From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Hirohito/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Hirohito was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 30, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
January 31, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Sino-Japanese War and World War II[edit]

I've read this section three or four times and frankly, it's pretty incoherent. It badly needs to be rewritten but, not being an expert on this history, I don't think I'm the one to do it. I was going to try to straighten out the syntax but I find that without better knowledge of the events covered, I can't even do that properly. Help, please. Gtimny (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Name of the Emperor[edit]

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

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

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

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

The spirit names you refer to are a Buddhist custom ([1], [2]), and are different from the emperor's posthumous renaming. Customs surrounding the emperor come from Shinto, and in the case of the emperor's naming are also enforced in secular law. When a new emperor begins his reign, a new historical period starts and is given a name. The Showa period started in 1925 and lasted until 1989. The current period, Heisei, started in 1989. However, during the emperor's reign the new name refers only to the historical period. In Japan, the emperor himself is refered to simply as "His Majesty the Emperor (Tenno Heika)". It is only after the emperor's death that he himself is given the name of the period over which he reigned. The article lead does a better job explaining this. -- Meyer (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Customs surrounding the emperor come from Shinto, and in the case of the emperor's naming are also enforced in secular law. Well, some of them. A lot of them are Meiji-period importations from the European monarchies. See Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan. (Or anyway its lucid passages; Fujitani frequently slips between (a) sound-looking history and (b) "critical" blather with much kowtowing to Foucault and so on. But the transitions are clear; you soon come to recognize any of a small number of words [e.g. "gaze"] as a sign to skimread till the next lucid bit comes along.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The anon is correct that Wikipedia naming conventions will tend to support using the subject's personal name because it is the overwhelming usage. I'd guess that's true everywhere outside of Japan, not just in English. So I agree that the article title won't change. However, the article contents are another matter. I endorse the current version: The Shōwa Emperor (昭和天皇, Shōwa tennō), known by English speakers by his personal name of Hirohito (裕仁)...[3] That reflects the correct name, just as we often start articles with subject's full legal name even though they best known without their middle name.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with what Will Beback wrote above. We can (and do) address the issue in the opening sentence, and there is no reason to continue this discussion. In the English-speaking world, he is most commonly known as Hirohito, and that is very unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. I suggest revisiting this issue in 100 years, by which time this might have changed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am restoring the article lead and infobox to their pre-6 May state, with the lead mentioning "Hirohito" before "Emperor Shōwa" and the infobox header reading "Hirohito / Emperor Shōwa" with Japanese transliteration. We have had a long-standing consensus that the article lead and infobox, like the article name, should reflect current usage by English speakers. --Meyer (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the name of the article "Hirohito" but I disagree with the change in the text, as made here.[4] We usually give the full proper name of a person first, not their most common name. See Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for variations. The proper name of the subject is "the Showa Emperor". I don't see why we can't reflect that in the text.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hirohito versus Shōwa isn't comparable to short and full forms of English personal names. English speakers don't use "Hirohito" as a short form of the man's name. To most English speakers "Hirohito" is the man's full proper name. Whether or not English speakers' usage is correct is a discussion that should be conducted outside Wikipedia. --Meyer (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) requires us to put the most common name first. It gives several examples of doing the contrary. Writing The Shōwa Emperor (昭和天皇 Shōwa tennō?), known by English speakers by his personal name of Hirohito (裕仁?).. still gets "Hirohito" into the first sentence. I think that's a more accurate, neutral, and appropriate lede.   Will Beback  talk  15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • accurate: Accurate by what standard? Japanese usage? English usage? WP guidelines are clear which of those alternatives is to be prefered.
  • neutral: The article lists and explains both names without prescribing one over the other, and uses both throughout the text. Placing "Hirohito" first in the lead and infobox heading reflects both English usage and the name of the article. I don't think there is any neutrality issue here.
  • appropriate: That is a matter of opinion.
--Meyer (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hirohito is the full proper name for the man, in English. "Emperor Showa" is a Japanese name used after death, which is not the practice used for this man in English. I would say that "Confucius" is a parallel example of a wrong name in the native language, but nevertheless is the proper English name (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I disagree but it's not a big issue for me.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if 'Hirohito' ever visited 'Peking' or 'Bombay'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. What matters is current popular English usage. Both "Peking" and "Mumbai" have fallen either completely out of current usage or at least sufficiently so that the native term is accepted. There is essentially no usage of "Showa" in English outside of academic contexts, and as such that usage is more likely to cause confusion than to impart knowledge.Argentazure (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Korean and Chinese Wikipedia article titles are Emperor Shōwa in their respective languages. --Kusunose 09:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

He should be called Hirohito throughout the article as that is how he was commonly known in the east and the west. It is not disrespectful in the least to call him Hirohito. Failing to call him Emperor Showa does not make it unscholarly. WP uses the commonly used names and should not follow the lead of a few pedants. The article on George Elliot uses that name throughout. If you want to do something unscholarly and silly then mix the two together. Zedshort (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference concerning the history of this controversy on here, the wittiest comment ever on this topic was a person who insisted that we not make a Shinto shrine of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversal of revision 344337545[edit]

In the subject revision, editor made a series of changes including substitutions of "Emperor Shōwa" for "Hirohito" and generally imposing Japanese name usage on the article text. I reversed the revision because current concensus of editors is that both names are acceptable (see sections on move proposal and Hirohito's name above, and many places in the archives). -- Meyer (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from other issues, I'm not sure that "Emperor Shōwa" is ever correct. My understanding is that the preferred usage is "the Shōwa emperor" (or "the Shōwa Emperor"). "Shōwa" is not the name of the emperor, it's the name of the period during which the emperor reigned.   Will Beback  talk  17:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Other than the fact that the word order of "Shōwa Emperor" corresponds with the Japanese Shōwa tennō, I know of no rules covering the order of the emperor's name in English. Also, Will is incorrect to write that "Shōwa" is not the emperor's name. It was true that during the previous emperor's reign "Shōwa" referred only to the time period and not to the man himself, but after his death it officially became the name of the man as well as of the period.
Usage data:
  • Google phrase search results: "emperor (S|s)(ō|o)wa" 156,700 versus "(S|s)(ō|o)wa emperor" 94,000. (Google gave different number of hits depending on whether or not "s(ō|o)wa" was capitalized, but the same number of hits for either capitalization of "emperor". Any idea why?)
Search phrase Approximate hits
"Shōwa emperor" 39,800
"shōwa emperor" 11,900
"Showa emperor" 10,400
"showa emperor" 31,900
"emperor Shōwa" 77,000
"emperor shōwa" 14,500
"emperor Showa" 53,600
"emperor showa" 11,600
I think either order is acceptable.
--Meyer (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (May 2010)[edit]

Discussed multiple times in recent months. Conesensus was to not to change the name per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{movereq|Emperor Shōwa}}

WP:AT states an article's name must be:

  • Recognizable far from beign the obscure title some editors opposed to the move Emperor Showa is mentioned almost in every english source that deals with him with a short description of japanese royalty naming conventions so it wouldnt be a radical change but a beneficial one in terms of correcting the ignorance about his name.
  • Easy to find an english speaker will find Emperor Showa thanks to the redirection an understand that Showa is his correct naming.
  • Precise and Concise Emperor Showa is the official name of this Emperor as decreed by the Japanese parliament and as used in Japan and every foreign informed source.
  • Consistent all japanese Emperors are known by their posthumous names with the exception of Akihito who is still alive and therefore cannot have a posthumous name and Emperor Showa as an example of Wikipedia's bias towards everything that is anglophone related, this should be corrected as our encyclopedia claims to be a source of knowledge and information shouldnt we start for the first thing the readers sees?the articles name.Andres rojas22 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


War Responsibility[edit]

Claiming that Hirohito had great control over the government seems to contradict the following Wikipedia articles: Kwantung Army, May 15 Incident, February 26 Incident, and Surrender of Japan. How can one claim that Hirohito masterminded the Pacific War, when the Imperial Army headquarters couldn't even control the Kwantung Army in the Mukden Incident and twice had to beat down coup attempts (5-15 and 2-26)? The decision to end the war barely got approved by the Supreme War Council, even though it was Hirohito's repeated wish that summer. And even then, elements within the Army were able to capture and hold the emperor in his palace for several hours during the night before the surrender broadcast. Is this a pattern that supports the idea of a born-to-the-throne emperor suddenly becoming a military mastermind? Hirohito was like a passenger in the getaway car of a bank robbery. He was simply along for the ride. He can be accused of that, but no more. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Westwind273 on the point that claims of Hirohito's control over government contradicts actual historical events depicted elsewhere in Wikipedia. This is a common problem with the issue of war responsibility of Hirohito not only on Wikipedia but a number of history books. There is much contradiction about how much control the emperor actually had. On one hand he was not a complete figurehead and probablly tried to excercise control over his army and government by holding conferences and issuing orders. To what extent those orders were actually followed is questinable when we look at the actual events. Also, information was often withheld or belatedly reported to the emperor, though whether this was a deliberate act or a result of bureaucratic inefficiency has not been proven. Furthermore, the emperor spoke in non-coloquial Japanese which left a large margin for interpretation by his generals and ministers. Thus he was not a complete figurehead, but a leader who did not have timely access to accurate information and whose wishes were neither efficiently communicated nor accurately carried out. Whether that exonerates him from responsibilities of war is debatable. Many history books more reputable than Wikipedia have left this problem as unattended and contradictory loose ends. But since we need citations rather than original research, this is an issue that cannot be mentioned in Wikipedia (unless there is something that can be cited).--Tsumugi (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting point. Is it OK for Wikipedia to inherently contradict itself, simply because of the existence of inherently contradictory citations? This seems like saying "Welcome to Wikipedia. Make sure to check your brain at the door." --Westwind273 (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is a contradiction between articles, why change this and not others? The statements in this article are well referenced and there is much documentation that shows a high degree of involvement of Hirohito in the events of those years. Regarding the behavior of the army, not to be confused Kodoha (with its riots and failed insurrections) with Toseiha, finally dominant in the army and loyal to Hirohito, who could have that control over it. As for the government, I'll add some Prince Konoe's words cited in Hastings, Max. 2007. Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-26351-3: As prime minister I had no authority over the army and could appeal [only] to the emperor. Therefore, the emperor's role should not be underestimated only for the view promoted after World War II.-- (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Where to begin? First of all, Konoe was never Prime Minister during the Pacific War. And as I said above, Hirohito was along for the ride. A passenger in a getaway car who has knowledge of the bank robbery taking place can indeed be sent to prison as an accomplice. Hirohito was guilty in the sense that he knew pretty much what the military was doing, and until the spring of 1945 he did not make much effort to stop them. But it is a fantasy to think that Hirohito was running the show as a mastermind or leader. He has about as much responsibility for the Pacific War as Queen Elizabeth has for the Falkland Islands War. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The notion of Hirohito as criminal mastermind was not uncommon in Second World War propaganda, but even in that hardly unbiased literary genre, there was a tendency to point the finger at Hideki Tojo instead. My speculation is that this was due to the influence of Joseph Grew, who as Ambassador to Japan had observed the workings of the Japanese Government closely for several years. Regardless, the notion of Hirohito as pure figurehead became the consensus view after the war.
The more recent revival of the notion of Hirohito as criminal mastermind seems to trace back to David Bergamini's deeply flawed Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, which violated just about every rule of reliable historical research there is. It was picked up to an extent by Herbert Bix, who is a somewhat better historian but whose left-wing agenda peeps out from time to time and is served by the notion that Hirohito had more responsibility for the war than is commonly accepted. But Wikipedia should in fact reflect what is commonly accepted -- we call it the consensus position -- while giving due weight to credible minority positions. The contradiction pointed out by WestWind273 suggests that this article has given too much weight to the minority position.
My own views, which of course are not terribly relevant to deciding what the consensus is and how minority opinions should be weighted, is that the truth lies closer to the historical consensus ("figurehead") than to the Bix position ("maybe not the mastermind, but a very active player"). I base that on the repeated willingness displayed by military leaders to ignore Hirohito while acting in his name, and on the willingness of junior officers to effectively kidnap the Emperor to prevent a surrender. These actions are not consistent with the criminal-mastermind theory or even very consistent with the active player theory. Yaush (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's the same if Konoe was prime minister before or during the war. I refer to the political system. But if you do not like Konoe, here is a reference about Tojo including his own words (in bold): "Allied propaganda portrayed Tojo as a dictator in the mold of Hitler and Mussolini, but the reality is that Tojo had less authority in Japan than Churchill had in Britain. He blamed this for Japan's defeat (Hastings 2007):
Basically, it was lack of coordination. When the prime minister, to whom is entrusted the destiny of the country, lacks the authority to participate in supreme decisions, it is not likely that the country will win a war.
Though self-serving, there is a kernel of truth in this statement. When Tojo tried to concentrate power in his own hands, he was opposed by colleagues who pointed out that many of Germany's setbacks came from Hitler's micromanagement. Tojo replied, "Führer Hitler was an enlisted man. I am a general." Nevertheless, Tojo never exercised effective authority".
And this is not a "minority position of Bergamini and Bix". Besides Bergamini and Bix, are Edward Behr, Peter Wetzler, Ian Buruma, John Dower, Manuel Leguineche, Laurence Rees, Akira Yamada, Akira Fujiwara, Yoshiaki Yoshimi, Seiya Matsuno, Linda Goetz Holmes, Marc Ferro, etc. etc.
A minority faction (Kodoha) with riots and failed insurrections, doesn't means the Emperor was a "figurehead". Tojo himself, in his diary of August 1945, wrote against any kind of insurrection and said that the "sacred decision" of the Emperor for surrender mustn't be "disturbed". A minority faction of insurgent (and unsuccessful) junior officers doesn't disprove imperial power, as Spanish 23-F doesn't turn Adolfo Suárez into a "figurehead". The Toseiha, which belonged Sugiyama and Tojo, was loyal to Hirohito and never took part in riots or insurrections, indeed, was the force that quelled them.
There are two main positions about Hirohito: "Hirohito guilty but passive" (the Westwind273 position), and "Hirohito guilty and active". I think the two deserve the same consideration, on the light of the sources available today. (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

So was Major Kenji Hatanaka following the emperor's will in August 1945 when he imprisoned Hirohito in the palace and tried to destroy the surrender recording that Hirohito had made the previous day? Read "Japan's Longest Day" (written by Japanese scholars, not western revisionists) and you will find the real situation. Unlike Hitler's Germany, Japan was in fact a fascist oligarchy, so references to the weakness of the prime minister are not really that relevant. Probably the single most powerful position within this oligarchy was the War Minister, which was Anami at time of surrender. If Hirohito could have easily overturned the cabinet's decision (or more pertinently the Supreme War Council's decision), then Japan would have surrendered in the spring of 1945. During 1945, Hirohito was in fact scheming with his close associates on how to achieve surrender without pushing the military so far as to kidnap or murder him. Before 1945, Hirohito was a passive observer. Read any history of the attack on Pearl Harbor; do you find anywhere that Hirohito was taking the lead, pushing for the attack? No, he was a passive (and perhaps somewhat supportful) observer of the actions of the military. After Pearl Harbor, there really was no choice but fight or surrender, so the pre-1941 actions of Hirohito are indeed relevant. The Mukden Incident, the May 15th incident, the February 26th incident, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident: Was Hirohito masterminding any of these key events that led up to the Pacific War? No, in fact at Mukden and Marco Polo, the Japanese Army acted independently, without control from the emperor or any other non-military person in Tokyo. Hirohito was along for the ride. --Westwind273 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This was the end of the rebellion of August 1945: At dawn, Tanaka learned that the palace had been invaded. He went there and confronted the rebellious officers, berating them for acting contrary to the spirit of the Japanese army. He convinced them to return to their barracks. By 08:00, the rebellion was entirely dismantled, having succeeded in holding the palace grounds for much of the night but failing to find the recordings. It doesn't seem very successful or powerful. It wasn't necessary a battle to crush the rebels (and I think a rebel major faced to all the generals remaining loyal mustn't be elevated to so much level). As for the nationality of the scholars I don't think that is an indispensable factor for handle any matter, but scholars as Akira Yamada, Akira Fujiwara, Yoshiaki Yoshimi, Seiya Matsuno and some others are Japanese too and have their own opinion on this matter. I agree that Japan was an oligarchy in those years, but my conclusions are somewhat different. In several historical texts of the attack on Pearl Harbor I find not that Hirohito masterminded the operation but I find Hirohito discussed the plans with his chiefs of staff (that is, he was interested in the operational capacity of the plan). For example, "On 30 November 1941, Prince Nobuhito Takamatsu warned his brother, Hirohito, that the Navy felt the Empire could not fight more than two years against the United States and wished to avoid war. After consulting with Koichi Kido (who advised him to take his time until he was convinced) and Tojo, the Emperor called Shigetaro Shimada and Nagano who reassured him war would be successful. On December 1, Hirohito finally approved a "war against United States, Great Britain and Holland", during another Imperial Conference, to commence with a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at its main forward base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii". Did he consult with Kido and Tojo and called Shimada and Nagano to observe them? I think he consulted them to ensure that the plan was going well. Did Kido advise a "passive observer" to take his time until he was convinced? What does a "passive observer" need to be convinced for? He wasn't masterminding all the effort, but he seems to have been a bit more active than a mere "passive observer". In the spring of 1945, Hirohito was seeking a Soviet mediation to find a way out of the war with acceptable conditions, not the surrender that he finally accepted in August.
Your opinion (Hirohito guilty but passive) is respectable and there are many scholars that maintain it. But There are also many scholars that maintain the other major position on this matter (Hirohito guilty and active [which is not necessarily the same that Hirohito as the Evil Mastermind]). Remember that Hirohito is one of the most controversial historical figures, and that is for one reason. It is clear that we will not resolve that dispute here and now. On the controversial nature of this subject, watch "Hirohito's War", of the documentary series "Secrets of War", aired by the History Channel.
In this Talk Page, user Roadrunner wrote in 2003: "The problem is that while historians agree that neither the puppet nor the evil puppet master are correct, I don't think that it is fair to say that there is a consensus on Hirohito's role in the war. In between evil dictator and helpless puppet there is a lot of room". I agree with this.
That puts it very well, in my opinion.--Yaush (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
To summarize my position, I quote a paragraph from a web article about Hirohito that I quite agree: "When it comes to Emperor Hirohito we seem to have a bad memory, particularly where it involves his responsibility for the war in the Pacific. Hirohito was an unindicted war criminal, plain and simple. No, he wasn't a dictator. He did not singlehandedly orchestrate the Japanese war effort. But he was there, every step of the way, receiving regular reports and pushing his generals for victory". That's my position, many others share it and I think it is as respectable as the other major position on this matter.
This is a very controversial subject and I think the two major positions must be equally exposed. (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To user Westwind273, as I wrote earlier, «The rebellion of august 1945 (not 1946, this was a typing error..) is insignificant as ALL the major officers followed the emperor's order». Major Kenji Hatanaka is certainly NOT one of these !! Anami, Sugiyama, Umezu, Toyoda, Higashikuni, asaka and all the leaders followed the emperor's command. As for Hirohito's attempt too surrender in 1945, he indeed began in early 1945, in the wake of the loss of Leyte, a series of individual meetings with senior government officials to consider the progress of the war, but, at this stage surrender was not acceptable for him. According to Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, Hirohito was still looking for a tennozan (a great victory) in order to provide a stronger bargaining position, and firmly rejected Fumimaro Konoe's recommendation to begin negotiations to end World War II.(Fujita Hisanori, Jijûchô no kaisô, Chûô Kôronsha, 1987, pp. 66–67, Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, p. 489). Even Hiroshima's bombing did not made him change his mind. As he wrote himself in the Seidan Haichoroku, (and as pointed by user Yaush) negociation with Soviet Union was the main condition for considering to surrender to the Allies without compromising his prerogatives as a Sovereign Ruler. The invasion of Manshukoku in August 45 was a fatal blow to his hopes. As for the fact that he was «passive before 1945». This is false and omits all the meetings he had each week as commander of the Daihonei and more, the direct orders he even gave in some fights such as the battles of Bataan and Saipan. --Flying Tiger (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Flying tiger. I only want to specify a minor detail: It wasn't Yaush, but me (, though perhaps the IP could be changed now) who pointed the negotiation with Soviet Union (Yaush only interspersed a phrase to express his agreement with the Roadrunner's statement that I quoted above). The confusion was caused because my signature was left separated from the initial part of my text because of the addition of the Yaush's phrase. Otherwise, as I wrote above, I agree with your comment. (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to those who disagree with my opinion. If Hirohito did indeed have war responsibility, I think he should be held historically accountable, including consideration of Japan abolishing the imperial system. But let me take two exceptions to Flying Tiger's comments: (1) Anami was not completely obeying the emperor's will. If he had, he would have stayed alive and worked hard to put down Hatanaka's rebellion. Instead, Anami chose the middle ground and killed himself, after instructing everyone to follow the emperor's will. Anami could have helped the cause of surrender more by staying alive, but he did not. (2) Keep in mind that the Supreme War Council was perfectly split 3-3 on the issue of accepting the Potsdam Declaration. It is not the case that all top leaders wanted to accept the Potsdam Declaration (as Hirohito instructed) and only the low-ranking Hatanaka wanted to keep fighting. Three of the six members of the Supreme War Council wanted to keep fighting, in defiance of the expressed wishes of Hirohito. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Article 8. The Emperor, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the Imperial Diet is not sitting, Imperial Ordinances in the place of law.
(2) Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them to be invalid for the future.

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

Article 55. The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to the Emperor, and be responsible for it.
(2) All Laws, Imperial Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that relate to the affairs of the State, require the countersignature of a Minister of State.

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

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

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

01:07, 8 June 2010 Reversal[edit]

I reversed the following three edits for the reasons indicated:

Edit Editor Reason for reversal
22:51, 7 June 2010 Vandalism
12:36, 3 June 2010 (Fascism end box) Is there consensus on the definition of fascism and the criteria for categorizing a person as a fascist?
12:31, 3 June 2010 Changed lead to emphasize negative aspects of prewar and wartime regime and remove description of postwar influence (more problematic than 12:36 edit).

Concerning's edits, while I think the editor may have been acting in good faith, I think it is neither useful nor encyclopedic to pidgeon-hole something as complicated as a man's life or an era with a single, emotionally-charged, and ambiguous term like "fascist". Also, removing information about the postwar era from the lead was unjustified. --Meyer (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

HirohitoEmperor Shōwa — His posthumous name and era are Showa, Hirohito is just a personal name, like Mutsuhito or Yoshihito. Gryffindor (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Use English . His common name in English is "Hirohito". Those recent WWII anniversary shows that were plastered all over TV a few months ago used Hirohito in all of the ones I saw, or saw advertisements for. This is not the Japanese Wikipedia, and WP:JARGON. Further this has been discussed many many times (see the archives). The most recent move request was closed in May 2010 (see #Requested move (May 2010) where Google hits are shown with Hirohito having extremely higher usage than Showa) (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the reasons stated by Jfgslo (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is starting to get tedious. Raul654 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support a real encyclopedia ilustrates the reader instead of continuing misconceptions like emperor showa's name. Ever heard of redirections?Andres rojas22 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Please cite one other "real" encyclopedia that lists him as "Showa" rather than "Hirohito". Raul654 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the fact that the article does clarify the situation regarding the emperor's posthumous name. Powers T 16:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the reasons stated by --Habap (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UCN, WP:UE,'s comments above, and numerous other comments in previous sections. Yeah, it's tedious but I nominate Côte d'Ivoire every year or so myself so what can I say. — AjaxSmack 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Use English. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, damn right, oppose, per WP:ConformAndObey and WP:NothingTooForeignPlease. His common name in the anglophone infotainment industry is "Hirohito"; how dare some upstart encylopedia challenge the wisdom of the market by aiming for consistency among the names of dead emperors or by evaluating the mere appropriateness of the rival names? -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • If you don't like the policies, go and get them changed. Otherwise, there's no need for snarky comments. It's actually common sense to have an article at the most likely search term. Also, just in case you hadn't noticed, this is the English-language Wikipedia. It's common sense that if a title is most commonly used in English that it be used as the title on the English-language Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It's impossible to get the policies changed, as this would involve the denizens of the MoS pages, and among these are a sufficient number of preternaturally energetic conservatives [small "c"] to block any new departure. If there truly were no need for snarky comments, then perhaps there'd be no need for mentions of what I might not have noticed. (Actually your polite reminder leaves me unruffled and indeed amused.) Can we perhaps do a deal: less snark from me and less affrontedness from you? Common sense is I think somewhat overrated; and WP has evolved (or, for the religious, God has given us) redirects. -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Opppose This is his common name in English, the Japanese can call him what they like. Consistency is often desirable but does not always trump other considerations. Keep your cool is another guideline which ought to be followed. PatGallacher (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Not contesting that the emperor is better known as Hirohito, as this is obviously the case. I do think, however, that an enclylopedia should go with the name that is considered most respectful, which in this case is Emperor Shōwa. As Hirohito would redirect here anyway, I don't see a convincing reason not to move. The Celestial City (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. Your rationale puzzles me. Any of "Dr Obama", "Senator Obama" and "President Obama" would be more respectful than "Obama", but "Obama" is what we call the man, and in my view rightly so. Similarly, we don't bother to add honorifics for the huge majority of people who get articles. Why should WP want to "go with the name that is considered most respectful"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the difference is that "Barack Obama" is not in itself considered disrespectful. He is called that all the time. For most Japanese, from what I gather, using the personal name of the Emperor Shōwa is considered quite culturally offensive. The Celestial City (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Perhaps that depends on the language of the utterance within which you're saying "Hirohito" or "Akihito". If it's in Japanese, it would certainly be odd. However, "Akihito" (for the current, living emperor) would hardly be less odd than "Hirohito" (for a dead one). Assuming for a moment that "emperor" is the best translation of the Japanese term, then you standardly refer to the current one as simply "emperor". For en:WP to attempt this would bring various difficulties. But the Japanese article on Akihito (dig those crazy categories!) is titled simply "Akihito" (pops is "Shōwa tennō"). -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment. Well said. Using the most respectful name would also violate NPOV. --Habap (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • That doesn't follow. If anything, the opposite is true. The Celestial City (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
          • The reason that using the "most respectful" name is POV is that it is from the POV that respect is merited. Imagine if we gave Saddam Hussein the "most respectful" name by which he is referred to. That would be POV. Using the most respectful name for Hirohito is also POV. --Habap (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment **You're arguing makes no sense Hoary, there is no naming convention in relation to obama as there is with Japanese emperor check Japanese era names and Emperor of Japan, Japanese emperors are to be known by their posthumous names not by what uninformed people (thanks to the media) think it is, this simple policy of most common name in english when taken to the extreme as in this case of almost a sacred commandment only is good to continue to obscure the subject by continuing the misconcepciont, the world is round (or moastly round) but if the anglophones thouth it's flat and they called it something like "flat world" then its flat in this encyclopedia. What????. You do know that there are other policies that relate to this case, most important WP:NPOV that supports the least biased and most acceptable name wich would be Emperor Showa since there is a millenarian policy about that on East Asia. Andres rojas22 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Comment. Inaccurate analogy. If everyone in China or India referred to Earth as 'The Great Mother Protector', or if everyone in continental Europe used some variation of 'Planet Earth', there would be no reason to rename the article on Earth. Similarly, Cindy Sheehan supporters wanted to refer to her as 'The Peace Mom', which is certainly more respectful than her common name. --Habap (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
          • If the Earth was an exclusive Chinese/Indian concept, in your scenario, then maybe there would be a reason to move it. As that is clearly not the case, and the Earth is important in all cultures, moving the article would clearly make no sense. By contrast, the Emperor is clearly of paramount importance only in Japanese culture. The Celestial City (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Actually, I think Hirohito is important to all the countries that Japan attacked or invaded under his rule. --Habap (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
              • While obviously I'm sure he is an important history figure to Koreans, Chinese, Americans and so forth, I doubt any of the people of those nationalities would claim the Emperor is of greater connection to their countries than that of Japan. The Celestial City (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
            • By contrast, the Emperor is clearly of paramount importance only in Japanese culture. - even if that were true -which as Habap already pointed out, it is not- it is of absolutely no relevance to what we decide to call him on the English Wikipedia, where we use the common english name. Raul654 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Caligula, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd are all examples of names which were not the person's official name and they disliked. Should we show them more respect? PatGallacher (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Those articles have very little in terms of similarity with this article. The Celestial City (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not only is his comparison spot-on, but Caligula in particular is a fairly apt comparison. Raul654 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We use the name that's most common in English, which is unquestionably "Hirohito" in this case. Gavia immer (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talkcontribs) 23:48, 2010 October 31
  • Oppose. In English he is almost exclusively known as Hirohito. That's all that matters here. But for those who think there's something horribly offensive about mentioning the personal name, note that the Imperial Household Agency sees fit to include both [5]. --Amble (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For all the reasons already given. Plus, by far the most common mention of Hirohito in English language writings is in connection with the Second World War, and I've yet to see a single historical work of any significance on that war that calls him anything but Hirohito. Yaush (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

6.1 APOLOGY REJECTED cannot possibly be correct[edit]

It is inconceivable that General MacArthur would have left the Japanese Emporer waiting out in a hallway and snubbed him. For one thing, every Japanese newspaper would have run "The Great Snub" on their front page the next day. It would have caused a national uproar.

This section, as currently written, also does not match General MacArthur's own description of what happened in his great memoirs, Reminiscences. In it, he writes that the Emporer (not out in the hallway, but on an officially received visit that was previously scheduled and well known to the press) requested an interview with the Supreme Commander, MacArthur. He writes that the emporer said, "I come to you, General MacArthur, to offer myself to the judgment of the powers you represent as the one to bear sole responsibility for every political and military decision made and action taken by my people in the conduct of war." [page 288] There are of course photos of the Emperor on this visit to meet MacArthur.

"Taking responsiblity" is quite different from an apology, and especially in the Asian tradition.

MacArthur further writes that taking such responsibility was "clearly belied by facts of which I was fully aware," meaning the general was convinced -- and already had evidence -- that Hirohito was NOT responsible for the war crimes.

"The Emperor called on me often after that" indicates, again, that he would never have been snubbed and left out in the hallway. The idea is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talkcontribs) 09:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The section "Apology rebuffed" is a referenced testimony from Patrick Lennox Tierney. You can agree or disagree with Tierny, but those were his words. The section only mentions the testimony of Tierny. Moreover, Tierny nowhere mentions that relates specifically to the meeting of September 27, 1945. MacArthur spent several years in Japan. Here is the reference: (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"For one thing, every Japanese newspaper would have run "The Great Snub" on their front page the next day. It would have caused a national uproar." Not in Sept '45, they wouldn't. I don't think you realize just how much control was exercised by the occupation at the time. Also, as stated above, this is from a referenced source that is deemed credible. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

need some more sourcing[edit]

Japan was doing basic research on the atomic bomb,[28] However Hirohito was opposed to the atomic bomb plan from the beginning. The Emperor thought that use of an atomic bomb would bring about the extermination of mankind. Research of the Japanese atomic bomb was finally abolished by command of the Emperor.

The sources here aren't great. Are there any non-Japanese sources? I can't even begin to evaluate whether they are reliable and I'm a bit suspicious. Doesn't sound right to me — the "extermination of mankind" seems to come from his surrender announcement, which is a very different context than the wartime program. (Obviously the fact that the sources are in Japanese doesn't mean they are necessarily unreliable, but certainly on such a key topic there are more sources than just that?) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bergamini is not a reliable source[edit]

So I find it disturbing that he is referenced in the article as if he was. Japan's Imperial Conspiracy is a deeply controversial work, and for good reason. --Yaush (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please cite any reviews or journals that back up your position, please.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC) does a pretty good job. I can find plenty of others if you remain unconvinced. --Yaush (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bix inline-citations[edit]

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

There were some Bix inline-citations in this article to the volume listed in the References section:

Since then another edition has been added to the article inline:

  • Bix, Herbert P. (2001). Hirohito and the making of modern Japan (Kindle) (1st Perennial ed. ed.). New York: Perennial. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-0060931308. 

This makes it impossible to tell which edition citations like these refer:

  • Conversation in Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, pp. 411, 745.
  • Bix, p. 421
  • Bix, p. 466, citing the Sugiyama memo, p. 24.

Someone with the sources needs to go through the citations adding the year to the citations (preferably using {{harvnb}}, but that is not essential). Once added

  • Bix 2000, p. 421


  • Bix 2001, p. 421

as that will make it clear which edition is being cited. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember that the TP's are not for Soapboxing[edit]


Family name Yamato?[edit]

I have seen several books that talk about the Yamato Dynasty ie of the House of Yamato. Wouldn't this mean the family name is Yamato just as the actual family name of Elizabeth II of England is Windsor (House of Windsor)?-- (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, and note the RS references in the article before commenting in the future.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

YMCA mention: probably from vandalism?[edit]

The article says: Hirohito attended the Y.M.C.A. of Gakushūin Peers' School from 1908 to 1914 and then a special institute for the crown prince (Tōgū-gogakumonsho) from 1914 to 1921. The Emperor of Japan, attending a YMCA? Surely that cannot be true. Nor could it be true that perhaps the most traditional school in Japan should have anything to do with a foreign religious organisation. I have roamed the wide Internet but found no independent mention of any of this—only articles that copied or rephrased the sentence from Wikipaedia. I conclude that it must have been added by a vandal several years ago; it doesn't seem worth the effort to go back to before 2013 to find the culprit. I will remove the YMCA now; if anyone finds evidence that this unthinkable assertion is true after all, let him add it again. Cerberus™ (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It turns out the edit was done by an anonymous IP address from Texas, one the 2nd of April in 2010. Perhaps it was still April 1st in his time zone. That was the only edit ever made by him: So it was definitely vandalism. Cerberus™ (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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