Talk:Tanaka Giichi

Birth/Death
Britannica has different birth and death dates. Bluemoose 08:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ja:田中義一 shows his birth as June 221864 and death on September 291929. Does that agree with Britannica? Neier 02:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Britannica online, Infloplease.com and ja:田中義一 are in aggrement, but the article as it stands now ](1866-1949) agrees with the info on Reference.com and Biography.ms. Draeco 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This link (At the official home page of the Prime Minister's residence -- consider it like "Whitehouse.gov") shows:
 * Born : June 221863, Yamaguchi Prefecture
 * Deceased : September 291929
 * The June 22 vs July 25 problem is due to the old Japanese dating system, and is referenced on the Japanese Wikipedia entry for Tanaka. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) has a lot of info about this type of discrepancy.
 * The article as written now seems to be wrong. Correcting it to July 251864 or June 221863 is a style preference.  The 1929 death date seems indisputable, especially given how he died so soon after leaving office (also in 1929). Neier 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll agree 1929 death seems very certain, I've also found it in two print sources. I'll change the article's dates accordingly. Draeco 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, 1929 is what his tombstone says as well. I'm still trying to unravel the 1863/1864 conundrum.
 * Tombstone says 1864?
 * http://www.geocities.jp/bane2161/tanakagiiti.htm (a plaque outside his birthplace says "born in 1863")
 * The aforementioned prime minister residence site says 1863, or 22 day of 6 month of third year of Bunkyu
 * Japanese Wikipedia says "22 day of 6 month of first year of genji", which equates to July 251864 (The 1864 page of the Japanese Wikipedia lists his birthday, along with the same justification.)
 * http://www.ndl.go.jp/portrait/datas/126.html (National Diet Library) says 1864.
 * Since it is pre-1872, there is going to be some date disparities, and, any site I've googled that mentions the lunar/gregorian dates agrees on July 251864. No site that says June 221863 has any mention of the date mismatch before 1872.  That doesn't mean that they are wrong.  In fact, it could mean that all of the places which factor it into account are doing it to an already-converted date.  I doubt it, but it's possible.


 * At any rate, I think I've exhausted my feeble resources. It is more correct now than when we started, so that's a "win".  :-)  Neier 12:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

 * There is a comment (HTML comment) in the text that Baron is a poor translation of the correct Japanese title. What is the correct title?
 * In what year did he become a general? (He is referred to as General Tanaka late in the article and I had trouble deciding if this was the same person).

Baron
There is commentary here that Baron is inaccurate for the Japanese term.

However, online search turned up the following links: which are reputable encyclopedias and use the term Baron. RJFJR 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Columbia encyclopedia
 * Britannica


 * The Japanese term is "男爵" (Danshaku, だんしゃく), and as far as I can tell, Baron is the correct translation. In fact, on the Japanese Wikipedia, it is linked to an article that further describes exactly what a Danshaku is.
 * See 男爵 on the Japanese Wikipedia
 * Google also shows 22,000 hits for "男爵" & "Baron". For comparison sake (not that it's all that useful, but it surprised me) -- "総理大臣" & "Prime Minister" only gave 960 hits.  Neier 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Blood on the Sun"
The 1945 Hollywood movie Blood on the Sun (filmed in October 1944) is about the editor (played by James Cagney) of an American paper in Tokyo who acquires the Tanaka Memorial and seeks to smuggle it out of Japan.

Yes, it's a fictional movie, but given that it is effectively American propaganda, produced during the close of the war, it seems to me to be worthy of mention (after the mention of the "Why We Fight" series). In particular, it is example of presenting the Tanaka Memorial as being authentic.

Any thoughts? If there are no compelling objections, I'd like to add mention of it, with emphasis on its propaganda value at the time.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)