Talk:Yasukuni Shrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yasukuni Shrine article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Has this been mentioned yet?

I recently read that a memo about Emperor Hirohito's apparent displeasure of the enshrined of the 14 Class-As having been revealed by Nikkei Shibun.[1] Has this been mentioned in the article yet? As I am not familiar with the topic, which is a controversial one, if it has not yet been mentioned I'd rather have someone who is more familar with the topic add this memo. GracieLizzie 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it says he stopped going; at most we could say that others have speculated (or potentially revealed privately) that he didn't like it, but since he never made a public comment (neither did the current emperor), I don't think it should be added at best. It's basically just more onto the pile of speculation that was already there--he did seem to stop going, so something must have been wrong.
What's more, the memo isn't saying why he's displeased--was he displeased because he didn't like the 14 people? Or perhaps (more likely) because it meant it would be harder to go there, as it would be clearly cause problems abroad to have that PARTICULAR emperor going there. Since he liked going to pay respect to the war dead, it could be one reason he would be irritated. Komdori 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
He was displeased. In fact, this revelation might even end the debate. I have fairly balanced commentary from a verified source (in Japanese, unfortunately). Let me add bit more edit. Vapour

[edit] The Enshrinement List

「Ａ級戦犯の合祀は、旧陸軍の流れをくみ、元軍人が仕切った旧厚生省援護局（現厚生労働省社会・援護局）調査課が六六年、事務次官ら幹部に断りなくＡ級戦犯の名簿（祭神名票）を靖国神社に送ったことに始まる。これを受けて、東条英機内閣で大東亜相だった青木一男氏（故人）ら二人の元Ａ級戦犯がリードする神社の総代会が七〇年に合祀の方針を決定した。 元海軍少佐で、義父が戦犯として処刑された松平氏は、合祀に踏み切るアンカー役だった。」 http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/00/kakushin/20060721/mng_____kakushin000.shtml Vapour

[edit] Architecture

Can more information be provided as to the design, layout, and construction of the shrine? The article seems heavy in politics but very light in architecture. For example, how does it compare with the war memorials of other nations?

[edit] What's in a name?

A user recently corrected the opening section from this:

Yasukuni Shrine (靖国神社 Yasukuni Jinja) (literally "peaceful nation shrine")

to this:

The name "Yasukuni," which is a quotation from the the Zuo Zhuan (a classical-era Chinese text), literally means "Pacifying the Nation Shrine."

I must say I'm not entirely sure why this correction is necessary. First of all, it's a set of characters that can have varying meanings, according to context. A one and only correct literal translation is hard to come by - it can be understood to mean different things in different times and to different people. I think the original "peaceful nation shrine" was a fairly good aproximation of the meaning.

Second, we're talking two characters here. How can anyone claim that two characters are quoted from anywhere? To me, this sounds like claiming that some insipid pop singer is quoting Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in a song by using the word love in the lyrics. This seems highly unlikely, unless this is a completely irregular set of two characters in both Chinese and Japanese. And I don't think it really is.

Third, can we really trust the notion that Japan, during the height of its nationalistic thrust would even consider using a quote from ancient Chinese sources to name a State Shinto shrine? Afterall, one of the earlier founders of Japanese nationalist thinking, Motoori Norinaga, claimed that the Japanese language was superior to the Chinese language because there were no sounds emulating natural sounds in the Japanese language, unlike the Chinese language. This is just an example of how extremely superior the Japanese nationalists of the time felt towards the Chinese, and I'm not sure they would even consider quoting Chinese texts, no matter how ancient.

Of course, I'm just thinking out loud here. I can't read Chinese and cannot judge the veracity of the source provided, so all this is just speculation on my side. I believe I have a strong point here, but I wouldn't object the above correction to the article if anybody can prove me wrong. TomorrowTime 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a lovely set of speculation, but unfortunately it's all wrong. From Yomiuri Shimbun:
「靖国」の典拠は「春秋左氏伝」にある「靖国（国を靖んずる）」にあり、明治天皇が命名した。
So the name is taken from the Zuo Zhuan and was picked by no less than the Meiji Emperor himself. Two-character quotations from classical Chinese are quite common: for example, practically every Buddhist temple in Japan is named this way. Jpatokal 03:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between the two translations is significant; understanding "靖国" to mean "peaceful nation" introduces an element of irony which is lacking in the original. The translation "pacifying the nation," however, clarifies the intent of the new Meiji government in establishing this shrine--it was meant to be (and, in the pre-war era, functioned as) a symbol of the newly centralized Japanese state. Thus, I think it is important to provide an English translation which represents "靖国" as an active process, rather than a passive descriptor. Although this specific example is not cited in Carol Gluck's "Japan's Modern Myths" (Princeton University Press, 1985), it fits quite well with her larger argument about the deliberate construction of Japanese national identity during the Meiji era.

On the larger issue of quotations from the classics, two-character citations are not uncommon; they would, in fact, have been immeadiately recognizable in an era in which educated people memorized the Chinese classics.

For what it's worth, both the Japanese and Chinese language versions of this entry include the same explication of the name "Yasukuni."

Thank you, Jpatokal, for providing a Japanese citation; it's a better choice than the Chinese website that I originally cited. --Ziyuanfanglai 05:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected and thank you both for taking the time and educating me. I apologize to you, Ziyuanfanglai, for being sceptical of the good faith of your edit. And in the light of all of the above information, your translation of the name is indeed better.
Are the characters "靖国" in the Zuo Zhuan perhaps a title of a chapter? If so, maybe this information could be added? TomorrowTime 19:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes to Yashukan Exhibits

I visited the Yashukan last week, following up an earlier visit in April of last year. A number of exhibits have been modified, with some more controversial descriptions and factual claims removed. Some examples - the removal of a contentious sentence describing the conditions in the city of Nanking after its occupation by the Japanese army - 一般市民は平和に生活がよみがえた - the citizens were able to recover their lives in peace. Also removed were claims that President Roosevelt deliberately provoked war with Japan in order to gain a pretext to enter the war against Germany. Although these changes do not alter the overall apologetic tone of the Yashukan`s war narrative, they are significant and do deserve mention in the article. the rationale for these changes is discussed by Okazaki Hisako `Telling the Truth at Yasukuni` Japan Times 2nd February 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.22.95.117 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Korean

I really cannot find any reason for this article should be categorized to Category:Anti-Korean sentiment in Japan. Could you explain reason here before adding a category on this article? Thanks.--Watermint 13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That category in and of itself seems very problematic, because it seems like it would be inherently POV. I'm not familiar with the deletion criteria for categories, but it's possible that it fits deletion criteria. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The guy who bought in the 14 "dudes"

Who was the guy that bought in the 14 Class A war criminals in 1978? and why didn't anybody stop or even question that action?! What a failure in management chain of command! His/Her supervisor needs to take MBA Classes! TheAsianGURU (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning project

I've been working on cleaning up this article up a lot. I'm doing what I can for the first few and last sections. The controversy section, however, is a monster. IMO it is really bloated, but I don't have much expertise on the controversies of the shrine. If anyone that does could help me edit and structure it better I would be very grateful. Torsodog (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I think the article should be split into one one the shrine, it's history, and meaning in a factual basis - and then discuss, in a separate article, controversies surrounding the shrine and visits. There is much more balance needed here. wdsturgeon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.8.62 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think having a separate article devoted to controversies is a great idea. I'm going to start planning it all out to make the split. In the mean time, more opinions would be helpful! Torsodog (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite needed

1/3 of the lead and more than 1/2 of the entire article is dedicated to controversies. This article would be better titled "Controversies surrounding the Yasukuni Shrine." -98.209.101.146 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A complete rewrite is not needed. Instead, as proposed above, I think the best solution is to pull out the controversies section, make it its own article and condense the main points for this article. It is something I hope to do in the future when I actually have time.Torsodog (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it could be written and organized better, but for better or worse, the controversies are are large part of the shrine's modern-day noteworthiness, so should form a significant part of the article. --Delirium (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So, I completely re-wrote the controversy section making it far more coherent and manageable. Plus, it only takes up 1/3 of the entire article now instead of over 1/2. Let me know what you guys think, it you will. Torsodog (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do the wheels on white cloth mean?

Anyone knows the origin of the wheels on the white cloth on the first photo of the shrine in the article? And what do they signify?

59.178.61.191 (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they are Chrysanthemum flowers, which is the Imperial Seal of Japan. Torsodog (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate in Japan

I can not take the main idea of "Because the clause was written for the express purpose of preventing the return of State Shintoism, many question the constitutionality of the Prime Minister visiting Yasukuni Shrine". What does it means by "the return of State Shintoism" ? Is there any more suitable explanation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzo2050 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size of the Shrine grounds

The article overstates the size of the grounds of the shrine by two orders of magnitudes ("2.41 sq mi grounds of the shrine, as well as several structures along the 1.54 sq mi causeway"). According to a map, the real shrine measures some 500 m (including the causeway) by 200 m, an area of maybe six hectares instead of several square kilometres. I have been unable to find the proper figure, but 2.41 sq miles (about 6 sq km) would be larger than the nearby Imperial Palace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewein (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Somehow I mixed up my units when I was doing my math (embarrassing...). Good catch. I'm surprised I didn't pick up on it considering just how large 2.41 sq mi actually is. Torsodog (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)