? Your own Google data (which you have been beating me on the head with) shows that "Bank of Joseon" is the least used name of any varient. What it boils down to is that you appear specifically opposed to use of the word “Chosen” presumably because it is a Japanese word which you feel has pro-Japanese connotations or is somehow offensive? The bank (which was a Japanese-owned and controlled company for most its 1910-1950 existence), was not named after the Joseon dynasty, but for the pre-WWII Japanese name for Korea.  You have attacked my position from all angles, but you have not offered any reasonable justification for the use of the transliteration “Joseon” over  “Chosen”. I willing to listen to a neutral compromise to an alternative name such as "Bank of Korea (pre-1950)", etc., as a better option than a merge into the post-1950 Bank of Korea article to bring this discussion to an amicable close. --MChew (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, Chosen is a mere Japanese pronunciation of Joseon, not Japanese word. You're making a lot of allegation based on "non-existent claims". The contested naming is not the matter of pro-Japanese or the other, but about of accuracy and history. Many English books or encyclopedia have independent entries on Choson Dynasty (Joseon Dynasty), not "Chosen". My objection to your unilateral moves are to go back to the original and my research is to show that your insistence is different from the research in English. Since you're making a big deal out of the Romanization between Choson and Joseon, I'll tell this. According to the internet search, McCune Romanization are dominantly used for all Korean topics than Revised Romanization because its age in use is shorter than the other one, but for whatever reason, English Wikipedia adapts to use the Revised Romaniztion which has been used as the official Romonization of South Korea since 2001. So googling in websites could result some decent amount of information with names in Revised Romanization. Your example of modern South Korean and Japanese banks are just incomparable. They perfectly follows Japanese or Korean naming conventions because the names are what they call themselves in English. According to the Korean naming convention, naming should follow their "specially preferred or identified names" and otherwise pre-1945 and South Korea subjects use "Revised Romanization of Korea". If the bank in question was established "solely" by Japanese investment and closed during the Japanese occupation period, your insistence may meet some merit. Koreans was also liberated from the forced usage of Japanese from 1945, so "Bank of Chosen" just incorrectly indicates that Koreans used Japanese until 1950. I have no problem with Bank of Korea (pre-1950) but as I said, "merge" could be options with more research because many sources say that the bank is the predecessor of Bank of Korea or treats them the same bank.--Caspian blue 01:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By your own statement, naming should follow "specially preferred or identified names", which is why "Kookmin Bank" is not "Gungmin Bank" in Wikipedia. Take a look at bank notes issued by 朝鮮銀行. An example on the internet can be found at http://www.a-saida.jp/russ/sibir/vetvi/chosen.htm although many other sources exist. The name "Bank of Chosen" is printed on the banknotes issued by the bank in question, indicating that this was the official Romanization and the "specially preferred transliteration" in English used by the bank from 1910-1945. It may have used "Choson", "Chosun" or "Choson" during the brief 5-year period it was operated by the American occupation authorities from 1945-1950, and if so, this should certainly be stated in the article, but the relevance of the article is the bank during the 35-year period previous to this. It certainly did not use the Revised Romanization "Joseon" as its offical name in English during that time. If you indeed wish to maintain accuracy in history, then the name/transliteration the bank chose to use for itself should be used!--MChew (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the actually "usual" finding unlike your earlier book sources that do not confirm your claim. The source is not in English, so please quote and translate the date info for non-Japanese speakers - since when and until the bill was issued and used if the cite has. Since you're comparing Shinhan Bank with the bank in question, I must say about another example for you. Shinhan Bank was established actually in 1982 by some Jaeil gyopo (Korean residents in Japan), but not only the bank site but also reliable sources state the foundation date being "1892" which is actually the history of Chohung Bank. Chohung Bank was founded as "Hanseong Bank" in 1896, and changed its former name to the name in 1940s. Surely, Hanseong Bank would be also called in Japanese pronunciation during the Japanese occupation period, but Chohung Bank survived with the Korean name until its incorporation to Shinhan Bank in 2006. So the name Chohung is gone. Back to the issue, the bank in question is surely called "Bank of Choson" (조선은행) before, throughout, and after the occupation period by Koreans. However, "the name" in English matters for the point. So I expect you can show me evidences that the bank was referred to as "Bank of Chosen" from 1945 to 1950 in English. That you insist on using your preferred title and believe that overriding with it over the 6 years in which of course Koreans did not use Japanese just sound "illogical" to me. Most of people do not know what Willis Tower is, but know Sears Tower, but the article is at Willis Tower because of its rightful ownership. We can happily agree with your claim if you provide evidences on that matter.
 * I'm also wondering as to why you kept looking down the period from 1945 to 1950 in Korea. During the time, South Korea established her official "government of South Korea" in 1948 unlike Japan. You seem to consider the Surrender of Japan to the U.S and the subsequent US rule of Japan until 1953 are the same as the concurrent period in Korea. Hmm, no. Occupation of Japan and many others say a different story from your view. I also said that "merge" is an option, so please keep researching to resolve the dispute.--Caspian blue 20:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)