Talk:Kowtow

Hand Movement?

While in China I observed that Chinese Buddhists would kowtow to the Buddha with their palms upturned and their wrists pressed against the ground in contrast to what I'm used to from elsewhere in the world. I wasn't sure of the significance, but this seemed to be the practice with few exceptions so I was wondering if this is exclusive to religious situations or what...

Rufe (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Diplomacy

I don't remember which British embassy was foiled. It incorporated a young boy, the son of some diplomat, that mastered Chinese and later became a British MP, using his experience during the discussion of the Opium war.

I don't remember also what was the behavior of Portuguese and French embassies that arrived around that time.

Photo

I am curious what does the "What a big moon light" written on the table clothe suppose to mean in a Qing court? Can someone explain?Mababa 05:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem in the photo caption. It says the picture was taken in an imperial court. If it said it was taken in a small yamen in a small village, it might be believable. But the photo looks nothing like an imperial court. It looks like a stage set for a highschool drama. Imperial court should be grand and awesome. Kowloonese 08:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This photo does not appear to me being taken in the imperial court. The settings are for an unoffical place or a stage. The painting behind suggests this place is only a private living room and the man in the middle is simply meeting some inferior person with the presence of another officer. But I would say it is mostly likely a place intentionally set with people posing at the request of the photographer who took this pic.Chrisliu (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing this picture before. The photo is taken by English visitors (journalists probably) to illustrate a Chinese court in session. They did not visit a court or had any idea about how it looked like, instead the scene is entirely made up. I have searched for a reference for this information but unfortunately all queries leads straight back to Wikipedia (btw: how do I sign this comment?)

Reciprocal diplomacy

My understanding is that the problem of British diplomats having to kowtow to the Emperor was resolved by having a Chinese official of equal rank kowtow to a portrait of the King. I have no sources for this other than a conversation with my father. DS 14:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This never occurred. The resolution was rejected by the Chinese. Peyrefitte 170 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.49.134 (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Knock with reverence

Where did "the reverence" part come from? I am looking at my dictionaries, they just say to knock. (新华字典 and 现代汉语词典). --Voidvector 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"In modern times, usage of the kowtow has become much reduced." <-- really..? I still see my grand mother [kowtows] to some figurines in her house when visit her. Uncited ftw... 203.206.20.175 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinyin

The pinyin of this article title is incorrect - it should be ketow or ketou, not kowtow. 24.91.251.8 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kowtow is an English word. --Voidvector (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeps swapping between pinyin and something else. Poorly researched. Athanasius V (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Foiled?

Foiled how? Does this mean they were refused access to the Emperor? Leushenko (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

citation

朝鮮王朝實錄 宣祖 83卷, 29年( 1596 丙申 / 萬曆 24年) 12月 7日 " 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。"

This is actually wrong. These sentences are about 1596-12-07, however, the citation is about 1450-07-17. We cannot examine the source.--Mochi (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You misguide the content is wrong, but actually the link is wrongly linked. I update it to be correct. If you use IE with PC and install several required programs from the website, you can confirm it yourself. Anyway, thank you for letting editors know of this.

冊封日本正使等官五軍營等揭衙門署都督僉事楊等, 爲完報東封事, 職於本年六月十五日, 自釜山登舟渡海, 已經具本題知訖。 一路險阻, 風波艱危異常, 仰仗皇上威靈, 幸得保全軀命, 至八月初四日, 始抵和泉州, 乃豐臣秀吉預備接待使臣之所, 距日本國新都一百三十餘里。 秀吉屢差倭將長盛、三成等, 持書迎慰, 頗知竭誠。 欽命補給龍節、誥命、詔勑等件, 於閏八月十八日方到, 職等卽時率領隨行員役, 詣舟次, 叩頭迎捧, 安定職寓。 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。 受封訖, 嗣至職等寓所, 再申感激天恩, 及慰勞職等, 涉歷勞頓等語。 職等不敢久留, 卽辭, 以初四日捧節回至和泉州, 見今唯待調集鉛隻, 卽趲程西還, 復命闕下。 爲此除具題外, 理合具題。 萬曆二十四年九月初五日。

--Appletrees (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"望闕行五拜三叩頭禮"

Does it mean that Hideyoshi kneeled 5 times on the ground and hit his head 3 times on the ground before the eye of the Ming enboy? I don't think so. It actually means that Hideyoshi skipped ("闕" sometimes means "deficiency" in Chinese) the process of kneeling 5 times and hitting his head 3 times. Since Hideyoshi had old sore on his knee, he just couldn't drop his knee. Samuel Hawley, the author of The Imjin War, also writes "He (Hideyoshi) was simply unable to do so (keel) because of a painful boil on his knee." at page 417. So I don't think Hideyoshi is a suitable example of "Kowtow" here.

--129.93.206.148 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're carefully following the cited link, you would find that historians thankfully translate it into modern Korean language. According to the translation, he did that. The addressed information has nothing to do with that "I don't think so". Of course, historians are much more reliable and credible than you. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know historians are much more reliable and credible than you and me. And according to historians like Samuel Hawley, Hideyoshi didn't (please read the above book). I have read many books about Japanese Invasion of Korea in late 16th century including History of Ming, none of them say that Hideyoshi did kneel to the Ming enboy. Do you have any other source which supports your idea? Since we have two sources which contradict each other, we need more sources to verify, right? 129.93.206.148 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you let me know of the ISBN? Besides, what is the "enboy"? (you seem to be a non-native English speaker like me) That is the author's interpretation on the original document, and you seem to only point out on the one Chinese character instead of reading the whole text. Is your source internationally regarded as a settled claim? I will look forward to your answer.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the ISBN of The Imjin War. The number is ISBN 89-954424-2-5. "Enboy" is actually misspelling of "envoy". Thank you for letting me know that(and yes, I am not a non-native English speaker). I don't know whether The Imjin War is regarded as a settled claim or not, but the book seems to have good reputation by critics. I found this book at my university, so I hope you would find the book easily. I also continue searching other books about diplomacy between the Ming dynasty and the Toyotomi regime.129.93.206.148 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. So you're a native speaker? (according to your double negative) Anyway, I will look into the bok. However, the original site is not translated by one historian unlike your source. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 2 days. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Neutral point of view

• hideyoshi kowtow[1] ok?

• Injo kowtow[2] No?

Please have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--Pabopa (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposing to the inclusion of the both case. However, Hideyoshi is more widely known figure in English speaking world, so somebody may put it long time ago. Please read WP:Notability. That's why I did not revert your edit even though you appeared to be suspicious (you created your account today and appeared right after some disruptive Japanese OCN troll were blocked for personal attacks) I also caught up that you even violated our WP:COPYVIO policy as uploading a magazine image to Commons. However, you made edit wars over multiple articles as even violating 3RR twice. That is not good for the articles. --Caspian blue (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hideyoshi is more widely known figure in English speaking world.

source please.--Pabopa (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC) r edit nor oppose to include the both cases. Rather I explained why the information of Hideyoshi has been addressed on the article for a long Please stop hiding a thing inconvenient for Korea.--Pabopa (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What did I hide it, please don't use such insulting language. Here are quick google returns for that.

• • 10,700 for King Injo 10,700 hits
  • 445,000 for Hideyoshi--Caspian blue (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 4,370 for King Injo Korea
  • 196,000 for Hideyoshi Japan

• Google book result
  • 1 - 20 of 556 on Injo King
  • Books 1 - 20 of 2140 on Hideyoshi

You can't deny the "common" knowledge.--Caspian blue (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

good job. but It was meaningless investigation.Please read WP:Notability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--Pabopa (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You changed the initial writing (I'm upset) Since you say that it is a meaningless investigation why you required "source" for their notability. That is contradictory of you. You made me waste my time searching them to show the comparison between their notability. WP:Notability is what I suggested to read. Please be civil and give your "meaningful rationale for notability and your multiple edit waring". --Caspian blue (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pabopa is a bad faith editor. all of his edits are disruptive. and i already said, it was a surrender of war. not diplomatic relation. OK? Manacpowers (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Notability,

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.

Please stop hiding a thing inconvenient for Korea

We should write both hideyoshi kowtow[3] and Injo kowtow[4].

Please have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Pabopa (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I politely asked you should not say like the accusative and rude language if you want to discuss with me. Besides, I did neither revert any of your edit but even complied to your request for showing sources for their notabilities. My reasoning is which one is more known in English speaking world. You required the evidence and I searched and presented and you insult me. Besides, did I even object to the fact or revert you after the new info on King Injo has been put into the article? Your diffs unbalanced and unwarranted because that is pre-addition of the new one. You should apologize for your accusation against me. You treat me like a dog for fun. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

it is not NPOV problem. it was not a diplomatic relation. also it was only one times happen. Manacpowers (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability,

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it.

i do not think it is a worth to notice.

and it is a worthless and bogus sentence. Manacpowers (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Notability--Pabopa (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not involve in your edit wars further since the three have different opinions on this. You and Manac would handle this dispute with each other. However, Pabopa, I ask you that please do not use such inappropriate languages to people. That does not earn your favor from people. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Again? According to Wikipedia:Notability,

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it.

i do not think it is a worthy of notice.

and it is a worthless and bogus sentence. this is not a injo kowtow article. this is a chinese culture kowtow. and Japanese hideyoshi is more notable person than injo. so it is a good example.

according to your logic, ryukyu kowtow, vietnamese kowotow... all of world kowtow must include in it? only one example is enough.

it was not a diplomatic relation. also it was only one times happend. Manacpowers (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ryukyu kowtow ok, vietnamese kowotow ok, all ok. It becomes the detailed encyclopedia. NO Japanese(hideyoshi) only. Please consider Japanese feeling. Please have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. When the quantity of the article became a lot, we're that the quantity should be considered.--Pabopa (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

i already said, this is not a "who kowtowed..." article. it is a "Chinese culture kowtow". all fo your example are pretty bogus. i do not think it is a worthy of notice. this is a chinese culture kowtow. and Japanese hideyoshi is more notable person than injo. so it is a good example. We must avoid out of topic. ok? this is chiese culture kowtow. also japanese hideyoshi is 50 times popular person than injo. we don't need bogus sentence in article. Manacpowers (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We must write the Korean example which was a Chinese dependency first.Korea which did toadyism in Chinese culture.--Pabopa (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese dependency? toadyism? there is no relation topic. don't input bogus sentence. Manacpowers (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is chinese cultire kowtow, and we do not need your bogus sentence. this is not a "who kowtowed..." article. hideyoshi is more notable person than injo. that example is enought. and injo case are difference with hideyoshi. Manacpowers (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Notability--Pabopa (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

there is no rules that "We must write the Korean example which was a Chinese dependency first.Korea which did toadyism in Chinese culture." bad faith feeling. Manacpowers (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

bad faith feeling.

Please stop hiding a thing inconvenient for Korea--Pabopa (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

hey, this is a chinese culture article. not korea article. we don't need bogus sentence.

Again, this is chinese cultire kowtow, and we do not need your bogus sentence. this is not a "who kowtowed..." article. hideyoshi is more notable person than injo. that example is enought. and injo case are difference with hideyoshi. Manacpowers (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean kowtow

in 1636,Injo who king of the Korean Joseon Dynasty had to kneel 3 times on the ground and hit his head 9 times on the ground (三拜九叩頭禮), to show his vassal status to Huang Taiji who the first Emperor of the Qing Dynasty in China.[2]The Samjeondo Monument is a monument marking Korea's submission to China's Qing Dynasty .

• source

仁祖 34卷, 15年 (1636) 正月30日 (in Chinese character). Annals of Joseon Dynasty. “龍胡入報, 出傳汗言曰: “前日之事, 欲言則長矣。 今能勇決而來, 深用喜幸。” 上答曰: “天恩罔極。” 龍胡等引入, 設席於壇下北面, 請上就席, 使淸人臚唱。 上行三拜九叩頭禮。”

Please mention this. --Pabopa (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1st of all, this is not a Samjeondo Monument article. 2nd, this is a chinese culture kowtow article. don't pushing POV trolling. hey, this is a chinese culture article. not korea article. we don't need bogus sentence. Again, this is chinese cultire kowtow, and we do not need your bogus sentence. this is not a "who kowtowed..." article. hideyoshi is more notable person than injo. that example is enought. and injo case are difference with hideyoshiManacpowers (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Kowtow In Imperial Chinese protocol, the kowtow was performed before the Emperor of China hey, this is a chinese culture article. not japanese article. Samjeondo Monument[5] We should give a Korean example having a monument.--Pabopa (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is not a samjundo article. OK? This is a Chinese culture. you edit is nothing but a make bad image to korea. injo in not a notable person to history. ryukyu king kowtow to China. vietnam king kowtow to china. Japan kamfaku kowtow to chinese envoy.... all east asia countries kowtow to china. we do not need your bogus sentence. one example is ok. Manacpowers (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC) also 'samjundo...' is not a Imperial Chinese protocol. 1st of all, in that time, Qing was not a China. 2nd, that is not a protocol or diplomatic relation. that is the surrender of war. and after that, there is not record that joseon king kowtow to Qing. Injo was not a notable person. we do not need bogus sentence.Manacpowers (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

仁祖 34卷 三拜九叩頭禮. Injo who king of the Korean Joseon Dynasty had to kowtow--Webcamera (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, I really don't see why it should not be mentioned that the Korean king also had to kowtow to the emperor? If anything, it's more representative, as Korea was an actual Qing vassal state.

Also, what was the context for Hideyoshi kowtowing, and is there a second reliable source for this? According Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), in 1596 Hideyoshi was home in Japan and his meeting with the Ming ambassador was a disaster, so there hardly seems any reason for such an action. Jpatokal (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

well, as i know, Korea was an actual Qing vassal state. but this incident happend only 1 time.

and i checked reference, this record from annals of joseon dynasty(3rd party history record), and Chinese envoy said like that. so, it is a more reliable. and all east asia kowtow to china. (ryukyu, vietanm...) and you know Japan was a real vassal state of China. Manacpowers (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese shogun Hideyoshi's kowtowing

Err, Jpatokal, your contest to the description on Japanese shogun, Hideyoshi's kowtowing with the same source is a bit funny. I think the two cases can be included for equality, but your doubt only on Hideyoshi's kowtowing seems Japanese POV. Since you don't trust the document acknowledged by UNESCO, your reasoning is a contradiction. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

two cases can be included? I don't think so. this is chinese culture page. not who kowtowing page. also his descriptiion was wrong. It was a surrender of war. and after this incidents, there is no record exist that Joseon king kowtow to Qing. injo is not a notable person. hideyoshi is 50 times popular than injo. only one example is enough. hideyoshi kowtow to record at 3rd party country's history book. so, it is more reliable.Manacpowers (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The two cases were surrender of wars, so just take a compromise. Please doon't edit war any more. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

this is not chinese culture page.this is kowtow page.and both hideyoshi and injo did kowtow.--Pabopa (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

injo case was a surrender of war, not diplomatic relation. Manacpowers (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

also, your dissuptive behavior and 2ch meta puppeting is not a good faith edit. Manacpowers (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the two are eventually taking a break for the tendentious edit warring. Manac, if you don't have a conclusive evidence confirmed by RFCU, or SSP file, don't say like that in public. Pabopa, please don't continue edit warring with him. Now the article could be in peace at least for one day.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over Hideyoshi's Kowtow

As I promised, I have found several other sources about diplomacy between Hideyoshi and the Ming dynasty in 1596. Here's what I have know.

• 1. Japanese perspective

Taikoki (太閤記), a biography of Hideyoshi Totoyomi which was published in 1626, describe the interview between Hideyoshi and the Ming envoy. According to Taikoki, Saishō Jōtai (西笑承兌), a Japanese Buddist priest who worked as Hideyoshi’s diplomatic adviser, declined the order of Kowtow by the Ming envoy because of his master's old wound. Bukejiki (武家事紀), a collected historical records of Samurai clans which was published in 1678, also have the paragraph which means the same thing (武家事紀巻十一続集譜伝六豊臣記丙申十二年九月一日・二日).

• 2. Chinese perspective

History of Ming (明史), the official history of the Ming dynasty which was completed in 1739, has an article about the matter. It doesn't go into details of the interview, but at least it is clear that Hideyoshi refused to become a vassal of Ming dynasty according to following sentence;

九月乙未,楊方亨至日本,平秀吉不受封,復侵朝鮮。

新校本明史本紀卷二十本紀第二十神宗一萬曆二十四年

It could be roughly translated as “In September Yang Fangheng (note by translator: the Ming envoy) reached Japan. Hideyosi Taira refused to become a vassal, and invaded Joseon again.”

• 3. Korean perspective

Annals of Joseon Dynasty (朝鮮王朝實錄) has an article. It says that Hideyoshi kneeled 5 times and hit his head 3 times on the ground toward the palace of the Emperor of Ming to show his vassal status. According to the article, after kowtow Hideyoshi said that he was deeply indepted to the Ming emperor and rewarded the the envoy.

冊封日本正使等官五軍營等揭衙門署都督僉事楊等, 爲完報東封事, 職於本年六月十五日, 自釜山登舟渡海, 已經具本題知訖。 一路險阻, 風波艱危異常, 仰仗皇上威靈, 幸得保全軀命, 至八月初四日, 始抵和泉州, 乃豐臣秀吉預備接待使臣之所, 距日本國新都一百三十餘里。 秀吉屢差倭將長盛、三成等, 持書迎慰, 頗知竭誠。 欽命補給龍節、誥命、詔勑等件, 於閏八月十八日方到, 職等卽時率領隨行員役, 詣舟次, 叩頭迎捧, 安定職寓。 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。 受封訖, 嗣至職等寓所, 再申感激天恩, 及慰勞職等, 涉歷勞頓等語。 職等不敢久留, 卽辭, 以初四日捧節回至和泉州, 見今唯待調集鉛隻, 卽趲程西還, 復命闕下。 爲此除具題外, 理合具題。 萬曆二十四年九月初五日。

朝鮮王朝實錄宣祖83卷,29年(1596丙申/萬曆24年)12月7日

I also found that Hwang Sin (黄慎), a Korean envoy who was sent to Japan in 1596 by Joseon Dynasty, wrote travel journal which is called 日本往還日記. But unfortunately, I couldn't find this one. If anybody knows about the journal, please share with us here.

• 4. Western perspective

Luís Fróis, a Portuguese missionary who stayed in Japan from 1563 to 1597, recorded the meeting between Hideyoshi and the Ming envoy. According to Fróis, Hideyoshi behaved madly at the meeting because of the order of surrender. Here's second-hand quote from Hawley's book.

According to Luis Frois, the taiko "flew into such a Passion and Rage, that he was perfectly out of himself. He froth'd and foam'd at the Mouth, he ranted and tore till his Head smoak'd like Fire, and his Body was all over in a dropping Sweat."

Samuel Hawley,The Imjin War, 419.

It also says that Saishō Jōtai had to calm Hideyoshi down to protect the Ming envoy. Even after his passion was gone, Hideyoshi was still angry at the declaration and sent the Ming envoy away with rude manner.

• 5. Modern historian perspective

Historians who study East Asian history in 16th century achieve a close consensus on the matter. Walter Dening, John Whitney Hall, Mary Elizabeth Berry, Stephen Turnbull, Samuel Hawley and Kyoko Yamaoka write some books about Hideyoshi or Japanese Invasion of Korea, and they all say that Hideyoshi rejected the order to become a vassal of Ming dynasty (and of course he didn’t kneel to Ming envoy). As far as I know, there is no modern historian who relies on the article of Annals of Joseon Dynasty when they write about diplomacy between Hideyoshi and the Ming dynasty.

On Bunroku 5.9.1 (October 22, 1596), however, all difficulties appeared for the moment to be surmounted when Hideyoshi received the new envoys from the Ming Empire, Yang Fang-heng (gazetted as ambassador vice Ambassador Li, who had absconded) and Shen Wei-cing (the chief Chinese accomplice in the affair of the forged letter, now promoted to deputy ambassador) in audience at Osaka Castle. Hideyoshi showed nothing but pleasure at the delivery of his kingly robes and seal. The sole discord in well-orchestrated spectacle was struck when he refused to kneel as a sign of respect before the imperial edict of investiture, but that dissonance was quickly resolved when a resourceful attendant improvised the excuse that a boil in the joint prevented his master from genuflecting. At a banquet the next day, Hideyoshi appeared with the crown and scepter in his Chinese costume before his paladins, some forty of them also freshly promoted to Chinese official ranks and richly caparisoned in Chinese ceremonial garb. At the end of the festive entertainments, he had his expert in diplomatic correspondence, the Zen priest Saishō Jōtai (1548-1605), read the message from Chinese emperor. From that reading, Hideyoshi realized that this imperial rescript contained not one word about his seven demands and was nothing more than an instrument for binding him to vassalage. He burst into a rage, abused Konishi, threatened the Ming ambassadors with death, and then dismissed them abruptly. Having thus rung down the curtain on that tragicomedy of the false surrender document, the dupe of the show, Hideyoshi, was left susceptible to the argument of Katō Kiyomasa and others who maintained that to resume the war was the only way to expunge the humiliation. The Korean people would have to pay the price for a stratagem that had failed.

John Whitney Hall, The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 4: Early Modern Japan, 284-285

Ming envoy Yang Fangheng and vice-envoy Shen Weijing were granted an audience by Hideyoshi at Osaka Catle on October 22. They proceeded to the castle in the company with the Korean delegation under Hwang Sin, grudgingly sent by the government in Seoul. When they arrived outside the fortress’s huge gate, a messenger came out to meet them with word that Koreans were not be allowed inside. Hideyoshi, he said, was upset that the Koreans had not sent the two royal princes and a top government minister as he had demanded, but only on an official of lowly rank. The undoubtedly distraught Hwang was thus left waiting outside while the Chinese delegation entered alone. Inside the castle the Chinese were ushered into a great reception hall and brought before a platform set in front of a yellow screen. Yang stood at the fore. Shen took up a position a step behind, holding up the patent of investiture and gold seal reverently before him. After a time the yellow screen opened and small, wizened old man stepped onto the platform above the Ming delegation, supporting himself with a cane, accompanied by the two attendants dressed in blue. This was Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the taiko himself. He nodded to the Chinese envoys, then turned to the crowd of daimyo present and asked why these visitors did not prostrate themselves before him in the customary way. Konishi Yukinaga quietly explained that these were distinguished envoys from China and could not be expected to do such a thing. The Chinese, meanwhile, were waiting for Hideyoshi to prostrate himself before the imperial edict that Shen Weijing continued to hold aloft. Did this barbarian warlord not understand the sacred nature of the document? Or was he delivering a studied insult? Again one of Hideyoshi’s quick-thinking attendants stepped forward to smooth things out. The taiko did not intend to any disrespect by not keeling, he communicated to the Ming. He was simply unable to do so because of a painful boil on his knee. The gross misunderstanding that existed between Hideyoshi and the Chinese was thus papered over for one more day, with each thinking the other was willing to submit. The investiture document was duly handed over, then the gold seal, the crown, and the silk robes, and the Ming delegation retired.

Samuel Hawley,The Imjin War, 416-417.

• Conclusion

There are a lot of historical records which contradicts the article from Annals of Joseon Dynasty, and many historians are doubtful about Hideyoshi's Kowtow. It is clear that Hideyoshi is not suitable example here.

• Reference

1. 大阪市参事会編集『大阪市史第一』大正二年十二月二十日発行.140.
2. Hawley, Samuel (2005).The Imjin War, Seoul: The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 416-419. ISBN 8995442425
3. Dening, Walter (1955). The Life of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tokyo: The Hakuhodo Press Tokyo. 276-277.
4. Hall, John Whitney (1988). The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 4: Early Modern Japan, Cambridge University Press. 284-285. ISBN 0521223555.
5. Berry, Mary Elizabath (1982). Hideyoshi, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674390253.
6. Turnbull, Steven Richard (1977). The Samurai: A Military History, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. 226.
7. Edited by Weems, Clarence Norwood (1962). Hulbert's History of Korea Volume 2, Hillary House Publishers Ltd. 28.
8. 山室恭子著『黄金太閤―夢を演じた天下びと』1992年発行 中央公論新社 ISBN 4121011058

76.84.159.240 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you provide inline citations? I found a lot of opposite sources to your claim. Japan wanted to trade China via the tributary system. Besides, the Western scholars' interpretations seem not to refer to the "kowtowing". According to one of your sources, why Hideyoshi was so angry? Hideyoshi was still angry at the declaration and sent the Ming envoy away with rude manner. What was the rude manner? Can you clarify your sources, so that I can confirm you claim and save my time. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I already proposed the reference, so why don't you see by yourself? I also want to save my time to directly quote enormous sentences from the books. Besides, some of the books can be viewed at Google books so it won't take much time. If you say that you found a lot of opposite sources to my claim, so please share with me here. The reason why Hideyoshi became angry was so obvious that he misunderstood that the Ming envoy were sent to surrender him. Since the Ming envoy Shen Wheijing (沈惟敬)and Japanese general Yukinaga Konishi (小西行長) both cheated their masters to stop stupid war, and they made up the false diplomatic documents. Hideyoshi and the Ming dynasty both believed that his enemy were ready to surrender at that time, but the plot was finally broken at the meeting (Saishō Jōtai red "true" declaration instead of reading "false" one). Hideyoshi was so mad that he almost killed the Ming envoy but his staff stopped him,so he made the Ming envoy leave the room. Later Shen Wheijing was executed by the Ming dynasty because of false diplomacy and Yukinaga Konishi was also nealy killed by Hideyoshi (Konishi promised to regain his honor in the Second Invasion to Korea so Hideyoshi finally pardoned him). Samuel Hawley's book goes details into these false diplomacy so it would help you (by the way, you promised to look into the book last time, and it seems you haven't done yet. You are really dissapointing me). 76.84.159.240 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why a burden of proof is a hard task for every editors, so if you want to take out the example, you must try harder showing the citations instead of the childish attack. That is a courtesy if you really want to save our time to discuss and confirm the sources. I'm very disappointed by your such attitude. As you see, some of Japanese anon's or newbies have appeared to make edit warrs over the Korean history related articles. So I've been busy dealing with the cases. You have not said that you would return today after 7 days. I only said that I would try to find the book (I can't except buying it from online book stores) Well, I guess you would also give me the same time. One thing I would say, autography or Taikoki written by close people are not regarded reliable sources because they would hide ugly facts and exaggerate good or model cases. Hideyoshi started his career as a toilet cleaner of Nobugawa according the Annal of Joseon Dynasty, however, I don't think Taikoki has that info. Anyway, be patient and if you can, providing citations would be great, since you already read them. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean History of Ming and notes by Luís Fróis were also written by close people? The Ming dynasty was Hideyoshi's nemesis and Luís Fróis often attacked Hideyoshi's personality in his book because Hideyoshi banned Catholic in Japan. There is no reason they would hide ugly facts of Hideyoshi when they wrote about him. I also don't understand why you believe that Hideyoshi started his career as a toilet cleaner. There is no such a source in Japan and China, and even records by Western missionaries. Besides, Taikoki says Hideyoshi started as a Nobunaga's lesser servant. It is famous that Nobunaga recognized him because he warmed Nobunaga's Zōri. If Taikoki were wtitten in the purpose of hiding ugly past of Hideyoshi, there is no reason why the writer wrote about it. Anyway, I am sorry to hear that you are busy taking care of Korean related article or whatever. And one more thing, what kind of citations are you expecting from me? You want to me quote the whole paragraph or chapter about the meeting from the books? I worry about a literary property when citing sources. Be specific, please. 76.84.159.240 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please carefully read what I said to you. The biography by close people is only one attached to here: The first one. The second one is an essay from a Ming envoy, not a biography. It is true that Hideyoshi started his career as a least servant, and Annals of Joseon Dynasty recorded him as a toilet worker. Nobugawa saved his life from him facing near starvation on a street, and Hideyoshi asked him a job and promised to the lord that whatever he would do to please him. Korean studies is not much active like Chinese or Japanese studies, so I don't wonder why Western academics miss that part. If you don't believe me, I would paste that info for you the next time. Actually this article is not my priority. I am still busy dealing with childish Japanese 2channel dolls and other important articles. Can you quote relevant info from the Japanese books or books that do not permit preview to here. "Quote" with a proper quote box is not copyviolation.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. I would go back to the library and quote relevant paragraphs here in a week or two (if you want translation from Japanese sources, tell me). Besides, I believe what you say that there is an article about Hideyoshi in Annals of Joseon Dynasty. What I just don't believe is the Annals of Joseon Dynasty when it talks about Hideyoshi. Since Hideyoshi invaded Joseon and destroyed their civilization, it is natural that they would write badly about Hideyoshi. As we already talked above, the article of Hideyoshi in the Annals often contradicts other historical documents in Japan, China and other western countries. You say that western academics may ignore Korean studies bacause Korean studies are minor in the west, but don't underestimate the influence of Korean studies. Samuel Hawley (perhaps you are tired of hearing his name, but I keep going) studies Korean history and he relies a lot on the Annals of Joseon Dynasty when he writes about its history. He even critisizes other historians like Stephen Turnbull because he think they usually ignore Korean documents. However, even Hawley "miss" Hideyoshi's infamous matters from the Annals when he writes about Hideyoshi. Can you guess the reason? Anyway, I look forward to seeing your impression about his book. Don't buy one, just go to libraries. Since the book was also publised in S. Korea, you would find one easily. As far as I know, it is the best book written about Japanese invasions of Korea in English. 76.84.159.240 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

no. hideyoshi kowtow record in Annals of Joseon Dynasty, it is a 3rd party record. also injo kowtow record at annals of Joseon dynasty. You know, Japan was a vassal state of China , since Han dynasty. Manacpowers (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

i heavily doubt reference are really relation with this article. Hideyoshi kowtow to china envoy, after that, he broke rule. and invasion korea. Manacpowers (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

hiseyoshi kowtow is not dispute at all. Manacpowers (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section, since it's obviously in dispute and more importantly nearly irrelevant to this article, which is not about Hideyoshi or Sino-Japanese relations or whether Japanese or Koreans have smaller penises, but about the act of kowtowing. It's a Chinese custom, so surely we can find a famous yet totally undisputed Chinese case? Jpatokal (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The kowtow was often performed in diplomatic relations as well. According to Annals of Joseon Dynasty, in 1596, Japanese Daimyo Toyotomi Hideyoshi who unified Japan had to kneel 5 times on the ground and hit his head 3 times on the ground (五拜三叩头礼), to show his vassal status to the Chinese Ming Dynasty.

well, this is cleary recorded annal of joseon dynasty. i don't see any source that hideyoshi kowtow is dispute. and Japan hideyoshi 50 times notable person than injo. [6] one example is enough. Manacpowers (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the quotes above? Eg. "The sole discord in well-orchestrated spectacle was struck when he refused to kneel as a sign of respect" (emphasis mine). So yes, the account given by the Annals of Joseon Dynasty are very much disputed. Jpatokal (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections--Pabopa (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I think it's odd to use an example whose historical accuracy is very much in doubt. Jpatokal (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hideyoshi kotowed. after that, hideyoshi broke installed rule with Ming. however, 1596 kowtow was fact. later he break peace treaty. and if you heavily doubt anals of joseond dyansty record, then injo and samjundo was not a exist fact at all. it recorded as a anals of joseon dynasty.Manacpowers (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

any evidence that 1596 hideyoshi did not kowtow? it was true. no record that hideyoshi kowtow is fake. avoid original research. this fact recorded in 3rd party history book which written by 3rd party goverment. it is a reliable. even he invaded korea again, He did it. fact is, several month later, hideyoshi changed his attitude. however, kowtow is fact. because it WAS a custom of east asia countries. Japan was a same and Japan was not a exceptional case.(and China dynasty think Japan is their Vassal or babarian.) any clear evidence that hideyoshi did not kowtow to china? in anciet times, all east asia countries kowtow to china. even korea, vietnam, ryukyu.... Japan was a low sino-grade country.(lower than Korea) it was a nothing strange action at all. this is not dispute at all. Manacpowers (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I already posted several sources which say that Hideyoshi didn't become a vassal of the Ming dynasty and refused to kneel before the Ming envoy. Actually, almost all sources oppose the article of the Annals of Joseon Dynasty and there is no modern historian who thinks that Hideyoshi did kowtow. You think that the Annal of Joseon Dynasty is 3rd party history book so it's reliable, but it's not true. Since Hideyoshi was a mortal enemy of Joseon, it is possible that historians of Joseon wrote about Hideyoshi badly. Besides, when historical records from both countries directly involved in the diplomacy agree with each other (I mean the Ming and Japan here), why do we have to rely on "3rd party history book"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.159.240 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

it is possible that historians of Joseon wrote about Hideyoshi badly? NO. anals of joseon dynasty record history recod for every days by perfectly reliable source. so it is impossible that rcorded as badly. even Joseon King couldn't change anals of joseon dynasty record. don't put on originial research. your counterpart source are so vague... cleary, hideyoshi invaded korea again, However, there is no clear evidence that Hideyoshi did not knwtow to china. when hideyoshi meet chinese envoy, he did it. after invading is a different story. hideyoshi kowtowed. however, Hideyoshi changed his attitude. and invaded korea again. also Japan was lowest grade vassal state of China. I already said, Japan was a low grade vassal state, and Japan was not a exceptional case.(and China dynasty thought that Japan is their Vassal or babaric state. i can prove it.) This fact is not dispute at all. Hideyoshi re-invade recorded in anals of joseon dynasty, too.(like your source mentioned) i already said, anals of joseon dynasty record asia recod for every days. it mean, this history book is NOT a 'later maded history book'. Unlinke Japan China history record, it is a instance time record(real time record). even joseon king couldn't see his record. it is possibly most neutral and reliable history record in east Asia. so, Hideyoshi did knowtow, but later changed his attitude. historians of Joseon wrote about Hideyoshi badly? hey! even anals of joseon dynasty recorded that joseon king kowtow to china. anals of joseon dynasty is a perfectly neutral history source. even recorded Joseon' shame. and ancient times, all east kowtow to china. this was nothing strancge action. in 16 century, any foreign country king's 'kowtow to china' is a common thing. is not a badly record... it WAS a custom. Manacpowers (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean all things written in the Annal of Joseon dynasty are 100% true even if all other sources oppose to the article and no historian agrees with it? I know that the Annal is somewhat reliable historical record, but that doesn't mean everything written in the Annal is true without doubt. All historical records deserve to be verified through comparing other records or archaelogical evidences when considering it is true or not. If the Annal is so reliable, why there is no modern historian say that Hideyoshi did kowtow? Can you answer? Besides, you said that the Annal is "a instance time record", but it is not true at least when talking about the meeting of 1596, because there was no Korean attending at the meeting. The Korean envoy Hwang Sin was not allowed to attend the meeting because of his low rank (please read the above citation from the book of Samuel Hawley. If you can't understand what it means because of lack of vocabulary, please ask your friends who can read English). When he wasn't there, how could he record the instant time record? Can you answer? 76.84.159.240 (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't answer any of my questions above and just raise such a fuss. As I told you, none of citation above is my original reseacrch, they are all taken from authorized sources. You want some evidence that Korean people was not there? Just read the citation from the book of Samuel Hawley. It says "Hwang was thus left waiting". Can't you understand English or just pretend not to understand? And what does "hideyoshi do not like 封" mean? You don't understand traditional Chinese, do you? "平秀吉不受封" means "Hideyoshi refused to become a vassal" as I translated above. As kowtow was performed to show vassal satus, there is no reason Hideyoshi did kowtow when he refused to become a vassal.76.84.159.240 (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

don't pushing your original research. "Hwang was thus left waiting" it does not mean he did not see hideyoshi performance.

ist of all, Hideyoshi kowtow was nothing strange action. 2nd don't pushing your original research. 3rd, any evidence that Joseon people was not there? 4th, that record from chinese envoy. 5th, according to korean academic source, once Hideyoshi accept it. and later invade again. 6th. any clear ancient history record that hideyoshi did not kowtow?

let's avoid original research and 2nd class sorce(your samule book can't represent 100% truth)...

We must analyze 1st class source which reliable anient history records.

Chinese source 明史, Korea source Anals of joseon dynasty. these history record written by their goverments. so, it is goverment document, and it is a reliable.

"平秀吉不受封(hideyoshi was not accept 封)" from 明史. don't put your original research. this mean is not hideyoshi did not kowtow. Hideyoshi oppoesed 封. it is fact. however, Once hideyoshi accepted it. and later he break it.

from 明史, and anals of joseon dynasty source(3rd party record), we can conclude that hideyoshi kowtowed to front of chinese envoy. but 5 month Later(almost), hideyoshi abrogated a negotiation one-sidedly. and invaded korea again.

Japanese source omitted this fact by their nationalism. they try to hide this. and Japanese nationalist historian says, "Hedeyoshi upset by chinese envoy, and invaded korea again instantly(??) !" but, fact is, "Hideyoshi accepted it. Later, hideyoshi decide to abrogated a negotiation one-sidedly. and 5 months later, he invaded korea again.Manacpowers (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Again. Japan was a lowest grade Vassal state of China. Japan was not a exceptional case. China dynasty thought that Japan is their Vassal or babaric state. i can prove it. so, hideyoshi kowtow was nothing strange action. no evidence says, hideyoshi did not kowtow. also, this record in reliable ancient history record. any counterpart history record says, hideyoshi did not kowtow? hideyoshi kowtowed. and 5 months later(almost) he invaded again. however, many japanese fabrication history ignored this fact. "Hedeyoshi upset by chinese envoy, and invaded korea again instantly(??)" according to your logic, "Hedeyoshi upset by chinese envoy for 5 months, and invaded korea again instantly??" Manacpowers (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you say at all. You call these citations above "japanese fabrication history", but Samuel Hawley and John Whitney Hall are American historians without doubt, and these citations are not my research or something. Anyway, it is now clear that you are too stubborn to listen to opposite, I would bring this topic to RFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.159.240 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

well, Japanese. you know RFC. cleary, you are not a newbie user. however, your first edit date was a 18:52, 30 July 2008. i heavily doubt that your are really new user. what is your other accounts?

1st of all, we can't confirm that your source book written like that. 2nd, if samuel's book written like that, however, it does not matched original history book. fact is... there is no ancient history record detailed like samuel's book. please show me ancient history record which matched with samuel's book.

    ancient history record(very original source) vs. modern book.

which is the more reliable history record? i don't drop samuel to a lower rank historian. but do you really can says, everything sentence from samuel's book is absoluth truth? again, eveything sentence from samuel's book is absoluth truth? if you believe that eveything sentence from samuel's book is absoluth truth, then show me ancient history record.(real original record)

You think "Everything that comes from Japanese favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." huh?

ancient history record from China, Korea, Japan... says, Hideyoshi want from "installed by China". in 1596, When he met envoy, he kowtowed to front of chinese envoy. But, it was not satisfied him. later he broke it, and opposed installed by china. Manacpowers (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know RFC since I have an original account in Japanese Wikipedia. If you are really suspicious that I have multiple account, go find it. You would find nothing though. Anyway, I am ready to answer your questions. First, you said that you can't confirm source book as quoted above. All I can say is just go to library and see book by yourself. If you don't believe the citations, that's your problem, not mine. Second, what Samuel's and Hall's book don't match is not an original history book but the article of the Annal of Joseon dynasty. When they wrote about the meeting of 1596 they relied on Japanese and Chinese sources and just ignore the Annal because the Annals contradicts other historical record such as Taikoki or History of Ming. I already posted those historical records that didn't match the Annals. Go check yourself. And I don't think all things from Samuel's book is true. However, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We can't say that all things from Samuel's book are true, but at least it is regarded as a reliable source. We can't ignore it for the reason that it dosen't match the other historical document. Third, I never think "Everything that comes from Japanese favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." Actually, the article that Hideyoshi didn't become a vassal of the Ming dynasty can be found in not only Japanese sources but also Chinese and Western sources. You may want to believe that only Japanese sources said so, but truth is, historical records from all countries except Korea agree with each other.76.84.159.240 (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

no no no. i can't find your IP edit from japanese wikipedia. cleary, you are not new user in englsh wikipedia.

yeah, this case is simple.

• please show me ancient history record.(real original record) which exacly matched with your favred source.

• please show me ancient history record.(real original record) which hideyoshi did not kowtow to china.

Smauel's book is 2nd class source. and it is a MODERN BOOK. and it written in 21 century.

However, Anals of Joseon dynasty record was a Reliable Ancient history record and it recorded in 1596.

This history record and its document acknowledged by UNESCO. I never heard samul's book acknowledged by UNESCO.

no Chinese, Japanese source says, He did not kowtow to China.

Chinese source 明史 said, "平秀吉不受封". (hideyoshi was not accept 封) it is not mean hideyoshi did not kowtow. this expression is can interpret as a "Hideyoshi installed by ming, but shortly after he broke 封(and 封 and kowtow are difference)" so, 明史 record can't support your side claim.

太閤記 book written in 1626. and it is a purely Japanese POV and lack of neutriality. and it is not a Goverment book. However, Anals of joseon dynasty record is 1596 and 3rd aprty country's goverment history book. (exactly same time record. goverment level book)

he did kowtow, however, he was not satisfied it. and later break agreement. and i can prove it Japan was a vassal state of China, if you want. Don't hide this fact.

I don't says, Samuel's book is not a reliable source. but it is hard to says, evey sentence from samuel's book is absoluth truth. because there is no ancient (original) history record described detailed like samule's book. it possibly samul filled his contents by Japanese historian's "guess".

but truth is, original historical records from all countries except Japan agree with each other. "Japan was a Vassal State of China."

at least, “朝鮮王朝實錄 宣祖 83卷, 29年( 1596 丙申 / 萬曆 24年) 12月 7日] " 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。"” This description supported by ancient history record. However, your claim supported Japanese favored Modern Book and Original reserch.

This is not dispute, if you doubt that anals of joseon dynasty record, that is your choice. however, it is a cleary recorded in reliable ancient history book. this is not a original research. so, this description is not violated any Wikipedia rule.(i don't know who user insert this description. but i agree it.)

“朝鮮王朝實錄 宣祖 83卷, 29年( 1596 丙申 / 萬曆 24年) 12月 7日] " 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。"”

"Everything that comes from Japanese favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." huh? Manacpowers (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you deserve original text from historical records, I would give you one. But unfortunately, I am not ready yet to bring these sources into text document, so wait until I'm done, ok? And you have to promise me to stop fussing around if I bring the original text here. I know that the Annals of Joseon dynasty is now in the list of UNESCO's Memory of the World Programme, but it dosen't mean the Annals of Joseon dynasty is more reliable than modern historian's works as you think. Sice Gutenberg Bible was acknowledged by UNESCO, nobody thinks all events from Bible is true, right?. You also claim that Samuel Hawley fills his book with Japanese historian's imagination. I don't know whether your claim is true or not since I am not Samuel himself. But according to reference in the Imjin War, Samuel relies on following documents: Han Chi-yun's "Haedong yoksa", Jurgis Elisona's "The Inseparable Trinity: Japan's Relations with China and Korea", João Rodrigues's "This Island Japan" which is translated and edited by Michael Cooper and M Streichen's "The Christian Daimyo: A Century of Religious and Political History in Japan (1549-1650). Well, he surely used many books to write his book, and it seems like he never use Japanese historian's book to write these paragraphs about the meeting. And the book of Rodrigues (he was a missionary from Portugues in 16th Japan) is perhaps "ancient historical record" what you say.

And you also say that "平秀吉不受封" can be read that "Hideyoshi installed by ming, but shortly after he broke 封". Well, unfortunately "平秀吉不受封" means nothing more than "Hideyoshi refused to become a vassal" as I said. If Hideyoshi once accepted to become a vassal and later broke it, the editors of History of Ming must have witten so (and blamed Hideyoshi for his dishonesty). But there is no such a sentence in the book. I have to say this interpretation is completely your original research or your imagination. And one more thing, I never reject the fact that Japan was once a vassal state of Chinese dynasties. Historical records from both China and Japan all agree with it, so there is no dispute at all. But after Ashikaga shogunate collapsed, things was different. Any daimyos such as Nobunaga Oda, Hideyoshi Toyotomi and other Tokugawa shoguns never became a vassal of Chinese dynasty, since there is no record that says so (if you insist you have, please show me) in both China and Japan. Anyway don't think "Everything that comes from Korean favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies", ok? 76.84.159.240 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

i don't want discuss to you no more. because you are POV pushing by original research and contents forking. until end fo dispute, if you delete this sentence in kowtow article. i will revert it.

yous still do not show any eivdence. and still deny foreign source... i think you can't find original ancient history book sentence. because it is not exist.

well, Pushing original research is not a good idea.

all of your source is pretty vague, no clear evidence that hideyoshi did not kowtow. nobody thinks all events from Bible is true, right?.

If Hideyoshi once accepted to become a vassal and later broke it, the editors of History of Ming must have witten so (and blamed Hideyoshi for his dishonesty). --> this is the the original research. i reject your theory.

well, 明史 did not says, "Hideyoshi refused instantly". however, anals of joseond dynasty exactly match with 明史. and it recorded day by day... autumn 1596 hideyoshi kowtowed.. and 5 months later, he broke installed. and early 1597, he invaded korea again. this is exactly matched with 明史. I have to say your claim is original research or content POV forking.

"Everything that comes from Japanese favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." huh? Manacpowers (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) anyway, even you admit Japan was a vassal state of China. so Hideyoshi's action was a nothing strange at all.(because China was a King. Japan was a Vassal, Japan never upper grade country than China. Hideyoshi's action was a reasonable.) Manacpowers (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Japan kowtowed to China. Why? Japan case was not included in it? Ssyublyn (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Chinese Muslims

The kowtow involves the same body position as sujud, and AFAIK it is considered shirk for a Muslim to adopt this position for anyone other than Allah. Were China's Muslims ever exempted from the requirement to kowtow? Also, were any Muslims in China martyred for refusing to kowtow? --GCarty (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

King Injo case

The kowtow was often performed in intra-Asian diplomatic relations as well. In 1636, Injo who was king of the Korean Joseon Dynasty had to kneel three times on the ground and hit his head nine times on the ground (三拜九叩頭禮), to show his vassal status to Huang Taiji who was the first Emperor of the Qing Dynasty.

It was not example of intra-Asian diplomatic relations. It was only one time event, and it was surrender of war. (Second Manchu invasion of Korea) It was not a usual example of diplomatic relations. And Kowtow performed Japan, Vietnam, and other nations in East Asia. It is highly unreasonable only Korea case included in it. Ssyublyn (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then please add other cases with citation to the article. You cannot remove the sourced material just because there are no mention of other cases. Oda Mari (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I added Ryukyu Kingdom case and Japan case.

Ryukyu Kingdom case

国王并三司官以下諸官三跪九叩頭仕、勅使旅館江被相越候間、三司官以下諸官先相備罷通、龍亭彩亭旅館江居、三司官以下三跪九叩頭仕退去

— 「通航一覧・琉球国部 正編 巻之二十三　琉球国部二十三、唐国往来」, 重点領域研究「沖縄の歴史情報研究」

Ssyublyn (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you restore the Korean information you removed from the article? I had to restore the information. I didn't say "replace with other information". Stop whitewashing the article with your Korean point of view. Oda Mari (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, to whom did Hideyoshi supposedly kowtow, and what "king of Ryukyu" was this? Jpatokal (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 인조의 항복.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)