Talk:Iichirō Hatoyama

War years

The following text was removed; but it would become a useful enhancement of this article if confirmed/verified by a credible source citation:

• In 1941 he joined the Treasury Department, but interrupted his government carrier during World War II to served in the Imperial Japanese Navy as a paymaster and rose to the rank of Major.

In any event, I would question the ascribed rank of "Major"? It seems likely that there is a different English equivalent for this IJN rank? --Tenmei (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Functional pronouns and format conventions

This thread was copied from User talk:Sinneed#Functional pronouns and format conventions per Sinneed's suggestion.

Sinneed -- I have undone your edit in the article about Yukio Hatoyama's grandfather -- not because you're wrong, but because your otherwise reasonable changes in Ichirō Hatoyama may not be best in this limited context.

• 1 diff 06:03, 1 September 2009 Sinneed (5,713 bytes) (List is very short, no need for 2 columns. Surname instead of given name.)
• 2 diff 13:30, 1 September 2009 Tenmei m (5,713 bytes) (Undid revision 311224644 by Sinneed ... Japanese convention -- given name, not surname)
• 3 diff 14:54, 1 September 2009 Tenmei m (5,713 bytes) (→Personal life)
• 4 diff 16:27, 1 September 2009 Sinneed (5,711 bytes) (→Notes: Very short list, just 1 column seems fine.)
• 5 diff 16:34, 1 September 2009 Sinneed (5,834 bytes) (Change "Hatoyama" to "Ichirō" per editor suggestion. Add comment to explain in the text.)
• 6 diff 16:37, 1 September 2009 Sinneed (5,850 bytes) (→Personal life: Restructure to break the "Ichiro..","Ichiro...", "Ichiro..." pattern. Name him instead of using "his"... antecedent not clear.)

I do understand the Western convention which prefers the use of a surname as a functional pronoun in subsequent references after the full name is identified. In most Wikipedia articles, it would seem perhaps disrespectful or awkwardly informal to introduce a given name rather than a surname in lieu of a pronoun. Indeed, many articles about prominent Japanese politicians are conforming to the Western convention which informed your edit. However, compare articles the shoguns of the Tokugawa shogunate. In some instances, the pre-Meiji period naming conventions are perhaps better than the Western conventions. Neither your judgment nor your intent was wrong, but I wonder if there might be room for the use of an alternative in articles like Hatoyama Hall or in articles about the Hatoyama, e.g.,

1st generation

• Kazuo Hatoyama
• Haruko Hatoyama

2nd generation

• Ichirō Hatoyama
• Kaoru Hatoyama

3rd generation

• Iichirō Hatoyama
• Yasuko Hatoyama

4th generation

• Yukio Hatoyama
• Miyuki Hatoyama

• Kunio Hatoyama

As for your other edit, you commented that a two-column format was not necessary for the limited number of inline citation notes; and indeed, you are correct, of course. It is plainly not necessary. But why can't this format be construed as an acceptable preference, as an easily scanned graphic alternative? In the list of names above, two columns were not necessary, but in my view, the tightened format is easier to take in at a glance; and it clarifies the generational relationship amongst the members of a family which the Wall Street Journal and others describe as the "Kennedys of Japan"?

In posting this comment, I'm explaining my revert action; but I'm also soliciting feedback because I wonder about editing other related articles which rather clumsily use the full name rather than deciding whether to follow Western or non-Western conventions.

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good thoughts. I would encourage you to place this on the talk page of the article. :) - sinneed (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)