This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 11, 2009 and March 11, 2010. |
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:
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)
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)
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
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://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)
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
BUjjsp ( talk) 16:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
Originally a response to Darkfrog24's "Follow the sources" comment.
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)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)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.
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)
The following line was added by 筆和擦膠必有用 ( talk · contribs), who also reinstated the fake flag. [6]
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 the Japanese article, Fujikawa Kazuto ( talk · contribs) cited Tokuchi (1972):
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):
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:
But there is another interpretation:
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.
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)
Are we to ignore Toguchi's words in preference to incredulous individuals with dubious backgrounds? Arbencjkv ( talk) 01:47, 19 December 2020 (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)
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,
-- Nanshu ( talk) 04:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 11, 2009 and March 11, 2010. |
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:
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)
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)
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
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://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)
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
BUjjsp ( talk) 16:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
Originally a response to Darkfrog24's "Follow the sources" comment.
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)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)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.
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)
The following line was added by 筆和擦膠必有用 ( talk · contribs), who also reinstated the fake flag. [6]
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 the Japanese article, Fujikawa Kazuto ( talk · contribs) cited Tokuchi (1972):
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):
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:
But there is another interpretation:
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.
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)
Are we to ignore Toguchi's words in preference to incredulous individuals with dubious backgrounds? Arbencjkv ( talk) 01:47, 19 December 2020 (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)
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,
-- Nanshu ( talk) 04:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)