Talk:Kim Dae-jung

News / refs

My edits are based on news reports.

• Dispute Erupts Over Alleged Lobbying for 2000 Nobel Prize
• [1] --Nanshu 03:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then how about the comments made by Director of Norwegian Nobel Institute? (Provided you can read Korean)

• OhMyNews

Also a commentary from the press you've refered to:

• Weekly Hankook

Finally, on Kim's knowledge about NK's nuclear program: I think it only constitutes an attack on the personality intended to make Kim look untrustworthy, with no regard to the encyclopedic content.

Allegations

I think it's fair to mention that Kim has been accused (current version). We don't have to decide whether these accusations are true or not. Also, keep in mind the balance of the article (how important this is compared to the rest). Kokiri 09:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very nice to see some news site like OhMyNews here.

Lobbing for Nobel Prize:

• No wonder the committee denied the Korean lobbying activity. It's a scandal not only of South Korea but of the Nobel committee.
• Kim's lobbying does not neccessarily means that the Nobel Prize was the result of lobbying.

Whether Kim realzed North Korea's nuclear program or not is an important key to judging the nature of his activity. Keep. --Nanshu 01:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Put 'accusations' only if they are from jurisdiction, or at least if there had been some investigations by authorities.

If you want those things, create 'Anti-Kim Dae Jung opinions' page, and put a link.

DoB

What is Kim's real birthdate, 1924.01.06 or 1925.12.03?

• None of the above. It was 1923. See the material below. -- QuantumK (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better picture

The current picture shows Kim Dae-Jung from behind. Isn't there a decent official picture of him that at least shows his face?

Spelling

seems like his name is spelled either Kim Dae-jung or Kim Dae Jung. both seems to have about equal support, but nytimes changed from the former to the latter in about 2001. either way, it is not "Daejung" so the article needs to be (re)moved. Appleby 22:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Per the arguments given above by Appleby, and given that this was one of a series of dubious unilateral moves by a certain user, I have requested that this page be moved to Kim Dae Jung -- given the roughly equal frequencies of Dae-jung and Dae Jung, the officialness of the second would seem to tip the scales.

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Small clean up and additon

The result was a split the opposition vote, with Kim Dae-jung recieving 27% of the vote; the result being ex-general Roh Tae-woo -Chun Doo-hwan's hand-picked successor- to win with 36.5% against Kim Young-Sam and Kim Dae-Jung's combined 55%.

Small little addition, though it could be linked to the election page, it maybe help elaborate on the statement. Also cleaned up some broken language.

POV

This article leans too much on POV of Kim Dae Jung and his positive effects. This rotten president's negative points outweigh and foreshadow whatever scraps of good he did for South Korea. He continues to be a voice in Korean politics-a foreboding and cruel one, and this former president continues to be pro-communist. His ratings are very low-his image is of idiocy. The article gives an untrue impression of him, and it should be changed. ChockStock 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what all the Korean dictators said about him. Huangdi 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

POV. Shame on you about your political opinion. I doubt you have any opinion

Yes, This article looks horribly biased and should really be re-written by some-one who a. knows more about the topic than I do and b.Can write with an NPOV

Yeah, and calling him pro communist isn't blatantly biased? You should be ashamed of yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.179.216 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

According to his bio on the Nobel prize site[2], he was born on December 3, 1925. According to the article, it is January 1926. Which is true?

• I realized that also and fixed it. The correct date in Dec. 3, 1925. Duran 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast. There are various cites (not all of them mirrors of Wikipedia) that say he was born 6 January, but the year is unclear.

• We used to have 6 January 1926, and that appears elsewhere on the net. It's also still at our own January 6 page under Births.
• These 2 say it was 6 January 1925 – [3] and [4].
• These 2 say it was 6 January 1924 – [5] and [6].

The last one is particularly interesting as it sheds some light on how "3 December" came about:

• According to his official biography, he was born on December 3, 1925 and was raised in a poor and remote island, 30 miles off the southwest Korean coast. In an unpusblished [sic] biography, written in 1993 by a relative, he is quoted as saying that he was actually born on January 6, 1924, and that his parents later falsified his birth date so he could avoid Japanese military service during World War II.

Unfortunately, this is on the say-so of a website that refers to an unpublished biography, so we can't check it out. But it's still intriguing, given that 6 January was his accepted birthdate everywhere until relatively recently, until 3 December started putting in an appearance. Thoughts, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are 4 versions floating out there about Kim's DOB, but the best evidence is actually that Kim Dae-jung was born in January 1923. A well written explanation to this problem of conflicting dates can be found in the Japanese language Zainichi Korean online newspaper Tōitsu Nippō posted Dec 1, 2009 . The author records that he asked Kim Dae-jung directly about his conflicting birthdates during a press conference, to which President Kim himself answered clearly that "I was born in January 1923." So there you have it. Kim Dae-jung himself confirms the January 1923 date. The article explains how the DOB became falsified on the family registration to avoid a term of military service (i.e., the Japanese Imperial Army). This issue has now become more clear and understandable, so the Korean Wiki page has been changed, and the Japanese page notes the debate (referencing a Yomiuri Shimbun article), but this English page still reflects the widely reported but erroneous date. It should be changed with noted explanation. -- QuantumK (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

16 months on, and it still says 3 December 1925, on the say-so of User:Duran, who has simply asserted this date is the correct one, but without offering any evidence.

I'm not at all sure that we can take a subject's word on their own date of birth either. I mean, there's no doubting they were there, but they were hardly in a position to be noting the date/time etc, so whatever they know about their own birth date, they were told by someone else (typically, their parents). Kim stating it was January 1924 was no doubt his sincere belief, but the question remains: how did he know?

Given the various dates that have been put about, how can we take a stand on any of them? We cannot just choose one of them and say nothing about any of the other possibilties. At the very least, they deserve some mention in a footnote. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Religion

What religion was he before he converted to Catholicism? Politics a (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Only Korean?

The lead to this article states that "Kim is the first and only Nobel laureate to hail from Korea." That is not completely correct. Charles J. Pedersen was born in present-day North Korea, the son of a Norwegian father and a Japanese mother. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually Pedersen's Wiki entry says that he was born in Busan, which is in the South part of South Korea, not North Korea by any means. -- QuantumK (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nickname

wasn't he widely called in the press as DJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.135.42 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

extra info from C. Hitchens book

Info you might want to add to Early life section:

From: Hitchens, C. (1999). Letters to a young contrarian. Cambridge: Basic Books.

p. 90-91 (* - when p91 begins)

"I first met Kim Dae Jung, now the president of South korea and a Nobel Laureate for Peace, when he was living in exile in Virginia, under the disapproval of the Reagan administration. He * had survived one attempt by the South Korean junta to kill him and another attempt to kidnap him - this for the temerity of coming a close second in an election - and was in the process of deciding to go home and risk his life again. (When he did go, I went with him on his plane and am still proud of the fact that I was with him when he was rearrested.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.39.155 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why there's 2 broken images on the article that says "Michigan state police.gif" with the broken images linking to an unrelated article "AR-15"? I can't seem to edit it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilS1990 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Dae-jung. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/12/bio.kim.daejung/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

dramatic U.S. intervention just before death flight: primary source?

I cannot find a reference (primary or secondary) anywhere else to the last-minute U.S. intervention referred to in footnote 11:

"In the early 1980s Kim described this 'intervention' at an Annual General Meeting of Amnesty International-USA. He was bound and naked, on the floor of a room with other dissidents awaiting helicopter rides out over the Sea of Japan where they would "disappear". An U.S. embassy official walked in, pointed to him, and said 'Him, not yet.'"

If this were borne out by research, you'd think this dramatic---even sensational---story would be prominent in accounts of Kim's life, esp. in his obituaries. But I'm not finding that.

Also, notice how vague the reference is: "in the early 1980s" at an annual meeting. What year? Where?

Does anyone else have an independent confirmation of this story?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kim Dae-jung. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114075542/http://thejakartaglobe.com/home/former-south-korean-president-kim-dae-jung-dies-at-85/324601 to http://thejakartaglobe.com/home/former-south-korean-president-kim-dae-jung-dies-at-85/324601
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315030627/http://ocgg.org/index.php/643/0/ to http://ocgg.org/index.php/643/0/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208200539/http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/statistics/kor-pres.htm to http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/statistics/kor-pres.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atimes.com/koreas/BI05Dg01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417044917/http://ritsumei-gssgp.jp/sansyagp/lecture/lecture-pdf/Matsuda/100601Japnan%27s_Welfare-State_Regime.pdf to http://ritsumei-gssgp.jp/sansyagp/lecture/lecture-pdf/Matsuda/100601Japnan%27s_Welfare-State_Regime.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025191515/http://www.aasw-asia.net/JSSP%2051.pdf to http://www.aasw-asia.net/JSSP%2051.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110907080841/http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/world/201109/h2011090602323822450.htm to http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/world/201109/h2011090602323822450.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Reference link summary

Please summary of the reference link regarding the Gold-collecting campaign below

• The following keynote address was presented by ROK President Kim Dae jung on 23 April 1998; above all, of the patriotism of the Korean people, as have been the campaigns to collect gold and raise funds for the unemployed which is now underway. Transparency of Labour managment in Korea
• (ROK PRESIDENT KIM DAE-JUNG'S KEYNOTE ADDRESS ON THE KOREAN ECONOMY)
• [Faculty Essay] Defining Kim Dae-jung’s Greatness
• How Gold Rode To The Rescue Of South Korea
• South Koreans donate their gold to dent IMF debt
• South Koreans in the Debt Crisis: The Creation of a Neoliberal Welfare Society
• Two case studies: how gold saved India and South Korea

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Born in "Korea", not "Chōsen"

CurryTime7-24 You reverted my recent edit in which I changed Kim Dae-jung's birth location "Chōsen" to "Japanese-occupied Korea", where you reverted it back to Chōsen. Clearly this is common naming convention across many Wikipedia articles and appears to be a recent wide-scale change. As early as a couple months ago I did not notice this naming convention for birthplaces.

I find it extremely objectionable that the territory and its people, which made constant assertions of its own independence and deeply reviled the occupation, would be referred to by the name imposed upon it by its occupiers, especially in what's supposed to be an objective context. During occupation the territory was referred to in English as "Korea" by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea (KPG/Korean Provisional Government), which was lead by the deeply important independence leader Kim Gu and first president of South Korea Syngman Rhee. The US referred to the territory as "Korea" in the 1940s as seen by these (1 2 3) NYTimes articles. The US-based Korean National Association, in which first president Syngman Rhee worked as a leader, called the nation "Korea" since 1909. The South Korean government's official website always refers to the territory as "Korea" when referring to the nation under Japanese rule. Hell, North Korea still calls itself "Joseon" (similar to Chōsen) but no one refers to it in English as "North Joseon" or especially "North Chōsen". It's like calling Kim Dae-jung "Toyota Taichū".

This is a wide-scale issue on Wikipedia articles on Korean people and a harmful one. "Chōsen" should be removed from birthplaces and I'd like to address this issue on a larger scale. Earlier edits to this page show his birthplace as "Japanese Korea", which is more accurate than "Chōsen". Holidayruin (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. I’m not sure what is objectionable. The name was Chōsen; it was the the official international name promulgated by Japan during the colonial period and was recognized as such, although the name “Korea” continued to be used interchangeably and informally. ”Occupation” implies seizure by military means and that control is provisional. Japan had annexed Korea through a diplomatic treaty, not by military conquest, and had intended to keep it permanently, not temporarily. Recognizing where Kim Dae-jung was born and using his Japanese name are two unrelated matters. Correctly recognizing where he was born is no more objectionable than the fact that George Washington or José de San Martín were born in British America and the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata respectively, not the United States or Argentina, which did not exist at the time of their birth. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the decree promulgating the name change can be seen here on the Japanese Wikisource. I can provide a translation and upload to the English Wikisource if needed. There appears to also be a Korean translation available. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I am actually shocked by your response. To think that the total annexation of a country is totally comfortable and consensual for the country being annexed, just on a basic level shows some deep lack of understanding. Yes, the name Chōsen was promulgated by Japan and not by Korea, which is the very issue with the English name "Chōsen". And Japanese Wikipedia, in the Japanese language, is hardly where I would look to in seeing what name Japanese-occupied Korea should be called in English. This is about Korean people. If Korean people don't call the nation by the Japanese name "Chōsen" but instead call the nation in that period "Korea" then it should be called Korea. This is a matter of basic respect of peoples. Holidayruin (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said nor implied anything being "totally comfortable and consensual." What I did say was that Chōsen was the internationally legally recognized name of Korea at the time of Kim Dae-jung's birth and that the period of colonial rule was not an "occupation" (i.e. a territory gained through military invasion resulting in a provisional government pending a permanent form of rule) as it had been acquired through diplomatic action and was meant to be permanent. Between 1910–1945, Japan was the internationally and legally recognized ruler of Korea, which was internationally recognized as an integral constituent territory of the Empire of Japan. If neither the Japanese nor Korean Wikisources are good enough, you can find an English translation of the edict promulgating the name change here. Calling Korea Chōsen when chronologically appropriate is no different than referring to Gdańsk as Danzig when referring to its periods under German rule or Kyiv as Kiev when it was part of the Russian Empire and Ukrainian SSR. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should individuals born in Korea under Japanese rule have their birthplace as "Japanese Korea" or "Chōsen"

This is an issue not exclusive to the biography of Kim Dae-jung but also the biography of all Koreans who born and died in Korea under Japanese rule (1910-1945).

Should birth locations and death locations in Korea under Japanese rule be referred to as in:

• A - "Chōsen", one of the English names given to the territory by the Japanese Empire during annexation. This name was internationally recognized during the annexation. This is the current naming convention across Wikipedia.
• B - "Japanese Korea", with "Korea" being the English name given to the territory by prominent Korean independence activists during annexation. This name was internationally recognized during annexation. "Korea" is also the modern English name of the territory since after WWII. This was the active naming convention across Wikipedia until a couple of months ago.

The change to the name "Chōsen" occurred only a couple of months ago, as exemplified by the current revision to this page and a June revision. Holidayruin (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Survey

B as proposer. I will repost what I wrote in the section above. I find it extremely objectionable that the territory and its people, which made constant assertions of its own independence and deeply reviled the occupation, would be referred to by the name imposed upon it by its occupiers, especially in what's supposed to be an objective context. During occupation the territory was referred to in English as "Korea" by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea (KPG/Korean Provisional Government), which was lead by the deeply important independence leader Kim Gu and first president of South Korea Syngman Rhee. The US referred to the territory as "Korea" in the 1940s as seen by these (1 2 3) NYTimes articles. The US-based Korean National Association, in which first president Syngman Rhee worked as a leader, called the nation "Korea" since 1909. The South Korean government's official website always refers to the territory as "Korea" when referring to the nation under Japanese rule. Hell, North Korea still calls itself "Joseon" (similar to Chōsen) but no one refers to it in English as "North Joseon" or especially "North Chōsen". It's like calling Kim Dae-jung "Toyota Taichū". The primary source should be English spoken by Korean people. This change occurred on articles about Korean people. If Korean people don't call the nation in 1910-45 by the Japanese name "Chōsen" but instead call it "Korea" then it should be called Korea. This is a matter of basic respect of peoples. Holidayruin (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not quite that simple under this project's policies: we can't just make assertions about what is the common name for a subject based on what is the most "respectful" in the minds of our individual editors, because that would invite all manner of subjective deadlock arguments. Instead, this project wisely uses a WP:WEIGHT analysis in these circumstances. In those terms, you haven't really made your argument just yet, as I can see. You have shown what some 80-ish-year old sources say on the matter, and you've presented some usage from some contemporary WP:PRIMARY sources, in the form of state/political institution websites. But what you haven't really done is presented a picture of what reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources (beyond the very dated) use in their coverage of the topic, which would be most ideal to a determination here. I will say that, based on what I do know of this historical context, I do know what I expect to be more common, at least in the English literature that is most likely to brought forth here, and that I think you are on the same track. But I will have to review the sourcing utilized in our relevant articles on the subject and do additional searches of the corpus of works out there, to be sure, before I can fully endorse either option. You would bolster your argument a lot better for incoming FRS respondents like me if you did some of this legwork with regard to the picture with secondary, independent sources.

On a separate but related topic, if there really has been, as you present in the RfC prompt, a radical shift here across many Korean BLPs and other articles, based on a discussion that took place on a Japanese Wikisource page, that is potentially problematic. Needless to say, cross-project volunteers cannot make editorial determinations for this project on another and then come here to enforce them. But you haven't really presented a very strong case that this is what is going on, nor even pointed out why exactly you suspect this. You gave a link to a project page in Japanese: as it happens, I speak some, but I'm non-fluent and it's going to take a bit for me to read and digest that, whereas your average respondent here is unlikely to have even that limited facility. Furthermore, you haven't shown any connection between that discussion and activity here which makes you think this change in perspective on a Japanese Wikisource page is influencing editorial decisions here. Can you elaborate please? This is potentially something that needs community oversite, but also potentially a tempest in a teapot, so more information would be helpful. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, no discussion took place regarding this matter on any Japanese Wikisource page. Rather, the edict which promulgated the name change in question are available on the Japanese and Korean Wikisources. When I presented these to the above editor, they deemed them unsatisfactory because they were not in English. So I translated the Japanese original into English and added it to the English Wikisource yesterday. My understanding is that place names ought to reflect what the usage was when chronologically appropriate in an article (e.g. Leningrad, not Saint Petersburg when referring to the city during the Soviet period; Alsace-Lorraine when referring to the region during the period of German rule, not the modern administrative region of Grand Est). Option A was never "internationally recognized during annexation" as the term had yet to even be coined in 1910. Option B was internationally recognized, however. Sources confirming this are provided in my previous comment below. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Just to be clear, no discussion took place regarding this matter on any Japanese Wikisource page. Rather, the edict which promulgated the name change in question are available on the Japanese and Korean Wikisources. When I presented these to the above editor, they deemed them unsatisfactory because they were not in English."

I see, I understand the situation now: thank you for the clarification. I will note however that, as a general matter, any broad approach changes to numerous articles should ideally be broached with the community at large. This can be done a variety of ways, but (just as one example) there is a (relatively) active WP:WikiProject Korea. Per WP:Advice pages, Wikiprojects are not allowed to create idiosyncratic rules for large numbers of pages (meaning you still have to get WP:Local consensus on any article where the change is contested), but they can be a good place to get impressions about how well received (and maybe well-advised) such large scale changes are likely to be, and to build a framework for getting consensus on individual articles, where necessary.

Now that's kind of complicated procedure that not every editor is familiar with, so it's fine if you didn't follow that approach to the letter, but it's important that you at least understand that decisions made on another project have no impact on standard consensus here, and it's potentially disruptive to apply such decisions en masse here before getting some degree of consensus first. At a minimum, in cases where one should anticipate that a change may be controversial (and I think this is a topic that almost certainly should have been anticipated as potentially controversial), it really never hurts to check in with the community at some level, in some space. Factoring in that this is being done to create parity with editorial decisions made on another project, by another community and in a different context, and it only increases the wisdom of a slow and cautious approach based in some previous engagement before mass changes. Some of this is expressly stated in our policies, and some of this is just best practice/the path of least resistance, if you follow my distinction.

"My understanding is that place names ought to reflect what the usage was when chronologically appropriate in an article (e.g. Leningrad, not Saint Petersburg when referring to the city during the Soviet period; Alsace-Lorraine when referring to the region during the period of German rule, not the modern administrative region of Grand Est)."

Ultimately, as I will discuss in more detail below, the most important factor is how the reliable sources in the aggregate tend to agree is the common name for the state in question. That contemporary name may in turn be influenced by the actual choronym adopted by the state (whether that state was broadly recognized or not), and other times the sources may converge on another term for any number of historical, historiographical, or otherwise empirical reasons. But, much like we use WP:WEIGHT in other contexts when determining the appropriate way to describe a situation, the current policy/MoS standard is to typically utilize whatever label is currently embraced by sources to refer to a given region or state by the corpus of sources at large, however those disparate works arrived at their preference. More on the question of how one determines the most common or most relevant in the aggregate label below, to keep that discussion in one place, but I do hasten to add here that sometimes there is no one single answer, in which case, a combined approach may be advisable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Snow Rise: I've compiled some contemporary sources. They are as follows:

---

sources for B

• The Korean term 조센징 (Chōsen-jin, meaning Chōsen person) is a highly offensive modern racial pejorative due to its derogatory usage during Japanese colonization. This news article about a South Korean footballer who was excoriated for using the term in jest also goes into detail about how the term became offensive due to its usage during colonization, and also states that the term 조센징 is offensive specifically because it invokes the Japanese usage and pronunciation of the term "Chōsen". This Korean-language news story about Korean outcry to Japanese broadcaster NHK's usage of the term Chōsen-jin also mentions its derogatory nature, and mentions that the term Chōsen-jin is used by far-right Japanese ultranationalists as racial derogatory slang. These Korean-language news articles chronicle far-right anti-Korean ultranationalists using the word in defiance of hate speech laws (12).
• Academic source that state that South Korea finds the term "Chōsen" problematic due to its colonial usage. This 2016 book chronicles the history of the term after the end of WWII and de-colonialization. According to this book, South Korea objected to the term "Chōsen" due to its colonial usage, and the Japanese government later in the 1950s allowed once-"Chōsen" citizens to change their identity to "Kankoku" citizens due to the continued indignance of South Korea at the term. North Korea, on the other hand, took the approach of attempting to reclaim the term ("Joseon", the dynasty preceding Japanese annexation) and thus continues to use the term "Joseon" to refer to itself in its official name. In Japan, "Chōsen" might still be used to refer to the Korean peninsula today. Of course this begs the question: if the term "Chōsen" is deemed offensive by a whole nation, why use it instead of the uncontested term "Korea"? Especially considering "Chōsen" is the uniquely Japanese-English term (notice the Hepburn ō) while "Joseon" is the Korean-English term used to refer to the historical dynasty.

---

Where is the best place to put these sources for the sake of visibility? I'm new to RfC. Also please let me know if any other kinds of sources might be of good use. Thanks Holidayruin (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

While “Chōsenjin” can be considered offensive depending on the context, Chōsen is not. The term is regularly used in Japan in reference not only to colonial Korea, but also when referring to Korea as a whole, the Korean Peninsula, and even when describing aspects of modern Korean culture. For example, the Japanese Wikipedia article on the Korean language calls it “Chōsengo.” Academic writing in English from the past 30 years that I’ve personally read also uses Chōsen when referring to colonial Korea, although such usage varies from author to author and there is no prevailing norm for using one term or the other. With respect to the usage of the macron vowel in Chōsen, if such use bothers other editors, the Correct Orthography of Geographic Names stipulates the use of “Chosen” without the “ō.” —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You repeatedly sidestep the fact that, even though the term "Chōsen" may not be offensive in Japan, it is in South Korea. Holidayruin (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not side-stepping anything. I'm just politely disagreeing with you that Chōsen is by itself immediately offensive. It was and continues to be used in various contexts which have no offensive connotations whatsoever. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello to you as well, Holiday: I hope the day finds you well? Regarding the positions and sourcing in the enumerated paragraphs in your post above, while this is very important information and context which I hope those unfamiliar with the topic will read, I must tell you that it is not argument that is likely to help you prevail on this particular content issue. We are not here to right great wrongs, and sometimes we do utilize labels for subject matter which at least some readers will take exception to, even for manifestly understandable reasons. The fact is we sometimes do refer to occupied territories (of many historical eras) under the administrative names of the occupiers, but that is not directly our call to make: rather, the community-endorsed preference is that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not set the standard through WP:original research rationale, but rather follow what reliable secondary sources in the relevant fields tend to regard as the common name of such territory or state. Now, that doesn't make the information you present irrelevant to the analysis, insofar as those very same considerations may influence the sources themselves. But we are not meant to be second guessing them, whatever they decide on.

This does not mean you automatically lose this argument, but that you are going to need to shift your argument to one more predicated in the sources which directly address the question of what the term for the historical entity is. You have demonstrated sources which demonstrate that some Korean people find the related term "Chōsen-jin" to be a significantly offensive moniker, and that "Chōsen" is a problematic way to refer to any portion of Korea today, but that's not the same thing as establishing that the term "Japanese occupied Korea" (or similar) is the most accurate and appropriate way of referring to the historical entity. "Chōsen" may, for any number of reasons, be the term adopted by historians and other relevant sources, and many of such sources may see no conflict between acknowledging that as the name of an administrative entity at that time while also considering the application of the name to Korean states in the modern day deeply problematic. I'm not sure that is in fact how the sources bear out in this particular case, but it's a distinct possibility and a situation we see with regard to other occupied states which implicate issues of national identity. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. I have gathered more sources to speak to your specifications.

---

sources for B

• As it relates to Japan's naming convention during annexation, "Chōsen" may have been in official government use but so was the name "Corea". This site shows numerous primary sources that show that the name "Corea" was also an official English name of the nation all throughout the 35 years of annexation. So, despite the citation of the 1910 edict, usage of English "Chōsen" seemed to be rather loosely enforced as both names were still in official usage by the Japanese government. (I would like to say that I misunderstood the user's citation of the edict, I did not previously understand that he was citing a 1910 document). And lest we not forget the inherent muddiness of transliterating country names from native language to Japanese; many countries' English names do not match the name for their own nation -- modern South Korea does not call itself "Korea" in Korean but instead "Daehan Minguk", and modern Japan does not call itself "Japan" in Japanese but instead "Nippon-koku" or "Nihon-koku". No one argues these modern native language names should be transliterated for casual English usage. Because of this, I argue that what the user is citing is not even really the Japanese edict, but the single 1911 English-language style guide that transliterates "朝鮮" using Hepburn. This also makes me wonder if the editor in question took it upon himself to promulgate the name "Chōsen" without enough good sources to back it up.
• As it relates to international name recognition, both "Chosen" and "Korea" were both seen as legitimate names for the territory. A simple search on JSTOR for articles that use the term "Korea" from 1910 to 1945 show 7500+ scholarly primary source results (Unfortunately despite my best efforts I could not search for the term "Chōsen" as it got the search engine confused and gave all the results also for the common word chosen. But it should be clear that "Korea" was a perfectly acceptable name for professional usage as to refer to the Japanese territory in 1910-45.) Also I have already linked this 1943 NYTimes article that referred to the nation as "Korea" as well as these two NYTimes articles right at liberation in 1945. Just for kicks, here is a British magazine from 1923 repeatedly using the name "Korea" and denonym "Korean".
• I did already present a piece of evidence supporting the name "Korea", which was that the Korean Provisional Government (KPG) called the nation "Korea" during annexation, and the KPG had enough of a claim to the land that last president of the KPG Syngman Rhee would become the first president of South Korea and penultimate president of the KPG Kim Gu would be elevated to one of if not the most prominent independent activists during and after annexation. The name "Korea"/"Corea" was not a new invention at the time, but a English name in usage since as early as 1614, which was English-transliterated Hanja for the kingdom of Goryeo.
• And finally, I ask someone to just Google "Japanese 1910 annexation" and they will see that the widespread consensus in naming convention is that the territory of "Korea" was annexed. Essentially no results that show up use the terminology "Chōsen" but use "Korea" and rarely "Corea". A bit blunt, but this should show modern academic consensus.

---

If you don't mind, I'd like to change the RfC question header section to reflect the new information on the name "Korea" and clearing up my misunderstanding of the usage of the 1910 edict. Please let me know what other kinds of sources can be cited and other ways this current position might fall short in objective eyes. Holidayruin (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's usually better to avoid changing the RfC prompt once !voting/discussion has already begun, but if you are just adding information that won't substantially change the meaning of either proposed solution, I think it might be acceptable in these circumstances. But before we get into the weeds on the sourcing you just proffered, I wonder if I might ask what you what you think of using phrasing along the lines of what North8000 suggests below? A variation of that approach is already used in the infobox and in 'Early life' section, but I'm not sure how long it has stood as such. If Curry were amenable to such spell-it-out-for-the-reader approach, could you see yourself getting behind some version along those lines. Or is it your editorial impression that any use of "Chōsen" is per se problematic, even if it comes packaged in significant context? That's not meant to be a passive aggressive/judgemental inquiry, for the record: I am genuinely curious about your editorial perspective on this, because I wonder if there isn't a middle ground solution here that all parties might be happy (or at least willing) to endorse. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The suggested compromise offered by yourself and North8000 would be fine with me. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The genesis of the discussion occurred with the dissatisfaction in using "Chōsen" in the infobox as the birthplace. If this compromise is still going to have "Chōsen" as the birth nation in the infobox, I can't sign on to the compromise unfortunately. If the infobox does not use "Chōsen", then I'm all ears.

I did have to ask about the RfC prompt because my understanding of both names have thoroughly changed. The prompt should reflect all the new information, as good discussion always should accommodate the illumination of new information. Evidence to support the new claims associated with these terms is found in my most immediately above response.

• Option "Chōsen" I now understand is just a Hepburn translation of the Japanese name for the Korean peninsula, and was actually one of at least two different official Japanese-used English-language names for Korea during annexation, the other being Corea. (I still need evidence that it was the only English name used by the Japanese Empire at this point, and that any other English names were deemed unacceptable by Japan. I have shown evidence to the contrary. A Japanese-language edict stating the name is "朝鮮" doesn't cut it for the same reason Korea doesn't have to call the US "유나이티드 스테이터스" or something. This also makes me wonder if the editor in question took it upon himself to promulgate the name "Chōsen" without any good sources to back it up.)
• Option "Japanese Korea" (vis a vis "Korea") was highly used in official capacity by academia of that time and is the most widely used option by academia of today. It was one of several valid names for the nation whose English name was not yet entirely mononym-ed in English yet. Japan too used the name "Corea" during annexation before it was codified as "Korea". And of course it doesn't have the baggage of being offensive to South Korea, as well as the baggae of being a Japanese language-specific transliteration.

Also formatting-wise this is a bit of a mess. I don't know how accessible all these new sources I presented are when they're buried in indented replies. I find highlighting my two larger edits containing all the sources and info to be more important than any reader seeing my other replies, including for instance this one. Anyone have suggestions for better organization? The same organization can be applied to the arguments against B and for A, of course. Holidayruin (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether Chōsen is a Hepburn translation or not has no bearing on whether or not it was the official historical name of colonial Korea. After all, there is a version verified for official use by the US government in 1911 without the macron vowel. Chōsen is also no more a "language-specific transliteration" than Myanmar, Kyiv, or Costa Rica currently are. If all other evidence I've presented is still not sufficient for you, please take a look at this, this, and this; all are sourced from mainstream American news sources of the time. There are many more I can cite from if you wish to see them. They make it clear that the name change was not only meant for Japanese use, but also for international use. Otherwise, why didn't these articles discuss the name change from "Daikan teikoku" to Chōsen instead?"

In my previous comment to you, I linked to various documents which confirmed use in mainstream English sources of "Chōsen," "Chōsen (Korea)," and "Korea (Chōsen)" during and after the colonial period. "Japanese Korea" was never used in any official capacity, least of all by Korea's legal ruler 1910–1945. Which is why your argument about using the Korean exonym for the US makes no sense. Korea is not and has never been the legal ruler of the US; Korea was part of Japan for 35 years. Two very different situations. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The large majority of sources you cite state that "Korea" is a fine term for international use along with "Chōsen". If "Japanese Korea" is unsatisfactory to you because it was not in official use, then I suggest using just "Korea" instead. Holidayruin (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of what occurred due to the declaration of the Japanese edict, that might have lead to the promulgation of the change across all the English-language biographies on Koreans, is limited to the section above on this Talk page. I honestly don't know more information than what was said there. Holidayruin (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I misunderstood the edict as from the modern Japanese Wikipedia community, but what was cited was a Japanese Imperial edict from 1910. Holidayruin (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have since deleted the confusing sentence I wrote in the RfC question header for the sake of clarity for newcomers. For transparency, it is important to state what I deleted from there. In the question header I had written:

I am told that the change stems from a decree on the Japanese Wikisource.

Holidayruin (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A I've answered editor's points elsewhere, but will recap them here:

• From 1910–1945, the Empire of Japan was the internationally recognized ruler of Korea. The Japanese government changed Korea's official international name to Chōsen upon annexation. This name was recognized internationally, including by the United States. According to the Correct Orthography of Geographic Names published in 1911 by the United States Government Publishing Office: "Chosen; Province of Japan, formerly Korea. (Not Corea.)" and "Chosen; country in Asia. (Not Corea, Chō-sen, Cho-Sen, Chösen, nor Korea.)"
• The KPG was recognized internationally as an independence movement, not the legal government-in-exile of Korea. China and France only recognized the KPG in 1944 and 1945 respectively. The USSR offered covert support, but did not openly recognize it as they continued to observe the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact until August 1945. The US and UK withheld recognition throughout the war. Moreover, there is considerable debate as to whether the KPG was the predecessor to the modern state of South Korea.
• Two of the NYT articles cited by the previous editor were published after Japan's defeat in World War II, by which point they had relinquished all colonial and occupied territories and had no further say over the preferred nomenclature thereof. The other is from 1943 when American support for the Allied war effort precluded observing niceties about the preferred geographical terms of Axis nations.
• What the Japanese exonym is for a foreign country under another government's rule and what the Japanese call a territory that was internationally recognized as an integral part of their own country are two unrelated matters.
• Calling Korea Chōsen when chronologically appropriate is no different than referring to Gdańsk as Danzig when referring to its periods under German rule or Kyiv as Kiev when it was part of the Russian Empire and Ukrainian SSR. The contemporary names of Kim's birth place are visible in parentheses below their historical names. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Curry, you make some good initial arguments here, but as was the case with Holidayruin's sourcing, I'm struck by the lack of contemporary secondary sources. In this regard, both of you are veering a little into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arguments, demonstrating what the official statements/positions of various state bodies were at the point of various historical thresholds, but not really demonstrating what term (or terms) are preferred by secondary sources discussing this era/state/occupied territory as a historical and factual matter as it is understood and most commonly described today. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. So now I'm confused. According to the MOS on placenames: "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same[...]" The use of Chōsen since it was the international standard at the time of the Japanese colonial period would be appropriate then, but hits a snag on that last part. Is there a way to measure its usage academically or in print relating to the period in question specifically? Even if, I think the use of Korea would vastly outnumber its use in modern usage even when referring to the Japanese colonial period. The reasons for this are complex and ideologically fraught, as the other editor's post intimates. Are anachronistic names acceptable under certain circumstances? If so, why? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Just so: the crux of the matter here is whether one term or another can be demonstrated to be that which sources generally default towards when discussing occupied Korea as a historical entity. That said, "Is there a way to measure its usage academically or in print relating to the period in question specifically?" is indeed a very complex question which defies a simple answer. In some cases, statistical arguments based on evidence like google n-grams are used to advance such arguments. But for exactly the false positive/alternative meaning reasons that you point out above, I would say that option is infeasible in this instance. But that's just as well as this is not usually considered the best kind of evidence for policy arguments here. Instead, in such cases, it's usually the side which can advance the most high quality sources which follow a particular approach that prevails. The best sources for this kind of determination would be those which expressly address the issue of the historical entity's name and stake out a position as to which is the most accurate or appropriate term. The next best would be major historical or empirical works which simply demonstrate a dedicated preference for one option over the other; both contemporary and dated works of this source are acceptable, but more recent works will probably be given a bit more weight.

Those are the two main categories of good evidence for what the appropriate label is, but then you may also have evidence of colloquial usage that doesn't come from works that constitute major scholarship, and also what reliable sources of the day might have used when referring the then-contemporary state/territory/entity. All such evidence presented will be weighed by those who provide feedback here and, with some admittedly fuzzy logic, editors will try to parse the aggregate information to arrive at a conclusion as to what the most appropriate label should be. Notably, sometimes there is no easy one choice (either because the terms really are roughly similar in their predominance in reliable sources, or because there are so many sources following each approach that both sides can cite sources supporting their position almost indefinitely), in which case a hybrid approach may be an option. Or there may simply be no consensus on how to proceed for the time being (in which case, the older term that was used in a longterm, stable fashion often becomes the adopted default, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS). There's also the approach of using (at least insofar as prose references are concerned) a description which itself describes the historical complexity of the situation, as North8000 describes below. However, since there are contexts (such an infoboxes) where this approach is not as applicable, it doesn't hurt to still address what the short-form default term should be.

So, yes, unfortunately its not an exact science. But experienced editors are used to making these rough calls from mixed evidence and an RfC will, more often than not, give you a consensus finding one way or another. I hope that's somewhat helpful: I would understand if you didn't find it the most concrete and reassuring standard in the world, but it's really not as unfocused a system as it may seem at first blush. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. Thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot) As a preface, suggest that the RFC confine / word itself to the specific text question in this article rather than seeking a blanket general finding.

Our job is to inform readers, many who won't even know it was under Japanese rule much less know the name assigned by Japan. Something like "...in what is now modern day South (or North) Korea, then called "Chōsen" by Japan when under their rule." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to say IMO it would clarify, provide more info and hopefully resolve. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this idea or some variation thereof would be a fair compromise and I would support it. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think this is a very even compromise. The genesis of this discussion began due to the use of the term "Chōsen" as the birth nation in the infobox. I assume this stays the same?

Also the additional new research I've done shows that Japan actually used both "Chōsen" and "Corea" as English names for the colony in official capacities during the annexation. "Chōsen" is just the Hepburn translation of the Japanese name for the Korean peninsula? Holidayruin (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the same. If my understanding of the solution offered by North8000 and Snow Rise is correct, Korea or some other acceptable name would be given primacy in instances where the colonial Japanese territory is being referred to, with Chōsen appearing in a secondary form, perhaps in parentheses or even in small text, with some kind of brief explanation. If that's the case, then how would a solution that addresses both of our concerns without favoring either side not be a compromise? What you seem to prefer is not a compromise, but a solution which favors your views entirely. That hardly seems fair. As for research, I can also cite more historical maps, documents, and modern academic writing which uses "Chōsen," "Chōsen (Korea)," or "Korea (Chōsen)" in reference to the Japanese colony, but I don't think it matters anymore as one side of this discussion seems intractable in their views, whatever the evidence. I'll just repeat that the aforementioned compromise offered would be agreeable to me. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the solution was that the infobox would not be affected and that only the paragraph-form sections would be affected. My primary concern was the infobox. If Kim Dae-jung's birth country is listed as Korea in his infobox with the nuance described by North8000 in his Early life section, then that is something I am more on board with. Although the new nuances from the new sources should also be integrated, lest this happen again accidentally. Admittedly I too was not aware of the information in those sources until I posted them. Holidayruin (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

North8000 and Snow Rise can correct me here, but the way I understood it, both infobox and "Early life" sections would mention the historical name of Kim's birth place. Presumably, the information in the infobox would display the modern names of his birth place first, followed below in parentheses by their historical names preceded by "formerly known as" or some such. I think having both names, with the modern Korean names first, followed by their historical names during the 1910–1945 period is fair. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO infobox entries have limitations which sometimes present severe problems. In those cases, the infobox-limited entry is overly simplified, categorical, short (which prevents attribution, calibration, nuances or explanation). IMO if it's not a slam-dunk uncontested fact in that brief constrained format, it should be left out of the infobox. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding paragraph sections like Early life, I think it's unnecessary to go into excessive details about the English nuances of the name of the country an individual was born in, for every time article about a Korean person to which this applies. It's probably sufficient to say a word or two in brief and link to Names of Korea or a section in that article if the reader wants to know more. And regarding the infobox, it should be "Japanese Korea" (as before the widespread change) or "Korea" (new naming scheme). Holidayruin (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying no compromise or the only "compromise" you would agree to would be one in which your view and yours alone would prevail? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"Regarding paragraph sections like Early life, I think it's unnecessary to go into excessive details about the English nuances of the name of the country an individual was born in, for every time article about a Korean person to which this applies."

With that I have to at least partially disagree. To preface this, understand that we cannot decide what other articles (or articles in this area broadly speaking) ought to do in these circumstances: we can only reach a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as to what should be done on this article: broader approaches should be discussed at appropriate forums. That's actually probably something I should have emphasized better when I first responded here, actually. That said, I can tell you, having seen this situation arise in a number of other biographical articles, I can say that the tendency is towards explaining the issue of nomenclature in at least some minimal detail, if there is any controversy surrounding the definition of the place of birth. And that makes sense under policy really, because the standard approach to controversy on this project, when we have a division between sources on how to describe something as it seems increasingly clear is the case here, is to highlight the issue for the reader expressly, present the differing views (or nomenclature, as the case may be), and allow the reader their own interpretation.

But perhaps even more to the point in this particular case, I have to say that I think it is pretty relevant information for the reader that a leader in Korea's reconciliation movement (and indeed, a luminary in reconciliation politics and diplomacy generally) was born and grew to adulthood during the occupation. It's pretty valuable context to understand this man as a historical subject, so while we can certainly dispense with it in a sentence (since the sources currently used in the article say very little about Kim's life between 1925 and 1945). I do agree that there are plenty of Korean BLPs where adding this info explaining the distinction of what "Chōsen" was might be superfluous, but certainly not here. If nothing else, this is pretty important information for the uninformed reader to understand the nature of the name change that is references in the third sentence of the early life section.

But looking at both your perspective's and Curry's above, I have to think there is a permutation here that would work for all parties. As I see it, there are plenty of options which, through various approaches to foregrounding information in the statement, allow us to communicate (in brief and undistracting fashion) the historical context of the situation, without suggesting that any particular term is viewed as justified and legitimate today. For example. how about "Japanese-occupied Korea (known contemporaneously as Chōsen)" or "Chōsen, the Japanese-occupied state which controlled the Korean peninsula from 1910-1945"? The constraints of the infobox might present a little more difficulty, and we can come to that as the next matter of consensus, but I think for the prose, some degree of expoundment is called for here, and ultimately it's going to be a matter of how we phrase things, not whether we make mention to the occupational state/administrative territory at all. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand your point, Snow. But the reason why I characterized the discussion as superfluous if beyond a couple of words is specifically because we are discussion the English name of the territory Kim Dae-jung was born in. Even Korean Wikipedia unambiguously describes the territory he was born in as "일본 제국 조선" or "Japanese Empire, Joseon/Choson" (for the record I believe the Korean terminology is still less offensive than "Chōsen" because "조선" shares the same name as the Joseon "조선", while English-language "Chōsen" is a demandingly Imperialist Japanese imposition. "조선" is also not "조센" the subtly Japanese pronunciation.). Kim Dae-jung obviously primarily spoke in Korean, and for this reason I believe the nuances of English terminology is a pretty separate matter, as the English nuances honestly hardly affected him; if the goal is to illustrate the complexities of growing up under Japanese rule, the first sentence in his Early life section ("Kim Dae-Jung was born on 6 January 1924, but he later edited his birth date to 3 December 1925 to avoid conscription under Japanese colonial rule.") can already do that.

That said, how about this for just the Early life section, a minor variant of your first suggestion: "Japanese-occupied Korea (known contemporaneously as Chōsen or Corea)". I will be fine with that. Holidayruin (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That seems like perfectly viable wording to me. CurryTime7-24, does that wording strike you as reasonably well suited? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Your previous suggestions of "Japanese-occupied Korea (known contemporaneously as Chōsen)" or "Chōsen, the Japanese-occupied state which controlled the Korean peninsula from 1910-1945" are both acceptable to me, but not "Japanese-occupied Korea (known contemporaneously as Chōsen or Corea)". (Korea was no more "occupied" at the time than, say, Antofagasta Region or Puerto Rico are "occupied" territories today, but I'll compromise on that detail all the same.)

Now how can "Corea" also be an "official" name of colonial Korea when the actual literal official name of colonial Korea is literally emblazoned (in English, no less) on its state seal? Come to think of it, why are my sources from mainstream and established periodicals/academic works somehow suspect to the other editor, but not the blog post which they've based their claim of "co-official" usage of Corea? Putting aside that their post is basically what WP:NOTRELIABLE warns against using in the first place, I assumed good faith and did a little research concerning the images it used. "Corea" only appeared on tourist postcards shared in that post, not on any official documents. In fact, the only official government-issued documents which that blog posted, a green card issued by the United States Department of Labor and an American immigration visa filled out and signed by the American Vice-Consul in Keijō (inside a passport issued by the Empire of Japan) respectively, both use Chosen (no macron o). (The American green card even designates its ethnic Korean bearer as Japanese.) There were two official-looking postmarks which bore the name "Corea," but according to this philatelist forum, these were not government postmarks, but ones stamped by a certain Kozuka Shōji who ran a penpal service and stamp exchange club in colonial Korea. (Yes, I know a forum post is hardly an authoritative source, but if blog posts are somehow valid...) I feel like I'm talking in circles with the other editor, who either misunderstands/misrepresents what my sources state or ignores them altogether, and refuses to compromise. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Japanese-occupied Korea (known contemporaneously as Chōsen)" is fine. I am not here to extol the merits of using "Corea", but I am here to de-emphasize using "Chōsen" over "Korea". I think that the discussion over "Corea" is still one to be had and is probably an interesting one, but I leave that to etymologists, linguists, antropologists.

Regarding the state seal, the source appears to be a single envelope seal, which Alamy says is from the Picture Art Collection. I am certainly inferring good faith on the part of the image uploader, but I have not been able to find any other usages of this purported seal in any other capacity. Nor can I find any information that attests to the validity of the initial envelope image source; this solitary comment on the file contests its validity, with proper sourcing.

The Governor-General of Chōsen did indeed exist, but I believe the naming convention is from creation by some translators more than it was from contemporary English-language promulgation by the Japanese government. I don't believe that the Government-General of Chōsen conducted business in English. It did produce reports on the territory that can be found in English, but these are translations from Japanese. As we've established, "朝鮮" can be translated as "peninsula of Korea" although it is transliterated "Chōsen", so "朝鮮総督府" can also be translated "Government-General of Korea". To reiterate, if we were to go by this rule then we would still call Korea "Chōsen" as Japan still calls the Korean peninsula "朝鮮", or even call it "Joseon" as North Korea still calls the Korean peninsula "조선". But English has its own rules and naming conventions. And to reiterate again, no modern source outside of Wikipedia calls the nation that was annexed in 1910 "Chōsen", as all of them call it "Korea". I should mention that Wikipedia has enough clout to distribute this disrespectful English naming convention that was not there before. Holidayruin (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, your observations and conclusions may very well have some merit as a general factual matter, but unfortunately, we can't use them to resolve the editorial issue here, as they constitute original research under policy. That said, I want to thank you for reaching towards compromise and suggesting "Japanese-occupied Korea (known contemporaneously as Chōsen)", with the only change being that you swapped piped link from Korea under Japanese rule to Names of Korea; personally I think the previous link is maybe a little better targeted for educating the average reader who is unfamiliar with this period of Korean history, but at the end of the day I think either link will get them there, and it's a small compromise. I personally think the wording you proposed (including "and Corea") was alright too: I understand Curry's objection, but that statement only said that the territory was known by those two names, not that they were both used in an official capacity. So I think that you've come more than half way here on this last little point of phrasing, and I hope that will be sufficient to assuage Curry's concerns enough that we have consensus on this statement. If that proves to be the case, as it seems to be, then we can next move on to the question of the wording of the infobox parameter, which will probably be at least as thorny a question, but I am made optimistic by the work towards a middle ground/alrernative solutions that both sides have been willing to put in here already. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, should I get started on this user's disrespectful arguments on the term "occupation"? This user has said this since our interaction in the section above. Now, we do call the Occupation of Poland the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), do we not? How about the German military administration in occupied France during World War II? To deny that the annexation was a military occupation would be like saying the Second Republic of Korea willingly handed over control of the nation to Park Chung-hee and that no military coup ever took place; clearly a military threat element was involved. Even if you don’t want to delve into the ever-controversial topic of comfort women (which certainly did happen, not unlike the German camp brothels in World War II) and other crimes against humanity, Ryu Gwansun would certainly disagree with your assessment of “occupation.” What you said there came off to me as ultranationalist tripe. Holidayruin (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention this user's ~50 edits since June 2021 to the page Korea under Japanese rule, such as removing mentions of Japanese human rights abuses during occupation, removing the Korean name 일제강점기 (日帝强占期) and taking it upon themselves to single-handedly remove nearly any usage of the term "occupation" (1 2 3 4 5 there are more). Holidayruin (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is not really the place to discuss the content of another article--or for that matter, the activities of an editor on another article--and we're finally making some headway here, so let's stay focused on the live content issues here and avoid complaints regarding issues outside the scope of this talk page. Curry has voiced concerns about the use of "occupied" in the statement discussed above, but also said they are willing to accept its use in order to focus on matters they think are more important to factual accuracy in this instance, so focusing on what Curry's views on Japanese rule in Korea may (or may not) be can only serve as a distraction and a needless point of contention separate from the issues we still have to resolve. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I do find it important to mention to illustrate the fact that this and many other questionable changes regarding dozens, if not hundreds, of Wikipedia articles about Korea and Koreans stemmed from the opinion of a single editor, who took it upon himself to promulgate a massive change apparently without conducting any wider consultation. Holidayruin (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent: there do seem to be some changes across a swath of relevant articles which touch upon areas that might reasonably be described as controversial. It's not that I even have a good read on how many of those changes I would support, how many I would oppose, and how many I'd have mixed impressions about. It's just that in areas of controversial areas that touch upon the national politics of two nations (and their frought shared history), I'd ideally like to see some level of engagement on the talk pages of the relevant articles.

Mind you, I think Curry's actions seem to be entirely good faith: for example, if I read their edit summaries correctly, when they removed the references to "occupation" in the Japanese Rule of Korea article, they were merely applying a formalistic approach to the fact that one definition of the term focuses on whether or not the supralateral power formally annexes/declares a usurpation of sovereignty from the imposed upon territory. Other definitions focus more on the question of the nature and degree of the force (particularly but not exclusively military force) expended to politically subdue the territory in question. Obviously these definitions have differing levels of currency with particular regard to the shared history here, depending on which side of the western channel you are on. (Do you like how I sidestepped the Korea strait/Tsushima Strait issue there? ;D). But in truth what we are meant to be doing is generally adopting the nomenclature broadly used in the sources. Curry (quite appropriately) makes a distinction in his edit summaries noting that they left in the instances where "occupation" was used in the sources, but changed it to "colonial rule" (or similar) in other cases, because they felt this comported better with the formal definition of the relationship following annexation. On the one hand, this evidences a good understanding of the difference between attributed text and that written for Wikipedia's voice. But even writing prose in wiki voice, we still should be presenting the view (or views) most common to the sourcing. And I don't think there is any question that plenty of sources consider Korea to have been "occupied" by Japan in at least one idiomatic sense or another. So it's not a super straight forward call, editorially speaking, and is worth discussing on the talk page of that article, if you have concerns. As here, I expect you will both have good arguments for feeling as you each do, but also the wisdom and ability to find a path between those perspectives.

And that's really my main message here: I'm not trying to dissuade you from broaching those topics, but for the sake of getting progress in any one area, I urge you to compartmentalize your arguments (and even your frustrations when you have them) and approach each article and issue as much in isolation as you can. If you really think you have seen a pattern of issues that needs to be addressed collectively, there are a number of places you can raise those concerns: WP:Wikiproject Korea, is a start which I notice you have already approached. Understand that, per WP:Advice pages, WikiProjects are not allowed to create standard approaches to be applied across all articles their members consider to be within the project's wheelhouse. So you can't just reach a consensus on the "facts" there and then take those conclusions to all Korean-sphere articles. In most cases, you will still need to form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on each article where the editors disagree on terminology. Which I know seems like an onerous, tedious process--and indeed it can be--but unfortunately, because of the problems with alternatives, is the approach considered best by this community.

But what the Wikiproject space can do is create a platform for centralized discussion on the concerns you have to get some rough agreement amongst editors working in the area, and also, above all, to create bridges of agreement between editors who may come at this topic from very different perspectives. A set of discrete threads there (but I'd focus on one issue at a time) raising your concerns about mass changes at other articles could be a good way to find a middle ground you two (and other editors working in the area) can agree to, and save a lot of time that would otherwise be spent arguing piecemeal across multiple articles. As someone who responds to a lot of RfCs, I don't perceive that you two are so radically apart in your perspectives and intentions that you couldn't agree to hybridized or third-way solutions in the majority of cases, just as you have done above. Anyway, that's my advice. And just looking ahead, please feel free to reach out whenever you might be struggling to find enough editors to reach a consensus one way or another, or just need a good old fashioned WP:3O. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response, Snow. You are right about compartmentalizing different aspects of what's been going on to relevant talk pages. I do have some concerns about how visible or how much other people care enough regarding the "occupation" terminology issue, even with a new RfC, but I'll see what can be done nonetheless. The best thing of course would be to have large amounts of objective eyes and mouths on it. While I still strongly disagree with the other editor on this separate issue, reading the Wikipedia article for military occupation I can see how they came to the conclusion that they did. This still does not excuse their overhaul and gatekeeping of the Korea under Japanese rule article, though, especially in light of the counterexamples I presented (here's another one, Italian Ethiopia. OK i'm done). I'll take them up on this on the talk page for that article shortly, though, and I'll also address the "official seal" issue there. For the time being I will address one issue at a time, so let's address "Chōsen" first. Yes it might be a tedious process, but if it needs to be done it needs to be done. And god forbid these issues happen again in the future, at least there will be quite rigorous documentation to draw upon. As for this editor: if you're going to make some massive changes like this, expect pushback is all. Yes, you would have gotten pushback if you opened up a discussion about these changes first, but it's better initially than down the line.

One very final aside on "military occupation": maybe the article Military occupation needs to be updated, huh. Looking at the issue (in and outside of Wikipedia) it might require some deeper legal and political science expertise on the nuances, while still being able to accommodate highly important historical nomenclature like the Occupation of Poland, German occupation, etc. which the current version of the article doesn't do a good job of. Part of the issue appears to be its over-reliance on post-1945 sources on the term "military occupation" (as well as its US-based sources on the Middle East, but you didn't hear that from me), I think? Any ideas on how we can get the proper eyes on it while adequately explaining the issue? Holidayruin (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's tackle the infobox then. I am totally opposed to "Chōsen" as we have discussed. If this editor does not like "Japanese Korea" because this exact term was hardly used verbatim as a formal name internationally (although, again, Italian Ethiopia) then I can agree to just "Korea", as this name was used internationally and is agreeable by English-language scholars and I think both Japanese and Korean people in the English-speaking world. According to gathered sources from both parties, "Korea" was also a formalized of-the-era English name; I would argue "Korea" was at least as formalized as "Chōsen" was. Crucially, modern English-world scholars seems to agree that "Korea" was annexed, while hardly using neither the term "Chōsen" nor "Japanese Korea". I will be honest: if we're going to write over all the "Chōsen" infobox changes with something, "Korea" is quite preferable. Holidayruin (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:@Holidayruin: I removed this article and its talk page from my watch page after my previous comment because, frankly, I was exhausted by the other editor, especially with their false accusations and misrepresentation of my statements. I am dismayed to find that their unfounded personal attacks have continued. Their combativeness and truculence, not to mention their unwillingness to assume good faith and insinuations that they're here to fulfil some role as an avenging angel ought to be noted; if possible, other editors should bring these to their attention and urge restraint.

I will continue to stand by the evidence heretofore provided that Chōsen was the official internationally recognized name of colonial Korea, that the term Chōsen itself is not offensive in Japanese, that simply because it is the native name of a former Japanese territory does not somehow make it invalid for use (such use would also not be unique, unless editor also argues that the true names for the following are Rich Coast, South Viet, Radiance-having Island, and The Bearded Ones), and that the period of colonial rule was not an "occupation" as it was intended to be permanent and there was no military force involved (something which the other editor's own examples paradoxically prove). It is profoundly unfortunate that "ultranationalist tripe" is often a dish served by both sides in the shared histories between former colonial rulers and former subject nations.

It does not bother me if other editors disagree with me and they choose to interpret the available evidence differently. But debate the ideas, not the editor. This will be final comment on this subject. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you will be disengaging, CurryTime, though of course your decision is to be respected. From my perspective, you both seemed to be making reasonable compromises and the resulting reading may very well be slightly improved as a result of your differences of opinion. That said, it is a wise editor who can make themselves see when a given discussion has passed a cost-benefit threshold for their enjoyment of editing, so if you mean to retire from the discussion, please go with my thanks as a fellow community member for your engagement. Regarding the prose, I think the foregoing discussion more or less establishes consensus and also is not inconsistent with the feedback provided by the other two editors to date below, so in my opinion that compromise result should stand for the time being.

Regarding the infobox, I will continue to have a short discussion with Holidayruin here and will try to present a balanced view of the competing factors, but given I am somewhat in the middle between your two views, and the below editors have expressed views that are at least partially more consistent with his read, I suspect 'Chosen' will be removed there altogether or at least made parenthetical in some way. That said Holidayruin, I'll be back as soon as I may (off project life obligations calling at the moment) to work out those kinks/particulars. I think since Curry is retiring from this article for the present notice, there may be little remaining dispute soon and we can remove the RfC FRS template and call it consensus after just a bit more discussion. But RfCs don't always need a formal close, and in this context, we can always keep the discussion itself open in case anyone already pinged arrives late. And indeed, my suggestion is to leave even the notice up for a little longer, until we work out the last little details. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Snow Rise: it's been more than a week. If I don't hear back within the next two days I'm going to start implementing the change on my own (to "Korea") Holidayruin (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, HR; I've been off-project, by the necessity of other responsibilities. That said, I do not find your choice innately problematic. However, you might head off future disagreement by adopting a hybrid option which strikes you as the least problematic There no shortage of possible permutations, and although I personally do not object to simply "Korea" as an option (and I think that you have a limited consensus for that approach, given the limited number of respondents to the RfC), some degree of explanation that this was Korea during the era of the Japanese administrative state (whatever you call it) might be useful as an element of that parameter in the infobox, and it might spare you re-arguing the point later. Just food for thought. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, just saw this. Hey, thanks for the moderation during this discussion, Snow Rise. I know it got a bit hard to read due to both how long and how argumentative the discussion got, so thanks for doing your part as the Wikipedia-style objective middleman soul of the discussion. I still haven't done the change yet, I've since felt a bit overwhelmed at the sheer breadth of how many articles need to be changed and I've been very busy in my personal life too (I still am, darn it).

I apologize for making this discussion harder to moderate than it should have been by being confrontational. Obviously I still believe in the facts and position I presented, and the historical revisionism on this specific topic did set off alarm bells that made me very wary from the start. Still, I probably turned up the heat too much during our dicussion. This probably made the discussion far more difficult for other editors, and I imagine it could make it harder to cite this discussion in the future if this issue ever comes up again (I mean, just look at this section). I should have presented my side of the matter without being so hot-headed as this always makes the task of objectivity more difficult for observers just trying to parse fact. And that hot-headedness could be used against you, even if you know you're right. "Can't let the asshole win" is a pretty strong ideological argument on its own. Holidayruin (talk)

B I find HolidayRuin's arguments extremely compelling. By contrast, the case for using the Japanese name seems to rest on the usual compulsion to use the "correct" name for a thing, even when that name is offensive and misleading. What's more, there's absolutely no case for "Chōsen" being correct usage. The fact that it was still in use after the war is beside the point. Is anybody outside Wikipedia using it now? — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Is anybody outside Wikipedia using it now?" That's is indeed the question which the disputing parties ought to be answering here. Or more specifically, they should be asking "Are any reliable, secondary sources using it now, and in what proportion to the alternatives?". With respect, the rest of your comment doesn't really address how this issue is meant to be resolved under policy (that is to say following WP:MPN by determining the WP:WEIGHT of usage in reliable sources), but instead dips towards the same WP:OR arguments which these two editors are now moving away from, for the better. I know it's not always a satisfying thing to hear, but the fact that a certain term is offensive to some is not in itself a compelling policy argument for why something is WP:UNDUE. To take just one of numerous possible examples, we sometimes describe certain politicians, organizations, or institutions as "extremist" in nature even though this may cause offense to those who support them: we're compelled to do that under WP:NPOV and multiple other policies, provided that is description utilized by reliable sources, despite any offense.

This situation is, in principal, no different. One hopes that if a term is truly offensive and inappropriate, that the sources will substantially avoid it and then we may follow suit. But ultimately we must go with what is suggested by the weight of the sources, not apply what we think are the "right" and "wrong" ways to describe something, based on our own personal, idiosyncratic beliefs and impressions. So let's not endorse those kinds of arguments, which will only lead the disputants here into a protracted loggerhead of an argument, and instead encourage them to do as they are doing now, and make the appropriate weight/RS argument. It may very well be that "Chōsen" will turn out to be largely rejected by contemporary scholarship and other reliable secondary sources, but any argument for that option which is not expressly predicated in the sourcing, but rather just declares that one option is automatically the right one (because of the position it advances) is merely begging the question and just complicating matters further by using a different test (a personal one) than the one that is meant to be used under policy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

B (Japanese Korea), or just Korea - After reviewing the arguments made by both sides, I think the question comes down to "What do modern sources say, in English?" And the answer is that they are pretty clear about using "Korea". I don't mind adding the qualifier "Japanese" or "Japanese occupied" or similar, because that does clarify the political situation of the time, but regardless of this "Chōsen" is not used in the English speaking sources, and this is the English Language wikipedia. Even in sources that discuss the term Chōsen (I'm looking at the washington post one now) have to specify first that they are talking about Korea, with the understanding that no one really uses Chōsen in the English speaking world (even though they are advocating that it 'should' be used, they know that it 'is' not). Fieari (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

---

@CurryTime7-24: I see your edits on Park Chung-hee, Choi Kyu-hah, Chun Doo-hwan, Roh Tae-woo, and Kim Young-sam where you edited these individuals' birth nations in their infobox as "Japanese Korea", instead of your initial implementation of the "Chōsen" wording.

Does this mean you be open to changing all of your "Chōsen" edits across Wikipedia back to "Japanese Korea", now that you believe that "Japanese Korea" is correct wording? This would be an amicable result.

Also, please consult a wider consensus from now on before you change infobox wording on this topic again. We wouldn't want another incident like this one. I would be glad to weigh in on any changes you have the idea for.

Holidayruin (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

---

This issue has been relaunched on the insistence of CurryTime7-24. A new thread regarding this same issue has been started at Talk:Kim Young-sam#"Japanese Korea" -- This issue was resolved at Talk:Kim Dae-jung#RFC: Should individuals born in Korea under Japanese rule have their birthplace as "Japanese Korea" or "Chōsen". Holidayruin (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

References

"Jin Dazhong" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jin Dazhong has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Jin Dazhong until a consensus is reached. 747pilot (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)