Talk:Tanegashima
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Map
[edit]
Here's a map of Tanegashima in the Osumi Island group. Please feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd love to have a map in the article, but I fear that this one doesn't really have enough context for the reader to understand where Tanegashima is in relation to other things. If I did not myself have a fair grasp of Japanese geography, I wouldn't recognize Kyushu (i.e. where Nagasaki, Kagoshima are in relation to Tanegashima; where this map is in relation to the rest of Japan or Asia) ... This isn't a criticism of you, PHG. Thanks for providing the image and suggesting the addition of a map. Do you, or anyone else, have suggestions of another map to use, or can you perhaps edit this one to make it just a tad more recognizable? LordAmeth (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Some Notes
[edit]I removed the following statement which was added by MChew (talk · contribs)[1]:
- Tanegashima is first mentioned in written documents of the Chinese Sui Dynasty of the 6th century, and in the Japanese Shoku Nihongi in an entry dated 702.
No source was cited to verify the statement. All we know about the relation of the Sui to Japan's southern islands is an episode recorded in the Book of Sui. According to the book, a Chinese force obtained an armor in what they called Liuqiu (流求) in 608 (7th century, not 6th!) and a Japanese mission to Sui identified it as a product of Iyaku. It made no mention of Tanegashima.
LordAmeth (talk · contribs) cited George H. Kerr's Okinawa: The History of an Island People. Obviously, Tanegashima is outside of the scope of the monograph. Besides this, it is seriously outdated although it was certainly a good English source at the time of publication. --Nanshu (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The volume has been revised quite recently, but, fair enough. I was hoping I might shore up the citation by looking at Richard Pearson's brand-new book Ancient Ryukyu, but he doesn't happen to mention it. Thanks for your efforts to improve/maintain the rigor of these articles! LordAmeth (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not know a revised edition was published. What I checked was the first edition (1958), the 11th printing (1980). But that does not seem to matter much. Quote from [2]:
Mitsugu Sakihara (Hawaii International College) adds an afterword with new information and interpretation, and some corrections. That and seven pages of errata are the only change to the original, also published by Tuttle. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
- Anyway, thank you for the information. I will buy Pearson's new book. --Nanshu (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not know a revised edition was published. What I checked was the first edition (1958), the 11th printing (1980). But that does not seem to matter much. Quote from [2]: