Jump to content

Talk:Empire of Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jenny.Yu60.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Can anyone expand on this chapter of history? How big was the empire? What's the story behind it? How does it link to other chapters of Japan's (and other countries') history? Kokiri 22:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The flag of the sun with rays (Kyokujitsu-ki) was not the Imperial flag. It was used as the ensign of the Imperial Navy (and still in use in the Self Defence Navy). The flag is regarded as a symbol of Imperial Japan, but the national flag was Nisshohki at that time, and has been unchanged so far.
The Flag of the Japan should be RED Sun, not the Sun. It was misleading to the world and science. The flag of the Red Sun (akai hinomaru) is the flag of the State of Japan.--Canendo (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

Could someone please explain the difference between these?

Flag of Japan.svg
Merchant flag of Japan (1870).svg


There doesn't seem to be a real difference between them other than a very slight color variation, and one is slightly taller than the other. I'm wondering why we have or even need both. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the red sun is slightly larger as well.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's becauuse the white field is slightly larger, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we need this "variant". —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Empire of Japan's flag sun disk is larger, and the shade of red is duller. It's needed to avoid confusion with the Empire of Japan and modern-day Japan. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Flag of Japan is not the color of the Sun. In Oriental thought, the color of the Sun is the White. In Sciece, the color of light is the White, not Red. The Flag of Japan is a symbol of Japan, which is called as Red Sun - Akai Hinomaru (赤日). It should be called as Red Sun defined by Japan. The Sun's color is in White. --Canendo (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the flag with the red stripes that is commonly associated with Imperial Japan? Benjamin (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjaminikuta: That's the ensign of the Imperial Japanese Navy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a common misconception? Benjamin (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. Since most of what American's dealt with was the IJN, that's the one most commonly seen. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed that's how Polandball depicts the Empire. I, for one, was surprised not to see the flag. Benjamin (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official English name

[edit]

I changed the first sentence from "The Empire of Japan, officially the Empire of Great Japan or simply Great Japan (Dai Nippon), was..." to "The Empire of Japan (大日本帝國, Dai Nippon Teikoku, literally the Empire of Great Japan) was...".[1] because the official name of Imperial Japan was "the Empire of Japan" not "the Empire of Great Japan" although my edit summary erroneously stated "There is no official English name.". See [2], [3], [4],and [5].　Interestingly the name was used in the "Treaty of peace and amity between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan" in 1854 before the Meiji period. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, cheers. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Empire of Great Japan" or "Greater Japanese Empire"

[edit]

Just for reference. Google book search:

  • "Empire of Great Japan": 129
  • "Greater Japanese Empire": 279
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Imperial Japan was founded, de jure, after the 1889 signing of Constitution of the Empire of Japan. Dai or Great or Greater was used in Japanese only. The official name in English was the Empire of Japan by Constitution of the Empire of Japan in 1889. --Canendo (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Empire of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Empire of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessors and Successors

[edit]

Propose to change predecessors and successors to only the ones that precede and succeed Japan, not all occupied/colonized territory. This article is about the country "Empire of Japan", the colonial empire is in this article: Japanese colonial empire. Note also that Korea and Taiwan were separate colonies ruled by their own colonial governor-generals and not simply as another province of Japan, as some seem to believe. So they should also not be part of the predecessors to "mainland Japan" either (and their colonial currencies not listed here either? Unless it was accepted in Japan as well). No other colonial power has their occupied territory listed as predecessors/successors in this way on the article of the "main country" and these areas were not part of "main" Japan, which this article (and more to the point, infobox) is about. --Havsjö (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korea (after 1910) and Taiwan (after being ceded by China) were annexed, not merely colonised, and were thus integral parts of the Empire of Japan along with South Sakhalin or Karafuto, as explained at Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This article is about the Empire of Japan, not the simple "Japanese archipelago". And they are not like Manchukuo or Mengjiang in which the Japanese wanted to treat like independent states. Fortunatestars (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
South Sakhalin was a prefecture of "mainland" Japan. Korea and Taiwan were colonies with colonial governments, unlike South Sakhalin. Some image caption on Wikipedia does not change this fact. Whether they should be removed in regards to predecessors/successors as all the occupied territories should or not may be another issue, but that they were parts/regions of Japan and not separately administered colonies is just incorrect. This article is about the country called "Empire of Japan", yes, but all the colonies of the "French Empire" or "German Empire" are not listed as predecessors in their articles. All these countries have separate articles for their respective colonial empires and Japans infobox is very bloated with dubious inclusions. That they were more integral parts of the Empire compared to the puppet-states of the Co-Prosperity Sphere is also irrelevant to if they were colonies or prefectures (aka part of) of Japan. --Havsjö (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how they were governed, it does not change the fact that Korea was annexed (after the treaty in 1910) and Taiwan was ceded by China (after the war of 1895), not merely colonized. The map under "Colonialism" of Japanese people specifically singles out Korea and Taiwan, and internment of Japanese Americans also mentioned "Korean Americans and Taiwanese[1] were also included, since the Japanese Empire included Korea and Taiwan." List of Japanese Nobel laureates mentions Taiwanese and Koreans because they were considered Japanese during the time period. Koreans and Taiwanese were automatically considered Japanese citizens, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos, etc. were not. Koreans and Taiwanese served in the Kwantung Army, and Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipino, and etc did not. Koreans and Taiwanese served as high-ranking personnel in the Japanese military, and Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos, and etc did not. There were Korean and Taiwanese prison guards, no Vietnamese, Indonesians, Filipinos, etc. Japanese propaganda claimed they wanted to eventually give the Philippines, Indonesia, and etc independence, not so for Korea and Taiwan which were to be part of, or forever tied to Japan. They forced Koreans and Taiwanese to take up the Japanese names, culture, etc. They planted cherry blossoms all over Korea, but not Vietnam or other places. Yasukuni Shrine specifically singles out Taiwanese and Koreans as serving the Japanese emperor. This article is about the territory of the Empire of Japan and not the "Japanese archipelago". Fortunatestars (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it basically "only" matters how they were governed. Ofc the people of these colonized areas are considered the people of the Japanese Empire. Libyans also got Italian citizenship late in the colonization of that country by Italy and other peoples in other colonies are usually considered subjects of this or that empire. So that Taiwanese/Koreans are grouped as subjects/people of the Empire, serving in the Japanese military, and their lands Japanified is not surprising. However, this still does not change that why they were separately governed, overseas colonies. Part of the Japanese (colonial) Empire. They were not governed as, or part of, "mainland" Japan, which this article is about. Vietnam, Indonesia etc which you mention were also never colonies of Japan, only militarily occupied during WW2, so of course they would not be considered Japanese subjects or have their countries be more and more integrated into Japan like Korea/Taiwan did... Also to note, as discussed below, these regions were also gained after and lost before the beginning/end of the Empire of Japan... --Havsjö (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Italian Libya is a good example, actually. A territory annexed from the Ottoman Empire by Italy. Then colonized and "Italianised", with Italian settlers moving there as well. This was now Italian, yes. But this is still a separately governed colony, headed by colonial Governor-General. That this "belongs to Italy" or that Libyans are considered Italian subjects (later even citizens) and be grouped together with Italians (as opposed to occupied Greeks during WW2...) due to being part of that empire, does not mean Libya is "part of" mainland Italy like a region such as Tuscany or Sicily. (Italy did later make northern Libya a true "part of" Italy, though, but oh well). This is very analogous to Korea/Taiwan and Japan, they were "integral parts" of the Empire vis-a-vis the puppets in the Sphere and were on their way to be thoroughly Japanified (and eventually integrated as actual "parts of" mainland Japan, im pretty sure...), but they were still separately ran colonies during their existence. --Havsjö (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been notified of this discussion by a ping on my TP because of my involvement in the Pacific War article. My comments are as follows:

  • Per MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox summarizes key features of the page's subject. An infobox is a summary of key information. It need not be complete or exhaustive, though the body of the article should be complete. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves ... [its] purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. An infobox may provide a note for the sake of accuracy, such as to refer to a particular section of an article for more complete details.
  • IOM, the infobox is large to the point of being excessively so - the "preceded succeeded" part in particular.
  • To precede is positional - usually in time. The empire commenced in 1868. That which immediately preceded it (ie in 1867) was Tokugawa shogunate. It encompassed the Japanese Archipelago. That which was subsequently subsumed into the Empire did not precede it.
  • According to the article, the Empire ceased 1n 1947 with establishment of a new constitution at which time, it was Allied Occupied Japan.
  • Most of the territory subsumed by the empire (mainly during WW2) was essentially returned to the former status upon the end of the war. For the most part, there was no net change. Most of this change preceded the end of the empire in 1947. The empire at the end of the imperial period was Allied Occupied Japan and encompassed the Japanese Archipelago. I would also observe that the two lists do not appear consistent with each other as they presently stand, even to the point of being inaccurate (per inclusion of Japanese Korea).
  • Some minor points are debatable such as the Ryukyu Islands and whether inclusion in the infobox would be key or a matter of being pedantic.
  • My initial position is that I would remove all but Tokugawa shogunate from the "preceded" and Allied Occupied Japan from the "succeeded"
Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also notified on my TP, and agree with Cinderella157. Packing so many details into the infobox defeats the purpose of the infobox as an at-a-glance presentation of the salient details, per MOS:LEAD. IMO the preceding and succeeding entities identified by Cinderella157 are all that is needed for the infobox. Factotem (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157:@Factotem: What I changed to before being asked to start this talk discussion was Tokugawa Shogunate, the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Russian Empire (South Sakhalin). Since they are what preceded "mainland" Japan at different points. With Occupied Japan, US occupation of Ryukyu and Sakhalin Oblast being the successors. The other things listed are extraterritorial colonies/occupied area and often, as you mentioned, relinquished before the end of the Empire in 1947. What do you think of these 3 predecessors/successors? --Havsjö (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to infoboxes, I check to see if information there receives significant coverage in the main body of the article. A search in the article for "Ryukyu" gives only three results, two of which are in the infobox. This suggests to me that it is not significant enough to warrant the emphasis it currently receives in the infobox. The same principle can be applied to the other entities you mention. Factotem (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Ryukyu Kingdom was subsumed into the empire subsequent to the start of the imperial period. Both it and South Shakalin were divested from the empire (at least in pragmatic terms) prior to the end of it. As to whether the issue is a matter of what is key or what is pedantic, there is merit in the opinion of Factotem. Regarding South Shakalin, there is a lot of nuance to its history and status and an infobox is never a good place for nuance (IMO). However, it appears to have been part of the empire from the start and for some considerable time prior. At the end, it did not become a new entity that succeeded the empire but was subsumed by the Soviets. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157:@Factotem: Interesting points, but does this mean that we can all agree on a trim down to simply Tokugawa Shogunate and Occupied Japan now then? --Havsjö (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kublin, Hyman. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1st ed. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–84.
In the absence of any case made for others to be included, one that is supported by significant coverage in the main body, yes, I would agree. Factotem (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I agree with Factotem. Fortunatestars, would you consent to this? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cinderella157 and Factotem. Hard to argue with the points Cinderella brought up, which renders the above conversation I'm having moot. Fortunatestars (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISO code in infobox

[edit]

Hi, the ISO code in the infobox is an anachronism. Codes were assigned well after the existence of the subject. The problem is that I can't see where to remove it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Unfortunately I am pretty sure this is part of the infobox former country template. Template:Infobox country, you can probably lobby for its removal from the template itself here, which I would support. --Havsjö (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
nvm(?) I removed it by removing the "common name = Japan" parameter, which linked it to modern Japan. --Havsjö (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Japanese notation

[edit]

Hello. About the Japanese notation of the Empire of Japan. I am Japanese. The character "大日本帝國" is a font called "old font" and is not commonly used at present. At present, it is often written as "大日本帝国".

As I mentioned earlier, I am a Japanese user and do not know much about the English version. Therefore, please let us know if you can replace it with "大日本帝国". --雪津風明石 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for editing.--雪津風明石 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent infobox edit

[edit]

Per this edit by User21343321, substantial changes to the infobox have been made. For the most part, the edit adds many flag icons that were removed following consensus in a recent discussion. Some of the other parts of the edit have also been challenged already. My initial instinct is to revert the edit to that version which precedes it. Any parts achieving consensus might then be added on an individual basis. Comments please. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manually reverted. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Hakko Ichiu as a motto

[edit]

Was Hakko Ichiu really used officially since 1926, as the infobox claims? Even though the slogan has been used throughout japanese history, appearing as early as the Nihon Shoki, AFAIK it did not become official until 1940, as stated in this source, for example (https://web.archive.org/web/20131111112821/http://jonckheeref.com/html/jonckheere_hakko_ichiu_eng.html) KnightofFaerië (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The article on Hakko Ichiu calls it a political slogan. A political slogan is not a motto in the context of what should be placed in the infobox. Its status as an official "motto" is not verified and it shoulf be struck from the infobox? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map is incorrect: expansion never reached the New Hebrides or New Caledonia.

[edit]

The map shows New Caledonia and the New Hebrides (= modern Vanuatu) as part of Japanese territory in 1942. This is incorrect; the Japanese never held these islands. The Japanese advance in this direction was stopped in the Solomons, by the Allied counterattack at Guadalcanal. MayerG (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to fix this but I just left a note at commons requesting this correction. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source? CheeseInTea (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Empire of Japan was NOT theocratic

[edit]

I don't think it is a good idea to add the "theocratic" specifier to the Government section of the page's infobox without citing any source. It just doesn't exactly feel right. Might as well just remove it. Vulcan300File:Stalin pointing.pngGO TO GULAG CYKA 03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on the text of the article and it is not identified therein. I agree with you to the extent that it is not supported by the body of the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

map of japan

[edit]

the map is wrong, japan never held Thailand, i do not know how to change it 2001:1C00:B18:6A00:8188:FF50:FB1:536B (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Empire of Japan at its peak in 1942"???!!!...

[edit]

The territories Japan controlled during World War II were administered by the military, not incorporated into the empire, similar to the Nazi Germany not annexing all of the territories they controlled into the Reich during World War II. 14.231.171.203 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need to completely change the way the map is interpreted. 14.231.171.203 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that this entry needs to completely change the way it defines the notion of empire, but you do raise a good point. I do think that more nuance could be imparted in this entry's articulation of the definition and extent of the Empire of Japan. 45.42.9.215 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Flags of Japan 🇯🇵

[edit]

Hello, The flag “Naval ensign of the Empire of Japan.svg” was used from 1938 tō 1945, I have researched on the flag that it has been used of those time periods. This is extremely historically accurate and I also want tō point out that the rising Sun flag is a Militarist thing.

-From "Unknown"

-Tō Wikipedia Corporation - (Wikipedia Kabushikigaisha) 2600:4040:A1C8:B300:8DF5:6119:DC51:1FF6 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The naval ensign is just that, a naval ensign, and not the national flag. This article uses the national flag, just like every other country and former country article on the site. Loafiewa (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

[edit]

In the leading section of the article, change the enactment of the post-World War II 1947 constitution (a hyphen after the post) to the enactment of the post–World War II 1947 constitution (an en dash) per MOS:PREFIXDASH. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 June 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 14:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Japan → Japanese Empire – Per WP: CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME. Many articles about historical empires like Austrian Empire, German Empire, Ethiopian Empire, Portuguese Empire, Roman Empire, Russian Empire and Spanish Empire are in this format. It doesn't need to be WP:OFFICIALNAME.

Edit – I also said WP:COMMONNAME, "Japanese Empire" is 4 times more popular than "Empire of Japan" according to data available on Google ngrams. It's been more popular since 1910. Check here [6]. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more accurate to say it is more WP:COMMONNAME by at least 3 time since 1930 per this n-gram. The most substantive reason for proposing the move would then be WP:COMMONNAME. It is also consistent with other empire names. Stating the case this way and presenting evidence in support is going to be much more convincing, where previously, the main reason appeared to be WP:CONSISTENT and there was no actual evidence given to support the common name assertion. There is an onus on the proposer to make a reasonable case for the proposal. I hope this is instructive. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I like consistency, and I think the other articles fit where they are; however, the Empire of Japan is, I think, more commonly known as the "Empire of Japan" and not as the "Japanese Empire". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tim O'Doherty, Please check Google ngrams here [7]. Japanese Empire has been popular than Empire of Japan since 1910 in published sources. Currently it's 4 times more popular. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I was actually surprised about the content of this article. I expect "Empire of Japan" to be about modern Japan or all of Japanese history - at least from the time that Japan was led by an Emperor. Turns out to be narrowly about its period of colonial expansion overseas. "Japanese empire" (small case) or "Japanese colonial empire" or "Imperial Japan" would actually be more fitting and less confusing. Walrasiad (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No valid reason given by nom. Per its lead sentence, this article is not about the Japanese colonial empire. It is about a period in Japan's constitutional history following the shogunate and preceding the democratic constitution. Although there has always been an emperor, "empire" here contrasts with "shogunate". This is my understanding. We have a separate article at Japanese colonial empire. —Srnec (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken on "x empire". What about "Imperial Japan"? It seems that would be more commonly recognizable as a period. Walrasiad (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec I gave example of German Empire and French Empire which whave seperate articles from German colonial empire and French colonial empire. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose No record of prior moves. Been stable for 17 years. The consistency reason given is not an overwhelming reason to move. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Changing in light of clarified rationale and evidence Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Srnec. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO, the OP was poorly formed but has now been clarified. The substantive reason for the proposal is WP:COMMONNAME, which is now supported by ngram evidence provided. There is now a much more reasonable case made to consider this move. Ping previous: Estar8806, Walrasiad, Srnec and Tim O'Doherty. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I apologise for the poor presentation of my case earlier. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the ngram evidence is as solid as you think. "Japanese Empire" in the sources could be referring to either the Empire of Japan or the Japanese colonial empire, two different things.
The ngrams may support that "Japanese Empire" is more common than "Empire of Japan", but we don't know to which that is referring in every source. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Estar8806, the corpus for ngrams is drawn from (but not identical to) google books. This search of google books for "Japanese Empire" is fairly clearly showing that the predominant use in the book sources returned are referring to "Japanese Empire" in the same context as "Empire of Japan" (the subject of this article). We can therefore have a high degree of confidence in the ngram results in that "Japanese Empire" is referring to "Empire of Japan" in the greatest part. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be evidence to assert that there is a semantic distinction in common usage? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not revised my original !vote because I am unsure now, but I think the current title has less ambiguity and should be retained. The problem, as I see it, is that "Empire of Japan" and "Imperial Japan" are pretty unambiguous in referring to Japan, the country, at a certain phase in its history. "Japanese empire" is certainly used synonymously, perhaps it is even the most popular term, but it is ambiguous between the subject of this article and the Japanese colonial empire. —Srnec (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I am reading this, this article treats the subject as a whole, inclusive of its colonial acquisitions. Japanese colonial empire is (per the lead) a subject title for The territorial conquests of the Empire of Japan ... The article treats this as a subject but not as a distinct and different name - even to be mentioned in the lead. Apart from the heading in the infobox there is no reference in the readable prose that would suggest this as a name (albeit a descriptive name). This ngram is interesting. Either the two terms being discussed here are synonmous or we have totally stuffed things up. Without actual evidence of the latter, I think that the former holds. While we do treat the British Empire and the Kingdom of Great Britain (etc) as having different meanings (because they do in practice) I am not seeing any evidence being presented to support a suggestion that there is some distinction in meaning to be made between Empire of Japan and Japanese Empire - particularly when this is not evident from the article. I am open to being convinced otherwise - as I was, when the OP presented their case in a cogent way. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

[edit]

I request for the Category:Former empires to be added to the External Links. 95.147.63.116 (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: we already have the specific category "Former empires in Asia". M.Bitton (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

[edit]

Can you place with {{efn}} that fully-utilized Japanese translations are long as they hurt the readability of the lead paragraph; these should also be placed in a footnote. 2001:4452:1A3:5600:117A:7B5B:1A09:B415 (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As these are reproduced in the infobox, IMHO removing them from the first sentence would make it more readable without compromising information. Thought from others please? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, Unlike they put footnotes in foreign translations for 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, Soviet Union, and others, as well as in Japanese video games. 2001:4452:1A3:5600:117A:7B5B:1A09:B415 (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empire vs Nation-State

[edit]

This article defines the Japanese empire as a "nation-state". This is contradicted by Wikipedia's own articles, in several places. For example:

Empire#Definition: "A nation-state may be contrasted with: An empire, a political unit made up of several territories and peoples, typically established through conquest ..."

Nation State: "Scholars distinguish empires from nation-states ......"

Empire#Empire_versus_nation_state

etc

Karpouzi (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024

[edit]

I request for the Category:Military dictatorships to be added to the External Links. 31.124.97.149 (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The category is not supported by the content of the article. Additionally, the article subject is not broadly considered by reliable sources to have been a military dictatorship. - Rotary Engine talk 13:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

[edit]

We had these details

under a semi-absolute monarchy (1890–1905, 1926–1931) under a liberal democracy (1905–1926) under a Tōseiha military dictatorship (1931–1940) under a Shōwa Statist one-party totalitarian military dictatorship (1940–1945) under a liberal democracy and military occupation (1945–1947)

and now they are deleted, Can I edit this page and return them? 44naytions (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done These were removed because they were not supported by reliable sources. Some of the details directly contradict mainstream scholarship on the article subject. - Rotary Engine talk 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed section: Early Shōwa (1926–1930)

[edit]

Fellow Editors, The section, Early Shōwa (1926–1930), contains a large amount of content for which there are no citations. This includes some of the stronger claims about the article subject during this period; many of which do not align with mainstream scholarship. Rotary Engine talk 23:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024

[edit]

In the infobox, the bigger map:

"Areas de facto controlled by Japan and its army at peak in World War II (1942)"

I suggest to change "its army" to "its military", because though it was of course the Imperial Japanese Army that did most of the occupying of the three branches, people usually say 'military occupation" or "military government" rather than "army occupation" 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:E8D1:4DDD:E729:728C (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that note maybe "at peak" should be "at ITS peak" (without capitals) instead? 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:E8D1:4DDD:E729:728C (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Makes sense to me, I agree "military" sounds better. I also changed it to "at their peak" since the preceding clause is "Japan and its military", which is plural, so... unless someone wants to argue that Japan and its military should not be grouped in terms of their peak in WWII, we should say "their" instead. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Management Seminar

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 20 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makkyno (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Makkyno (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

[edit]

Change st sentence ein summary to when it lost to as Japan is today. 64.189.18.34 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please make your edit requests in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

[edit]

I'm requesting a simple correction of spelling.

Under the section History: Nationalism and decline of democracy, change "the aurguments in favour of this view" to "the arguments in favour of this view". Bortorini (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thwaluigi (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1245830839"