Talk:Shōwa era

Two wars are a continuous advance
"in war with China for a second time and in 1941, it entered the world-wide conflict of the Second World War by attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor."

I think this line is lacking, as The Sino Japanese war is pretty much a catalyst for the war ongoing in that area. To say the Sino Japanese war and WWII are seperate entities is problematic because it is a continuous advance. I just find the line "stupid" because it is trying to seperate an asiatic conflict with the "world" conflict that was only happening in Europe, and North Africa... Note that the pacific conflict had been ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.99.238 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Which year?
"The Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1941" says Japan had "seized" Hong Kong by 1939, yet in the next section it says Japan "overran" Hong Kong in 1941. Which is it, 1939 or 1941? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.113.11 (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not NPOV
"Conservatives forced the passage of the Peace Preservation Law because the party leaders and politicians of the Taisho era had felt that, after World War One, the state was in danger from revolutionary movements. These fears, however, had no basis in reality. They were rooted strictly in ideology." [Emphasis added.]

Is it just me, or does this seem very not NPOV? Irregardless of whether their concerns were justified or not, simply dismissing it as paranoia doesn't strike me as "neutral." --MurderMunkey 15:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, while the claim seems plausible, wikipedia requires a citation at the very least. I removed the last two quoted sentences until someone provides a source. Dan 18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized move
This article was moved (a rather drastic change) without any consultation or discussion. Please do not make unilateral changes to an article based on a poor understanding of Japanese history and the Japanese language.-Jefu 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization
I know it's traditional in modern Japan to date eras by imperial reigns, but this instance strikes me as a very poor choice for historical thinking. As the second paragraph in the article makes clear, Japan's defeat and subsequent occupation totally changed everything. Japan in 1989 was very different from what it was in 1926; government, society, the economy, technology, etc. were all transformed. Would it be unheard of to split the article entirely and just link to other pages beyond the opening? Almost any Japanese history book would not consider this as one period. Brutannica 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Name of Emperor
I think we should probably have some consistency in this article w.r.t. the name of the Emperor during this period, because at the moment it seems to alternate between Showa and Hirohito, with no apparent consistency BovineBeast 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Every other emperor of Japan is called by his regnal name. And Hirohito himself is called Shōwa Tennō or Emperor Shōwa in every official Japanese source, even in English. I can't understand why some sources still use his given name instead, except because they copy other sources, that copy other sources ... that were written while he was alive. It's only the force of the habit, wether it is a right habit or not. I think a serious encyclopedia must keep the right habits only. (see discussion here). Švitrigaila 11:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Period or Era ?
I think we already had this discussion, but I can't remember were it was: Shōwa is not the name of a period, it's the name of an era. A "period" (時代 jidai) in Japanese history is a long and informal period of time distinguished by general cultural or historical facts. As a parallel in Western history, we could say that the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and so on, are such "periods". An "era" (年号 nengō) is a legal period of time aimed at counting calendar years, and it can be very short. Since 1868 an era corresponds exactly to the length of the reign of an emperor. That means that if the next emperor died three days after he ascended the throne, then the next era would last three days only. Shōwa is the era corresponding to the reign of Hirohito, later called Emepror Shōwa. The origin of this confusion is that there were so many changes during the Meiji era (1868-1912) that some sources considered it a "period". But that's not a reason to call "periods" every further eras. A better distinction in Japanese history is to consider a single "period" from the begining of Meiji to the end of Word War II (1867-1945) and a second "period" since the end of the war up to today (1945- ). Švitrigaila 11:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We can agree that nengō are short and jidai are long, and that "period" can easily be used for both short stretches and long ones. I'm not used to seeing "era" used for short stretches, although I suppose it might be. Given that there are two words, "period" and "era", for two purposes, I'd use "era" for the longer time and "period" for the shorter. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the custom. The custom in English to discribe Japan history is to use "period" to translate jidai and "era" or "era name" to translate nengō (if I don't mistake). Shōwa and Meiji are nengōs before all, even if some consider them jidais too. Heisei can't seriously be considered a jidai. Note that Keiō and Heisei articles are names simply with no other word. Why not "Meiji", "Taishō" and "Shōwa" instead of Meiji period, Taishō period and Shōwa period? Švitrigaila (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've ably described one custom. Another is to use "period" for nengō. &para; Note that Keiō and Heisei articles are names simply with no other word. Why not "Meiji", "Taishō" and "Shōwa" instead of Meiji period, Taishō period and Shōwa period? It's an interesting question, but rather than posing it here perhaps you should be concentrating on the parallel discussion on the name of the old bean who died in early 1989 (or, according to both a memorable early edition of Mainichi and popular rumor, late 1988). -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm now at work, where I'm bored enough to take part in small discussions but not fool enough to take part in long arguments while my boss is around... Švitrigaila (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Meiji period — we had this discussion before. "Shōwa period" is the more appropriate name for this article for the same reasons as for "Meiji period".--Endroit (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should "Shōwa period" be the more appropriate name for this article for the same reasons as for "Meiji period" and not "Shōwa" be the more appropriate name for this article for the same reasons as for "Heisei"? Švitrigaila (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"looming threat"
The phrase "looming threat of communism" in the first paragraph, seems anything but neutral. It should not be accepted wisdom that communism poses a "threat" to society. I am not a communist by any means, but all too often this sort of writing is found in ostensibly neutral historical narrative. I feel that the phrase ought to be rewritten to something like, "the fear of communism among sectors of the business and political establishment..." Though longer, it probably reflects more accurately the nature of the antipathy towards communism, as well as the locus where the fear resided.

The sentence as written seems to excuse ultranationalism as a rational response to "looming" non-capitalist ideologies.

Again, I do not represent any political stripe here; I believe firmly in neutral and balanced depictions of history, however. --Gregapan (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Something along the lines of what Gregapan suggested would give a more neutral PoV. Regardless of what one might think of communism, it needs to be considered a threat to/by [b]someone[/b]. Describing it as a general threat to society(s) does not correspond with a NPOV approach. 80.203.88.101 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Exclusion Act not relevant
Is there any reasonable evidence that the Japanese Exclusion Act had any tangible effect on Japanese domestic politics? I think it is a highly America-centric view to see this as one of the causes for the rise of anti-western views in Japan. After all, the Japanese Exclusion Act applied to the US; it had no effect on the situation within Japan. Moreover, it is fundamentally contradictory to think that the Japanese would be upset by being excluded from a country which they were beginning to hate anyway. After all, if you hate it, why go there? The ones who did go would be seen as traitors, going to live in a hated country. So why get upset about the exclusion act? The memory of unequal treaties; extra-territoriality; the western exploitation of China; the hypocrisy of Europeans grabbing colonies around the world, while opposing Japanese expansion in Asia; these were the things that gave rise to anti-western sentiment in Japan. The Japanese Exclusion Act was in the noise compared to these things. The Japanese Exclusion Act was indeed a very significant example of racism in the history of California and the western United States. But it is highly America-centric to transfer this significance to what was fundamentally a Japanese domestic situation. Unless the Japanese Exlusion Act section can be properly referenced, I think it should be removed. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the reaction in Japan--at the highest levels & in public opinion--was very hostile. This is why Japan started to hate the USA. See Izumi Hirobe, Japanese Pride, American Prejudice: Modifying the Exclusion Clause of the 1924 Immigration Act (2001) ch 4  Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least refer to it by the correct nickname as the Asian Exclusion Act? It wasn't referred to as the Japanese Exclusion Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.132.118 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on 1926-45, too little emphasis on 1945-89
I find it odd that this article--which is supposed to cover ALL of the Showa era (from 1926 to 1989)--seems to only focus on the 19 years before Japanese surrender, and leaves the 44 years of post-war and post-occupation Japan as a single paragraph.

I can't write for beans, but I think there should be far FAR more about the 44 years between 1945-1989 than there is now, or at least dial down the bits about 1926-1945. Just sayin'... -- 71.141.98.160 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reiwa period which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Shōwa (1926–1989) → Shōwa era – Natural disambiguation is preferred. Interstellarity (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: Shōwa era is the term most commonly used in order to describe this 20th century historical period. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: Considering Shōwa is a period in Japanese history, changing it to the proposed Shōwa era would make the the title specific and descriptive enough. Petra0922 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: As per nom and CurryTime7-24. IMO, this should always have been the title of this article.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Support: move makes sense. DJ (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.