Talk:Ryukyu Disposition

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Riukiu as the Colossus of Rhodes

• ... that the Ryūkyū Disposition (contemporary cartoon pictured) saw the former Ryūkyū Kingdom incorporated into the nascent Empire of Japan? Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alonso Martínez de Espinar (in progress)

Created by Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk). Self-nominated at 12:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, within policy (question on one image below), QPQ done, hook ok. I have the following issues with this article;

1. The term disposition is unusual in this context, although I am no expert on diplomacy. The Uemura source used as a ref for the term only has "annexation" in the title and the abstract does not contain it either, but I'll AGF that it appears somewhere in the paper. The link to Wiktionary is not especially enlightening as eight meanings are given and it is not self-evident which one is meant. The term needs to be either explained in running text, glossed in a footnote, or wikilinked to a suitable article. In particular, the difference between disposition and annexation needs to be brought out (if indeed there is one).

   Disposition, at least in English, may be thought somewhat euphemistic were one inclined to view this as annexation, the dictionary being a good place to understand differences in nuance between disposition and annexation (I know no better); the term used is most neutrally rendered as "Disposition", as per the Ministry of Foreign Affairs linked above and the cited literature; the facts are stated, reader response may give rise to thoughts of annexation, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

   The discussions I can find do not concentrate so much on the nuances of the term (word choice often sounds the sympathetic strings); yes Uemura does translate "shobun" as "Disposition", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

2. There is a banner template on the article (orphan) which needs to be dealt with before going on the main page. I would expect a mention in Ryukyu Kingdom, but only annexation is discussed. Ryukyu Domain is another possible incoming link. In fact, I'm not altogether convinced that this material would not be better off as an expansion of that article rather than standalone.

   I have added a link from Japan (History of Japan, Meiji period, Ryukyu Kingdom, Ryukyu Domain, Okinawa Prefecture, History of Okinawa Prefecture, for starters and a plethora of involved personages could also be linked); this is not material for Ryukyu Domain, which should be an in toto consideration of all things Ryukyu Domainal - this is (solely) about the Disposition, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

   PS for what it's worth, on Japanese wiki 琉球処分 currently redirects (with 153 inbound links) to a (quite lengthy, certainly there are many shorter articles, though greater depth would be good) discussion on the History of Okinawa Prefecture page; that location could in itself be viewed as somewhat POV, even if increasingly neutralized by distance and the administrative status quo today, as a one-time autonomous kingdom & a part of the tributary system of China (it would be great if someone familiar with the Chinese sources beefed up that aspect) are at stake (cf. the ensuing widening of overseas interests); to do so, particularly as and when other users flesh out this start, is also questionable in terms of due weight, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

3. In File:Matsuda Michiyuki2.jpg, one of the licensing templates is generating an error, "template without license parameter".

   This is an old photo so I have removed the legacy erroneous template, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

SpinningSpark 10:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Spinningspark to check whether nominator has addressed the issues raised, and determine where the review currently stands. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't come back to this because the editor made no attempt to address my point #1 and on point #2 made only a cursory effort by adding a link to the top level Japan article, despite clearly being aware of more relevant articles that could be linked (since they listed some of them above). They did not even remove the maintenance template – that was done by another editor. I'm also not convinced that that link is entirely approapriate, it seems to have been crowbarred into a sentence that does not concern Ryukyu, thus messing up a Featured Article (I'll explain that further if asked). While linking is not a DYK issue (but the existence of the maintenance template was) this shows a more general unconcern with better integrating this article into the encyclopaedia. Another example of this is the use of diacritics in the name which is clearly inconsistent with other articles and they are not usually used in names in English (only words as foreign words in italics).

On reflection and after rereading, the meaning of disposition is explained well enough for DYK purposes, although I'm sure it could be improved. The other point is no longer a DYK issue either so I won't oppose this going forward. However, the reluctance of the editor to do any serious work on the article does not incline me to actually tick this. You may want to consider asking for another reviewer. SpinningSpark 09:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The maintenance template is a waste of time - why not add the relevant links instead? Indeed, piety is good, but isn't there something about WP:Sofixit? Links will follow organically, in time, or when I have the time to expand those articles, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That's just the kind of don't care laziness that is the reason I am not going to promote this. n orphaned article that is at odds with other articles induces a suspicion of WP:OR. You are the one who has nominated the article. Throwing SOFIXIT back at me is just annoying and further evidence that this was not written for encyclopaedic purposes. SpinningSpark 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you just removed that link from Meiji Memorial Picture Gallery? The title of the painting is 琉球藩設置; 琉球処分 involved 琉球藩設置; if you check out the myriad wiki articles on 藩 they tend to be ruled by a "clan"; trying to avoid OR by giving this painting a more accurate name of Establsihing the Ryūkyū han I used the official Meiji Jingu translation of "clan" (see metonymy), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed it because the link was for "establishment of the Ryūkyū clan" and nowwhere in the target article is establishment of this, or any other clan discussed. The only mention of any clan is Shimazu clan. Are you claiming that clan and han are synonymous? This seems to be another source of confusion in this article. The Shimazu clan page tells me that "The Shimazu clan (島津氏, Shimazu-shi) were the daimyō of the Satsuma han" and the daimyo article tells me that they were "were powerful Japanese feudal lords". From that it appears tha clan refers to the ruling family, but han refers to the domain. So did Ryukyu not have feudal lords before the disposition? Did they have feudal lords, but were then replaced when the Japanese took over? In what way were they "established" by the disposition? Please don't answer those questions here; the point is, that without a clear explication in the article, providing a link is a confusing WP:Easter egg which will disappoint and annoy readers. SpinningSpark 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I know not where else to reply to your individual concerns; your understanding is mine, a han (typically rendered in enwiki as "domain") is ruled by a "clan" (presumably, similarly, in feudal england, fiefs had lords, and lords may have had families); are you forbidding me, and indeed breaking the link for interested readers, from adding such a link, outwards to an article that discusses the establishment of the ryukyu domain, unless I provide non-OR evidence other than that already provided in the article that the Ryukyu domain had a head, the head a family, that the family was called a clan, and that this is the standard english translation of family in this context? Please specify the hoops I must jump, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ouch, I see you have also stripped the links to this and me article on the Hokkaido Development Commission out of the Japan article, despite History of Japan saying "After consolidating its control over Hokkaido and annexing the Ryukyu Kingdom, it next turned its attention to China and Korea", and such presumably being of relevance also to Japan, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

New enough when nominated, long enough, within policy. QPQ is done and image is OK. Hook format is OK. Content is accurate, cited and neutral. "Saw" is a weak verb and a date might help, but the incorporation of a kingdom into an empire is sufficiently interesting. Can the nominator suggest a better wording of the hook? Srnec (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, a weak verb may even be best, as it seems purposefully suggestive of neutrality, (but) how about: thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that through the Ryūkyū Disposition (contemporary cartoon pictured) in the 1870s, the former Ryūkyū Kingdom was incorporated into the nascent Empire of Japan?

Just stick with the original hook. Srnec (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)