Talk:Second Shō dynasty
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from House of Second Shō was copied or moved into Second Shō Dynasty with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Requested move 20 February 2021
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Second Shō clan → Second Shō Dynasty – Please move back to the title "Second Shō Dynasty". The word "Second Shō Dynasty" is mentioned in George H. Kerr's book Okinawa: The History of an Island People (2000, Tuttle Publishing, Singapore: p.101 'THE SECOND SHO DYNASTY" AND ITS FOUNDER, SHO EN'; also in p.537: 'Sho dynasty "second"'). But the word "Second Shō clan" is not mentioned in any English books. According to Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names, we should use the name that "is most commonly used". We should not translate directly from the Japanese word "第二尚氏". El caballero de los Leones (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. BTW, actually for Chinese "Second Shō Dynasty" is better.--John Smith Ri (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 7 April 2021
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Second Shō Dynasty → Second Shō dynasty – use of capital D goes against style conventions in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. TSventon (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-ō (王) and -kō (公)
[edit]I have removed this sentence from the article because it's MOST LIKELY WRONG:
Even in the family mausoleum Tamaudun, the rulers were referred to not with the royal suffix -ō (王) but with the non-royal nobiliary suffix -kō (公).
The contributor who added this sentence says that from 1635 to 1712 the Ryukyuan ruler used the non-royal nobiliary suffix -kō (公) in the in the family mausoleum Tamaudun, however it's completely contrary to the facts. The inscriptions in Ryukyuan kings' sarcophagi (石厨子, Ishizushi) has mentioned in Kurayoshi Takara (高良倉吉)'s essay 玉御殿の石厨子銘書について－仲松＝高木説的解釈の問題点－, page 75:
| Kings | Reign | Inscriptions in sarcophagi |
|---|---|---|
| Shō En | 1469–1476 | |
| Shō Shin | 1477–1527 | 尚圓公のおもいくわおきやかもいかなし法名尚眞公 |
| Shō Sei | 1526-1555 | 尚眞公のおもいくわてにつきのミおまへ法名尚清公 |
| Shō Gen | 1556–1572 | 尚清公のおもいくわてたはしめあんしおまへ法名尚元公 |
| Shō Ei | 1573–1588 | 尚元公おもいくわゑそにやすへミ御まへ法名尚永公 |
| Shō Hō | 1621–1640 | 尚久公のおもひくわ天きやすゑあんし□□かなし法名尚豊公 |
| Shō Ken | 1641–1647 | 尚豊王かなしのおもひくわ尚賢王かなし |
| Shō Shitsu | 1648–1668 | 尚賢王かなしの御舎弟也尚質王かなし |
| Shō Tei | 1669–1709 | 尚貞王 |
| Shō Jun (Crown Prince) | never throned | 王世子 尚純了一神位 |
| Shō Eki | 1710–1712 | 尚益王 |
| Shō Kei | 1713–1752 | 尚敬王 |
| Shō Boku | 1752–1794 | 尚穆王 |
| Shō Tetsu (Crown Prince) | never throned | 先世子尚哲寳宮 |
| Shō On | 1795–1802 | 尚温王 |
| Shō Sei | 1803 | 尚成王 |
| Shō Kō | 1804–1828 | 尚灝王 |
| Shō Iku | 1835–1847 | 尚育王 |
| Shō Tai | 1848–1879 | 従一位侯爵尚泰 |
If the contributor's opinion is right, the inscriptions in Shō Hō's, Shō Ken's, Shō Shitsu's, Shō Tei's, and Shō Eki's sarcophagi must use the non-royal nobiliary suffix -kō (公). However, actually, ONLY Shō Hō's inscription uses the suffix -kō (公); other kings: Shō Ken, Shō Shitsu, Shō Tei, and Shō Eki, use the suffix -ō (王). So it's LIKELY WRONG.
What's even stranger is that, all the kings who died before the Invasion of Ryukyu use the suffix -kō, why? If their inscriptions were changed to suffix -kō between 1635 and 1712, why not changed back to the suffix -ō after 1712, just like the Shō Ken's, Shō Shitsu's, Shō Tei's, and Shō Eki's inscriptions???
So, the contributor's opinion is MOST LIKELY WRONG.--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- In addition, in my opinion, Satsuma Domain forced Ryukyuan king to use the title kokushi (国司) on diplomatic occasions to highlight the Ryukyuan ruler was a "feudal lord" under the Japanese shogunate and domain system. For counter reasons, during Shō Shitsu's reign, the suffix of Ryukyuan rulers started to use the royal title -ō (王) in their inscriptions of sarcophagi to highlight Ryukyu was a kingdom; perhaps the king concerned about the country's future, if not to do so, his kingdom would be annexed by Japan someday.--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- And, the inscriptions of sarcophagi in Tamaudun could prove that the royal title "king" (-ō 王) was still used in Ryūkyū Kingdom between 1635 and 1712. The "King of Chūzan" was in the diplomatic letter to China. So, in my opinion, the title Ryūkyū kokushi (琉球国司) was more likely only a diplomatic title use to contact with Japan. A similar example was, Đinh Bộ Lĩnh styled himself the emperor of Đại Việt, but used the title "Commandery Prince of Jiaozhi" (交趾郡王) when contacted with Song dynasty; in East Asian cultural sphere, this behavior was called "Emperor at home, king abroad" (外王内帝).--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)