Talk:Hirohito

Death

Hello everyone, this is Steven from J-Revolution.com. In this article, my website is sourced as the source listing Hirohito's death. I DO know that he died of duodenal cancer, but, and this is only as good as I can remember, I am almost positive that I sourced Wikipedia for the "traditional" hiding of the cancer. Unfortunately, now my article has been sourced as the site with the fact, when in reality the line has no source.

I think it would be best to remove this line until someone can find another source. I apoligize for this happening, but I also want it taken care of as soon as possible!

Steven 15:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

please look up Wikipedia rules on naming monarchs [[1]]

Taku could you please stop removing the move proposals? i wrote my ideas at the bottom Bhinneka 29 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone else think the picture of Shōwa Tennō meeting Reagan should be moved down the article, out of the WWII section? elvenscout742 20:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The picture is really nice but if it is jpg, it would be more nice too. -- Taku 06:21 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Uh... what? Anyway, I'm going ahead and fixing it. elvenscout742 18:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does the picture of Hirohito in the issue of Time Magazine have to be deleted? It seems to be a perfectly legitimate fair use context. Dr mindbender 05:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hirohito and WWII

dose anyoen know this infomation.... if yes please write it here... thank you

Bias in this article

I would have to agree with many of the observations put forth here. Although I am not equipped to suggest or write what specific changes should be implemented, it is safe to say that a detailed entry about Hitler without specific details provided about the effect his reign had on German Jews and the unique nature of their treatment would be miss-leading. There is certainly a very unique personality given to the way Japanese soldiers behaved in Manchuria, and I feel it would be extremely informative for Hirohito's reign to be linked to this. Whether he was personally responsible or not, since it is up for debate, can be included as information and left up to the discretion of the reader. Nevertheless, attrocities committed at the hands of Japanese soldiers should most certainly be linked to the leadership of that nation.

Currently, this article presents Hirohito as a wartime ruler and little else. Much of the detail about his reign and the specifics of internal politics are almost unnecessary according to me. If someone capable is able to create an additional paragraph about Manchuria and the unique nature of the war crimes committed there, it would provide much additional justification for the question of Japanese leadership being tried for war crimes. Right now, it is not clear why that was considered. 19:21, 2007 Mar 14 (UTC) SirDecius

We can argue as much as we like about Hirohito's private polical beliefs, whether he approved/disapproved of Japanese aggression in the 1930s and 1940s and the atrocitities committed in his name, or whether he had any real influence that could have been brought to bear on the policies followed by Japans leaders.

But the fact remains, for tens of thousands of people around the world, Hirohito's name is primarily (or even mainly) associated with the most appalling crimes - crimes which were committed in Hirohito's name and for which a number of other members of Japan's ruling elite were tried, convicted, and executed for War Crimes.

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT REFLECT THIS FACT ADEQUATELY.

By confining the association between Hirohito and Japanese War Crimes to the middle paragraphs of the article in a kind of Ideas Ghetto called "Hirohito and the Second World War" we are marginalising the sufferings of thousands of people and distorting the way that twentieth century history is seen by many, many people.

YES, there are many interesting things to learn about Hirohito that have little to do with the Second World War, Pearl Harbour, etc and it is good to read them in the article - but for large numbers of people the main significance of Hirohito is his role as the figurehead of Japanese Imperialism in the 1930s and 1940s.

I don't think that the article needs to paint Hirohito as some sort of Antichrist - or even as a Hitler - but it needs to make a more prominent acknowledgement of the shameful side of Hirohito's reign.

(TS - 26th February 2006)

I haven't seen any reputable recent historical work not argue that Hirohito was very reluctant to begin the war, or that he did not play the key role in ending it. Am I just reading the wrong books, or is the entry here badly out of date? (I'm not going to change it right away, first I'll wait and see if anyone can bring any current and reputable evidence that H was one of the warmongers.) Tannin

See Herbert P. Bix - Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. Roadrunner

Ditto. People have presented rational arguments and well-researched documentary evidence both for the emperor's innocence and for his guilt (Bix has done the most recent and most thorough job arguing for the emperor's guilt). In the spirit of Wikipedia, we have to leave culpability as an open question and acknowledge both sides of the debate in this article, however obvious his innocence might have seemed to people in Japan and to others (such as General MacArthur), and however obvious his guilt might have seemed to people in Korea and Manchuria and to others (such as President Truman). David 23:14, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

It is a true story hirohito and then the government both are unwilling to wage the war and wanted diplomatic resolution. -- Taku 16:23 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, those nasty Americans forced them at gun-point to mount a massive, surprise, attack on the US Pacific fleet. Oh, wait, I forgot, it wasn't any part of the Japanese government that decided to do that, it was a unilateral action of a confused lieutenant.

Please forgive my lapsing into sarcasm, but this attempt to whitewash the past offends me. I don't blame the current generation of Japanese in any way for anything their ancestors did (people who weren't born yet can have no possible responsibility for actions taken prior to their birth) - but if contemporary people do attempt to act like the past didn't happen, that's a separate failing for which I do hold them responsible. Noel (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

there can be no doubt that Hirohito approved and encouraged the military strategy of establishing a far eastern empire. After all, pre-1945 he was considered a divinity and they would not have done this had he not approved. The war led to millions of deaths for which he is responsible. He should be listed in the mass murderers section along with Hitler and Stalin. --Marcel1975 20:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh geez. Read up on your history. Had Hirohito not gone along with the military's desires, he would have been overthrown or perhaps assassinated. There was talk of replacing him with Prince Chichibu, who was more sympathetic to the military's causes. Hirohito strongly pressed for diplomatic resolutions; even Bix concedes this in his recently published book (a thorough 600+ pager detailing Hirohito's involvement in the War).. specifically on the Mukden Incident and the establishment of the state of Manchukuo. During this time, Hirohito experienced severe insomnia (Edwin Hoyt writes this), and during the course of Second World War, he recited to his advisers a poem his grandfather, Emperor Meiji had written about peace. I know that last sentence was one big run-on, but this is just the discussion section. Tlaktan 04:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tlaktan,

Would it not have been less dishonourable and shameful had Hirohito "not gone along with the military's desires" and had "been overthorwn or perhaps assassinated" as you put it above?

Yasuhiro Nakasone (former Prime Minister of Japan) recently said that the emperors of Japan, "symbolise national unity and are supported by the citizenry, who take great pride in them as a historical achievement unique to Japan" (source The Guardian, 3 February 2006).

Given that Japan's rulers in the 1930s and 1940s expected thousands of ordinary Japanese people to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for the Emperor - would it have been too much to have expected that Hirohito (this symbol of unity and national pride) would have been prepared to risk his throne or even his life for the greater good of the Japanese nation and humanity in general?

The fact is that the reign of Hirohito was a shameful and disgraceful episode in human history and because of his position as the focus of Japanese public life at that time Hirohito will forever be associated with that shame and disgrace. No amount of hair splitting over how much he knew or what he could have realistically done will change that.

(18:10, 10 February 2006)

THIS ARTICLE IS DEEPLY FLAWED AND NOT BROAD ENOUGH

There are three sections about this subject but none seems specific so I choose to write my comment here.

Having read the article, I must write write here that it is deeply flawed for two main reasons :

1) The content is outdated in its evaluatuation of the emperor's role before and during the war. The writers seem to consider that Herbert Bix is an "original" and that he is the only marginal advocating a direct implication of Showa in the conduct of the state, not as a dictator but as an opportunist who governed in a pluralistic way. Contrary to this belief, Bix's view is shared by a vast majority of serious historians who are, by the way, mostly japanese.

Here are some citations, excluding Bix :

-Peter Wetzler, Hirohito and war, 1998, p.200 : «In Japan, the head of the imperial house had a more subtle, but no less important influence on political and military decisions... During the crucial time immediately before the outbreak of the war, Hirohito stood for the imperial line -and that meant asserting is right to participate in the decision-making process. In particular, consonant with his role as the emperor of Japan, Hirohito was told well in advance exactly how the attack on Pearl Harbor was to be carried out. This was done in a private audience on 3 novembre 1941. If Hirohito had any objections, as he had expressed unmistakably in similar private audiences previously, they were not voiced or recorded.»

-p.55 «The army's efforts, however, do not absolve the emperor from responsiblity for going along with their plans. Not only was the emperor well informed, he was given ample opportunity to make his concerns known in private before decisions were officially promulgated.»

-p.32 «...it means the emperor was a party to resolving disputes among governement leaders... If individual military officers acted arbitrarily and illegally in pursuing a certain policy, by ignoring the emperor's prerogative of supreme command, then the emperor, among others, acted illegally in not fulfiling the duties of his office and caling them to account.»

-David Titus, Palace and politics in prewar Japan, 1974, p.300 «The emperor did not simply keep himself informed; he also pressured his officials in regard to correctness and consistency of their policies.»

-Akira Fujiwara, Shôwa tennô no jû-go nen sensô, 1991, p.122

«...considering the discussions that went on behind the scenes prior to these (imperial) conferences and the liaison conferences that preceded them, the thesis that "the emperor as an organ of responsibility" could not reverse cabinet decisions is a myth (shinwa) fabricated after the war.»

2) All the text is written in a way to absolve Hirohito.

If it is true that he was reluctant to go to war against the Occident, it was certainly not the same in 1937 when he sanctionned without hesitation the invasion of China. However, there is nothing about China here.

Also, focusing on the imperial conference of september, the text omit the multiple "behind the chrysanthemum curtain" meetings where the real decisions were taken between the emperor and his chiefs of staff.

For example, on september 10th, four days after having read his poem, Hirohito said to Sugiyama :«You may go ahead and mobilize (the army). But if the Konoe-Roosevelt talks go well, you'll stop.»

Nothing here about those meetings. All we have is this view of a poor fellow who reads his "peace poem" and go dissecting marine invertebrates...

What about Konoe's confession to his cabinet secretary Tomita :«In short, I felt the emperor was telling me : my prime minister does not understand military matters; I know much more. In short, the emperor had absorbed the view of the high commands.» ( Tomita Kenji, Haisen Nihon no uchigawa, 1962, Akira Fujiwara, ibid p.126)

As for the choice of Tôjô, nothing is written about the rejection of Higashikuni's appointement who was the choice of the army and the navy. Hirohito himself wrote : «I think the apointement of a member of the imperial house to a political office must be considered very carefully. Above all, in time of peace this is fine, but when there is a fear that there may even be war, then, more importantly, considering the walfare of the imperial house, I wonder sbout the wisdom of a member of the imperial family serving (as prime minister).»

In conclusion, Shôwa was not a bellicist, certainly not a poem-freak-pacifist, but an oportunist who, as written below by Tannin, governed in a pluralistic way. Serious historians have made the consensus and there is no justification to keep this article the way it is. The article should have a section about the historical perspective about the controversy on the emperor's role and the Mac Arthur propaganda but present a very more larger perspective than a poem read on one imperial conference.

--Flying tiger 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Can I rename the title to just Hirohito? Hirohito is just a name. The title sounds like John F. Kennedy of the United States. You got idea. -- Taku 16:23 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

There are no regular people named "Hirohito", right? This goes against the standard of adding "of <country>" to ruler's names, but that rule was adopted to deal with the multiplicity of rulers named "Charles II" and the like, and I don't think theren't any other countries to confuse with "Hirohito". Still, if Japan is going to get an exception to the rule, best modify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) so the next energetic standards-enforcer doesn't change all this back... Stan Shebs 00:05 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think Hirohito is a ruler's name in the first place. His name as ruler should be Showa not hirohito. Hirohito is just a his given name and he has no family name. -- Taku 00:17 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think the article should be renamed Emperor Showa of Japan and Hirohito should redirect to it. Danny 00:19 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I do too, and I just did. -'Vert

I disagree. Hirohito is recognized more widely in English-speaking world. I guess. Bascially, we don't have to stick to the certain kind of synmetry, say with taisyo emperor because it is impossible to enfource uniform format in the field there are a lot of diversities. The article should be named Hirohito. What's wrong with that? -- Taku 05:59 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Taku, you are Japanese, right? If you pick up the Manichi Shimbun and on the front page it has an article about the former Emperor, what name does it give him? Tannin 06:40 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

You mean today or something. I don't have Mainichi Shimbun. Anyway, the convention in Japan is irrelevant. Google gives much more hits with Hirohito than with Showa emperor. I believe Showa emperor or former emperor is a common referring in Japan, but in English-speaking, hirohito is probably common. There are also many books with title with Hirohito. I am quite sure about this. Besides, anyone has justification to favor showa emperor over hirohito? I don't see one yet. -- Taku 06:48 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Taku. I meant any newspaper of course, that one was just the first example that popped into my head. I have not the slightest doubt that "Hirohito" is more common in English, and very little doubt that the entry should go back to being under the best-known common name - i.e., "Hirohito" - but I like to get my facts straight before saying too much. -- Tannin

Let me alter the question a little then. Back when I was in Japan for a couple of months about 30 years ago, there used to be three English-language daily papers. Er ... The Japan Times, Asahi Shimbun and one other as well, if I remember correctly after all these years. What name would they use? -- Taku 07:25 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I am sure public media use a ruler name, that is showa emperor or taisho emperor and so on. Hirohito is a first name if you put it in English context. It sounds funny if newspaper says "George demanded war against Iraq". So Japanese people know the name hirohito but they don't use it in everyday life. -- Taku 07:25 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Also, how would they distinguish between the Empror Hirohito and the previous Emperor and the current one? Thanks -- Tannin

I think the current emperor is called Akihito or Heisei emperor. Likewise, the emperor before Hirohito is called Taisho emperor or his first (given) name (I mean in English-context). -- Taku 07:25 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Actually I have a doubt that there are those who believe hirohito is a name for royal family so there are hirohito I or hirohito II and so on. It is a rediculouslly misconception. The clamin in former article is just so stupid. Think what would American think if text says the current president Bush and Bush who waged Gulf War is the same person? -- Taku 07:25 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Well, as long as "Hirohito" is a good, solid redirect here, whats the problem?-'Vert

Heh, the instant redirect was educational in itself. I'd seen "Showa" in print a couple times, but was unclear on the relationship to "Hirohito". I doubt 1 in 1000 English readers will understand why there would be a redirect, but if it's explained in the first sentence, most will just accept it as another one of those "weird Japanese customs". :-) Stan Shebs 12:01 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

There is no such enlightment perpose on the title of an article. Wide-recognized convensions say the title should be the most familiar one to English-speaking. No more no less. -- Taku 15:51 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Additional content

OK, at least we have a little more content now to argue about. :)

I'm done for tonight (it's 2:45AM here) and will expect to see that some kind Wikipedian has corrected all my spelling errors by the time I take another look at this in the morning. :)

OK I've done a few spelling corrections! :-). One thing I don't think is quite right - the pre-war prime minister was Prince Konoye, no? I've corrected a number of instances of "Koyone", but I notice that the first reference and link to another article is "Konoe". Is this just another translation from Japanese script, or a mistake? In any case I've not changed that occurrence, so it can be argued over, but we do need to be consistent - I've only ever seen the PM's name rendered as "Konoye". Arwel 01:29 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I think it is just misspelling. I am not expert in Japanese history, but in my knowledge the prime minister is Konoe. Besides, Konoye or Koyone not sounds like Japanese name. -- Taku 02:20 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm at work right now - no references here - but I'll look into it tonight and correct as needed. Tannin

OK, I've done some hunting: it's an alternative transliteration. The existing Wikipedia entry Prime Minister of Japan uses KONOE, but some of my texts and about half the Google pages use KONOYE instead. Numbers for a Google search for"Prime Minister" and:

• "Fumimaro Konoe": 109
• "Konoe Fumimaro": 140
• "Fumimaro Konoye": 133
• "Konoye Fumimaro": 25

I'll change them all to KONOE. I guess there should be a redirect page created for KONOYE too. Tannin 13:51 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Dumb, dumb, dumb! I just went to add the alternative transliteration to the Fumimaro Konoe entry, and it's been there all the time! One day, I'm going to learn to read. (Don't hold your breath for it.) Tannin 14:11 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I still need to do a few more paras (well, about 8 to 10 I guess) on Hirohito's role in the surrender - it was a very complex situation and is probably impossible to explain in much less space than that, and critically important, I feel.

To restore balance in the depth of coverage, someone needs to do some more on his earlier life and post-war events - especially his transition to his modern role during the MacArthur administration. (Not me! I'll stick to 1940 to '45 where I know what I'm talking about.)

The account I've given accords with all the modern histories I have read, and even quite a few of the older ones if we make allowance for the evidence that was not available in, say, 1951. I don't think this stuff is controversial anymore. the passions of the war generation have cooled, and a consensus view has emerged from them. While the general thrust of the section I've added is pretty standard stuff these days, it's worth mentioning that I've followed closely in the footsteps of two of the best histories of the period that I am aware of. (Both American, as it happens.)

• Gordon W Prange At Dawn we Slept, Penguin, 1981.
• Richard B Frank Downfall: The end of the Imperial Japanese Empire, Random, 1999.

Tannin 15:45 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Hirohito as head-of-state

To date there has been a dispute about whether Hirohito should be considered monarch or simply a citizen after he abandoned his divinity. That view determines whether Japan is a democratic republic or a constitutional monarchary.

Removed the above ludicrous line. According to law, the emperor is the Japanese head of state. An emperor by definition is a monarch. A country with a monarch can no more be a republic than a sheep can be a cow. This stuff about being a monarch or a citizen is rubbish. I guess whoever wrote that is mixing up his or her terms and is confused. What they probably mean is for 'monarch' - old style divine Japanese monarch, for 'citizen' - non divine standard monarch. But every single sourcebook in existence states categorically and unreservedly, as does the Japanese government, that Japan is a constitutional monarchy. It could only be a republic if the monarchy was abolished. It has not been. Otherwise there would not be an emperor. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:46 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

This is a vandalism. Some people claim like you but some disagree. I will revert it. -- Taku 05:54 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

It is the view, Taku, of 100% of dictionaries, 100% of encyclopædias, 100% of lawyers, 100% of the government. You are mixing up terms and coming out with a meaning you may not intend but what you say there perhaps inadvertly is utter garbage would be laughed at if read. Read the page on Constitutional monarchy or any law textbook. Don't make a laughing stock of an otherwise good page.

This bluntly is not true. It is the case that the Emperor of Japan carries out some of the functions of the head of state, but there is a *HUGE* debate within Japan as to whether or not he actually *is* head of state or merely act as head of state. A lot of sourcebooks are either unaware of this debate or don't want to discuss it in detail, but the status of the emperor within Japan is in fact a very controversial topic.

Taku:

• Question 1: Who is the head of state of Japan?
  • Answer: the Emperor. Sources - Japanese constitution, Japanese foreign ministry, Encyclopædia Brittanica, the Emperor himself.

The Japanese constitution says no such thing. Article 1 of the Japanese constitution states that the Emperor of Japan is the symbol of state and derives his power from the will of the people. This phrasing was *deliberately* made ambigious, and efforts to amend the constitution to name the emperor as head of state have been defeated.

Article 3 of the Japanese Constitution states that the power of the Emperor to perform acts of state is dependent on Cabinet approval. This turns the standard relationship between cabinets and head of state on its head, and means that the Japanese cabinet could remove the power of the Emperor to receive ambassadors.

Acccckkkk..... This is wrong. I forgot about Article 7. -- Roadrunner

Constitutions don't always say someone is head of state, but if he fulfils the standard head of state functions, he is head of state. The emperor does. It is that simple. STÓD/ÉÍRE

• Question 2: Is an emperor a monarch or a president?
  • Answer: an emperor by definition is a monarch and can never be a president. A president is elected or selected. he does not in a democracy inherit a throne. An emperor inherits a throne, therefore by definition he cannot be a president.

• Question 3: Can Japan be a republic?
  • 'Answer"": It is constitutionally impossible for a democratic state to be a republic if it has an emperor as head of state. For Japan to become a republic, it would have to sack the emperor, kick him out of his palace, declare a republic and elect a president. There is currently an emperor living in the palace, meeting diplomats. ministers, politicians and symbolising a nation, therefore the office has not been abolished, which means Japan by definition cannot be a republic. STÓD/ÉÍRE 06:26 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Except it is far from clear that the emperor *is* head of state. There are people who argue that the Japanese emperor is not head of state, that they powers of the head of state belong to the prime minister and cabinet who have delegated them to the emperor. The Constitution and Japanese law has been structured specifically so that this interpretation is not ruled out. This ambuigity is intentional.

That is not how the international community and international law deem the head of state. They say unambioguously he is head of state. STÓD/ÉÍRE

• "Question 4': Does the loss of the Emperor's divine status not mean his is no longer a monarch?
  • Answer: The divine status itself is irrelevant to whether you a monarch. Queen Elizabeth II is a monarch and no-one ever thought her divine. The King of Spain is a monarch and was never thought of as a good. Japanese emperors were monarchs who were thought of as gods. Being a monarch doesn't make you a god, and not being god does not stop you being a monarch.

• "Question 5:' Can a monarch be a citizen and still be monarch?
  • Answer: Of course, Louis-Philippe was known as the citizen-king. The King of the Belgians is a citizen-king. being a citizen does not make you a monarch, but being a monarch doesn't stop you being a citizen. As a divine ruler, the Japanese emperor was not thought of as a citizen, but since losing his divinity, he can easily be both monarch and citizens.

It's nowhere that simple......

http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200112/26/20011226p2a00m0oa010000c.html

Among other things the Japanese constitution *does not* name the emperor as the head of state, it's the symbol of state, and that phrasing is significant.

No in isn't. Many constitutions don't name the head of state but if the head of state powers are exercised by a figure, under international law he is head of state. STÓD/ÉÍRE

Well, now that I've been intrigued by the question of how the Emperor's personal status affects what kind of government the Japanese think they have, I'd like to see the article include some references or external links supporting these positions. "Cite your sources", as they say. :-) Stan 06:33 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

A head of state is the person in whom legal symbolic authority for representing a state on the diplomatic curcuit is vested. This involves the receipt of credentials, the signing of credentials, the meeting of diplomats, the making of state visits, etc. All these roles are fulfilled by the Emperor of Japan, according to international diplomatic usage. If he wasn't the head of state, heads of state from around the world would not have attended his enthronement.

Except that these functions can and are delegated. The Queen of Canada is the head of state of Canada, but most of these powers are executed on her behalf by the Governor General of Canada. No one doubts that the Emperor of Japan *act* as head of state, but the Japanese constitutional question is whether that he *is* head of state, or has been implicitly been delegated that power by the cabinet.

Wrong. The key diplomatic functions of the head of state in Canada are carried out under the authority of the Queen. Diplomats are accredited to the Queen, not the governor-general, etc. STÓD/ÉÍRE

Another (extreme) argument that I've heard is that while the Emperor of Japan acts as head of state, that he does not have authority to do so under the Japanese Constitution, and that in performing diplomatic functions, he is acting unconstitutionally.

There are a lot of legal theories possible, and the simplest (which I don't challenge) is that the Emperor of Japan is head of state and that Japan is a constitutional monarchy. The point of mentioning all of this is that the issue is a bit murky.

What is much more relevant is not the emperor's current status, but how he got this status. It wasn't clear at all after WWII or in the early 1950's that the Emperor would end up performing diplomatic functions.

They would not sign letters of credence to him. he and his family could not carry out state visits. He would not meet with the diplomatic corp and sent a formal new year message to other heads of state. His functions are explicitly called head of state functions. If a head of state is elected/selected, then the state is a republic.

As a matter of precise fact, that is not the case. See the 1911 Britannica on Monarchy, for instance. Most monarchies have or had an elective element, if not a democratic one (it was generally an oligarchic election, and for life). Even the British Monarchy still has this within its machinery, but it was most evident example for most of us is probably in the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. Oh, and the remarks about "can't be both elected president and also inherit" are wrong too - just think of Napoleon III's phase as Prince-President of the French Second Republic. That illustrates another common constitutional mechanism, the holding of multiple positions in a mutually reinforcing way. PML.

Not modern constitutional monarchy. And Louis Napoleon was not called Prince-President of the Republic, he was a prince and so the form of address was applied to him personally. STÓD/ÉÍRE

Yes, modern constitutional monarchy. The British system, for example, is not explicitly hereditary, and never has been; the various hereditary parts provide "standing orders" to the Council of Accession, essentially an Electoral College, which then goes through a form of election (and has on occasion disregarded whichever "standing orders" were in force at the time, such as the will of Henry VIII, the analogue of US "faithless electors" not implementing a democratic vote; it could happen again). But even if the criticism had been accurate it would not have been applicable in a discussion such as this, which spans various times and places for comparative purposes.

And the Napoleon III point misses the target: while it is of course true that no one formal constitutional component provides that sort of personal and multiple capacity, the point is that systems do indeed achieve that. If you want a wider range of constitutional examples, just look at the intermeshing of the Princes of Orange (nowhere near Holland) and the Stateholders (Stadthouders) of the Dutch United Provinces. Or there are many other examples. If you like, it's an off balance sheet thing, and saying it's not in the formal accounts is actually an illustration of what is going on rather than a refutation of the fact that it is going on.

I think you are over-emphasising formal structures again... PML.

If it is through interitance then it cannot be a republic and is by definition a monarchy. 

inheriting a throne is by definition inconsistent with a modern republic. It is in the definition. STÓD/ÉÍRE

Executive authority may be vested in the prime minister (the same is true in Ireland, where it is vested in the cabinet) but if diplomatic functions are vested in the emperor he is head of state and the prime minister cannot be. Until 1949, those functions were not vested in the President of ireland, so even though he was president, he was not head of state and did not become so until 1st April 1949. Heads of state can only accredit ambassadors to other heads of state, no one else. Ambassadors are accredited to the emperor so in legal and diplomatic theory, in the eyes of the UN and the world, he and he alone is head of state. No one else can be. See the relevant articles on wiki and elsewhere STÓD/ÉÍRE 07:01 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I did a little (=not much) research on this. The short answer to constitutional monarch question seems to be yes. Above reasons pointed by STÓD/ÉÍRE explain it well.

Personally, I think that Japan is a constitutional monarchy and that the emperor of Japan is head of state. The point of raising this argument is that there are people who can and do argue otherwise and they aren't totally crazy. This *isn't* a big issue now, but it was right after the end of the war.

(this indented part is not mine, Tomos)

At the same time, many Japanese people, including scholars, recognize this categorization/labeling as a strange thing, since Emperor is "the symbol" of the state not "the head."

Here are some Japanese sources (including some report on discussion in the Diet) addressing that strangeness. [2], [3], [4]

Maybe it is a good idea to explain that feeling of strangeness. (And I'm hoping Taku would do it...would you? :-)Tomos

Addendum: One of the recently debated issue was the public vote to elect the prime minister. Under the existing system, prime minister of japan is selected in the Diet. And some suggested that public election is against constitution because constitutional monarchy cannot go with the presidency-like system of publicly electing the head of the government. And others said the existing emperor-as-symbol system indeed permit such political system. Here is the report on this thing issued by some discussion group commissioned (?) by private minister (Koizumi), [5]

In the section 1, it refers to the ambiguous status of the emperor in that sytem, also saying this could develop into a source of further disagreements among scholars. Tomos 08:00 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Just let me clarify one thing - I'm not an expert on this thing. So I expect that some experts may say those discussions Japanese has is still silly and there is absolutely no doubt that Japan is a constitutional monarchy and the emperor is the head of state. So rather than asserting that there is a ground to question those things, it would be better to say that some have no doubt at all about those matters while at least in Japan there are some debates. Without really implying which position is better. Well, maybe too obvious to say, but just in case.. Tomos

Hirohito and WWII (again)

Changed statement about Hirohito's involvement in World War II. The statement makes it sound like there is consensus among historians about his involvement in the war, whereas every history book I've read gives a different view of the subject, and I don't detect a consensus at all -- Roadrunner

In the immediate aftermath of the war, many Westerners believed that Hirohito bore a direct responsibility for the conflict, while others claimed that he was simply a powerless figurehead. The latter view was promoted by Allied occupation authorities, who refused to place Hirohito on trial for war crimes. The role of Hirohito in World War II remains a controversial topic with some historians arguing that his role in the war was minimal, and others, such as Herbert Bix, arguing that Hirohito was directly involved in promoting Japanese expansionism, personally approved the creation of Unit 731, which committed war crimes, and was personally culpable for hesitation in accepting unconditional surrender.

I'm moving this here for now. Roadrunner, there is ample consensus that neither of the two extreme views is justified: no-one of any stature still argues that Hirohito was the Evil Mastermind behind the war and planned the whole thing. Bix himself regards Hirohito as "the one individual whose very existence manifested the deepest political dilemmas of modern Japan", and as neither "an arch conspirator nor a dictator". Equally, no-one who knows anything about it claims that Hirohito had nothing to do with the war or that he was a powerless puppet. I've restored the previous balanced summary: Modern historians take the view that neither statement is justified. (i.e., neither dictator nor puppet.)

Now there is plenty of room still left for historical argument somewhere in between those two discredited extremes (as we both know), but the basic thrust of the modern view is very clear.

Here is a quote from a very rational review I stumbled across just now, which sets out the current consensus view as clearly as you like:

As (Bix's) detailed account makes clear, Hirohito demonstrated very little executive leadership Only in a rare instances when his advisors were deadlocked in crisis situations, such as the army revolt in February 1936 and the surrender decision in August 1945, did the Emperor act decisively. He exerted his influence for the most part by indirect means. Bix's own meticulous description of the Emperor's role in the developments of the 1930s, including the Japanese takeover of Manchuria and actions and decisions that ultimately led to the Pearl Harbor attack, shows an often opportunistic, vacillating, and indecisive individual in situations where he in whose name actions were taken frequently had little control over the course of events. Hirohito's main motivations were to protect and maintain the prestige and prerogatives of the imperial institution as it was shaped under his grandfather during the Meiji Period. Events often took place without his knowledge before the fact and often not necessarily to his liking, but it was clear that he personally approved the general thrust of the military extremists towards expansion and military action once he was convinced that there was a chance of success. In sum, it is already a matter of historical record that Emperor Hirohito was actively involved in the Japanese governmental process that led to Japan's expansionism in Asia and ultimately to the Pacific War against the Allied powers. [6]

The place to discuss individual items from the broad historical canvas, such as the Pearl Harbor decision, the surrender decision, and so on, is in their correct historical order within the entry as a whole. We already have a fairly comprehensive coverage of Pear Harbour, and the first half of the surrender period (I'll try to get back and do the second half of it soon), but there remain some gaping holes - nothing on Hirohito's reign prior to 1939, nothing on his actions through the middle part of the war.

It's silly to suddenly interupt the flow of a biographical entry, before it even gets properly started, to interject with a summary of the views of one single historian before we have even begun to lay out the bare facts so that the reader may draw his own conclusions. By all means mention Bix - you don't win a Pulitzer for being a monkey with a typewriter, after all - and if you don't reinsert him at a more appropriate place then no doubt I will - please don't go inserting stuff way out of historical context. Tannin 10:12 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

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.

In particular, I don't think that there is any consensus among historians whether Hirohito should have been brought up on war crimes charges. -- Roadrunner

Tried to tweak that paragraph some more. One problem was that "direct responsibility for the war" was a bit less extreme that "evil mastermind behind the war." I think that one could argue that even if Hirohito didn't plan out the entire war that he bears "direct responsibility for the war" in the sense that he could have avoided the war if he had made different decisions. Roadrunner

Yes. My intention was to say that there is a consensus that both the extreme views (which were both widely held at one time) are clearly incorrect. But, as you say, there is still plenty of room inbetween. My aim with the original statement was to mention the matter as briefly as possible and without taking sides on it, so as to warn the reader that we are about to enter some complex territory and deal with it in some detail.

I think that it would be an excellent idea to deal with the historiograpy of Hirohito in more depth, to cover the public and scholarly debates that arose post-war and continue to this day, and that the proper place to do this is towards the end of the entry. Hirohito is a major figure in modern history and I should imagine that this article will need to go well over the 32k limit before he is dealt with in enough detail to do the subject justice. No matter: write away and we can split it up when and if the time comes. It would help, though, if we keep one eye on that prospect, and try (so far as possible) to confine the "was he/wasn't he" debate that took place post-war either to the section on his post-war life, or (better) to a "what other people said about Hirohito" section. Tannin 21:04 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. Certainly no historian I know of argues that Hirohito was analogous to Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Germany without Hitler would have been completely different, while Japan without Hirohito would have been different in detail, but it would have still likely done something like Pearl Harbor.

I think the big problem I have with the original statement was that "bore direct responsibility" didn't capture the extremeness of the "Hirohito was the evil mastermind" view.

Japanese history around WWII is fascinating because people disagree about the basic facts. Every narrative of the Marco Polo Bridge incident or the Japanese decision to surrender seems to be completely different. The thing that always fascinated me about Japanese decision making pre-WWII is how apparently rational people can make such obviously stupid and counterproductive decisions, and decisions which a large fraction of the decision makers think are stupid and counterproductive.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of parallels between the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor and the United States policy toward Iraq. -- Roadrunner

Hirohito's divinity

The article has been referring to Hirohito's "divinity" as if he actually was a god or a divine being. Since this POV is widely disputed (at least outside of Japan :-) may I suggest we refer to his "claim of divinity"?

Otherwise, it sounds like he was really a god until after WWII, whereupon like an immortal elf from the Lord of the Rings he became a mere mortal like the rest of us. --Uncle Ed

What does the Divinity section add that wasn't already said earlier? RickK 22:47 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering, my History teacher told me of his rule as being stated a "revival of Shintoism" and he combined religion w/ military/government affairs. Is this veritable? And If so, how and in what ways? -- User: KidNovelist

When was he crowned?

From November 10 and 1928:

Michinomiya Hirohito is crowned the 124th Emperor of Japan

But this article says this happened in December 1926. Which is correct? Or maybe the official ceremony happened in November 1928.... ---mav 07:29, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Characterization of Bix

I removed this description of Bix's (possible) bias from the list of books:

based on books from pro-communistic publishers such as Aoki Shoten or Otsuki Shoten)

because I don't think it's accurate (if you look through the source notes from Bix's book, he does refer to some works from these publishers, but he also references many other sources, including contemporary diaries and other such documents). His text does not seem to many "traditional" leftish POVs (see, e.g. his treatment of Japanese surrender feelers, pp. 505-511), but even if he is, the copious sourcing allows one to see where his data comes from, and come to an independent assessment of his conclusions. Noel (talk) 17:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Questions

I have a question. The last part of the article said that doctors did not tell the Emperor of his cancer in accordance with Japanese tradition. What does this mean? I feel that such a statement requires some explanation, as the average reader is not going to go "oh they must mean the Japanese tradition of...." but might think something more along the lines of "Japanese culture is weird." Can anyone clarify?? The lesbian 01:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hirohito and responsibility for WWII

The responsibility of the war. Where, when and how was this issue "talked" out? It was pretty clear the Emperor of Japan lost power when the Japan's parliament was shut down. Tojo and cabinet was the "shogun" that took Japan to war. There was no thing really Showa could have done in that situation. It is definitely historical fact that Showa made the first radio broadcast for an Emperor.

http://www.glocom.org/books_and_journals/book_reviews/20010726_com_hirohito/

That book was just another angry American telling his point of view. -- Masssiveego

For an alternative view of the emperor's role in the war, suggesting that Tojo largely worked at the emperor's command, see the book by Bix cited at the end of the article. I think that we need to try to keep this article neutral, mentioning both sides of the debate (the emperor as puppet, and the emperor as war criminal) without treating either as if it were a proven fact. David 12:31, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Note also that Bix carefully points to all his sources, most of them Japanese, so it's not like he's expressing purely his personal opinion; he has a lot of data to back it up. Noel (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, he wasn't really either a puppet or a mastermind. The analogy that feels best to me is that of a guy who is a friend of bank robbers. He rides along in the back seat of the car and waits in the car while his friends rob the bank. A bank guard gets killed, but it wasn't he who did it. He was sitting in the car when it happened. The Japanese war and attrocities of the 30's and 40's were masterminded by Tojo, Anami, and their ilk. Hirohito was along for the ride. He is no more or no less guilty than the guy sitting in the back seat of the getaway car while his acquaintences shoot up and rob the bank.

The article doesn't represent Steven Large/Charles Sheldon's view that the Emperor rubber stamped policy due to his strong belief in constitutional monarchy representing the consensus. In this way, he was (possibly/probably) opposed to war, but preferred war to going against the constitution. An alternative view is also offered by Peter Wetzler that his actions were consistently guided by a desire to protect and uphold the imperial family (and their role in the state)

Renaming should be considered

I think the article should be renamed Emperor Showa of Japan or Hirohito, Emperor Showa of Japan, and Hirohito should redirect to it. Some conventions discussed and practiced here seemed weird. at33

And this is because what? Naming four emperors after Meiji Restoration is a tricky task, and the current title Hirohito is, I think, correct since his name is Hirohito after all. -- Taku 00:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Would you tell me why "you think" the current title Hirohito is correct?? at33

As said above, it's because the personal name of Hirohito is Hirohito, and this is the name Hirohito is usually known for. -- Taku 02:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I find the article name offensive. The Japanese people simply do not call the Emperor by His given name. Okay, okay, I know that this is an encyclopedia; and if a title must be so, then it must be so, offensive to some group of people or not. But then again, I see no reason why the title "must" be "Hirohito". It may not be the personal name, but who says it has to be? 朝彦 (Asahiko) 11:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

the Showa emperor is universally referred to as "Hirohito" among English speakers, so it makes sense to use that name in an encyclopedia entry, just as we refer to "Köln" as "Cologne". No offense is intended -- I'd guess that the usage came about because he had a highly-publicized European tour as crown prince, so he was fairly well known to westerners by that name before he became emperor. Dpm64 21:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I can see Asahiko's point. In wikipedia, if there is an official name, we tend to use it. For example, just recently, we have renamed Mac OS X 10.4 to Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" even though it is commonly referred as Mac OS X 10.4 or just Tiger and done the same things for the like. But if we are to use names but Hirohito, the same questions remain: why, say Showa emperor? I know Japanese people use this name, but then we have an article Japan instead of Nippon. I guess I stand corrected. Hirohito may not be a correct article title, but what's an alternative? -- Taku 22:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

the article has been renamed to Showa Emperor and i think that is quite consistent. we need a discussion on Wikipedia´s rules on naming monarchs, at the moment it is quite a mess and ridiculous [[7] ] according to the rules, Queen Marie Antoinette should be renamed Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austra. Maria Antonia who? you can see my point.. discussions on changing the rules most welcome Antares911 11:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following is moved from my talkpage.

hi Taku.

nope sorry, it´s not. in Japan he is not known as "Hirohito". even by current Wikipedia rules, that name is incorrect anyways. it´s either "Emperor Hirohito" or "Hirohito of Japan". i used the title "Showa Emperor" because that´s what he is being called now in Japan, just like "Meiji-Tenno". i am aware about the discussion, it seems that the majority in that forum favours a renaming.

Well, I have not seen the renaming as consensus. A couple of people do not constitute a majority. As said above, I can see the article title Hirohito may be problematic, but showa emperor is not an alternative we have agreed. Just let me know if there is a ongoing discussion I am not aware of. -- Taku 12:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming article

hi Taku. nope sorry, it´s not. in Japan he is not known as "Hirohito". even by current Wikipedia rules, that name is incorrect anyways. it´s either "Emperor Hirohito" or "Hirohito of Japan". i used the title "Showa Emperor" because that´s what he is being called now in Japan, just like "Meiji-Tenno". i am aware about the discussion, it seems that the majority in that forum favours a renaming. "Hirohito" in itself cannot stand, as a person who is not too familiar with Japan might not even know what this means? besides it´s kinda disrespectful on top of that Bhinneka 12:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the japanese website of this actually lists him as "Showa Tenno" User:antares911

Sorry for mess of conversation; we should stick discussing this matter here. Anyway, while you make some good arguments, I want to respect the discussion we had long time ago. Basically the arguments are summarized to:

• Because this is an English encyclopedia, the title of the article does not have to follow the title in Japanese.
• Because the emperor is never addressed in English, saying him Hirohito is not disrespectful; if you write Hirohito in Japanese, it may be so. But again this is not Japanese encyclopedia.
• We don't choose the title of an article so that it can help readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. For example, a title Current Prime Minister of Japan may be more informative than Koizumi Junichiro, but we just don't do it.
• Also, we have to give more time frame for the discussion. There are maybe a sizeable number of people who are unaware of this discussion.
• The consistency is basically unattainable. We have many titles that do not have emperor name of country-name format. Examples are Prince Shotoku and Akihito. It seems arbitrary why we don't accept an exception for Hirohito while we do for others.

-- Taku 13:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

hm let´s see... about three users are saying the name needs to be changed. you are the only one against it. so yes that does constitue a majority, even per wikipedia rules.

monarchs have to be listed a certain way, i can give you the link to the rules [8]

You have not counted the past poll.

"Monarchical titles. Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France; Cleopatra VII of Egypt. Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain."

all set? the example you gave of Akihito is not valid anyways, see rule above. and of course it does not make sense to put Junichiro Koizumi as something else as he was not a monarch. and you gave the example of Prince Shotoku which is fine with me. but then you can´t put Hirohito like that, according that rule he would have to be listed at least as Emperor Hirohito. i mean we can talk about this, but i think the wikipedia rules are quite clear.. Bhinneka 29 June 2005 12:08 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid titles of Japanese emperors are an exception. You have to convince people first that this rule applies to non-western monarchy. -- Taku June 29, 2005 13:40 (UTC)

ahm, well I´m afraid this article´s name is violating Wikipedia rules at the moment, sumimasen :-) Bhinneka 29 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Which rule? Monarchical titles? But who has made an editorial decision that all of titles for Japanese emperors have to follow this naming rule? Again, I am open to discussing if we want to change the rule of naming. You probably want to make your proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). You do agree that renaming articles arbitrarily is not reasonable, don't you? -- Taku June 30, 2005 01:21 (UTC)

In my opinion, we have following options:

1. Name each article of Japanese emperor according to Monarchical titles. (That is to say change this clause "These conventions do not apply to eastern civilizations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)." at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)
2. For the title of this article, agree not to follow any naming convention.

Is there any option I am missing? (I don't mean to be sarcastic.) -- Taku June 30, 2005 01:29 (UTC)

I'm weighing in as another opinion in favor of renaming this very badly titled article. Arguments in favor are:

1. First, and foremost, the Imperial Household Agency itself refers to him as Emperor Showa in English (For example, see this). That alone should be enough to put this silly bickering to bed.
2. It makes sense sense from the standpoint of consistency because all of the 121 emperors in Wikipedia that precede Emperor Meiji have articles named "Emperor X of Japan". There is no reason why this article should be an exception.
3. For people who are familiar with the name Hirohito, a redirect will be sufficient to take them to the proper article (that's what redirects are for.)
4. As a native speaker of English and a fluent speaker of Japanese who has studied Japanese for over 17 years (and lived in Japan for 10), referring to him as simply Hirohito is disrespectful.
5. Emperor Shōwa is a direct translation of what he is called in Japanese. And in a situation like this where you don't have decades or centuries of English language convention on how to refer to the emperors (like you have for English royalty), an English translation of the convention that has been adopted in Japan simply makes sense.
6. Finally, this discussion has gone on and on and I've seen several people express the opinion that this title should be changed, and only one person expressing a different opinion.

-Jefu 12:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This issue has been taken up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names of modern Japanese emperors. A couple of points, though.

For one, it's completely incorrect to say that "only one person has expressed a different opinion". Read further up this page - this question has been debated again and again, and the article is still here because many people expressed that wish.

For another, I don't agree that it's disrespectful to refer to the Showa Emperor as "Emperor Hirohito" - although you might have a point for plain "Hirohito", and I wouldn't object to moving this article to "Emperor Hirohito". However, even for plain "Hirohito", it is still very common in serious writings to refer to him as "Hirohito" (see, e.g. Bix, which refers to him as "Hirohito" throughout, after initial use or so of "Emperor Hirohito").

As for use of Hirohito, it doesn't matter that his actual name (in any form) was never used in Japan during his lifetime. Using the principle from Danzig that it be referred to as "Danzig" when writing articles about historical periods in which that was its common name in English, most of the references to Hirohito will be articles about historical events in his lifetime - when he was widely and respectfully referred to as "Emperor Hirohito" (no doubt from the usual form of address in the English-speaking world for reigning emperors) in the English-speaking world. (Note that both prior to WWII (when people generally treated him well, after the good PR of his world tour when Crown Prince), as well as many decades after WWII, when he was seen as a force for good in post-WWII Japan, especially in helping oversee a peaceful and forward-looking Occupation, he was treated respectfully.) Noel (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It is disrespectful to refer to him as just "Hirohito". "Emperor Hirohito of Japan" would conform more closely to wikipedia's standards, but it would still be wrong. I agree with Jefu: this article should be renamed Emperor Showa of Japan and a redirect from Hirohito would suffice for anyone unfamiliar with the naming conventions of Japanese Emperors. I will bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names of modern Japanese emperors as well. -Parallel or Together? 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems as though the issue has already been settled and archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) so I will just leave my comments on this page as my complaint against the title "Hirohito." It is shockingly disrespectful, but since that disrespect was somehow sanctioned recently, I will wait a while before bringing it up again. -Parallel or Together? 07:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I'm doing a eulogy for a class project on Emperor Hirohito, and so far the only time I've seen Emperor Showa is as a subtopic or alternative name. If this article was in the Japanese Wikipedia, I might say Emperor Showa is better, but as this is in English, Emperor Hirohito seems to be the better choice. He is known more widely under that name for purposes of histories and articles. www.googlefight.com match up Emperor Hirohito v. Emperor Showa and Emp. Hirohito wins. However, just Hirohito, while not earth-shattering, is a little disrespectful to such an influential man. Emperor Hirohito or the like should be the title. -Kill Mage 71.241.224.245 00:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As Parallel or Together points out, this ship has long sailed. But in response to your comment, Emperor Showa can be found widely used in The Japan Times, for example, Japan's most widely read English language newspaper. But this just reflects the fact that the Showa name (which is actually his name now) is widely used in Japan (in both English and Japanese), while Hirohito continues to be widely used outside of Japan, because changing someone's name midstream is a difficult thing to get people to do (as Prince also found out.) But it is far from unheard of outside of Japan, especially among people who speak Japanese and are familiar with Japan's culture. And respect has nothing to do with anything here. We're writing neutral encylopedia articles, not addressing the man.-Jefu 03:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't get this whole taboo about not referring to Hirohito by his given name. Maybe we're being overly politically correct. Like people getting upset over images of Muhammad. In fact, the English Muhamed article doesn't use "(pbuh)" right after mentioning his name. 71.140.117.137 09:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"[O]versaw the greatest changes to Japanese society"

Surely this is arguable. I mean, what about Emperor Meiji? (Or should I call him "Mutsuhito", just to be awkward and disrespectful?)elvenscout742 14:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's close to a toss-up, actually! Do remember that the Emperor Meiji was born at the time of Peary's arrival, so the wrenching change from the feudal non-industrial Japan of the Edo Period into a modern country was already under way when he became ruler 14 years later (and in any case he wouldn't have had much of a role at such a young age). Comparing with Hirohito: the change from the Japan of the 1920s, when be ascended, to the Japan of 1989, when he died, is also extra-ordinarily vast; Japan in the 1920s was still a semi-agrarian country with limited world-wide economic/etc impact, whereas the Japan of the 1990s was a wholly different country (urban/industrial - and with much of the old Japan of the feudal period that was still quite wide-spread in the 1920s now almost entirely gone), and a world economic superpower and a leader in technology to boot. Noel (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I just came here to ask about this same thing. I don't know more than the basics of Japanese history but I thought of the Meiji Era when I saw this. If historians are near unanimous on this point then fair enough, but are they? In any case I don't think it's immediately obvious that the importance of Hirohito's reign exceeds all others when you consider the changes of the Meiji period, and since you say it's close to a toss-up I think I'd prefer to see this statement qualified somehow, but I'll leave it up to those who really know about this kind of thing. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidently no one is keeping an eye on this article. Some months later that statement is still there in the introduction unqualified, so I've toned it down. — Trilobite 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC

Personally I think that honor goes to General MacArthur...

Inclusion of personal characteristics?

Should an inclusion of a personal description of the Emperor be included? After reading the page I've only gotten an historical perspective...

Marine Biology

Can I expand on the blurb about Marine biology, should we mention that he kept a bust of Charles Darwin?

"Longest reign"?

Does this statement conform to NPOV? I mean, I personally am with pretty much every educated person in believing this statement to be true, but what wabout the legendary Emperors in the Kojiki that ruled for around ninety years? Would a phrase like "it is accepted by most historians that his reign was the longest of Japanese Emperors" not be better? elvenscout742 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just noticed it refers to him as the 124th according to the traditional order. This means that, at least in the sentence two lines down from that statement, it probably shouldn't directly contradict that. elvenscout742 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people dont want me clogging up this page with pointless messages, but i just want to thank whoever wrote this article. It has helped me write a whole essay which is worth 40% of my A-Level grade and has made life a lot easier for me.

---

I think Emperor Hirohito was the most famous imperial ruler of Japan I think because he had the longest reign,and did what all the Japanese people did and it was succesful.Anyway,heaps of Koreans hate Hirohito because when he grew up,he came to Korea around 1933 and killed ten thousands of Koreans.In 1939(when World War 2started)he came back and went to the war or went back toJapan(I think.)

User:Dark-hooded smoker

Just to make sure. Emperor Showa(Emperor Hirohito) had never gone outside of the Japanese archipelago (of course, not involving the Chosen Peninsula(Korea)) until 1971 after his succession to the throne.--Questionfromjapan 12:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hirohito met the royal english family in London in 1921.

--Flying tiger 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the age of his crown prince. "After his succession to the throne", he had never gone until 1971. (His succession was in 1926.) --Questionfromjapan 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Taikō Tennō

"大行" is "Taikō", not "Taigyō". see this citation[9]. "Taikō" means "the emperor who has gone away", i.e., "the former emperor".--Questionfromjapan 01:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

The Japanese article links him to Boy Scouting, in what context? Chris 01:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Citecheck template removed

It appears that the wrong template was added to this article. Citecheck is designed for articles that have misused citations in some way, such as when an article claims an author took one opinion and the source shows the author expressed the opposite opinion. I don't see that sort of dispute here. Durova 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing mention of Hirohito and concubines

Hirohito's monogamy and abolishment of concubinage in 1924 has modern relevance to the current imperial problems of succession.

If you have a reference we can cite, the information should go into the article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to comment left on my talk page
Hi, I simply do not understand your comment about "in line citations" in the article. This text has more citations and references than any article on Wikipedia...
--Flying tiger 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
For the benefit of comparison I would direct you to look out other historical articles and their reference styles like the FA quality of Bhumibol Adulyadej and Mary II of England as well as the GA quality of Condoleezza Rice. But most importantly, it undercited for the benefit of the GA criteria. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through and add {fact} tags to every little thing that would need a cite but with a brief overview, the glaring stand outs are the entire sections of Early life, Accession (both should also probably be expanded for GA benefit too) having no in-line citations. Death also has no citations when there are a couple areas that need it. (Never told about his illness?) The citations in The problem of imperial responsibility could do a little tidying in accordance to WP:CITE (I strongly recommend utilizing the footnote tag. Early Reign has only cites in one paragraphs when there are important claims preceeding it that the reader doesn't know if those "sources" verifying them or not. After the first paragraph Post-war reign does not have any sources. World War II and Last days of the war have similar issues to the "Imperial respsonsibility" section with long gaps between sources and important claims in between.

I don't doubt that truth in the article or even that the work written in here is based on solid references and reliable sources. Unfortunately, without the needed in-line citations the article can not easily pass WP:V which is the whole point of it all. In light of Jimbo and the Wikipedia's community desire for more quality over quantity the GA project is working on increasing our standards of quality and accordingly to the articles with the GA label attached. I ensure you that the editors of this article will have ample time to include the needed in-line citations and the finish product will be even better then it was before. This group of editors have done an outstanding job on this article, these are just cosemtic touches to keep it in line with WP:WIAGA. Agne 17:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"had been improved by a repulse of the coming Allied invasion"

How can one repulse a coming invasion? Does anyone know what this means?--68.175.39.163 18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Warning added

I've added a NPOV (Neutral Point of View) warning at the start of this article. The article appears to bias towards a particular view toward the Emperor and his actions, and doesn't appear to present the counter view in equal weight. Given that this is such an extremely controversial topic and significant historical character, I think that it's fair to suggest that it warrants a better balance.

I personally have no particular opinion on the matter, but I am informed of both arguements, and it seems that one side is over represented in this article to warrant the warning. Sean White. --58.161.48.55 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

58.161.48.55, I notice you wrote the same thing on the articles on which you let contributions. Instead of "crying wolf" and criticizing ALL the article before going away and letting others do the job, it would have been interesting to first, read all the comments made on this subjects by all the contributors and, second, explain what is the "particular view" you contest and what is "the counter view" you would like to see.

Is it the opinion that Hitohito was a "criminal mastermind" vs a "figurehead"? When I read the article, I think that it is written in the middle of these two positions and that it is "neutral" but it is just my opinion. You specify that you "have no particular opinion on the matter" however you criticize all the article and give no example of what is wrong in your mind and what should be done. It would be interesting that you could write some arguments on this page or in the article itself with credible source before just vaguely criticizing the work.

--Flying tiger 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Flying Tiger, I have no idea about what you're referring to when you mention previous articles or tactics etc - you are mistaking me with someone else perhaps - but let's stick to the issue instead of resorting to character assasination. I have already explained that the article is too much in favour of an apologist view of the Emperor, and so is therefore unbalanced - please reread this comment carefully. As I have said, I have no particular personal view as I would only be able to make a definitive conclusion if I researched reliable sources. My opinion still stands that this article is not balanced regardless of the historical truth of the matter. I am therefore adding the NPOV warning once more.

I would respectfully suggest, that if you easily make wild accusations against people such as you have to me, it indicates that a NPOV is a subject you might want to reflect further upon, in the pursuit of improving your understanding of the World. Such inferior tactics aren't going to make your comments any more likely to be believed. Sean White --58.161.48.55 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When I refer to your comment on other article, it is NOT a wild accusation as I refer to your NPOV on the Jimmy Wales article that you left the same day.... If it is not you, you have the same adress 58.161.48.55. Again I have big problem to understand what you mean. You wrote for two paragraphs but I can not see what is your position. Do you want to see more sources reffering to the fact that Hirohito was a war criminal ? Is it that what you mean ? In your first comment, you refer to "a particular view", now you write "apologist view". Would it be to much to show where in the article is this "apologist view" ? Your opinion maybe good but for now it so vague that it is impossible to correct the article.

--Flying tiger 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a wild accusation if you are trying to portray my comment on one other article as "crying wolf" and claiming that I ".. wrote the same thing on the articles on which you let contributions". This is a misrepresentation of my one other comment that you are aware of, and seems quite deliberately misleading.

My position is that the article stronbly represents an apologist view toward the Emperor and his responsibilities and culpability without sufficiently discussing the opposing view to the same proportion.

The article goes into detail about attempting to describe him as a pacifist, and reciting vague flowery poetry deploring war, however this just isn't a strong enough arguement, and the counter arguement isn't sufficnetly explored. An example is where the article attempts to reduce the Emperor's ambigious surrender by claiming that "there was a clear difference between standard Japanese speech and the emperor's". It fails to propose the other alternative that Japanese war memos showed that the Japanese military believed that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction. It also fails to present that the Potsdam Proclamation was sufficiently vague to be desirable as an alternative to total surrender, it instead tries to claim that the Emperor's honorific form of Japanese was far too vague to the normal Japanese listener. This is an unsubstantiated claim, and considering that the Japanese aristocratic education of the time was enough to teach all the honorific, informal and high honorific forms of address, it's a great leap of faith to assume that the Emperor was incapable of knowing what his relatives were capable of.

It also completely overlooks the undesirability of a land invasion of Japan from the perspective of the American military - which was a major factor in negotiational compromise. It overlooks that The American Embassy in Tokyo forwarded Hirohito's name on a list of individuals facing military trial before an unnamed State Department official sqaushed it. It also fails to mention how Senator Richard Russell, trying to take the issue out of the hands of the executive branch, introduced a bill that would force the government to try the Emperor as a war criminal.

The article fails for example to sufficiently outline the counter argument that "the standard portrait of Hirohito as a passive figurehead who did the bidding of Japanese militarists as propaganda.

It doesn't sufficiently present the core ideas that Bix argues that Hirohito's passive character portrayal helped the emperor avoid responsibility (and trial) for Japan's war crimes, kept him politically "clean" enough to be used by U.S. officials to help manage postwar Japan in the Occupation period and in the Cold War, and in general helped shore up the reconstruction of a more conservative politics than would have been possible if the emperor had been discredited for the role he played in the war."

I therefore claim that the article represents an apologist view. Sean White --58.161.48.55 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least I understand your position and I can not contradict your arguments. You see, all the examples to which you refer are part of the first draft of the article, written some years ago. Those elements are there because there is are still some people who think that Hirohito was, as said by Mac Arthur, "the first gentleman of Japan". The consensus has been obtained on this article by keeping all those elements. I am affraid the NPOV will be there for ever as if the changes you want where made, another guy would claim the exact opposite point of view and add the NPOV banner. So THIS is the neutral point of view of the community. If you read the comments on this page you will see my arguments on the subject and all the elements I added to give a "updated" twist to this article. I suggest you try to add those infos by yourself as I am tired of arguing with people, in general, who desperatly stick to old traditionnal view of the "poor peace figurehead" without being able to contradict the primary sources. I had many arguing on other articles and other places than Wikipedia and I am sure the debate is just latent.

--Flying tiger 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the NPOV is not the same thing as the consensusal view. NPOV is presenting all the sides of an argument in a balanced manner and letting the reader decide. My objection is that one side of the argument is represented too much without the counter view. I don't object to the article - it's well written, but the point is that it needs more balance because the counter view is a fairly important one to represent.

Sean White --58.161.48.73 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following comment from the article;

"It is argued that this article presents an apologist view of Hirohito"

That is taking it taking it too far. I can understand the addition of the POV template; however, the conclusion that the article presents an apologist view of Hirohitio is the conclusion of one user alone. The conclusion itself is POV; I felt this sufficient reason to remove the comment--M W Johnson 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not understand the distinction you make as the NPOV template is the addition of the same one user who argue that the article presents an apologist view of Hirohito. --Flying tiger 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. I only added the NPOV warning. I did not add any comment about an "apologist view". That was done by another user. Sean White --58.161.48.14 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sean White, I am not accusing you of adding the apologist view comment; in hindsight I probably should have explained that I was in fact referring to flying tiger. His user contribs list says that It was he who added the comment. flying tiger and I have sorted out the issue between ourselves, so the issue appears to have concluded--M W Johnson 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Endure the unendurable"?

The article states in the 'Last days of the war' section that "the broadcast ordered the Japanese to 'accept the unacceptable' in surrender".

I have just watched The History Channel documentary series Hell In The Pacific and it states that Hirohito's words were "endure the unendurable", not "accept the unacceptable".

There are many links to suggest this is also the case, for example http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3hirohito.htm.

Worthy of an edit? Reuptake 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reuptake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reuptake (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, "endure the unendurable" is a better translation, and the text should be changed. My two cents. Arjuna 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fusion of two parts

The "Post-war reign" section is growing again and again. But most of what is written in it should be part of the "The problem of imperial responsibility" section. I suggest two things : to move the "The problem of imperial responsibility" section between the "Last days of the war" and "Post-war reign" sections, and to incorporate most of the "Post-war reign" informations into the "The problem of imperial responsibility" section. Who agrees? Švitrigaila 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the content of "Post-war reign" is directly related to "imperial responsibility". It is more about the actions of the imperial family, the Mac Arthur team and the new constitutional status of the Emperor than about the interpretation made by historians of his power during the first part of the reign and the war. The way you organized earlier "The sino-japanese war and WW II" section seems fine.

--Flying tiger 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked this because there was a controversy on the French article fr:Hirohito about the place of the "imperial responsability" section. In fact, it was a long section placed at the beginning of the article, and I thought I was better to expose the facts first (the war) and the judgment of History after. I think here too the "imperial responsability" section should be after the war and merged (maybe in one two-subsections section, with another title) with all the consequences of the war upon him, and let the "post-war reign" section deal about the part of his activities which are not related with the war. Maybe the "Yasukuni shrine" subsection should be incorporated into the new section. Once again, the aim is to discribe the facts first ("The Emperor decided that... The Emperor said that...") and to judge him after. ... Just a little question: are you the same person as fr:Utilisateur:Tigre volant? In this case, I don't learn you anything. Švitrigaila 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong objection against your proposition but, honestly, I think the article can be easily understood the way it is written.

However, if the section about the imperial responsibility had to be placed elsewhere, I believe the main concern should be to clearly make a distinction between the events of the post-war reign such as the acts of the MacArthur team and the position of the imperial family, and the analysis of the historians regarding the effective power of the emperor. The imperial responsibility is an "analysis" of the imperial power and should not, in my mind, be composed of events. As for the post-war reign section, there should be more in it than Yasukuni shrine.

For these reasons, the only way I see it could be merged to other sections without losing clarity is by creating sub-sections about the Tokyo trial and imperial responsibility.

It could be interesting to have the point of view of other users about your suggestion. --Flying tiger 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on everything you said. But I'm to lazy to do it myself. Švitrigaila 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article needs some major tune ups, it is biased in the point of view in giving light to the Emperor's motives during the Invasion of Manchuria to the Axis Alliance. It positions the reader to perceive Hirohito as the victim. Neutrality please! Thk Dailly Rubbings 11:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Blasphemy!

I know use of a Japanese emperor's personal name is Just Not Done, but was surprised to read in the article lead that it's considered "blasphemous". Does Shinto have a concept of blasphemy? This needs to be verified. --Meyer 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wrote it was "derogatory". Someone else changed the word "derogatory" to "blasphemous" witout any reason... Švitrigaila 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll strike the phrase, then. --Meyer 08:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tahnks... and the next question is of course: when will we have a serious discussion to rename the article? Švitrigaila 10:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why rename the article? The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information even if that information is offensive some people. If they are offended by the current name of this article (and others have explained why it's appropriate), then Wikipedia is simply not for them. If we bow down to cultural sensitivities and various definitions of derogatory content, we will soon be left without a credible online encyclopedia. WorldWide Update 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply because Hirohito is not the name by which the article must be named. The Emperor Meiji article is not named Mutsuhito, and the Elvis Presley article is not named Elvis, nor The King. It's not a matter of sensitivity, it's a matter of calling people by their official name (or by a pseudonym if they have taken one), but not by a nickname or just a first name. Švitrigaila 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Though both choices are controversial, Hirohito is the correct article title. The Manual of Style of Japan-related articles indicates that for names of modern figures like Emperor Showa general usage in English sources trumps Japan-official forms. If you can think of a better rule, discuss and gain a new consensus on WP:MJ before worrying about changing this article's name. --Meyer 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I already did it here. Although most of the answers to my proposition were rather positive, I was told that the proposal must be discuted on the Hirohito talk page and not on WP:MJ! Švitrigaila 11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Showa" versus "Hirohito"

I've rewritten the lead paragraph on usage of the emperor's reign name versus his personal name. The previous version was repetitive, confusing, and used too many categoricals to accurately reflect complicated historical customs. I did think of one case in which contemporary Japanese might refer to the man as "Hirohito" without being improper: A historical work on the Taisho era might very well refer to Emperor Showa prior to his ascending the throne by his personal name, Prince Hirohito. However, this is way too much detail for the current article and speculative besides. (Is there anywhere this fine level of protocol is written down, or is it all a Kunai-cho oral tradition?) --Meyer 03:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. When we write about Pope John Paul II's youth, we call him Karol Wojtyła. And later we call him Cardinal Wojtyła. But it doesn't change the fact that his article is named Pope John Paul II. When Joseph Ratzinger became pope, his article was renamed into Pope Benedict XVI at once. So even if we can call the present emperor "Akihito", it doesn't change the fact that his article will have to be renamed into Emperor Heisei upon his death. And Hirohito's article should be renamed into Emperor Shōwa at once. Švitrigaila 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No comment on page name controversies. Those disputes generate all heat and no light. Between the strategic redirects and the search page, the article page can be found regardless of its name. --Meyer 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)