Talk:Djong

Claim of djong sailors reaching Brazil "in ancient times" in the lead section

This seems very doubtful, and the source provided is not persuasive to the best of my reading. I will preface this by saying that I do not speak Portuguese, so it would be appreciated if someone familiar with the language could confirm, but that said the source appears to be a letter sent in 1512 by Afonso de Albuquerque to king of Portugal Manuel I, de Albuqueque being at the time Captain-Major of the Seas of Arabia and Governor of Portuguese India. What seems to be the relevant section is:

″tambem vos vay hum pedaço de padram que se tirou düa gramde carta dum piloto de jaoa, a quall tinha ho cabo de bõoa esperamça, portugall e a terra do brasyll, ho mar rroxo e ho mar da persia, as ilhas do cravo, a navegaçam dos chins e gores, com suas lynhas e caminhos dereytos por omde as naos hiam, e ho sertam, quaees reynos comfynavam huns cos outros: pareceme, senhor, que foy a milhor cousa que eu nunca vy, e vossalteza ouuera de folgar muyto de ha ver″

From which my best effort at translating produces:

″You also have a piece of map that was taken from a large chart of a Java pilot, which had the Cape of Good Hope, Portugal and the land of Brazil, the Red Sea and the sea of ​​Persia, the Spice Islands, the navigation of the Chinese and [Gores?], with their routes and rights of way [and where they avoid?], [e ho sertam], which kingdoms abut one another: it seems to me, sir, that it was the greatest thing I have ever seen, and your highness would enjoy seeing it″

Given that various Portuguese operations had established bases of operation around the Indian Ocean steadily closer and closer to Java for a decade by then, and de Albuquerque even says in his letter that he had someone in his employ able to speak the Javanese language, it seems that this statement by itself establishes very little. The Javanese pilot could have acquired the map or the knowledge to make it from plenty of sources without having been anywhere outside of the Indian Ocean, and even if a Javanese sailor had reached Brazil by then (which would be a truly astonishing feat considering that Brazil is almost as far away from Java as it is possible to be on Earth's surface) it certainly doesn't establish "ancient times". Before I edit anything, though, I am aware that as mentioned I can't actually speak the language of the source and I can't pretend to be especially familiar with the relevant history. Is there better evidence or a mistake I've made somewhere?

PurpleSkua (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the lead description on 11 July 2022. It is now showing "medieval" instead of "ancient". The problem with the wording is that I think the editor directly translated zaman kuno (ancient era) which could refer to Javanese periodization before the fall of Majapahit in 1527 (pre-Islamic Java used bahasa Jawa kuno which means Old Javanese language, but if it's translated literally it became Ancient Javanese language. The 15th century is considered "ancient" by the Javanese, but considered medieval in the European hemisphere. Surijeal (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please delete paragraph without valid sources and international journals

Please delete paragraph without valid sources and international journals Yukiaika3 (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. This article has been scrutinized and reviewed by me, checking the validity of each reference and deleting the unsourced claims. User:Yukiaika3 did not ask in good faith and has been proven to fake arguments regarding the edit they've done to this article. They casted doubt regarding the reference used in the article (like claiming they couldn't find the reference / saying that the reference does not exist or couldn't find the information there). This was just an alibi, as the majority of the references used in this article could be checked because the references are freely available on the internet. Furthermore, the user has been proven to use sockpuppet to support their edits. They also asked other users to use valid sources and international journals, but the intention was actually to endorse their own preferred references. Their ultimate goal was to deconstruct the page and rewrite it according to their personal view. They also did this for the page Flag of Malaysia and Undang-Undang Laut Melaka. Because of this, Yukiaika3 and their sockpuppet have been blocked indefinitely. For more information, see the investigation [here] and [here]. Surijeal (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Surijeal can you please participate in the RfC, as this turn into a dispute and i have provided all the evidences below Merzostin (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

How did the word Jong suddenly became Javanese?

The mandarin pronunciation for ships/boat is "chuan". But in ancient times, the people of China do not speak mandarin. They speak regional dialects. The dialect calling for "chuan" is "zun" for people from the coastal province of Fujian. The Austronesians have their own term for ships which is praw/perahu and kapal later from Tamil language. The Borobodur ship relief found in Borobodur do not have junk design. Can someone please clatify? 2001:D08:D7:88EF:DF8:9307:4A6B:95E2 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The word Jong was always been Javanese. You're confusing the word "jong" with "junk". The word "junk" refers to two different vessels: 1) Jong which is the Javanese junk and 2) Chuan which is the Chinese junk. While they're different, European visitors used the word "junk" or its variations (junco, giunco, joncken) to denote both Javanese and Chinese vessels. Austronesian term praw/perahu is unrelated to jong, which is a Javanese word and attested in an 11th-century inscription. Praw/perahu is a wider term denoting any sea vessels, while jong is more specific to a type of Javanese ship.

The English word "junk" comes from Portuguese junco which itself derived from Arabic jnk (جُنك), which is their rendition of the word "jong". There has been a discussion about it here.

I don't get why you're insisting on using the Borobudur as a comparison. Borobudur vessels showed Austronesian-styled ships but certainly weren't a jong or junk type. Jong didn't have outriggers. I see that you're comparing the vessels with those of Chinese junks, which is too far-fetched. Surijeal (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida

Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida) This was a description of a southern Chinese ship, not a Javanese ship. According to the cited source, they were discussing Chinese ships; also, according to 5 other sources that use the same Zhou's description, they were all describing southern Chinese ships. Merzostin (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Chinese Ships

During the Middle Ages, the Chinese developed merchant shps that were the most advanced in the warld. The following is a description of Chinese shrips during the 1100s.

Page 46

The ships which sail the Southern Sea and south of it are like houses. When their sails are spread they are like great clouds in the sky.

Their rudders are several tens of feet long. A single ship carries several hundred men. It has stored on board a year's supply of grain.

The ships which sail the Southern Sea and south of it are like houses. When their sails are spread they are like great clouds in the sky.

Their rudders are several tens of feet long. A single ship carries several hundred men. It has stored on board a year's supply of grain.

Zhou Qufei.

please refrain from using description of chinese ship to describe Javanese Jong ship Merzostin (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you are impatient and chose to re-revert the edit without discussion and consensus I had to respond to you myself.

I've looked at the reference (Joseph Needham's Science and Civilizations in China page 464), the reference says it's a "sea-going ship of the south" but nowhere in the cited source used there (Hirth and Rockhill's translation of Chou K'ufei / Zhou Qufei's Lingwai Daida) said that the said ship was indeed a) made in China, b) was a Chinese junk, or c) owned by the Chinese. In the only paragraph presented, Zhou Qufei was only saying "These are the ships of Southern Sea"; he did not say something like "and these are Chinese ships" or "These ships are made in China". As such, the possibility is still open that the ship could be a foreign ship, be it a Southeast Asian, Indian, or Arab ship. If you look at the creator's (user:Verosaurus) text, it looks like he kept neutrality by writing "about the ships of the Southern country" before the quotation, he does not claim that the ship mentioned in the paragraph was a Javanese jong. Surijeal (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Instead of making one-sided decision, you should've just tag the person concerned (@Verosaurus). Surijeal (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

this is not one sided if it's back by evidence! of course you vanished after i told you to prove this with the same description from other publications/evidence Merzostin (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

because this wasn't allowed in wikipedia! who said they can stole description of other ship and paste in without context, instead from the context it was clear op trying to pass the description as Javanese ship.

the reference said "the sea-going ships of the south again" "The ships which sail the southern sea and south of it are like houses.", this was a very famous description and was used in many publications or books, in all of them they acknowledged that he was indeed describing a chinese ship, but particularly the southern chinese ship, as other sources had pointed out he was in southern china to look at the production of such ships.

i can say the same thing, Zhou Qufei was only saying "The sea-going ships of the south again"; he did not say something like "and these are Javanese ships" or "These ships are made in Java".

"As such, the possibility is still open that the ship could be a foreign ship, be it a Southeast Asian, Indian, or Arab ship" there are no such possibilty, from (Joseph Needham's Science and Civilizations in China page 464), he was clearly talking in the context of chinese ship!! he wasn't discussing any foreign ship. you may want to search the description in other publication and books! it will show you that he was indeed talking of Southern Chinese ship.

this pages is about Javanese Djong ship, it was misinformation or misleading to use "ambigous" description of another ship, when infact it's not even ambigous but actually describing Southern Chinese ship. Merzostin (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The term "Djong" typically refers to a type of traditional Javanese ship used in Indonesia, particularly on the island of Java. It is not of Chinese origin. While there may have been influences or interactions between Javanese and Chinese maritime cultures throughout history, the Djong itself is not directly related to Chinese ships. The Djong has its own distinct design, construction, and cultural significance within the context of Indonesian maritime heritage. And stop deleting sentences that have credible sources Bayoka55 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you even talking about! the issue here wasn't wethered Djong was Chinese or not, that's another dispute. My issue is with the false description of Chinese ships used to described Djong ships, also no one is doubting the credible source from known Chinese expert Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China.

Joseph Needham was discussing about Chinese ships in his book about China, and you can see this on pages 463-464.

"The second oldest colophon, by another Chin scholar c. +1190, took the form of a poem, worth reproducing here: One day a Han-Lin scholar presented this painting,Worthy of handing down the ways and works of a peaceful time.Going east from the Water-gate one cores to the Canal of the Sui, The streets and the fields are alike incomparable (But Lao Tzu formerly warned against prosperity And today we know it has all become waste-land).Yet the vessels that sail ten thousand li on their voyages With rudders of timber from Chhu and their masts from Wu, Fine scenery north of the bridge and south ......

Some decades later (+ I178) we have Chou Chhü-Fei' writing on the sea-going ships of the south again.b The ships which sail the southern sea and south of it are like houses."

Also we have a lot of publications using this descriptions and in all of them, they confirmed that this same description was of Southern China's ships not Djong!

This line has been eliminated from this article as misinformation and a false description of the Djong ship! Merzostin (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nitekuzee {{ping}} please provide your evidences before you make revert! i have provided the evidence here, where the Quote was NOT of the "southern country" but a continuation of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China 2 descriptions of Chinese ships Merzostin (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Science/lingwaidaida.html

https://youtube/OR1ek14BGg0?feature=shared Nitekuzee (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

https://youtube/OR1ek14BGg0 (if can't open hange youtu.be) Nitekuzee (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Again what are you doing! 1. youtube isn't a reliable source

2. the other link lead to nowhere and didn't support your argument or even as your evidence!!

3. Also the source used for this article was from Needham, Joseph (1971). Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Technology, Part III: Civil Engineering and Nautics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 464.

Joseph Needham stated quite clearly on Page 463-464 as he was discussing about Chinese ships in his book about China

"The second oldest colophon, by another Chin scholar c. +1190, took the form of a poem, worth reproducing here: One day a Han-Lin scholar presented this painting,Worthy of handing down the ways and works of a peaceful time.Going east from the Water-gate one cores to the Canal of the Sui, The streets and the fields are alike incomparable (But Lao Tzu formerly warned against prosperity And today we know it has all become waste-land).Yet the vessels that sail ten thousand li on their voyages With rudders of timber from Chhu and their masts from Wu, Fine scenery north of the bridge and south......

"Some decades later (+ 1178) we have Chou Chhü-Fei' writing on the sea-going ships of the south again. The ships which sail the southern sea and south of it are like houses....."

page 465 "upon the words of a number of persons who gave, at different dates, general descriptions of Chinese nautical technology. If these are divided up in strict accordance with their content, their 'special colour', as the Chinese say, evaporates. So far we have listened to Wang Tang and Hui-Lin, the oldest, to Chu Yü, Chou Chhü-Fei and Sung Ying-Hsing.& We shall have to allow ourselves to be buttonholed by two more Ancient Mariners, more ancient at least than Sung Ying-Hsing-I mean Marco Polo and In Battütah." Merzostin (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

nope it's a from chinese historian and you must read all 1.https://books.google.co.id/books?id=l6TVhvYLaEwC&pg=PA464&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

2.http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Science/lingwaidaida.html Nitekuzee (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

NO! you are wrong and you need to read it all again, so far you have proved absolutely nothing! to support the quote as in anyway about Javanese ships, Javanese wasn't even mentioned anywhere in p. 463-466 Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Technology, Part III: Merzostin (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

no you are absolutely wrong and biased various sources is a javenese ship . in mongol era the Chinese troop only have small ship and have hard time when invaded islands that are located far away.LOL Nitekuzee (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

NO! you are biased and absolutely delirious, is that the only thing you can say? you've been saying the same unsourced thing over and over again, while having 0 evidence to support any of it Merzostin (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

are you blind lol all link was a sourced. Am sure you are not from mainland Chinese because you are ignorant and biased about history Nitekuzee (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

here watch and read comments from mainland Chinese. Lol

https://youtube/OR1ek14BGg0 (if can't open change youtu.be) Nitekuzee (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

NO way that you actually thought you can use Youtube comments as evidence for Wikipedia against the reliable source published by historian and sinologist Joseph Needham Merzostin (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

i just show you mainland Chinese is not ignorant and biased about history. It very different from chinese from another country who are ignorant lol Nitekuzee (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"In 1178, the Guangzhou customs officer Zhou Qufei, wrote in Lingwai Daida about the sea-going ships of the south again:

The ships which sail the southern sea and south of it are like giant houses. When their sails are spread they are like great clouds in the sky. Their rudders are several tens of feet long. A single ship carries several hundred men......." Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 4

Additional evidences that the quote above from Zhou Qufei in Lingwai Daida was actually referring to Chinese ships and NOT Javanese ships, so this is WP:LIE and shouldn't be passed off as description of Javanese ships and rightfully removed from this article. This was a very famous quote and was used in many publications or books, where they acknowledged it as describing Chinese ships :

• Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 4 p.464, 465
• The Long Rampart 1966 p. 105
• China 1968 p.80
• When China ruled the seas : the treasure fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433 p. 44
• The traditional trade of Asia p. 97-98 (chapter Glory of T'ang and Sung dynasty)
• Ship : the epic story of maritime adventure p.56
• Discovering our past : Medieval and early modern times p.289 (Chinese Ships)
• The Indian Oceanp. (Song "dynasty" sailing)
• Premodern Travel in World History p. (New Chinese Initiatives)

P.s @Nitekuzee has provide 0 evidence to support that this was Javanese ships as he believed, since there never was any evidence since this was a hoax and a misinformation. Merzostin (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"In 1178, the Guangzhou customs officer Zhou Qufei, wrote in Lingwai Daida about the ships of the SOUTHERN COUNTRY : southern country not southern china or city/place name in china Nitekuzee (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

NO! you are absolutely wrong! can you read from the source (Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 4 p.464, 465). This is the exact word he typed in!!!!

"Some decades later (+ 1178) we have Chou Chhü-Fei' writing on the sea-going ships of THE SOUTH AGAIN. The ships which sail the southern sea and south of it are like houses....." THE SOUTH again!!

Furthermore, i've already dispelled your false assertion, by providing 7 publications including the original source, where in all of them, they had confirmed that this quote was a description of Chinese ships, NOT remotely Javanese ships or "Ships of Southern country", to which you had still failed to produce any evidence for. Merzostin (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

nope you absolutely wrong you must read all it say "In 1178, the Guangzhou customs officer Zhou Qufei, wrote in Lingwai Daida about the ships of the SOUTHERN COUNTRY.... ..

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Science/lingwaidaida.html

https://books.google.co.id/books?id=l6TVhvYLaEwC&pg=PA464&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

in mongol era Chinese troops have HARD TIME when invaded island that located far away using Small ship is FACT Chinese before 1400 AD don't have technology or idea to make big ship because Chinese people in that era not seafaring people Nitekuzee (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

When mongol invaded java, Chinese ships were destroyed very easily by Javanese ships Nitekuzee (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

are you sane? all you do is just rambling unsourced nonsense again and again on this thread and NO! your out of topic ramblings are absolutely wrong too, also no one is talking about Mongol! this dispute is about the quote of Zhou Qufei in Lingwai Daida

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Science/lingwaidaida.html (what are you even trying to prove with this short summary? not a single Javanese in sight, this doesn't prove your false statement, if anything it support mine)

https://books.google.co.id/books?id=l6TVhvYLaEwC&pg=PA464&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (this is just Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 4 p.464)

P.s Nitekuzee still has provided 0 credible evidence, not suprising Merzostin (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I will say again "In 1178, the Guangzhou customs officer Zhou Qufei, wrote in Lingwai Daida about the ships of the SOUTHERN COUNTRY....

Guess who have big ship since before Centuries-1400 AD in that area only in java island and all java kingdoms was THALASSOCRATIC Nitekuzee (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation and Bias

@Pakbelangi feared this article contains a lot of disinformation or at the very least misinformation. Sadly, no one is willing to fact check everything on this page but then again it's quite a task Merzostin (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, to a certain extent. My concerns were on the etymology of the word, not on the history of the ship. But I do accept that the history of the word is likely related to the history of the ship. The etymology section in Junk (ship) is now in line with reliable sources. The etymology section in Djong (ship) remains rather muddled. No reliable source asserts an Austronesian root for the Javanese word. Therefore, I suggest we stick to the etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary. Pakbelang (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

can you please participate in the RfC on wether or not the quote from Zhou should remained, as this turn into a dispute and all the evidences are on the talk page Merzostin (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Djong (ship) § Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Djong (ship) § Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida. Merzostin (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Quote from Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida, 1178

Hi editors, this is regarding wether the article should include the quote from Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida or not. The history of the quote has been disputed on the talk page, since there are no consensus between Merzostin and Nitekuzee, RfC seems to be the best course of action. In light of the source and evidence, it should be determined wether to:

Option #1: Keep The Quote

Option #2: Remove The Quote

Merzostin (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close. This is not an appropriate RfC. The summary of an RfC must be neutral, and this one is not. In the header itself, it classifies a certain thing as "misinformation" when that is what is in dispute, and then the summary statement also favors one side. An appropriate RfC question would be "Should X be included in the article?". The person who initiates the RfC may of course state their opinion in a comment responding to the RfC, but not in the RfC summary itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Beg your apologies, I've made the header and summary neutral, as this is my first time presenting Rfc and i mistook it as comment Merzostin (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Remove. The reason for removal being that the Quote was actually referring to Chinese ships and not Javanese ships, i have provided 11 publications which described the quote as of Chinese ships (above), while Nitekuzee haven't provided a single credible evidence on how it actually described Javanese ships, so it could remained in this article. (p.s i have made the header neutral)

Merzostin (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Just would like to query why I was pinged to participate in this discussion? I have never edited this page, nor substantially contributed to any article relating to any of the WikiProjects this article is attributed to. Bit confused as to why or indeed how you thought of me, Merzostin? Xx78900 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

i read your other response from other RfC and really like your research and arguments, i wished for you to do the same for this RfC if you find this interesting, if you don't it's fine Merzostin (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comments (Summoned by bot): First off, the tone of the interactions here needs to change towards the more civil and collaborative--that goes for both the principle advocates for the two positions here, but especially for Merzostin, whose comments are leaning increasingly towards the disruptive. Merzostin, I understand that you are frustrated by the lack of agreement here, but a) the source wording is at best ambiguous on the issue of dispute here, b) discussion has only really just begun, and c) you are required to maintain a calm and respectful attitude in disputes regardless of any vexation. Putting aside your ALL-CAPSING and fall back on exclamation marks (!!), which I assure you are not winning any rhetorical points with experienced editors, comments like "are you sane? all you do is just rambling unsourced nonsense again and again on this thread and NO! your out of topic ramblings are absolutely wrong too, also no one is talking about Mongol!" are completely inappropriate to a collegial environment like that which is meant to be found in all en.wikipedia talk page discussions. Aside from the fact that these sorts of comments work against you gaining consensus for your preferred outcome, they may very well lead to blocks or other restrictions on your editorial contributions, being as they are rude, a violation of our WP:CIV and WP:PA policies, and mostly contribute nothing to a resolution here.

Second, and speaking again to the two primary disputants here, I am a little confused as to why both of you feel so absolutely certain about your respective interpretations of an antiquated quote using anachronistic labels, when neither of you seems to be completely fluent in the language which is utilized by the secondary sources reporting on that quote which are being discussed here. This is a very nuanced question and neither one of you is permitting for the entirely plausible reading of the other's interpretation.

I'm going to have to dig in a little deeper here before entering my own firm !vote on the OP's inquiry, but a few general observations: 1) a complete in-or-out result is not the only (or even the optimal or most likely) solution here. Some sort of WP:attributed statement that respects the uncertainty given the vagueries of the historical record on the origin of various millenia-old maritime engineering developments and the quote itself is probably preferable. 2) I believe that anyone who thinks this is a binary question of nationalistic/ethnic ownership of this style of craft has an unrealistic view of how such developments historically spread in this region, or with regard to classical maritime technology generally. And 3) even if the quote is kept (in an attributed form), as I think probably is likely (but not certain), it definitely needs to be cut down in length. Much of it is excessive to the reader's needs or just outright irrelevant.

I'll provide a deeper analysis of the viability of inclusion once I have reviewed the sources in more detail, but in the meantime, I encourage the involved parties to please try to be polite and maintain some sense of perspective on this. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to have to dig in a little deeper here before entering my own firm !vote on the OP's inquiry I wanted to follow up regarding your consensus based on the evidence. I understand that you may have a hectic schedule and numerous responsibilities to attend to. Nevertheless, I eagerly await your consensus. Merzostin (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merzostin, please do not inform 32 editors about this RFC via user talk pages. This is both overkill and is probably WP:CANVASSING. In general, to inform others of RFCs, leave a {{Please see}} link on a couple of article talk pages, noticeboards, and WikiProject talk pages. Individual editors should not usually be informed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  On top of that, the feedback request service does a pretty good job at informing editors of RfCs. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. As one of the 32 (I assume), my basic impression is that Snow Rise has expressed my analysis adequately. Notification of individual editors is usually reserved for previous constructive contributors to a discussion on the same topic, i.e. known interested and affected parties. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice the discussion prior was focusing heavily on the meaning of whether 'The ships which sail the Southern Sea' refers to Southern China or Java, but does the original quote in Chinese give any context as to such? For example, Nanyang (南洋), which translates as 'Southern Ocean', is normally used to refer to Southeast Asia (particularly in the time of Zhou Qufei/Chou Chhu-fei), whereas Nanhai 南海, which translates as 'Southern Sea', is the South China Sea more generally. If it was Nanyang for example, that could give more for Javanese, while Nanhai would be more ambiguous. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 00:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can't read Chinese so i can't confirm the Chinese character from the original source, but this is where Wikipedia's rule about WP:NOR shines through, where it specified that interpreting primary sources are problematic and discouraged (not to mention Original Research), instead they should use secondary sources which already confirmed and interpreted the primary sources as accurate as can be, as you can see above, i have provided 9 secondary sources, which confirmed that the quote was of Chinese ships, while Nitekuzee haven't or can't provide a single source where it claimed this quote was describing Javanese ship. Also if you can give your consensus on this RfC, it would be greatly appreciated. Merzostin (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not eager to say it, because having reviewed the article and the recent talk page discussions, I think there's a lot that needs to change in Merzostin's approach from a behavioural stand point, but, having finally taken the time to do a deep dive of the sources, I'm inclining towards Merzostin's interpretation of the content issue in this instance. A number of the supplied secondary sources do indeed expressly identify the quote as referencing Chinese vessels. Not all of them are high quality RS, but several are subject-specific academic texts. They could easily be wrong in their interpretations and could all be a case of academic citogenesis, but on the flip side, we don't seem to have sources expressly supporting the possibility that the reference was to Javanese vessels or ships of the greater region generally. And Merzostin is correct also about the distinction about the relative value of an independent editor's interpretation of a primary source and the interpretations of a secondary source in a case such as this. So I'm leaning towards exclusion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Fact Checking and removing Disinformation

I found that this page contained a lot of disinformation WP:LIE, and I already removed some of it, but i hope someone is willing to continue fact checking this entire article. Also be cautious of edits by @Verosaurus, this users have repeatedly made original research edits based on little to no credible source (it violated WP:VER Wikipedia:No original research), the edits also had underlying nationalist ethnocentrism or Java centrism. Here i provide evidences for some of the misinformations, i'll keep it brief

Catalan Atlas

• 
  A portion of Catalan atlas At the left a five-masted inchi (copying error of jũchi, or junk, from Javanese jong).
• 
  A portion of Catalan atlas depicting a five-masted Javanese jong in the Arabian sea, 1375.

Basically the person made bad faith "original research" and trying to pass this junk ship image as actually of Javanese jong, but cited no secondary source and the primary source wasn't at all specific, from Source a : it basically explained that the flag on the ship was the same as Ilkhanate (Mongols) flag just beside the ships and it was depicted in this map to show how connected the IIkhanate was "the ships bear Il-Khanate flags and one of them sails in the eastern Indian Ocean, the map proves that the ships from the Il-Khanate sailed there." from Source b Source c : It was Chinese ships source b " The entire southeast corner of the map is sprinkled with a brightly colored array of islands, further embellished by a double-tailed mer-maid, a couple of naked fishers, and a Chinese junk with palm leaf sails". Source c " an effort to describe a Chinese junk off the south coast of Asia. It is near an open boat with pearl fishers diving, as described by Marco Polo who put the fishery off southwest India and claimed it produced most of the pearls in the world.

• 
  (added evidence) the 2nd image had been purposefully cropped, but when zoomed out it showed the same flag as the nearby kingdom

Comment: around this time, Chinese ships were already owned by the Mongols, so this explanation can both exist, being it was a Chinese ships given to other Mongols domain. (Catalan Atlas)

---

Fra Mauro Map

• 
  File:FraMauroChineseShip.jpg

Removed the two Fra Mauro map 1420 descriptions as it was original research and had no sources much less reliable secondary one, from all the sources i can find based on the Quote, in all of them, they stated it as quote of Chinese ships, but again this person try to pass it as of Javanese jong on this Djong article. Source 1 "ship which he refers was probably Chinese The dominant power in south-east Asia at that time was the Ming dynasty in China. Under the Yongle Emperor,3 a huge fleet of ships had been constructed and between 1405 and 1433 the Chinese treasure fleet" Source 2 Source 3 "Marco polo describing ship made in China... perhaps it would be as accurate as Fra Mauro Map" (even the picture this person used on this page said Chinese ships). Source 4pg 29 "One of these boats is illustrated next to the text and another east of the Indian penin-sula: with their transom bow and stern, rails on the stern galley, portholes, and as many as five masts with unmistakable mast and batten sails, they are undoubtedly Chinese junks such as Marco Polo had described." Source 5 pg 85. Chinese Junks.

---

Odoric

"In 1322 friar Odoric of Pordenone recorded that during his voyage from India to China he boarded a vessel of the zuncum type which carried at least 700 people, either sailors or merchants." source 1 source 2

Evidence : From the referenced Source 1, this exact description was taken out of context, it was sandwiched between 2 other sentences that mentioned clear Chinese origin junks. From Source 2, this source didn't focus on the origin of the junk. additional Source 3 Source 4 "Friar Odoric has recorded that he sailed from India in a Chinese junk via Sumatra , Java , Borneo , and ... 700 souls on board ; while Marco's ships each carried 600" ( Source 4The Junks and Sampans of the Yangtze volume 1By G. R. G. Worcester · 1947, page 25.)

---

Miller Atlas images

@Verosaurus just provided original research without any sources, just because you uploaded this image and provided unsourced interpretation on the description doesn't mean it can be presented here. Until a reliable source was given, where it stated that this image was of said Javanese ship, this should be removed.

Removed since it violates WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. The Miller Atlas images contained false interpretation from the primary source, which was original research and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. (also had no valid source or secondary source), i can't find any source that said this was in anyway a Javanese ships, but found statement that this atlas wasn't accurate.

• 
  "Cropped portion of Indian Ocean in the Miller Atlas, showing 2 jongs, one is a 6-masted ship viewed from aft, the other is a 7-masted ship. The ships are probably drawn as a reference to Pati Unus' flagship, owing to the number of sails and crescent moon symbol which represent Islam."
• 
  "Cropped portion of China Sea, showing six and three-masted jong. It is probably referencing to large Majapahit jong of the 14–15th centuries or the single Pati Unus junk of 1512–1513. The lack of crescent moon symbol indicated that these jongs must be hailed from the non-muslim area in Java, probably owned by the kingdom of Majapahit or Sunda."
• 
  "Also showing a portion of the China Sea, this one is a 5-masted jong, probably from Demak Sultanate in Central Java."

These were fairly easy to verify, since most of these are quite famous primary sources, which has been discussed by many publications that can be found online. But i'm afraid that the whole page contained a lot of these false "interpretation" and need to be fact checked, sentence by sentence. Merzostin (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Title of this article should be 'Jong'

'Djong' is pre-1972 spelling, so the title needs to be 'Jong' here (I realise that other aspects of this page are controversial, but using the conventional spelling should not be). Adrian Vickers (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spelling in the Indonesian project does not require (a) reverting (b) explanations - a clear understanding of the spelling issues in the project can be found at the project talk page - the older dutch spelling is not prioritized in the face of the post independence conventions. JarrahTree 13:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • JarrahTree, can you link to that spelling explanation? Drmies (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • The current and up to date principle is established at the project MOS - see:-
    • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Indonesia-related_articles#Spelling

The issue is perennial as can be seen in the sample discussions: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suharto/Archives/2009/March#Nomenclature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia/Archive_2#spelling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia/Archive_8#Spelling_of_pre-Indonesia_Javanese_names

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia/Archive_10#RFC_on_spelling_of_historical_names

There is a lot more where that came from, as there have been multiple conversations over time in individual articles where more than one spelling is encountered. JarrahTree 02:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)