The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Ryūkyū Province

Ryūkyū Province (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP talk:WikiProject Japan#Ryūkyū province and domain in which some argue that the article about the province should not exist. In other words, some argue in effect that Ryūkyū Province should not be in Template:Japan Old Province and Category:Provinces of Japan despite cited sources in the article here Maybe this venue can generate a wider discussion which leads to consensus? -- Ansei ( talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ansei ( talk) 16:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ansei ( talk) 16:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- I think the page should not be deleted, but this AfD venue may be needed in order to parse the relevant issues.

  In a conventional AfD discussion, it would not be off-topic to cite US Department of State. (1906). A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements (John Bassett Moore, ed.), Vol. 5, p. 759. -- Ansei ( talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

This is a good article subject. The fact that Ryūkyū Province is in an 1899 revision to 1894 Japan-US and Japan-UK treaties shows a need for this article. In other words, the article is needed to answer the questions "What and where is Ryukyu Province?"

Cited sources show that noteworthy scholars have written about this subject. For example,

• George H. Kerr thought the subject was important enough to include it in the title of his 1953 book Ryukyu Kingdom and Province before 1945.
• Ronald Toby thought the subject was important enough to mention it in his 1991 book State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia and the development of the Tokugawa bakufu (citing research 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"; accord Steve Rabson. (1997). "Assimilation Policy in Okinawa: Promotion, Resistance, and "Reconstruction," New directions in the study of Meiji Japan: Proceedings of the Conference on Meiji Studies, held at Harvard University from May 4-6, 1994 (Helen Hardacre, ed.), p. 639.

The notability of this small subject and the need for an article about Ryūkyū Province is proven by these cited sources. The fact that this also the subject of a current dispute among scholars here is another reason for keeping and improving this article -- not deleting it or marginalizing the subject in a merge.

If I am mistaken in this, I hope this AfD thread will help me understand. Unless this AfD thread shows me how to reason through this problem differently, I can't know why or how this cite-based reasoning process is flawed. -- Ansei ( talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Please consider: the National Archives of Japan (NAJ) includes maps which have been digitized. The NAJ explains that there were four times that the Tokugawa ordered cadastral maps of every "kuni" in Japan -- including Ryūkyū-no-kuni. The maps were created in Keicho (1596–1615), Shoho (1644–1648), Genroku (1688-1704) and Tenpō (1830–1844) -- see "Genroku Kuniezu" and related pages which are in English.

Is this not graphic and documentary support for the existence of an article about Ryūkyū-no kuni (琉球国) ( Ryūkyū Province)? -- Ansei ( talk) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

No, Ansei, it is not. Did you even read your reference? First, it references "Ryukyu-koku", not "Ryukyu no Kuni". And as stated below, "Ryukyu-koku" means "Ryukyu Kingdom". It does NOT mean "Ryukyu Province". Such an entity never existed. During this period, Ryukyu was a tributary state of Japan (and of China); it was NOT a province of Japan. Ryukyu was never recognized as a province, only a domain and a prefecture. In fact, did you notice how all the real provinces in your link end in "-no-Kuni" whereas Ryukyu ends in "-koku"? That's because "-no-Kuni" signifies province and Ryukyu was never a province. Even user Shikai_Shaw, who started the "Ryukyu Province" article has now admitted that it should be deleted. Your obstinacy in the face of evidence has not changed since your editing ban. Bueller 007 ( talk) 06:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• I considered all EN sources cited by Ansei for this AfD. All sources are not authoritative, misquoted, or both. There is no debate between even ultranationalists on de jure status of Ryukyu from 1609 to 1872. It is fiction to think it was a actual de jure province during this time period. Ryukyu Province and Ryukyu Domain should be single article, written better to emphasize change of status in Ryukyu and final fall of Sho Dynasty, and covering only 1872 to 1879. More debate on this AfD is not productive. Jun Kayama 08:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge- Ryūkyū Province into Ryūkyū Kingdom or Delete and possibly even Salt.
• Strong Delete and Salt. Article is fiction and WP:OR. Regardless of other controversies about status of Ryukyu islands, no Ryukyu Province existed from 1609 to 1872, and no verifiable source will demonstrate it ever had this de jure status during time period in question.

- Ryūkyū Kingdom retained limited diplomatic autonomy and a sovereign head of state in Shō Nei even under subservience to Satsuma [1].

- Any document after 1871 referencing it as province in then-contemporary affairs is a reflection of the Abolition of the han system and not de jure existence of Ryūkyū Province from 1609.

- Main EN language source supporting Ryūkyū Province here [2] states on page 47 the Bakufu regarded Ryukyu as a foreign country and status was not 国 under Satsuma.

- Other EN language source from article [3] on page 31 describes Ryukyu continued to function as a quasi-independent country throughout the Tokugawa Period and not as 令制国.

- It is not even on List of provinces of ancient Japan as 令制国.

Content of Ryūkyū Province is thin and not properly supported by JA language sources. Even the EN language sources do not support it. Ryūkyū Province is fiction. There is no good reason for this article to exist as historical reference. Jun Kayama 06:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

@ JunKayama --Yes, thank you for helping to sharpen the focus. Your bullet points are clear, but there are problems in the summary conclusions of the first sentence and the last paragraph.

Yes, according to The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, "[t]he status of Ryukyu is ambiguous when looked at from the perspective of modern European international law, although there appears to have been no serious issues concerning the status of Ryukyu at that time." Please notice that the word "ambiguous" plus cite support has been added in the opening sentence here. Also please notice that the cited excerpt from Ernest Satow in the Geography section highlights the ambiguity by naming specific islands and also explaining that "[t]he ordinary maps of Japan do not include any of the islands south of Yaku no Shima".

Yes, because of its fuzzy logic, this subject and this article are difficult to parse using a pigeonholing process . -- Ansei ( talk) 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - de jure status of Ryukyu from Ming or Qing Chinese perspective was that of independent kingdom. Likewise, de jure status of Ryukyu from Tokugawa Bakufu and Satsuma perspective was that of quasi-independent kingdom under control of Satsuma for reasons of prestige. There is no issue of Ryukyu being a province to then-contemporary Japanese in 1609, regardless of de facto control by Satsuma. Retroactively branding Ryukyu a 令制国 is historical fiction.

Page 482 of your last quoted source [4]: (C)oncepts of modern European international law such as the sovereign State, territorial sovereignty, the sovereign States system, or the State boundary cannot be directly applied to East Asia in early modern times. None of the EN sources in Ryūkyū Province support consideration of Ryukyu to be other than a tributary foreign vassal state of Satsuma with its own hereditary non-Japanese monarchy until 1879. I will not change my vote. Jun Kayama 13:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

@ JunKayama -- Yes, it is very much on-point to highlight the "Ming or Qing Chinese perspective". I would guess that the post-Qing Chinese perspective is also implied by what you write.

The understandable attention given to the term "de facto" is not wrong. This distracting word has been removed from the article here.

It is helpful to me that you continue to focus on what the cited sources support. It may be constructive to highlight the sentence which follows the excerpt you cite from the Oxford handbook above,

" [C]oncepts of modern European international law such as the sovereign State, territorial sovereignty, the sovereign States system, or the State boundary cannot be directly applied to East Asia in early modern times. That is definitely one reason why Ryukyu's status seems to be puzzling.

The word "puzzling" is useful in the context of this AfD thread. In part, this article needs to exist precisely because the subject is puzzling. It is the subject of likely questions. In part, the article needs to exist because it is a subject of dispute as mentioned in the Oxford handbook,

"This issue is still now under much heated discussion. In the report of the Joint Japan-China History Committee (31 January 2010), the Japanese insisted that Ryukyu was under effective control of the Satsuma domain from the 17th century and that this fact was known to China, while the Chinese persevered that Ryukyu was an independent state until 1879, when Ryukyu was annexed by Japan."

The purpose of our encyclopedia article is not to resolve anything, but instead, can we agree that the purpose of Ryūkyū Province is to provide an overview of a verifiable subject which is ambiguous and puzzling and disputed? -- Ansei ( talk) 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - My answer is no. The only ambiguity here is the EN cited sources, which are quoted selectively and completely out of context. Article is misleading, it implies that Ryukyu Kingdom was 令制国, which is the foundation for stating it was a 'province'. It never held such status. Tokugawa Bakufu and Satsuma never gave it such status. How could Shogunate ever rationalize having two hereditary monarchies in Japan, with one on a 'province'?

Post-Qing is not important. Issue ends at 1879 on creation of Okinawa Prefecture. JA Wikipedia AfD was not wrong. Cited EN sources also do not support Ryukyu as 令制国. There was vested interest for Tokugawa Bakufu and Satsuma to maintain structure of semi-autonomous Ryukyu Kingdom. EN sources do not support this article. No serious JA source would ever support this article. I will only change my position if there is historical document in JA from Tokugawa Bakufu which recognizes Ryukyu as 令制国 while stating without equivocation Sho Dynasty has no status as the ruling hereditary monarchy of the Ryukyu Kingdom from 1609-1872. Such document does not exist. Jun Kayama 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to learn that you think the article is misleading. Please edit any sentence which is written in a misleading way. I hope to learn how to write better as I think carefully about any changes you make. If there is no specific problem with any specific sentence, then I'm a uncertain about the point you're trying to make. -- Ansei ( talk) 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Specific problem is with entire article. It is historical fiction and WP:OR. None of the EN sources can demonstrate Ryukyu Province ever existed from 1609 - 1872 because it did not actually exist. This is not personal vendetta. I don't care about admonish, censure, or edit war. This is the most annoying AfD I have ever seen. This article is historical fiction, JA Wikipedia killed it in AfD for that reason, and selective quoting of obscure academic text in EN does not change historical reality. From 1609 to 1872, Ryukyu Kingdom existed as tributary vassal state of Satsuma with distinct head of state for convenience of all parties, until façade was no longer necessary in 1872 and it became Ryukyu Domain in status reduction, with Shō Tai forced to abdicate in 1879 to create Okinawa Prefecture. How is this unclear? This is not "agree to disagree" situation. Length of this AfD discussion is ridiculous. I now want to see this article if deleted become Salted. Jun Kayama 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete and admonish Ansei: Ansei has been edit warring over the difference between the Ryukyu Domain and the Ryukyu Province ever since we had two articles on the subject made by another editor, but then he changed his mind about it. It would seem that the Japanese Wikipedia has discovered that the "令制国" version never existed according to any records they could find. There was no need to bring this to AFD when the page could have just been left as a damn redirect instead of restoring the content fork of Ryukyu Domain, but you just kept edit warring.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  Ugh, Ansei, you didn't even put this on the AFD log.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  At 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC), I added this AFD to the May 14, 2013, AFD log as it was never listed.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Once this debate ends, make sure you alert the Chinese Wikipedians about zh:琉球國 (令制), depending on how it goes here WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  The Chinese have their own concept of what happened to the islands so it's probably not going to help anything there.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 20:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Even they would not object to seeing this particular article AfD, considering their position is the same on the de jure status of Ryukyu Kingdom being independent until 1872. Jun Kayama 10:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I guess the important thing for me is that 令制国 provinces were formal government divisions. So we can point to the specific date on which Iwaki Province was established in 1868, for example, and the government act that did it. It's clear (to me, at least) that there was no de jure Ryukyu Province in existence prior to the Meiji Period since, whatever its de facto status, everyone was at least pretending it was an independent state. And if Ryukyu Province was established during the Meiji Period, there would be a easily found paper trail. The term "琉球国" does appear in some Meiji period government documents post-dating the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, primarily in a geographical sense. But my guess would be that that is read "Ryukyu-koku" rather than "Ryukyu-no-kuni". Cckerberos ( talk) 07:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

* That is the case in contemporary use. [5] [6] [7] Jun Kayama 21:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• It is certainly "Ryukyu-koku", and it does not refer to it being a province of Japan. See, for example, the entry for 琉球国 from 平凡社's 日本歴史地名大系, in which it clearly states: 琉球国は元来、日本の古代律令制に由来する国ではなく、日本とは別個に独立した小国として誕生した. [8] In other words, 琉球国 was an independent country (i.e., the Ryukyu Kingdom). It was never a province under the Ritsuryo system. Bueller 007 ( talk) 08:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I'm well aware of the modern usage of 琉球国. But the Japanese National Archives uses "Ryukyu-no-kuni" rather than "Ryukyu-koku" for 1870s maps of 琉球国. [9] And when a 1894 law uses "琉球国那覇港", it's not referring to the no longer existent independent country, it's referring to a place in what had already become Okinawa prefecture. [10] So it's not like there's no chance that 琉球国 was read "Ryukyu-no-kuni" during the early Meiji period, even though no province existed. Cckerberos ( talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Maps are dated to Meiji Year 6, which is 1873. Discard of old system of naming (廃藩置県) was in effect from 1871 and not complete until 1888. Status reduction of Ryukyu Kingdom to 藩 started in 1872. Naming it as Ryukyu-no-kuni in 1873 is statement of de facto state of affairs already in place (not Kingdom, really just a Province) because façade was over year before in 1872, but it would be much more likely to be Ryukyu-koku for this time period. Naming conventions were in flux during this time for even personal name order. Considering background upheaval caused by social and political reform is useful. Intent of Meiji government was to destroy all old domain/provinces for new order in 廃藩置県. Jun Kayama 13:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Jun Kayama -- Please consider Kanenori Matsuo. (2005). The Secret Royal Martial Arts of Ryūkyū, p. 40., p. 40, at Google Books; excerpt, "In 1872, Ryukyu Province was formed, and in 1874, ties were broken with Qing China. Due to this, Japanese and Chinese tensions continued. In 1879, the Meiji government occupied the royal castle by force, and abolished the province, simultaneously establishing Ryukyu Prefecture" (bold added)? This brief excerpt seems to go along with your diff above. As I evaluate the available information, a modest basis for an article about Ryūkyū Province is explained, in part, by your diff and by this cite ... in addition to the other cite support which has been listed above. -- Ansei ( talk) 20:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Ansei. What is your point? Your source quite obviously uses the term "province" incorrectly. If he's saying that the "province" was established in 1872, then he is referring to 琉球藩 (= Ryūkyū Domain), not what you've called 琉球国 (" Ryūkyū Province" <--- note, this "province" never existed; Okinawa was a vassal state of Japan that also paid tribute to China during this period. It was NOT a province of Japan.) Please stop citing sources that are quite obviously incorrect. "Ryūkyū Domain" should be an article; "Ryūkyū Province" should not. Bueller 007 ( talk) 23:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• I am incredulous this AfD is still up. Jun Kayama 06:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Japanese Wikipedia used to have an article for this, but it was recently deleted on account of it being bullshit: [11] Bueller 007 ( talk) 07:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The official name of the Ryukyu Kingdom is "琉球国" (琉球國). "国" has multiple meanings in Japanese. (country, state, province, home, etc...) Therefore, the evidence "Ryūkyū Province" that was present, laws and regulations of Japan is required. More than it can not be found, should we think that it was a common name only, like Ezo Province or Karafuto Province. In addition, article of Karafuto Province has been removed. Delete reason is non-existent law Karafuto Province that was established. This is the same as the reason for deletion of the Ryūkyū Province. See ja:ノート:樺太国/削除 and ja:ノート:琉球国 (令制). I thought that I needed an article on "Ryūkyū Province" in English version, but because there was an article in the Japanese version, Because the evidence is not found, it is removed, it is unnecessary longer article.-- shikai shaw ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment: It may be helpful to highlight a constructive fact -- that this thread adduced new support for the verifiability of Ryūkyū Province as an article according to the conventional standards and procedures of our en:Wikipedia project:

• 1609-1872 "province" verified by book written for scholarly readership + National Archives of Japan (in Japanese); (in English)
• 1872-1879 "province" verified by book written for general readership
• 1879-1947 "province" verified by US Dept. of State + National Archives of Japan (in Japanese)
• 1609-1947 "province" verified by book written for US Pacific Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council

Sources in English and in Japanese are complementary. Also, please notice that the cites which link to the work of scholars are enhanced by links to brief articles about them, e.g., George H. Kerr, Ronald Toby, Gregory Smits.

The intensity of preference expressed by some suggests that there is no real question of notability.

Taken together, verifiability and notability are good reasons for this article to exist. No one disputes that the content of the article may be edited in ways that reflect the opinions expressed by participants in this discussion; however, this AfD is only about whether our article about Ryūkyū Province will continue to exist, isn't it? -- Ansei ( talk) 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Back to his old tricks that got him banned, Tenmei Ansei is being fundamentally dishonest in citing his sources.

1. His first English source for 'province' status from 1609 to 1872 specifically says that "some contemporary Japanese even referred to ...[Ryukyu as a province]" (emphasis my own). Clearly if "SOME EVEN" referred to it as a province, its status as a province WAS NOT THE STATUS QUO.
2. There is absolutely nothing in his first Japanese source to suggest that Ryukyu is a province. Ansei cannot read Japanese. It is listed as Ryukyu-koku (which means "Kingdom of Ryukyu"), not Ryukyu-no-Kuni because it is a kingdom, NOT a province.
3. His source for Ryukyu being a "province" from 1872 to 1879 is clearly a mistranslation of Ryukyu Domain, which was founded in 1872 and abolished in 1879. It provides absolutely no support for the Ryukyu Province (1609–1872) article whose deletion is being debated here.
4. 1879-1947 province???? Seriously? Now you know that Ansei is desperate. First of all, EVERYONE knows that Okinawa was made a prefecture in 1879, NOT A PROVINCE. And in any case this is once again completely irrelevant to the article in question which deals with the status of Ryukyu from 1609–1872. Finally, I see no support for this in his links, as---at least in my country---there is no preview for these sources.
5. 1609-1947. Once again, "province" status not supported by his reference as far as I can tell from Google Books' snippet view, except for a single line about Okinawa being considered a province in 1890. Again, this obviously refers to Okinawa Prefecture, and it is completely irrelevant to the status of Ryukyu from 1609 to 1872.

Ansei, stop wasting everyone's time and just admit that you were wrong. Ryukyu was NOT a province; the Japanese Wikipedia article was deleted for a reason. If you wish to learn something about Okinawan history during this period, feel free to consult the Ph.D. dissertation Becoming Okinawan: Japanese Capitalism and Changing Representations of Okinawa by Wendy Matsumura, freely available online [ [12]]. Or any other reliable source of Japanese history. Ryukyu was a KINGDOM from 1609 to 1872. As such, it was a vassal state of Japan (specifically the Satsuma Domain) and also a tributary of China. This is fact. All you have to do is look up Disposition of Ryukyu (琉球処分, Ryūkyū shobun) in a Japanese dictionary/encyclopedia or online to see that Okinawa was a kingdom (not a province) until 1879. Bueller 007 ( talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC) reply

This discussion has highlighted many on-point aspects of this small subject. Perhaps we can sharpen the focus a bit? In addition to the other reliable sources cited above, this article is verified by Genroku kuniezu (1696-1702) which was a complete set of provincial maps (kuniezu). It included Ryūkyū. -- see Ryūkyū kuniezu shiryōshū 琉球国絵図史料集 which was published by Okinawa Prefecture. This is translated Collected historical materials of provincial maps of Ryūkyū at The History of Cartography, p. 397 n211? -- Ansei ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Ryukyu was included in the provincial maps because the maps were created for tax purposes. Since Ryukyu had to pay land taxes to the Shimazu and the shogunate wanted its cut, it had to be included. You'll notice that unlike the other maps which are listed as "-no-kuni", the ones for Ryukyu are listed as "-koku". And the translation "provincial maps of Ryukyu" is due to the customary translation of "kuniezu" being "provincial maps", nothing more. But in any case, this is still nibbling around the edges of the issue: if Ryukyu Province existed, it was established as a formal governmental entity in relatively recent history. We shouldn't have to sift through vague indirect and informal references to it like it was from the Yamato Period, we should be able to just point at the mountain of official documents establishing and explicitly mentioning it. Cckerberos ( talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Cckerberos -- Yes, thank you. The status of Ryūkyū in 1609-1872 and one strand of the arguments of Bueller 007 and Jun Kayama is summarized succinctly. This analysis implicitly recognizes that there is an ambiguous subject which further edits at Ryūkyū Province may try to explain. Although your short diff does not mention it, it bears repeating that other cited sources in this thread show that Ryūkyū's status in 1872-1879 is less ambiguous; and the meaning of "province" in 1879-1947 is different. -- Ansei ( talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - AfD discussion has highlighted nothing but pointlessness of retaining this article.

- Previous to 1609, status was Ryukyu Kingdom.

- After 1609 there was Invasion of Ryukyu by Satsuma. From article:

The kingdom's royal governmental structures remained intact, along with its royal lineage. The Ryukyus remained nominally independent, a "foreign country" (異国, ikoku) ^[1] to the Japanese, and efforts were made to obscure Satsuma's domination of Ryukyu from the Chinese Court, in order to ensure the continuation of trade and diplomacy, since China refused to conduct formal relations or trade with Japan at the time. However, though the king retained considerable powers, he was only permitted to operate within a framework of strict guidelines set down by Satsuma, and was required to pay considerable amounts in tribute to Satsuma on a regular basis.

- To insist Ryukyu Kingdom was province from 1609 to 1872, Invasion of Ryukyu article must be edited. Also, official document (Bakufu edict, Imperial Proclamation) declaring Ryukyu Kingdom to be province and removing status of Shō Dynasties from monarch to lesser status before 1872 must be located and precisely quoted. There is no authentic position which will have Ryukyu Province exist before without reconciling status of Shō Dynasties, never mind actual Bakufu or Imperial documents. Tangential quotes of Google Books contents or titles by foreign academics, or deliberate misreading of "琉球国" (琉球國) as smoking gun is stupid and not sincere. Keep argument here has nothing, just stupid mistranslation, stupid misquote of barely relevant document or map catalogue, and stupid WP:OR.

- Content of article in terms of supporting existence of Ryukyu Province from 1609 - 1872 is not verifiable if editor has WP:GF. Article should be deleted immediately and Salted. Does AfD need one more Delete vote? Is that why this AfD is still up?

If I am mistaken in this, I hope this AfD thread will help me understand. --Ansei (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You do not understand. Saying "sharpen focus" for you is tool to try to confuse people. Maybe because you do not actually read/write/speak Japanese, maybe because you think historical truth is inconvenient to you. Several people have explained same consistent position, but you misquote all sources used, and you insist article should exist when JA Wikipedia has already tossed it because it does not conform to reality.

Ryukyu Province article needs deletion, Ryukyu Domain article needs rewrite to not be low quality, and Invasion of Ryukyu needs protection if User:Ansei edits it. Stop wasting everyone's time, User:Ansei. Jun Kayama 03:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.