Talk:Chaebol/Archives/2012

Alternative spelling
This website, which is reputably a "a Web site that tracks the fortunes of conglomerate chiefs and their families" (according to this article ) spells it chaebul.

Samsung Assets in won
in the table of Chaebol, the assets is given in 'won'. This gives the impression that Samsung has a little over a hundred dollars in assets. Perhaps this should be changed to 'billion' or 'trillion' won.212.219.239.19 13:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity
I`m trying to resolve the ambiguity there is in some of the Chaebol articles. In quite a few cases, there is ambiguity over whether or not a given article (LG (Korea), SsangYong Motor Company is about the chaebol or a sub-company of the group (LG Electronics). So I`m creating seperate articles for the Chaebol, and, if their sub-companies are important enough, giving them seperate articles as well. Thoughts? --Ce garcon 05:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Garcon, please try to get a proper discussion started before listing the article at WP:RM. List it only when you feel that a move is either uncontroversial enough to be done at once or if you feel that a straw poll is needed because no clear consensus can be reached.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Move to Jaebeol
This page should be moved to Jaebeol, which is the correct romanization according to the Naming conventions. I can't do that. -- IGEL 07:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes

 * No, the Chaebol spelling is very well established in English usage - the standard naming convention clearly takes precedence here. In any case it probably falls under "Other words" (2nd para) in Korean/Romanization convention. Please change the usage within the article back to Chaebol. If you wish, you can note in the article that the English word Chaebol derives from an older Romanization scheme. Rd232 09:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP, "Chaebol" is the common English spelling 132.205.45.148 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep chaebol. it has become a loan word. we're not going to change to taegwondo or gimchi.Appleby 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * No, the Chaebol spelling is very well established in English usage - the standard naming convention clearly takes precedence here. In any case it probably falls under "Other words" (2nd para) in Korean/Romanization convention. Please change the usage within the article back to Chaebol. If you wish, you can note in the article that the English word Chaebol derives from an older Romanization scheme. Rd232 09:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that word really that established in English? Do more than 1% of the English speaking ppl at least know it? If not, I still vote for the move. There will be a redirect for people using the outdated romanisation, so nobody will be hurt ;). I mean, Pusan is also much more common in English, but the article has the lemma Busan. -- IGEL 10:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The 1% criterion is irrelevant. I don't know that 1% know what a "conglomerate" is. Chaebol is established as an English word; what you are asking is to change the spelling of that word. Jaebol/Jaebeol is virtually non-existent in English usage. Rd232 17:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

i think it's clear from googling, the english media widely uses "chaebol" as a loan word. sorry i changed the article before seeing this discussion. Appleby 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 20:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it should be changed to Jaebol. Or if someone would take a look at the Hangul over on the right side, it reads Jaebol. If it were to mean Chaebol, it'd be written as 채벌. If you were to consider my name, Jae-Myeon, it would be written as 재면. To write it as "ChaeMyeon" would refer to a different person altogether. 203.215.121.191 14:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think it should be changed to Jaebol. Chaebol may have been the convention for English spoken articles but it's wrong. I sat through an MBA lecture describing Chaebol's business practices but it took me a while to figure out that the professor was referring to Jaebol. Who says googling is the most valid avenue for verifying a foreing language? I also think the notion of "trust" associated with Jaebol is wrong...perhaps only in terms of financial "guarantee". Non-Jaebol associated common folks would think of Jaebol as "above law, outlaw". They are so big and powerful, they can get away with a lot. I think western culture romantize this too much.71.140.118.17 (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)hcs 27 March 2008


 * In this case, yes, googling is in fact a valid verification for keeping it Chaebol. And we're not verifying a foreign language, we're verifying English. This is a loan word, widely seen in English-language business media, which would then lead someone to visit English Wikipedia and type in "Chaebol." These are the circumstances the article should reflect and I think does reflect accurately, that the word is employed in English in this spelling but is an outdated Romanization of a Korean word. The English Chaebol and Hangul transliterated Jaebol are therefore two separate linguistic entities, which is not uncommon in borrowing words from foreign languages with unshared writing systems. Unless and until Jaebol becomes the commonly written spelling in English, the article should stay as is.


 * I also think that the above comment might misunderstand the way in which the article includes the word "trust". This is in the sense of a business entity, (Rockefeller, trust busting, etc) and doesn't directly account for veracity, law-abiding, or guaranteeing. I just want to be clear about that since the above comment suggests to me a misinterpretation of the usage. Its a rough translation, not romanticizing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfiner (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Teams
Would it be worth mentioning that many of the chaebols own baseball teams? Just a suggestion.

DaDoc540 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

List of South Korean Chaebols

 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJ_Corp.
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS_Group
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanjin
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansol
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumho
 * 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Group
 * 9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_Group
 * 10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotte
 * 11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Group
 * 12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SsangYong_Group
 * 13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_of_South_Korea
 * 14) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu
 * 15) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaibatsu
 * 16) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogo_shosha
 * 17) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK
 * 18) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Heavy_Industries
 * 19) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doosan
 * 20) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhwa

Dynasties
Chaebol are still largely controlled by their founding families. Could we have more info on this?--Jondel 07:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe that Free Trade Commission of Korea (where listing of companies come from) should actually be "Korea Fair Trade Commission" - someone else who can verify or find this source again?

Inter-wiki
So, here's a Western versus Eastern problem for ya:

This article defines the word with "Chaebol refers to the several dozen large, family-controlled Korean corporate groups, assisted by government financing." However, the Chinese and Japanese (at least) interwiki links go to simply 財閥. This is not a specific Korean term, and the Japanese version actually is Zaibatsu, which is a WHOLE different issue.

There are a number of interesting questions this raises. Firstly, does the idea of a Korean Chaebol really exist to those in Korea, China, and Japan, or does it really only exist in the view of the western world. In other words, is this all the same word to the nations that use Chinese characters, or have we just not found the appropriate corresponding articles? Furthermore, isn't it strange that there is no Korean version of this page? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Both Chaebol and Zaibatsu are derived from the same word "財閥" (Chinese character, Hanja, Kanji, whatever you want to call it). 財 means "asset", 閥 means "powerful individual or group". In the general sense, they are both used to describe big corporations in 2 different countries. The differences between Chaebol and Zaibatsu are due to word usage or word application differences. The Chinese article is pretty general, it gives example of the word's usage in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The Japanese article is more about Zaibatsu and foreign corporations that resemble Zaibatsu. --Voidvector 00:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That still really throws me for a loop. I know that the basic concept of the 財閥 (however one may read it in whatever language) is pretty clear-cut.  I still think that there's sort of a Western definition of Chaebol being large powerful groups in Korea, Zaibatsu being large powerful groups in Japan, and I don't even know about China.  But what I'm hearing is that any one of those nations may use 財閥 to refer to other nation's large powerful corporate groups as well, but the definitions attached on to it are different.  So the pronunciation is completely different by country, the meaning and usage differ slightly by country, and we just sort of kind of try to mimic that when discussing in English? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer one of your original questions, in Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, there is no distinction between the word Chaebol and Zaibatsu. For example, the Japanese article for Samsung use the word 財閥 (Zaibatsu) in the first sentence. In this Japanese school slideshow it made the distinction by using country name 日本の財閥 (Japanese 財閥) and 韓国の財閥 (South Korean 財閥). In Japanese, you can also use Katakana to spell out Chaebol (チェボル), but according to Google it is rarely used. In this Korean site, you can see the Korean characters before the English "Chaebol" and "Zaibatsu" are the same. It also use country names to distinguish. --Voidvector 09:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reference to 財閥 should be removed. 財閥 is about 財閥 in general (with most of the information being about 財閥 in Japan), but this English article is only about 財閥 in Korea. Zaibatsu also refers to 財閥, which could be acceptable since a large part of 財閥 is about 財閥 in Japan, but in my opinion, only Conglomerate should refer to 財閥.

財閥 seems to be about 財閥 in general, so in my opinion only Conglomerate should refer to 財閥. (Stefan2 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

The Chinese characters mean 'wealthy magnate(s)'. 86.166.122.209 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Chaebol's Share of South Korean Economy
The following part of a sentence in the introductory remarks is entirely wrong:
 * "(...) and have accounted for almost 100% of the South Korean economy since the 1960s."

I cannot quote an english language source for my information, but as matter of fact in terms of employees in Korean small and medium enterprises their share has risen; from 35% in 1970 to about 58% in 1998. Thus, since the 1990s the Korean economy has been characterized by a dual economical structure. An oligopolistic large scale industry (the Chaebols) exists next to the important competititve sector of small and medium enterprises. --ObservingSystems (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"business family" or "monopoly"
"Chae" and "bol" have nothing to do with "family" or "monopoly". Can we have a real translation? --JWB (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can someone stick up an IPA pronunciation please? --Selket Talk 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to add it. I hope I got it right. (Stefan2 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I know this is a very old thread, but if we could have an expert review the pronunciation currently in the article ([tɕɛːbəl]), that would be nice. anaphysik (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)