Talk:Shōwa period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Okinawa (stub), Ryukyu Islands Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Sangaria (soft drink) Shaken Takefuji Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

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

I think this line is lacking, as The Sino Japanese war is pretty much a catalyst for the war ongoing in that area. To say the Sino Japanese war and WWII are seperate entities is problematic because it is a continuous advance. I just find the line "stupid" because it is trying to seperate an asiatic conflict with the "world" conflict that was only happening in Europe, and North Africa... Note that the pacific conflict had been ongoing.

"The Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1941" says Japan had "seized" Hong Kong by 1939, yet in the next section it says Japan "overran" Hong Kong in 1941. Which is it, 1939 or 1941?

"Conservatives forced the passage of the Peace Preservation Law because the party leaders and politicians of the Taisho era had felt that, after World War One, the state was in danger from revolutionary movements. These fears, however, had no basis in reality. They were rooted strictly in ideology." [Emphasis added.]

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

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

Contents 1 Unauthorized move 2 Organization 3 Name of Emperor 4 Period or Era ?

[edit] Unauthorized move

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

[edit] Organization

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

[edit] Name of Emperor

I think we should probably have some consistency in this article w.r.t. the name of the Emperor during this period, because at the moment it seems to alternate between Showa and Hirohito, with no apparent consistency BovineBeast 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Every other emperor of Japan is called by his regnal name. And Hirohito himself is called Shōwa Tennō or Emperor Shōwa in every official Japanese source, even in English. I can't understand why some sources still use his given name instead, except because they copy other sources, that copy other sources ... that were written while he was alive. It's only the force of the habit, wether it is a right habit or not. I think a serious encyclopedia must keep the right habits only. (see discussion here). Švitrigaila 11:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Period or Era ?

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

We can agree that nengō are short and jidai are long, and that "period" can easily be used for both short stretches and long ones. I'm not used to seeing "era" used for short stretches, although I suppose it might be. Given that there are two words, "period" and "era", for two purposes, I'd use "era" for the longer time and "period" for the shorter. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the custom. The custom in English to discribe Japan history is to use "period" to translate jidai and "era" or "era name" to translate nengō (if I don't mistake). Shōwa and Meiji are nengōs before all, even if some consider them jidais too. Heisei can't seriously be considered a jidai. Note that Keiō and Heisei articles are names simply with no other word. Why not "Meiji", "Taishō" and "Shōwa" instead of Meiji period, Taishō period and Shōwa period? Švitrigaila (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've ably described one custom. Another is to use "period" for nengō. ¶ Note that Keiō and Heisei articles are names simply with no other word. Why not "Meiji", "Taishō" and "Shōwa" instead of Meiji period, Taishō period and Shōwa period? It's an interesting question, but rather than posing it here perhaps you should be concentrating on the parallel discussion on the name of the old bean who died in early 1989 (or, according to both a memorable early edition of Mainichi and popular rumor, late 1988). -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm now at work, where I'm bored enough to take part in small discussions but not fool enough to take part in long arguments while my boss is around... Švitrigaila (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Meiji period#Requested move — we had this discussion before. "Shōwa period" is the more appropriate name for this article for the same reasons as for "Meiji period".--Endroit (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should "Shōwa period" be the more appropriate name for this article for the same reasons as for "Meiji period" and not "Shōwa" be the more appropriate name for this article for the same reasons as for "Heisei"? Švitrigaila (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)