Talk:History of the Ryukyu Islands
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POV tag
[edit]I added the POV tag because I think the vast majority of this article has a definite anti-Japanese tone to it, at times bordering on completely unbalanced polemic. Doubtless there are many negative things that can be said about Japanese treatment of Ryukyuans - however, it is obviously wrong for an encyclopaedia article to be used as an instrument of propaganda. The feel of reading propaganda can be mitigated by adding citations for a start.195.194.199.50 13:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Would you mind providing some examples of what you believe is POV? Specifically, what do you believe is "bordering on completely unbalanced polemic"? I think the article may seem anti-Japanese because the majority of the information provided concerns Japan/Okinawa relations; I think that if more Pre-Satsuma information were added, the article would maybe feel more balanced. Turly-burly 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion the article is some times lacking a more distant point of view. There are too many "small stories" included, like the princess lillies, the baby in the cave and so on, without a comment about the meaning of such stories in a greater context. I would suggest to put them all together in a different section or to cut them out completely. But in general I really don`t have the feeling that this article has some propaganda agitations.--83.124.20.144 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And I think that the same problem applies to rhetoric dealing with Americans. 70.249.73.2 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely so Jmlk17 07:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can go into the history of the Ryukyu Kingdom and *not* go into various abuses committed there. While I'll certainly agree that the rapes of US service members were largely blown out of proportion, the fact remains that the Okinawan people have been repeatedly subjudgated throughout their history. I realize I'm somewhat biased, however not referring to the events is akin to talking about the history of the Jews, without mentioning their various flights. EvilCouch 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, now I see some of what you guys were referring to. I've trimmed it up a bit to try to bring it back to a NPOV EvilCouch 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Removing tag.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm adding POV tag again. Pre-modern history lacks citation where perception can change greatly by POV. Modern history is only about atrocities. (I think "Post-war occupation" section needs a cleanup in general. Half of its content is about after the US occupation) Packet0 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Article Title and Ryukyu vs. Ryukyuan
[edit]Italic textI believe that 'Ryukuan History' is an inappropriate title for an article for a number of reasons:
(1) "Ryukuan" is a non-standard term. It is not widely in useage ('Rykyuan' turns up about 5000 results on Google, as opposed to 281,000 for 'Ryukyu'), nor can I see it anywhere on any official webpages of Okinawa prefecture.
- Ryukyuan is a standard term. It is used by experts in the field (called "Ryukyuanists"). There is a journal called "The Ryukyuanist".
(2) While 'Ryukyu History' would perhaps be an appropriate title for an article, it is not an appropriate title for this article, since the Ryukyu Kingdom ceased to exist in 1879, this article is concerned with events after 1879. Also, since 'Ryukyu History' is a subset of the history of Okinawa, it seems to me that 'History of Okinawa' is a more appropriate title for an article (a section of which would be devoted to Ryukyu History).
- I agree with this.
- While the Ryukyu Kingdom may have ceased to exist in 1879, the current name for the archipelago stretching from Yonaguni in the southwest to Tanegashima in the north is still "Ryukyu". You seem to not understand the proper usage of the terms "Ryukyu" and "Okinawa", so I will outline them for you:
- Okinawa can be used to refer to Okinawa Prefecture, the Okinawa Islands (ie, Okinawa, Ie, and Kume), or to the main island of Okinawa. More recently it has been used in Japanese to refer to all of the Ryukyus south of Amami Gunto (which is an integral part of the Ryukyus), which anyways are all part of Okinawa prefecture.
- Ryukyu is used exclusively to refer to the ENTIRE ARCHIPELAGO which includes all the islands between Kyushu and Taiwan.
- Ryukyuan history is NOT a subset of "history of Okinawa", rather, "History of Okinawa" is a subset of "Ryukyuan history".
- Well indeed as a foreigner, the history of more far back times would more likely be what are concerned. Something about the Ryukyu Kingdom should be added.
(3) While the borders of the Ryukyu Kingdom may not have been the same as the borders of present-day Okinawa, 'Okinawa' is the current name for the region. Consequently, the majority of links to this article will be from other Okinawa-related articles, or people seeking information on Okinawa's history.
- The name 'Okinawa' does not apply to the entire region about which this article is written. All of the islands of the Ryukyus have had similar histories, even though many of them were made part of Kagoshima Prefecture when annexed. For example, they all faced brutalities from Japan during WWII, and they were all occupied by the US longer than the rest of Japan (including those islands which belong to Kagoshima Prefecture). The civilian occupational administration of the Ryukyus was divided into four branches, Amami, Okinawa, Miyako, and Yaeyama. Amami, although inseparable from the Ryukyus as far as language, history, and culture go, currently belongs to Kagoshima Prefecture and the only name that includes Amami Gunto is Ryukyu(an) Islands.
If you believe otherwise (or if you agree), let's discuss it!
--Tremolo 02:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- --Node 22:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Node ue! I had misunderstood your useage of 'Ryukyu(an)' - I had assumed you were talking about the (former) nation the Ryukyu Kingdom, but I now understand that you mean the history of the Ryukyu island chain as a whole. Hence, we're both essentially right: the history of the Ryukyu Kingdom is (seen one way) part of the history of what is now Okinawa prefecture, which in turn is a part of the history of the Ryukyu archipelago.
Anyway, here are my thoughts:
I agree that 'History of the Ryukyu Islands' (or whatever you'd like to call it) could be a valid and interesting article. However, I think 'History of Okinawa' is also a perfectly valid article. Since we agree that Okinawan history is not the same thing as 'Ryuku(an) history', I hope we might also agree about that.
There are a number of reasons I'm in favour of having an article entitled 'History of Okinawa':
(1) It seems logical to me that the 'Okinawa Prefecture' page should have a more in-depth 'history' page. I have tried to keep the Okinawa prefecture page tidy since I overhauled it a while ago. I don't like deleting things other people have written, so when people put things that strike me as contentious or messy or too in-depth on the Okinawa prefecture page, I tend to just move them over to the History of Okinawa page in the hope that someone else (perhaps you...?) might one day beat them into shape.
- I believe this page already explains the difference between Okinawa prefecture and the Ryukyuan islands; if it doesn't that can easily be added.
(2) I think changes of terminology can be confusing: if a person is looking for information on the history of Okinawa, and they find themselves re-directed to a page on Ryukyu history, they might well be puzzled. A person who knows the word 'Okinawa' doesn't necessarily also know the (less well-known) word 'Ryukyu'. I don't think my misunderstanding of your use of the word was particularly stupid, and if I was confused by it, I suspect that someone who knows nothing about Okinawa or the Ryukyu islands and is looking for info might well also be confused...
- If it is explained, however, it's not generally as confusing
(3) Though an article on the history of the Ryukyu island chain might well be interesting (I'm sure you know more about it than I do), as I understand it, the northern islands in the chain were never part of the Ryukyu Kingdom, and have long been part of Japan, and consequently have a rather separate history. The Yaeyama islands, Miyako, and Okinawa Honto were all part of the Ryukyu Kingdom (and are now part of Okinawa prefecture). Most of the islands of Kagoshima prefecture were not, and are, I believe, culturally quite distinct. It seems to me that this is another reason for keeping the 'History of Okinawa' separate from the history of the island chain as a whole.
- No, Amami Gunto was indeed a part of the Ryukyu Kingdom. I think Tokara Retto and some of Osumi Shoto were as well, but I'm not sure. Amami Gunto is hundreds of miles away even from the closest *island* belonging to Kagoshima, it is geographically clearly separated even from Tokara and Osumi. The culture and speech of Amami Gunto are clearly of the Ryukyuan type rather than the mainland type, as the language spoken there is considered a Ryukyuan language and the culture bears more similarities to that of Okinawa than that of mainland Kagoshima.
- The history of Amami Gunto has only been separate since the invasion of the Kingdom in the 1600s and its being turned into a puppet state of Satsuma-han; Amami Gunto was made a sort of "overseas territory" of Satsuma-han and was under the same government as the mainland, the rest of the Ryukyus were made into a puppet state where the leaders of Satsuma-han had the only real control; however economic and social circumstances in Amami Gunto as well as all the Ryukyus south of them remained very similar especially in comparison with those of the mainland. Also, during WWII, Amami Gunto was part of the US invasion of the Ryukyus, and it was occupied for the same length and under the same occupational administration as was what is now Okinawa prefecture.
- Indeed, all the regions of Ryukyu did at one point of time or another have their own separate history: The main island was only unified in the 1200s, I believe, and from there it took 200 or 300 years before Miyako, Yaeyama, and Amami were under the control of the central government in Shuri. However, they share a very long period of common history with each other, and in modern times are culturally, linguistically, and genetically unified as against the mainland.
So... what do you think?
ps. about 'Ryukyuan': I'm not disputing its validity as a term, I was just wary of it because it's not as widely used as 'Ryukyu' (used as an adjective). Either way, I think it's important to make it as clear as possible exactly what is being dealt with: since 'Ryukyu' refers to both a culture and an island chain, I'd generally favour unambiguous titles like 'History of the Ryukyu Islands' or 'The Ryukyu Kingdom' rather than 'Ryukyu(an) History'. I wonder if there's a case to be made for using 'Ryukuan' to refer to the island chain and 'Ryukyu' to refer to the culture ('Ryukyu dance', 'Ryukyu music', etc...)
- "Ryukyuan History" is not ambiguous as the history of the Kingdom and of the islands are one and the same. Experts ("Ryukyuanists") are unanimous in the opinion that "Ryukyu" refers only to the tributary state to China when used in English and that "Ryukyuan" is the adjectival form to be used similarly to "Japanese". Also, I have seen more references to the "Ryukyuan kingdom" than to the "Ryukyu kingdom", however "Ryukyu kingdom" is already used all over Wikipedia and to change it would take more effort than I believe it is really worth.
--Tremolo 02:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- --Node 00:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Problems with Article Sources
[edit]Ryukyuan History or Okinawan History is not a big problem. What is the problem is that the history of the Ryukyuan Kingdom is not properly described here. It does not seem that " Battle of Okinawa" is a good source for the history of the kingdom. If no one has a good history source, I will plan to revise it.Trek011 05:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There are also other problems with the book "Battle of Okinawa" :
- It is quite obviously sympathetic to American military forces. Japanese soldiers are portrayed as savage killers, while American soldiers are portrayed as heroic liberators.
- The portrayal of Japanese military actions is accurate. I think it's important that this article cover the "betrayal" by Mainland Japan, from which many Ryukyuans died. Then, when the war ended, Japan gave up Ryukyu easily like an old unwanted garment. Today, the powers that be in Tokyo are opposed to, for example, the Okinawan Plan for Millenium Metropolis (or whatever it was called -- some sort of proposal to make Okinawa an Autonomous Region in Japan with completely internationally open ports, like Hong Kong in China), using such reasons as "Okinawa is an integral part of the Japanese nation". However, the manner in which Japanese military actions are contrasted to American military actions is very unbecoming of the writer. He vastly understates the unnessecary, hostile, brutal, etc., American actions in the history of the Ryukyus, starting with before Bettelheim and his abuse of the Ryukyuan hospitality, all the way up to the present with sexual abuse and noise problems caused by the bases. In fact, he refers to the sexual assault as if it is due to Okinawan traditionalists being upset by their children dating Americans, which is preposterous at best and highly offensive at worst.
- He is not an expert on the subject. I don't know, maybe he studied it extensively, but he can't be very smart about Okinawa itself -- just the battle it seems. He refers to 3 different places, "Chin", "Gim", and "Kin", as totally different locations, when in fact they are all alternative names for Kin, Okinawa, as anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of Okinawan geography would know.
- His writing often resembles the crazed ranting of a WWII fanatic who has little respect for the victims, both military and civilian. He seems only to care about the sizes or numbers of guns, troops, troop movements, and especially historically unverifiable anecdotes from vets which paint the enemy as devils, as with most WWII nuts.
- For this reason, I think this article should rely perhaps more heavily on more reliable histories, such as Iha Fuyu's "Ko Ryukyu", the classic reference for Ryukyuan history. --Node 01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Or at least G. Kerr's "Brief History of an Island People", dated perhaps but classic...I don't think it's fair or accurate to focus on WWII, even if it weighs heavily on minds today. I think the articles Ryukyu Kingdom and History of the Ryukyu Kingdom should be merged into this article, which should then be heavily edited: new information should be added, along with many more external links. I also think "Ryukyuan" sounds funny, since I hear the word "Ryukyu" often used to describe (among other things) the "Ryukyu Islands", "Ryukyu University" (The University of the Ryukyus), and the "Ryukyu Kingdom". Turly-burly 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Call for Merger
[edit]The "proposed merger" tag has been up for some time now. As for me, I think the merger should happen. There are too many "Ryukyu history" articles floating around, and I think it will confuse people. I think that the "Ryukyu Kingdom" article can stand alone and be linked from this one as "See main article at", as long as its receives additional significant content concerning specifics. It also needs to be headed with a disambiguation notice that immediately alerts the reader to the difference between the Ryukyu Islands, THE Ryukyu Kingdom (i.e. the power that united Okinawa and spurred significant cultural development), and historical kingdoms within the Ryukyu Islands (e.g., Chuzan and those of the outer islands). The other article, History of the Ryukyu Kingdom, is a poorly-done rehash of Ryukyu Kingdom. IF no one disapproves within the next week or so, I've the time and inclination to make the necessary edits and to add to this article concerning pre-Ryukyu Kingdom history. Turly-burly 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's been ten days since I posted this call, and much longer since I posted the tag on the article page. I'm going to begin the merger, but go a bit slowly, just in case. Turly-burly 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to remove the merger tag for the merger with Ryukyu Kingdom. I think that such a definitive period in Ryukyuan history is deserving of its own article. If there are no objections, I'll remove it in a few days. Turly-burly 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the merger is warranted. I'd do it myself if I had time. Unschool 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think we keep the Ryukyu History and the Ryukyu Kingdom articles seperated and link from the history to the kingdom article from the right section. One should merge all the smaller articles to the proper topic (either history or kingdom) so there're only those two left (like this... Egypt, History of Egypt and Ancient Egypt).
b.t.w. I'd rename the ryukyuan history to History of Ryukyu or History of the Ryukyus... so the ryukyuan/ryukyuish can be removed.--AnKaiLong 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Article name has been hashed out (v.s.), and redirects are in their proper places so that all bases are covered. "Ryukyuan history" is the proper name. I'm also pretty sure there are only two history articles now...if there aren't, there should be. Turly-burly 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality?
[edit]I don't see what is POV about the "Tension with the U.S." section marked with a possible non-neutral tag. I am removing said tag pending justification here. Turly-burly 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a statistic stating that the crime commited by US Forces personnel is out of proportion compared to that of population of the prefectual residents. With that said, the feeling I get from the whole post WW2 section of the article is that somehow US Forces personnel are the most horrible people on earth, and if this is the case, they should have have been rejected from every corner of the globe decades ago. Let me preempt by saying that I am aware of the occasional protest of the local populace directed towards the US military bases, but outside the protest of the three people that raped that little girl (THAT, I understand and condone), the numbers are laughably small when compared to the total number of people in the prefecture. I need to see proof, which I somehow doubt is readily available outside of someone's POV opinion. Inoue Makoto 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I re-read the post-WW2 section and don't think I see any facts that are disputed; people may not like this section b/c it doesn't mention the "good things" that U.S. contributes to the island. If someone cares to write a paragraph about how the Marines sometimes plant flowers or help handicapped people, this would be factual and might balance things out a little. I have a feeling, however, that it would only serve to make American forces look worse, i.e. "The American presence in Okinawa probably protects Japan from any possible (however unlikely) attack from East Asia. Sometimes the Americans do community service, and though they were the ones who prompted and assisted in the destruction of the island and murder of its civilian population, they were responsible enough after WW2 to round up survivors into labor camps and give them food and medicine. American military personnel also sometimes crash helicopters into school buildings, beat up local taxi drivers and snack bar girls, use up arable land building Macaroni Grills and officers' clubs, and gang rape little girls." Granted the article wouldn't sound like THAT, but I have a feeling -- just a feeling, mind you -- that a presentation of good things about americans on the island woven into a presentation of the bad things would only serve to make the article look even more anti-American.
And I think you're right; I think they don't exist, these statistics stating that crime by American personnel is proportionately worse, and there are probably several reasons such statistics might not exist, only one of which may be that the crime by American personnel is NOT worse. I don't *think* this Wikipedia article makes any such assertion about "proportionately worse", but I may not be reading closely enough. Maybe one might possibly get the FEELING that this is true, but then again, getting a bad feeling about a subject after reading its Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily make the article POV.
It is also worth noting that protests are more than "occasional"; they are quite regular, although they often take the form of "marches for peace" that address not only the base issues but also broader interests in nonviolent conflict resolution. Official "protests" in the sense that "people come together and specifically target military presence" happen at least once a year (to my knowledge) in the form of people gathering to hold hands and link arms around the fences and listen to various speakers about nonviolence. Turly-burly 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
American Liberator against Japanese Oppressor?
[edit]It is amusing sometimes. This incredible ability of some American to completely blank out something inconvenient. This article, for example, conveniently omit that, in the Battle of Okinawa, Okinawan fought fiercly along with Japanese militaly. Also, where is a mention of the fact that, after Okinawa was annexed to America, Okinawan demonstrated in en mass to demand that the island be reunited to Japan. I'm not saying there aren't mainland<->Okinawa mentality but this "American liberating the nation of Okinawa" is a laugh. Vapour
Article renamed
[edit]I've renamed this article from Ryukyuan history to Ryūkyūan history in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
10,000 Rapes
[edit]WW-II rapes, it's hard to believe nothing on the pre-1955 rapes had been inserted yet! Some more info, for those curious.
- H-Net review of Peter Schrijvers book
- Talk:Battle_of_Okinawa#Regarding_the_recent_Atrocity_additions.
- 3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa
- Some book pages available through Google:
- [1]scroll up to read the preceding page too),
- [2],
- [3],
- [4],
- [5]
- This one written by a soldier of the occupation, seems to indicate that rape was very commonplace several years into the occupation. No wonder they dislike the U.S. bases...
I wonder if they ever returned this unfortunate Japanese, who was Life Magazine picture of the Week, May 22, 1944, or if he still is an autographed memento on some desk. They say everyone gets 5 minutes of fame...
And why not have a look at Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Pacific_War? --Stor stark7 Speak 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your point is? Funny you use the name "stark", as the crimes committed by the Japanese alone are quite stark compared to what the Allies did. Angry bee (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there was the Rape of Nanking where an entire army was allowed to get out of control for several weeks. :The Okinawans were misinformed that the Americans would torture them to death and other propaganda, so that the population was encouraged to commit suicide rather than await occupation. This they did in large numbers. A distinction might be made between the undemocratic government of Japan during the war, including military leaders, and the democratic government which followed and persists today. The military government was "not nice" to say the least. Like most dictatorships, citizens either "went along" or were killed or imprisoned.
- Note that in Nanking and other WW II events, there was no mechanism for reporting criminal activities, and therefore no accurate record. In fact, records were destroyed that might be used later. This was not true of the American government. Which is why it can be chronicled today. But not compared, since there exist fewer or no Japanese records which were systematically destroyed. Student7 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Japanese media coverage of the crime incidents
[edit]I deleted unsourced dubious claim by User:75.61.68.154.
- Incidents involving U.S. service personnel are reported with gleeful abandon by the Japanese and Okinawan media, particularly if the alleged perpetrator is African-American. By contrast, incidents of rape and vehicular manslaughter by members of Japan's own armed forces is carefully hushed up "for the national good". Okinawa's economic elite and Japanese government bureaucrats have been reported to have economic interests in the development of land currently occupied by U.S. military facilities.
It is at least true that the rape incidents involving U.S. service personnel (or any foreigners) are reported heavily in Japan, but the race of the alleged perpetrator hardly matters. In fact, Japanese/Okinawan media do not report the race, other than they are "American". [6] [7] Also, they do report the crimes by JSDF personnel as well. [8] [9] Many Japanese media (such as Asahi Shimbun) are liberal, while two Okinawan newspapers (Ryukyu Shimpo and Okinawa Times) are even more leftist. They wouldn't lose any chances to bash JSDF. After all, Japanese government bureaucrats do not control the media. If they did, then they would do their best to hush up the crimes by US personnel; it's them who serve the bases in Okinawa, thus serving the US-Japan Mutual Treaty which Japanese government believes is vital for the nation. Kzaral (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]Can we change this to "History of the Ryukyu Islands"? Just like in the examples of "the United States", "the British Isles", "the Japanese archipelago", the "the" in "the Ryukyu Islands" is necessary for grammatical accuracy and linguistic smoothness. LordAmeth (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sever lack of citation, and misleading impressions.
[edit]In the section "Tensions with the US" there are 7 unsourced accusations about US soldiers. The entire section also portrays an extremely negative image of US soldiers on Okinawa. According to crime statistics, US soldiers commit 0.14 per 1,000, by far the lowest crime average of all the demographic groups on Okinawa.
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/reservoir/20080214/1202958732
(a translation would read)
Percentage of crime out of 1000 people National crime rate (includes foreigners) 0.30% ← this means 3 people out of 1000 Okinawa people (except US soldiers) 0.30% US soldiers in Okinawa 0.14% The Chinese (both short, and long term stay) 1.57% North and South Koreans (the same) 1.94% Brazilians (the same) 0.52% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please tag unsourced material with "fact" tags in double brackets at either end of the word. Don't be surprised if the citations are all in Japanese (Okinawan) sources, however! They are on a kick supporting developers and various political factions of which making Americans look bad is part of the game.
- Please insert statistics on crime making sure it is well supported with a WP:RELY citation. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Personalities
[edit]The list should probably be trimmed. Personalities (or "notables" as they are called elsewhere) must be famous outside the Ryukyus to be notable at this level. Note that they may still be notable at the local (city) level. So a "governor" of the Ryukyus cannot be "notable" here. Many people were governor. All Prefectures have governors.
This does not stop anyone from working these people into the article, where appropriate. Student7 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how Teruya and Bettelheim are significant outside the Ryukyus. They seem notable only to the Ryukyus, which is why IMO, they should be deleted from here and inserted in a prefecture article. Also, how significant are Christian missionaries? What percentage of Ryukyans are Christian today? Student7 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Criteria for inclusion
[edit]In order for there to a) have some limit and b) be readable, notables have to be limited as you go up the line. If they merely accumulated, there would be 100,000 notables at the "Japan" level. They would not be scanable and would be impossible to maintain. Therefore people within any article must be notable outside that place. Therefore, not all mayors would go into the notables of a city (might be a separate list for mayors, but that's not important here).
Someone added "Keisai Aoki was a Japanese missionary who virtually paved the way to the establishment of Hansen's disease sanatorium Okinawa Airakuen Sanatorium, Okinawa, Japan. At age 16, he contracted leprosy and later, under the leadership of Hannah Riddell, he helped people with leprosy in Okinawa." The question arises, "Was he notable outside the Ryukyus?" If so, then he remains. But if he was notable only within the Ryukyus, then he would be placed in the Prefecture and city, but not here.
Also, BTW, these are not extended resumes. They are one-liners so as not to detract from the article which is about a place not people. Student7 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Some notes
[edit]- I renamed this article from "History of the Ryukyu Islands" to "History of Okinawa Prefecture." The scope of this article is Okinawa Prefecture. For the history of a broader region, see the history section of Ryukyu Islands, which I have substantially expanded.
- I removed the supposed Shuri-Naha dialect name ウチナー県 as it is unattested. It was added by Ichiro Kikuchi (talk · contribs)[10] and reinstated by Plastikspork (talk · contribs)[11].
- I removed Cantonese readings added by White whirlwind (talk · contribs)[12]. Historians use modern names for the sake of convenience and linguists use reconstructed pronunciations (e.g. Late Middle Chinese). Cantonese is totally useless.
- The entire contents have serious problems. Other Wikipedians above only note modern history, but pre-modern history is also terrible. I only made minor copyedits for now. I will come back later.
--Nanshu (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Sentences removed
[edit]These sentences were removed. They have "cite needed" tags since 2011.
- Near the end of the sixteenth century, Japanese feudal leader Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered the Ryūkyū kingdom to support Hideyoshi’s invasions of Korea with men and arms. However, the kingdom was already a tributary state of China. The kingdom’s policy was to not participate in military efforts against China, because it certainly did not wish to risk losing its trade relationship. The Japanese proceeded with their attack on the Korean peninsula without the aid of the Ryūkyū kingdom. During this same period a ferocious battle of succession arose within Japan due to the death of Hideyoshi. The Shimazu clan of Satsuma, the nearest Japanese neighbors of the kingdom, were the victors.[citation needed]
The Shimazu clan not only wanted its share of the Ryūkyūan trade with mainland Japan and Southeast Asia, but also to gain favor with the regime in Edo (modern-day Tokyo). The kingdom had not paid respects to the new regime; therefore, permission was granted by the rulers in Edo to invade the kingdom.[citation needed]
Is this background helpful or needed in the context of this article? --Ansei (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that cites are necessary.
- It seems to provide a basis of why the kingdom reverted from Chinese rule, however nominal, to Japanese rule.
Kind of key, right? - Okay. Reread context. You're saying that "background" of pretext to invade isn't that crucial. And maybe speculative. --Student7 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, it is hard to defend an opinion one way or the other. With cite support, we might be able to make reasonable decisions about what to do next. In contrast, please consider reading about what happened on August 24, 1614
(Keichō 19, 19th day of the 7th month)at Keichō era#Events of the ''Keichō'' era. In the short bullet text, the subject of pretext is paired with cite support. --Ansei (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, it is hard to defend an opinion one way or the other. With cite support, we might be able to make reasonable decisions about what to do next. In contrast, please consider reading about what happened on August 24, 1614
Old western accounts of Ryukyu
[edit]Put the old accounts in wikisource or further reading.
Vocabulary of the language spoken at the Great Loo-Choo island in the Japan Sea By Herbert John Clifford
Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and Beering's Strait: To Co-operate with the Polar Expeditions: Performed in His Majesty's Ship Blossom, Under the Command of Captain F.W. Beechey ... in the Years 1825, 26, 27, 28 ... By Frederick William Beechey
Life in the Luchu Islands (1899)
https://archive.org/details/lifeinluchuislan00furn
The Loochoo islands (1905)
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023514643
Voyage to Loo-Choo, and other places in the eastern seas, in the year 1816. Including an account of Captain Maxwell's attack on the batteries at Canton; and notes of an interview with Buonaparte at St. Helena, in August 1817 (1826)
https://archive.org/details/voyagetoloochoo00hallgoog
https://archive.org/details/voyagetoloochooo00hallrich
https://archive.org/details/voyagetoloochooo01halluoft
My last cruise; or, where we went and what we saw: being an account of visits to the Malay and Loo-Choo Islands, the coasts of China, Formosa, Japan, Kamtschatka, Siberia, and the mouth of the Amoor River (1857)
https://archive.org/details/mylastcruiseorw01habegoog
https://archive.org/details/mylastcruiseorw02habegoog
The Japan expedition. Japan and around the world; an account of three visits to the Japanese empire, with sketches of Madeira, St. Helena, cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, Ceylon, Singapore, China, and Loo-Choo (1855)
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023219722
https://archive.org/details/japanexpedition00spalgoog
https://archive.org/details/japanexpeditionj01spal
Odonates recueillis aux iles Loo-Choo, par feu M. Pr
https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_123213_odonatesrecueillisauxileslooch1864
Journal of an Expedition from Sincapore to Japan: With a Visit to Loo-Choo, Descriptive of These ... (1838)
https://archive.org/details/journalanexpedi00parkgoog
Narrative of a Voyage to Java, China, and the Great Loo-Choo Island: With Accounts of Sir Murray ... (1865)
https://archive.org/details/narrativeavoyag00hallgoog
Voyage to Corea, and the island of Loo-Choo (1820)
https://archive.org/details/voyagetocoreaan00hallgoog
My last cruise; or, where we went and what we saw: being an account of visits to the Malay and Loo-Choo Islands, the coasts of China, Formosa, Japan, Kamtschatka, Siberia, and the mouth of the Amoor River (1857)
https://archive.org/details/mylastcruiseorwh00habe
https://archive.org/details/mylastcruiseorwh01habe
https://archive.org/details/northpacificsurv00haberich
Journal of an expedition from Sincapore to Japan, with a visit to Loo-Choo; descriptive of these islands and their inhabitants; in an attempt with the aid of natives educated in England, to create an opening for missionary labours in Japan (1838)
https://archive.org/details/39002086452134.med.yale.edu
Hall's voyages (1826)
https://archive.org/details/hallsvoyages01hallrich
https://archive.org/details/hallsvoyages03hallrich
https://archive.org/details/hallsvoyages01hall
https://archive.org/details/hallsvoyages02hall
https://archive.org/details/hallsvoyages03hall
Account of a voyage of discovery to the west coast of Corea, and the great Loo-Choo island : with an appendix, containing charts, and various hydrographical and scientific notices (1818)
https://archive.org/details/accountofvoyageo00hall
https://archive.org/details/accountavoyaged00clifgoog
https://archive.org/details/accountofavoyage29051gut
Secondary mentions
https://archive.org/details/ConcerningJapaneseOrigins_215
Modern
Modern studies on Ryukyuan language
Rajmaan (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Ryukyu's tribute to China when the Yongle Emperor was in power
[edit]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
[edit]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/
Old primary sources for further reading
[edit]07:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Republic of China and America on Okinawa during World War II
[edit]In 1943, during World War II, the US President asked its ally, the The Republic of China, if it would lay claim to the Ryukyus after the war.“The President then referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus. The Generalissimo replied that China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United State and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization.”
Page 324
Page 324
http://www.asianewsnet.net/news-36903.html
http://cpri.tripod.com/cpr1999/ryukyu.html
Rajmaan (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Okinawa Prefecture infobox
[edit]I've noticed that the infobox from Okinawa Prefecture was basically copied and pasted to this article, as evidenced by the Okinawa Prefecture symbol being called "Symbol of History of the Ryukyu Islands". I don't think that this infobox is appropriate for this article. I'm going to create a temporary sandbox to build a new infobox if anyone would like to hep. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Revising post-war history
[edit]Hi, all. I feel that the post-war history (and really the entire article) needs a rewrite. I'll divide the post war occupation section into
- Ryukyus under American Occupation, discussing Okinawa under USCAR
- Reversion discussing the Okinawa reversion process
- Post-Reversion, discussing recent and relatively recent (post 1972) events in Okinawa
I'd definitely like to see more reliable sources in use.
Kdbeall (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of the Ryukyu Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110220193607/http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/690/654 to http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/690/654
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305195525/http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/orient/go/history/okinawa1.html to http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/orient/go/history/okinawa1.html
- Added archive https://archive.is/20070926223809/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5870 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5870
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217224143/http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/13/japan.rape/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/13/japan.rape/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050508004947/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=6235 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=6235
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]@Qiushufang: "This article is about the history of the Ryukyu Islands" is self-evident from the article's title. If you don't like my edit, then please provide a better lead. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)