Talk:Chinilpa

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Japan: History Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:25, June 23, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the History task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Korea High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Page rename[edit]

Perhaps this page should be renamed to something more neutral, perhaps the category title Category:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan. If this page is called "chinilpa", it should almost exclusively info about the history and usage of that word. It also feels like we're passing judgement. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2024[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that Chinilpa be renamed and moved to Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Chinilpa → Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan – See my talk post above this; this article is currently titled using a term considered derogitory, and isn't exclusively a discussion about the word itself per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It actually significantly talks about the people alleged to be collaborators. That'd be like talking about a people group under an article titled with a slur for them; that's clearly not neutral, it feels like it's validating the slur. Note: I'm not expressing sympathy for nor opposition to collaborators here, I am purely trying to apply WP:NDESC.

My proposed new title matches Category:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan; I just chose to use it for consistency and because it's an adequate title, open to suggestions for other titles.

Side note, but the term itself is possibly independently notable and could eventually get its own article, but current article lengths suggest to me that it should all be in one. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you know what reliable sources usually call them (chinilpa)? I know that the term chinilpa is pretty damning but if it is the common name then it should be used despite its connotations, per WP:POVNAME, Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name… generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. I also think that chinilpa has the advantage of being more WP:CONCISE, but if reliable sources depreciate the term then perhaps this should be moved. Dantus21 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. It's a bit hard to prove common name in this case because "collaborators" is a fairly generic term, but I'd still argue it is more common based on the following evidence and on my personal experience with the literature.

Various pieces of evidence:

Special Law to Redeem Pro-Japanese Collaborators' Property (all of the refs/ext links on this page too)
- Relevant act
Can search in these books, "collaborator" outnumbers "chinilpa": [1][2]
Book title: [3]
Various academic articles: [4][5][6][7][8]
If you search "chinilpa" on google scholar you get around 100 results, but "korean collaborators with japan" (no exact match) seems to yield much more results that are relevant.

Another term I've seen around is "pro-Japanese Koreans", but this term isn't very common and it's not suitable for a title imo; too vague. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Based on the sources above, I'd say the main (or strongest) reason for moving this page could actually be on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME or even WP:USEENGLISH. The term "chinilpa" seems to still be used commonly when referring to pro-Japanese Koreans in reliable sources though , and as stated before is more WP:CONCISE. This ngrams also seems to put chinilpa at the top, but idk how reliable it is.

Some sources that used chinilpa when scanning google scholar— [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

By the way, have you seen the hanjian page? I don’t know what your knowledge of Chinese history is, but on the surface it seems like a similar situation to here concerning the page name and you might want to look into it. Dantus21 (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I think this page and hanjian pages may have different balances for weighing COMMONNAME, NDESC, and NPOVNAME; not sure of hanjian's situation. My knowledge of Chinese collaborators is so-so, not much reading specifically on them before.

I'm confused by this sentence in WP:POVNAME: An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use. The italics are not mine. Do the italics imply the title should be the stand-out unambiguous common name, or just the top name?

If the italics are implying stand-out, I think this article's title is possibly a toss-up on what is more common based on the ngram you provided, meaning possibly we could weigh USENGLISH and NDESC higher. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Question

I think the name should be the standout title; I think this supports the case for "Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I was always sure that the rule only meant the top name, but the user in that discussion seemed to say otherwise. Hopefully more people can come and discuss this move. Dantus21 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]