Talk:Chŏng Mong-ju

Requested move 14 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: '''No consensus so move back to long term title of Jeong Mong-ju &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeong Mongju → Jeong Mong-ju – 95.77.154.17 had asserted with a BOLD edit the name should be Jeong Mong-ju not Jeong Mongju. I reverted due to no reason/edit-sumamry given and causing errors (such as breaking the image and commons category link). However they have posted both a general message on my talk page and the list of sources below. The article was moved from Jeong Mong-ju 17 April 2017‎ at the request of User:Brett Cox citing Revised Romanization of Korean. Source from 95.77.154.17 follow:

Then, see all these very reliable sources about Jeong Mong-ju (and not Jeong Mongju): 1.	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzWcpmqaX2E (00:39, 01:45, 02:15, 02:45, etc.) Arirang is a Korean television and knows how to transliterate Korean names. - so, it’s an authority! Jeong Mong-ju’s is with “-”.

2.	Two sites - a Korean book of history, written by a Korean author: Kang Jae-eun. Even his name is with “-”: See pages 257, 258, etc. - where Jeong Mong-ju’s name has “-”. Also, you’ll see that all Korean names have “-”! See also the book cover with author’s name: Kang Jae-eun. https://books.google.ro/books?id=XB4UYXNQK1wC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=Jeong+Mong-ju+in+korean+sites&source=bl&ots=8Ze1Rjcm68&sig=a4T54qXOQ_XEbBkVAtmBcr_mSNw&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJponbme7TAhUEG5oKHeozCQUQ6AEIZjAJ#v=onepage&q=Jeong%20Mong-ju%20in%20korean%20sites&f=false and http://www.homabooks.com/general/books/east_asia/korea/1045.php

3.	The site of the National Museum of Korea - a very reliable source about Jeong Mong-ju. Here: https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/relic/represent/view?relicId=493 , here https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/relic/represent/view?relicId=2938 , here https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/relic/represent/view?relicId=2707 ,

4.	For Korean names, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_given_names. Almost all Korean names have “-”.

5.	For other Korean names, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PdWDpqQNTg 00:44 and 01:10 for Moon Jae-in, 01:36 for Yim Dong-wook, 01:48 for Kim Ji-yeon. So, all Korean names have “-”.

6.	On Jeong Mong-ju (with “-”) - see the site of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea: http://overseas.mofa.go.kr/webmodule/htsboard/template/read/legengreadboard.jsp?typeID=16&boardid=9625&seqno=708199&c=&t=&pagenum=1&tableName=TYPE_ENGLEGATIO&pc=&dc=&wc=&lu=&vu=&iu=&du=

7.	On Jeong Mong-ju (with “-“), see the book: https://www.morebooks.de/gb/search?page=2&q=Goryeo&search_term=Goryeo&via_keyword=1

8.	Harvard University: see pages 38 and 39 on Jeong Mong-ju (written “Chong Mong-ju”), with “-”: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic787489.files/Early%20Korean%20Lit%203%20-%20Choson.pdf

It would appear that at least several of the users sources are reliable sources, also the authority controls for Worldcat and VIAF bother concur with Jeong Mong-ju being correct. Also Revised Romanization of Korean does not appear to preclude the use of the hyphen and it fact it states It is permitted to hyphenate syllables in the given name, following common practice. where in this case the common practice (WP:COMMONNAME) is Jeong Mong-ju.

As such I concur with 95.77.154.17 that the page should be moved back. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Sky  Warrior  14:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed move for procedural reasons (to undo an undiscussed controversial move) but oppose it on the merits. This is a historical personage who never had a personal Romaja spelling of his name.  As such, we should follow the Wikipedia house style, i.e. RR, and there's no reason not to use it without the hyphen as preferred.  The MR-derived spelling Chong Mongju is probably more common than either of the choices here so WP:UCN arguments don't really hold.  —  AjaxSmack  03:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Jeong Mong-ju. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610070332/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=242963&v=44 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=242963&v=44

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

'Revolutionary'?
Really? I see nothing in the article that could justify that label. Attempting some reforms (which aren't described properly, so I don't even know how major they were) doesn't make one a revolutionary. For that matter, the description of the first Joseon king as a 'radical revolutionary' is odd, too. Just overthrowing an old dynasty and founding a new one doesn't make one a 'radical revolutionary'. The main article about the man says: 'Taejo emphasized continuity over change. No new institutions were created and no massive purges occurred during his reign. His new dynasty was largely dominated by the same ruling families and officials that had served the previous regime.' Doesn't sound very 'revolutionary' to me even by the standards of medieval founders of new dynasties. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that he was not a revolutionary, which is why I have removed that description which is unsupported by any sources. In fact most sources stated that he was a moderate reformer who opposed the founding a different dynasty.⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 06:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Jeong Mong-ju → Chŏng Mong-ju – Per WP:NCKO, McCune–Reischauer romanization should be used for pre-1945 Korean names. I would also argue it to be the more common name as well. Via Google NGrams, both Chong Mong-ju and its non-hyphenated form Chong Mongju, are more popular compared to Jeong Mong-ju. The sources I found (as well as in the article) also mostly preferred the McCune–Reischauer variant over Revised Romanization variant ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics, transliterations into English from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet likewise should not contain any marks that are not part of English. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:DIACRITICS, the usage of diacritics in non-English words is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Use generally depends on whether they appear in reliable English-language sources, though with some additional constraints imposed by site guidelines. Also, if your opposition is just to diacritics only, would you be okay with moving it to just "Chong Mong-ju" as "the romanization of names should adhere to a particular widely used system for the language in question", which for historical pre-1945 Korean figures is McCune–Reischauer. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My opposition is indeed solely based upon the use of diacritics and I would support the alternative form without the diacritic: Jeong Mong-ju → Chong Mong-ju. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As @CountHacker stated, MOS:DIACRITICS neither encourages nor discourages the use of diacritics. Precedents abound:
 * Ch'ŏk Chun-gyŏng
 * Yi Cha-gyŏm
 * Ch'oe Ch'ung-hŏn
 * Ariq Böke
 * Möngke
 * Paul Erdős
 * Wilhelm Röntgen
 * The claim that the English language does not use diacritics is false as well. Use of diacritics may be rare in English and may depend on the national varieties of English (American English certainly uses diacritics less), but it's still permitted and commonplace for certain words, albeit mostly loanwords (e.g., façade, naïve, daïs, lèse-majesté). Motjustescribe (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I have explained in previous discussions, my opposition is limited to accents and diacritics used in English-language transliterations from languages, such as Japanese, Hebrew or Arabic, that do not use the Latin alphabet. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your dislike of diacritics—I share it. My friends and I often joke about The New Yorker's insistence on using diereses in words like reëlection and coöperate. However, I believe the line you're drawing between languages that use the Latin alphabet and those that don't might benefit from further consideration.
 * For instance, Turkish didn't use the Latin alphabet until Ataturk reformed their writing system, abandoning the Arabic script. Does Turkish count as a language using the Latin alphabet now? Russian, written in Cyrillic, is a Latin derivative and uses ë occasionally. Should romanized Russian words be allowed diacritics? Ariq Böke and Möngke are Mongolian, and the Mongolian government announced they would revert to using the Mongolian script starting in 2025. Would you say Ariq Böke and Möngke should drop their umlauts in 2025?
 * Ultimately, a government romanizing their writing system is merely publishing a set of rules for representing sounds in the language using the Latin alphabet. McCune-Reischauer and Revised Romanization are doing the same thing, after all—except that there's no government educating the populace about the new rules and enforcing consistent application of them. Therefore, when you say languages that officially went Latin and those that didn't should be treated differently, you are essentially advocating for diacritics use in government-issued rules and against diacritics use in nongovernment-issued rules. For your position to be convincing, you should consider presenting a logical reason why governments and nongovernment entities should be treated differently and why the different treatment should manifest in the form of diacritics use. Motjustescribe (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your detailed explanation. Wikipedia editors can glance at List of Wikipedias to confirm which among the 331 active Wikipedias use the Latin alphabet. Occasionally, even Latin alphabet WP:COMMONNAME issues arise, such as dropping of diacritics in Vietnamese names that are known in English (Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem). As for Turkey, a recent sore point for the country is that despite Türkiye being adapted as the official UN and US English-language exonym, its common English name continues to be Turkey. Even if/when the revised country name becomes commonly used, the form would almost certainly be Turkiye, rather than Türkiye, since no country name bearing accents or diacritics in its native Latin-alphabet form is commonly depicted in English as such. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the diacritics align with WP:NCKO. We've hashed this out already before with Roman Spinner at Talk:Kwansŏ. Please do not make us have the same conversation verbatim again. 211.36.142.234 (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a question: if the dividing line is 1945, are we going to move Joseon to Chosŏn and Goryeo to Koryŏ? If not, what explains the inconsistency? Motjustescribe (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Motjustescribe, I would say the inconsistency is mostly due to the result of WP:COMMONNAME. In the case of most pre-1945 Korean historical figures, the only English language mention they will usually have is in the pages of a Korean Studies journal or book. The overwhelming majority of these books and journal articles tend to use the McCune–Reischauer romanization. However, in the case of the names of historical Korean states, the WP:COMMONNAME is more unclear. It is quite possible that the common name for the Korean historical states is the Revised romanization rather than McCune-Reischauer. If the common name for is the Revised Romanization variant, then the article should be appropriately titled as such despite WP:NCKO saying most pre-1945 history should be in M-R. These sorts of romanization inconsistencies occur for other languages as well. For example, the Chinese military expert is called Sun Tzu not Sunzi, and the Chinese texts of the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching are called that rather than the Dao De Jing nor the Yijing respectively. These article names all use Wade–Giles romanization rather than the standard pinyin used for most articles about China. If the more WP:COMMONNAME for Goryeo and Joseon, is the McCune-Reischauer romanizations of Koryŏ and Chosŏn, then those articles should probably be moved to those names. If you think that may be the case, I would suggest to have that discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) where it would be more appropriate instead of this page move request. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the other IP user; my understanding aligns with CountHacker's. I'll add that WP:NCKO and MOS:KO are in need of revision; there's plenty of ambiguities along these lines. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur English academic journals (i.e., secondary sources) on Korean history appear to predominantly prefer McCune-Reischauer to Revised Romanization—not to mention MOS:KO's clear guidance for pre-1945 Korean names. As a side note, there's an argument to be made for moving Goryeo to Koryŏ, since much of Koryŏ history happened in modern-day North Korea and the capital of Koryŏ (modern-day Kaesŏng) is in North Korea. But it may be difficult to overcome MOS:KO's preference for Revised Romanization for topics on pre-1945 Korea. Motjustescribe (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: related discussion at Talk:Jeong Do-jeon#Requested move 7 July 2024, with similar response from @Roman Spinner. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)