Talk:Old Chosŏn

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. Common usage was emphasised ("Gojoseon" in Ngram, Google Scholar, and government sources), and academic convention and MOS:KO-ROMAN was also emphasised. Although "Gojoseon" is more familiar to general readers, the weight of authoritative history texts and JSTOR results shows that "Old Chosŏn" is well‑established in scholarship. And since our style guide favours MR romanisation for pre‑1945 topics, and several discussants mentioned how important it is to align with that standard, consensus leans toward renaming as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Gojoseon → Old Chosŏn – Per WP:COMMONNAME research below in major Korean history books. Note that Gojoseon is not a significant topic in South Korean pop culture, which tends to use RR.

"Kojosŏn":

• Everlasting Flower: A History of Korea by Keith Pratt (2007)
• Korea: A History by Eugene Y. Park (2022)

"Old Chosŏn":

• Korea: A Religious History by James H. Grayson (2002)
• Historical Origins of Korean Politics by Duk-kyu Jin (2005)
• A Brief History Of Korea by Mark Peterson and Phillip Marguiles (2009; note doesn't use diacritic)
• A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present by Michael J. Seth (2010)
• A History of Korea by Jinwung Kim (2012)
• Korea: Outline of a Civilisation by Kenneth Wells (2015)
• The Ancient State of Puyŏ in Northeast Asia by Mark E. Byington (2016)
• The Three Kingdoms of Korea by Richard D. McBride II (2024)

"Old Joseon":

• A History of Korea by Kyung Moon Hwang (2022)

"Gojoseon"

• The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism by Jae-eun Kang (2006)
• Korea: A Cartographic History (2012) by John Rennie Short

Also, note that McCune–Reischauer works out well per WP:NCKO and WP:COMMONNAME. Significant majority of academic books on Korean history use MR. See WP:ROMANKO#Romanizations used in books for some proof of this; I've been tallying up what various books use. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Support - per Common name, in addition to WP:MOS-KO. The nom demonstrates that the common name of this ancient state, is the proposed title over the current title. Additionally, most of the cited English language sources in the article use mostly either the form of Old Chosŏn or just Chosŏn. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - The Ngram shows that Gojoseon is more WP:COMMONNAME compared to Old Chosŏn: Google Ngram Viewer: Gojoseon,Old Chosŏn. The result is similar in Google Scholar search, in which searching "Gojoseon" yields about 1600 results while "Old Chosŏn" yields 488 results. The naming will also confusingly break the consistency with the name Joseon used in the later dynasty kingdom. Monkeywatchwork142 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have some doubts about the accuracy of those results. According to the Ngram viewer, there are supposedly 0 sources that use the term "Old Chosŏn", while that is simply not true per the sources shown by grapesurgeon. Most of the results from Google scholar are brief mentions of the topic, that briefly mention Gojoseon being founded in 2333 BC. If we search on Google Scholar about Kija Choson vs Gija Joseon; or Wiman Choson vs Wiman Joseon (both two traditional periods of Old Chosŏn according to traditional histography). We have the results for 123 results for Kija Choson and 31 results for Gija Joseon; as well as 168 results for Wiman Choson and 76 for Wiman Joseon. If Gojoseon was the genuinely preferred term, then we would expect that the traditional periods of Gojoseon are more popular by their RR romanizations rather than MR. The results indicate that there may not be a common name for this ancient state, which in that case, we should follow MOS:KO-ROMAN and use the McCune–Reischauer for a pre-1945 Korean topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I've seen the Ngram being fairly used a lot in Wikipedia as a reliable scope to measure the prevalence of the terms. Old Chosŏn not showing up in the Ngram doesn't mean it yields 0 sources, but it means the usage is negligible compared to the term Gojoseon.

I don't know how you interpreted it in such a way from just a quick glimpse, but as you can see from the Google Scholar searches, there are also many scholarly sources using the term "Gojoseon" not to briefly focus on the yearly foundation, but deeply discuss it as the article's centralized topics.

While the names Kija and Wiman Joseon/Choson respectively refer to the alternatively hypothesized dynasty and specific last dynasty of Gojoseon, they do not specifically refer to Gojoseon itself. When referring to Gojoseon/Old Chosŏn, as both the Ngram and Google Schoalr results indicated, the term Gojoseon is more commonly used. The change of the name to Choson will also cause the confusion for readers who read the Joseon article on how the later dynasty of Joseon named itself from the old Gojoseon since the spellings differ. Monkeywatchwork142 (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I replaced the special character ŏ with o to see if more broadened scope of the spelling yields the different result, but it seems to remain the same: Google Ngram Viewer: Gojoseon,Old Choson,Old Chosun Monkeywatchwork142 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Those results make more sense, Google's OCR probably couldn't read the diacritics properly. I would point out that Gojoseon only surged in popularity in 2003 after the Wikipedia article was created also in 2003 and named as such. Per WP:NGRAM, we should discount the results dated after the article was created, as a lot of sources could be junk books based on Wikipedia article itself, creating a circular reference. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that many history-related books go through the editorial process, I would disagree with the clam that any history-related books on Gojoseon published after 2003 are junk books based on Wikipedia.

This Wikipedia article was also first created in 2003 with the name Gojoseon by the past editors and have been kept since until now, which shows that it already was and has been the name under the general consensus in the community over the past decades.

Even beyond the Ngram, the Google Scholar search results show that Gojoseon is still more commonly used names in scholarly sources compared to other names. Monkeywatchwork142 (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Google Scholar is difficult to rely on for this. See WP:KO/RS#Scholarly literature Many journals provide English-language abstracts, but they are often written by people who do not have a good grasp of English, and should be avoided. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, note that Google Books does indeed index a lot of low quality self-published books. The books I gave in my OP are considered some of the most authoritative in the field; they're used in university classrooms and a number of them are/were best sellers in the field. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Both Ngram and Google Scholar results still have been frequently referred on the issue of WP:COMMONNAME for Wikipedia, but if you still argue that they are unreliable, I must agree to disagree.

Searching the term "Gojoseon" in Google Books seems to reveal much more than just only low quality self-published books: gojoseon - Google Search

You claim that several pieces you selected to support the use of the term "Old Chosŏn" are the most authoritative sources in the field without providing much evidence, which also can be quite a subjective claim. I am quite certain that the same can be argued for other numerous well-published sources using the term "Gojoseon" given large numbers in Ngram, Google Scholar, and Google Books.

While I also quite disagree with your assumption that any scholarly articles written in Korean or other non-English languages must have had the poor grasp of understanding English and thus must be disregarded, I've tried comparing only the peer-reviewed English source results using the term "Gojoseon", "Old Chosŏn", and "Old Choson" for the library databases of the Harvard and UCLA. It shows that major university library databases also have more sources that use the term "Gojoseon"

For Harvard's HOLLIS,

• Gojoseon: 75 are peer-reviewed and 11 are in library or storage.HOLLIS - "Gojoseon"
• Old Chosŏn / Choson (Counts both o and ŏ): 46 are peer-reviewed and 9 are in library or storage.HOLLIS - "Old Chosŏn"

For UC Library Search,

• Gojoseon: 75 peer-reviewed articles UCLA | UC Library Search - "gojoseon"
• Old Chosŏn / Choson (Counts both o and ŏ): 40 peer-reviewed articles UCLA | UC Library Search - "Old Chosŏn"

As much as I appreciate the alternative romanization, don't know. Doesn't seem like a constructive move for now when visibly many sources commonly use the term "Gojoseon". Monkeywatchwork142 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I also still have the concern over the potential confusion when later Joseon Kingdom is spelled differently from Old Chosŏn(Gojoseon) since they do share the same name. Monkeywatchwork142 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Both Ngram and Google Scholar results still have been frequently referred on the issue of WP:COMMONNAME for Wikipedia, but if you still argue that they are unreliable I do, and I've explained why. Accepting them uncritically in this situation when we're aware of issues with them is not good. You didn't address my concerns there, just said you disagree.

You provide those two anecdotes (university libraries), but MYCETEAE's comment below documents more evidence of the contrary in broader academic journal aggregators. JSTOR especially should be given stronger weight.

Not really sure how to rigorously prove that the books I provided are major. Seth's work especially is major, has its own wiki article: A History of Korea (Seth book). It's taught in several universities; it was taught in my undergrad. The authors of many of those other books are major Koreanists, and these books are some of their broadest most complete works.

I do concede that I dislike "Old Chosŏn" being inconsistent with "Joseon", but frankly inconsistency is just the name of the game for Korean studies. Even if this article's title stayed the same, a significant number of terms in it will be MR. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Lean support. The nom's review of usage in a variety of sources and alignment with the appropriate naming convention provides a reasonable basis for the change. Ngrams are often useful but because of its limitations it does not necessarily trump a more careful assessment of particular sources that are deemed reliable for usage. I double checked Google Scholar and I get 488 results for "Old Choson/Chosŏn" and 1,610 for "Gojoseon". Jstor returns 99 hits for "Old Choson/Chosŏn" and 32 hits for "Gojoseon". Springer returns 51 hits for "Gojoseon", 42 hits for "Old Choson", and 1 hit for "Old Chosŏn" (note that many of the Springer hits are essentially duplicates—multiple chapters in a single book that uses one spelling or the other). The small number of sources overall may indicate there is no true 'common name', which would be another reason to default to the romanization preferred in the naming convention or in an appropriate selection of external sources. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  For Google Scholar, note my comment above. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Noted. This doesn't increase the strength of my support but I agree this favors the proposed move. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. See Talk:Gojoseon/Archive 3#Requested move 27 December 2023. MR. RR. I'm cool with either, but I prefer MR. Bamnamu (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Somewhat support. I'm not opposing the change itself, however, I'm opposing on the basis of the lack of consistency found within Wikipedia.

As someone who sees names of Korean kingdoms frequently, it is very difficult to maintain consistency surrounding main articles with the changes and articles that do not reflect the change.

• (Changed) Gaya confederacy → Kaya confederacy
• (Unchanged) Geumgwan Gaya, Ara Gaya, Daegaya, etc.
• (Changed) Baekje → Paekche
• (Unchanged) Onjo of Baekje, Daru of Baekje, Giru of Baekje, Gaeru of Baekje, and so on.

If Gojoseon needs to be changed to "Old Chosŏn", does that mean Joseon needs to be changed to "Chosŏn" as well? If consistency is guaranteed, and a solution to change the articles and their links unilaterally, I will support the change. If not, I worry about the readability and a possibility of causing confusion for both readers and editors such as myself.

Also, just as a side note, it seems that the Korean government still uses "Gojoseon" as the official spelling. Would it not be logical to use the official naming instead of what's being proposed? Just food for thought. Asieon『✉』 20:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Those pages haven't been changed yet because we're gradually making these changes. I was about to get to those soon. You're seeing us in the middle of a year-long process. Each move is followed by a bunch of cleanup. I've been behind the moving of many hundreds of related premodern Korea pages now; I think we're nearing a majority of people names being in MR. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you need help with moving the pages, I can help expedite things. I am also part of WikiProject Korea after all. Asieon『✉』 01:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes please feel free to help. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

On "official spelling", remember there are more than one Korean governments. NK probably even has stronger claim because they have more territory overlap.

What matters is what is widely done, and in academia it's MR. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, if consistency is guaranteed, I have nothing to oppose. Though I remain agnostic, I will support it for now. Asieon『✉』 01:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Monkeywatchwork142. If you add MR "Kojoson" and "Kochoson" to the the Ngram results, the Go-/Ko- variations appear even more common. —  AjaxSmack  18:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I explained why I don't fully trust Ngram for this above; instead I prefer to rely on major Korean history works grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also very cautious as to translating "Go-/Ko-" into "Old-" since the kingdom itself was named "朝鮮" with "古" being added later by modern historians. It's the same case with Goguryeo and Goryeo since both were written under "高麗" and yet, we don't call Goguryeo: "Old Koryŏ" or call Goryeo: "New Koryŏ". It just sounds very awkward, and I'm afraid it will be the same for "Gojoseon/Old Chosŏn".

  I get that the McCune–Reischauer format is more prevalent in current academia, but we cannot ignore the fact that it's also very difficult to read and write for average readers without sounding awkward. There is a reason why the South Korean government decided to create a new naming system and get rid of the old one made in the 1930's. Asieon『✉』 03:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  At present, MR is the blanket recommendation for pre-1945 topics. I get that you're not a fan of MR; I'm personally hesitant about its use on Wikipedia as well. But imo opposing these individual moves on that basis is futile; if this move doesn't pass, everything around it will be eventually moved to MR. So we'll end up with a page that's like 95% MR but the main topic is RR. Like trying to stop a stone in the middle of a landslide. Imo that's a worse outcome.

  If there's going to be opposition to MR on the basis of the system itself, it should be systemic. Proposed at MOS:KO. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  If there's going to be opposition to MR on the basis of the system itself, it should be systemic. I agree full heartedly and I know you have no horse in this race, and that you're complying to a community-driven movement.

  It's just that naming pre-1945 names under MR while using RR for South Korean names, a revised-MR for North Korean names (i.e. Pyongyang when it's supposed to be P'yŏngyang), but using NKR for names like Kim Jong Un, is all too confusing.

  It's an inherent problem of the Korean language itself, but I just feel like these changes are exacerbating it, not alleviating it. But this is just an East Asian language major ranting. I know this is going to get changed regardless. Asieon『✉』 04:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  We're in an excruciatingly tough spot with romanization; I've spent over a year now working on these issues and there's no clean solutions in sight. Consider that Wikipedia's practices are supposed to reflect what is widely done, and mixed practice is widespread. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  From my knowledge and experience, adding more romanizations will hurt the overall outcome and not help it. The best way would be to stick with a single system (i.e. MR or RR) and add notation within the page itself. I know this is being done in some pages already, but it will be most effective under a single, unilateral system, and not being used as a simple band-aid fix.

  But again, this is a suggestion made by a random Wikipedia editor. If the majority is happy using 4+ separate naming systems (MR/RR/Revised-MR/NKR/etc) that depend on time periods, regions, wide usage, and nationalities, they'll have to put up with the confusion that may follow suit. Asieon『✉』 04:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  That wouldn't work imo, but lengthy explanation. Also we're extending beyond scope of this discussion; maybe better to discuss on MOS:KO grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  "If there's going to be opposition to MR on the basis of the system itself, it should be systemic. Proposed at MOS:KO." The last time there was such a discussion, there was no consensus for MR, and yet these moves plough on. —  AjaxSmack  18:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note that I'm the one who wants to make the change. I haven't proposed it and still am hesitant to because I'm not confident in the technical aspects of how to propose the change. It would go against standard Wikipedia policy in significant ways. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)