This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and contribute to the
discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
File:Jeong Do-jeon.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article,
File:Jeong Do-jeon.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
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.
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 “-”.
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 “-”.
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.
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. —
AjaxSmack03:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
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)reply
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)reply
A bot will list this discussion on the
requested moves current discussions
subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the
closing instructions). Please base arguments on
article title policy, and keep discussion
succinct and
civil.
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
[1], 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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#Requested move 9 February 2024). 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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply