Talk:Ryukyuan missions to Edo

Impending expansion
I recognize that the information presented here is a bit sparse; the table could be expanded, as could the descriptions of the individual missions. I am expecting to get a copy of Ronald Toby's "State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan" soon, which will hopefully contain more information. Also, there are some beautiful images available from the British Museum's online collections database, and elsewhere, but none that I know of that would be cleanly public domain or copyright-free. Thoughts, suggestions, are most welcome. LordAmeth (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have since begun said expansion. Things should gradually come to look more fleshed out soon. LordAmeth (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving article?
Should this article be re-titled the same as the Table? Would this need a redirect as well? Hm-m-m? --Tenmei (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ryūkyū" (noun) becomes Ryūkyūan (adjective)?
 * "mission" (singular) becomes missions (plural)?
 * Ryūkyū mission to Edo becomes Ryūkyūan missions to Edo?
 * Ryūkyū mission to Edo ---> Ryūkyūan missions to Edo?
 * I like that. Only thing is, bizarre as it may seem, we agreed/compromised some time ago that the adjective form should not have macrons, as the -an suffix marks it as a distinctively English, non-Japanese, word. (Actually, I can't seem to find a link to the final agreement, only the discussion, but I am pretty sure that a consensus was reached to that effect.) Shall I move the article to Ryukyuan missions to Edo? LordAmeth (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd guess your memory is reliable. I'll agree with whatever you decide to do next. Why not?  In any event, I have no view about what might be better or best.  Perhaps your first impulse is good enough as far as the article name is concerned; but what about your initial ?  Plural seems best to me, but I leave it to you to make the title and defaultsort congruent.


 * A redirect renders many questions moot for now, I suppose. I'll create
 * 1. Ryūkyūan missions to Edo redirecting to Ryūkyū mission to Edo
 * AND
 * 2. Ryukyuan missions to Edo redirecting to Ryūkyū mission to Edo
 * If it becomes necessary to make any further changes in the future, fine. Any undefined or unresolved issues can be addressed on some other day.  For now, there is quite enough to be done in terms of working through the fascinating, difficult and illuminating issues this superb subject presents.


 * In my view, this becomes an entirely plausible foundation from which to begin to parse and evaluate any perceived inscrutable aspects of the ways in which the following have unfolded:
 * Washington Naval Treaty, 1922
 * London Naval Treaty, 1930
 * Second London Naval Treaty, 1936
 * Whaling in Japan, post-1986
 * Constitution of Japan, Article 9, post-2005
 * Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, post-2007
 * Although I scrupulously try to avoid devoting any attention whatsoever to modern subjects, the consequences of pre-Meiji historiography seem manifold, difficult-to-ignore, omni-present ...? --Tenmei (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. I'm afraid I don't quite get your reference to the modern history topics, though. What does this have to do with the Ryukyuan missions? LordAmeth (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The contemporary allusions were unhelpful. I'm sorry. Please think nothing of it. Allow me to re-cast my comment: In 1609-1868, the Ryukyu Islands are at once an independent kingdom and also a tributary state of Imperial China and also an entirely subjugated archipelago under the complete domination of Japan.  From a Western perspective, these would seem mutually-exclusive, contradictory, anomalous.  From a Japanese perspective, this was transparent, obvious and practical -- as simple as sakoku or kaikin and as easy as double-entry bookkeeping. These aspects of Ryukyuan missions to Edo attract my curiosity in the same way as sangaku and wasan. --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)