Talk:Kowtow

message: While in China I observed that Chinese Buddhists would kowtow to the Buddha with their palms upturned and their wrists pressed against the ground in contrast to what I'm used to from elsewhere in the world.  I wasn't sure of the significance, but this seemed to be the practice with few exceptions so I was wondering if this is exclusive to religious situations or what...
Rufe (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hand Movement?

message: My understanding is that the problem of British diplomats having to kowtow to the Emperor was resolved by having a Chinese official of equal rank kowtow to a portrait of the King. I have no sources for this other than a conversation with my father. DS 14:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reciprocal diplomacy 

message: Where did "the reverence" part come from? I am looking at my dictionaries, they just say to knock. (新华字典 and 现代汉语词典). --Voidvector 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knock with reverence 

message: The pinyin of this article title is incorrect - it should be ketow or ketou, not kowtow. 24.91.251.8 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kowtow is an English word. --Voidvector (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinyin 

message: Foiled how? Does this mean they were refused access to the Emperor? Leushenko (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foiled? 

message: :朝鮮王朝實錄 宣祖 83卷, 29年( 1596 丙申 / 萬曆 24年) 12月 7日 " 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。"
This is actually wrong. These sentences are about 1596-12-07, however, the citation is about 1450-07-17. We cannot examine the source.--Mochi (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misguide the content is wrong, but actually the link is wrongly linked. I update it to be correct. If you use IE with PC and install several required programs from the website, you can confirm it yourself. Anyway, thank you for letting editors know of this.
冊封日本正使等官五軍營等揭衙門署都督僉事楊等, 爲完報東封事, 職於本年六月十五日, 自釜山登舟渡海, 已經具本題知訖。 一路險阻, 風波艱危異常, 仰仗皇上威靈, 幸得保全軀命, 至八月初四日, 始抵和泉州, 乃豐臣秀吉預備接待使臣之所, 距日本國新都一百三十餘里。 秀吉屢差倭將長盛、三成等, 持書迎慰, 頗知竭誠。 欽命補給龍節、誥命、詔勑等件, 於閏八月十八日方到, 職等卽時率領隨行員役, 詣舟次, 叩頭迎捧, 安定職寓。 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。 受封訖, 嗣至職等寓所, 再申感激天恩, 及慰勞職等, 涉歷勞頓等語。 職等不敢久留, 卽辭, 以初四日捧節回至和泉州, 見今唯待調集鉛隻, 卽趲程西還, 復命闕下。 爲此除具題外, 理合具題。 萬曆二十四年九月初五日。
--Appletrees (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "望闕行五拜三叩頭禮" 
Does it mean that Hideyoshi kneeled 5 times on the ground and hit his head 3 times on the ground before the eye of the Ming enboy? I don't think so. It actually means that Hideyoshi skipped ("闕" sometimes means "deficiency" in Chinese) the process of kneeling 5 times and hitting his head 3 times. Since Hideyoshi had old sore on his knee, he just couldn't drop his knee. Samuel Hawley, the author of The Imjin War, also writes "He (Hideyoshi) was simply unable to do so (keel) because of a painful boil on his knee." at page 417. So I don't think Hideyoshi is a suitable example of "Kowtow" here.
--129.93.206.148 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, if you're carefully following the cited link, you would find that historians thankfully translate it into modern Korean language. According to the translation, he did that. The addressed information has nothing to do with that "I don't think so". Of course, historians are much more reliable and credible than you. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know historians are much more reliable and credible than you and me. And according to historians like Samuel Hawley, Hideyoshi didn't (please read the above book). I have read many books about Japanese Invasion of Korea in late 16th century including History of Ming, none of them say that Hideyoshi did kneel to the Ming enboy. Do you have any other source which supports your idea? Since we have two sources  which contradict each other, we need more sources to verify, right? 129.93.206.148 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you let me know of the ISBN? Besides, what is the "enboy"? (you seem to be a non-native English speaker like me) That is the author's interpretation on the original document, and you seem to only point out on the one Chinese character instead of reading the whole text. Is your source internationally regarded as a settled claim? I will look forward to your answer.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the ISBN of The Imjin War. The number is . "Enboy" is actually misspelling of "envoy". Thank you for letting me know that(and yes, I am not a non-native English speaker). I don't know whether The Imjin War is regarded as a settled claim or not, but the book seems to have good reputation by critics. I found this book at my university, so I hope you would find the book easily. I also continue searching other books about diplomacy between the Ming dynasty and the Toyotomi regime.129.93.206.148 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the info. So you're a native speaker? (according to your double negative) Anyway, I will look into the bok. However, the original site is not translated by one historian unlike your source. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation

message: Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for . Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template  here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Err, Jpatokal, your contest to the description on Japanese shogun, Hideyoshi's kowtowing with the same source is a bit funny. I think the two cases can be included for equality, but your doubt only on Hideyoshi's kowtowing seems Japanese POV. Since you don't trust the document acknowledged by UNESCO, your reasoning is a contradiction. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  two cases can be included?  I don't think so. this is chinese culture page. not who kowtowing page. also his descriptiion was wrong. It was a surrender of war. and after this incidents, there is no record exist that Joseon king kowtow to Qing. injo is not a notable person. hideyoshi is 50 times popular than injo. only one example is enough. hideyoshi kowtow to record at 3rd party country's history book. so, it is more reliable.Manacpowers (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two cases were surrender of wars, so just take a compromise. Please doon't edit war any more. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this is not chinese culture page.this is kowtow page.and both hideyoshi and injo did kowtow.--Pabopa (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: injo case was a surrender of war, not diplomatic relation. Manacpowers (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: also, your dissuptive behavior and 2ch meta puppeting is not a good faith edit. Manacpowers (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, the two are eventually taking a break for the tendentious edit warring. Manac, if you don't have a conclusive evidence confirmed by RFCU, or SSP file, don't say like that in public. Pabopa, please don't continue edit warring with him. Now the article could be in peace at least for one day.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese shogun [[Hideyoshi]]'s kowtowing 

message: The kowtow involves the same body position as sujud, and AFAIK it is considered shirk for a Muslim to adopt this position for anyone other than Allah.  Were China's Muslims ever exempted from the requirement to kowtow?  Also, were any Muslims in China martyred for refusing to kowtow? --GCarty (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Muslims 

message: The kowtow was often performed in intra-Asian diplomatic relations as well. In 1636, Injo who was king of the Korean Joseon Dynasty had to kneel three times on the ground and hit his head nine times on the ground (三拜九叩頭禮), to show his vassal status to Huang Taiji who was the first Emperor of the Qing Dynasty.
:It was not example of intra-Asian diplomatic relations. It was only one time event, and it was surrender of war. (Second Manchu invasion of Korea) It was not a usual example of diplomatic relations. And Kowtow performed Japan, Vietnam, and other nations in East Asia. It is highly unreasonable only Korea case included in it. Ssyublyn (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please add other cases with citation to the article. You cannot remove the sourced material just because there are no mention of other cases. Oda Mari (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Ryukyu Kingdom case and Japan case. 
Ryukyu Kingdom case
Ssyublyn (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Why didn't you restore the Korean information you removed from the article? I had to restore the information. I didn't say "replace with other information". Stop whitewashing the article with your Korean point of view. Oda Mari (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Injo case 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion