Talk:Wokou

Looks like Original Research in the Constituents section

Specifically, the section on possible Korean fake Wokou appears to reflect mainly the opinions and analysis of one or more Wikipedia editors. Some individual statements are sourced, but the overall analysis reads as substantially original. I placed an OR template in the section, but I am not sufficiently informed about the subject matter to do significant editing. Can someone who knows a little more than I do about Korean and/or Japanese history look into this? The section appears to be useful to include, but it should be reworded in such a way as to summarize the available reliably-sourced information without projecting editorial interpretation on it. — Jonadab the Unsightly One, 2010 Dec 14 —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Qing _ Ming Dynasties?

I suggest to review this paragraph as the order of dynasties is wrong. The Qing dynasty came after the Ming. "The Wokou bands were also active in China, where the earliest record of Japanese pirates is from 1302. The economic embargo forced upon Japan by the Qing and later the Ming Dynasty made pirate trade the only way to secure Chinese goods, as trade through the Ryūkyū Kingdom was halted by China."

talk:Tianshanwarrior|talk]]) 18:45, 08 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.163.255.25 (talk)

Requested move to Wakō

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wokou → Wakō – The last vote on this was 2007, since then WP has formalized rules for article naming when the subject has a strong national connection; we use the spelling of the country in question. The Japanese term for this (romanized) is Wakō. From what I can see there is absolutely no logical reason not to move the page. Regardless of who they attacked (the idea they did not also attack Japanese ships is flat wrong by the way) they were Japanese. Therefore the Japanese spelling is what WP should use. Colincbn (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the strong national connection is to Korea and China, as well as Japan. There is no reason to prefer the Japanese romanization over a Chinese or Korean one. The majority of this article covers attacks on Korea and China, therefore the logical choice is to use a Korean or Chinese romanization, or if there is a common English term for them, use that. Further, the Japanese term "わこう" seems to be a transliteration of the Chinese name. It doesn't mean "we like" which seems to be the meaning of "わ"+"こう". 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In Japanese the term is 倭寇 or 和冦 which is pronounced わこう (Wakō). It has nothing to do with the term "we like". Colincbn (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What the IP is saying that that there are a plethora of homophonous compounds that read as "Wakō" in Japanese, such as "we like", or "bright peace" (a city name). There are no other compound words in the Chinese language that can be confused with "wokou", other than 倭寇. Though, I do believe that this isn't a really big issue in itself, as a {{confuse}} or a DAB page would solve such a problem. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: The subject doesn't have as much of a "strong national connection" with Japan as it does with China or Korea, and so I would dispute the interpretations of the newly formalized rules. 倭寇 was originally a Chinese term designated to Japanese pirates and adopted by Koreans; the Japanese pirates themselves did not refer to themselves using the term, and usage of 倭寇 in Japan did not occur until later on in historical textbooks and so forth. Plus, there is discussion as to whether all of the Wokou were actually of Japanese origin or not. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The subject is Japanese pirates. How can you possibly say that its national connection is not strongest to Japan? If the majority of the article is from the Chinese perspective then it should either be rewritten or changed to "Piracy in China". And a separate article about Wakō should be written. Colincbn (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, samurai, kimono, gaman and katana are all Japanese origin words. However, 倭寇 is not a Japanese origin word - it is a Chinese origin word that, today, is also used in the Japanese language. Regardless of what ethnicity/nationality the pirates were, they never called themselves 倭寇 in the first place. Calling these pirates "wakō" in the English language is original research in itself, as there were definitely not called 倭寇 by Japanese speakers in the 13-14th centuries, and the modern Japanese use is akin to calling Facebook фейсбук in Russian. You have yet to prove that "wakō" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English - the WP:GOOGLETEST below reflects this lack of proof. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is patently untrue, look in any Japanese dictionary and you will find the word, they also commonly spell it with different kanji. Colincbn (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted what I have said. (Or maybe my wording was misleading.) Even though 倭寇 is used in Japanese writing and is in Japanese dictionaries, that does not make it a word of Japanese origin. "Wakō" is a Japanese borrowing from Chinese "Wokou"; having the subject centred on Japan doesn't make the word any more Japanese. As for the spellings, 倭 and 和 are both corresponding itaiji of one another in Japanese. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do Spanish words of Latin origin not count as Spanish? Of course they do. This discussion is continuing below, please look there for more details. Colincbn (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: In order for me to support this change, I would need evidence that "Wako" was more commonly used in English than "Wukou". Because "Wukou" has been in use in this article since its creation, the evidence would need to be overwhelming. What term do most sources use? If there was evidence that Japanese pirates actually referred to themselves as "Wako", that would be a secondary influence on my opinion.Ferox Seneca (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The most common term in English is most likely "Wako", but according to the MoS for Japanese terms we use the "ō" unless the term is very well known in English without it, like Tokyo vs Tōkyō. Colincbn (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is some evidence for the Japanese use of the term: Japanese Wikipedia page on Wakō. Colincbn (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica article is titled Wakō: Article Colincbn (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia page was created in the 21st Century. You still have not addressed whether or not 13-14th Century Japanese pirates back in the day called themselves 倭寇 (literally "Japanese bandits", akin to 元寇 (Mongol bandits), but 倭 as a pejorative can also be interpreted as "dwarf", hence "dwarf bandits". The Chinese/Korean pejorative use of the term raises my doubts as to whether they would actually call themselves dwarven bandits). 倭寇 is a Chinese term that originated in China and is used in Japanese and Korean; under your logic we should be renaming Beijing (北京) to Hakukyō or something, since they use "北京" in Japanese as well. 倭寇 was a term used by Chinese to describe Japanese pirates; it doesn't mean that the term has Japanese origins simply because it is also used in the modern Japanese lexicon. If these pirates were ever mentioned in historical Japanese records, I'd assume that they'd be referred to as 海賊 or 犯罪船員 or something; by this time, 日本 would have been the standard naming for Japan within Japan, and they wouldn't be referred to as "bandits" locally like on the Asian mainland. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What they called themselves is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what English speakers, and to some extent Japanese people, call them today. We don't use grunts and cave paintings for Cro-Magnon do we? You are arguing to use Chinese for Japanese people when it goes directly against the spirit of WP:TIES what is your justification for that? Colincbn (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But are they all Japanese people? I remember there was an edit war a few full moons back due to a dispute as to whether they were partially Koreans. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The link Japanese pirates redirects here. If you want to write an article about Piracy in China regardless of the nationality of the pirates go ahead. You could add info about the pirates of the Wanshan Archipelago which would be awesome. There are Korean Yakuza but we use yakuza, there are some non-Japanese Geisha but we use the word Geisha. Why should we use a Chinese word for Japanese people? Colincbn (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the word 倭寇 come from Japan though? If not, is there a better native Japanese alternative word that can be used? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes 倭寇 is a Japanese word. Colincbn (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In the modern day. As a borrowing of a Chinese historical term, used in a historical context. Long after the last wokou died. Continued below. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: According to the Google Books/Scholar hits, Wako without macron is the most widely accepted name by a narrow margin to Wokou. If this RM is Wokou to Wako, I will vote for Support. We will need more investigation on encyclopedia.

"Wakō" pirate Books 14, Scholar 44

"wokou" pirate Books 445, Scholar 162

"Wako" pirate Books 562, Scholar 177

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If a word in Japanese uses the macron unless the term is widely used without it we tend to use it in WP. However I would still go with Wako over Wokou if that is what it comes down to.

I would also point out that in a quick and dirty Google search we get these results:

Wakō pirates =About 3,270,000 results. (note google adds both Wako & Wakō together for this)

Wokou pirates=About 62,400 results.

Colincbn (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We need "quotes" in Google search. Otherwise Google searches similar words. "Wakō" pirates 6,060 hits. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Yep you're right on that one, but using quotes brings the number of hits for all of them down,"wokou pirates" gets 7,440. Colincbn (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By 7,440, do you mean 36,000 in a base-27 number system? 〈Wokou pirate〉 (Wokou+pirate) gives wako, wakō, wokou and waegu along with pirate somewhere/anywhere down the sentence (google uses spaces as an AND operator); 〈"Wokou" pirate〉 only gives wokou along with pirate, with both words anywhere down the sentence; 〈"Wokou pirate"〉 however only gives results where the two words are strictly placed together. I hope you used 〈"Wokou" pirate〉 as your search query. The "AND pirate" is necessary so we don't end up with results such as "Wako Pure Chemical", "Miss Wako Tawa", "choles- terol-FA test (Wako)", "sekuru wako", etc, and the quotes around "wokou" only ensure that only wokou, and not wako, is returned. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No by 7,440 I mean 7,440. Funny how exact numbers can be. I searched for "Wokou pirates" your search of "Wokou" pirates will give any result with the word Wokou regardless of the inclusion of the word Pirate. Therefore it is not very accurate. Colincbn (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Having a quick look at a few google searches, there is a problem with relying on such searches:

1. Many pages use both names (e.g.: "...these were known as Wokou (Wako)"; "the Wako, also known as Wokou in Chinese, were pirates that..."), and so search results obtained by non-exclusive searching results in duplicates
2. searching "wokou pirate -wako" and "wako pirate -wokou" eliminates the above problem, however eliminates 90% of academically credible pages (the rest are forums, Shogun: Total War vidyagaem websites, etc).
3. There is a Bacardi cocktail called a "Wako Pirate". You make it by mixing 1/2 part Bacardi Coco with 3/2 parts Bacardi Dragon Berry, and then adding two slices of orange.
4. A large number of "wako" entries are related to vidyagaems, as well as table-top games. (inb4 "OH LOOK SEE PEOPLE USE WAKO IN REAL LIFE", 12 year olds writing vidyagaem strategies on the internet is the least we should be arguing with)
5. I had to have one of my searches at ＜wako pirate -wokou -bacardi -shogun -"total war" -cavalcade -games -wiki -waco -"shockwave flash" -"eve online"＞, but even so, the results pool is still impure.

Relying on basic google searches won't prove anything worthwhile, and hence we should stick with other avenues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I get 10 Google Book results for macron Wakō, qualified by "Japan" and "pirates", versus 1,300 for the macron-free version. No diacritic is ever majority usage on Google Books, but I think it should get at least 10 percent to go in the title. Wakō can certainly appear boldface in the opening. Kauffner (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Colincbn (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - They were Japanese people, use the Japanese term. Neither Japanese nor other terms are "widely known" in the English-speaking world, so any imagined popularity of one term over another shouldn't be an issue. However, the Google test (above) and more importantly, its listing in Britannica as Wakō satisfies me that the Japanese term has the most widespread use in English sources. Wikipedia must look pretty foolish if it is the only major reference source that doesn't use it. As for the macron, I'm not a fan of it, but in this case Wikipedia policy (again, because it's not a well-known word, like "Tokyo") stipulates that the macron should be included. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use it but I am really fine either way. Colincbn (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Vietcong are Vietnamese people, use the Vietnamese term (Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam)? The Boxers were Chinese people, use the Chinese term (Yihetuan)? Jews are Jewish people, use the Jewish term (Yhudim)? Swedes are Swedish people, use the Swedish term (Svenskar)? The term 倭寇 isn't any less Chinese than it is Japanese, and it was in Chinese and Korean historical texts that the term was extensively used, not in Japanese texts. During the time of the wokou, there were no Japanese records that used the term. When we refer to the Vietnam war, we are using the American lexicon of the conflict, and not the Vietnamese "American war", even though the war took place in Vietnam. The origin of a peoples doesn't necessarily reflect suitable naming. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But your not arguing to use the American term for these Japanese people you are arguing to use the Chinese term. It would be like arguing to use the Finnish term for Swedes. If you want actual examples of usage on WP look at WP:TIES. This is what we should be basing our decision on. Colincbn (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And I am basing my argument on whether or not the term was used in Japanese historical records in the pre-modern era, which deduces whether or not it is a Chinese or a Japanese term (note that I am referring to the ideographs, and not any romanization). My handful of examples above weren't to reflect how things should be named; they were just examples to show that naming does not necessarily have to be based on the native coinage as implied. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You are saying we should use the Chinese term for these Japanese people. What is your argument for using a non English, non primary language term for this topic? That is the only thing that matters. We don't use the Chinese word for Miko, we don't use the Chinese word for Yakuza, we don't use the Chinese word for Geisha or any Japanese people other than the Wakō. Why should this be treated different? Colincbn (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Miko, Yakuza and Geisha are undisputably Japanese terms for Japanese concepts. Wokou, on the other hand, was a Chinese historical term never coined in Japan until in the modern day, and modern usage is only used in a historical context. Though you might disagree, I see this as apples and oranges. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Again this is irrelevant. They call them that now and in English we usually do to. The origin of the word does not matter, look at Troubadour. We use the English word even though it came through Old French from its Latin roots. The most common English (or romanization) is Wako so I am ok with that. The macron is not as important to me although there is an argument for using it. WP:TIES makes it very clear that we should use terms most associated with the people the article is about which in this case is Wako or Wakō. Colincbn (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are Chinese historical terms used in Japanese, and in many cases they are quite relevant to the Japanese word view, however that does not mean that they no longer are Chinese. Take Tianxia for example - it means "all under heaven" in both Chinese and Japanese. It was first used in China to refer the world before the emperor; later it was used in Japan to refer to their own domains. Since the term is indisputably WP:TIES-ed to Japan, does it become any less of a Chinese conceptual term? Same goes for Datong, same goes for Sijunzi. When the Japanese say Banzai, does it make the concept of Wansui any less Chinese? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:TIES is a subsection of WP:ENGVAR. But neither China nor Japan are anglophone. Research on the origin of the term, whether or not the term was used as self-identification, etc. are good for article development, but less so to seek a better artile title here. Instead, we should focus on contemporary English usage, giving more weight to verifiable reliable sources, especially to reliable works of general reference per WP:ENGLISH. I'm inclined to support the move. Use of wakō by Britannica (if you search wokou, Britannica gives a link to the article using "wakō (Japanese history)") is a good indication that the term derived from Japanese is more familiar to a general audience. --Kusunose 01:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are of course correct. I have not said WP:TIES "requires" the change specifically because of that. Also it is a guideline not a policy. But I still think the idea behind it is the same. But at the end of the day English usage trumps all and wako/wakō is the standard. They even use Wakō in Shogun Total War 2. Colincbn (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

>But at the end of the day English usage trumps all and wako/wakō is the standard
You've yet to prove that this is the case. Britannica is one of many sources, and there are likewise sources that use "wokou" as well. Until there is a clear majority of English texts using "wako" (52%-48% is not a clear majority, if we were voting for parliament seats a second election would be called), I will oppose a change to the status quo (WP:IFITAINTBROKE).
>They even use Wakō in Shogun Total War 2
I'm quite sure that vidyagaems aren't the best place to look on things like this, as vidyagaem devs are experts in coding but not necessarily the best people to ask homework help for. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the history in Shogun Total War 2 comes from Stephen Turnbull (historian) one of the worlds foremost experts on Japanese history. But really that was not meant as a serious point, I was just showing that in pop-culture the word is used as well. But I get it, you will only accept the Chinese word for these Japanese people regardless of its use in English and regardless of the strong National ties to Japan. Colincbn (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: That the nominator has made reference to a Wikipedia policy or guideline without linking to it makes the rationale suspect, if not able to be thrown out all together. But the reasoning is also wrong: the strong national connection is to the countries that were victimized by the pirates, and which wrote about and established the term used in English today (except by scholars of Japan). Furthermore, the macron in the proposed name places Japanese orthography rules above fidelity to reliable sources, an attitude that has been dealt a decisive blow in the page move of Hokkaido. Quigley (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am also perfectly fine with Wako which is the most common English term. Although the macron issue is not the same for Hokkaidō vs Hokkaido. And the idea that Wako did not also victimize Japanese sailors is false. These are Japanese people and this is English Wikipedia. Why would we use the Chinese name? Colincbn (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wako is not the most common English term; it is tied with Wokou, which has many other reasons going for it, as Benlisquare pointed out. And I never said that the Wokou did not victimize Japanese sailors; just that the most frequent attacks were against Chinese sailors, who documented and gave the pirates their current name (Wokou). You contradict yourself in calling Wako an "English term" and putting a macron on it for Japanese orthography rules; Wokou, by its lack of romanization marks, is not a "Chinese name" but an assimilated English language name. If we wanted a true English calque, it would be "Japanese pirate", but you're not asking for that; you are asking for wholesale imported Japanese. Quigley (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would be fine with "Japanese pirates" as well, because this is English WP. I feel the term Wako is used enough in English to qualify but if others disagree I will concede the point. However there is no rational for using the Chinese name for Japanese people on English WP. Colincbn (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I can support a move to "Japanese pirates". Quigley (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Though I personally wouldn't oppose moving to "Japanese pirates" (I'm fine with such a title myself), there might be others that will, given that the past few move discussions had pickles relating to "Japanese pirates". An alternative I guess would be to change the contents of the article to a more general/broad tone, and move it to "Piracy in East Asia" - in essence, the "Japanese" pirates were not all Japanese. Many famous/notable "Japanese" pirates were actually of Fujian and Zhejiang origin, though there are also well-known Japanese-origin pirates. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I have been arguing for. I honestly don't care if we change this to "Piracy in East Asia (or China)" and then start a new article on "Japanese pirates (or Piracy in Japan or wako or whatever)" or if we start the piracy in China article and change this one. It amounts to the same thing. The subject of Japanese pirates is notable so it deserves a page, and the subject of piracy in China does as well. They are not the same thing and using the Chinese name for Japanese pirates on English Wp seems right out to me. Colincbn (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute that. The whole hubbub is one topic. This article doesn't deal with pirates in the neolithic, nor does it deal with pirates from last Wednesday. It specifically deals with pirates during the Ming Dynasty, where the actual ethnicity of the pirates can range from anything from Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Plutonian. By arguing for a separation based on ethnicity, you're making mountains out of nothing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you are saying the only article that should exist on Japanese pirates or Piracy in Japan on English WP is one from the Chinese perspective?? That seems kind of weird to me. It is not a fork, piracy in China and Japanese pirates are two separate subjects. There were the pirates of the Ladrones Islands in China that had nothing to do with Japan, and there were pirates who preyed on Japanese coastal fishermen who had nothing to do with China. You say the article is based on Ming Dynasty China but there were in fact examples of piracy throughout the Edo period. There is nothing wrong with having a Piracy in Japan" article and a "Piracy in China" article. Sure they will overlap in some areas but they are two separate subjects. And note there is almost no information on the Ladrones Island Pirates on WP. We could fix that by splitting the article. Colincbn (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is interested this is what I am taking about [1]. One problem seems to be most information on them is only in Chinese or Portuguese (Ladrones is the Portuguese word for theives). Colincbn (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Wakō - I do not believe anyone anywhere in Anglophone world conventionally uses diacritics for Japanese terms. In any event, the discussion on use of diacritics in article titles is currently raging at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) (permalink here). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to Wakō. Wako being the most common name in English sources and being representative of the Japanese language, Wako seems to be the better choice. Some of the editors here opposing this move have used the reasoning that "wokou" has natural connection to Korea. It absolutely does not. Wokou is a Chinese word, not a Korean one, and using the Chinese word, wokou, would be a biased naming of this article. 11:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose move to Wakō - The majority of pirates raiding the Chinese coast were ethnic Chinese, not Japanese- the Chinese authorities labled them as Wokou. Wokou was a blanket term for pirates of all ethnicities along the Chinese coast.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wokou were called such by the Chinese, not the Japanese. Just as danish (pastry) should not be called wienerbrød. —  AjaxSmack  22:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Books and Scalar search results

"Japanese pirates" seems to be the most common name.

• "Japanese pirates" Books 8,480, scolar 973
• "Wako" pirates Books 1,670, Scholar 255
• "wokou" pirates Books 434, Scholar 162
• "Wakō" pirates Books 14, Scholar 43
• "Piracy in East Asia" Books 25, Scholar 29
• "Piracy in Japan" Books 59, scholar 37

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with Japanese pirates. Since this RfM is almost definately not going to pass I will start that one next. Colincbn (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I updated the figures by changing pirate to pirates. I am not sure why "Wako" pirates increased so much. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the latest research results, it has accounted for the majority of members of the Japanese is only the initial, since 1350, the members of the China and South Korea were the majority. Nevertheless, it is too strange that named "Japanese pirates".Wingwrong (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition of the original term

The term Wokou essentially covers four different definitions:

1. Pirates that come from Japan and raided the Mainland Asian coast during the 13-14th centuries
2. Chinese, Korean and Portuguese militia, merchants, smugglers, sailors, moneytraders and missionaries that later used the seas, sometimes mistaken for/imitating the original Japanese pirates when raiding a coast
3. The de facto Japanese invasions of Korea under Hideyoshi, and later during the First Sino-Japanese War
4. A slur used by Chinese civilians and soldiers during the Second Sino-Japanese war to refer to the Imperial Japanese Army, a usage sometimes used today online by Chinese netizens to refer to Japanese people in general

Of relevancy to Wikipedia are the first three definitions, and of these not all cases refer to Japanese individuals. Thus, taking into account of the non-Japanese "wokou", would the naming of "wako" still be considered as a better choice of naming? (Later edit: In case it wasn't obvious enough, this is a rhetorical question. I am definitely opposed to a rename.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In Japanese the term is often spelled with "和冦" instead of "倭寇" (both pronounced Wakō in Japanese), I looked at your userpage so I'm sure you realize the significance of the difference. For those who may not I would point out the first spelling uses the Japanese kanji for "harmony" or "things Japanese" the second uses the kanji for "yamoto" or the first Japanese people but also sometimes used to mean "dwarf" in Chinese sources. But this is besides the point. I would agree with Wako as a title simply because it seems to be the most used English term. The macron issue is a separate bag of worms. Colincbn (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the case in Chinese or Korean, but as I've said earlier 倭 and 和 are corresponding itaiji in Japanese. The difference is akin to airplane and aeroplane, and doesn't mean much at all. 和 is often used to represent "yamato" in Japanese in modern texts because 倭 isn't present in the Jōyō kanji, and is considered (in Japanese) as an uncommon/non-regulated variant of 和. In Chinese and Korean, 倭 and 和 are completely different words, and since the term originates from China, 和冦 is hence never used in China or Korea. The term was first used in China and Korea, in a pejorative way, as the pirates were looked down upon (due to a Sinocentric view of the world, Japanese were considered inferior to those from Joseon and Ming), the usage of 倭 reflects this. Keep in mind that by the 13th century, official texts in China already use 日本, and not 倭, as the name for Japan. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In Japanese 倭 does not have any association with "harmony" or "peace" yet 和 does, they are in no way simply interchangeable.

From Wa (Japan):

Nara period Japanese scholars believed that Chinese character for Wō 倭 "Japan", which they used to write "Wa" or "Yamato", was graphically pejorative in denoting 委 "bent down" 亻 "people". Around 757 CE, Japan officially changed its endonym from Wa 倭 to Wa 和 "harmony; peace; sum; total". This replacement Chinese character hé 和 combines a hé 禾 "grain" phonetic (also seen in 倭) and the "mouth" radical 口. Carr explains.

Also I would point out that almost every Japanese word is written in kanji and therefore a vast number of them have equivalents in Chinese, but you surely would not say all words of Chinese origin are not part of the Japanese language. That would be like saying all Spanish words are Latin just because that is where they came from. Or like saying the word "tea" is not English because it was originally a Chinese word.

But this is a bit off topic. You mentioned above the possibility of "Wako" as a title, I am ok with that as well. Would you support that change? Colincbn (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

>You mentioned above the possibility of "Wako" as a title
My original question was a rhetorical question referring to using a Japanese reading of a Chinese historical term that literally translates to Japanese pirates, to refer to pirates that aren't Japanese, but rather are Chinese and Korean pirates either imitating or are mistaken for Japanese pirates.
>Also I would point out that almost every Japanese word is written in kanji and therefore a vast number of them have equivalents in Chinese
Yes, Japanese has lots of words that originate from Chinese, that is undisputable. However, Wokou is a rather contemporary addition to Japanese, as the term was not used in Japanese during the 13-14th centuries, in formal records and in everyday speech, to refer to pirates that raided the Asian mainland.
>In Japanese 倭 does not have any association with "harmony" or "peace" yet 和 does
And this doesn't stop Japanese character dictionaries from listing 倭 as an itaiji of the Jōyō kanji that is 和. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying you are only willing to accept the Chinese term for these Japanese people on English Wikipedia in spite of WP:TIES? Why not give them the Portuguese name, they fought them too right? Colincbn (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also you keep saying wakō was not used until "modern days" but what do you mean by that? Do you have evidence of its first use in a Japanese text? Of course it is used now, and it is used in English more than wokou so it makes no difference according to Wp Policy. I'm just wondering where you're coming from. Colincbn (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We use the term Sea People for the raiders of the Egyptian coast, who are not Egyptian, even though the term "Sea People" is Egyptian. This is because they raided Egypt, therefore the close ties are to Egypt, since they are a small portion of the originating population, thus we do not use the Phoenician name for the raiders. The close national ties to these pirates are the VICTIMs, so the Korean and Chinese names are the more significant names, since the pirates in Japan had little impact in Japan itself. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sea People" is not Egyptian, it is English. Colincbn (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sea People didn't call themselves the Sea People though; "Sea People" is the Egyptian designation for them. The 倭寇 didn't call themselves 倭寇; 倭寇 was a name given to them by the Chinese. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And Wako is the term given to them in English. Colincbn (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I've asked before, says who? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Google books for one:

"Wako" pirates Books 1,670, Scholar 255

Colincbn (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Macrons

Per User talk:Jimbo Wales we should not be using diacritics for terms where there is a commonly accepted spelling using normal English letters, so it would be "Wako" and not the proposed title. Per the discussion above, the macronless form is much more common. So the discussion should be "Wako" versus "Wokou". 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this also seems to be the most common English use. Colincbn (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what it says on Jimbo's talk page, his talk page is not policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

True enough. But what do we do in this case then? The fact that in English usage of the term is split between Wako/Wakō does not seem like a good reason to name the page wokou to me. Colincbn (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not good reason to name the page Wako/Wakō either. There's a higher bar for change than for the status quo, and this is true for all move discussions. Quigley (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct of course. We default to the first non-stub title unless there is a clear consensus or Policy that says we change. I think WP:COMMONNAMES calls for either Wako or Wakō , but the macron issue is clouding that. There is also an argument for "Japanese pirates" and I would agree to that as well. We could also move to "Piracy in China" and cover things this one leaves out, and then create a new "Japanese pirates" article or whatever. But simply using the Chinese term for Japanese people seems wrong to me. Colincbn (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your comment. You said that "English usage of the term is split between Wako/Wakō", although I meant to agree with the statement that English usage of the term is split between (Wako/Wakō and Wokou). The Google test that Phoenix7777 performed is flawed because of results like "Wako Pure Chemical", "Miss Wako Tawa", and "sekuru wako", so I still consider the assertion that "Wakō is the most common English use" to be without merit. Quigley (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly my test was flawed as I did not even use simple quotes the first time. I am not sure of Phoenix's however as I do not often used advanced search functions. If we were to repeat the test in Google books/scholar how would you suggest it be done? Colincbn (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to Wako

Per discussion above on issues with macron usage. I propose to change the RfM to "Wokou => Wako". Wako/Wakō is the most common English term. And the strongest national ties to the subject are to Japan as these are Japanese pirates. This is not an article on Piracy in China, although that would also be an encyclopedic subject and would include information on the pirates of the Wanshan Archipelago and European pirates that operated there etc. But this is not that article. It is an article on Japanese people on the English Wikipedia, therefore there is no rational to use the Chinese name. Colincbn (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree As proposer. Colincbn (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree I see little justification in using a Chinese term. Some editors misleadingly argue that the term Wokou is also relevant to Koreans, but the Korean term for this is Waegu, not Wokou. Japanese piracy has as much salience to Korea as it is to China, and it is in my opinion that Japan has the strongest national ties to the subject, not China or Korea in particular. Also, per Wikipedia guideline to use most commonly used terms, Wako seems the most appropriate title for this article, in the interest of the readers. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the topic is more closely linked to Korea than any other country, and to China than to Japan. They had minimal impact on Japan, while they had much greater impact on Korea and China. So the Japanese name would be the least of the three choices. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Minimal impact"? There were whole clans of pirates! They ferried the troops of Mori Motonari across a strait to the Battle of Miyajima in 1555. The pirates could support one daimyo by harassing the merchant shipping of another domain (thus acting as privateers). During the Battle of Sekigahara, pirates sided with Tokugawa Ieyasu, and fought a naval battle on Mikawa Bay which prevented reinforcements of the Western Army from landing; if they had landed, they would have hit the army of Tokugawa Ieyasu from behind. Ieyasu would have lost Sekigahara and all Japanese history from 1600 to the present would have been different. Groups like the samurai and ninja might have overshadowed the image of the wako, but you need to study more history before making a such simple generalizations. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not in the current remit of the article. This article is about the raiding of Japanese pirates upon Korea and China, not the participation of militaristic naval clans upon the unification of Japan. The effects of those pirate raids had minimal impact on Japan itself, which is different from naval warfare conducted by the clans. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems many people assume that simply because this article is written solely from the Chinese perspective that is the only information there is. The truth is there is just as much and most likely more in Japanese sources that have never been included in this article. I assume the reason is the editors working here are mostly students of Chinese history and therefore are unaware of the fact that these Japanese pirates actually existed in Japan. Colincbn (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the talk section below. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• 反対する: As stated before, users still haven't proven that these pirates have the strongest national ties to Japan (as large numbers of Wokou were Chinese), and users haven't proven that there is a definite majority of English sources, that without doubt, use "wako" in a matter in which absolutely dwarfs the usage of "wokou" in English sources as well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and the current naming of "wokou" does no harm and does not "break" the article. Keep in mind that the name "Wokou" ("Japanese bandits") are in name only, and do not prove that they were, in fact, Japanese. The English horn was invented by a Frenchman, the French horn was invented by a Brit, and Chinese whispers has nothing to do with China, as with Chinese burn and Chinese checkers. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. In the first place, you shouldn't make it so that I have to state my opposition twice (and whoever closes this discussion should consider the opposition stated above this section but not repeated here). As ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ convincingly shows in his source-rich section below, Wokou's literal translation as "Japanese pirates" is a misnomer. The strong national ties are to China, which named the pirates, who were mostly ethnic Chinese, and who mostly raided Chinese coasts. The nominator may create a fork called Piracy in Japan to cover pirates with strong national ties to Japan, but that article is not Wokou. Quigley (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree The wokou were mostly Chinese.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty sneaky regurgitating the discussion here. Oppose for the same reasons I give above. —  AjaxSmack  22:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

most wokou raiding Chinese coast were ethnic chinese, we should not use Japanese terms for them

The subject of their descendants, the wako (or wokou in Chinese), those allegedly “Japanese” pirates who marauded from Korea to the Shandong peninsula and all the way south along the Chinese coast throughout the Ming,

Despite the fact that for much of the sixteenth century coastal China and the prosperous Jiangnan region were preyed on by the wokou, 'Japanese pirates' (many of whom were, in fact, renegade Chinese under Japanese leadership),

The Chinese preferred to call the participants "Wokou" (Japanese, Wako), by which they meant "Japanese pirates." It was recognized that they colluded with Chinese merchant seamen (in this book, it calls them "Seagoing freebooters" and doesn't mention their ethnicity)

these pirates known as wokou included in addition ot Japanese and other foreigners, large numbers of Chinese, who were involved in illegal overseas trade

The debate as to whether the Wako (wokou) were mainly Japanese or Chinese pirates has swung back and forth, but there has never been any doubt that the most active on the coasts of Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong included local armed

The Wokou used Japanese style weapons and methods, with their long swords being greatly feared No ethnic distinction is made among Japanese and Chinese using these methods

Now, the Wokou issue was essentially a Chinese one with the Japanese only playing a very marginal role

One of the Wokou leaders in the middle of the sixteenth century was a Chinese from Anhwei by the name of Wang Chih

But So Kwan-wai and Lin Renchuan have shown that although some Japanese were involved in the pirate raids, most of the wokou were probably coastal-dwelling Chinese who turned to piracy in response to official prohibitions against

and quite often the bands of wokou included many Chinese

people were “pirates,” and although many of them were Chinese, they usually are referred to as the wokou, “Japanese pirates

In the mid-sixteenth century, the serenity was broken by the invasion of the wokou, appearing in Western works as "Japanese pirates," who created waves of turmoil along China's eastern seaboard. In reality, their leaders were Chinese and mixed bands of Chinese took part in their campaigns.

I apologize for cramming this page with links, but without the sources, you would doubt my argument.

Even with these sources I doubt your argument. In the first place most of these simply claim there were Chinese "among" the Wako. Not that they were the majority. Also This information should go into the article about "Piracy in China" not one on "Japanese Pirates". And please sign your posts with four tilde marks like this ~~~~. Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is the definition of WP:COATRACK. It is an article on "Japanese Pirates" then it says some of them were Chinese, and the entire rest of the article is on piracy in China and Chinese pirates. It should be split into articles that are actually about the subjects covered. Colincbn (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not an article on "Japanese pirates". It is an article on the wokou, which were pirates who attacked the East Asian coast, and the lede (originally) state(d) that the direct literal translation of "wokou" was "Japanese pirates". Over time, the lede has changed into its current edition, which may be the cause for your misunderstanding, as it does seem quite misleading to say that the "wokou" were "Japanese pirates". If you really want to add information on some naval clans that helped with the Unification of Japan (i.e. a completely irrelevant topic), it is you that should be creating a new article elsewhere, and not the other way around. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

primarity

Do these pirates have primarity over all the entries at the disambiguation page Wako or the city Wakō, Saitama ? If not, the selected target names would need parenthetical disambiguation. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Woku vs. Wako vs. Japanese pirates

I still don't get why this isn't called "Wako" - the most common term in English for "Japanese Pirates" by far, regardless of if they were Chinese, Korean or otherwise. --Sgtkabuki (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Then start a Request for Move and you will see that in this particular article the commonly used English term is not as important as the most common Chinese term. In reading the article it is clear there is a definite Chinese bias, and that extends to the title. If the article is not about actual Japanese pirates then that link should not redirect here. I have suggested splitting the article into one about piracy in China, which would cover many people from various Asian nations, and one on actual Japanese pirates. But the majority of editors here like that this article only puts forth the Chinese view of the Japanese. If not wako then certainly "Japanese Pirates" would be better here on English WP. Colincbn (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Another case of rampant east asian nationalism that extends to the pointless and ridiculous I guess. God forbid a JAPANESE word is used, even if it is the most common. --Sgtkabuki (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than making straw man arguments and complaining that a requested move had failed, perhaps reflect that contrary to what you may believe, there is no absolute consensus to make such a move, due to many valid reasons. This has nothing to do with nationalism - why does the name of this title bother anyone nationalistically? This has more to do with how the situation is realistically - that the term is more accurately reflected in its original, native reading. The English word nigger is an English word, and even though it may be used to refer to Zambians, it doesn't mean that we rename the article title to a Zambian reading if one existed; the English word gook may refer to Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, but that doesn't mean we rename it to "guk" in accordance with the Revised Romanization of Korean; same with kowtow renamed as "ketou", cheongsam as "chengshan", rickshaw as Japanese Romaji "jinrikisha", et cetera. As stated ad nauseam, being about Japanese doesn't necessarily name the word a solely Japanese one. Wokou is a Chinese term for a classification of sea pirates; even though it was later used in Japanese, it is still originally Chinese. Shina (word) is a Japanese term used to describe China, and even though Sun Yat-sen wrote essays referring to China as "Shina", the usage connotations are closer to Japan than with China. Also, enough of this already, it's becoming WP:DEADHORSE. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between nigger, gook, and Wokou is that the first two are about the word, and this one is about the people. Try renaming the article Black people to "nigger" and see what happens. The fact is this article has a Chinese bias. If not the Japanese word for these Japanese people we should use the English term "Japanese pirates". If this article is not actually about Japanese people, as some have suggested, then Japanese pirates should not redirect here and it should be given its own article. Colincbn (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the initial debate to move the article, I just found it looking for Wako a few days ago, because that is the only common term used for Wako in English, and since this is English wikipedia, the article title should be the most common english term. That's very common sense. But I know that korean and chinese nationalism runs rampant on wikipedia. Fact, not straw man, and no one should find that offensive, they are proud of their countries and got a raw deal from Japan a century ago. All I'm saying is that the common English title should be used, or a new article should be created. Otherwise, the article Japan should be changed to Nihon immediately to keep with your article naming conventions. --Sgtkabuki (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Create an article on "piracy in Japan", and name it wako or whatever other name there is. This article is not about piracy in Japan. It is about a phenemenom which plagued the Chinese coast for decades.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! This is exactly what I have been saying. If no one objects this is what I will be doing. Colincbn (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

>Otherwise, the article Japan should be changed to Nihon immediately to keep with your article naming conventions.
Never said anything remotely similar to that. Japan is an English word. Wako is not. For foreign concepts, loanwords can be introduced, such as kabuki, kendo and sashimi, from the originating language. For our case, wokou is not a Japanese concept, it is a Chinese branding of a category of pirates that roamed the East China Sea during the Ming Dynasty, and the actual ethnicity of the pirates is a subject of contention, and you cannot prove that they were all of Japanese origin. Nor is your claim that "wako" is the sole and dominating term used in English; no editor has provided evidence to prove that usage of wako in English absolutely and utterly dominates, without doubt, usage of "wokou" in English. English usage of lolicon absolutely dwarfs that of "lolikon", which is why the article on lolicons is at lolicon, and not at the alternate spelling. This is not the same case here, as wokou is just as used as wako, and there is no undeniable "sole dominant term" for the concept. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Kwan-wai So a reliable source?

The current question, apparently, is whether Japanese piracy in Ming China, during the 16th century, published by Michigan State University Press, is a reliable source. If you can explain why you don't think it is, please use this talk page instead of reverting me. Shii (tock) 02:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nationalistic Preference and Bias

This article has long been plagued by a problem which I am sure longtime watchers are aware of. Moreso than other articles, this article is a prime example of the nationalistic preference and bias often seen on Wikipedia history articles. The article is consistantly edited and re-edited without adhering to the usual neutrality in both content and form. Of course, we all know that NPOV is impossible on history articles, but there needs to be at least a semblance of it here on this article. The majority of edits to this article give undue weight to single perspectives and controversies. What is alarming is that the controversies appear in the main sections of the article due to edits on structuring and form. The confusion is the product of editors with idealogical battles that they feel must be waged on this article to cater to a confirmatory bias or nationalistic preference. These battles should not be waged here on Wikipedia. Editing controversy into the major sections of the article only adds undue weight to the frivolousness of the claims. In late march, I removed the challenged materials and added a more concise section entitled "Controversy" (which as of today is still larger than the majority of the article itself) where some of the topic related controversies still reside. However, the problem still stands. Thoughts or comments men? TheObsidianFriar (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

After you removed academic sources from the article three times, you are in no position to explain how fair-an'-balanced you are. Why are you removing sources? Do you consider Michigan State University Press, Duke University Press, etc., to be biased? Why? Shii Shii (tock) 12:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As a member of many projects here on wikipedia, I have been working on China, Japan, and Korea in that particular order over the past two years. This particular article is one that encompasses all three of these projects. Knowing the history of this article and the confusing nature of it, I cut down the article so as to only address the important aspects of the Wokou/Wako. I followed the standard set by other history articles so I simplified the sections and added a controversy section in order to make it easier on the reader to not have to shift through such confusion. Coming from an occidental viewpoint, it was definitely at a more readable level with a focus on the Wokou/Wako story and not the many dozens of Japanese, Chinese, Korean and even Taiwanese controversies as it had been focusing on before. However, to answer your question as to why I deleted your edits, it is because I saw your edits as controversy that should be put into the controversy section. The article should be about the history of the Wokou/Wako and not about certain aspects such as whether or not they were Japanese, Chinese, or Korean; English, French or German, don't you agree? It seemed to me like you were pushing a controversy into the main body of the article, just like how it used to be a couple of months ago. By making those edits you only serve to confuse the issue for a reader who isn't knowledgable about the history of the Wokou/Wako. This is a history article about the Wokou/Wako and the information presented in the main body paragraph should be history and straight facts, not controversy from each side. The information that you presented should be put into the "Controversy" section so as not to give undue credit where it isn't needed and push an ideology. TheObsidianFriar (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

" The article should be about the history of the Wokou/Wako and not about certain aspects such as whether or not they were Japanese, Chinese, or Korean; English, French or German, don't you agree? " No. Because reliable sources discuss the identity of the wokou in detail. Entire chapters are devoted to it. This article should represent those sources. You have not explained why you removed reliable sources from the article; you simply explain your own ideology.

"The information that you presented should be put into the "Controversy" section so as not to give undue credit where it isn't needed and push an ideology.". I am pushing nothing. I am summarizing a major academic discussion. Your behavior is incomprehensible to me. Shii (tock) 03:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

My behavior is incomprehensible to you? Fair enough. Just as your "reliable source" is incomprehensible to me! And I might add that there is no "major academic discussion" that anybody can infer from that source. It is simply one source handpicked by yourself from among hundreds in order to serve your purpose of proving that Wokou/Wako aren't Japanese, am I correct? I am not defending China or Korea here but I am simply basing my actions upon trying to make the article read better than the challenged gibberish days. As for my "behavior" I know that I am simply doing the right thing and trying to make the article concise, logical and on topic. It seems that the issue of nationalistic preference and bias simply cannot be separated from some people's ways of thinking. TheObsidianFriar (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You obviously were not looking at state of the article you so rashly reverted. I added not one but multiple academic sources from not only Japan but also Korean, Chinese, and Western writers. My sources are not newspaper editorials but peer-reviewed publications. You may "know that you are doing the right thing" but your behavior and your personal attacks on me contravene Wikipedia policy. Shii (tock) 05:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not made any contravention of Wikipedia policy. No personal attacks on your person have ever been made by me nor was there ever a derogatory comment directed at you. You are the one that wrote "bug off and stop blanking the article" in the edit descriptions and threatened me with a ban for "vandalism". I have never blanked any article and I never commit vandalism. I have been patrolling the history pages looking for vandalism to revert and never promulgating it. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism is harmful and is vandalism in itself. The definition of Vandalism as taken from Wikipedia:Vandalism is : "Any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Further on that page, "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing." I never plan on vandalizing any part of Wikipedia. However, what I will do is point out the conflict of interest in your content. This article is a crossroad in the histories of at least three East Asian countries and gaming the system in bad faith to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view is harmful to the conciseness of the article and the article's quality as a whole. I am putting forth that "Tanaka's Korean thesis" and "Murai's Zomia thesis" should be either taken out or put into the controversy section. The acceptability of your sources has never been an issue here so please stop bringing it up. TheObsidianFriar (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reorganized "Tanaka's Korean thesis" and "Murai's Zomia thesis" into the controversy section and re-added the China & Korea section as a subsection of Constituents because they are important countries in the activities of the Wokou/Wako but are also affected by the main body of constituents making up the Wokou/Wako. TheObsidianFriar (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"No personal attacks on your person have ever been made by me"'. You say this in the same breath as claiming that I am "gaming the system in bad faith"! Are you not familiar with WP:AGF? Do you not believe I am doing my best to improve this article, employ NPOV and the highest quality sources? If not, your attitude is not appropriate for Wikipedia!

"Blanking" and "vandalism" are accurate descriptions of what was done to my contributions. My edits to the article were not a cut-and-paste job. I spent several hours researching the subject. What you call "gaming the system in bad faith to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view" was looking at a large variety of books on the subject to understand why the leader of a group of Japanese pirates would be named "Ajibaldo", coming to understand that this article needed improvement, and arranging my research into a concise summary.

You claim that "It is simply one source handpicked by yourself from among hundreds in order to serve your purpose of proving" XYZ, ignoring the fact that I provided not one but a dozen sources from various peer-reviewed works. You have not brought any of your own sources to the article. You simply remove everything I have done. Why? Are my sources wrong? No: "The acceptability of your sources has never been an issue here so please stop bringing it up." So why am I wrong? I can only conclude it's because you don't like what I wrote-- not even the other contributions I made about Ashikaga etc., which you reverted here. You think you own the article. This behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Anyway, I'm glad to see your desire to vandalize the article has finally abated. There is no evidence of a controversy in the literature I read, so I renamed the section to "Identity". Shii (tock) 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I own the article? Have you even been reading my words man? I am voicing my concerns over edits that show national preference and bias. This is not about unacceptable behavior or owning any article in the slightest. Your baseless and deliberate accusations are completely irrelevant. This is not about my thinking an article should be this and that but about addressing an issue of controversial topics/material being presented constantly on this article and what should be done about it. My edits are being done in good will and I have researched a handful of sources for the section that was created in the clearest possible format. But I digress, since it seems you clearly only want to degrade my good intentions. Again, I have decided to allay the problems we have in consensus by fixing the structure of the sections into the clearest possible format. I see your previous edit and I believe that the "History" section is a fitting replacement for "Constituents" but "Identity" is not fitting for "Controversy". The question over the pirate identity is something that will indefinitely be a controversial topic depending on which national history and from which perspective you are looking at it from. The theories brought by Tanaka and Murai on the ethnicity of the Wokou/Wako cannot simply put under the tag of "Identity", after all they are only theories and should remain as such. I will be changing the section title back to the neutral "Controversy" and from here on any information about the pirates (with citations) being Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Scandinavian what have you, ought to be inserted into that section. TheObsidianFriar (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Any information about the pirates (with citations) being Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Scandinavian what have you, ought to be inserted into that section". Then it is the Identity section by your own definition. If you believe anything in that section is controversial, WP:PROVEIT. This article is supposed to express an NPOV, not your POV on what is controversial and what is not. Shii (tock) 04:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tanaka and Murai's theories are controversial in nature, read - http://www.nippon.com/en/features/c00101/ - It is written by Murai and I will highlight the section entitled 'Clashing World Views' here:

"After my book was published, I had a number of opportunities to discuss its content with Korean and Chinese scholars, and I found them almost universally hostile to my understanding of the Wokou/Wajin in the medieval period. This was surprising because, generally speaking, the serious differences between Japanese historians and their Korean and Chinese counterparts concern modern or contemporary events, whereas ancient and medieval history tends to be far less controversial. But I soon learned, to my dismay, that I had ventured into one of the few truly contentious topics in medieval East Asian history—indeed, the most contentious of them all. The two basic reactions to my thesis can be summed up as follows. The first, reflecting the Korean perspective, is that the bands that sprang up near the end of the Goryeo dynasty (918–1392) were exclusively Japanese, their members complete outsiders from the perspective of Korean society. They consisted of medieval Japanese warriors who made war for a living and aimed to plunder the coast and accumulate provisions to sustain their armies during the civil strife of the Nanbokuchō period (1336–92). This is the view expressed by Professor Yi Young of Korea National Open University. The second criticism, representative of the Chinese viewpoint, is that the Wokou and their Chinese collaborators along the coast undermined the system of official government relations that helped preserve peace in the region. To emphasize the historical role of the Wokou and the coastal-dwelling people who collaborated with them while stressing their marginal, extranational character is to make a virtue of evil and evade Japan’s responsibility for that evil. Professor Wang Xinsheng of Peking University presented this argument. Common to both assertions is the notion that the Wokou were Japanese pirates, pure and simple, and that they were complete outsiders from the standpoint of Korean and Chinese society. This position denies the existence of any marginal space in which nationality is indeterminate and preserves the concept of clear-cut, internally homogeneous realms unified under the state. Anyone within such a realm who seeks to escape beyond the reach of state control is dismissed as a traitor or criminal, and as such poses no fundamental threat to the concept of an internally homogeneous nation. It is a world view that clearly reflects the ideal, if not the reality, of state control over the people under the modern nation-state system". I will now change the "Identity" section back to "Controversy". TheObsidianFriar (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That is very good. I agree, then, with the heading of "Controversy" although it is kind of vague. Thank you for finally presenting your source. I demanded a source because this statement did not appear in anything I read. If either Yi Young or Wang Xinsheng have authored responses to Murai's theory, that should be cited (along the lines of "Yi Young, however...") because it contradicts the Western source that says that Murai's theory is not controversial (New directions in the study of Meiji Japan edited by Hardacre, one of the 21st century's foremost Japanologists).

I must apologize for a stupid assumption of mine. I assumed that because sources your version of this article cited was coauthored by Murai and a Korean named Hŭi-gyŏng Song, that was a fairly good indication of Murai's prominence. But I just now looked up that book and it is actually a Goryeo Dynasty medieval text which Murai translated. It certainly attests to his scholarly capabilities, but it doesn't actually tell us how he is viewed in Korea. Shii (tock) 08:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am relieved to know that it was a misunderstanding and that you are not trying to push controversy after all. Your apology is accepted. TheObsidianFriar (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Back to the main issue being discussed then. Editors please give us your two cents. Any comments, suggestions, or opinions are welcome and helpful for the improvement of the Wokou/Wako article. TheObsidianFriar (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of everyone who reads this article, it needs to be protected from section blanking like what was done here a few weeks ago. The use of academic sources based on hard facts, and not personal opinions, is crucial. I believe I have accurately conveyed what these sources have to say. If anonymous editors believe otherwise, prove it. Shii (tock) 15:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes protection is a valid suggestion and IP users should be verified before being allowed to edit, therefore I support the above suggestion. Anybody else watching this page and have any input on this issue? TheObsidianFriar (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwanggaeto Stele

Removed:

The earliest textual reference to the term "Wokou" as a Japanese invader comes from the Korean Gwanggaeto Stele erected in 414. "十四年甲辰而倭不軌，侵入帶方界□□ □□□，石城□連船□□□王躬率□□從平穰□□□鋒相遇，王幢要截盪刺，倭寇潰敗，斬殺無數。

I was unable to find a source linking this to medieval piracy. It's entirely possible that wokou existed for 1000 years but I just couldn't source it, so I removed it as OR. Let me know if you can find something. Shii (tock) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The full Contents of Gwanggaeto Stele:

Extended content "惟昔始祖鄒..."

惟昔始祖鄒牟王之創基也, 出自北夫餘, 天帝之子, 母河伯女郞. 剖卵降世, 生[而*]有聖□□□□□. □命駕,] 巡幸南下, 路由夫餘奄利大水. 王臨津言曰, 我是皇天之子, 母河伯女郞, 鄒牟王, 爲我連 浮龜. 應聲卽爲]連 浮龜. 然後造渡, 於沸流谷, 忽本西, 城山上而建都焉. 不樂世位, 因遣黃龍來下迎王. 王於忽本東 , [履]]龍頁昇天. 顧命世子儒留王, 以道興治, 大朱留王紹承基業. [遝]至十七世孫國 上廣開土境平安好太王]二九登祚, 號爲永樂大王. 恩澤[洽]于皇天, 武威[振]被四海. 掃除□□, 庶寧其業. 國富民殷, 五穀豊熟. 昊天不]弔, 有九, 寔駕棄國, 以甲寅年九月卄九日乙酉遷就山陵. 於是立碑, 銘記勳績, 以示後世焉. 其詞曰.]永樂五年歲在乙未, 王以稗麗不□□[人], 躬率往討. 過富山[負]山, 至鹽水上, 破其三部洛六七百營, 牛馬群]羊, 不可稱數. 於是旋駕, 因過襄平道, 東來□城, 力城, 北豊, 五備□, 遊觀土境, 田獵而還. 百殘新羅,舊是屬民]由來朝貢.而倭以辛卯年,來渡□破百殘□□[新]羅以爲臣民. 以六年丙申, 王躬率□軍, 討伐殘國. 古利城, □]利城, 雜珍城, 奧利城, 勾牟城, 古[模]耶羅城, [頁]□□□□城, □而耶羅[城 ], [ ]城, 於[利]城, □□城, 豆奴城, 沸□□]利城, 彌鄒城, 也利城, 太山韓城, 掃加城, 敦拔城, □□□城, 婁賣城, 散[那*]城, [那*]旦城, 細城, 牟婁城, 于婁城, 蘇灰]城, 燕婁城, 析支利城, 巖門□城, 林城, □□□□□□□[利]城, 就鄒城, □拔城, 古牟婁城, 閏奴城, 貫奴城, 穰]城, [曾]□[城], □□盧城, 仇天城, □□□□, □其國城. 殘不服義, 敢出百戰, 王威赫怒, 渡阿利水, 遣刺迫城. □□][歸穴]□便[圍]城, 而殘主困逼, 獻出男女生口一千人, 細布千匹, 王自誓, 從今以後, 永爲奴客. 太王恩赦□]迷之愆, 錄其後順之誠. 於是得五十八城村七百,將殘主弟幷大臣十人, 旋師還都.九年己亥, 百殘違誓與倭和]通, 王巡下平穰. 而新羅遣使白王云, 倭人滿其國境, 潰破城池, 以奴客爲民, 歸王請命. 太王[恩慈], 矜其忠[誠],] □遣使還告以□計.十年庚子, 敎遣步騎五萬, 往救新羅. 從男居城, 至新羅城, 倭滿其中. 官軍方至, 倭賊退.]#□□背急追至任那加羅從拔城, 城卽歸服. 安羅人戍兵□新[羅]城□城, 倭[寇大]潰.城□]#□□盡□□□安羅人戍兵[新]□□□□[其]□□□□□□□言]□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□辭□□□□□□□□□□□□□潰]□□□□安羅人戍兵. 昔新羅寐錦未有身來[論事], □[國 上廣]開土境好太王□□□□寐[錦]□□[僕]勾]□□□□朝貢.十四年甲辰, 而倭不軌, 侵入帶方界. □□□□□石城□連船□□□, [王躬]率□□, [從]平穰]□□□鋒相遇. 王幢要截 刺, 倭寇潰敗. 斬煞無數.十七年丁未, 敎遣步騎五萬, □□□□□□□□□師]□□合戰, 斬煞蕩盡. 所獲鎧鉀一萬餘領, 軍資器械不可稱數. 還破沙溝城, 婁城, □[住]城, □城, □□□□□]□城.卄年庚戌,東夫餘舊是鄒牟王屬民, 中叛不貢. 王躬率往討. 軍到餘城, 而餘□國駭□□□□□□□]□□王恩普覆. 於是旋還. 又其慕化隨官來者, 味仇婁鴨盧, 卑斯麻鴨盧, 社婁鴨盧, 肅斯舍[鴨盧], □□□]鴨盧. 凡所攻破城六十四, 村一千四百.守墓人烟戶. 賣句余民國烟二看烟三, 東海賈國烟三看烟五, 敦城]民四家盡爲看烟, 于城一家爲看烟, 碑利城二家爲國烟, 平穰城民國烟一看烟十, 連二家爲看烟, 俳婁]人國烟一看烟 三, 梁谷二家爲看烟, 梁城二家爲看烟, 安夫連卄二家爲看烟, [改]谷三家爲看烟, 新城三]家爲看烟, 南蘇城一家爲國烟. 新來韓穢, 沙水城國烟一看烟一, 牟婁城二家爲看烟, 豆比鴨岑韓五家爲]看烟, 勾牟客頭二家爲看烟, 求底韓一家爲看烟, 舍城韓穢國烟三看烟卄一, 古[模]耶羅城一家爲看烟,] [炅]古城國烟一看烟三, 客賢韓一家爲看烟, 阿旦城, 雜珍城合十家爲看烟, 巴奴城韓九家爲看烟, 臼模盧]城四家爲看烟, 各模盧城二家爲看烟, 牟水城三家爲看烟, 幹 利城國烟一看烟三, 彌[鄒*]城國烟一看烟,]# 七 也利城三家爲看烟, 豆奴城國烟一看烟二, 奧利城國烟一看烟八, 須鄒城國烟二看烟五, 百]殘南居韓國烟一看烟五, 太山韓城六家爲看烟, 農賣城國烟一看烟七, 閏奴城國烟二看烟卄二, 古牟婁]城國烟二看烟八, 城國烟一看烟八, 味城六家爲看烟, 就咨城五家爲看烟, 穰城卄四家爲看烟, 散那]城一家爲國烟, 那旦城一家爲看烟, 勾牟城一家爲看烟, 於利城八家爲看烟, 比利城三家爲看烟, 細城三]家爲看烟.國 上廣開土境好太王, 存時敎言, 祖王先王, 但敎取遠近舊民, 守墓掃, 吾慮舊民轉當羸劣.] 若吾萬年之後, 安守墓者, 但取吾躬巡所略來韓穢, 令備 掃. 言敎如此, 是以如敎令, 取韓穢二百卄家. 慮]其不知法則, 復取舊民一百十家. 合新舊守墓戶, 國烟 看烟三百, 都合三百 家.自上祖先王以來, 墓上]不安石碑, 致使守墓人烟戶差錯. 唯國 上廣開土境好太王, 盡爲祖先王, 墓上立碑, 銘其烟戶, 不令差錯.] 又制, 守墓人, 自今以後, 不得更相轉賣, 雖有富足之者, 亦不得擅買, 其有違令, 賣者刑之, 買人制令守墓之. "http://www.mtcha.com.ne.kr/korea-term/goguryo/term9-goanggaitodaoang.htm"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.254.33.28 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wokou. 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/20070927190844/http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C09/E0901.htm to http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C09/E0901.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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)