Talk:Hirohito/Archive 6

War Responsibility
Claiming that Hirohito had great control over the government seems to contradict the following Wikipedia articles: Kwantung Army, May 15 Incident, February 26 Incident, and Surrender of Japan. How can one claim that Hirohito masterminded the Pacific War, when the Imperial Army headquarters couldn't even control the Kwantung Army in the Mukden Incident and twice had to beat down coup attempts (5-15 and 2-26)? The decision to end the war barely got approved by the Supreme War Council, even though it was Hirohito's repeated wish that summer. And even then, elements within the Army were able to capture and hold the emperor in his palace for several hours during the night before the surrender broadcast. Is this a pattern that supports the idea of a born-to-the-throne emperor suddenly becoming a military mastermind? Hirohito was like a passenger in the getaway car of a bank robbery. He was simply along for the ride. He can be accused of that, but no more. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Westwind273 on the point that claims of Hirohito's control over government contradicts actual historical events depicted elsewhere in Wikipedia. This is a common problem with the issue of war responsibility of Hirohito not only on Wikipedia but a number of history books. There is much contradiction about how much control the emperor actually had. On one hand he was not a complete figurehead and probablly tried to excercise control over his army and government by holding conferences and issuing orders. To what extent those orders were actually followed is questinable when we look at the actual events. Also, information was often withheld or belatedly reported to the emperor, though whether this was a deliberate act or a result of bureaucratic inefficiency has not been proven. Furthermore, the emperor spoke in non-coloquial Japanese which left a large margin for interpretation by his generals and ministers. Thus he was not a complete figurehead, but a leader who did not have timely access to accurate information and whose wishes were neither efficiently communicated nor accurately carried out. Whether that exonerates him from responsibilities of war is debatable. Many history books more reputable than Wikipedia have left this problem as unattended and contradictory loose ends. But since we need citations rather than original research, this is an issue that cannot be mentioned in Wikipedia (unless there is something that can be cited).--Tsumugi (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting point. Is it OK for Wikipedia to inherently contradict itself, simply because of the existence of inherently contradictory citations?  This seems like saying "Welcome to Wikipedia.  Make sure to check your brain at the door."  --Westwind273 (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a contradiction between articles, why change this and not others? The statements in this article are well referenced and there is much documentation that shows a high degree of involvement of Hirohito in the events of those years. Regarding the behavior of the army, not to be confused Kodoha (with its riots and failed insurrections) with Toseiha, finally dominant in the army and loyal to Hirohito, who could have that control over it. As for the government, I'll add some Prince Konoe's words cited in Hastings, Max. 2007. Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-26351-3: As prime minister I had no authority over the army and could appeal [only] to the emperor. Therefore, the emperor's role should not be underestimated only for the view promoted after World War II.--81.172.46.248 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Where to begin?  First of all, Konoe was never Prime Minister during the Pacific War.  And as I said above, Hirohito was along for the ride.  A passenger in a getaway car who has knowledge of the bank robbery taking place can indeed be sent to prison as an accomplice.  Hirohito was guilty in the sense that he knew pretty much what the military was doing, and until the spring of 1945 he did not make much effort to stop them.  But it is a fantasy to think that Hirohito was running the show as a mastermind or leader.  He has about as much responsibility for the Pacific War as Queen Elizabeth has for the Falkland Islands War.  --Westwind273 (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion of Hirohito as criminal mastermind was not uncommon in Second World War propaganda, but even in that hardly unbiased literary genre, there was a tendency to point the finger at Hideki Tojo instead. My speculation is that this was due to the influence of Joseph Grew, who as Ambassador to Japan had observed the workings of the Japanese Government closely for several years. Regardless, the notion of Hirohito as pure figurehead became the consensus view after the war.
 * The more recent revival of the notion of Hirohito as criminal mastermind seems to trace back to David Bergamini's deeply flawed Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, which violated just about every rule of reliable historical research there is. It was picked up to an extent by Herbert Bix, who is a somewhat better historian but whose left-wing agenda peeps out from time to time and is served by the notion that Hirohito had more responsibility for the war than is commonly accepted. But Wikipedia should in fact reflect what is commonly accepted -- we call it the consensus position -- while giving due weight to credible minority positions. The contradiction pointed out by WestWind273 suggests that this article has given too much weight to the minority position.
 * My own views, which of course are not terribly relevant to deciding what the consensus is and how minority opinions should be weighted, is that the truth lies closer to the historical consensus ("figurehead") than to the Bix position ("maybe not the mastermind, but a very active player"). I base that on the repeated willingness displayed by military leaders to ignore Hirohito while acting in his name, and on the willingness of junior officers to effectively kidnap the Emperor to prevent a surrender. These actions are not consistent with the criminal-mastermind theory or even very consistent with the active player theory. Yaush (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same if Konoe was prime minister before or during the war. I refer to the political system. But if you do not like Konoe, here is a reference about Tojo including his own words (in bold): "Allied propaganda portrayed Tojo as a dictator in the mold of Hitler and Mussolini, but the reality is that Tojo had less authority in Japan than Churchill had in Britain. He blamed this for Japan's defeat (Hastings 2007):


 * Basically, it was lack of coordination. When the prime minister, to whom is entrusted the destiny of the country, lacks the authority to participate in supreme decisions, it is not likely that the country will win a war.


 * Though self-serving, there is a kernel of truth in this statement. When Tojo tried to concentrate power in his own hands, he was opposed by colleagues who pointed out that many of Germany's setbacks came from Hitler's micromanagement. Tojo replied, "Führer Hitler was an enlisted man. I am a general." Nevertheless, Tojo never exercised effective authority".


 * And this is not a "minority position of Bergamini and Bix". Besides Bergamini and Bix, are Edward Behr, Peter Wetzler, Ian Buruma, John Dower, Manuel Leguineche, Laurence Rees, Akira Yamada, Akira Fujiwara, Yoshiaki Yoshimi, Seiya Matsuno, Linda Goetz Holmes, Marc Ferro, etc. etc.


 * A minority faction (Kodoha) with riots and failed insurrections, doesn't means the Emperor was a "figurehead". Tojo himself, in his diary of August 1945, wrote against any kind of insurrection and said that the "sacred decision" of the Emperor for surrender mustn't be "disturbed". A minority faction of insurgent (and unsuccessful) junior officers doesn't disprove imperial power, as Spanish 23-F doesn't turn Adolfo Suárez into a "figurehead". The Toseiha, which belonged Sugiyama and Tojo, was loyal to Hirohito and never took part in riots or insurrections, indeed, was the force that quelled them.


 * There are two main positions about Hirohito: "Hirohito guilty but passive" (the Westwind273 position), and "Hirohito guilty and active". I think the two deserve the same consideration, on the light of the sources available today.212.22.55.228 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, First, the above citation by Konoe was made to his secretary in autumn 1945, refering to autumn 1941, while Japan was at open war with China since summer 1937, and at the eve of attacking Occidental powers...Second, as User:212.22.55.228 pointed, the view that Hirohito was indeed the ultimate authority during the 15 years war is NOT a minority POV, but an updated position, based on the long neglicted Japanese military archives such as the Hajime Sugiyama diary, the Koichi Kido diary and the Seidan Haichoroku, dictated by the emperor himself in spring 1946 at the request of MacArthur to justify what he had done. As Akira Fujiwara wrote :«the thesis that the emperor could not reverse cabinet decisions is a myth (shinwa) fabricated after the war...» As for the point that Hirohito's opinion was often neglected or even overrruled by his generals, we must remember that there is a lot of difference between the young emperor of 1931 and 1932 and the determined ruler of 1945. The shift was made in part in 1936 during the February_26_Incident when he threatened to take control of the «Konoe division» to subdue the rebels and, after this, mostly at the establishment of the conference liaison of the Imperial General Headquarters, when he became the de facto ruler of the Army and Navy as prescribed by the constitution. (The rebellion of august 1945 is insignificant as ALL the major officers followed the emperor's order) Thus, emperor Showa's authority and involvement in the military affairs is in an evolving process. We must however remember that he rarely was a military leader but, mostly a taisho or a chujo, a commander in the pure Japanese tradition such as Mitsuru Ushijima at Okinawa, and that he was seeking consensus amongst his officers, such as Tojo. In 1946, Hirohito himself went to the defense of Tojo saying that he «was a man of understanding» and that he had hesitated for very long before demoting him...while in 1948 Tojo declared before the Tokyo tribunal that «no Japanese officer would ever go against the Emperor's will»... --Flying Tiger (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So was Major Kenji Hatanaka following the emperor's will in August 1945 when he imprisoned Hirohito in the palace and tried to destroy the surrender recording that Hirohito had made the previous day? Read "Japan's Longest Day" (written by Japanese scholars, not western revisionists) and you will find the real situation.  Unlike Hitler's Germany, Japan was in fact a fascist oligarchy, so references to the weakness of the prime minister are not really that relevant.  Probably the single most powerful position within this oligarchy was the War Minister, which was Anami at time of surrender.  If Hirohito could have easily overturned the cabinet's decision (or more pertinently the Supreme War Council's decision), then Japan would have surrendered in the spring of 1945.  During 1945, Hirohito was in fact scheming with his close associates on how to achieve surrender without pushing the military so far as to kidnap or murder him.  Before 1945, Hirohito was a passive observer.  Read any history of the attack on Pearl Harbor; do you find anywhere that Hirohito was taking the lead, pushing for the attack?  No, he was a passive (and perhaps somewhat supportful) observer of the actions of the military.  After Pearl Harbor, there really was no choice but fight or surrender, so the pre-1941 actions of Hirohito are indeed relevant.  The Mukden Incident,  the May 15th incident, the February 26th incident, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident:  Was Hirohito masterminding any of these key events that led up to the Pacific War?  No, in fact at Mukden and Marco Polo, the Japanese Army acted independently, without control from the emperor or any other non-military person in Tokyo.  Hirohito was along for the ride.  --Westwind273 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This was the end of the rebellion of August 1945: At dawn, Tanaka learned that the palace had been invaded. He went there and confronted the rebellious officers, berating them for acting contrary to the spirit of the Japanese army. He convinced them to return to their barracks. By 08:00, the rebellion was entirely dismantled, having succeeded in holding the palace grounds for much of the night but failing to find the recordings. It doesn't seem very successful or powerful. It wasn't necessary a battle to crush the rebels (and I think a rebel major faced to all the generals remaining loyal mustn't be elevated to so much level). As for the nationality of the scholars I don't think that is an indispensable factor for handle any matter, but scholars as Akira Yamada, Akira Fujiwara, Yoshiaki Yoshimi, Seiya Matsuno and some others are Japanese too and have their own opinion on this matter. I agree that Japan was an oligarchy in those years, but my conclusions are somewhat different. In several historical texts of the attack on Pearl Harbor I find not that Hirohito masterminded the operation but I find Hirohito discussed the plans with his chiefs of staff (that is, he was interested in the operational capacity of the plan). For example, "On 30 November 1941, Prince Nobuhito Takamatsu warned his brother, Hirohito, that the Navy felt the Empire could not fight more than two years against the United States and wished to avoid war. After consulting with Koichi Kido (who advised him to take his time until he was convinced) and Tojo, the Emperor called Shigetaro Shimada and Nagano who reassured him war would be successful. On December 1, Hirohito finally approved a "war against United States, Great Britain and Holland", during another Imperial Conference, to commence with a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at its main forward base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii". Did he consult with Kido and Tojo and called Shimada and Nagano to observe them? I think he consulted them to ensure that the plan was going well. Did Kido advise a "passive observer" to take his time until he was convinced? What does a "passive observer" need to be convinced for? He wasn't masterminding all the effort, but he seems to have been a bit more active than a mere "passive observer". In the spring of 1945, Hirohito was seeking a Soviet mediation to find a way out of the war with acceptable conditions, not the surrender that he finally accepted in August.
 * Your opinion (Hirohito guilty but passive) is respectable and there are many scholars that maintain it. But There are also many scholars that maintain the other major position on this matter (Hirohito guilty and active [which is not necessarily the same that Hirohito as the Evil Mastermind]). Remember that Hirohito is one of the most controversial historical figures, and that is for one reason. It is clear that we will not resolve that dispute here and now. On the controversial nature of this subject, watch "Hirohito's War", of the documentary series "Secrets of War", aired by the History Channel.
 * In this Talk Page, user Roadrunner wrote in 2003: "The problem is that while historians agree that neither the puppet nor the evil puppet master are correct, I don't think that it is fair to say that there is a consensus on Hirohito's role in the war. In between evil dictator and helpless puppet there is a lot of room". I agree with this.
 * That puts it very well, in my opinion.--Yaush (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize my position, I quote a paragraph from a web article about Hirohito that I quite agree: "When it comes to Emperor Hirohito we seem to have a bad memory, particularly where it involves his responsibility for the war in the Pacific. Hirohito was an unindicted war criminal, plain and simple. No, he wasn't a dictator. He did not singlehandedly orchestrate the Japanese war effort. But he was there, every step of the way, receiving regular reports and pushing his generals for victory". That's my position, many others share it and I think it is as respectable as the other major position on this matter.
 * This is a very controversial subject and I think the two major positions must be equally exposed. 212.22.53.216 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To user Westwind273, as I wrote earlier, «The rebellion of august 1945 (not 1946, this was a typing error..) is insignificant as ALL the major officers followed the emperor's order». Major Kenji Hatanaka is certainly NOT one of these !! Anami, Sugiyama, Umezu, Toyoda, Higashikuni, asaka and all the leaders followed the emperor's command. As for Hirohito's attempt too surrender in 1945, he indeed began in early 1945, in the wake of the loss of Leyte, a series of individual meetings with senior government officials to consider the progress of the war, but, at this stage surrender was not acceptable for him. According to Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, Hirohito was still looking for a tennozan (a great victory) in order to provide a stronger bargaining position, and firmly rejected Fumimaro Konoe's recommendation to begin negotiations to end World War II.(Fujita Hisanori, Jijûchô no kaisô, Chûô Kôronsha, 1987, pp. 66–67, Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, p. 489). Even Hiroshima's bombing did not made him change his mind. As he wrote himself in the Seidan Haichoroku, (and as pointed by user Yaush) negociation with Soviet Union was the main condition for considering to surrender to the Allies without compromising his prerogatives as a Sovereign Ruler. The invasion of Manshukoku in August 45 was a fatal blow to his hopes. As for the fact that he was «passive before 1945». This is false and omits all the meetings he had each week as commander of the Daihonei and more, the direct orders he even gave in some fights such as the battles of Bataan and Saipan. --Flying Tiger (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Flying tiger. I only want to specify a minor detail: It wasn't Yaush, but me (212.22.53.216, though perhaps the IP could be changed now) who pointed the negotiation with Soviet Union (Yaush only interspersed a phrase to express his agreement with the Roadrunner's statement that I quoted above). The confusion was caused because my signature was left separated from the initial part of my text because of the addition of the Yaush's phrase. Otherwise, as I wrote above, I agree with your comment. 212.22.54.203 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to those who disagree with my opinion. If Hirohito did indeed have war responsibility, I think he should be held historically accountable, including consideration of Japan abolishing the imperial system.  But let me take two exceptions to Flying Tiger's comments:  (1) Anami was not completely obeying the emperor's will.  If he had, he would have stayed alive and worked hard to put down Hatanaka's rebellion.  Instead, Anami chose the middle ground and killed himself, after instructing everyone to follow the emperor's will.  Anami could have helped the cause of surrender more by staying alive, but he did not.  (2) Keep in mind that the Supreme War Council was perfectly split 3-3 on the issue of accepting the Potsdam Declaration.  It is not the case that all top leaders wanted to accept the Potsdam Declaration (as Hirohito instructed) and only the low-ranking Hatanaka wanted to keep fighting.  Three of the six members of the Supreme War Council wanted to keep fighting, in defiance of the expressed wishes of Hirohito.  --Westwind273 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This article quotes mostly the conspiracy theorists about the role of Emperor Shōwa in Japan's wars in Asia and the Pacific. A far more balanced work than Bix and friends is "Emperor Hirohito and Shōwa Japan: A Political Biography" by Stephen Large. Footnoted once and out of context in this article, Large presents the Emperor as an intelligent, educated, shy and somewhat timid man who only twice exercised imperial authority in a military sort of way — February 1936 and August 1945 — both times contrary to his desire to reign but not rule, for he viewed himself has a constitutional monarch. That we may never know for sure is a given. But the article is very unbalanced toward the Bix point of view. For balance, we must also consider Large plus the gusto in which Emperor Shōwa lead Japan to economic and social success as its free emperor from January 1946 until his death in January 1989. Unfettered by militarists he indeed became Emperor Shōwa as much as that was possible. Villagehiker (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

While the article quotes the Meiji Constitution as giving the emperor supreme command of the military, therefore putting him in charge, it fails to quote the contrary parts of the same document limiting his authority and distributing it into the hands of the Diet, Ministers of State and the Privy Council. Here are some examples:

Article 8. The Emperor, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the Imperial Diet is not sitting, Imperial Ordinances in the place of law.

(2) Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them to be invalid for the future.

Article 9. The Emperor issues or causes to be issued, the Ordinances necessary for the carrying out of the laws, or for the maintenance of the public peace and order, and for the promotion of the welfare of the subjects. But no Ordinance shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.

Article 55. The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to the Emperor, and be responsible for it.

(2) All Laws, Imperial Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that relate to the affairs of the State, require the countersignature of a Minister of State.

Article 56. The Privy Councillors shall, in accordance with the provisions for the organization of the Privy Council, deliberate upon important matters of State, when they have been consulted by the Emperor.

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c02.html

That the constitution gives the emperor supreme power, including military power (Article 11) and then limits the power, including his command of the military (implied in Article 55), is just a seeming contraction. Apparent contraction is part of Japanese culture. We cannot apply Western linear thinking to Japanese culture. Emperor Shōwa viewed himself as a non-divine, constitutional monarch (See "Emperor Hirohito and Shōwa Japan: A Political Biography" by Stephen Large.)  Villagehiker (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's your opinion. And Stephen Large's book can be cited exactly like Bix's book. But it seems too exaggerated to consider Stephen Large's book as the undisputed truth about how the Emperor viewed himself and "far more balanced" than others about his responsibility for the war (a subjective opinion) and disqualify as "conspiracy theorists" works that, like "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert P. Bix, have earned distinctions such as the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award. Also, I don't think that if under the 1889 Constitution you don't want to attribute the destinies of Japan to the Emperor we can to attribute the postwar economic and social success of Japan to a ceremonial Emperor (under the 1946 Constitution) in any way. In short, and like other opinions in this talk page have said, we must assume that the Emperor's war responsibility is a very controversial matter (see the current Hirohito article in the Encyclopædia Britannica and you will understand). The historians continue to discuss on this matter and I don't think that the wikipedia can say: "Stephen Large's book is all the truth" or "Herbert P. Bix's book is all the truth". I think both of them must be exposed because both of them have their own evidence and only a personal source like Hirohito's private diary (from 1912 to the 1980's) could show us clearly his personal thoughts beyond the diaries of advisers and other documents used by Bix, Large and other authors. But Hirohito's personal diary is not available at this day. Meanwhile, this is a controversial matter and I don't think we should try to impose our subjective views disqualifying those of others.81.172.51.197 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bix inline-citations
There is a problem with the citations in this article. It is a common one that occurs if the year is not included in short citations.

There were some Bix inline-citations in this article to the volume listed in the References section: Since then another edition has been added to the article inline:

This makes it impossible to tell which edition citations like these refer: Someone with the sources needs to go through the citations adding the year to the citations (preferably using harvnb, but that is not essential). Once added or as that will make it clear which edition is being cited. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Conversation in Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, pp. 411, 745.
 * Bix, p. 421
 * Bix, p. 466, citing the Sugiyama memo, p. 24.
 * Bix 2000, p. 421
 * Bix 2001, p. 421

Family name Yamato?
I have seen several books that talk about the Yamato Dynasty ie of the House of Yamato. Wouldn't this mean the family name is Yamato just as the actual family name of Elizabeth II of England is Windsor (House of Windsor)?--216.223.234.97 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, and note the RS references in the article before commenting in the future.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bergamini is not a reliable source
So I find it disturbing that he is referenced in the article as if he was. Japan's Imperial Conspiracy is a deeply controversial work, and for good reason. --Yaush (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please cite any reviews or journals that back up your position, please.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/311667?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents does a pretty good job. I can find plenty of others if you remain unconvinced. --Yaush (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Remember that the TP's are not for Soapboxing
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 18:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

YMCA mention: probably from vandalism?
The article says: Hirohito attended the Y.M.C.A. of Gakushūin Peers' School from 1908 to 1914 and then a special institute for the crown prince (Tōgū-gogakumonsho) from 1914 to 1921. The Emperor of Japan, attending a YMCA? Surely that cannot be true. Nor could it be true that perhaps the most traditional school in Japan should have anything to do with a foreign religious organisation. I have roamed the wide Internet but found no independent mention of any of this—only articles that copied or rephrased the sentence from Wikipaedia. I conclude that it must have been added by a vandal several years ago; it doesn't seem worth the effort to go back to before 2013 to find the culprit. I will remove the YMCA now; if anyone finds evidence that this unthinkable assertion is true after all, let him add it again. Cerberus™ (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It turns out the edit was done by an anonymous IP address from Texas, one the 2nd of April in 2010. Perhaps it was still April 1st in his time zone. That was the only edit ever made by him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.111.170.163 So it was definitely vandalism. Cerberus™ (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

once macarthur ran for president all could see his actions as politician and self serving, he wanted his job made easier. no one can prove H had great control, but cant deny fact he could have opposed war with US and while a coup may have taken place after that, it could have affected  history - H bears responsibility, more than a low level guard at Dachaeu who was hanged  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.62.93 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hirohito. 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/20161229035026/http://this-is-japan.com/en/blognews/item/215.html to http://this-is-japan.com/en/blognews/item/215.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Name of the Emperor
There needs to be consistency in the naming of the subject of the article. In some cases, he's referred to as Emperor Hirohito. In others, he's referred to as Emperor Shōwa. Either-or, people. Not both. --MicahBrwn (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Both is the best answer Wikipedia editors have been able to come up with for the last several years. The proper name for the subject person has been controversial for a long time. The page move proposed in January was the latest of many rounds. See the archives for more. While Hirohito is more commonly used in English-speaking countries, it is also true that Shōwa is now officially his name in Japan and many editors feel strongly that English speakers should be educated to adopt this change also. The de facto compromise we have reached on usage in this article is that although priority is given to "Hirohito", the name "Shōwa" is also featured prominently in the infobox and the status of the two names is explained in the lead. The text in the body of the article is the product of years of work by many editors with varying opinions on the name controversy. Until such time as a consensus is reached that only one of the two names is correct, it's a matter of good faith to retain the originating editor's naming unless it's factually inaccurate or the section is being rewritten for other reasons. Although using two names is potentially confusing, the text as it stands is clear. The mixed usage may not be the most aesthetically pleasing situation, but it doesn't justify editing the whole article just to enforce one name over the other. --Meyer (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the motto of Wikipedia is "be bold", but I hate to jump in and start changing something that a lot of people have already contributed to, so I'm going to start with a discussion here.

My understanding is that normal Japanese people get a "posthumous" or "spirit" name when they die. But the Emperor takes his "spirit" name upon assuming the throne, because the Emperor is a kami. Thus, technically, Showa has been the emperor's name since he was crowned in 1925. When I was visiting Japan in 1975, local signs showed the year as 1975 A.D. in English, but as 50 Showa in Japanese. I would suggest deleting "posthumous" from this part of the article. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The spirit names you refer to are a Buddhist custom, and are different from the emperor's posthumous renaming. Customs surrounding the emperor come from Shinto, and in the case of the emperor's naming are also enforced in secular law. When a new emperor begins his reign, a new historical period starts and is given a name. The Showa period started in 1925 and lasted until 1989. The current period, Heisei, started in 1989. However, during the emperor's reign the new name refers only to the historical period. In Japan, the emperor himself is refered to simply as "His Majesty the Emperor (Tenno Heika)". It is only after the emperor's death that he himself is given the name of the period over which he reigned. The article lead does a better job explaining this. -- Meyer (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Customs surrounding the emperor come from Shinto, and in the case of the emperor's naming are also enforced in secular law. Well, some of them. A lot of them are Meiji-period importations from the European monarchies. See Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan. (Or anyway its lucid passages; Fujitani frequently slips between (a) sound-looking history and (b) "critical" blather with much kowtowing to Foucault and so on. But the transitions are clear; you soon come to recognize any of a small number of words [e.g. "gaze"] as a sign to skimread till the next lucid bit comes along.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The name by wich english speakers know him is a lame excuse for the naming of this page, seriously? all those who defend naming it Hirohito must try to ignore the fact that for cases like this is what redirections where made for. Besides articles are supossed to inform people and how is this article suposed to inform since from the headline it just contributes to missunderstanding of the guy that the english speakers cant even know that the guy's name is showa not hirohito. Way to go guys.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, Andres rojas22, personally I don't much care what name we give this dead emperor, but you are not at all persuasive:
 * all those who defend naming it Hirohito must try to ignore the fact that for cases like this is what redirections where made for / (a) Better not to attempt to infer motive; you could very well be wrong. (b) Redirection can work one way around about as well as it can work the other way around.
 * Besides articles are supossed to inform people and how is this article suposed to inform since from the headline it just contributes to missunderstanding of the guy that the english speakers cant even know that the guy's name is showa not hirohito. What you are saying is unclear but if it means what I think it means then you are arguing that the article should be renamed "Emperor Shōwa" or similar. Why not argue for this directly?
 * Incidentally, I'm puzzled by your talk of "2,000 years of tradition" (in the edit commentary here). -- Hoary (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course im arguing to move it to Emperor Showa, and yes the whole list of emperors is more than enought proof that this article is misnamed, because of allmost 200 emperor's articles here only two are miscalled by their personal name:Showa, wich is wrong, and the reigning one Akihito, wich is allright and makes sence since he's not dead. Showa is dead so he must be named by his personal posthumous name end of the story, theres no big legal or philosophical subjects to think here.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the English Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia. English naming use is usage in English, not Japanese. There are many things that are named *not*like*their*original*language*or*locales*, like Munich, Rome, Confucius, William the Conqueror, Moscow, etc. Besides, if you really want to use his name, it is "昭和天皇", not Showa. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to understand you, Andres. You now say of allmost 200 emperor's articles here only two are miscalled by their personal name:Showa, wich is wrong, and the reigning one Akihito, wich is allright and makes sence since he's not dead. Rightly or wrongly, the former is named "Hirohito", not "Showa". You also say Showa is dead so he must be named by his personal name end of the story which (if I understand you correctly) is pretty much the reverse of what you were saying before. Oh but you also say of course im arguing to move it to Emperor Showa. Eh? If you were arguing for "Shōwa" (ショウワ), I might disagree but at least I'd sympathize; but "Showa" (ショワ)? That's truly bizarre. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's simple, WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. In English, the common name for this person is "Hirohito", and I think it will likely remain so. So far, in all the WWII TV specials shown, they always use Hirohito in English, as there is always a WWII TV special every year, it can easily be shown what is the common usage in English. Both names can be used, in context, but the primary name is "Hirohito", and should be used predominantly. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The anon is correct that Wikipedia naming conventions will tend to support using the subject's personal name because it is the overwhelming usage. I'd guess that's true everywhere outside of Japan, not just in English. So I agree that the article title won't change. However, the article contents are another matter. I endorse the current version: The Shōwa Emperor (昭和天皇), known by English speakers by his personal name of Hirohito (裕仁)... That reflects the correct name, just as we often start articles with subject's full legal name even though they best known without their middle name.    Will Beback    talk    09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with what Will Beback wrote above. We can (and do) address the issue in the opening sentence, and there is no reason to continue this discussion. In the English-speaking world, he is most commonly known as Hirohito, and that is very unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. I suggest revisiting this issue in 100 years, by which time this might have changed. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That its the english wikipedia is a weak argument for naming it hirotio, reading the WP:AT Emperor Sowa is Recognizable,precise,concise and CONSISTENT;maybe the only point Hirohito holds over Emperor Showa is easy to find but what are the redirections for?anyone looking for Hirohito would be redirected to Emperor Showa and with four points for Emperor Showa against just one of Hirohito WP:AT clearly is with Emperor Showa.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Emperor Sowa is Recognizable,precise,concise and CONSISTENT ソワ is precise and consistent? Or are you just trolling? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy that this latest rename-the-article proposal came and went before I even noticed it was going on. I agree with Nihonjoe that it would be appropriate to bring this issue up again maybe in 100 years, if English-speakers call the man anything different than what they use now.

I am restoring the article lead and infobox to their pre-6 May state, with the lead mentioning "Hirohito" before "Emperor Shōwa" and the infobox header reading "Hirohito / Emperor Shōwa" with Japanese transliteration. We have had a long-standing consensus that the article lead and infobox, like the article name, should reflect current usage by English speakers. --Meyer (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping the name of the article "Hirohito" but I disagree with the change in the text, as made here. We usually give the full proper name of a person first, not their most common name. See Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for variations. The proper name of the subject is "the Showa Emperor". I don't see why we can't reflect that in the text.   Will Beback    talk    07:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hirohito versus Shōwa isn't comparable to short and full forms of English personal names. English speakers don't use "Hirohito" as a short form of the man's name. To most English speakers "Hirohito" is the man's full proper name. Whether or not English speakers' usage is correct is a discussion that should be conducted outside Wikipedia. --Meyer (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that Manual of Style (biographies) requires us to put the most common name first. It gives several examples of doing the contrary. Writing The Shōwa Emperor (昭和天皇 Shōwa tennō?), known by English speakers by his personal name of Hirohito (裕仁?).. still gets "Hirohito" into the first sentence. I think that's a more accurate, neutral, and appropriate lede.   Will Beback    talk    15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * accurate: Accurate by what standard? Japanese usage? English usage? WP guidelines are clear which of those alternatives is to be prefered.
 * neutral: The article lists and explains both names without prescribing one over the other, and uses both throughout the text. Placing "Hirohito" first in the lead and infobox heading reflects both English usage and the name of the article. I don't think there is any neutrality issue here.
 * appropriate: That is a matter of opinion.
 * --Meyer (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hirohito is the full proper name for the man, in English. "Emperor Showa" is a Japanese name used after death, which is not the practice used for this man in English. I would say that "Confucius" is a parallel example of a wrong name in the native language, but nevertheless is the proper English name 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree but it's not a big issue for me.   Will Beback    talk    06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if 'Hirohito' ever visited 'Peking' or 'Bombay'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. What matters is current popular English usage. Both "Peking" and "Mumbai" have fallen either completely out of current usage or at least sufficiently so that the native term is accepted. There is essentially no usage of "Showa" in English outside of academic contexts, and as such that usage is more likely to cause confusion than to impart knowledge.Argentazure (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Cultural sensitivity can cut both ways in some situations. East Asian countries which were occupied by the Japanese in WW2 might not feel like showing him much respect. I cannot read Chinese or Korean, but as far as I can see all Wikipedias in East Asian languages which use the Latin alphabet (Vietnamese, Tagalog, Malay, Javan, and Indonesian) call him Hirohito, as do several others, the only one I have found which calls him Showa is Maltese. PatGallacher (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Korean and Chinese Wikipedia article titles are Emperor Shōwa in their respective languages. --Kusunose 09:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sence if this article is titled "Hirohito" but the one about his predecessor is "Emperor Taishō". This naming issue needs some kind of standardisation. --Elvus (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He should be called Emperor Shōwa as that is now his name. That some Americas call him Emperor Hirohito does not make it correct. Upon his death he became Emperor Shōwa for everyone. It is appropriate to call him Emperor Hirohito once in the summary for identification, then once again in the main body of the article for identification and thereafter refer to him as Emperor Shōwa, explaining why. Calling him Emperor Hirohito makes the article unscholarly. Villagehiker (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He should be called Hirohito throughout the article as that is how he was commonly known in the east and the west. It is not disrespectful in the least to call him Hirohito. Failing to call him Emperor Showa does not make it unscholarly. WP uses the commonly used names and should not follow the lead of a few pedants. The article on George Elliot uses that name throughout. If you want to do something unscholarly and silly then mix the two together. Zedshort (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of reference concerning the history of this controversy on here, the wittiest comment ever on this topic was a person who insisted that we not make a Shinto shrine of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.77.172 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to rehash an old discussion, but if he's commonly referred to Hirohito in English, and Showa in Japanese, why does the infobox show his name as Showa in romaji, but then Hirohito in kanji? It seems like it should be the reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noktulo (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Kanji
Why is the Kanji for "Emperor Showa" nowhere to be found in this article? Absurd. 2605:A000:B505:8800:F0F7:CAB8:A986:C398 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
Both the approval of chemical weapon and killing of POW were not authorized by Hirohito. I propose to delete the relevant sentences. I show the clues. In the web site of Chukiren, http://www.ne.jp/asahi/tyuukiren/web-site/backnumber/04/hujiwara_nittyuusensou.htm, Akira Fujiwara wrote one column about 2nd Japan-China War. In the column (sorry Japanese...) in the center of the column (五、残虐行為とその背景) you find the sentence, 第一に日本は、中国との戦争で国際法に違反し、大量の捕虜を不法に殺害したことを挙げなければならない. 華北での戦闘が本格化した１９３７年８月５日、陸軍省は支那駐屯軍にたいして、この事変には国際法の戦争法規は適用しない、「俘虜」（捕虜の公用語）という名称は使うなという通牒を出した. この方針は、その後もずっと続けられた. このことは、現地の軍では、国際法は守らなくてもいい、捕虜は作るな、という方針だと受けとられたのである. It means that in the mid of the battle in northern China, 5th August 1937, Ministry of Japanese army notified Japanese China Garrison Army of the agenda that the internatinal humanitarian law should not be applied in the war and any expression of POW should not be used.(華北での戦闘が本格化した１９３７年８月５日、陸軍省は支那駐屯軍にたいして、この事変には国際法の戦争法規は適用しない、「俘虜」（捕虜の公用語）という名称は使うなという通牒を出した. ). Secondly, Emperor was responsible for the Military under the old Constitution, but Military system was divided into two, Ministry of army and General Staff Headquarters. Emperor was not responsible for Ministry of army and such a detailed notifivation was not ratified directly. Chemical weapon usage also was not authorized by the Emperor. The "specific orders (rinsanmei)" for the chemical weapon was Japanese Army's special order by using the name of the Emperor, because the Garison did not easily follow the orders of the Army HQ, during the 2nd Japan-China War. The Army used the name of the Emperor when it ordered, but of course, detailed ones among orders were not the direct decision or formal agreement of the Emperor at that time. I add more information about the old Japanese political sysytem. Under the old Constitution, the Emperor was positioned as a sacred one but also the monarch of the Constitutional Monarchy, who delegates the power to the Parliament and the Cabinet. Such a kind of contradictory system confused the Japanese politics and the position of the Emperor, in 1930s. Hirohito was earnet in the diplomatic harmony and often tried to stop the confclicts against China, according to "Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku" (The memorandum of Hirohito's voices"), but at the same time the Emperor could not totally deny the miitary activities until the final stage of World War 2.

I ask anyone to give me any opinon. Japanese sincerity (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, I'm opposed to delete any of the sentences unless it is proven that the cited author (in this case, Akira Fujiwara) doesn't point to Hirohito's intervention in the referenced book (Nitchū Sensō ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu, p. 22), and the same is valid for any other author and book. Although I have several books on Hirohito and Imperial Japan in WWII, this work by Fujiwara is not among them. Therefore, I cannot verify the cited page and the column linked by Japanese sincerity is not the same source and it cannot clarify this point. All the rest of the arguments in this proposal are the user's own opinions and interpretations on a highly controversial matter (Hirohito's role and power from 1926 to 1945) around which there are very divergent views among the scholars.
 * Having said that, I want to add the opinion expressed by Fujiwara himself in another book (Shōwa tennō no Jū-go nen sensō p. 122) on this last point: "the thesis that the Emperor, as an organ of responsibility, could not reverse cabinet decision, is a myth fabricated after the war". It seems that Fujiwara would not share claims such as "the monarch of the Constitutional Monarchy, who delegates the power to the Parliament and the Cabinet" or "Hirohito was earnet in the diplomatic harmony and often tried to stop the conflicts against China" (this last statement appeals to "Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku", another notable object of controversy among the scholars to which I will refer later). In short, unless it is false that Fujiwara mentions Hirohito's intervention in the referenced page of his book I think his statements should not be censored.
 * On the issue of Hirohito's role and political power are, as I said above, very divergent views among the scholars. I'll cite some assertions from the book The people's Emperor: democracy and the Japanese Monarchy : 1945-1995 by Kenneth J. Ruoff, Director of the Center for Japanese Studies, Portland State University.
 * He writes: "Emperor Hirohito saw himself as a monarch whose political opinions were important (...) engaged in politics", or that he "was an active and important agent in the political process", or citing Irokawa Daikichi, Awaya Kentaro, and Herbert Bix writes that "is not exceptional for the emperor to exert his authority on a variety of fronts," or mentions "growing evidence" that Emperor Hirohito played a considerable role in the process to initiate and prosecute the war.
 * Irokawa wrote: “The emperor… was actively involved in the crucial affairs of state; he certainly was not the passive constitutional monarch that the official scholars (and Hirohito himself, in postwar years) have so convincingly portrayed.”
 * As for Hirohito's Monologue ("Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku"), it would be good to add this link (https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24254/lot/1254/). In it, we can see in its last paragraph a reference to "The Showa Emperor's 'Monologue' and the Problem of War Responsibility", by Professor Herbert P. Bix, published in The Journal of Japanese Studies, 18/2 (Summer 1992), in which Professor Bix asserts on Dokuhakuroku that "its contents, its logical and rhetorical structure, and ... its omissions illuminate a different set of issues relating to the Emperor's role as supreme war leader." Professor Bix wrote too an interesting article on the matter entitled "Emperor Hirohito's War", published on History Today in 1991. This article describes Hirohito from the contents of Dokuhakuroku as a monarch with a "keen sense of himself as an absolute sovereign, with a remarkable capacity to pretend that he was a normal constitutional monarch," "a political realist with an appetite for the fruits of territorial aggrandisement", and mentions that "in the Asian arena he could safely express his expansionist inclinations"; or that the disagreements between the emperor and the military were "mainly tactical and not principled" and "should not be exaggerated." He cites historian Yoshida Yutaka to assert that during this period "Emperor Hirohito strengthened his voice and projected his will in the policy making process."
 * In short, as I have shown, Japanese sincerity's assertions on Hirohito's role aren't an undisputed truth nor an unanimous consensus among the historians. They are only one side of the debate. And in a debate none of its sides should be silenced. This means I agree if Japanese sincerity wants to confront both sides in the article (that is, to balance the opinions of one side's authors with the opinions of those of the other), but I totally disagree with deleting any referenced sentence only to satisfy one side of the discussion or anyone's subjective opinions. As I said at the beginning of this text, the sentences only should be deleted if they don't correspond to the text of the cited book. If they correspond, they shouldn't be deleted because of the postulates of only one side of the debate on a controversial issue.Igivemyword (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It takes time to get the resource,Nitchū Sensō ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu, which is not available easily. But, I want to see the article in Japanese. Japanese sincerity (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. I was reviewing the article's history and I found that the Fujiwara's book reference was added in 2006 by user Flying tiger. Therefore, I've left him a message asking, if possible, to expose here the exact quote from the book. Maybe this will help settle the issue.Igivemyword (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I received the Japanese original resource. What is written testifies my presumed one. In Nitchū Sensō ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu, by Akira Fujiwara, of Kikan Sensō Sekinin Kenkyū 9, 1995, I saw no information about "Hirohito personally ratified the Japanese Army's proposal to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners on August 5" in p 22. BUt, in p 20-21 of the book, of course, Nitchū Sensō ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu by Akira Fujiwara, I found the following relevant sentences;　8月5日、陸軍次官より支那駐屯軍参謀長宛ての通牒で、この事変は戦争ではないから戦争法は適用しない、「俘虜」などの名称は使うなと指示した. 同文の通牒が、その後次々に編成される各軍にも送られている. この通牒は、国際法を守らなくてもよいとか、俘虜を作らないようにせよなどと、誤解される恐れが多分にあるものであったといわざるを得ない. すでに戦局は全面戦争化しているのに、宣戦布告をせず、それまでのように「国際法を守れ」という詔書も出されず、俘虜(捕虜と同義語で戦前の軍用語）という言葉も使うなと指示されていれば、第一線部隊が捕虜をどう扱うかは想像に難くはない. I translate the sentences in English, as follows. On August 5, the Deputy Minister of the Japanese Army sent a notice to Chief of the staff of Japanese China Garrison Army, instructing that because the conflict is not a war, not applying the Law of War and not using the words like "prisoners". The same notice was also sent to each Garrison Army which was formed one after another. It is inevitable that this notice contained probably a fear of being misunderstood, such as not to obey international law or making a prisoner of war. The battlefield has already become a war on the whole. But there was no declaration of war, any notice of Emperor regarding "Never fail to defend International Law" was not issued though it was notified at the wars before, and there was the notice to use no words like "Furyo" (synonymous with "Horyo", used by Japanese Army). It is not hard to imagine how the front line unit coped with prisoners of war, after listening to the notice.

Remarks:Furyo and Horyo, both are the same meaning and stand for Prisoner of War in Japanese.

Why, did the wrongly translated sentences prevail? In the original setences, only 詔書(Shosho) has the meaning of "The notice of Emperor". However, it was not written for the notice to breach the Law of War. In the original setences, as I wrote, it meant that the 詔書(Shosho) was notified to keep the law of War at the time of the war like Japan-Russia War and World War 1, but it was not officially notified at the time of 2nd Japan-Sino war. As I said, we have to rewrite the expression of Wikipedia. (Japanese sincerity (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC))


 * Thank you, Japanese sincerity, for your efforts to find the original source. Well, prior to referring to Fujiwara's thesis, I would like to cite a paragraph of Arne Markland's Black Ships to Mushroom Clouds: A Story of Japan's Stormy Century 1853-1945, which I have recently acquired. That paragraph refers to Fujiwara's book and his mention of the POWs issue. It says: "He (Hirohito) would not declare war against China; what went on in China was called an 'incident'. He consequently believed he was justified (as early as August 1937) in endorsing the decision to ignore international law concerning Chinese POWs. Historian Akira Fujiwara quotes an IJA directive ordering staff officers in China to stop using the term POW."
 * Having said that, if I understood correctly the source, Akira Fujiwara's thesis on this issue can be summarized as follows:
 * 1.-The Japanese Empire's policy was to call the invasion of China an "incident" instead of a "war."
 * 2.-As a result of this, Hirohito did not issue a Shosho to keep the law of War (unlike his predecessors in Russo-Japanese War and World War I) because the Second Sino-Japanese War was officially qualified as an "incident" by Japan (while Russo-Japanese War or World War I were recognized wars).
 * 3.-In such circumstances, on August 5, the Deputy Minister of the Japanese Army instructed the Chief of staff of Japanese China Garrison Army to not use the term "prisoners of war" to refer to Chinese captives. As a result, the constraints of international law on the treatment of the prisoners were not considered applicable to Chinese captives.
 * In conclusion, and in view of Fujiwara's original source, I agree that it would be convenient to rewrite the article's paragraph object of this discussion in a more faithful way to Fujiwara's words, essentially summing up the three points that I have listed above.
 * This is, then, my final opinion on this topic. Thank you again.Igivemyword (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I am glad to conclude it. Japanese sincerity (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, and thank you again. Now, once the discussion has concluded, at least on my part and on user Japanese sincerity's, I would like to add two points:
 * First, I have informed user Flying tiger about the conclusion of this discussion, in case he read the messages and was interested in saying something about it. I think his sentence "Hirohito personally ratified the Japanese Army's proposal to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners on August 5" wants to refer to Hirohito's endorsement of the policy of not applying the international law of war in the conflict with China by calling it an "incident" instead of a "war" (Fujiwara's thesis), but as it is written, it seems to say he had signed in his own handwriting the Deputy Minister's instruction to stop the use of the term "prisoners of war", a point not mentioned by Fujiwara.
 * Second, I think it would be good to propose a new wording for the paragraph, so that any user can give their opinion before editing any change. I think it could be rewritten like this:
 * "According to Akira Fujiwara, Hirohito endorsed the policy of qualifying the invasion of China as an "incident" instead of a "war"; therefore, he did not issue any notice to observe international law in this conflict (unlike what his predecessors did in previous conflicts officially recognized by Japan as wars, such as Russo-Japanese War and World War I), and the Deputy Minister of the Japanese Army instructed the Chief of staff of Japanese China Garrison Army on August 5 to not use the term "prisoners of war" for Chinese captives. This instruction led to the removal of the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners."
 * If anyone has any objection about this wording, I'll discuss it until we reach a consensus. If no one has any objection, I'll edit the article with this new paragraph within two days.Igivemyword (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. I propose to cut "such as Russo-Japanese War and World War I" because I presume and add these names of the wars but I did not confirm the issue of Shosho. Fujiwara said only "what his predecessors did in previous conflicts officially recognized by Japan as wars", though it seems to recognize these wars. Japanese sincerity (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Very well. Since we haven't absolute certainty that the previous conflicts in which Shosho was issued specifically included Russo-Japanese War and World War I (although it seems highly probable), I see no problem in cutting the direct allusion to these specific wars. If there are no more objections by any user from here to tomorrow, I'll edit the paragraph as I wrote it except for the aforementioned allusion.Igivemyword (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hirohito → Emperor Shōwa – Despite once being something of a perennial proposal, this doesn't appear to have been discussed since 2010. While World War II usage refers to Hirohito, I feel recent scholarly and historical works seem to be migrating to use Emperor Shōwa. The article also claims that Emperor Shōwa is the more common usage in Japan; I'm unable to evaluate that myself. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As a non-argument point of note: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Russian use "Emperor Showa" as the title, most of the other (hundred-plus) Wikipedia entires use "Hirohito". power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. His common name in English-language sources is still Hirohito for the time being. There's been no change in common use since the last RM.  ONR  (talk)  01:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. A pointless request unless you have some EVIDENCE for your "feeling" that usage has changed: mere passage of time is utterly irrelevant. And though not relevant here on the ENGLISH Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure that "Emperor Shōwa is the more common usage in Japan" is wrong: it's the PROPER use in Japan. --Calton | Talk 03:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Tentative oppose - you really need some evidence to back this up. Red Slash 11:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Almost all of the English language sources cited in the article call him "Hirohito". So that would seem to be his common name in the English language. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still almost exclusively known as Hirohito outside Japan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of Fascist categories
There is nothing in the prose in the article to support a claim that Hirohito is a Fascist. I BOLDly removed those categories earlier, but was undone. It's worth noting that a) there has never been any consensus on this talk page for him to be in that category, and b) Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, a similar leader, is not listed as a "Fascist leader" either. p b  p  02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion: I'm not sure if Imperial Japan can be strictly cataloged as a "Fascist" regime (yes, it was an imperialist and tyrannical regime and it was allied with the European Fascist dictatorships, but its affinity with the Fascist regimes does not necessarily make Imperial Japan a Fascist regime). For example, Eric Hobsbawm says in his book "The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991" that Hirohito's Japan was not a Fascist country despite its affinities with Nazi Germany. But if we strictly apply that principle, not only Hirohito, but all the Japanese leaders of that time should be out of the "Fascist categories" (there are several of them included today).
 * Nonetheless, if we apply the term "Fascist" by extension (by considering as "Fascist" all the countries and regimes related to Fascist dictatorships), then I think it is logical to include Hirohito in these categories, despite all the controversy around his role in the war, because his responsibility is a thesis defended by a growing number of historians and supported by an increasing amount of evidence (many of these historians see Hirohito as a much more powerful leader than Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. For example, Italian Ministers weren't directly responsible to the king above Mussolini, while Japanese Ministers responded directly to the Emperor above any Prime Minister).
 * So, my opinion on this matter depends on which of the two points of view that I have exposed is finally applied. If the first, I support the removal, but not only for Hirohito, but for all WWII Japanese leaders. If the second, I'm opposed to the removal.McCoy (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a clear lack of supporting sources in the article. With sourcing, and sourcing that is actually cited in the article, the appropriateness of the categories can be evaluated. Without sourcing, they should be removed. - Ryk72 talk 00:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since he was the leader of a Fascist country, he does belong in the categories. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Source? - Ryk72 talk 01:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism_in_Sh%C5%8Dwa_Japan -- Pedro8790 (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and, in any case, there is nothing in that article supportive of describing the subject of this article as a "Japanese fascist" or a "Fascist ruler", or, indeed, as a "fascist" at all. If we do not have reliable sources to support the categories, the should be removed. - Ryk72 talk 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit required
A minor edit is required to the main page. One of the picture captions reads "Emperor Hirohito of Japan or the Shōwa Emperor on the ship Musashi, 24 June 1943. This ship sunk in the Battle of Leyte in 1945." it should read "Emperor Hirohito of Japan or the Shōwa Emperor on the ship Musashi, 24 June 1943. This ship sunk in the Battle of Leyte in 1944." IJN Musashi was sunk on the 24th of October 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:39B0:EE00:41E2:2FC3:7F5D:D633 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Longest reigning ruler of the state
After the death of Emperor Hirohito in January 1989, the prince of Liechtenstein, Franz Joseph II (1938-1989), became the longest reigning ruler of the state, and not the king of Thailand, Bhumibon Adulyadej. Franz Joseph II from January 7 to November 13, 1989 held the status of the longest reigning head of state. МансурХароныч (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to cut the last sentence of that paragraph as it is not directly relevant to Hirohito. DrKay (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
I'm in agreement with DrKay, that we do not add the total years/days into the section about the monarch's reign. The start & end dates of a reign, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2020
add details or a link to the Anti-Comintern Pact to the section 'World War II' (currently it just mentions 'the treaty') Wmevius (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &thinsp;Darth&thinsp; Flappy   &laquo;Talk&raquo;  14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020
There's a portion of information about the Emperor's 1971 visit to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor that's incorrect. It's the part that goes "Hirohito reunited with Edward VIII, formally the Duke of Windsor", But that's wrong. The titles should be switched the other way around; "Hirohito reunited with the Duke of Windsor, formally King Edward VIII" Beebopboopimnotarobotipromis (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DrKay (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
His religion was Shinto, because the Emperor was always state religion, before it's getting missing from the religion infobox. 2001:4452:493:9400:B1B5:F2C0:4F2F:311E (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What these sources say would not be significant. Template:Infobox person typically excludes the person's religion. Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But in this royalty infobox, it must be required for religion. But in case of regardless on his religion. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020
Adding citation since following paragraph is marked as citation needed.

"In the Four-Power Treaty on Insular Possessions signed on 13 December 1921, Japan, the United States, Britain, and France agreed to recognize the status quo in the Pacific. Japan and Britain agreed to end the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The Washington Naval Treaty was signed on 6 February 1922. Japan withdrew troops from the Siberian Intervention on 28 August 1922. The Great Kantō earthquake devastated Tokyo on 1 September 1923. On 27 December 1923, Daisuke Namba attempted to assassinate Hirohito in the Toranomon Incident, but his attempt failed. During interrogation, he claimed to be a communist and was executed, but some have suggested that he was in contact with the Nagacho faction in the Army.[]" ResearchProjectSEA (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't given a citation. DrKay (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the mistake. Added citation now. --ResearchProjectSEA (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the source you gave is for the Washington Naval Treaty. Are there sources for the interrogation statement? – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is historydraft.com considered reliable? It has the reference to the interrogation statement. --ResearchProjectSEA (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Per |their FAQ, "Mainly we rely on Wikipedia as the main source of information, media and content." Circular referencing is frowned upon here. – robertsky (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't have better reference for interrogation piece. --ResearchProjectSEA (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Help for translation to spanish
Hello editors, I am currently translating this article to Spanish because the article is badly translated, also it doesn’t contain the full scope of the article that the English one has. I am writing this entry to ask: How can I view the table codes so that I can translate them to Spanish and add them to the article? I am a very new editor and I am not acquainted with tables and how to create them so looking at the source code for the translation would be very helpful. Sliceplayer (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)