Talk:Wokou

message: 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)
thread_title:  Looks like Original Research in the Constituents section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Qing _ Ming Dynasties?

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Google Books and Scalar search results

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Macrons

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Disagree The wokou were mostly Chinese.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to Wako 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  most wokou raiding Chinese coast were ethnic chinese, we should not use Japanese terms for them 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: >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)
thread_title: Woku vs. Wako vs. Japanese pirates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is Kwan-wai So a reliable source? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified