Talk:Hirohito

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Naming convention

This article should open with "Emperor Showa," and then the name he's better-known by among English speakers, in line with his native cultural practice. GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i was just about to put a comment saying the same thing, I honestly agree Camillz (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

While I was researching this, I came across something interesting: It seems Showa has overtaken Hirohito in the common vernacular (See Google Trends: 1 2 ) but not in news sources (Use of Hirohito: 1 2 3) (Use of Showa: 1 2 3). It seems that news sources outside in Japan continue to use Hirohito, regardless of the fact that it's now the lesser used term in both the United States and United Kingdom.

It's not that Showa is less familiar to English speakers, it's that reputable news sources are hesitant to make the switch. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but if we compare with "Emperor Showa" we get as a result that very little use is made of that search 1 2 and no use (in Britain) or very few (in US) of "Showa Tenno"1 2. "Showa" alone can refer to Hirohito himself, to the era of his reign (1926-1989), to Showa Day (April 29), to Showa Statism, or even to the Japanese geophysical station "Showa" in Antarctica and much more. All searches for the term "Showa" cannot be counted as referring to the emperor personally. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This talk has been going on a gazillion times before here. Please keep the title page as Hirohito, that’s the name the emperor has been known in the West before, during and after World War II. From the New York Times to the BBC, from The Economist to Time Magazine, even after 1989, the name commonly used is Hirohito, not Showa. And this is the English-language Wikipedia. MaGioZal (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Addition of a year

As the article is semi-protected, I cannot edit it myself and would therefore ask someone who can to add the year 1941 to the sentence which currently reads "On 5 September, Prime Minister Konoe informally submitted a draft of the decision to Hirohito". The last year mentioned before this is 1940, and then this sentence is followed by several paragraphs containing seven more dates without a year. These seven dates also belong to 1941, but are not recognisable as such because the year 1941 is stated nowhere before. 89.12.2.139 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Usage of Bix.

I see that Herbert Bix's book is cited throughout the article in numerous places, and this gives me a small amount of concern. For instance, this review of the book does state Template:Tq and Template:Tq [1] as well as this review that notes Template:Tq [2]

The fact that Bix was demonstrably contested and seen in reviews as something of a fringe/minority viewpoint, isn't it a bit WP:UNDUE to have Bix represented without including the sources that disagree with Bix's interpretation per WP:WEIGHT? For instance, Template:Tq in a paragraph that ends with Template:Tq makes it appear like Wetzler and Bix are in total agreement when Wetzler has, as demonstrated in the review above, rejected Bix's claims. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Bix's book on Hirohito won a Pulitzer Prize and received considerable acclaim from other historians. [3][4] the reviews have said that Bix challenged the theory that Hirohito was a passive figure manipulated by those around him. Both reviews noted that the book is well-researched and backed by an impressive body of evidence supporting his claims. Given this information, his view is not a fringe one and should not be dismissed. I believe his statements should be organized into one pargraph and attributed appropriately.

The sentence, "Historians such as Herbert Bix, Akira Fujiwara, Peter Wetzler in a paragraph that ends with American historian Herbert P. Bix said that Emperor Hirohito might have been the prime mover behind most of Japan's military aggression during the Shōwa era." should probably be reworded to reflect the information provided by Stephen S. Large.

The entry i made below titled "Response to edit" is also relevant to this discussion. LilAhok (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it won a Pulitzer Prize, and that's all well and good. However, that doesn't change the fact that the reviews I noted state several issues with the book and with some of Bix's claims that seem to be firmly in a minority opinion even among historians who do believe Hirohito was culpable. The reviews I posted above specifically note that Bix makes controversial claims and that a number of historians disagree with the extent to which Bix represents Hirohito's direct control over the affairs of the war. Currently, however, the article pairs together at least one of those historians with Bix and gives the impression that Wetzler supports the concluding statement Template:Tq, which doesn't mesh with the fact that Peter Wetzler rejected Bix's notion that Hirohito was so heavily involved. In his book Hirohito and War: Imperial Tradition and Military Decision Making in Prewar Japan Peter Wetzler writes Template:Tq (p.180). Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think that the fact that this article cites Professor Bix's book on many occasions should be a cause for concern (even if only a small one) for anyone. In addition to the two positive reviews cited by LilAhok, the value of this book is recognized by other experts, such as Kenneth J. Ruoff, Director of the Center for Japanese Studies at Portland State University, who writes in his books The People’s Emperor: Democracy and the Japanese Monarchy, 1945-1995 (2001, p.127) and Japan's Imperial House in the Postwar Era. 1945-2019 (2020, p. 136) that Template:Tq

Of course, no one (not even Bix, of course) gets to have the final word on the unresolved debate about the extent of Hirohito's personal involvement in the war, and of course there are many authors who do not believe that he went so far as to be considered the mastermind of the war, beyond being an active participant in it. But that does not disqualify the book as a reliable source for many aspects of the article, as clearly demonstrated by the position of Professor Forrest E. Morgan, who, starting from a generally critical point of view towards Bix's opinion, recognizes the merit of his work insofar as Template:Tq

Finally, the paragraph that is flagged as potentially confusing actually states what is attributed to Hara and Wetzler on the one hand, and what is attributed to Bix on the other. However, if the separation is not clear enough, Wetzler's opinion on the extent of Hirohito's role can be added after that of Bix without any problem.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

My issue wasn't that Bix is an unreliable source, my issue was that there is demonstrable contention about some of Bix's main claims and that there are WP:WEIGHT concerns with how Bix is currently being used.

I will note that a book in 2020 stating Template:Tq is all well and good but the review I referred to above states Template:Tq (p.109), and it isn't the only review that points to problems with Bix's scholarship.

As for the positioning of Wetzler, the juxtaposition of placing Wetzler and Bix together in the introductory paragraph and then having Bix's statement as the conclusion makes it appear as if Wetzler and Bix are in the same camp. The statement which is attributed to Wetlzer and other historians in the paragraph Template:Tq does not indicate any disagreement with Bix's statement at the end of the paragraph, even though Wetzler in the book cited specifically rejects Bix's claim. The statement that the Emperor Template:Tq is completely at odds with Wetzler's understanding of Hirohito's role in the war, where Wetzler writes Template:Tq (p.32). The statement that the Template:Tq seems fairly at odds with Wetzler's statement.

Given the amount of reviews that have problem with Bix's claims, I think it's perfectly reasonble to be at least a little concerned about how Bix is used. Such as the below reviews:

Template:Ctop|There is another review of the book which reads Template:Tq Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (Book Review). By: Levine, Steven I., Library Journal, 03630277, 11/1/2000, Vol. 125, Issue 18

Another review Template:Tq [5] This review states at the end Template:Tq [6]}} Template:Cbottom

Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Bix is a reliable source for purposes of inclusion in the article. It is whether there are enough sources to provide a balanced view of Hirohito's involvement in Japanese war crimes. While the "Accountability for Japanese war crimes" section does mention upfront that Template:Tq, it devotes little (if any) attention to scholarly arguments challenging the notion that he held the same level of influence over his country's actions as Hitler or Mussolini. Instead, the section broadly paints such arguments as short-sighted at best and deceptive at worst without giving readers the opportunity to examine them themselves. In order to satisfy the minimum requirements of WP:WEIGHT, scholarly opinions contesting whether for Hirohito bore primary culpability for Japan's wartime actions should be given at least some attention.

For reference, here is a list of excerpts from works that contest the depiction of Hirohito as the mastermind behind Japanese policy during World War II.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:TqTemplate:Sfn

•Template:Tq Template:Sfn

•Template:Tq Template:Sfn

•Template:Tq Template:Sfn

Sources

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

In this case, it will be better that I separate my answer to both users by different points:

• First of all, my comment was indeed about Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan as a reliable source. Since you have made it clear that you do not question the value of this book as a reliable source, there is no discussion on this first point.
• Second, as I already wrote before that "(...) of course there are many authors who do not believe that he went so far as to be considered the mastermind of the war, beyond being an active participant in it." That is, it is evidently unnecessary to proceed to cite all the authors you can find who maintain that the role of the emperor did not extend to being the mastermind of the war.
• Third, on the other hand, when we talk about the consideration given to a book, not only the reviews in a negative sense should be cited. The positive ones should also be cited. LilAhok cited two of them previously. But others can be cited. In this, Lucian W. Pye states that Template:Tq In this, the same Steven Lee you quoted above says about Bix's book that Template:Tq In this, Fernando Delage asserts (original in Spanish) that Template:Tq And in this article, retired military historian Tom Mayock asserts that Template:Tq

Is there any reason to give greater weight to the criticisms of the negative reviews than to the praises of these positive reviews (including the two already provided by LilAhok)? Certainly not. Both views of Professor Bix's book must be considered equally, but treating his criticisms as a mainstream opinion and his defences as a marginal opinion does not seem appropriate or balanced.

• Fourth, if we are going to dedicate ourselves to citing all the authors that come to mind in defense of one side or the other of the debate, this discussion can go on forever, and as a demonstration, I will cite some examples:

A- Kentarō Awaya, in his book Emperor Shōwa's Accountability for War (1991, p. 396) points out that Template:Tq

B- Daikichi Irokawa, in The Age of Hirohito (1995, p. 87) wrote that Template:Tq

C- Arne Markland, writes throughout his book Black Ships to Mushroom Clouds: A Story of Japan's Stormy Century 1853-1945 (2015, multiple pages) that Template:Tq

D- Daniel Allen Butler, in Pearl: December 7, 1941 (2020, p.20) states that Template:Tq

E- Axel Berkofsky stressed in this article that Template:Tq

F- Yuki Tanaka states in his book Entwined Atrocities. New Insights into the U.S.-Japan Alliance (2023, p. xxxvi) that Template:Tq

G- Marc Ferro, former Director of Studies in Social Sciences at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales, writes in his book Ils étaient sept hommes en guerre (in chapter 2, original in French) that Template:Tq And, in caption on photo pages, he adds Template:Tq By the way, in the bibliography section of his book, Ferro specifically includes 'Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan' among the books that, in his opinion, "constitute an excellent bibliography." One more praising opinion to add to the amount already mentioned.

H- Regarding Francis Pike, I do not think he is the most appropriate author to attribute to Hirohito a "passive" role in the war, since in his book cited by Emiya1980, Hirohito's War: The Pacific War, 1941-1945 (2015), although Pike does not consider him as someone who personally instigated the atrocities committed (that is, that they occurred because the emperor planned or expressly ordered them) he does describe Hirohito as a "war criminal" who Template:Tq (p. xxxiv), and Template:Tq (p. 121). Furthermore, Pike writes statements like these:

1-Template:Tq (p. 115).

2-Template:Tq (p. 116).

3-Template:Tq (p. 205).

And if all this were not enough, Francis Pike is also the author of Empires at War: A Short History of Modern Asia Since World War II, where he writes, for example: Template:Tq (p. 86).

Pike also wrote these two articles:

.-Five Myths About Emperor Hirohito (26 July 2015).

.-Hirohito, the war criminal who got away (22 August 2020).

A reading of these articles is enough to finally confirm, together with the previously cited paragraphs from the books of this historian, that Francis Pike's thesis, although it does not go as far as that of Herbert P. Bix, is very far from considering Hirohito's role in the war as "passive."

• Fifth, Minoru Genda describes Japan's state system before and during the war by explaining that Template:Tq We can find this in Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, by Leon V. Sigal, published by Cornell University Press in 1988, p. 74. Personally, I think this is one of the most accurate descriptions (with the documentation available so far) of Hirohito's role at the time.

For his part, Kōichi Kido, in his diary (p. 218), points out that Template:Tq

• Sixth, obviously, we could go on like this ad infinitum, citing to each other all the authors who defend or denounce Hirohito and his role in the war that we know of or are able to find by searching for bibliographies, but it is equally obvious that this would lead us nowhere. Hirohito is not universally regarded as a highly controversial figure for nothing. For my part, it seems to me that, in 2024, describing Hirohito as "a studious man who would rather be a scientist than a monarch", as Toland did in 1970, is today quite outdated by the documentation that has come to light in the decades following the emperor's death. How many historians today would describe Hirohito in such terms? I suppose very few. As noted in the entry entitled "Response to edit", Peter Wetzler sums up the current state of the debate over Hirohito's role in the war in these terms: Template:Tq
• Finally, coming now to the main point of your whole argument, I will distinguish two points:
• 1- One is the section titled Accountability for Japanese war crimes, which contains two subsections: Evidence for wartime culpability and Documents that suggest limited wartime responsibility.

Here, each of these subsections represents one side of the debate over Hirohito's role and responsibility, and it is logical that each one deals with its own. Thus, the subsection Evidence for wartime culpability shows the arguments that point to Hirohito as guilty, including those that consider the arguments of his defenders to be misleading or deceptive, as several critical authors consider. Obviously in subsection Documents that suggest limited wartime responsibility the focus should be on the counterarguments, and if they are not adequately represented at present, then the appropriate thing to do is to add the necessary information about them in that subsection, including arguments that criticize those on the critical side. But, logically, subsectiom Evidence for wartime culpability is the place to present critical arguments, not to confront them with the defender ones, which have their own subsection to be presented, without being possible to contrast in it the critical arguments already presented before.

• 2- As for the rest of the article, I do not think that sufficiently documented facts or conversations pose a problem for anyone, regardless of the reference used to report them. Regarding those facts or statements around which there is controversy, what is appropriate is to add references representing each side of the debate, thus preserving the necessary neutrality, since, as I think this discussion clearly shows, it would not be justified to favor one side over the other. This principle is equally valid for both positions.--Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I just want to note that Emiya's issue is an entirely different one from my own. My concern is with a specific paragraph where Wetzler is being used in juxtaposition with Bix in a way that appears to suggest Wetzler supports Bix's statements about the level of control the Emperor had over the military.

Template:Tq

No, but I never suggested otherwise. The reviews saying the book is an excellent book, however, do not address or negate the number of other reviews that contend that Bix's theorizing about Hirohito's involvement and the level of control that Bix postulates that Hirohito had is against the grain of what other scholars who assert Hirohito was culpable believe. Which is sort of my entire point. It isn't that Bix's scholarship as a whole is bad, my point is that Bix's claims that Hirohito exercised an extraordinary amount of direct control over the Japanese military isn't a majority view even among the people who hold the opinion that Hirohito is culpable. I am also slightly confused at the comment that I cited Steven Lee when the reviews I cited were by Richard Halloran, Ben-Ami Shillony, Stephen S. Large, and Steven I.Levine? Either way, my point was that Bix's argument that Hirohito had direct control over the military seems to be a minority view even among scholars who find Hirohito culpable. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Don't worry. It's a bit late for my time zone, but I'm thinking about that paragraph to get it to express more accurately the position of the various authors. I hope everything will be correctly expressed soon. As for the mention of Lee, it was from Emiya, and my allusion was directed to this user. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I had to answer both of them in a single reply (which already took me quite a few hours). Sorry again if I caused any confusion.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Response to edit

I’d like to address an edit made on October 26, 2024, which noted, "This section makes it sound like there's an academic consensus when everything preceding it says there isn't. I do not think a single statement by a historian in a news article about the diary of an aide is enough to verify this statement." [7]

I’m responding here to avoid any edit warring.

One issue with some of the sources listed in Hirohito's wikipedia article is their age; many are from the 1990s and early/late 2000s, which can limit their relevance. The New York Times article from 2018 provides a more recent perspective.

From the NYT article, Jennifer Lind, an associate professor at Dartmouth College and an expert on Japanese war memory, stated, "Over the years, these different pieces of evidence have trickled out and historians have amassed this picture of culpability and how he was reflecting on that. This is another piece of the puzzle that very much confirms that the picture that was taking place before, which is that he was extremely culpable, and after the war he was devastated about this."

Lind stated that the diary referenced in the article is only one of many pieces of evidence historians have used to assess Hirohito's culpability. As the article was published in 2018, her mention of evidence that has "trickled out" encompasses all pertinent findings up to that point. The historians' assessment of Hirohito's culpability in the war is not based solely on a single diary entry.

Considering Lind’s statement that "...historians have amassed this picture of culpability and how he was reflecting on that" into account, Lind’s comment was about the general consensus among historians, rather than just her own perspective. Since the article was published in 2018, it offers a more contemporary view of Hirohito's culpability.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/world/asia/japan-hirohito-war-diary.html

Just wanted to note real quickly that you've forgotten to sign this. That not withstanding, it's well and great for a single historian in an article to state Template:Tq and the article can certainly state "Historian Jennifer Lind states historians have...", but writing it as a definitive statement in wikivoice would doubtless necessitate scholarly sourcing to demonstrate that the consensus is, in fact, that the majority of historians think this. Again, I am not convinced that a single remark by a single historian in a news piece is substantial enough to verify such an unattributed claim as a fact in Wikivoice, not least of all when a journal article published in 2023 writes Template:Tq [8] as well as this article from 2017 which states Template:Tq[9]. That is at least two academic sources that depict the matter of Hirohito's culpability as still being debated, one from 2017 and one from 2023. Hence my point that while Lind's statement is in a reliable source and they are a subject matter expert, making that claim in Wikivoice should probably have higher quality sources to substantiate it.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, I think it would be good to point out the following:

• First of all, the issue of the extent of Hirohito's responsibility in the war is unquestionably still a matter of debate among historians, and unless a lot of crucial documentation that is not yet available to researchers is declassified, I very much doubt that it can be resolved anytime soon.
• However, some authors point out that in recent years some critical positions have been gaining ground and are now in the majority.
• So, in addition to Jennifer Lind's words, we can cite Peter Wetzler's book Imperial Japan and Defeat in the Second World War: The Collapse of an Empire (2020, p.175) which states that Template:Tq

That is, Jennifer Lind stated in 2018 that Template:Tq and Peter Wetzler added in 2020 that Template:Tq

Also, Wetzler points out that the debate around Hirohito's role evolved from Did Hirohito take part or not in political and military affairs during the war? to To what extent was Hirohito involved in political and military affairs during the war?

In short, regardless of how far Hirohito's involvement in the war went, Lind and Wetzler seem to agree that most historians think he was at least as deeply involved as the other nation-state leaders at the time and he should be considered culpable on these terms.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. My point on this subject was that Template:Tq. The addition of the Wetzler 2020 is a good way to solve that. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, we're agree on this point, then.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In order to address WP:WEIGHT concerns about the article, I thinks it would also be a good idea to reword several sentences in the first and second paragraph of the section entitled "Accountability for Japanese war crimes". By using language like Template:Tq and Template:Tq without any qualification, the article makes it sounds like there is more of a historical consensus about the level of Hirohito's culpability than there actually is. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this question you bring up, I thought your solution of writing Template:Tq was quite good. Nonetheless, it seems that other users, like happened with LilAhok, consider that the use of a qualifier such as "a significant number" could be considered as "weasel words", or that the article has already made it sufficiently clear that the question of Hirohito's guilt is a matter of debate, or that the point is the most recent estimates regarding the evolution of the majority opinion on this issue.

Well, related to this, we have the quoted statements from Jennifer Lind and Peter Wetzler that I highlighted in my message of 26 October. On the other hand, and with the above being true, it cannot be ignored that this topic continues to be the subject of intense debate among experts, as Wetzler's paragraph also reminds us.

So perhaps the best thing to do would be to use a purely quantifying formula (without entering into qualifications), such as Template:Tq The word "many" does not qualify, it only quantifies (although it does not specify the exact number, which in any case would vary over the years), so it cannot be considered as a use of "weasel words" and it would express the real situation quite well. What do you think?Ulises Laertíada (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Template:Tq would sound better.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would concur, if we attribute it as a statement that Wetzler has made MOS:WEASEL doesn't apply. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 17:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above "Wetzler points out that the debate around Hirohito's role evolved from Did Hirohito take part or not in political and military affairs during the war? to To what extent was Hirohito involved in political and military affairs during the war?"

In other words, the question has transitioned from asking if he was involved to exploring how involved he actually was. I think this information should be clearly presented in the article. In the article, the statement "The issue of Emperor Hirohito's war responsibility is contested" feels too vague and potentially misleading, as it suggests that the possibility of his non-involvement exists.

WP:RSUW - I understand that the topic is under debate but how much attention should we give to minority views that he was not culpable? If the viewpoint that he is not that culpable is held by a significant minority, then "most historians" or "the majority of historians" would be more appropriate, as that is that language used by Wetzler, which implies significantly more than half (majority), not just a large number of them. LilAhok (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Having read all the replies, I agree with what LilAhok says. I want to clarify that, of course, any claim that Wetzler could have made MOS:WEASEL doesn't apply. Wetzler is an expert on the subject, and his statement is also in line with other recent statements by experts such as Jennifer Lind.

I think I should clarify what the allusion to the "weasel words" was referring to. The allusion to the "weasel words" was in reference to the discussion about the expression Template:Tq Of course, one can always wonder what exactly is meant by "significant," or at what point a number of historians on this subject is considered to begin to be "significant". This has nothing to do with Wetzler's reference.

Wetzler states two things in the paragraph referred to that are perfectly compatible with each other:

• 1- Template:Tq
• 2- Template:Tq

That is, it was formerly debated whether or not Hirohito had participated in political and military affairs during World War II, and later that debate evolved into a debate about how far Hirohito's involvement in such affairs went (because the fact of his involvement is already a generally accepted point today).

So, if the use of Template:Tq may need clarification, as BrocadeRiverPoems says, or may be imprecise, as LilAhok says, then I agree with the latter that it would be better, for both reasons, to use Template:Tq, as Wetzler states it.

What alternative do you think is more appropriate?Ulises Laertíada (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

While I don't believe any historian currently doubts that Emperor Hirohito bears some culpability for Japan's wartime actions, I don't think there is a historical consensus that he was Template:Tq let alone that he Template:Tq as Bix and some other historians suggest. It is true there are many historians who make strong arguments in favor of Hirohito being a leading participant in Japanese war crimes. However, there are at least just as many historians who argue the sheer amount of restrictions imposed on him by the kokutai limited him to being (at most) just one player among many involved in the Japanese elite's collective decision-making. Therefore, I disagree with having the article read Template:Tq in this context.

With regards to concerns about the use of "weasel words", Wikipedia's guidelines regarding language that normally qualifies as such are significantly more flexible than comments in this thread seem to suggest. According to MOS:WEASEL, the examples listed therein Template:Tq Consequently, since the claims set forth within the sentences in question are subsequently attributed to specific historians later on in the article, using language like "many historians" or even "a significant number of historians" shouldn't violate Wikipedia's policy re: weasel words so long as such sentences are placed at the beginning of a paragraph. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is, I maintain, a problem easily solved by simply writing Template:Tq

We're using Wetzler to substantiate the claim, and if it is attributed to Wetzler and cited then there's no real concern about the statement being contested. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Having the article read Template:Tq before claiming Template:Tq is an acceptable compromise. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I understand that we have reached a consensus to use the formula "Template:Tq. If no one else objects today, I think it can be written like that.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT -according to guidelines, attribution is appropriate when "It may also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words, and it should always be used for biased statements of opinion."

If wetzler's statement about his culpability is an argument, and not fact, then attribution would be appropriate, otherwise attribution is not appropriate. LilAhok (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, Wetzler argues that most historians now agree that Hirohito was as deeply involved in his country's political and military affairs during the war as any other nation-state leader of the time. In other words, he is stating the majority opinion that he observes among contemporary scholars. So, what formula do you all think is the most appropriate? Is a consensus possible? If there is no consensus, then the right thing to do is to leave it as it is now.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If no consensus can be found, it is probably best to take this discussion to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping Seeing as how there doesn't seem to be any sign of consensus, I plan on taking this discussion to the Dispute resolution noticeboard over the next few days. If anyone has any ideas of a compromise before then, please feel free to share them.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I will try to find another solution, if there is a will to reach a consensus:

1- In light of the above comments, I think we can at least agree that there is a broad majority view among current historians that Hirohito was at least to some degree culpable for Japan's war actions. Thus, the phrase in the first paragraph Template:Tq, referenced to Wetzler and Lind's sources, can be left as is, or at most with the addition of a sentence regarding that today, as Wetzler writes, the debate is about the exact extent of Hirohito's involvement, and no longer about whether he was involved or not.

2- As for the second sentence under discussion (the first in the subsection entitled Evidence for wartime culpability), I think the only solution is to dispense with any qualifying or quantifying elements such as Template:Tq, Template:Tq, Template:Tq, Template:Tq, Template:Tq or the like, since it is clear that they do not generate consensus, and instead, and since this is the subsection dedicated to the critical arguments of the debate, use a formula such as Template:Tq, in contrast to those who, while acknowledging that he was involved in the war, place this involvement at a somewhat lower degree and believe that his responsibility was less "direct," who can be cited, with appropriate references, in the next subsection (the one entitled Documents that suggest limited wartime responsibility).

This wording does not go into whether the ones or the others are more or less numerous or whether they are a majority or not (Wetzler's words about the majority would already be reflected in the first paragraph, as I explain in point 1). It merely states what the current terms of the debate on this matter are and what the position of each side is. I believe that in this way none of the legitimate allegations that have been made by each user throughout this discussion are excluded and a consensus could be reached if no one finds new inconveniences. What do all you think?Ulises Laertíada (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT - I agree with this. The language used must clearly convey the majority viewpoint and should not suggest or mislead the reader into thinking that the hirohito's culpability represents a minority opinion. The guidelines provide an example. If we were to attribute the statement to Wetzler (e.g., "according to Wetzler"), it would imply that he is making the argument, rather than simply summarizing the debate with factual information. (In the guidelines, the third example uses the New York Times as a reference.) Significant minority views can be placed under the appropriate header. LilAhok (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:PingWith regards to Suggestion #1, I would prefer that the sentence be prefaced as the opinion of Wetzler and Lind. Just because said historians state there is a consensus regarding an issue does not make it so in reality. In the alternative, I think the sentence should be reframed to read Template:Tq

I have no issue with Suggestion #2. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, then, that a consensus has been reached on the second sentence. We must therefore continue to try to achieve it on the first.

Regarding the mention of Wetzler and Lind, in order to achieve a consensus, they can be quoted literally in a paragraph about the current state of the debate, and then concluded with the sentence that summarizes said state, so that the references are made explicit without presenting the summary of the state of the debate and the basic point that prevails among current historians ("Hirohito had at least some degree of guilt") as if it were an argument from a specific author. After all, they are not the only authors who summarize the current state of affairs in a similar way. For example, Kenneth J. Ruoff, in his book Japan's Imperial House in the Postwar Era. 1945-2019 (2020, pp. 95-96), writes that Template:Tq

This seems to indicate that Ruoff, like Wetzler, also observes in recent years a prevalence of the opinion that Hirohito was involved in the decision-making process during the war and that, in any case, he cannot be considered a mere figurehead. Naturally, on this basis there are different degrees of involvement, and so Ruoff goes on to compare the opinions of different authors on the subject. Thus, on the part of those who defend a lower degree of involvement of the emperor, he cites Stephen S. Large, and on the part of those who defend a higher degree of involvement, he cites Daikichi Irokawa, Kentarō Awaya and Herbert P. Bix (in pages 96-98). On Large, Ruoff writes that Template:Tq On Irokawa, Awaya and Bix, Ruoff writes that Template:Tq That is, even from differing positions on the degree of the emperor's involvement in the war, Large and Irokawa agree on one basic point: that Hirohito was involved in the political decision-making process and frequently exerted his influence.

Ruoff does not consider that Hirohito's influence should be considered as "decisive" in the sense that the emperor unilaterally imposed decisions (after all, the decision-making process in Imperial Japan was plural and collective), but this should not be confused with Hirohito's opinion having no weight, or with the emperor having no power and active involvement in decision-making. Thus, Ruoff writes that Template:Tq

I apologize for going on at such length, but I wanted to make it clear that we are not talking about the particular opinion of one or two historians, but about the general state of the debate about the exact extent of Hirohito's involvement in the war.

That said, I will now try to formulate a proposal for a new wording of the part of the first paragraph that we are discussing:

Template:Tq

Does this seem acceptable to everyone or do you think it needs further modification?Ulises Laertíada (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"at least" should be removed to more accurately reflect the sources mentioned above. Also, it would be more concise.

"As new evidence surfaced over the years, historians concluded that he bore at least some amount of culpability for the war's outbreak and the crimes perpetrated by Japan's military during that period." LilAhok (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Very well. As far as I'm concerned, I don't see any problem with your proposal. We just have to wait to see what others think and we'll see if we have a consensus. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree in terms of the notion that quoting Wetzler is somehow inappropriate, per WP:QUOTE Template:Tq. I fail to see how directly quoting a historian would Template:Tq. If anything it provides clear clarification from a historian properly quoted as saying historians generally believe this, clearing up any possible accusation that Wikipedia editors are making a position by stating this.

The problem remains, whatever we argue here, that the culpability of Hirohito is evidently a subject of scholarly debate and we are using two sources to substantiate the idea that "many historians" feel Hirohito is culpable. I do not see how or why it is inappropriate to quote Wetzler when Wetzler is the only scholarly source we are using to substantiate this as the majority opinion.

Per Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues is listed Template:Tq. While I understand the list of contrversial issues page is archival at this point, I still feel it is best to err on the side of caution and so continue my proposal that it should be quoted to Wetzler. But, if nobody else feels it prudent then I'm fine with the above. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, my last proposal included precisely a quote from Wetzler and Lind. Specifically, I wrote: Template:Tq

And to put it into a new wording proposal, I proposed that the text that I highlight at the end of my last proposal be included within the paragraph under discussion, from Template:Tq to Template:Tq That was my proposal, now adding LilAhok's suggestion to remove the words "at least.".

Naturally, we are talking about a highly controversial issue among historians, and of course we are not going to resolve it here, but it is true that in recent years the exact extent of the Emperor's involvement in the war seems to have been the subject of more controversy, rather than whether he was involved in any way (whether to a higher or lower degree). It seems that the idea that he had some degree of involvement (with the controversy now focusing more on the exact extent of that involvement) is currently generating greater consensus among historians, as noted by Wetzler, Lind and Ruoff. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

My statement regarding the usage of quotations was an admittedly belated response to the cautioning against them, sorry for the confusion. As I noted, if nobody else felt it was prudent to just quote Wetzler for the "many historians" be done with it, I'm fine with the proposed change. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

My position remains that the article should read Template:Tq Contrary to LilAhok's representations, including the phrase Template:Tq would make the statement broad enough to account for BOTH sides of the argument regarding Hirohito's involvement. That is, it reflects the fact that one group of historians argues he was a dominant voice in the Japanese military's decision-making process while another contends he was at most one of many voices involved. As admitted by Ulises Laertíada, this is a controversial issue not a settled one.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:OdWell, now we only need to agree on the use of the words "at least." It is true that saying "at least" only expresses the minimum general point of agreement among historians (some go beyond that minimum point and some others stay there, but no one positions themselves as less), and that is why I have no problem using those words. However, LilAhok thinks it would be more concise not to include them. A possible solution could be an express summary of the positions of both sides of the debate, which should then be developed in their respective subsections. For example, it could be like this: Template:Tq This wording clearly shows the position of each side and does not in any way suggest that Hirohito's culpability represents a minority opinion, since in both theses he would be guilty (in one, he is the main culprit; in the other, he is one more culprit among several with a comparable level of guilt). Does this seem acceptable to everyone, or do you think more variations are needed?Ulises Laertíada (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If conciseness is a concern, it would be simpler to just frame the sentence as I proposed. If LilAhok insists on having an issue with it, then we should take it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot answer on behalf of LilAhok. We will have to wait for this user's reply. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON - According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. "Based on this, it appears we've reached a consensus on what should be included in the article:

"As new evidence surfaced over the years, historians concluded that he bore some amount of culpability for the war's outbreak and the crimes perpetrated by Japan's military during that period." LilAhok (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ulises Laertíada, Brocade River Poems, and I are satisfied with this statement. Regardless of whether Emiya1980 agrees, we have followed Wikipedia's guidelines, making it appropriate for inclusion in the article.

however, i don't disagree with including "at least" whichin there. Also, I don't have any problems with Ulises Laertíada's latest statement. LilAhok (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping Even in light of BrocadeRiverPoems' support (which seems lukewarm at best), the fact remains that Hirohito's involvement in World War II is expressly included among Wikipedia's list of controversial issues. Seeing as how the Wikipedia community as a whole views this as an unsettled question among historians, a 3:1 consensus out of only 4 editors is hardly sufficient to override that presumption. Using "at least" within the sentence is the minimum level of qualifying language needed to reflect that divide. Please keep that in mind before attempting to trivialize my opinion on this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

So, since LilAhok has said Template:Tq, I conclude that, regardless of the differences between LilAhok and Emiya1980 about at what point a consensus can be considered to exist (a question that by itself does not affect the wording of the paragraph), we would all accept the version of the paragraph including the words "at least." For my part, I think that including or excluding them does not substantially alter the meaning of the text, so if, as it seems, including them is the option that most contributes to avoiding conflict, then let's include them. Therefore, if no one objects further in the next two days, I will then include the agreed wording in the corresponding paragraphs.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to refactor the above discussion slightly? It has become incredibly difficult to read with the ever increasing indentations. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

In the section Legacy and honors, the second quote from Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi is incorrectly transcribed here as, "Hirohito would be no more have granted independence Korea independence or returned Manchuria to China..." The first mention of "independence" is incorrect; the source is instead, "Hirohito would be no more have granted Korea independence or returned Manchuria to China...". Please remove that incorrect first mention of "independence". 101.53.216.4 (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a second mistake in the transcription of that quote, the word, "be" should also be removed, leaving it as "Hirohito would no more have granted Korea independence or returned Manchuria to China...". 101.53.216.4 (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Dispute about specific phrase in Lede

There is a disagrement about whether to include or exclude a dependent clause in a specific part of the lead paragraph. The two options are: [10]

1. "The extent of his involvement in military decision-making and his wartime culpability remain subjects of historical debate."

2. "To this day, the extent of his involvement in military decision-making and his wartime culpability remain subjects of historical debate."

I believe the first option is more appropriate because:

1. This version is straightforward and factual, without implying any particular tone or emphasis on the length of the debate. It simply states that there is an ongoing discussion without drawing attention to how long it has persisted, which makes it more neutral.

2. The lede is already lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer 1. "To this day" is already implied by "remains", so is an unnecessary repeat. It is also contrary to MOS:REALTIME, where the phrase is explicitly listed as a phrase to avoid. DrKay (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer 1. Seems pretty clear per MOS:REALTIME that including 'to this day' should be avoided the same as 'to date' should be. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What about prefacing the sentence by saying “In the decades following World War II…”? Emiya1980 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement, since it clearly can't have been discussed before the war. DrKay (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

How does “in the decades following World War II” suggest such discussions took place before the war? Emiya1980 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't. And I didn't say it did. DrKay (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that there was debate before the war, but it does imply the debate was immediately after the war, and that it hasn't continued to this day. The narrative that Hirohito was a pacifist wasn't really challenged by Western or Japanese historians until the 1970s, and it was the release of archival material which enabled works like Bix's famous book in 2000. The debate is very much still alive between conservative and revisionist Japanese historians, at least. — Goszei (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Prefacing the sentence with some introductory phrase like the ones mentioned would help it fit better within the context of the sentences that came before it. As it currently reads, it pops out of nowhere and disrupts the narrative flow of the paragraph.

I would be in favor of something along the lines of "While serving as Japan's de jure commander-in-chief during the war". In addition to better linking the sentence with the overarching context of the paragraph, it also highlights why Hirohito should be suspected in the first place for being involved in Japan's wartime decision-making. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that his position as supreme commander-in-chief should be mentioned in the lead. It is currently mentioned that he formally sanctioned the start of the Pacific War and made the decision to surrender, demonstrating that he had the real power, but it should also be indicated that this was true during the war. As authors like Bix lay out, Hirohito was informed in full detail about what was happening during the war by the military, and he is known to have often expressed his opinions, which were considered important, in meetings with its top leaders. It's obviously complex, but this is a key detail. — Goszei (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this point.

1. The extent of his involvement in military decision-making and his wartime culpability remain subjects of historical debate.

This sentence should remain in the lede.

It avoids any modifiers or qualifiers that suggest a particular interpretation of the individual's role. By focusing solely on the "extent of his involvement" and "wartime culpability," the sentence leaves the door open for a variety of interpretations without influencing the reader toward any one perspective. This sentence does not add any nuance that could influence the reader's opinion.

Placing a dependent phrase before the main statement and using modifiers like "nominal" and "de jure" detracts from the sentence's neutrality. It suggests that he might not have possessed the true power and authority typically linked to the role, a point contested by historians in the body of the article. As part of the lede, this wording already hints at reduced culpability, potentially influencing the reader’s perspective before engaging with the rest of the article. This violates WP:GOODLEDE, particularly Neutral and Stable (the lede should not change from day to day) LilAhok (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

But it's not undisputed that he was the chief decision-maker. You're trying to frame the language to represent that he is. If anything, it is that approach which undermines the article's neutrality. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it suggests reduced culpability at all. If anything, it suggests increased culpability if it is written to imply that the historical debate continues despite him being the supreme commander-in-chief. Emiya previously used the word "Despite" and changed it to "While" at my objection. — Goszei (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Two observations:

1- I don't get the impression at all that the phrase Template:Tq frames the language in any way, either in one sense or another. It seems to me to be an accurate description of the ongoing debate about the exact extent of Hirohito's involvement in decision-making (i.e. it is widely accepted that he was involved to a greater or lesser extent, but opinions are still divided as to how much).

2- As regards mentioning his position as supreme commander-in-chief, I have no objection, although I think it is better to avoid adding qualifiers ("nominal", "de jure" or similar): these do carry the risk of framing the language in some sense or being misinterpreted. If it is mentioned, it is better to point out only that he was recognized in that position by the Meiji Constitution, without going into further qualifiers. As to the greater or lesser degree to which he exercised that power, there is already the phrase cited in the first point, which indicates that this question remains a subject of debate among the historians.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How about beginning the sentence with "While serving as supreme commander of Japan's armed forces"? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A dependent clause should not be added to the sentence. It should remain as it is because the sentence is clear and neutral, adhering to the guidelines outlined in WP:GOODLEDE. According to these guidelines, the lede needs to be clear. Thousands of people will read it, and adding a dependent clause could imply varying levels of culpability, thus compromising the statement's clarity and neutrality. The impact depends on the emphasis the reader places on the dependent clauses.

In a separate sentence, it would be more logical to state that his position as supreme commander-in-chief was granted to him by the Meiji Constitution. it would make sense to mention this information before noting his decisions to sanction the war and to surrender. LilAhok (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)'

Template:Tq Since historical opinion is in fact divided regarding what extent Hirohito is responsible for Japan's actions during World War II, that would be appropriate because it neutrally reflects how there is no historical consensus regarding his level of culpability (notwithstanding his status as Japan's titular commander-in-chief during the war). Why would it be wrong for readers to be left with that impression? Emiya1980 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clarify. It would imply varying levels of interpretation, not culpability, making it unclear and potentially bias. Adding the phrase might cause readers to view it as dismissive and overly emphasize the side of minimal culpability. There is a talk page about the complexity of the issues, which is also highlighted in the article. The sentence should remain as it is. I agree with Ulises Laertíada's and Goszei's (comment on 23:57, 20 December 2024) points. LilAhok (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think it should be mentioned, but not as a clause on the sentence about the historical debate because it unavoidably spins that statement (as discussed above). I support an addition along the lines of "During the war, Hirohito was the supreme commander-in-chief under the Meiji Constitution." — Goszei (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Saying that the extent of Hirohito's involvement is debatable is not biased. While there are indeed those who argue that, a large number of historians likewise argue he was merely a passive enabler of militarists who in reality dictated the nation's policies during the war. There are others still who contend he was a figurehead who exercised little if any influence over events during the period. What is biased is to suggest that most historians are in agreement that Hirohito was the driving force behind Japan's wartime decision-making which is simply not the case.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Just don't make it a clause on the debate sentence using the words "despite" or "while", which clearly does have a certain implication in my view. — Goszei (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The only implication present is to suggest that it remains unclear whether Hirohito actually exercised the authority and control typically associated with a military commander-in-chief. Seeing as how this reflects historians' opinion on the subject, such an implication is not unwarranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How does the statement 'the extent of his involvement in military decision-making and his wartime culpability remain subjects of historical debate' imply any bias? The sentence clearly informs the reader that his culpability is a matter of debate.

There seems to be a consensus on how to move forward:

1. the sentence, "the extent of his involvement in military decision-making and his wartime culpability remain subjects of historical debate" remains in the article.

2. Adding a separate sentence about his status under the Meiji Constitution. as mentioned by Goszei, something on the lines of "During the war, Hirohito was the supreme commander-in-chief under the Meiji Constitution." LilAhok (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

In its present form, the sentence is not a good fit as a conclusion sentence for the third paragraph. It would fit much better in the first paragraph of the lede. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Possibility of a new portrait candidate

File:Kroonprins Hirohito, de latere keizer van Japan, in uniform, voor 1928, SFA004000724.jpg

The following is Hirohito's formal portrait, taken two years after his ascension to the throne. Although early (1928), it could possibly be used as a substitute to the current portrait, both in that it is also a formal portrait in ceremonial uniform, and that it is of higher digital quality than the current portrait, so it might be possible for this to be considered a swap of the old image.  GuardianH  22:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I fear there may be a mistake in the dating of this photo. It certainly cannot be from 1928, since you only have to compare it with the images of Hirohito's coronation ceremony (10th November, 1928) to see that in this other image he is visibly younger. Furthermore, according to this page, this is a photograph taken in 1921 during his European tour. I think it is better to keep the current photograph (an official portrait when Hirohito was already Emperor) than an image from his trip to Europe when he was Crown Prince.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Portrait

Hirohito was in "charge" until 1989. Why use that specific portrait? 5.151.189.245 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, as Remsense wrote in the edit summary of penultimate edition, like with every biography on-wiki or off, we use a primary image that represents the most figure at their most recognizable and culturally relevant. Following the argument that he was in charge until 1989, should we rotate different portraits periodically throughout his reign? Otherwise, why another portrait instead of the current one?--Ulises Laertíada (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Japan was poised to surpass the US by GDP in the 1980s, arguably more important than WW2. 5.151.189.245 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is highly questionable that Japan's GDP in the 1980s was historically more important than WW2, but in any case, and regardless of the disputes among historians about the exact extent of the Emperor's personal involvement in the war, it is indisputable that the Emperor's role as a historical figure in the war was far greater than his role (if any can be attributed to him) in Japan's GDP in the 1980s.--Ulises Laertíada (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. While the Emperor’s role in the Second World War is undeniably significant, it is worth considering the broader historical arc of Japan’s transformation in the decades that followed. During the war, Japan was technologically and economically underdeveloped, and its infrastructure was left in ruins by 1945. In contrast, by the 1980s, Japan had become a global economic powerhouse, leading in advanced technology, manufacturing, and finance.

At its peak, Japan’s GDP came close to surpassing that of the United States, and many Americans at the time genuinely believed Japan was on track to overtake the US economically. This period marked a dramatic shift in global power dynamics, with Japan no longer defined by its military past but by its economic influence and soft power.

Given this context, using a later portrait of the Emperor offers a more accurate reflection of his symbolic role during Japan’s post-war resurgence. It presents him not as a wartime figure, but as a representative of a modern, peaceful, and globally influential Japan — which is arguably just as historically significant. 194.82.45.1 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you too. As I was saying in my first comment, it's about representing the individual (not his country, which is not the subject of this article) through his most recognizable image. What aspect of Hirohito's life is given the greatest historical relevance? Which aspect are historians most interested in when analyzing his life? His role as one of the leaders of the Axis Powers during World War II (whether he was the main culprit or one among several of similar importance, as experts currently mainly discuss) or his more symbolic and ceremonial role (in accordance with the new Constitution imposed on Japan by the United States in 1947) in the postwar years? I think a brief glance at the majority of academic studies on this emperor is enough to realize that his individual relevance is much greater for the former than for the latter. After all, whether their direct involvement goes more or less far, there is broad agreement among most historians today that Hirohito participated in and bore some responsibility for Japan's actions in World War II. Japan's GDP in the 1980s certainly occurred in the final years of his life and reign, but it can hardly be considered his work or something in which he personally participated. Of course, the circumstances of Japan in those years can be mentioned in the paragraphs about the end of his reign and accompanied by any relevant photos from that time, but the opening portrait of this article aims to represent the subject of the biography (not his country, I repeat) according to his most relevant individual aspect. Whether he liked it or not, and whether the rest of us like it or not, Hirohito's entire life was profoundly marked by his role in World War II, which is the main (and even only) source of controversy surrounding a figure universally defined as one of the most controversial in history. This is what defines him and what the opening portrait should show (what postwar Japan represented to the international community is one thing, and what Hirohito himself represents to history is another).

Definitely, and for all the reasons explained, I think the current entry portrait is still the most appropriate and is fine where it is. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)