Talk:Wokou

Cannot link to Ming History

Because It is not fixed URL [1] You can see, if it searches here.Objectman 09:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Error (ambiguity) in "Kamakura" section, 2nd and 3rd paragraph

This section seems to imply the mongols succesfully invaded Japan. In reality the mongols tried to invade Japan several times but were stopped by storms (the origin of the word kamikaze, meaning divine wind). (See article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamakura_period#Mongol_Invasions)

2nd paragraph: The period around the Mongol invasions of Japan were a low point for Wokou activity.

3rd paragrah: As the Kamakura shogunate and Goryeo state both declined following the Mongol invasions, the Wokou again became active.

131.111.244.214 13:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't the mighty fleet of Zheng He do something about the Wokou?

Seems like it would be a simple undertaking for a fleet with 30,000 men.

You forgot that most of the Wokou were Chinese....... they were free-traders. 128.135.121.91 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wokou problem became prominent after the burning of the Ming fleet - recent analysis favours the view that the Wokou arose as a matter of economic necessity precisely because the Ming government cut off trade and destroyed the fleets. --Sumple (Talk) 05:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Wa (Japan)?

— Yaohua2000 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Wa (Japan) for the discussion of this issue. Hermeneus (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Article biased against the wokou

The article is presenting the history of Wokou from the perspective of the Ming court and its portrayal is very anti-Wokou and anti-Japanese. Many Chinese however on the coastal areas benefitted from the activities of wokou (such as free trade and tax relief). It boosted the economic development of the southeast coast. Chinese Wokou outnumbered Japanese Wokou something like 7:1. I have edited the preamble, but the rest of the article is completely biased in POV of the Ming court, not from the local Chinese residents living in areas of Wokou activity. 128.135.121.91 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

please cite sources for your claim that killing and pillaging boosts economic development. --Sumple (Talk) 05:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Only partially on topic with the bias/Chinese perspective in the article, but since they were Japanese pirates, would it not be more correct to refer to them by their Japanese name (Wakou 和寇/倭寇)? Their Japanese name is not a derogatory term, as it is based off of Wa (和 - Japanese) as opposed to Wo (which the article tells us means dwarf). --ProdigySim 05:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that they were Japanese pirates but the phenomenon of 倭寇 was only notable in China - most ppl in Japan probably weren't aware of this phenomenon. Anyway, it's mostly Chinese people in these pirate fleets anwyay. --Sumple

倭 does not mean dwarf (it means Japan and is the same character as wa) but it happens to be a homophone with a character that does. On another note, I would support a rename to the Japanese name. These pirates were a very serious factor in Korean history as well, so it's difficult to see why the article should be called wokou (Chinese) instead of waegu (Korean). -- Visviva 06:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is written with Chinese characters. They were first used in China. These by themselves should mean its a Chinese term, not Japanese or Korean.

The term does not refer to "Japanese pirates" in general. It refers to "Japanese pirates" in the particular context of Chinese and Korean coastal areas, even when used in Japan.

Thus the term is not a Japanese term - it is a Chinese term, referring to Japanese expatriats and their Chinese associates, but which was later also used in Japan to refer to the same people.

Finally, "kou" means "bandits" . If the term was invented by the Japanese, don't you think it should say "Japanese sea traders", which they undoubtedly were? The fact that the term inherently shows Chinese/Korean POV should demonstrate that it is not a Japanese term.

Finally, the name "Wokou" and "Wakou" mean exactly the same thing, and are written exactly the same. The character 倭 is pronounced "Wo" in Chinese and "Wa" in Japanese. It means exactly the same thing. It is *not* a homophone with the character meaning short, as some people seem to believe. The word has connotations of "dwarf" only because of stereotypes in ancient China and Korea that Japanese people were short in stature. --Sumple (Talk) 07:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but in Korean, 倭 and 矮 are homophones (pronounced 왜, wae). Perhaps that is not the case in contemporary Chinese?

Oh, and I'm sure you know this, but just because something is written in Chinese characters doesn't make it Chinese (as we use the term today); Classical Chinese was the chief written language for all of East Asia until recent times. But you may well be right that the term was coined in China, which would make our use of the Mandarin pronunciation reasonable. -- Visviva 08:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I wasn't aware that they are homophones in Korean. In modern Chinese (Mandarin) 倭 is "Wo" and 矮 is "Ai". --Sumple (Talk) 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

I removed the image Image:WakouLanding.jpg with description "Wokou landing and attacking a Chinese city, 14th century woodblock print." because i found this image is not about Chinese, but about Joseon Dynasty. (origin here) --Klutzy 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we just change the caption to "Wokou landing and attacking a Korean city"? This article is not (or should not be) solely concerned with the Wokou impact on China. -- Visviva 14:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Imjin Waeran

It mentions that the Japanese obliterated the Ming expeditionary forces, which is untrue (sourcing Wikipedia's article on Imjin Waeran). The Japanese were forced by the Allied armies to the Korean coast facing Japan, where the war bogged down before a peace settlement was made.

Remove the title "Japanese pirates"

Korean documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Joseon_Dynasty) "世宗実録"二十八十月壬戌条(year 1446) shows Japanese prirates were only 10% or 20% and rest were Koreans. The original text were "然其間倭人不過一二而本国民仮著倭服成党作乱"

Also old Chinese document (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2) "明史" describe Japanese pirates were only 30%. Again, the original Chinese text is "大抵真倭十之三".

Already the introductory sentence excludes "Japanese pirates". If you have any objection for the 2nd sentence, which includes the phrase, well, we still need to keep it. Because for most of the people, term Wokou means "Japanese pirates" & most of the people know it that way. And we need to present the world in other people's views. See Wikipedia policy, no original research. Ask any historians & they will say "Wokou" were Japanese. (Wikimachine 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

I got it. Thanks.

Pronunciation of 倭, and other matters

I have several problems with User:Jjok's treatment of the pronunciatin of 倭.

1. User Jjok introduced a version that said "[Wokou is] a combination of "Wo", Chinese pronunciation of "倭 (Wa)" referring to Japanese, and "寇 (kou)"" This misleadingly implies that the "actual" pronunciation of 倭 is "Wa", and "Wo" is a Chinese variant of that pronunciation. The reality, of course, is the opposite. 倭 is a Chinese character (kanji), and being a Chinese character, it has multiple pronunciations in various languages. If any of these pronunciations are the "true" pronunciation, then it is the Chinese one.
2. Similarly, User Jjok changed the sentence referring to Korean and Chinese sources to: "the Stories of Japan in the History of Ming (明史日本傳) states: "[Out of those captured] real Wa comprise about three in every ten (大抵真倭十之三)"." Now, clearly the History of Ming was written in Chinese, and would have pronounced the character as Wo. Likewise, the Korean source was written in Chinese.
3. Also suspicious, is that for some reason the Hanja for the Annals of Joseon Dynasty (世宗実録), especially the character "実", are written in Shinjutai, a Japanese system, when the book was written in Korea, by Koreans, and not during Japanese occupation. In standard Hanja the character should be 實. What is even more inappropriate is that such Japanese writing is wikilinked to "Hanja".
4. Finally, User Jjok seems to believe that "Wa" is an "English" word, for some strange reason. It is not: it is a foreign word, whose English translation is "Japan(ese)", or "Ancient Japan(ese)", as the context may require. In the present context, when transliterating Chinese or Korean sources, it is inappropriate to use a Japanese transliteration.

I have made edits in line with the above. --Sumple (Talk) 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I will not talk which pronunciation for the character is appropriate. In the English wikipedia, the current entries for 倭 and 倭寇 are described as Wa and Wokou, respectively, and I am making efforts in consistent with those entries here in this wikipedia. (However, I also concern the inconsistency of Wa and Wokou) If you think Wo is more appropriate, please discuss in the article Wa (Japan) to move it to Wo (Japan) first. Wikipedia:Naming conventions will help you. It is very confusing to use Wo for every Chinese literature, Wae for every Korean literature, and Wa for every Japanese literature based description and I am standardizing based on the English title for 倭.
2. Same as above, though your suggestion that Korean literature using classical Chinese should be described in English based on Chinese pronunciation, is an interesting point. Maybe Koreans were pronouncing 倭 as Wo at that time.
3. Thank you for your correction. I just thought "世宗実録" was better than "世宗憲録"[2] though I'd have better copy and paste rather than my "original research".
4. I do not know how much "Wa" is common as an English word (and it looks like not) and how the title for 倭 became Wa here, however, I prefer the standardization based on the article title in en wikipedia and describing specific-language based namings as the derivative for the consistency within and with other articles to avoid confusion by individual description based on specific-language pronunciation.--Jjok 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This approach (1 & 4) seems very reasonable. We should not lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience, most of whom will not have a background in East Asian linguistics. -- Visviva 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What you (Jjok) say makes sense. I am, however still concerned about internal consistency: if this article is called "Wokou", yet references to the first constituent part of the name is to "Wa".

I think, however, that these problems can be avoided in some instances, where it is not necessary to translate 倭 as "Wo/Wa/Wae" - for example, at the time of the History of the Ming (Qing dynasty in China), the country was already called, and referred to, as Nihon, in Japan and in China. It may be better to simply translate 倭 as "the Japanese". What do you think? --Sumple (Talk) 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Source from KoreanHistoryProject.org

I added a source from KoreanHistoryProject.org[3] to the External Links section. It talks about piracy in the context of Japan-Korea relations. I haven't read this entire article on the Wokou yet, so I don't know if this source really contributes anything. But I just thought I'd mention it here for anybody interested. When I have more time, I will read through this article in its entirety and add to it if necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source from the same site[4]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

The second sentence in the article starts with "Besides Wokou is meaningly Japanese pirates". Something doesn't make sense here, but I'm not sure what was meant. Would someone who knows what is meant here fix this, or explain the brain fart that is preventing me from understanding this bit? 2007/03/01