Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

nb: amami islands in Kagoshima Pref. were also part of the Kingdom

since been mentioned.—Tokek 28 June 2005 04:44 (UTC)

Merger Tag

I am removing the Merger tag suggesting the merger with Ryukyuan history. There has been zero discussion on this issue, and the tag has long since been removed from that article. Turly-burly 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with this, but since I admitedly have had no time to deal with the matter, I would be a jerk to revert. Unschool 05:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Independent?

Is it really factual to describe Ryukyu as an "independent kingdom" when it recognized Chinese imperial authority?

Would not "dependent kingdom" (to coin a phrase), or, (if there are no Ryukyuan nationalists in the room) "vassal state" be more objective?

The Ryukyu Kingdom was a tributary state not only to China, but also Japan. It is considered to have been independent. Though it may have been at different times a puppet state of Japan or China, its government's independence from both powers was a large part of why so small a place could play an important role in trade and politics of the region. It's important to note that, according to the China, all states were subordinate to their own, and thus were either those unlawfully rejecting their authority (like Japan) or fittingly recognizing the emperor's divine right to rule them (like anyone who wanted to trade with them, including Okinawa). I think I have that right; Kerr answers this "Independence?" question in a similar way, if I remember correctly, in his history of Okinawa. Turly-burly 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This article does not clarify, indeed confounds, the process which Ryukyu experienced between 1872, i.e. the change to han status in that year, and then prefectural status in 1879. Bettelheim is spelt thus and not Bettleheim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.44.88.209 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article renamed

I've renamed this article from Ryukyu Kingdom to Ryūkyū Kingdom in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Succeeding entity

What is the appropriate succeeding entity to use? Okinawa Prefecture or Empire of Japan? In this case, Ryūkyū Kingdom was annexed and taken over by the Empire of Japan. If you were on the islands, you were previously part of the Ryūkyū Kingdom and now part of the Empire of Japan. The entire time, the people were in Okinawa (though it was not a prefecture of Japan. In looking at other uses of {{Infobox Former Country}}, most of the preceding/succeeding entities are countries or empires (ie who ruled over or governed the place). Clicking through the history of a land reveals the country that it was formed from and what countries it became.

I also have a problem with directly linking to Okinawa Prefecture because there are several stages between the Ryūkyū Kingdom and modern Okinawa Prefecture (Empire of Japan, Occupied Japan, United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (separate from the rest of Japan)). The direct succession to the current Okinawa Prefecture is not correct, and I believe the Empire of Japan is the best succession to use. Rather than using the logic "became" for succeeding entities (as in the Ryūkyū Kingdom became Okinawa Prefecture), it is more appropriate to use "became governed by" or "became under the control of" (as in the Ryūkyū Kingdom became under the control of the Empire of Japan). --Scott Alter 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ryukyu Kingdom did not become the Empire of Japan, it became Okinawa Prefecture (in 1879, going only through the very short-lived phase of being "Okinawa han" from 1872-1879); this happened long before WWII and the Occupation, so it is indeed the prefecture which is the next succeeding entity. Note that the Kingdom of Hawaii became the Provisional Government, then the Territory, then the State of Hawaii and the Republic of Texas the State of Texas; neither ever became the United States. I do apologize for not discussing this directly with you to begin with, but please see the brief discussion of the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Former_countries#Annexations and the instructions page on the Former Countries infobox, which reads "If an entity simply became a subdivision of another country (state, province, etc.), then link to that subdivision. Only do this if it the transition is very clear. Example: the Republic of Texas was annexed by the USA and reconstituted as the US state of Texas. The successor here is not the USA, but the modern state of Texas."

I understand and appreciate your logic of "governed by" as opposed to becoming, but I'm afraid I simply disagree as to which logic is the better one to follow. I think it is more important to relate a narrative of reorganizations or redefinitions of a given territory across time, and not simply to relate which countries or governments absorbed the territory. I do not doubt that you've found plenty of examples of cases in which the infobox has been used to reflect the country or government which absorbed, conquered, or annexed the territory, but there are nevertheless plenty of counterexamples, including not only Hawaii and Texas, but also the Kingdoms of Scotland, Wales and England, which today remain distinct entities within the UK. LordAmeth 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretender

Is there a current pretender to the throne or did the last king die in Tokyo without an heir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.246.34 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 June 2007

The kingly line and royal institution, indeed the Kingdom itself, were formally abolished in 1879 when the territory was formally annexed as a prefecture. The last king, Sho Tai, ceased to be a king at this time, becoming a Marquis, with no succession allowed to take place. Sho Tai died in 1901, and his extended family & household fully gave up traditional dress and practices of the Ryukyuan royal family in 1903, at the end of a period of mourning, and adopted the lifestyle of the Japanese kazoku (aristocracy). Sho Tai's son Sho Ten died in 1920, and was the last member of the line to be buried in the royal tombs at Shuri. So, in short, no, there is no one today who lays any claim to the throne of Ryukyu. LordAmeth 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hokuzan unification was 1416 or 1419 ?

There are two different year in this article and other relates articles for the unification of Hokuzan. or the occupation and unification were in different years?. In the japanese articles the year is 1416. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuqui (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

More info needed

This article does a pretty nice, short summary of the history of the Ryukyu Kingdom, but it would be nice if it were possible to expand with some more cultural elements at the time. For example, how was the kingdom organized? What was the religious beliefs like? What about arts and trade? Just throwing some ideas out for further expansion.

Also, I removed the "tone" warning from the article as it doesn't seem to be clear why it was put in, or suggestions in the Talk Page about how to improve it. I'll try to see if I can polish the article more in the coming weeks or months (first need to gather some more sources).

Thanks! --Ph0kin (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Problematic sentences

Fu3ku -- Your contributions to this article raise red flags.

2008

• A. diff 04:05, 28 September 2008 Fu3ku m (19,162 bytes) (→Japanese invasion (1609))
• -. [ diff] 04:08, 28 September 2008 Fu3ku m (19,186 bytes) (→See also)
• B. diff 04:10, 28 September 2008 Fu3ku m (19,227 bytes) (→Nippon(Japan) annexation(1609))
• C. diff 12:33, 28 September 2008 LordAmeth (19,220 bytes) (Japan did not annex Ryukyu until 1879; the 1609 invasion, was an invasion by Satsuma Domain samurai (there was no "Japan" at that time) and placed Ryūkyū into a vassal status, not full loss of indepen)
• D. diff 13:02, 28 September 2008 Ghostexorcist (19,159 bytes) (→Japanese invasion(1609): blogs are not reliable sources of info)

2009

• E. diff 18:03, 13 June 2009 Fu3ku m (21,680 bytes) (→Japanese invasion and subordination: the blog has Ryukyu kingdom official sources)
• F. diff 18:04, 13 June 2009 Fu3ku m (21,647 bytes) (→Japanese invasion and subordination) <-- no edit summary
• G. diff 18:05, 13 June 2009 Fu3ku m (21,646 bytes) (→Japanese invasion and subordination) <-- no edit summary
• H diff 14:42, 14 June 2009 Fu3ku m (21,683 bytes) (→Japanese invasion and subordination) <-- no edit summary
• I. diff 14:44, 14 June 2009 Fu3ku m (21,698 bytes) (→Japanese invasion and subordination) <-- no edit summary

There is no question that added information about suppressed dissent would enhance the quality of this article; but it is difficult to evaluate the plausible sentences you have posted. It is unclear how to distinguish unhelpful "synthesis" from what is "verifiable". Sentences which were first introduced in 2008 here have not been clarified or amplified by subsequent edits; therefore, this becomes a better place for discerning a next step forward:

There were various suppressed proponents of independence from Satsuma/Japan during this period, and from China as well, to which Ryūkyū was a tributary state.<:ref>清日之间关于琉球问题的交涉Qing Japan diplomatic documents about Ryūkyū question</ref><:ref>石源華，〈論戰後琉球獨立運動及琉球歸屬問題〉，《第五次中華民國史國際學術討論會會議論文集》（2006年7月）</ref><:ref>琉球再被日據的開端和我政府應有之努力，陶元珍</ref><:ref>戰後處理與地緣政治下的國民政府對琉政策：以40、50年代為中心 許育銘</ref> Qing China made some diplomatic protests to the Japanese government, but these proved to have little effect. Some Ryūkyū officials tried to restore the kingdom,<:ref>中山世土</ref> however, no significant popular movement arose during this time.<:ref>夕陽下的琉球王室</ref>

I wonder if WP:UE might become a constructive-point-of-departure? Alternately, I notice that you do not appear to have responded to the following, which was posted User talk:Fu3ku#Re: your edits on Ryūkyū Kingdom:

"First of all, the invasion by Satsuma samurai in 1609 was not a Japanese annexation. The islands were annexed in 1879. Prior to that, the Kingdom remained intact, remained a tributary to Ming/Qing China, and became a semi-independent vassal to Satsuma Domain, with no direct connection whatsoever to the Tokugawa shogunate or to "Japan" as a whole.

Also, I am curious about the references you cited to prove that Okinawa was still a tributary to the Qing at the time of the annexation in 1879. I am not arguing the fact. However, I find it hard to believe that all five of these citations on this one fact are really necessary. If you could remove the excess ones, and relabel the remainder in pinyin or in English, so that other users will recognize and understand it, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you. -- LordAmeth 12:46, 28 September 2008

Can you propose another reasonable starting-point from which to begin developing a consensus-discussion thread? In due course, this will become relevant in a context to be established in projected articles like the following:

• Ryukyuan missions to Edo
  • Japanese missions to Ryūkyū Kingdom

• Ryukyuan missions to Imperial China
  • Imperial Chinese missions to Ryūkyū Kingdom
  • Foreign relations of Imperial China

• Ryukyuan missions to Joseon
  • Joseon missions to Ryūkyū Kingdom

• Japanese diplomacy (pre-Meiji period)
• Japanese missions to Imperial China
  • Japanese missions to Sui China
  • Japanese missions to Tang China
  • Japanese missions to Yuan China
  • Japanese missions to Ming China
  • Japanese missions to Qing China

• Japanese missions to Mexico

I note LordAmeth's relevant work on Kōchi Chōjō, Jana Ueekata, etc.

Aside: This external link -- 中日交渉史料目録 -- was added to Japanese missions to Imperial China; and I wonder if it might be considered helpful in this venue? --Tenmei (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what was up with those Chinese citations; with a little clean-up they could be fine, I suppose. In any case, please do feel free to draw upon what little I've written in the Kōchi Chōjō article etc. to expand upon this, if you feel like it. I hope to eventually (I really don't know when) get around to creating articles for the Kōdō-kai and expanding upon Qing involvement in the 1870s debates over sovereignty (or suzerainty) over Ryukyu. Meanwhile, I don't believe there were ever any regular Japanese missions to the Ryukyu Kingdom, nor missions exchanged between Ryukyu and Joseon (only letters, I think). At some point, I'll get around to writing articles on Ryukyuan tribute missions to China, and Chinese investiture missions to Ryukyu. Thanks, Tenmei. LordAmeth (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Superficial online research revealed a few suggestive pointers. In a Sinocentric context, the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty record that intermittent Ryukyuan missions were received by Taejo of Joseon in 1392, 1394 and 1397. For example, in 1392

• 1. An envoy and his retinue from the Kingdom of Ryūkyū were received in the Joseon court.<:ref name="goodrich1601"/>Goodrich, L. Carrington et al. (1976). Dictionary of Ming biography, 1368-1644 (明代名人傳), Vol. II, p. 1601.</ref>
• 2. The Joseon Wangjo Sillok records that the envoys from Ryūkyū were accorded "East fifth rank lower grade"<:ref>Kang, Etsuko Hae-jin. (2003). Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations, p. 50.</ref>
• 3. Ryukyuan retainers were accorded "sixth rank lower grade."<:ref name="kang51">Kang, p. 51.</ref>
• 4. The Ryūkyū delegation offered what are identified as pangmul, which is the term for gifts offered by subordinate states.<:ref name="kang51"/>

Presumably, more detail will be posted which amplifies this scant outline? --Tenmei (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ryukyuan missions to Imperial China, consider this possible source:

• 1853 (Kaei 6): Hayashi Akira completed Tsūkō ichiran. The work was created under orders from the bakufu to compile and edit documents pertaining to East Asian trade and diplomacy; and, for example, it includes a detailed description of a Ryukyuan tribute embassy to the Qing court in Beijing. The documents, descriptions and commentary encompass Japanese bilateral and international relations; and the work has been parsed into sections by country across 350 volumes. The text is organized chronologically within each of the sections.<:ref name="hokkaido_library1">Hokkaido University Library: catalog, book description 通航一覧 1-8 / 林復斎 (in Japanese); (in English).</ref>

Although this is not yet uploaded to the internet, who can say what prospects the future holds? --Tenmei (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I shall definitely keep it in mind. There's also quite a bit on this subject in various secondary sources on Okinawan history. Do you think Hayashi Akira, all the way in Edo, really knew what was going on between Ryukyu and China, or what had gone on in the past? LordAmeth (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the anecdote about Pablo Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein? In response to those who claimed that his painting hadn't really captured a resemblance -- that she didn't look like the image he'd put on canvas -- Picasso predicted, "She will." See, e.g., Poets.org: Picasso's Portrait of Gertrude Stein

No, I didn't imagine that the post hoc chronologies edited by Hayashi represent the best and most scholarly source material; however, I did hope that the suggestion could be construed as "on point" and encouraging. See, e.g., Cullen, Louis M. (2003). A History of Japan 1582-1941: Internal and External Worlds, p. 174 n115; Toby, Ronald. (1991). State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan, pp. 15 n30, etc. --Tenmei (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to demean your suggestion. The fact that you work from such primary sources is wonderful. I ought to use primary sources myself more often. LordAmeth (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry needlessly. This appears to be an unfortunate miscommunication. I perceived no judgmental aspects in what was, in my view, nothing other than a meaningful and appropriate question.

In reply, I mentioned the non-modern, neo-Confucianist historiography of the Edo period. For Hayashi, the ritual, procedural and formulaic aspects of a chronology were what mattered. These details were elevated above the more complicated concerns which interest modern historians. In my view, these are precisely the kinds of fill-in-the-blank details which are most wanted at this stage of Wikipedia's evolution. My sole interest here was to be potentially constructive. --Tenmei (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that plan. I'll see what I can find in some nenpyô. LordAmeth (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

References

User:ウィキナ needs to come to the talkpage

Okay, I am tired of you already. Images themselves, especially images on Commons, don't call for sourcing, they are not text. This one is in use by multiple Wikipedias. This image is in use on the Chinese Wikipedia, which is a featured article. Shall we bring it to WP:3O? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In east-asian countries, there was no "national flag" or the concept until the late 19th centuries. The Hidari-Mitsudomoe (Fijai-Gumun in Okinawan), or the crest of three comma-shaped figures in a circle has been sometimes introduced as the national flag of Ryukyu Kingdom, but the crest originally was a family crest of Sho royal family, and not the national flag. Of cource the flag had been sometimes used as one of ship flages of Ryukyu. But it was no national flag of Ryukyu and nobody call it as the national flag in the world of the Ryukyu(Okinawa) historiography today.

And the flag Hidari-Mitsudomoe with 3 colors was designed for the flag of Ryukyu Seifu (United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands) in 1950. and it was not adopted. The draft of the flag is preserved at the United States National Archives and Records Administration[1]. Japanese Wikipedia doesn't use the flag. Please refer to the site. Thanks,--ウィキナ (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Ryukyu Kingdom/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I presume that the dispute is over whether the {{Citation needed}} tag should be added to the "Flag (1875–1879)" flag in the infobox. It should be added. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_writing_an_image_caption and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Multimedia make clear that sources must be provided for images, image captions, and information in infoboxes. Moreover, from the information available on the image page it appears that there may be some controversy over whether this the legitimate flag, which makes sourcing even more important.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Important Disclosure: I have just discovered that I have previously dealt with user Chris by issuing a Third Opinion at Talk:William_Adams_(sailor)#.22Most_influential.22. (I overlooked the fact that his real username is Kintetsubuffalo, which is how I had him listed in my records.) If any editor in this dispute objects to my issuance of the foregoing third opinion, they should strike it out (but not blank it), repost the {{3O}} template, and re–list the dispute at WP:3O. I regret any uncertainy or confusion that this may have caused. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Flag removal and replacement

I undid revision 362399848 by ウィキナ, I am replacing the reference. This has been a fight since February, and it should not be. The second source listed on the same reference page is Flag Book of the United States by Whitney Smith-not only a reliable source which predates the novel, but by the world's acknowledged predominant expert on the subject. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Did your read this book? or just saw it at the site? The flag that you mentioned has never been recognized as the national flag of Ryukyu. If you doubt, you can ask the Okinawa prefectural office.

http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/english/index.html

--ウィキナ (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I own a copy of this book myself, and consider a respected author on the subject to be weighted more than local bureaucrats at the kencho. Sorry, but this won't work anymore. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

King of Ryukyu Islands

According to Louis-Frédéric, Eisō was "king of the Ryūkyū Islands in the thirteenth century, succeeding Yoshimoto." -- see Nussbaum, Louis-Frédéric. (2002). Japan Encyclopedia, p. 172., p. 172, at Google Books

• FYI: Yoshimoto, also known as Yiben in Chinese, is "the Japanese name for the Ryukyuan sovereign who was the grandson and successor of Shunten." Yoshimoto abdicated in favor of Eisō. -- see Nussbaum, p. 1062., p. 1062, at Google Books

I modified the name of a table -- changing from "Kings of Okinawa" to "Kings of Ryukyu Islands" because of this reliable source. --Tenmei (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Dear Editor, Hello. My name is Levi Stribling. First off, I love the article. Great information and I thank you for it. I am confused, however, in that I didn't find any transition from Sho Hashi to Sho Toku. The following is an excerpt from the article. Shō Hashi adopted the Chinese hierarchical court system, built Shuri Castle and the town as his capital, and constructed Naha harbor. In 1469, King Shō Toku died without a male heir; I would like to know where the transition took place between Sho Hashi and Sho Toku or were they the same person with a pseudonym? Just curious. Thank you. lpstribling@gmail.com (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)