Talk:Cho Hee-dae

On romanization of '조희대'

@Aviram7, @Annh07 Name of the 17th South Korean supreme court chief justice is described as '조희대' in Korean character, and there are some confusing examples on romanization of his name. This problem stems as South Korean government does not compel Revised Romanization of Korean to name of each individual South Korean person, so it should be addressed as respecting each person's own romanization of his or her Korean name.

In this manner, it is certain that '조희대' himself makes romanization of his name as 'Jo Hee-de' as 'Jo' for '조(family name)' and 'Hee-de(or Heede)' for '희대(first name)', since every affiliated institutions recognized his name in English as 'Jo Hee-de' or 'Jo Heede', as two examples below. Other contradicting news articles describing romanization of '조희대' as 'Cho hee-dae' is just a article made by lazy, irresponsible reporter who merely translated '조희대' according to Revised Romanization of Korean, without looking for official romanization of his own name.

• Information of Jo Hee-de as former associate justice in the Supreme Court of Korea
• Faculty Information of Jo Heede as Distinguished Chair Professor in Sungkyunkwan University School of Law

Emeraldwood (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Jo Hee-de → Cho Hee-dae – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the proposed title is far more common in English language sources than the current title. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not sure whether 'Cho Hee-dae' is truly a commonname in reliable English sources. Please look for following articles, such as Fmr. Supreme Court Justice Jo Hee-de Nominated for Chief Justice from KBS World, or Conservative judge Jo Hee-de nominated as new Supreme Court chief justice from Korea JoongAng Daily. Emeraldwood (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  From where I sit, Google shows 12,400 results for the proposed destination vice 1,440 for the current title. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Simple WP:SET is not a WP:UCRN from reliable English-language sources for WP:AT and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Emeraldwood (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'll let the top bunch of results from my searches speak for me. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  @UtherSRG I've look through the Google test result you suggested, and still think the title of the article should be Jo Hee-de. The reason is simple. Try to search your suggestion 'Cho Hee-dae' or 'Cho Heedae' before year 2023. I guess it will be a lot hard to find proper search result that indicates '조희대' as South Korean judge. Rather, Jo Hee-de leads to more verifiable, trustworthy search result published BEFORE year 2023. It implicates that Jo Hee-de is more reliable term in English source, for describing '조희대'. You can see some of selected results I found at reflist of this article, starting from 2014 News to 2018 News, as official romanization found in the homepage of the Supreme Court of Korea recognizes '조희대' as 'Jo Hee-de'. Then why sudden rise in search term 'Cho Hee-dae' in year 2023? I believe this result is generated from current boom in machine translation of '조희대', as it exactly reflect Revised Romanization of Korean(RR). Yet, as this RR is created in year 2000, South Koreans born before 2000 does not follow RR in romanization of their name, such as '윤석열' is romanized as 'Yoon Seok Yeol' but he uses 'Yoon Suk Yeol'. This mismatch between official RR starting from 2000 and old South Korean's convention on romanization of his/her name, should be addressed carefully by verifying reliable sources, rather than looking for bunch of machine generated translation that merely regenerates RR based untrustworthy fabrications. Emeraldwood (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I support the name Cho Hee-dae and Jo Hee-de. Yes; it's what some persons think and it's normal ; should we use McCune-Reischauer romanisation or revised Romanisation of Korean? I think we could write both. Why ? Because everyone should be choose which romanization is to just for him. That the problem when we learn Korean ; personally I use McCune-Reischuaer Romanization but I accept the other. When we learn Korean we could be learn this two romanization but we use the one that seems most useful to us. But if I should to choose one romanization for me it's McCune-Reischauer

  I also specify that on the Yonhap news agency in English: Cho Hee-Dae is used and for the Namuwiki page of this person the official translation is Cho Hee-Dae Clement85FrKr (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  We should follow Wikipedia's Korea-related articles style guidelines. You shouldn't be using McCune-Resichauer for everything. The style guideline says:

  In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea and topics about Korea pre-1945. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea.

  More relevant for this case, it also says:

  There are cases in which the romanization differs from the common name used in English sources. As this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, use the name most common in English sources. For instance, Taekwondo is romanized as Taegwondo (RR) or T'aegwŏndo (MR), but uses the English spelling.

  In other words, we should be using the common name. MR and RR is simply a default or nice bonus if there isn't an established spelling. toobigtokale (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Toobigtokale You are making a great point, thanks! And that is the point I also want to highlight. @UtherSRG and @Zoglophie argues that 'Cho Hee-dae' is common than 'Jo Hee-de', and their one and only ground is Google test. But I think the test result UtherSRG suggested does not show that 'Cho Hee-dae' is more common. As I mentioned above, the term "Cho Hee-dae' suddenly pops up in year 2023 and almost never comes out in meaningful search result indicating judge '조희대' before year 2023. Rather, from year 2014 to 2020, it seems 'Jo Hee-de' is a lot more common term to describe him in reliable English sources. Than, can a sudden 1-year pop up in search engine truly shows that such popped up keyword is a 'COMMONNAME'? I think this is the main issue need to be emphasized for further fruitful discussion. Emeraldwood (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nominator's rationale. When I moved this to Cho Hee-dae, I took into account the same thing. Emeraldwood in future please don't move pages like this, you got to discuss it first in the respective talk page. zoglophie^•talk• 17:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Zoglophie I just cannot believe that putting Google test as superior evidence is WP's first and outmost rule while every officially affiliated institutions recognized his name as Jo Hee-de. Though you can make argument at THIS PARTICULAR transitional time, that WP:OFFICIALNAMES should be interpreted in such way, sooner or later official romanization of him will flourish over lazy RR fabricated from machine translation. When that time comes, please remember what I said and noted in this talkpage above. And for anyother Wikipedian who wants to settle this discussion, please be careful that title of this article will likely to be fixed to his official romanization (Jo Hee-de) in not so much distant future, as official English press release from the Supreme Court of Korea will be utmost reliable English source for almost every correspondents in South Korea. Emeraldwood (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Until the day comes that the official romanization becomes the common name, we'll use the current common name. While I share your frustration, please watch your tone, it feels like you're lecturing others for following Wikipedia policy. toobigtokale (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Zoglophie@Toobigtokale I am sorry for my aggressive tone. Made another light tone-argument on above paragraph. Emeraldwood (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please stop. You've made your point. Do not continue, as you are WP:BLUDGEONing. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Emeraldwood, thank you for the apology. My thoughts:

  • You're speculating (without statistics, only two individual articles) that there was a sudden change in just 2023 to using machine translation, but I think the Google search stats @UtherSRG identifies should include both old and new news results.
    • In other words, even if people suddenly did just change to using the Cho spelling in just 2023, the Google search volume (presumably it's across time) still seems to suggest "Cho Hee-dae" has more hits.
  • "Cho Hee-dae" also has a nice bonus of matching RR. Is it the result of automatic conversion to RR? Maybe, but if most people do automatic conversion then we use what they use too. That's just how WP:COMMONNAME works. It's not like their conversion is bad either, it's still a valid RR spelling.

  toobigtokale (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  As an additional note, the number of Google search hits is not a 100% reliable metric due to overlapping names or spam pages or whatever. You still have room to prove that the other spelling is more popular per WP:COMMONNAME, but it's tricky to prove; you need numbers that you can prove are more reliable than @UtherSRG's. toobigtokale (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Toobigtokale What can I say more when gunpointed with WP:BLUD? How uncivil I am :( Emeraldwood (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  To my understanding what they were implying is that you were repeating your previous arguments. You also have the tendency to write a little long-winded, which can make it difficult for others to understand your message. Writing long comments also deters other people from joining in because there's so much to read.

  If you write concisely and precisely without coming off strongly people would respond much more receptively.

  Feel free to respond to what I wrote, just please be mindful of my advice in this response. toobigtokale (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.