Jump to content

Talk:History of Japan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Model for Meiji Constitution

The article in its current form refers to the "quasi-parliamentary constitutional government, based on Great Britain's Parliament," that the Meiji Constitution established. However, it is my understanding that it was very much modeled on the Prussian Diet model, and Ito Hirobumi, the Constitution's author, very consciously avoided the British Parliamentary model.

I am removing this comment because, at the very least, I feel that it is a questionable fact, if not outright wrong. I refer you to James McClain's very well regarded text, "Japan: A Modern History," that has a fine treatment of the constitution. Please comment here further for support or disagreement with my claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metromoxie (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

You're absolutely right about it being based on the Prussian model, though with elements of the British "constitutional monarchy" which connected the monarch with the parliament & the Constitution. The notion of consciously avoiding a British or American model rings some bells, but I can't really be sure. LordAmeth 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I too recall book/videos mentioning the Meiji era Japanese looking to the German system of government, the French for army and the British for navy. But I wonder if by actually becoming a military ally with Britain, and watching other monarchies like the Czar and Kaiser collapse while the British actually gain in prestige, if that may be why the Japanese system seemed to evolve more into the British manner instead? After all, we want to emulate the winners, not losers right?
I also wonder if one reason why the Japanese bureaucracy wanted to avoid adopting certain parts of British monarchy tradition like that of the male members having to go to military school literally as plebes, and even serve in active action rather than just inherit a military rank by birth. Firstly, however popular that is with your people, especially the servicemen who see you risking your neck along with their's, if I want my monarch to remain a rubber stamp and just have faith that everything I tell him about military matters for instance, is true, then I'd rather keep him as ignorant about such things as possible. And although the military teaches you to obey orders, once you become an officer, it actually teaches you to give orders. I'm not saying that prevents unjust and unwarranted wars, I'm just saying it's alot easier to get the King to go along with my personal beliefs without question, if he remains in his ivory tower isolated from my precious military matters. I'm wondering if that might be part of a reason why the Japanese bureaucrats resisted total adoption of the British system.
Something else the author mysteriously omits is the strange fact that Hirohito was quite the anglo-phyle. Alot more of us know how much Admiral Yamamoto sincerely liked the United States and therefore against war with them, than we learn how Emperor Hirohito sincerely liked the United Kingdom, literally wanting to live there and finish his degrees at Oxford University and become a qualified marine biologist(not just some honorary degree given celebrities). Thus how he, no less than Yamamato, rather than hating us like that guy in Iran or even Saddam Hussein, sincerely liked us and our culture and was hardly anxious for war with us, no matter how short his generals promised. But again, that goes back to my wondering if that was one reason the Japanese bureaucracy did not want to adapt too many more British traditions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-American European

It appears that their was an anti-American European or Wikipedia using Commonwealth English, whose primary goal in this article was to denigrate the USA. Some of his sentences were tweaked to make them more neutral--their points ARE still there, just not so pointedly targeted at the United States. Chiss Boy 11:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw another problem.Somebody remove this please: There are some debates over whether Yamataikoku was placed at Hawaii, or even closer near Okinawa, a southern Japanese island.[citation needed] (I mean, come on...a Japanese capital in Hawaii?! That obvious vandalism...) --71.107.217.63 07:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interest rates

The article notes that the interest rates are 0% in [Japan] now but this is untrue as recently Japan has raised interest rates slightly. The main article on Japan references a BBC article that discusses the raise in interest rates (BBC:Japan scraps zero interest rates). I believe the interest rates are currently somewhere around 0.5% (Ian Lewis 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Modification made to Asuka Period explained

I have made a small change in the text around the emissary sent by Japan to China in 607. The previous text was not wrong, but I wanted to make it look less (though not completely) controversial on the smallest points.

First point: Since it is commonly believed that Prince Shotoku was the one who proposed and started the emissary to Sui, it may as well be interpreted that letters brought to China was written by him, but it is generally safer to say such official letters were sent, without referring to who wrote it.

Secondly: the "Book of Sui" only mentions that the letter in which "the rising sun" appears made Emperor Yang angry. It is again safer to provide a citation as to how it can be interpreted, although the original text does probably reflect the common understandings today. Therefore I have added one from the Cambridge. --OhMyDeer 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlap

User:71.208.183.235 added the following comment to the text "The Jomon period (縄文時代, Jōmon-jidai) lasted from about 10,000 BC to 300 BC.": these overlap please explain/fix

Fg2 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's intentions

It is widely believed (and frequently written on Wikipedia) that Hideyoshi desired to conquer all of China and even India through his invasions of Korea. However, I get the impression that scholarship tells a very different story. Arano Yasunori, in his article "The Formation of a Japanocentric World Order," from the International Journal of Asian Studies 2:2 (2005), explains that "The Toyotomi regime, however, had far more realistic foreign policies: it sought to have Europe and Ming China as its trading partners, and Korea, the Ryukyus, Luzon (the Philippines), and Taiwan as its subordinate states. However, all through his Korean campaigns, Hideyoshi sought from Ming China, not subordination, but access to the licensed tally trade (kangō bōeki 勘合貿易)."

Given this information from scholarship, along with the just general common sense understanding that conquest of China and India was totally unrealistic, what shall we do with comments in this article and others that "Hideyoshi invaded Korea in an attempt to conquer Korea, China, and even India"?

I would be happy to share the article with others; it's a good read in any case. Thanks. LordAmeth 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there. One of the things I admire greatest about the Koreans and Japanese, and recently Mongolians now too, has been their use of TV series like our recent "Rome" by HBO? to describe their ancient history to people at home in front of the dinner table. I prefer English subtitles to always stopping the tape to ask them what was said, but they usually admonish me saying our English translations are terrible and often racist and deliberately mis-leading. That being said, in nearly 30 years of watching these things I've never even seen a Korean series or documentary on Hideyoshi claim he was planning to conquer China and India too.

The only place I hear/read these things, come from the same people who claim in ww2 the Japanese planned to invade San Francisco and Alaska and march into Washington D.C.(not State even) and those claims only came from my missionary friends there.

I get the feeling this author is like my missionary friends, takes alot of courses in the history of the country they are to bring Jesus and salvation too, but with a predisposed historical and ethnic slant on how to report history. My last Korean employer called it 'propaganda', how we re-write their history to make us look better.

So I agree with you, take that out.

When I did ask my Korean colleagues what they thought about this issue, all they did was mention that Korea actually has territorial claims in Manchuria against China. But that's a whole different topic. But none of them ever heard anything in their education growing up about the invader Hideyoshi having any conquering intentions beyond Korea, which they spanked him a good lesson about anyways.

BCE/CE

I am reinstating BCE/CE a the prefered date format for this article, as the first significant user (who started this article with a list of Japanese history periods) clearly marked his preferences for BCE/CE (he uses it something like 30 times). It might be arguable whether his contribution was really significant or not, but I tend to think it is, as he created this article in 2002 at a time when most Wikipedia articles were still in their infancy. His very clear choice for BCE/CE was disregarded by the immediately following user, but I tend to think this is ground enough to reinstate BCE/CE for this article, especially since it is also the best, neutral format for non-Christianity-related articles. PHG 13:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The first significant user was User:-- April who made his/her first edit here. A list of dates by an anon-IP is not a major contributor. And MoS says major contributor, not significant.
Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
I have asked the MoS community for their views here. John Smith's 13:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a dispute as to whether the date terms BC/AD or BCE/CE should be used.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

  • I believe that BC/AD should be used. Those terms were established by the first major contributor, User:-- April, here. A list of dates by an anon-IP is not a major contributor. WP:MOS says that if there is a dispute, that is where you go. BCE/CE was added later, but when that happened the article was inconsistent - I then made it consistent. Comments have been made that BC/AD should not be used because it is "Christian" and Japan is not Christian. That is an invalid argument, as the community rejected the proposal that BC/AD be labelled POV and should be replaced by BCE/CE outside of non-Chrisitan articles here. John Smith's 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Comments

  • Support BC/AD — "BC/AD" is more popular in English (and has always been so). It is only recently that "BCE/CE" has come into some usage. I'm inclined to treat "BCE/CE" as a neologism, and recommend not using them to avoid the element of surprise. "BC/AD" is more stable, and encyclopedic. "BCE/CE" is still too new and not yet universally understood. See also this Yahoo Japan dictionary entry for "BCE" (in Japanese). It says BCE is mainly used in the United States. Therefore, I suggest NOT using "BCE/CE" AT ALL unless the topic is restricted to the United States. At least, always use "BC/AD" for any Japan-related topics, and never "BCE/CE".--Endroit 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BCE/CE - No policy against its use, and should be preferred, as the history of Japan is not Christian-related. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. There was a policy proposal as to the same point, that BC/AD should not be used in non-Christian articles - it was rejected here. So there is no problem using BC/AD in "non-Christian" articles - WP:MOS also says that it is fine. John Smith's 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Pointless. The vote was whether to adopt using BCE/CE as policy over BC/AD. The vote doesn't ban the use of BCE/CE, neither does MoS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it's quite relevant. My argument has never been that BCE/CE cannot be used. It is your argument that BC/AD should not be used in a "non-Christian" article - that was the proposal that was rejected, so clearly it can be used in an article like this. John Smith's 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. Of course it can be used. The issue is whether or not it should be used. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Misleading. You say that BC/AD should not be used because this is a non-Christian article. Clearly that is not a valid argument, otherwise it would never be used outside of "Chritian" articles. John Smith's 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Misleading. The fact that it is used outside of Christianity-related articles does not mean it should be used in those articles. Clearly, my argument is valid. I am not talking about what is allowed to be used, but what is the best format to use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Misleading. I have never said the BC/AD should be used in non-Christian articles. Merely that your argument it should not be used is not relelvant. John Smith's 19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Misleading. I never said that you said that BC/AD should be used in non-Christian articles. My argument, of course, is very relevant, as we are really talking about which format we should use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. You are suggesting BC/AD should not be used because the article is not Christian. So let's discuss the matter with respect to WP:MOS, etc rather than go into automatic "it's a Christian term so don't use it here" mode. John Smith's 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. WP:MOS does not say BCE/CE should not be used. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Irrelevant again, Hong. I never said it should not be used anywhere. MOS does have various guidelines though that apply to this discussion - so let's discuss them. John Smith's 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This question and many of the arguments raised here concern usage across the encyclopedia. MOS pretty much just says "make it consistent, and if it is consistent, leave it alone," without really specifying which to change it to. If you're looking to modify that, the only logical forum is Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. The whole point of the guideline is to avoid revert wars over an ultimately inessential point, so as long as it's consistent, even if it was completely changed over without consensus, I'd suggest everyone just leave it alone. Dcoetzee 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would revert to BC/AD, since this edit war began this month, and it appears to have been stable before that. We should go to the m:Wrong Version; disruptive conduct will become less common if it is not rewarded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:Dcoetzee. Wikipedia's MoS has a statement on this matter, and it's quite similar to the policy on the version of English to use in articles. The person who starts the article makes the decision, and that version stays. Fg2 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    It's not quite the first user - more the first "major contributor". John Smith's 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, first major contributor is a fall-back position, for when there is no stable version. This article was stable in AD/BC, and should have been left alone; that's enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support BC/AD as it is by far the most common dating method used in the world, regardless of whether someone is or isn't Christian. I also agree with Septentrionalis regarding the fact that the article was stable for a long time using the BC/AD format, and should have been left alone. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BCE/CE, this is not a Christian article. That the article was "stable" with BC/AD is irrelevant, as it clearly is a content dispute now. Seigenthaler's article remained for a considerable time with false allegations of wrongdoing, just because something was not corrected previously is a poor argument for not correcting it now. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    What's "Seigenthaler's article"? John Smith's 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Also, should a content dispute be allowed to undermine Wikipedia guidelines? Because the only argument I really here is "the article is non-Christian", which WP:MOS would indicate is not really reason enough in this case to change what was a stable article. John Smith's 11:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Seigenthaler controversy. What guideline (which btw is not a policy, and NPOV is a policy) do you think is being "undermined", and please clarify how you think that a guideline should supercede the core policy of NPOV? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how Seigenthaler applies here given that BC/AD is not a point of factual dispute, as it were - that does not invalidate the position that stability is not important.
    As to the rest, I have never said a guideline overrides a policy like NPOV. But NPOV does not state BC/AD is POV. The only time that I know of where the Wikipedia community addressed that question was here, where such a policy request was rejected. It may have been two years ago, but unless you can show me a more recent example of where BC/AD has been officially labelled POV, or otherwise in violation of NPOV, we can and should look at the guidelines. John Smith's 12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Seigenthaler is about not fixing things because they've been here a while. In other words "It was like this before is no reason to keep it that way. As to the rest, NPOV doesn't say calling Jews Jesus-killers is POV either, but it is. Christian dating does not have to be specifically mentioned by NPOV in order to violate the policy on non-Christian articles. You seem to think if it isn't in sub-paragraph 147-b, spelled out in detail, it isn't policy. I assure you, most NPOV violations are not specifically mentioned. You are unhappy no one implemented rules creep to the point that this is specifically treated, and you are wiki-laywering to no purpose. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Seigenthaler was a problem because the information provided was false - that doesn't apply here given there is nothing factually incorrect about using BC/AD. It's a style point. Also I think you're being unhelpful with your reference to calling Jews names - clearly no one would dispute that. However, as mentioned, there is no consensus that BC/AD is POV - you can't honestly believe that if there was a request for a new policy saying that labelling Jews as murderers be POV it would fail review, can you? As to rules creep and wiki-lawyering, you are not assuming good faith. I am trying to move the discussion on from an unproductive "it's POV", "it's not POV" debate to one that talks about the guidelines. Why are you so reluctant to talk about the guidelines - is it because they would support BC/AD? John Smith's 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    You seem to be missing the point about Seigenthaler - its about the incredibly poor argument that we should keep something one way because "that's how it was" - no other reason or meaning is intended and if you cannot understand that logic then just ignore that I brought Seigenthaler up at all. Why is it "clear" to you that it is POV to promote an anti-Jewish slander but unclear that it is POV to promote a Christian dating system which states that Jesus is the messiah? Your rationale lacks logic, and is POV on the face of it. Why are you so reluctant to talk about a core policy and how it applies here? Is it because you know that policy supercedes guidelines and all you have to argue with is bad reasoning and a faulty argument about a guideline? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    I am not missing the point. The problem with the case was to do with verification of points made, specifically that people accepted what they didn't know. That's why we have citations and should use them. It did not concern style. I understand why you brought it up, but I don't accept that it applies here. Back to the main topic, I don't accept that BC/AD is the same as anti-Jewish abuse - that's hyperbole in my view. NPOV doesn't apply here. We can continue arguing it each way and get nowhere. If that's what you want, please continue wasting our time. I suggested discussing guidelines because it's clear we can't agree on NPOV. My argument on guidelines is far from faulty. John Smith's 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    You have now confirmed completely that you have indeed missed the point utterly. It was my point, which I chose Seigenthaler to illustrate. That other points could be illustrated using Seigenthaler to illustrate them does not negate my point, which I have stated repeatedly and clearly. The point you are discussing is not part of this debate, and is irrelevant to this debate. Stop arguing with me about what point I was trying to make! This is going down the rabbit hole with a vengence. If I make a point, I am the person who is the authority on what point I was trying to make, not you. The time-wasting is being done by you. Cease. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    It was my point that you're using the situation mentioned incorrectly. You can try to illustrate a point but do it badly, which was the case. I will stop commenting on it when you stop alleging I don't understand. I do understand - I would contend that it was your comparison that was flawed. We can disagree on that, so let's move on. John Smith's 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BCE/CE - Japan lacks any significant ties to Christianity, so the assertion that NPOV can be ignored for historical/convenience reasons is irrelevant. If you read the arguments made in the BCE/CE debate (which was a couple years ago) most of the arguments in favour of keeping the mixed system were along the lines of "yes it violates NPOV, but we should keep it for historical/convenience reasons" or called for something new altogether. It's obvious that BC/AD is POV - asserting that Jesus is the Messiah (BC) and that Jesus is God (AD) is inconsistent with NPOV. Two years ago the community split pretty evenly on the issue of whether we should continue to use the system, but it was only a minority who said that it did not violate NPOV. Guettarda 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yet the majority rejected the proposal. I'm also not sure how you were able to assess only a minority said it did not violate NPOV without a vote on that. John Smith's 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Japan lacks any significant ties to Christianity" is far from the truth. See Religion in Japan. Japanese people often have Christian weddings. Most Japanese people celebrate Christmas. And "紀元前" is usually translated into "BC" rather than "BCE". In fact the use of "BC" is not considered to be related to any religious belief, unlike how some POV-pushers here would like us to believe.--Endroit 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Please refrain from personal attacks. They are never acceptable. And please do explain how calling 0.7% "not significant" is "far from the truth"? That's about the same percentage as Muslims in the US - by your logic we should be adding A.H. to US-related articles. Guettarda 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    According to this survey, Christian weddings were the most popular in Japan, at about 45% of the respondents. According to this survey, 60% of the Japanese respondents said "Christmas was special" to them.--Endroit 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Are you serious? You call that a reliable source? They say "we sent questionnaires to all the people who were registered in the category of Japan of our pen pal service". That's a reliable survey? That's hilarious. Guettarda 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    At least it's better than your fallacious assumption that 99% do not celebrate Christmas nor Christian weddings in Japan. Yours is completely unsourced.--Endroit 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    My what? I said what? The Japan article, based on the CIA World Factbook says that 0.7% of Japanese are Christian. How is that unsourced? The article to which you referred, the Religion_in_Japan makes the (albeit unsourced) assertion that 4% of Japanese have Christian weddings. I have no idea if that is accurate or not. But it's clear that an online pen pal service is not a reliable source. The only reliable source we have says 0.7%. That is not a significant proportion of the Japanese population. I'm sorry that you consider working from reliable sources "fallacious". Maybe you should take some time to familiarise yourself with our article on sourcing. Seriously - online pen pal services are not reliable sources. Obviously flawed polls are not reliable sources. That's just the way it works. Guettarda 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Your 4% figure is still unsourced and does not satisfy WP:V either, hence fallacious. Now really, where are your sources for the number of non-Christians in Japan who celebrate Christmas and/or Christian weddings? Surely the Religion in Japan article mentions syncretism, and the 0.7% clearly cannot include those significant number of non-Christians who celebrate Christmas and Christian weddings.--Endroit 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Japan has Christianity in its history, as do most countries, thanks to the efforts of missionaries throughout the world. However, Japan lacks significant ties to Christianity: an article with significant ties would be, for example, one of the articles in {{Christianity}}. BC means "Before Christ" and AD means "In the Year of Our Lord", popularized and promoted by Bede as a specifically Christian dating system; in what alternate universe does this have nothing to do with Christianity? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Japan doesn't have what they see as "Christian" weddings. They have Western weddings, because it's modern. And Christmas is hardly a strictly Christian event anymore even in Western countries. Give me a break. Even then, just how "Christian" was Japan about two thousand years ago? Because that's really the relevant time period here unless you want to put CE or AD after every single year for the past two thousand years. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Christmas is hardly a strictly Christian event anymore, precisely. "BC/AD" is hardly a strictly Christian term anymore. You took the words right out of my mouth.--Endroit 14:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Good point, Endroit. John Smith's 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Endroit, it's nice to see that you agree your point is irrelevant. On the other hand, I still think BC/AD is Christian-related and shouldn't be used in this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hong, please do not twist what Endroit said. He didn't say that, and you know it. John Smith's 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well, he first argued that Japan does have significant ties to Christianity because Japanese people have what he thinks are Christian weddings. When I refuted that those "Christian" weddings are really just Western weddings to Japanese people, he agreed. So he's making his own point moot, basically. Call it whatever you want, he agreed with my refutation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    He talked about Christmas not Christian weddings in his reply to your "refutation". He didn't agree with your refutation - you're misrepresenting what he said. John Smith's 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Ah yes, that's right. Does it really matter? He agreed with my refutation. First he argued that Japan does have significant ties to Christianity because Japanese people celebrate Christmas. When I pointed out that they don't celebrate it as a Christian event, he agreed. So he made his own point about Christmas moot. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well these things are Christian at different levels, a "Christian wedding" being the most Christian. Christmas is a little less Christian, due to the way some non-Christians celebrate it on their own. And "BC/AD" having hardly anything to do with Christianity except for etymology.--Endroit 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    It's a pure WP:NOR violation for you to speculate that "BC/AD" is more Christian than Christmas, and to write articles based on such fallacious premises. It's POV-pushing as well. "BC/AD" is widely used by the majority of the people in the world. Nevertheless, a handful of Wikipedians such as yourself are on a crusade here to tell us it's wrong because "BC" and "AD" are associated with Christianity. Etimologically related, true; actually associated with Christianity, false.--Endroit 15:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    And again I ask, BC means "Before Christ" and AD means "In the Year of Our Lord", popularized and promoted by St. Bede as a specifically Christian dating system; in what alternate universe does this have nothing to do with Christianity? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    The ONLY thing relevant is the etymology.--Endroit 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    It's a pure WP:NOR violation for you to speculate that BC/AD is not Christian-related at all, especially when the terms originated as a reference to Jesus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, it isn't. If anything it's a pure WP:NOR violation for you to deny/imply that BC/AD cannot be Christian-related. John Smith's 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    I did concede that the etymology was relevant, didn't I? However, the context in which they are used in the real world is usually unrelated to Christianity. It is only a minority of POV-pushers (in the real world) trying to make us believe otherwise.--Endroit 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BCE/CE Christian POVing once again. Japan is NOT a Christian country, and utilizing CE/BCE is altogether appropriate. AD/BC start at 0 indicating the birth of some mythical being. Why are we wasting even 1 bit of bandwidth discussing this issue? (Edit conflict with the Puppy, and what she says about the meaning of BC/AD is totally correct.) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Utter nonsense. It isn't POV-pushing at all. John Smith's 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate your civil response. Nice to know that your Christian attitude is so nice.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Where did I say I was especially Christian? I think if anything you're the one not being civil because you're not assuming good faith and assuming instead this is because I'm "Christian". John Smith's 15:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Adding the assertion that Jesus of Nazareth is "the anointed one" (BC) and is God (AD) is a POV. And you sure are pushing it. Guettarda 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    But no one here is adding the assertion that Jesus is the "annointed one". That allegation is all coming from the people that prefer BCE/CE - you are the ones pushing it, not us. John Smith's 15:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    "But no one here is adding the assertion that Jesus is the "annointed one"" What?? Wow. I must be imagining things - I see a dozen or more edits in which you are arguing for just that. As is Endroit. Are you seriously trying to say that no one here is arguing for changing the article to BC? If so, then please, close the request, since no one is in favour of it. This is utterly bizarre. Guettarda 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    I did not say that no one is for BC. I said that no one is pushing the idea that Jesus is the "annointed one", because I do not believe that using BC is doing that. You can decide that is the case if you like, but I don't agree with you. John Smith's 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    So to which "anointed one" are you referring when you write "BC"? If you believe that it refers to an anointed one other than Jesus of Nazareth, then you are arguing for a truly radical change in usage. So either you want to introduce the assertion that Jesus is the messiah into the article, or you want to introduce the assertion that someone else is the messiah. There's no other option - when you say that something happened "Before Christ" you are making the assertion that Jesus is the Christ. If, as you say, you don't believe that BC refers to Jesus, then please supply your source. It is a truly extraordinary assertion. Guettarda 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Personally I am not referring to any individual when I do it. You may believe I am doing so automatically, but I don't. Of course there is a link, but I don't believe one is making any sort of "statement" about the messiah etc by using BC. John Smith's 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    BC means "Before Christ", regardless of whether you "believe" that it does or doesn't. It was established relative to (what was believed to be) the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Regardless of whether you believe it or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it's based on verifiable facts, not beliefs. If you really know that little about dating systems, you really shouldn't be changing them. If you really know nothing about this system of dating, maybe you should have a quick look at the Wikipedia article. Guettarda 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    It was established relative to (what was believed to be) the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. And so is BCE/CE. So if we follow your position then neither BC/AD nor BCE/CE should be used and wikipedia should adopt a totally new system of dating. John Smith's 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe you should familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV. We are supposed to describe things, not assert things. BCE/CE is descriptive of the dating system. BC/AD makes assertions about a person. It's a fact that the Western dating system is based on (a miscalculation of) the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. But BC asserts that [event X] happened before the birth the Messiah. BCE merely describes that [event X] happened before the "Common Era", which describes the era in which we (in the West) consider ourselves to be living. AD, of course, makes an even strong assertion, the assertion that Jesus is Lord. CE refers names the era in which we consider ourselves to be living as the "common" era. We can't come up with a new system of dating. That would not be appropriate. But we are required, per NPOV, to ensure that we make the less biased choice. Asserting that Jesus is God is incompatible with the mission of the project. Guettarda 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    You're dodging the fact that BCE/CE is in relation to exactly the same timeframe as BC/AD is. It's just that "common era" was adopted as a face-saving alternative to using BC/AD because some people didn't like it - but by that time it was impossible to have a new dating system that could reasonably be expected to be accepted. It is not NPOV to use BC/AD, as WP:MOS would state, the last community discussion on this suggested and last arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk confirmed. You have no official decisions, guidelines, etc concerned BC/AD to back up your claims, so it is you who are pushing POV, not me, Endroit or anyone else. John Smith's 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Guettarda) And what is this era "we (in the West)" are supposed to be living in? Whatever it's called, it's still based on the date of the supposed birth of a certain supposed individual. I'm not a Christian, I do not make assertions whatsoever about Jesus when I use "AD/BC". LDHan 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that the MOS itself already recognized that BC/AD has "overtly Christians associations", and therefore describes a Christian POV, in contrast to BCE/CE, which is prefered by some editors for that reason. PHG 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The MOS does not preclude the use of BC/AD in such a way. Indeed the MOS has actually removed the extract you're refering to, so that is no longer part of its guidelines. John Smith's 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. it was there 10 days ago: [1]. Sad somebody took it away, because it was a real piece of common sense. Your claim that BC/AD has no Christian associations really does not make sense and is only radicalizing the vast majority of users here in favour of BCE/CE. Go on John... PHG 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not there anymore - it couldn't be taken away by one person without consensus. So now you're changing the subject because that fact doesn't support your position. How surprising! Really, it's quite ridiculous for you to claim MOS guidelines support you and then pretend it doesn't mean anything when what you were relying is removed from those same guidelines. It goes to show how weak your argument against BC/AD is. John Smith's 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you have a link for that supposed consensus? PHG 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is here. No one objected to the removal of the bit about Christian associations, and as silence = consensus for the purpose of wikipedia, that was consensus. John Smith's 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the change was only made because it was considered obvious that BC/AD had overtly Christian associations: "I took out the superfluous part about avoiding the Christian associations of BC/AD. All terms are linked within the section if an editor needs to know more about what the terms mean." (User:MJCdetroit, here). It is actually so obvious a fact that it does not even need mention anymore... except maybe for the very last few who keep denying it... PHG 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, no one objected to the removal. Also the comment you quoted does not say MJCdetroit was removing it because it was so obvious - he said it was "superfluous", which means generally unnecessary. You can try to avoid this, but the point you're trying to rely on was removed from MOS, so it is no longer a valid argument to oppose BC/AD. Also the fact you're trying to reinsert this rather shows that you do think it is a fact that needs to be said - your actions contradict your comments here. John Smith's 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You are just trying to play on words. What MJCdetroit means is that this fact is redundant with the BC/AD article content. Please also see the comment of User:Pmanderson hereafter. PHG 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to play on words at all. I am affirming what MJC actually said. You are again ignoring the fact it was removed from MOS. You can continue with this silly line, or move on. The fact you never want to talk about MOS when it doesn't serve your viewpoint is a clear sign that you are POV. The default line in MOS is that BC/AD is fine to use. Now the single expression you would cling to in order to try to qualify that is gone, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel even more. John Smith's 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep on denying the obvious John... Again I do not expect I will convinve you. The bottom line is that BC/AD obviously has strong Christian connotations (it is simply ridiculous to deny that), that it is fine to use, and that some writers will prefer to implement BCE/CE for article without Christian connotations. PHG 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
PHG, I'm just trying to follow WP:MOS. The sad truth is that you only do so when you think you can use it to your advantage, and now it doesn't suit you you're trying to ignore it. By the way, thanks for affirming BC/AD is fine to use - maybe now you'll stop trying to change it to BCE/CE. John Smith's 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I would personnaly not push BCE/CE on Christianity-related articles, in order to respect the sensitivity of the people there. It should also be your obvious choice not to push BC/AD on articles that have nothing to do with Chritianity (remember History of Nepal and History of the Americas?), when a more neutral alternative is available. PHG 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not pushing anything here - it was you that pushed BCE/CE. I made the article consistent and then you changed it over. You're the one doing the pushing. John Smith's 12:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
And how about your edits on History of Nepal, History of the Americas, and scores of others?? You obviously try to use any technicality (and illegal moves such as on Template:History of Japan) to push your BC/AD POV on any article, especially those which have no relationship whatsoever with Christianity. In History of Japan the first major editor actually used BCE/CE, BCE/CE is more appropriate as a non-Christianity-related subject, and when consulted the vast majority of users actually approved the BCE/CE position for this article. Conversely, I would certainly not dare try to impose BCE/CE on Christianity-related article, so why don't you return the favour? I do not wish to continue this empty discussion with you. PHG 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's talk about History of Nepal. I was making the terms consistent with the earliest non-stub. On other pages, I've stopped reverting where there was consistency. Again, you misrepresent my actions. I'm not the one trying to get a stable page changed right now - you are. You don't want to continue this discussion because I'm pointing out what you're trying to do. Your claims to neutrality are the only empty thing in this conversation - you're pushing your own POV. John Smith's 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You've stopped reverting in these cases only because your actions were undefendable and other editors denounced them. It actually seems the BCE/CE position in History of Nepal was quite longstanding, except for a few ADs in a paragraph. Another good excuse to change everything to BC/AD??? It would be more logical to align everything on BCE/CE taking the topic into account, without mentionning the Template. You didn't explain your "illegal" actions on Template:History of Japan. PHG 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I was making the article consistent in line with the first major contribution that used either term. Both terms were only used in a relatively small number of cases, so it could go either way in my view. If the first major contrib had used BCE/CE I would now switch it over to that. But that wasn't the case. Now let's get back to this article and the fact that it was consistent because of my changes - the trouble started when you took exception to that and started pushing your own POV. John Smith's 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The text in question is Some writers use CE and BCE to avoid the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC. That is a perfectly true statement - and any article on which there is consensus that AD and BC should be avoided is free to change. Some writers use AD and BC because they are msot widely understood than BC and BCE would be equally true; and a consensus should be free to change an article for that reason. Neither is a mandate to change, merely permission. For my part, I consider the political correctness of the first set of writers as obnoxious as the philistinism of the second, and will oppose either change if asked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BCE/CE. According to http://www.religioustolerance.org (page on Shinto) "About 84% of the population of Japan follow two religions: both Shinto and Buddhism. As in much of Asia, Christianity is very much a minority religion. Fewer than 1% of Japanese adults are Christians." I recognize that the tradition and MOS recommendation in Wikipedia has been decided to be an "early-bird-gets-the-worm" interpretation. But WP:MOS and other stylistic "guidelines" never trump local consensus-- at least thus far in WP's development. Since it's up for grabs at the moment, my opinion is that using AD and BC in this particular article is an unnecessary addition to the long litany of Western transliterations and other superpositions of Western culture upon Western reporting of Asian culture. CE and BCE have become the academic standard today in a widespread attempt to reduce the Western Christian parochialism in such reporting of Eastern cultures and events. Please go with BCE/CE in this article. ... Kenosis 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    CE and BCE have become the academic standard today What evidence do you have for that? My understanding is that's mostly only in the US, and even then it's far from universal. John Smith's 09:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Like it or not, the US is actually leading the world on most scholarly issues. The fact that the US is chosing BCE/CE is highly significant and show the way for the future. PHG 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    It's not about "like" - you can't use American adoption (and as I said, it is far from universal there - I'm not even sure how widely it is used) of a term to prove it is "more scholarly" than something else. John Smith's 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    You can argue endlessly until a detailed study is available (I know you will still continue to argue anyway), but just look at American publications and at a common sense comment by an American scholar: here. Hopefully, at least you will not argue that BC/AD is the way of the future. It should be common sense and a matter of sensitivity to other cultures and religions to understand that BC/AD does have Christian implications, and that not everybody might be happy uttering a Christian acronym everytime they mention a date. PHG 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hey, it's not for me to prove anything - it's for the person making the comment to back their claim up. I'm disputing the claim that BCE/CE is "more scholarly", not saying BC/AD is superior. Common-sense is to use either term without prejudice, except maybe in exceptional circumstances such as on pages like Muhammed, because we live in a tolerant world that should be able to use such terms. If you want that to change, put up a policy proposal as was the case in 2005. Until you do and get it passed your censorship of a term like BC/AD is what is wrong. John Smith's 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    We're here to build consensus, and you can already see that the vast majority of users on these pages support the usage of BCE/CE against BC/AD. There is such a thing as a rough consensus and a super majority on Wikipedia: one, two or three individuals cannot block a process eternally, especially if it is thought as highly legitimate, and the alternative as quite offending, by the majority. PHG 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Since when was 7 to 4 users a "vast majority" or indeed an overriding one? It isn't. We're not talking about a few users - there is a significant number that oppose the unilateral changes you made. You can't force through a change like this just on votes. John Smith's 15:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    So, because it turns out you are in the minority you only challenge now the legitimacy of this vote?? That's sad John: you should have said that upfront, especially as you are the one who actually posted the request for comments to start with. PHG 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't a democracy - I've had that thrown at me enough times. An RfC isn't a vote - it's an attempt to get consensus. I hoped we could do that, but obviously we can't. What's sad is that you won't respect the dispute resolution rules and are more interested in pushing through your POV than actually going through things properly. John Smith's 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well, you sure couldn't establish a consensus for your proposal to have BC/AD in this article... quite the contrary: what became crystal clear is that you are holding a largely minority position. PHG 15:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Ahaha, nice try. The RfC was not a question as to whether BC/AD should be used. It says quite clearly, This is a dispute as to whether the date terms BC/AD or BCE/CE should be used. It was to try to gain a consensus (as is always the case with a RfC) over which term to use. You can keep parroting the minority position bit, but the fact is we need consensus. If it was just me against 7 editors, ok. But it isn't. Just accept we don't have consensus - maybe then we can move on. John Smith's 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, of course there is no censensus, but at least we will all remember that you are holding a largely minority position on this question. Best regards. PHG 15:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BC/AD. LDHan 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point, with 7 editors in favour of BCE/CE and 3 editors in favour of BC/AD, there is a clear majority in favour of the reinstatement of BCE/CE in this article. PHG 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment — In the real world, neither "BC/AD" nor "BCE/CE" are used in the religious context. To say that just one of them is used in a religious context, in encyclopedias, etc., is tantamount to libel against all those people who have used those terms. Also claiming that "BCE/CE" is non-religious is tantamount to a bogus lie. The dictionaries list one of the meanings of "CE" as "Christian Era". In fact the "BCE/CE" system IS BASED ON "Jesus Christ" in an identical manner as "BC/AD". The only difference is the supposed representation of the acronyms, where "BCE/CE" can also be interpreted as "Before Christian Era"/"Christian Era".--Endroit 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Endroit. After claiming how neutral BC/AD supposedly is, we are now claiming how associated with Christianity BCE/CE supposedly is... I have never heard the reading "Christian Era" for CE, and the reference given to this claim in the Wikipedia article CE is actually very slim: an online dictionnary giving "Christian Era" as a synonym, not as the actual reading for CE (here). Other online resources on the subject are very limited, except an article explaining that Christian Era is actually shortened to C.AE. It doesn't matter much anyway as "Christian Era" meaning "Era of the Christians" is a reality, just as the fact that CE and AD coincide is a reality. Uttering however "Year of the Lord" (Anno Domini) everytime we mention a date is equivalent to a profession of faith if words mean anything, something which is understandably disturbing for people not especially following the Christian faith. Our Encyclopedia is multi-national and multi-cultural and should therefore avoid imposing particular religious formulations, codes or standards whenever possible. Regards. PHG 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BC/AD. Widely used. To tell the truth, I had to look up an English dictionary for BCE and CE. BCE/CE sounds more religious pov to me, while BC/AD just indicates a point of time. Oda Mari 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Addition. The entry of Common Era in New Shogakukan Random house Eng-Ja Dic. is ((the~))=Christian Era. And the entry of Christian Era is ((the~))キリスト紀元、西暦紀元 Common Eraともいう (1657). Using BCE/CE in the article just because japan is not a Christian country seems to me a discrimination from Christians.Oda Mari 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)　
  • Support BC/AD First let me say that I am a staunch atheist, and as such have no interest in promoting a Christian POV. But the simple fact is that BC/AD is by far the more popular system in the English language. As this is the English language Wikipedia, this is the system which should be used. I would support adding the Japanese date (if there is still such a thing, I admit I don't know), but BC/AD should definitely be used. Faithlessthewonderboy 03:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BCE/CE for all the reasons stated above. For those who believe BC/AD has no religious connotation, why do you believe we are even having this conversation -- and why was BCE/CE alternative even created (without changing the actual numbering system) -- in the first place? Even the Wikipedia article on Common Era itself states quite clearly: "The term "Common Era" is preferred by some as an alternative to the overtly Christian "AD" and "BC," since "Common Era" does not use religious titles for Jesus such as "Christ" and "Lord," which are used in the BC-AD notation." (Emphasis added.) Some people above (like Endroit) have also tried to sweep away the religious connotation issue by claiming that Christianity does in fact play a significant role in Japan. I can only assume such people have never actually been to Japan. That Christianity plays any significant role in Japan whatsoever is a complete fantasy.-Jefu 06:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, after the page protection expired, the very first edit that was made (not by a bot) was John Smith's changing the era notation, despite no consensus here to do so. John Smith's said elsewhere "I have stopped trying to change articles over that had consistently used BCE/CE for a long period of time, even if they started off with BC/AD as the first major contrib." This article has used BCE/CE since April. I'm not sure if that constitutes "long" or not. That said, the above discussion illustrates clearly that there is no consensus to change, and that there is a slightly greater support for BCE/CE (I counted 9 to 7 because Dcoetzee said leave it alone, regardless what someone did months ago without consensus). Why don't we all agree to leave things the way they are and find better ways to contribute to wikipedia than arguing over a couple stupid letters. BOTH ARE EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE according to the MoS. Besides a slight correction by Zone101, you can see that the only edits made since the page was unprotected were continuing the edit war. Obviously, the page was unprotected too early. This has got to stop (and I notice that it continues on a half dozen other pages as well). -Andrew c [talk] 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, the page was not consistently using BCE/CE in April. If anything at the start of April it was using BC/AD consistently, as it was with the first major contribution. Some anonymous editor introduced BCE/CE in only some places here in mid April. It only became consistent when I made it so at the end of July. So if you want to go by length of time using one term, clearly BC/AD has been the format for this article. John Smith's 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support BC/AD - One way or the other, we are measuring time using the Gregorian calendar, which is a Christian construction and used AD/BC, and to argue that BCE/CE gets rid of the "Christian" bit is laughable, anyone who prefers the Christian version will just read "Before Christian Era" instead of "Before Common Era". I'd rather not push a wholly english dating system on a non-english speaking country's article and I don't think either one is particularly preferable, but barring a Japan-specific metric, I'd rather go with the old standard. Adam McCormick 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, with 8 editors in favour of BCE/CE and 8 editors in favour of BC/AD, there is no clear consensus either way as to what term should be used. John Smith's 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support BCE/CE - Yes, BC and AD are used more commonly in everyday (American) English, but they do have a distinct whiff of their origin in Christianity. While I would support changing the MoS for the general case, I think using BCE and CE is even more appropriate here where the subject of discourse is Japanese history. How much sense would it make to mention in a discussion of Jesus that he was born during the Han Dynasty? —PaulTanenbaum 05:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have supported BCE/CE but it strikes me that using the principle that the original page state is the default state just creates problems for eras.Dejvid 10:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support BCE/CE...which means I've changed my mind. By nature I'm politically incorrect and so lazy sometimes I don't even want to type the entire abbreviation of a word. However, being someone who works with people from around the world, and to whom many of even my home-town friends do not even consider themselves Christian or religious at all anymore, and since our school-boards are already discouraging us from having students use Wikipedia as a source for research for classes because on increasing claims of it being 'anglo-saxon christian propaganda'...I would like to see us in English Wikipedia at least TRY to make it look like we're trying to report unbiased historical facts and to that end, have changed my mind here and agree, support BCE/CE. Hell, most of my students, even those announcing they are Christians, think we should have a new dating system altogether, starting back when humans started recording history if we could prove when that was. But me being lazy, I'd have to always add another digit or two in dates lol.

Now if you'll excuse me, since I actually supported something politically correct for once, I'm going to go buy some lottery tickets because anything must be possible now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection

In order to stop the constant reverting back and forth between BC/AD and BCE/CE, I have protected this article until a consensus is arrived at on which one should be used. As anyone can see above, I have offered my opinion on the matter. However, this constant reverting back and forth is doing nothing but making people upset. So, until a consensus can be reached one way or the other on which should be used here, this article will remain protected. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case I doubt the article's going to get much editing done in the next couple of months.... John Smith's 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If you need something important changed, post below in the Edits needed section and I or another admin who happens by will take care of it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits needed

If you have an edit which absolutely must be done while the article is protected, please give explicit instructions on what you wish done and and admin will take care of it. Please note that this is for small edits, as we won't be doing any huge sweeping changes for you. If you have one of those, please save it somewhere and take care of it once the article is unprotected. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Occupied Japan" seems to be the wrong term here

Shouldn't it be "The Occupation of Japan" or "The Occupation of Japan by Allied Forces"? User5802 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Occupation" is indeed the more common term, in my experience. LordAmeth 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Maybe since this is supposed to be(and it is not) a fair representation of Japanese history, we might go and use their own admitted 'English' term here, "GHQ", meaning General Head Quarters, MacArthur simply replacing Tojo as 'Shogun' as even Mac's own bio referred to.
The truth was that at Quebec we agreed it would be Australians who would occupy post-war Japan, but the Japanese to this day would point out they understand we never meant international law for everyone, by the one-sided war-crimes trials even our own lawyers and Supreme Court Justices ruled against.
Japanese history to this day, to our chagrin, records that the decision to surrender was based more on Russia's back-stabbing betrayal, than the atom bombs. In the same way they understood what a difference it made that their attack came BEFORE the official declaration of war, however unintentional, they wanted to ensure that anyone BUT the Soviets would occupy Japan.
Our history books(and I know as I'm back teaching English speaking students), lie to this day, Japan never did surrender to the Soviet Union. In the same way Japanese even South Korean history books take great offense at our implication they were part of some 'Axis Pact', neither do they accept that the Soviet Union was part of the 'Allies'. That is why, to this day, no matter what our own historians lie about Stalin being a member of our 'Alliance', Japan and Russia have no signed peace nor surrender document.
So the Japanese I know seem content with the term 'GHQ' or if you must, American occupation forces. I would go with 'GHQ' as I notice that in Japanese and South Korean and Taiwanese media, when they use the term 'American occupation' forces, it is usually tied to some rape or criminal issue and jurisdictional complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Japanese Bias?

To be briefest, the jist of everything below is that a couple of my students pointed out that the author of this 'history of japan' presents anti-japanese and mis-leading statements regarding Japanese history from the point of Japanese history tied with us in the West, in that he deliberately leaves out/omits major Japanese treaties and events and their perspectives that like 'cherry-picking intelligence', leaves the reader with the wrong, even contrary impression about certain aspects of Japanese history.
Obviously we're not Japanese. I have read the entire page and I have agreed with my students and allowed them to try to post what they know to be "intentionally with-held information."

When I read someone above claim the author seemed to reflect an anti-American bias in his description of Japanese history, I guffawed.

Frankly, though he did accurately represent how we made our 'first impression' on the Japanese, the fact he didn't mention how this had to be the seeds of negative feelings towards us; was to me, the first sign of his actually being quite 'anti-Japanese', at least where it comes to their relations with us.

I guarantee you that if we were talking about an 1805 British warfleet sailing into Boston Harbor forcing we Americans to do as we were told, he would relate how this had a permanent impression on the American psyche and attitude towards the British.

While Japanese and English historians agree there was an actual active military alliance called the "Allies" in WW1 that Japan was a member of, they do not agree that there was an active military alliance called the "Axis" in WW2 that Japan was a member of against Germany's enemies which included, mostly in fact, Russia.

So it 'seems' prejudicial against Japan to refuse to use a universally-accepted positve description of Japan while agree to use a contested negative description of Japan?

It's like when we say "we kill" but "they murder".

How can one objectively write on a period of history where friends and allies became enemies and enemies became friends without mentioning why?

Eventhough he's supposed to be writing about Japanese history, he focuses more on how the Japanese extremists perceived events, rather than the serving Prime Minister, Cabinet even average commoner reading of all the events, treaties and pacts this author omits.

In the same way he fails to mention why England and Japan went from friends to enemies, he fails to mention why Germany and Japan went from enemies to friends. Isn't this at least as important as the name of the conspiring officer?

He omits Japanese and asian anger, rather than gratitude, at our refusal to put into writing the 'equality clause' pronouncing all nations equal regardless of race and religion.

He omits that like Italy, Japan also felt like it was treated as an 'inferior power' and betrayed on WW1 promises, spoils of war and reparations.

He keeps mentioning why we reacted to certain Japanese actions, but fails to mention why the Japanese did what they did.

He mentions that we started severing relations with Japan because of her moves into Manchukuo in the 1930s, while totally omitting that the reason the Japanese did so was because of the exact same Soviet actions in Mongolia in the 1920s setting up their own 'Pu Yi' puppet in the form of pro-Soviet Horlogiyn Choibalsan.

As soon as his Japanese history touches onto we in the West, he seems more intent on explaining why we reacted the way we did to Japanese moves rather than why the Japanese reacted to other major moves he fails to mention altogether.

The only reason I can see why he fails to mention the Anti-Comintern Pact at all, is because he would have to mention:
a) that it was in response to the Soviet annexation of Mongolia from China, and
b) that in the same way Japan cancelled that 1936 Anti-Comintern pact with Germany when Hitler signed the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact,
he would have to mention that for the same reasons Japan also cancelled the Nov 1940 Tripartite Pact(Axis) because of the April 1941 'Soviet-Japan' Pact after Germany and the 'Axis' invaded the USSR, but Japan did the reverse.

He seems to be deliberately leaving out major treaties that prove Japanese efforts to avoid, rather than instigate war. Inexplicably, he completely omits the treaty that probably doomed Germany, the 'Soviet-Japan Neutrality/Friendship/Non-Aggression Pact'. If it weren't for this pact, Zhukov's Siberian Armies, created and trained in preparation to defend against Japanese invasion, were able to arrive just in time to save Moscow and the war in Russia from German victory. Without this 'Soviet-Japan Pact' he conveniently completely leaves out, in the same way Russia was able to go on the attack in Europe, the Japanese were able to transfer Manchurian armies out from preparing for war with Russia to instead go to war with us!

That's hardly what I call an unimportant strategic detail.

Yet at the same time he is totally unfair in political detail there too.

By mentioning Konoe as Prime Minister after the decision to go to war AFTER the July 1941 US freezing of assets, he is implying that it was Konoe who was Prime Minister when war was decided upon. That's no more true than saying Clinton was behind the decision to invade Iraq in 2002.

What were the direct, critical, strategic and political results of the 'Soviet-Japan Pact' he/you keep preventing me from editing in?:

a) when Konoe realized Japan's membership in the Tripartite Pact was having the opposite effect intended on negotiations with the USA, he had to get rid of it.

"The contradictions between these various policies led to divisions within the cabinet and to itse resignation in July in order to get rid of Matsuoka. Konoe's third cabinet was then formed with a new foreign minister and this concentrated on peace negotiations with the USA. When these did not succeed and Washington authorities froze Japanese funds Konoe offered to visit the USA for direct talks with the President. The proposal was rejected and the cabinent resigned in October; Konoe rejoined the imperial court as an advisor." Oxford Companion to WWII(Oxford University Press, New York, 1995).

b) by cancelling the Tripartite Pact in favor of the Soviet-Japan Pact, Stalin was able to take Zhukov's Siberian army away from the Japanese and throw them into the European war, not only saving Russia, but destroying Germany.

I'd hardly call those 2 direct consequences 'insignificant details'

When you keep deleting my mention of the above sourced and cited 'Soviet-Japan' Pact while continuing to mention a never-invoked Tripartite Pact, you are trying to say that by NOT attacking Russia, that Japan was somehow honoring its membership in some 'Axis Pact'.

That's like someone saying that because I let the bear out of his cageon the border of my farm, to run over the horizon to maul you, that I'm still somehow I'm your friend/ally.

Another analogy from one of my students who is convinced Wikipedia is just an 'anglo-american propaganda forum'... That's like saying because France is part of a mutual defense pact called NATO with the US, that therefore France must be part of America's present Coalition in Iraq.

I literally source English ww2 encyclopedias, and the author or whomever out there keep editing out the printed 'truths' while retaining the deliberate mis-statements, what even my students call propaganda.

Tripartite Pact, Oxford Companion to WW2 again, I quote

"However, secret clauses added at Japan's request more or less nullified these terms as Japan wanted to obtain concessions from the USA, using its withdrawal from the pact as a bargaining point."

Comon guys. I'm using actual English ww2 encyclopedia's to correct, deliberate or not, incomplete and misleading historical statements here. Why do you keep blocking sourced accurate historical accounts from correcting what appears even to me, someone who lost relatives fighting the Japanese, to be anti-Japanese historical accounts.

To the author, the thoughts and actions of a renegade officer disobeying direct orders from Tokyo to fabricate an unwanted war is more important than the thoughts and actions of a Prime Minister and Cabinet trying to prevent war. I'm not Japanese, but even I can tell that this representation of Japanese history of the period is a total injustice to their actual mind-set and motives. This is exactly the kind of convenient omitting and editing out of information and redefining of words, phrases and intent that has, according to CNN, still left 70% of Americans believing Saddam and Iraq were behind 9/11. This is exactly the kind of prejudicial recording of history the world uses to prove we can't be trusted, that we just spout propaganda anymore.

The author doesn't even mention that this Kanji Ishiwara was deliberately and purposefully disobeying direct orders from Tokyo to make peace not war, in Manchuria.

By intentionally mentioning some facts, while omitting others, the author is representing a decidedly anti-Japanese description from American contact onwards. I guarantee you that if the author were talking about an 1805 British warfleet sailing into Boston Harbor forcing we Americans to do as we were told, he would relate how this had a permanent impression on the American psyche and attitude towards the British.

His writing seems little different than a Russian historian on a page about Cuba, mentioning American missiles in Turkey, the name of the man in charge of the 'Bay of Pigs' but omitting mention of the Russian missiles in Cuba.

I don't know if this author and the people who keep deleting my editing are really that 'anti-Japanese' or if they are just all using the same historically innaccurate and biased source(since they don't even list it anyways).

Like one of my students copying from another on his history test, but the person he is copying from is giving the wrong answer.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) I am saying that once it comes to Japan's history with us, his article does come across that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're correct on nearly all points aside from your assertion of Japan potentially invading the US. Japan's grandest designs stopped at the Dutch East Indies, which had the resources the US had deprived them of. They never had any intention to attack the US mainland with ground forces. --NEMT 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by IP users

I'm reverting because they're all unsourced and in many cases rather vague. We need sources, not spam. John Smith's (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit by User:EmilyLawrence

Although I kept the reference to Sakhalin, the other edits were mostly unexplained removal of material. As for claiming that Russia forfeited because of internal problems is a gross exaggeration. Russia lost militarily to Japan - realistically it couldn't have continued even if it had wanted to.

If someone has an alternate view, a better explanation with some sources would help. John Smith's (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blankings by IP 142.31.36.127

Please do not remove large pieces of text as you did without explanation. That constitutes vandalism, so I have reverted accordingly. If you wish to discuss changes please use the talk page first. John Smith's (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations in the Kofun period

There are some errors in the recent edit. The title which was awarded to the king of Wa by the Chinese Emperor Shun of Liu Song in 478 was not the title of the ruler over the countries. It was just the military sovereignty. In addition, the king of Wa had demanded the sovereignty of Baekje, this claim was rejected by the Emperor. Second, as you can see in the following sentence, Wa had some influence in those countries. If you have further information, please change the description with appropriate reference. --Amagase (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edo Period

Normally the Edo period is identified as pre-Modern Japan as opposed to being part of Feudal Japan. Despite many misconceptions, the Japanese ruling class was not tied to the land as is the case with a feudal society. During this time, the ruling class was on stipend and the peasantry was not tied to their land as serfs are in feudal societies. Additionally, there are significant social and economic changes that transform Japan from a feudal society to a pre-modern society such as the rise of the merchant class. Are there any thoughts on this topic prior to me making the changes?

Oxford Removes Japan from (the Axis)

It is true. The Oxford Dictionary, published in the UK and New York, has taken Japan out of their definition of the Axis. "Concise Oxford Dictionary: Tenth Edition Completey Revised" Hard-cover Page 93 (the Axis) the alliance between Germany and Italy in the Second World War.

When we asked Oxford why the change at a teacher's convention, we were told that it was found that there was no authenticated original documentation signed by the Japanese agreeing to the term 'Axis' as title of any activated alliance with Berlin and Rome.

I was also interested to learn that instead of Mussolini, it was actually Italian General Gombos, (who had died in October,1936) who first coined the phrase 'Axis' to refer to a Rome-Berlin alliance. Based on the fact Rome and Berlin sat on the same longitudinal axis on the globe.

When I found supposed documents in English on the web, we've never had a reply to our request for a copy of the original document they translated into English. We keep getting referred to other English documents but none have provided the supposed original documents in their languages signed by Japan, Germany and Italy.

If someone can provide a link to an authenticated copy of a treaty signed by Japan officially named, or renamed 'Axis' actively allying itself to Germany and Italy please provide it. Then I can decide on a debate whether Oxford is wrong. Thank you. DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BC/AD

I have reverted the change made to use the BCE/CE format, as there has been a long established consensus on this and other related articles to use BC/AD. If a user wishes to change this they should seek a new consensus. We have had a long discussion on the reasons for using BC/AD, so I will only say that I and others prefer it as a more widely used and recognisable dating format. John Smith's (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can view the "vote" and discussion a few threads up. I would just like to dispute that "there has been a long established consensus on this". The sides were just about equal in the "vote". I think it is an overstatement to say that this lack of consensus actually means "long established consensus" for one side. Because of this lack of consensus, we defaulted to what was already in use before the vote. That said, I don't see any reason to change between AD/CE, and wish that editors would accept that both can be used here (with no preference), and not try to change between the two, ever. Here's to hoping;) -Andrew c [talk] 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I remember the long-running discussion that we had. That said, consensus nonetheless existed because people were willing to live with BC/AD. "Acceptance" rather than "support" for something is one way that Wikipedia says consensus can be reached. Just to be clear, that's why I said there was consensus - I did not mean to imply that everyone was gunning for that particular dating style. John Smith's (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Japan/Archive_2&oldid=1171387665"