Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opinion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ryukyu's tribute to China when the Yongle Emperor was in power 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ryukyu's historical relations with China 

message: :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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Definitely understandable. Thanks for your response. BUjjsp (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits in the Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Ryukyu Islands are Ryukyuan. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good enough.  I'll leave you to it.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Kerr (2000)[1958] is seriously outdated; Replace it whenever possible

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Contamination by a yashi (unofficial historical texts)