Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom

Opinion

Was this written by a Japanese nationalist? The general tone is understating the forced annexation of the Ryukyu Kingdom into the Empire of Japan and totally passes over the severe hardships caused by this, both culturally as there has been a long history of forced assimilation (kominka) as well as military repression. The latter half of this article could use a serious rewrite, especially in light of the work of such scholars such as Tomiyama Ichiro. It's really unimpressive, and seems to attempt to erase the fact that this was a colonial invasion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:C4:59FA:1:39AF:468E:B071:A6FA (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC) These sentences were removed from the article. These opinion sentences present a point-of-view. The POV is not supported by a cited source:

The Ryukyuan king was a vassal of the Satsuma daimyō, but his land was not considered as part of any han (fief): up until the formal annexation of the islands and abolition of the kingdom in 1879, the Ryukyus were not truly considered part of Japan, and the Ryukyuan people not considered Japanese. Though technically under the control of Satsuma,

Part of this is contradicted by Ronald P. Toby. (1991). State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia and the development of the Tokugawa bakufu, pp. 45-46, citing manuscripts at the Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo; excerpt, "Ieyasu granted the Shimazu clan the right to "rule" over Ryukyu ... [and] contemporary Japanese even referred to the Shimazu clan as 'lords of four provinces', which could only mean that they were including the Ryukyuan kingdom in their calculations".

Is it possible that this subject is best understood using a kind of fuzzy logic? --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence has to be removed. It is not covered by the citation given. However the citation itself is problematic as it only resembles the opinion of "contemporary Japanese" (who?) without any reliable source. If it was about feelings why not ask some contemporary Okinawans for their opinion? The entire section has Satsuma as subject and not Ryukyu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.142.174 (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryukyu's tribute to China when the Yongle Emperor was in power

Yongle Emperor was shocked at Ryukyuans castrating innocent people in order to send eunuchs as tribute, he was asvised to tell Ryukyu not to send eunuchs again

http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps07_093.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1317152

05:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ryukyu's historical relations with China

Imperial Chinese missions to Ryukyu Kingdom

http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/history_early.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=3zBLjHeAGB0C&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3sy-JNJEfjYC&pg=PR23#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kumemura

http://books.google.com/books?id=OuSsxBuALQYC&pg=PA196#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ga-5mPOr2-wC&pg=PR13#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ddcV_cGegX4C&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ULyu8dNqS1sC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3zBLjHeAGB0C&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fmmcu7S1BcEC&pg=PA330#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=566AlluiHT0C&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=RXOrZUlF_OoC&pg=PA330#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=GSA_AaRdgioC&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=y5yTBp_fk4oC&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ka6jNJcX_ygC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vaAKJQyzpLkC&pg=PA76&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=37LxVhgIbJkC&pg=PA136&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ULyu8dNqS1sC&pg=PA39&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=4z_JJfG-hyYC&pg=PA240&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=jIAKkMlFFQAC&pg=PA70&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lbOau1trIMMC&pg=PA146&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Dd3gUZanO-zi4APK64CIBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nWXwkb_xRNsC&pg=PA170&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gt3gUclwl8rgA_zpgdAO&ved=0CCsQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=E10tnvapZt0C&pg=PA112&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gt3gUclwl8rgA_zpgdAO&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06NAHA103.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/07/04/wikileaks-okinawas-pro-china-anti-u-s-bent/

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/07/05/wikileaks-okinawas-pro-china-anti-u-s-bent/

The Forgotten Dynasty Of The Ryukyu Islands - Tofugu

http://www.tofugu.com/2013/09/26/the-forgotten-dynasty-of-the-ryukyu-islands/

Rajmaan (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Jean Bettelheim

http://www.chinajapan.org/articles/11.1/11.1steben39-60.pdf

http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/ryukyuanist/ryukyuanist79_80.pdf

http://www.nskk.org/province/others/bp_kyosho_en090531.pdf

Minor Edits in the Infobox

I linked the status of the Ryukyu Kingdom to the Imperial Chinese tributary system page as opposed to the Tributary state page as the former provides greater specific insight into the relationship between the Ryukyu Kingdom and China.

Additionally, I saw no need to distinguish between "nominal" status and "practical" status in the infobox. If there really is a significant difference, this should be elaborated upon within the body of the article to avoid excessive wordiness in the infobox.

Finally, I managed to attach a source to validate the Ryukyu kingdom's tributary relationship with China but there are not any sources attached in the infobox that validate vassalage to the "Shimazu Clan" and the "Empire of Japan".

Can someone please attach an appropriate source if found? If not, I'll do my best to try and include appropriate sourcing.

I hope the appropriateness of this edit is clear. If there are any digressions, please respond to me.

Thanks

BUjjsp (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@BUjjsp: I don't like seeing sources in the infobox because it makes it look cluttered, but I have plenty of sources to validate those facts if you really want them cited. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely understandable. Thanks for your response. BUjjsp (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

@Oda Mari: I'm going to ask before reverting, but what part of WP:MOS says that this version is more correct than the previous version? Please be specific. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

See the third paragraph of the lead. It says Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[a] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Oda Mari (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, I will reproduce the response I made to Oda Mari's comments on my own talk page.

The section you gave in your more recent edit summary refers to content in Wikipedia as a whole, including text in body paragraphs, introductory sections, etc. It DOES NOT specifically pertain to the content of infoboxes.

I don't know if you're aware (I have shown you countless times before), but the Wikipedia Manual of Style does have an article SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING to infoboxes: MOS:INFOBOX. It states that in the infobox "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content".

If this STILL isn't clear enough for you, there's another Wikipedia page that helps lay out some infobox guidelines, called Help:Infobox. It EXPLICITLY states that,

"If a lot of different subjects all share a common attribute (for instance, all people have a name and a date of birth), then it is useful to be able to compare these across different pages. This also implies that where possible, material should be presented in a standard format."

Since it was decided by the Wikipedia community that "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" was the most concise, and thus most acceptable format, the infoboxes of other pages should follow this same format. It's simple logic, really. BUjjsp (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oda Mari: "Should not change... styles... without a good reason." Well you see, according to that RfC over at Talk:Goryeo, there is plenty of reason to change styles, and consensus backs that up. Why are you so against this change that you'll go against consensus to undo it? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start an RfC tomorrow. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Because neither "member" nor "Imperial Chinese tributary system" is supported by Template:Infobox former country. See also Template:Infobox former country/Categories. There was no style inconsistency before on this Ryukyu Kingdom article. The style is tributary/vassal state of (country name). "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" is a different style and MoS says Style and formatting should be consistent within an article. I think this should be talked at the template talk page or the MoS talk page before RFC. Oda Mari (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you brought up the exact same argument on the Talk:Goryeo page and unfortunately, you were wrong there and you are wrong here. As I told you before, Template:Infobox former country and Template:Infobox former country/Categories only list what parameters are accepted in the default "|status" and "|empire" fields. The field "|status_text" exists specifically to create more specific status labels that do not follow the default format, such as in the case of, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system".

What you perceive to be a "style inconsistency" was almost unanimously accepted by the Wikipedia community as appropriate. See Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?. The only dissenter there was you. You made the same argument there, yet every other editor involved disagreed with you. What makes you think this will be any different? BUjjsp (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oda Mari: I can open an RfC and just place a notice on those talk pages linking here. However, I'm completely certain the RfC will result the same as on Talk:Goryeo. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Vassal and tributary states of the Ottoman Empire is a similar, and more detailed, article to Imperial tributary system, but these Ottoman related articles do not use "a member of " or "one of". The style is "Vassal (state) of the Ottoman Empire". See Crimean Khanate, Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711), Republic of Ragusa, andWallachia. China related articles should follow the default format. The sentence "xx was a tributary state" is complete and understandable, but "xx was a member" is meaningless and not specific. "Member " is not a word to describe the status of the country. Oda Mari (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oda Mari: That's not an appropriate comparison. First off, plenty of academic sources use the term "Imperial Chinese tributary system" whereas I have yet to see one that uses the term "Ottoman Empire tributary system" or something of the sort. Therefore, why would anyone use it in an infobox? The terms "member" and "member state" are academically sourced and thus appropriate. In fact, linking the Imperial Chinese tributary system page as opposed to Tributary state page reveals a lot more regarding the specific tributary relations that were in place. BUjjsp (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox

Should the infobox read "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" or "Tributary state of Ming Dynasty, Tributary state of Qing Dynasty"? See above sections for background and already-stated arguments; see Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed? for a similar RfC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• former per BUjjsp. I like conciseness. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Follow the sources If the preponderance of reliable general-audience sources (or as close as we can get to it on a subject this advanced) prefer to call it a "member of the tributary system," then we should do that. If they call it a "tributary state" then we should do that. The infobox discussion above does not seem to address this Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Information in the infobox is dependent on the content of the article; it should just follow what the term is used in the main text. STSC (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The two terms "member of the tributary system" and "tributary state" are interchangeable. It is merely a choice of diction. In fact, the former is far more specific and informative. The term "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" is not used, likely in the interest of conciseness. However, in the infobox specifically, "tributary state of x dynasty" is far less concise than "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" especially when the relationship existed between the kingdom in question and multiple dynasties, as was the cause of change in Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?.BUjjsp (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't even find the term "Imperial Chinese tributary system" in the main text; technically, that is not acceptable in infobox unless you put that term into the content of the article first. An infobox is not an independent mini-article and it should reflect the terms used in the article. STSC (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

May I ask what guideline stipulates this? Thanks. BUjjsp (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just use common sense - if the fact about "member of Imperial Chinese tributary system" does not even appear in the article, how could the infobox include it? Or have a look at MOS:INFOBOX. STSC (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, the terms can easily be substituted. They mean the same thing. For the purpose of the infobox however, the former is far more concise. The fact that the article doesn't include a link to the Imperial Chinese tributary system is a problem, which I'd be happy to fix as soon as this discussion concludes. BUjjsp (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Former - Based on the sources provided below. I also agree with Chris Troutman's opinion on conciseness, especially in an infobox. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep It Simple... use "Tributary state" - Having looked into the whole issue, I prefer the common name "tributary state" in the article including the infobox. The term "tributary state of X Dynasty" does not imply the state is part of the X Dynasty in terms of sovereignty, so there's no need to be nationalistic about that. And the term "member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system"... What a mouthful of words! STSC (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Tributary state of the Ming Dynasty and Tributary state of the Qing Dynasty" is even more of a mouthful of words, if I'm not mistaken. Also, the issue of sovereignty is fully addressed in the Imperial Chinese tributary system page whereas the Tributary state page is broad and can be confused with Vassalage. BUjjsp (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"tributary state of X Dynasty" vs "member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" - Let other editors decide which is more straight forward. If the Tributary state article has shortcoming, then be bold and improve it. Don't just avoid using the common term. STSC (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tributary state page's shortcoming in this case is that it is wide-reaching, including tributary relationships from around the world (which have various definitions), not just the type pertinent to Imperial China. It's not something I can "fix". In my opinion, it just makes sense to reference the page that is specific to the Ryukyu Kingdom's relationship with China. BUjjsp (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How about just "Ming Dynasty tributary" and "Qing Dynasty tributary"? Those are short and mean the same thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. However, it just doesn't make sense to me why two distinct labels need to be used when they can be combined, since the nature of the tributary relations did not change between the Ming and Qing dynasties. This consistency is why historians use the collective term, "Imperial Chinese tributary system," or "Imperial tribute system," to describe the tributary relationships that existed under the various Chinese dynasties. BUjjsp (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Neither In some cases (e.g. Britain) paying tribute to China merely meant conducting trade relations with China. So being a tributary state of China is not notable enough to include in a country’s infobox.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of member of/tributary state in sources

Originally a response to Darkfrog24's "Follow the sources" comment.

@Darkfrog24: I've never seen either in any source, usually just "paid tribute to China/X Dynasty". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The preponderance of sources say "paid tribute to China/X Dynasty". However, while that describes the relationship, it isn't appropriate to be used as a kingdom's "status". "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" sums the relationship up quite well and is more appropriate as a kingdom's "status". The terms "member" and "member state" to describe these states are used in academic sources, a few of which I've reproduced below.

From the London School of Economics (LSE) - The Nature and Linkages of China’s Tributary System under the Ming and Qing Dynasties, by Giovanni Adornino

"Secondly, and consequently, “it must be safely assumed that a common culture among members facilitated the emergence and operation of extra-territorial institutions that operated to regulate inter-state relations and sustain the system. Indeed, the evidence suggests that responses to challenges encountered in solving problems of cooperation, conflict, and coexistence included an elaborated, informed web of codes which was formulated and followed by member states in their mutual relations with the Chinese system.”

From the Oxford Journals, The Chinese Journal of International Politics - The Tributary System as International Society in Theory and Practice by Yongjin Zhang and Barry Buzan

"Korea, as a model tributary, fully embraced the tributary system, as well the cultural assumptions and legitimation claims behind it, until the end of the 19th century. It is indisputably a member of the society of states centered in Imperial China."

The "society of states" is referring to the Imperial Chinese tributary system

From Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, by Keat Gin Ooi

"This tribute was not a financial burden for the missions, for they were well compensated for behaving appropriately, and their members were allowed to trade with the Chinese waiting at the designated ports, notably Guangzhou." BUjjsp (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

From Civilization and Empire: China and Japan's Encounter with European International Society, by Shogo Suzuki

"However, it is equally important to note that despite the fact that Chinese power waxed and waned over the years, the Tribute System remained intact. In some cases, member states even remained loyal to a deposed Chinese dynasty, despite it making very little sense from the point of view of their survival."

From Empires, Systems and States: Great Transformations in International Politics, edited by Michael Cox, Tim Dunne, Ken Booth

"Ample evidence suggests that as a response to challenges encountered in solving problems of cooperation, conflict, and co-existence, an elaborate culturally informed web of codes was formulated and followed by member states in their mutual relations with the Chinese system."

It should be noted that the editors of this work directly quoted, "The Nature and Linkages of China’s Tributary System under the Ming and Qing Dynasties, by Giovanni Adornino". However, since it is a distinct academic source that finds the term in question acceptable, I thought its inclusion would still be relevant to the discussion at hand.

From Everyday Politics of the World Economy, edited by John M. Hobson, Leonard Seabrooke

"Despite these limitations of Chinese power, in the case of East Asia the system seems to '[prevail] in time of Imperial China's military weakness precisely because military strength on its own is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the maintenance of this order' (Zhang 2001: 57-8). This suggests that the constitutional structure of the East Asian international system and the tribute system, its fundamental institution, did indeed gain a significant degree of acceptance among the member states in East Asia." BUjjsp (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tributary kingdom"

This might be the best option, as kingdom is more accurate than state, and it enables the wording to be succinct.
There are numerous examples of its use in scholarly sources.[1][2][3][4][5]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the conciseness of that label as well. However, I also think that it's a bit ambiguous. "Tributary kingdom" itself does not explicitly describe the state's relationship with China, which is necessary to accurately represent the status of the various tributary system members. It's possible that something like "Tributary kingdom of China" might work. But, I also see problems arising from this due to the fact that the term "China" might be inaccurate for certain non-Han dynasties, such as the Yuan and Qing for example. Using the "Imperial Chinese tributary system" or even "Imperial tributary system" solves this ambiguity problem in my opinion. Any thoughts? BUjjsp (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Tributary kingdom of China" reads like China is the tributary kingdom. "Tributary kingdom to China" fixes that. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "China" could be inaccurate for non-Han dynasties, such as the Yuan and Qing. Under these dynasties, China was conquered by foreign entities, so using the label, "Tributary kingdom to China" can be inaccurate/misleading. "Imperial Chinese tributary system" or "Imperial tributary system" on the other hand is not inaccurate, since it includes the tributary relations that existed between the tributary system member states and the dynasties in power, Han or non-Han. BUjjsp (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How about "Tributary kingdom of the Ming Dynasty", "Tributary kingdom of the Qing Dynasty"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much like the label that's currently in place. It's not inaccurate, but it can be a lot more concise. The nature of the Ryukyu kingdom's tributary relationship did not change between the Ming and Qing dynasties, so I don't see why two distinct labels should be included. BUjjsp (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How about Tributary kingdom of the Ming and Qing Dynasties.

The main points are that the remote island kingdom was not a "state" in the modern sense of the term or in the sense seen at Vassal state, and that it paid tribute to both China and Satsuma concurrently.

The Ryukyu Kingdom found itself in a period of "dual subordination" to Japan and China, wherein Ryukyuan tributary relations were maintained with both the Tokugawa shogunate and the Ming Chinese court. In 1655, tribute relations between Ryukyu and Qing Dynasty (the dynasty that followed Ming on 1644) were formally approved by the shogunate. This was seen to be justified, in part, because of the desire to avoid giving Qing any reason for military action against Japan.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" does not use the term "state" either. My main point is that the individual dynasty names are really not significant enough to warrant another distinct label in the infobox, since the Ryukyu Kingdom's tributary relationship did not change between these dynasties. This especially becomes problematic when some kingdoms paid tribute to many different dynasties and the label becomes "Tributary kingdom of x dynasty and y dynasty and z dynasty..." and so forth. Do you have any particular concerns with the label I have proposed? BUjjsp (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Have other states that paid tribute listed as tributary states? If so please provide examples. If not, why should it be listed in this infobox?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the current consensus on Wikipedia is that this relationship should be included in the infobox. However, the disagreement is over the exact wording. "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" is used on the Goryeo and Joseon pages for example (as decided by a previous Rfc), while this page and the Ashikaga Shogunate page use "Tributary state of X Dynasty and Tributary state of Y Dynasty... etc." BUjjsp (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am just concerned that this is an effort by individuals who believe that the Ryukyu islands are Chinese.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Ryukyu Islands are Ryukyuan. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:BUjjsp - Could you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in the consensus for including this content in the infobox?--Wikimedes (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep it took place on the Goryeo page: Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?. To summarize, it was agreed upon that there was no need to include every single dynasty that a tributary system member (in this case Goryeo) paid tribute to in the infobox. The Imperial Chinese tributary system remained consistent across the dynasties that employed it, and thus the status of these member states did not change as a result of the transitions that occurred between the various Chinese dynasties. Thus, the relationship could be described within a single title, maintaining the infobox's desired characteristic of conciseness, as described by Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX BUjjsp (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Through it I found this discussion Talk:Joseon#Discussion_Regarding_the_Status_Label_of_the_Infobox, which discusses whether tributary status should be included in an infobox at all, which was what I was looking for. (You have my sympathies for what must have been a difficult discussion.) I happen to agree with your first proposal there that it should not be included in the infobox. De 4 de 171 provided a reference (the first one) there to support including Joseon’s tributary status in its infobox (even there I find little in the way of details in the article to support that single sentence, but I don’t know much about Joseon). However it would be silly to mention tributary status in Britain’s, Portugal’s, Arabia’s (Siam’s, Ceylon’s?) infoboxes, so tributary status by itself is not significant enough to include in a country’s infobox. Consistency with Joseon is also not a good reason to include tributary status in Ryukyu’s infobox, because 1), it will be inconsistent with the many tributary states that should not have this information in the infobox, and 2) WP:other stuff exists is very seldom a good reason. Is there another reason that tributary status should be mentioned in Ryukyu’s infobox?--Wikimedes (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a very important fact and a large point of discussion between historians that Ryukyu was a tributary state of China and a vassal of Satsuma at the same time. This information belongs in the infobox. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Good enough. I'll leave you to it.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No such thing as national anthem (Wikipedia as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation)

The following line was added by 筆和擦膠必有用 (talk · contribs), who also reinstated the fake flag.[6]

|national_anthem = 石なぐの歌

筆和擦膠必有用 (talk · contribs) cited no source. Arbencjkv (talk · contribs) added a link to a YouTube clip, which is, of course, not a reliable source.[7]

In principle, the burden of proof is on those who want to keep this statement. Unless a reliable source is presented, we can freely delete it. In what follows, however, I describe how the false statement becomes a "fact" online, because I think this represents an alarming trend of Wikipedia being used as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation.

Need less to say, there was no such thing as national anthem in a pre-modern polity in East Asia. Kimigayo, the national anthem of Japan, was selected at the beginning of the Meiji period, or the late 19th century.

Although 筆和擦膠必有用 (talk · contribs) cited no source, I can pretty much guess how the false statement has spread over time.

• In June 2014, Fujikawa Kazuto (talk · contribs) added an article on this song in Japanese Wikipedia.[8]
• In March 2017, 58.153.42.32 (talk · contribs) translated the Japanese article into Chinese, without giving credit to the Japanese version.[9]
• In June 2017, 唐吉訶德的侍從 (talk · contribs) created an article for the author of the song/poem with the following line[10]:

  Prince Kume Gushikawa Chōei was also the author of {{nihongo|''Ishinagu no uta''|石なぐの歌}}, a ''[[Ryūka]]'' which was the ''[[de facto]]'' [[national anthem]] of Ryukyu Kingdom.<ref name="toguchi">渡久地政宰『日本文学から見た琉歌概論』（[[武蔵野書院]]、[[1972年]]）、pp. 299-300</ref> Some scholar thought it's very similar with ''[[Kimigayo]]'', the national anthem of Japan.<ref>石川盛亀『初心者のための琉歌入門』（ニライ社、[[1998年]]）、pp. 168-169</ref>

• In July 2018, 筆和擦膠必有用 (talk · contribs) added the template item to this English article, with the Chinese article being the most likely source.[11]
• In April 2019, Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs), who is at fault for spreading the fake flag online, added the following line to Okinawan music[12]:

  | "Pebble Song"; a [[Ryūka]] poem written by [[Gushikawa Chōei]] and [[national anthem]] of the [[Ryukyu Kingdom]]; it uses the same melody as Kajyadifu.

• In April 2019, The YouTube video clip was posted with the worrying title "National Anthem of the Ryukyu Kingdom 琉球王国国歌 Himno Nacional de Ryūkyū Hino Nacional da Ryūkyū", probably with reference to Wikipedia.
• In February 2020, Arbencjkv (talk · contribs) added a link to the YouTube clip in this article.[13]

In the Japanese article, Fujikawa Kazuto (talk · contribs) cited Tokuchi (1972):

<ref name="toguchi">渡久地、299-300ページ。</ref>

琉球王国では「石なぐの」が事実上の[[国歌]]に相当する賀歌とされ<ref name="toguchi" />

* 渡久地政宰『日本文学から見た琉歌概論』（[[武蔵野書院]]、[[1972年]]）

[14]

Who, except the original author Fujikawa Kazuto (talk · contribs), have checked the external source? I bet no one.

Here I quote from Tokuchi (1972:299):

この歌は、古琉球の国歌のような賀歌として歌われている。

This statement is obscure and puzzling. I am not sure what Tokuchi meant by 古琉球 (Old Ryūkyū). Since Iha Fuyū, it has usually referred to the period before Satsuma's conquest of Ryūkyū in 1609. It is no doubt that this poem/song was composed by Gushikawa Chōei after that (i.e., during the Edo period).

The syntactic structure of this statement is ambiguous too. Apparently, Fujikawa Kazuto (talk · contribs) interpreted the phrase "古琉球の国歌のような賀歌" as:

((古琉球の国歌) のような賀歌)

a/the celebration poem/song treated like the national (the king's) anthem of Old Ryūkyū

But there is another interpretation:

(古琉球の (国歌のような賀歌))

a/the celebration poem/song from Old Ryūkyū that looks like the national anthem (i.e., Kimigayo)

I think the latter is more plausible because in this context, Tokuchi discussed the poem/song's striking thematic resemblance to Kimigayo.

Even if Tokuchi (1972) intended the former interpretation, we can say that it is an isolated case.

• Ahagon (1976:438–9), cited by Fujikawa Kazuto (talk · contribs), also used the term "国歌" (national anthem), but it undoubtedly referred to Kimigayo.

  なお国歌では、第一句は「君が代は」になっており ...

• Shimabukuro and Onaga (1968:2), an earlier revision of the book cited by Fujikawa Kazuto (talk · contribs), did not use the term "国歌", but nevertheless made mandatory mention of the Kokin Wakashū poem, an earlier version of Kimigayo.
• Finally, Hokama and Nakahodo (1974)^† gave the longest commentary to the poem/song among the four books, which referred to both the Kokin Wakashū poem and the national anthem of Japan. The term "国歌" did not appear in their discussion.

  ^†Hokama Shuzen 外間守善 and Nakahodo Masanori 仲程昌徳 (1974). Nantō jojō 南島抒情. Kadokawa Shoten. pp. 174–176.

To sum up, the central discussion surrounding this poem/song is about its semantic resemblance to Kimigayo. The term "国歌" must be interpreted in that context. It's also worth nothing that this is just one poem/song from the corpus of some three thousand ryūka poems/songs. It's not of special importance.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this incident is just one of many, many pieces of Okinawa-related disinformation spreading online from Wikipedia. Life is short, and I don't have enough time to discuss every problem at length. I ask every one of you to be extremely cautious. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Nanshu (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Update: 17:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your detailed verification, Nanshu (talk · contribs). Seems Ryukyu likely not having such a concept of "national anthem". I was only being influenced by Chinese Wikipedia on the issue of Ryukyu's national anthem. --筆和擦膠必有用 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• User:筆和擦膠必有用, my suggestion to you is that pay attention to other people's interpretation of things too. The account of Nanshu stays at en.wikipedia for a long long long time.... My memory indicates that Nanshu, my account, user:Fuzheado involved long time ago at Talk:Cannibalism_in_China and the article edits before 20:30, 26 August 2004 . Also please read Talk:Hong_Taiji#On_the_name_Abahai. -- Ktsquare (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hello, Nanshi, long long long time no see.... Are you still around? -- Ktsquare (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand, there already is a valid source/citation about the "national anthem". Take note that the Ryukyus were the first to be exposed to Westerners among the sinosphere states. Now, the Ishinagu lyrics were composed later but the melody has been in existence as a folk hymn sung during important state events or in front of envoys or during felicitous events of the court. Similar to how Dang Dan Cung functioned in Nguyen era Vietnam. The Kagiyadeefu bushi (kajadifuu bushi). The lyrics were written later. I would like to question the credibility of these people who insist that Ishinagu was not a de facto anthem against the words of the Japanese writer Toguchi in his book, who claimed

<ref name="toguchi">渡久地、299-300ページ。</ref>

琉球王国では「石なぐの」が事実上の[[国歌]]に相当する賀歌とされ<ref name="toguchi" />

* 渡久地政宰『日本文学から見た琉歌概論』（[[武蔵野書院]]、[[1972年]]）

Are we to ignore Toguchi's words in preference to incredulous individuals with dubious backgrounds? Arbencjkv (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• User:筆和擦膠必有用 "Wikipedia as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation"...Did you take up research and citations in school? There is a published literature in Japan about the Ryukyus having a national anthem. On what grounds do you have to reinterpret the words of Toguchi? Do you have credible literature, apart from your "unlikely that Ryukyu has national anthem" claim? Why do you call it disinformation when a published citation exists and when you yourself rely only on your intuition? Arbencjkv (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arbencjkv: Hi, I hope your disruption of the earlier part of the discussion was just by accident and not on purpose.[15]

And have you really read my comment above? In short, the fake news started when Fujikawa Kazuto (talk · contribs) misinterpreted Tokuchi's (1972) short statement (BTW, the correct reading of the author's surname is Tokuchi, not Toguchi) and has spread online because a certan group of Wikipedians harbor a systemic bias on this topic.

I am probably the only person here, except Fujikawa Kazuto, who checked the original source. Tokuchi was of an older generation. He was born in 1905, graduated from a normal school, and had taught the national literature (国文学) for decades. If someone like Tokuchi used the term "国歌", it must have referred to Kimiyago, the national anthem of Japan. --Nanshu (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, Nanshu doing honestly impressive research and bringing forth sources which counter his claims, only to systematically discredit those sources and present his interpretation (read opinion) as "facts". @Ktsquare, Arbencjkv, and 筆和擦膠必有用: Obviously there is a pattern of Nanshu's edits and edit warring despite the large "breaks" he takes in between. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Kerr (2000)[1958] is seriously outdated; Replace it whenever possible

People here love to cite George H. Kerr's Okinawa: A History of an Island People. However, it is seriously outdated. Do not cite it. Replace it with up-to-date sources.

As an Army collaborator, Kerr originally wrote the book in 1953. This means that he was contemporary with old guys like Higashionnna Kanjun and Higa Shunchō. It would be an insult to Okinawa if you think there has been no major progress in historiography since then. Of course, we have a dozen of groundbreaking works.

As for the so-called Sanzan period, Kerr was in the good old days when one could write history by applying superficial rationalization to Sai On's edition of the Chūzan Seifu (or the Kyūyō). People today no longer follow the pattern. A breakthrough was the discovery of Sai Taku's edition of the Chūzan Seifu, and we now have a much deeper understanding on how Sai On rewrote history. That led to a consensus that Sai On's version of Okinawan history is not historical truth, but we have no consensus on what historical truth is.

A net result is a retreat of historiography and an expansion of the sphere of influence of archaeology. If you pick up an up-to-date book on the history of Okinawa, you will notice that archaeologist Asato Susumu penetrates well into the so-called Sanzan period. Historian Dana Masayuki still works on this topic, but the focus has shifted from what historical truth to how the narrative has evolved over time. This topic is now a domain of literary historians like Ikemiya Masaharu and Shimamura Kōichi.

So,

• Stop applying superficial rationalization. Stop replacing "king" with "chief", for example. It's a zeitgeist of his times. In our times, we know that this is getting nowhere closer to historical truth. However small their power was, the kings were kings because they were referred to as such in the Okinawan narrative.
• Respect the Okinawan narrative. The Chūzan Seikan among others shows in its very first pages a figure illustrating the single like of succession of King of Chūzan starting from Shunten. There was no dynastic change, according to the Okinawan narrative.

--Nanshu (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How can you simultaneously say "don't listen to Kerr because he took the sources at face value" and "respect the Okinawan narrative at face value"? That literally makes no sense other than you don't like Kerr as a source. Calling him a "collaborator" further shows your POV. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Contamination by a yashi (unofficial historical texts)

唐吉訶德的侍從 (talk · contribs) is copying unsourced statements from Japanese Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that he has not learned a lesson from his involvement in spreading the fake national anthem. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is especially true of Okinawa-related topics. There was no such title as Hokuzan Seishu, for example. I will undo his edits without further notice.

The source of misinformation appears to be Agarie Chōtarō's Ko-Ryūkyū Sanzan yuraikishū, a collection of "oral traditions" by an amateur historian. Someone like Agarie has a desire to supplement fragmentary historical description with imaginary figures and events. No scholar in academia is serious about the nonsense.

Even if 唐吉訶德的侍從 (talk · contribs) demonstrates that this collection of junk passes notability criteria, he must (1) confine it to a new article on Agarie's book and (2) give clear attribution to the fiction. --Nanshu (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Funny that you say that, you love to add fringe facts and theories to articles instead of "confining it to a new article" or labeling it "fiction". ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed flag

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the Merchant flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom (File:Merchant flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg) versus the supposed, "official" flag (File:Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg). Several users keep reinstating the "official" flag, which lacks any source material and is dubious at best. Why do you keep adding it? The merchant flag is based on historical artworks of that era, whereas the other flag lacks any sources. It should also be considered that a lot of former nations didn't have a standardized flag or used it in the same way as we do today. Please explain why you wish for this flag to be included in the infobox instead, so we can solve this dispute. Sprucecopse (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sprucecopse: The "merchant" flag is only sourced visually. The File:Merchant flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg has this source: 日本近世生活絵引 奄美・沖縄編. It depicts the flag, but labels it "triangle flag" (三角旗) and notes it is mounted on a "Chinese bamboo pole" (唐竹竿), but never explains in detail what it represents or calls it a "merchant flag" (商船旗). The source does explain which ships are "government-owned" by the display of the royal seal. The flags declaring that the ship is on a tribute mission are large yellow banners with text. Meanwhile the other disputed flag has multiple sources depicting it and calling it a "national flag" (国旗): 萬國舶旗圖譜 (OS 1854), 内外旗章地球國名 (OS 1873), and 沖縄県立博物館・美術館所蔵「琉球船の図」と関連資料 (SS 2017). In this instance, it is the supposed merchant flag that lacks sources. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A thorough reading of the investigation of the supposed "national flag" (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg) is rather enlightening. It mentions two of your cited sources and dissects them. To my understanding there are no Ryukyuan sources claiming that this flag is a "national flag", only mainland Japanese sources, which is rather telling. If this was a national flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom, wouldn't there be Ryukyuan sources to back that up? Wouldn't it in rare occasions be flown today? This is not the best source, but I still think it's interesting, looking up "Ryukyu flag" and "Ryukyu Kingdom flag" in Japanese on google returned no results with this supposed "national flag" being flown, but I was able to find several examples of the Merchant flag being flown. This of course all rests on the assumption of rectangular western style flags being used to symbolize a nation. It should also be noted that the Japanese Wikipedia uses the Merchant flag. I also find it strange and rather dubious that you would remove the "Fact disputed" template from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg" and brand it as "vandalism" by a user with a seemingly reputable edit history, and without any preceding any discussion. Sprucecopse (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Nanshu is a Japanese nationalist who, while doing great editing and scholarly research, inserts his POV and OR into East Asian topics, especially "Japanese-ness" of Korea and Ryukyu and denial of Japanese war crimes like Unit 731. You are late to this dispute which started nearly 10 years ago and there has been plenty of discussion. Nanshu originally claimed that the flag was an internet hoax created on Wikipedia until the sources proved otherwise, then switched to discrediting the sources. The so called merchant flag was uploaded to Commons only 9 months ago and the creator inserted it while the disputed national flag was already removed, which other wikis then copied as they have done with each removal and addition. The source File:Ryukyu Trading Port (Urasoe Art Museum).jpg is a Japanese folding screen made in Satsuma Domain, not in Ryukyu. On top of that, most Ryukyuan sources we have come physically from Japan or China because the ones that were on Okinawa in 1945 were destroyed or looted. We have fragments instead of the whole picture. There is even another flag that an Okinawan man claims was the Ryukyuan flag at the time of the annexation. The merchant flag on the other hand is not described as a merchant flag in any source. There are two "triangle flags" on each ship in the folding screen images. What is the black and red variant then? And what about the Hinomaru or the Five Races Under One Union flag clearly depicted? The so called merchant flag is not described as such in the sources, but at least the other disputed flag is described as a national flag. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing more context to the situation. This definitely paints a somewhat different picture. After some detective work on my own, this website (https://rekioakiaki-cocolog--nifty-com.translate.goog/blog/2011/04/post-9f05.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en) explains (to my understanding) that the merchant flag "...used to be the 'ship mark' of Ryukyu ships. However, this is a triangular flag with frills and was used to pray to the sun god for a safe voyage." Whilst this does not discredit this flag as a marker of Ryukyuan ships, which it in fact was, I do not feel that it is quite worthy of being represented in the infobox, though I still believe that it is more appropriate than "Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg."

However, I am still skeptical of this supposed "national flag" (Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg). This is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary sources. The few sources that back up the "Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg" as a supposed national flag are, to me, not credible enough. Wikipedia has a habit of inserting flags into infoboxes of historical nations which didn't use such flags in the western way, and indeed, the way we use them today. I hope that I do not come across as belligerent, as that is the furthest from my intentions. If this flag was truly used to the extent of a national flag, I am of the opinion that there would be more evidence of its historical usage, and limited contemporary usage in what was once the Ryukyu Kingdom (Okinawa Prefecture), something which has yet to be presented. Also consider the fact that for example, the infobox for Northern Ireland does not feature the Ulster Banner, as it is not the official flag, despite being widely used. There is, for infoboxes on Wikipedia, evidently a high standard which the role of "national flag" is held to. I think the best way to go about this would be to simply let the Royal Crest stand alone in the infobox, as many other language Wikipedias (Swedish, Finnish, Chinese, Portuguese, Norwegian, Polish, etc.) have done with this article. There is simply not enough evidence to verify that this flag was being used to the point of a national flag, nor is there any evidence of the Kingdom itself establishing this flag as a national flag, contrary to other historical (and current) nations where there is written evidence of the flag being enacted by law. Sprucecopse (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)