Talk:Korean Chinese in Korea

Rename?

Should it be renamed "Chaoxianzu in South Korea"? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Just made a move request about this concern @A455bcd9 toobigtokale (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 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: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Chaoxianzu in Korea → Joseonjok – Not sure of what title to use. I think the current title is potentially acceptable, but is more verbose and doesn't reflect the term used within the country in question (South Korea).

Ngrams seems to suggest "Joseonjok" is most common; this anecdotally matches my experience.

Another related concern: what do we do about Chaoxianzu in North Korea? The article currently only mentions the South Korean Chaoxianzu; I don't know much about Korean Chinese people in North Korea in general unfortunately.

If this page were to include both South Korea and North Korea, then "Joseonjok" is potentially an unacceptable name, as it uses the Revised Romanization system of romanization, which is only used in the South. North Korea would prefer Chosŏnjok.

Tl;dr my preferred solution:

• Rename the page to Joseonjok, only have the scope reflect Korean Chinese people in South Korea. This topic is easily separately notable; Joseonjok are the largest ethnic minority in South Korea and are controversial. Lot of ethnic tension over decades with them.
• Either create a separate page for Korean Chinese people in North Korea, or use the Minorities in North Korea for them. toobigtokale (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What about "Korean–Chinese people in South Korea"? Chaoxianzu and Joseonjok are terms impossible to understand/guess for non knowledgeable English speakers. Unless the vast majority of RS use Chaoxianzu or Joseonjok. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Chaoxianzu is their official designation. Renaming them as ‘Korean Chinese’ might mislead readers since they don’t have Korean nationality. Given this, “Chaoxianzu in South Korea” seems appropriate. Furthermore, from a broader perspective, Korea views both the North and South as one nation. Hence, “Chaoxianzu in Korea” is acceptable. Oakwoodic (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oakwoodic We have Chinese Americans, Indian Australians, Ukrainian Canadians, etc. and in each of these cases it refers to "People in country X of Y descent". So Korean Chinese would be understood the same way. It's more about the use in English-language RS. The term seems to be used (e.g., https://www.jstor.org/stable/24643202 ) but I don't know if the others are more popular or not. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Official in China, not in South Korea. And see what WP:COMMONNAME says about official names. Remember that "South Korea" and "China" are not the official names of these countries, yet Wikipedia articles use these names. We generally abide by common name. toobigtokale (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Both ‘Jaehan Joseonjok (재한조선족)’ and ‘Zaihan Chaoxianzu (在韩朝鲜族=在韓朝鮮族)’ translate to ‘Chaoxianzu in Korea.’ The term ‘Han’ refers to Korea. It can also denote the Republic of Korea (韓國), the Three Kingdoms of Korea (Sam Han; 三韓; circa 300 BCE-0), the Empire of Korea (1897-1910), and can even be an abbreviation for North Korea. North Korean people do not even accept calling them “North Korea”. Given these nuances, the title ‘Chaoxianzu in Korea’ is appropriate. I will include additional information about Chaoxianzu in North Korea on this page, so please retain the current title. If we were to use ‘Korean-Chinese in South Korea’ or ‘Korean-Chinese in Korea,’ it would complicate the matter. Furthermore, ‘Korean Chinese’ is not the official name for ‘Chaoxianzu.’ Using ‘Korean Chinese’ could be misconstrued as an attempt by China to assimilate the Korean Peninsula. Oakwoodic (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oakwoodic Reliable sources matter, not our own interpretation and analysis (WP:OR). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Other RS using Korean Chinese:

https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/ca30.3.06

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8225815/ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarification, the term 朝鲜族 directly translates to ‘Chaoxianzu.’ It’s essential to note that ‘Korean Chinese’ is not their official designation. It’s crucial not to introduce or propagate new terms, especially on platforms like Wikipedia, where accuracy is paramount.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Oakwoodic (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Official terms only matter so much. See WP:COMMONNAME. If you can prove it's the common name that has more weight as an argument. toobigtokale (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t a matter of personal interpretation. For instance, a South Korean who obtains Chinese nationality, Korean Chinese includes people like Lim Hyo-jun, shouldn’t be referred to as Chaoxianzu. Instead, the correct term is Hanyi Zhongguoren (韩裔中国人).

As evidenced by the reliable sources provided earlier, ‘Chaoxianzu’ is the most accurate term and is widely recognized internationally. Hence, I strongly oppose the use of ‘Korean Chinese’ as a substitute for ‘Chaoxianzu’. It’s worth noting that even some scholars mistakenly use terms like ‘Chinese Korean’ or ‘Korean Chinese’. The official and most precise term is ‘Chaoxianzu’. Using the word ‘Korea(n)’ redundantly only adds confusion. Oakwoodic (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed Chaoxianzu seems to be used more often by RS so we should use it as well. And then we can split the article into Chaoxianzu in South Korea and Chaoxianzu in North Korea. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve provided additional information about Chaoxianzu in both South and North Korea. It would be helpful if someone could redirect related terms or articles to this comprehensive article. Oakwoodic (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't make those kinds of moves until the move discussion is closed. Please hold off. I'm still not convinced by the arguments made here; based on the edits to the article I'm not sure you've read the guidelines around style and article titles enough. toobigtokale (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this. Chaoxianzu is common for the use specifically in China, not specifically in Korea. No numerical sources have been provided to prove this case. toobigtokale (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just as Chinese Americans wearing the qipao (cheongsam) in China doesn't make it a part of native American culture, the Chaoxianzu (조선족), who make up 2 million out of China's 1.4 billion population, with half residing in Korea, need to be distinctly classified. They do not identify with the term "Joseonjok," and even in Korea, the formal designation is "Chinese of Korean descent (중국국적동포)" While "Joseonjok (Also 조선족)" is a term frequently used in Korea, it is neither warmly received by Koreans nor by the Chinese and is not the official terminology. Hence, it is justified to use the term "Chaoxianzu." I've sourced these papers related to Chaoxianzu from NAVER (네이버), Korea's largest portal. These objective materials prove that "Chaoxianzu (조선족)" is a widely recognized academic term in Korea. I'd appreciate it if you could provide evidence that the term "Chaoxianzu" isn't used in Korea. I fully understand your desire to switch to the term "Joseonjok." However, the moment "Joseonjok" individuals renounce their Chinese nationality and adopt Korean citizenship, they become citizens of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). Even if they reside in South Korea under the status of ethnic Koreans with Chinese nationality, their Chinese passports formally categorize them as "Chaoxianzu." They cannot obtain official recognition as "Joseonjok" anywhere in the world. I've extensively researched Korean and Chinese laws and have objectively dedicated years to this field. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] “The Case Study of Chaoxianzu Community in Korean Town “[18]

The official name for ‘Joseonjok’ in Korea is ‘Dongpo with Chinese citizenship (중국국적동포)’ and NOT ‘Joseonjok ’.”[19]

Therefore, considering the evidence provided, it's more accurate to categorize them as "Chaoxianzu (조선족)" rather than unofficial terms like "Chinese Korean," "Korean Chinese," or "Joseonjok" that are not officially recognized by either Korea or China. Oakwoodic (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

They're not called Chaoxianzu in Korea because people don't speak Chinese in Korea. People don't write "챠오시엔주" or similar, people write "조선족".

And again, you continue to bring up legal designations, but I'm telling you, read WP:COMMONNAME. I would like this to be the last time I bring up COMMONNAME, please read not just that section I linked but other parts of that page carefully. It is confusing and took me a few days to understand better, and I'm still learning about its nuances.

It's hard to understate how powerful WP:COMMONNAME is. Look at Cleopatra (there are numerous other Cleopatras) and China (not the People's Republic of China). While you can provide these small numbers of individual sources that use various titles, at this scale you need to provide numbers, which Google Ngrams is good for. It's tricky because I'm asking whether it's needed to specifically establish use for Chaoxianzu within Korea.

If you wanted to make the argument that WP:COMMONNAME should be applied generally (which would be Chaoxianzu) THEN applied to Korea, regardless of what term Korea used, that's a fairer argument. But I'd still disagree with it.

Appealing to experience doesn't help your argument here. I appreciate that you're experienced and would trust you on arbitrations of facts, but this is a matter of Wikipedia policy on titles. You need to read the policy page. toobigtokale (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your emphasis on Wikipedia’s WP:COMMONNAME policy, and I understand the importance of adhering to common and recognized terminology.

To clarify the language aspect, both the terms “朝鲜族” (Chaoxianzu) in Chinese and “조선족” (Joseonjok) in Korean refer to the same ethnic group: Koreans with Chinese citizenship. If you review the Chinese Wikipedia page for 朝鲜族, you’ll notice that the Hangul representation “조선족” is indeed used, highlighting their Korean identity. The link provided emphasizes this point: http://zh.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E6%9C%9D%E9%B2%9C%E6%B0%91%E6%97%8F (맨앞에 조선족=朝鲜族=Chaoxianzu라고 기재해놓고 5천만 한국인까지 포함해서 Korean 페이지를 기재하고 있는 의도가 불순한 중국어 위키백과) http://zh.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%9C%9D%E9%B2%9C%E6%97%8F (중국조선족과 조선족을 병기해놓고 한국인을 조선족이라고 부르고 있으며, 조선족은 중국조선족이라고 설명해놓은 중국어 위키백과) After reviewing both Chinese Wikipedia pages provided, it’s evident that they do not align with Wikipedia’s WP:COMMONNAME policy. To accurately address the issue surrounding the Chinese term “동북공정”, the article’s title should be “Chaoxianzu”. Thank you for your information.

While “Joseonjok” might be the transliteration of the term in English, it’s crucial to note that “朝鲜族” (Chaoxianzu) has a higher frequency of search results on Google, suggesting its more widespread use in certain contexts, especially in Korean studies.

To summarize:

• 朝鲜族 (Chaoxianzu in Pinyin) = Official name in Mainland China.

• 朝鮮族 = Variant used in Korean, Japanese, Taiwan, and Hong Kong traditional script.

• 조선족 (Joseonjok in Romanization) = Korean term, recognized in both China and Korea.

• Joseonjok = Informal or unofficial English transliteration.

It’s essential to recognize the distinctions and nuances in these terms, especially when discussing them in an English context. Oakwoodic (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

While “Joseonjok” might be the transliteration of the term in English, it’s crucial to note that “朝鲜族” (Chaoxianzu) has a higher frequency of search results on Google, suggesting its more widespread use in certain contexts, especially in Korean studies. You need harder evidence than this. Making a leap and inferring what Chaoxianzu specifically in South Korea are called based on overall usage isn't ok. I'm still unconvinced. toobigtokale (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just as Chinese Americans wearing the qipao (cheongsam) in China doesn't make it a part of native American culture, the Chaoxianzu (조선족), who make up 2 million out of China's 1.4 billion population, with half residing in Korea, need to be distinctly classified.

For others reading, for context, see Talk:Chaoxianzu#Lead definition. OP is arguing that we should use the title to offset assimilationist policies of China. I totally agree that assimilationism is bad, but using titles to forward that agenda is not acceptable.

Also, I don't even understand why OP is bringing it up here. The reason I'm arguing for Joseonjok is because the literal reading of Chaoxianzu (朝鲜族) using Hanja in South Korea is Joseonjok (조선족). The term is used identically in South Korea. Calling this article Joseonjok does nothing to erase the legal citizenship status of Chaoxianzu that they'd have in China; the term is identical. toobigtokale (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please check my comment. Thank you. Oakwoodic (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Chaoxianzu is their OFFICIAL Chinese name and this is what they call themselves, both within China and Korea. Please account that while debating.

Even the Chaoxianzu people of the Yanbian diaspora that's based in Korea refuse to refer themselves with the "조선족" term. They don't align themselves with the Korean-Chinese identity given by the Korean government/people. The term "조선족" also doesn't hold much authoritative meaning as Chaoxianzu themselves are of Chinese nationality and it is not widespread at all outside of Korean usage. Leumonia (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale

“Joseonjok,” … The legal term is “Hangukgye Junggugin,” which simply means “Chinese of Korean descent.”

Please read this Korean news(한겨례신문).

“Chaoxianzu” — the word literally corresponding to “Joseonjok” — actually is an official term. Through this term, individuals who share an identity as people with Korean ethnicity become citizens under the Chinese system. It’s an identity granted by China’s constitution.[20] Oakwoodic (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself multiple times now.

1. WP:COMMONNAME can take priority over "official names".
2. Providing a handful of sources is not sufficient to prove WP:COMMONNAME.

toobigtokale (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please respond by 14:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC). Refrain from merely echoing this comment. Research and consolidate information on the terms "朝鲜族" (Simplified Chinese), "朝鮮族" (Traditional Chinese), "조선족" (Korean), and "Chaoxianzu" (Pinyin). It is accurate to state that these are the WP:COMMONNAME and not "Joseonjok". Oakwoodic (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I already did respond, you should reply to my response. I may just concede and stop replying, I'm becoming doubtful this is worth our time anymore.toobigtokale (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’d like to provide some clarity regarding WP:COMMONNAME.

1. The terms “Chaoxianzu”=“朝鲜族(Mainland)”=“朝鮮族(Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan)”=“조선족(Korean language in Korea and China)” are officially recognized and used in both Korea and China. A cursory Google search will confirm the dominance of these terms compared to the less recognized term “Joseonjok”, especially among non-Korean speakers. It’s clear that “Chaoxianzu” and its equivalent terms are used specifically for Korean-Chinese individuals with PRC nationality.

2. In contrast, “Joseonjok” isn't a standard term in either China or Korea and might not be well-received by the community it seeks to describe. As such, it would be more appropriate for the title of the article to be “Chaoxianzu”=“朝鲜族”=“朝鮮族”=“조선족” in Korea.

Considering the widespread acceptance of the terms mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to switch to “Joseonjok” based on WP:COMMONNAME. If you are in favor of using “Joseonjok” in Korea, China, Japan and the United States+@, please provide evidence that suggests the community primarily identifies with “Joseonjok” over the other terms. Otherwise, retaining the current, more accepted title might be the best course of action. I hope you have a wonderful day. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Oakwoodic (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've said this from the beginning, Joseonjok is the term used in South Korea. While it is not the official term, it is undoubtedly the common term in the country.

Again, as I've said from the beginning, there is definitely a discussion to be had about whether we should use the overall common term, which is Chaoxianzu, even in scenarios where the local common term may differ (Joseonjok in South Korea). If you were making a direct point about this (i.e. "We should use Chaoxianzu for everything"), then this discussion would have gone very differently. Instead you've continued to employ the same mixed quality arguments over and over. Do you agree that my frustrations have some merit? I.e. that establishing WP:COMMONNAME requires more than just anecdotes, and that we should have talked about whether the overall common name should have been employed earlier. If you agree that they have some merit and you're frustrated with me giving the same responses, stop using the exact same argument tactics and expecting things to change.

If you are in favor of using “Joseonjok” in Korea, China, Japan and the United States This is not what I am proposing, I am proposing it exclusively for South Korea. Do not strawman my argument.

You have also continued to provide individual sources and not numbers. Repeating myself again, the reason why this is not convincing is because I can do the exact same thing: [28][29][30][31][32][33][34].

We're listing anecdotes without establishing a trend. You are claiming there is a trend, but insisting there is one isn't sufficient to proving it.

I'm going to wait until other people reply, and may not reply further unless I won't have to repeat myself. I don't think we'll change each other's minds. I suspect this proposal will not pass, but I'm unhappy with how this conversation went. I'm generally pretty agreeable in move discussions; this was a unique case. toobigtokale (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for comment again. I understand your emphasis on the term “Joseonjok” being commonly used in South Korea. However, it’s essential to consider the broader context, especially when the topic encompasses multiple countries, it is necessary to use the term Chaoxianzu in this case, considering common sence espacially in South Korea, China and globally.

 

About scope of recognition, while “Joseonjok” might be recognized in South Korea, the terms “Chaoxianzu”=“朝鲜族(Mainland)”=“朝鮮族(Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan)”=“조선족(Korean language Hangul in Korea and China)” have broader acceptance both in Korea and China. A basic Google trends reinforces the prevalence of these terms, making them more universally understood, especially among non-Korean speakers.

 

There is community acceptance problem, it's also vital to consider the sentiments of the community being described. If “Joseonjok” isn’t universally embraced by this community in South Korea, it is not the best choice, even if it's popular in South Korea. They & many people in South Korea think calling them Joseonjok is discrimination. [35] [36] [37] Seoul Metropolitan Government to Change Discriminatory Administrative Terms such as 'Widow' and 'Joseonjok' [38] [39]  Yanbian Chaoxianzu News: Discrimination in terms of Joseonjok (what they hate in Korean language)  Chinese Dongpo (중국동포; what they like in Korean language) is serious. [40] Through these article, the term Joseonjok is quite old and not widely used or not acceptable even in South Korea from the 2010's. [41] (Let's do not use discriminatory "Joseonjok" terms (2013) [42])

 

Furthermore, consistency in representation, our aim should be to represent communities accurately and respectfully. If a term like “Chaoxianzu” is more official and better received, it should take precedence over colloquial or localized terms.

 

Evidence-based argumentation is important. I understand your frustration about the debate revolving around anecdotal evidence. For a topic this crucial, it would be beneficial to gather comprehensive data, showcasing the frequency of terms across multiple platforms, to establish a trend. Mere listing of individual sources without a holistic overview doesn't contribute much to the argument.

 

From the open dialogue perspective, it's evident that both sides have strong feelings on this matter. However, it's essential to approach discussions with an open mind and avoid being stuck in repetitive loops. It would be beneficial if all parties could collaborate, gather comprehensive data, and present it for a collective decision.
 I genuinely hope we can reach a consensus that respects both the community's sentiments and the objective evidence presented. For this reason,  “Chaoxianzu”=“朝鲜族(Mainland)”=“朝鮮族(Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan)”=“조선족(Korean language Hangul in Korea and China)” in Korea will be the best answer for this article's title. Thank you. Oakwoodic (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, these are arguments I can finally get behind.

I now am skeptical of "Joseonjok" and think "Chaoxianzu in Korea" could be fine. toobigtokale (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is widely known and recognized by multiple acedemic sources in Korea that Chaoxianzu themselves refuse to acknowledge the Korean definition of "Joseonjok". They are assimilated into Chinese identities, and the Chinese government also refer to them as such. It is demonstrated that many Chaoxianzu find themselves isolated from the revisionist narratives present in the media as "Joseonjok" of Korean identity, it is rather that the Chaoxianzu would identify themselves as what is presented in the Chinese academics and media as "Chaoxianzu". So it's very inadequate to label them as "Joseonjok" or as such as many Korean academics disprove this. Leumonia (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just as Chinese Americans wearing the qipao (cheongsam) in China doesn't make it a part of native American culture, the Chaoxianzu (조선족), who make up 2 million out of China's 1.4 billion population, with half residing in Korea, need to be distinctly classified.

This comment above encapsulates how calling them "Joseonjok" is inadequate. Why should such ironies be permitted in Wikipedia when Chaoxianzu themselves disagree with the narrative that English-based academic resources are trying to paint right now? Leumonia (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's great and all, but sources. toobigtokale (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please check all the sources above. Oakwoodic (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I was not talking to you. toobigtokale (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and willingness to consider varying viewpoints. I think that we have arrived at a judicious resolution on this topic. Consequently, I propose we conclude with the term “Chaoxianzu in Korea.” Oakwoodic (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Question: I notice that the Wiktionary entry wikt:en:조선족 says that the term 조선족 (joseonjok) is often derogatory in South Korea. Is this true? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I guess User:Oakwoodic's comment above has already answered the question, by saying that use of the term "joseonjok" is considered discrimination in South Korea. On that basis I oppose the move, though I'm open to other arguments. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mx. Granger@Toobigtokale@Leumonia

  I appreciate both Mx. Granger and others for bringing this to attention. Considering the sensitivity surrounding the term “joseonjok” in South Korea, it’s essential that we approach this with care. As I mentioned earlier, using this term can indeed be viewed as discriminatory in South Korea. Given that, I believe it’s prudent to close this discussion and maintain the current title (Chaoxianzu in Korea). Oakwoodic (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Note: admittedly I wasn't aware of how significant the connotations around "Joseonjok" were in South Korea. I read more into it during this discussion toobigtokale (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Oakwoodic (talk) 00:47, 2 November 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chaoxianzu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)