Talk:Yasukuni Shrine/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Yasukuni Shrine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Recent Edits

I changed the entry to reflect that the shrine also includes some civilians (for example, a third of the 14 controversial spirits were not military). The shrine also includes a boatload of children - literally.

I also adjested the history a bit.

Finally, I edited the comment about SDF members being enshrined. According to an interview I had with the Vice-Chief Priest at the shrine as well as head of training with the JMSDF (Captain), this is not true. The court case in Yamaguchi-ken referred to a regional shrine, not Yasukuni.

WDSTURGEON

Controversy

"This controversy exploded openly in 1978, when the remains of 1,068 convicted war criminals were secretly moved there. Among these were 14 notorious Class A war criminals, including Hideki Tojo."

Firstly, enshrining involve no remains. All you need is names to be written down and kept in the shrine. Secondly, POW executed for war crimes being enshrined was never been secret. And also I should add that it was not a political issue. The controversy errupted when it was revealed that A class war criminal such as the prime minster Tojo who did not engaged in combat were enshried in secret as "Showa Martyer". FWBOarticle 23:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tojo may not have been on the front line himself doing the stabbing, shooting each day. Yet I would not put it past him to have engaged in some recreational raping and beheading. That man was such a coward he shot himself as the Allies appraoch his house and thevaliant American Army dressed his wound. And then Tojo was made to go through three years of trial before was hanged. THAT IS N HISTORIXCAL FACT. HIS SUICIDE ATTAMPT FAILE. OH THE GREAT WARRIOR. he had the same immoral nature that Hitler had.I do not care what Tojo's daughter today says. Tojo is responsible for the Rape of Nanjing , the Bombing of Pearl of Pearl Harbor and everything else evil thathe Japanese personally chose to do.My father can barely hear now because of the guns he hade to listen to during World War 2's Pacific War, when he was part of the FREEINGof countries from Japanese fascism. And those countries were given their right to rule as they wanted to, upon beiing freed. I have read many books about this and I hav been in many Asian countries. I go back to visit America. I am in Asiaright nw. Germans can admit a mistake. Many intelligent Japanese can also admit a mistake. It is ashame there is an element of Japanese that are pulling their country down just because Japan is experiencing bad economic times. It was bad economic times that ,ade Japan turn to fascism in the first place, sad, sad, sad.

Michael Dupuit, Ph.D., Economist

I've seen conflicting information on this: the souls of all of Japan's war dead (good, bad and indifferent) are definitely enshrined on paper, but some sources also appear to claim that the physical ~~bones~~ remains of infamous class A guys are also there. Anybody have an authoritative source? Jpatokal 11:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Japanese practice is cremation not burial.

Some bones are left over after cremation, as anybody who has been to a Japanese funeral will know... <squick> Jpatokal 05:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not so sure that shinto enshrining involve body parts. The reason (excuse) for including executed war criminals (POW) was that they all turned up in war dead registery. So Yasukuni copied all of their name in their book and kept it in alter. I'm not sure what is shinto's view about body part. For what I know, death would be regarded as filth in shinto but Yasukuni may be different due to it's uniquely political origin. Anyway, if it is true, I would be news to me. Feel free to include it if you can find credible reference. The original article implied that all of 1008 executed war criminal's boy parts are kept, which can't be true. FWBOarticle 22:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That IS a political issue IMO, because Japanese goverment decided that those war criminals are innocent (wrongly accused) before their name tags were put into the shrine. -miorea

Restoring the government ownership of Yasukuni is not on political agenda. The debate is about appropriateness of government official to pay visit to religious institution. Also, I have clarify that it was act of donation of public fund which was deemed unconstitutional.

I have changed the writing 'Court ruled'. If you check the Fukuoka court's verdict, you can understand that 'unconstitutional' is not the statement as a court, but just a personal opinion of the judge, and not related to the case itself. Juristically, the judge's opinion means nothing. Poo-T 11 Aug 2004

German controversy

Paragraph removed:

A similar controversy occured in Germany, where US President Ronald Reagan and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl drew criticism from Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and others in 1985 when they attended a wreath-laying ceremony at the Bitburg cemetery, gravesite of 2,000 German soldiers, including 49 Nazi members of Hitlers SS. Similiar visits to any of the many decentralized Nazi cemeteries have not been repeated since, and in 2003 a private campaign of the German Federation of Expellees to create a centralized religious shrine honoring Nazi war criminals, the Centre Against Expulsions, failed to get the backing of the government.

If this is made into its own article then maybe it deserves a "See also", but as it stands it's pretty irrelevant. Jpatokal 14:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This removed paragraph actually points to a very interesting contrast between Japanese and German attitutes toward their respective military history. Just try and imagine the world reaction, if:

       German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder were to visit a shrine honoring Adolf Hitler and other Nazi war criminals.

NPOV?

The article as it stands now has (IMHO) a fair bit of anti-Japanese slant, but the esteemed Mr. 69.193.248.4's edits went a bit overboard in correcting them. More measured attempts would be welcome. Jpatokal 07:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the last iteration of the topic edited by Jpatokal is well-written and a major improvement on previous articles. I see that 69.193.248.4's complete removal of the 'controversy' section is over the top - to deny that the shrine is controversial is to close to your eyes to the facts. On a linked issue, I think that 69.19.248.4 should get him or herself a user name if he/she would like to make large scale edits to this page - I think this would be the most polite and effective way to proceed if we are to agree how we can improve the Yasukuni Shrine page. I have reinstated the 'controversy' section in Jpatokal's last edit. Nick Fraser 12:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shrine Visits

You have mentioned the shrine visits, but not the reasons. Many people visit the shrine as an act of remembrance, not an act of reverence. Prime Minister Koizumi has publicly stated that he visits the Shrine so that there will be no more wars.

then why don't they remove the war criminals to another place? after that they can visit it whenever they want to and no neighbours would protest anymore. if germany worshiped hitler among millions of war dead, how would israel and the whole europe react? no less furious than korea and china right now i suppose. cultural differences doesn't necessarily say you are justified to hurt your neighbours, especially when the very ones you're worshipping killed millions of their grandfathers.--Wooddoo-eng 09:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I’m not sure who you mean by “they”, but if you are talking about public officials, the answer is simple: they can’t. Remember, Yasukuni Shrine is now a purely private organization. As an independent religious institution, It has a complete discretion to decide what it enshrines. Removing the war criminals from Yasukini Shrine is clearly beyond the government's reach. No matter how foreign countries demand to do so, it’s simply impossible. If the Japanese government should ask (or suggest) Yasukuni Shrine to change its kami, it is undoubtedly unconstitutional. After all, the freedom of religion is constitutionally protected in Japan, unlike some authoritarian countries. --World3 22 Apr 2005

Those who voice out the removal of war criminals from the shrine is not thinking rationally, really, because the dead needs a resting place. However, visiting the shrine from the living is another matter. No one is going to disagree if you visit the shrine when you have some relatives resting in it, but for the others? It depends. In neighbouring countries like Korea and China, no one is oppose to the rememberance of the dead, what they oppose is, the choice to visit Yasukuni Shrine, intead of others. There's one and only one major difference of Yasukuni Shrine from the others: The Class-A war criminals inside. If one only want to visit the grave(s) of Japanese troops(including those from World War II) as an act of rememberance, there are numberous other shrines which can serves the function. Why choose Yasukuni Shrine? Why not the others? Does that mean the worshipping of those Class-A criminals? --Hunter 12:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They choose to visit Yasukuni Shrine because that is the only choice. There is no such place as “the others.” If someone is going to offer prayer for those who died for the war, Yasukuni is the only place to go. The historical evaluation of the war is one thing. Expressing one’s respect for the soldiers is another. In US, different people have different opinions on Vietnam War, but no one is against expressing their respect for the soldiers who died for it. The same logic should apply to the case in Japan. Some people suggest that the Japanese government should establish a secular government institution for the remembrance of the war dead. Personally I think it would be better. However, this idea is extremely unpopular in Japan. It is criticized not only from the right wing but also from the left wing. So currently and at lease in the near future, Yasukuni is the only place Japanese people can express their respect for the soldiers. They go to Yasukini not to worship the Class-A guys. They go to express their respect for a lot of nameless soldiers who lost their life for the war. --World3 23 Apr 2005

Wrong. The Yasukuni shrine is not the only place you can pay respect to the war dead. Recently, the Emperor of Japan went to the battelefield of Saipan to pay his respects to the soldiers who died on both sides of the war. Koizumi should do the same.

It's exchanges like these that make me wonder whether it's possible to write an unbiased account of Yasukuni shrine. Both the original anonymous post that ingenuously states that 'Prime Minister Koizumi has publicly stated that he visits the Shrine so that there will be no more wars' (given the huge controversy his visits stir up in countries invaded by Japan, it's hard to see how Koizumi can say this with a straight face) and Wooddoo-eng's response, which takes a completely partisan attitude (do you think the Japanese wouldn't have moved the war criminals earlier if it was politically possible?) demonstrate the futility of trying to talk rationally about the issue.

Bathrobe 31 Mar 2005

For your info:

Nations that have worshiped officially and Nations that are opposite officially

Kadzuwo 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What about prime ministeral visits before 1979? Before then, prime ministeral visits were a domestic issue and harsly debated if I remember correctly.

Date of enshrining

Based on the Japanese version, the Class A guys were given the Martyrs of Showa title in 1978 and this became public knowledge in 1979. I've updated the article accordingly. Jpatokal 02:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Koreans and Taiwanese

According to the Japanese Wikipedia article on Yasukuni Shrine, 日本のためにともに戦った台湾・韓国人元軍人軍属も多数祀(まつ)られている。

In the English version, it says: "it also serves to honor soldiers born in colonized Korea and Taiwan (Korean and Taiwanese soldiers fought and died for Japan are not enshrined."

Which is correct?

Bathrobe

My guess is that they mean Japanese citizens born to Japanese parents in Korea and Taiwan are enshrined, but native Koreans and Taiwanese who served in the Imperial armed forces are not. I'm not an expert on the subject though. --Julian Grybowski 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

something not true

To date, China has been the most vocal critic of the shrine, but because the issue of Yasukuni is heavily tied to Chinese politics and viewed through a ‘filtered media’, most people in China are unaware that the shrine existed prior to World War II, or that it also serves to honor soldiers born in colonized Korea and Taiwan (Korean and Taiwanese soldiers fought and died for Japan are not enshrined).

i don't know who wrote this but it's partly not true. i'm from beijing, and i know (at least more than the one who wrote this) most people in China are aware that the shrine also serves to honor the war-dead. the chinese people are simply furious because the war criminals are worshipped there too. no one would have any complaints anymore with the visits if they remove the criminals to another place. just because the communists controll china's media doesn't mean japan's worshipping the murderers and whitewashing their history textbooks is justifiable. this is simply illogical. please make some changes to this part. he/she who wrote this didn't provide any proof that the chinese people really don't know something about the shrine. it's just his/her assumption.--Wooddoo-eng 09:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ever been to one of those Buddhist temples where they wish blessings and enlightenment for every sentient creature? That includes Hitler, Mao and Hirohito too. I think the special Martyrs of Showa designation for the war criminals is much more questionable... Jpatokal 10:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many war memorials all over Asia. Why is only the Yasukuni that comes under so much fire? There must be a reason and rationale behind. Please understand it before throwing about laughable comments. --Plastictv 01:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I originally deleted the disputed statement. I then came across a Chinese friend who earnestly felt that the Japanese PM should not visit a shrine devoted to war criminals. I told him that it was not devoted to war criminals, most are common soldiers. He had never heard this, despite obviously being acquainted with the issue from the Chinese media. I reinstated the statement because it seems to be true, to some extent, at least. The concept that this is 'something not true' is simply incorrect. However, someone without a user name immediately deleted the reference. The article now has a clear anti-Japanese bias. This may be satisfactory in the view of many Chinese (and Koreans), but it is not satisfactory from a POV viewpoint.

The Chinese media DO say the shrine also worship the war-dead for heaven's sake! "Something not true" means "most people in China don't know this " is wrong. The problem focuses on the word "MOST." --Wooddoo-eng 10:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

TALKING about "filtered media". Look at this Japanese example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1736208,00.html But Mr Koizumi's public statement of regret today stopped short of offering the unambiguous apology demanded by China and British POW groups. And an edited version of the statement, issued for use inside Japan, cut out still more of the contrite language. ...Mr Koizumi's public statement, which was subsequently edited for domestic audiences, echoed the form of words used by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama to mark the 50th anniversary of the surrender.

Kanji: 国 vs 國

The esteemed 211.57.235.249 is, for once, correct: the name of the shrine is 靖國神社. 国 is indeed the modern kanji for "land/country", but 國 is one of the designated kanji allowed in names. Jpatokal 02:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then why is the Japanese article titled 靖国神社？ A Google search of 靖國神社 revealed primarily Chinese webpages. I tried accessing the site's official site but it appears to be down/unresponsive. --Feitclub 04:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

According to Google's cache [1] the official site uses 靖國神社, and searching for that string gets me only Japanese sites. 靖国神社 is not "wrong", but in my opinion it's less correct...

I've asked for opinions on the Japanese talk page. Jpatokal 08:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read that, and I see responses but I don't know enough Japanese to understand them ^_^ --Feitclub 20:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

正確に言えば、どちらも正しくないように思えます。公式には「靖」の字も、PCでは一般的に表記できない旧字が用いられているからです。また、靖国神社の公式サイト内でも、本文の記述は「靖国神社」で統一されており、ウィキペディアの記述的には「国」であっても誤りではないと思われます。--Tukasa ryo 2005年4月6日 (水) 09:53 (UTC)

My attempt at a translation: "Frankly I think neither is correct. The 「靖」character of the official name can not be displayed correctly on many browsers. In addition, the 「国」character is also used in the content of the official site, so for the Wikipedia I do not think that using 「国」is incorrect." Jpatokal 02:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the best compromise would be list both forms? Jpatokal 02:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good so long as someone offers an explanation. I just tried to explain the whole thing to a Japanese friend of mine and he had no idea what I was talking about. He only knows the 国 spelling. --Feitclub 02:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"國" is kyuji (旧字), or old character that was used before 1949. "国" is the modern simplified version of it. Yasukuni was established much earlier than 1949 and so were written "靖國" back then. But since the government introduced the new sets of kanji they have been written "靖国" in most Japanese documents. Japanese dictionary entry of the shrine also is "靖国神社." Hermeneus 10:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent information, thanks so much for your help. I will integrate this into the article for clarity. --feitclub 20:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I've been to the shrine a number of times, and checking my photos, Hermeneus is indeed correct.

Another quick cultural note. A heap of Japanese shrines use the old kanji (also, written from right to left, another anachronism) on the name plates of their torii or inside the shrines, but they are usually noted with the new kanji on maps or in guide books. So, both versions are right in their own - however, the context of the usage is important. I suppose in longer wiki articles on shrines, the old spelling should be duly noted in the header, and the new kanji used throughout the text. TomorrowTime 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural differences

"it is not unknown for a body to be exhumed from the grave to be punished for transgressions during life"

This was in the article at one point. Can someone explain it, verify it, or put it into context? Thanks, Sam Spade 15:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese War I

Thanks for pointing it out. The first Sino-Japanese War was actually an invasion of Korea *AND* China. The first stage of the war was fought on Korea soil between Japanese army and Chinese army for the control of the Korean political system. After Chinese army was driven out of the Choson peninsula, Japanese army moved on to invade China. The Imperial Japanese Army occupied ShanDong peninsula and LiaoDong penisula after the Japanese navy eliminated the BeiYang fleet of China. During the invasion Japanese army committed the holocast of 18,000 people in Lüshunkou city (often called Port Arthur), leaving only 36 alive to dig graves for the dead.

It is under debate that whether the invasion of China was planned by the Emperor and the cabinet or mainly driven by the generals near the frontline. But whatever it was, no historian would deny that it was an invasion, an unjustified and anti-humanity war fought for nothing but the greediness of human beings. If you look closely to the Kamis enshrined in Yasukuni Jinja, most of them (more than 99%) died in such invasions (all but the first two civil wars). I would argue that this is the very reason why Eastern Asian, particularly Chinese and Korean has been critic about the Yasukuni Jinja. To worship fighters died in such wars make people believe that there's a little more than just patriotism -- as Japanese goverment claims -- in there, which may likely be Militarism.

I like the last sentence of this wikipedia entry "Why keep blaming the dead for the crimes they committed when they were alive?" That's a very positive thinking. However I feel it's unfair for Japanese to only remember the glory past of their nation; and omit all its dirty deeds. --Miorea 21:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

I think because the controversy section speaks of China's objections to the visit in an attempt at objectivism the article should also mention the visit by the Taiwan Solidarity Union and the Peasant Party (Taiwan) to the shrine. (24.124.61.165 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC))

State Shinto

Yasukuni is not a traditional Japanese shrine; it was established as part of State Shinto and its original purpose was inextricably tied to that of State Shinto, i.e., Emperor worship (the Emperor as a god) and its whole apparatus. Those who are enshrined here are here under the idea that a soldier who died for the Emperor became a god. With the separation of state and religion after the war, and the Emperor's renunciation of divine status, all this theoretically came to an end, but it could be argued that the shrine cannot be understood without looking at its historical roots. In fact, part of the problem of the shrine is that it seems to represent 'unreconstructed State Shinto' and everything it stands for. The people who are enshrined here are still gods (although, incongruously, the significance of dying for the Emperor was negated when the Emperor renounced his status as a 'living god'). Does anyone feel that the introduction could be slightly rewritten to include some of this historical background? And should the Shintoist beliefs of the priests of the shrine be spelt out (if that is possible), including some indication as to what their beliefs reflect - primitive Shinto? State Shinto? Something else again?

Bathrobe 2 June 2005

There's an interesting article in the journal "Japan Echo", December 2004, on Yasukuni. It discusses the rationale for the founding of the shrine and traditional views that make the shrine meaningful to some.

Actually, *any* person in Japan (and that includes foreigners) is entitled to being kept in *any* shrine's holy books, to be transferred into godhood after death. This is not unique to Yasukuni, what is unique is the criteria these guys had to meet to make it into the shrine's books, i.e. death in the service of the Emperor-God. A regular shrine will usually only require you to live in the vicinity, i.e. under the "jurisdiction" of the shrine.

In answer to your question: having to die for the Emperor in order to be able to make it into Yasukuni's books of souls is clearly a State Shinto warping of an older Shinto principle. TomorrowTime 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

evasion

"Why keep blaming the dead for the crimes they committed when they were alive?"

It's not the dead China and Korea keep blaming the most, it's the living officials who worship them. This remark by Koizumi is simply trying to distract attention. It's not the existence of these war criminals that makes Japan's neighbours angry. It's the fact that elected Japanese officials worship them that's under fire. When did China and Korea ever criticize ordinary Japanese for visiting the shrine? --Wooddoo-eng 10:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

-Think about this analogy if German Chancellor were to say "Why keep blaming Adolf Hitler and other now-dead Nazis for the holocaust they committed when they were alive?"

-It is Japanese government's own doing that leads to the widespread resentment: Read this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1735665,00.html Former Australian prisoners of war returned to the Thai jungles where they laboured on the notorious Death Railway. “I can accept the fact that the young generation of Japanese is not to blame. It was their fathers and grandfathers. But until they own up, they’ll always be a pariah nation,” said Baden Jones, 84, who was honouring comrades in Kanchanaburi.

A good source of info on Yasukuni's history and doctrine is a series of three articles published a few months ago by Yomiuri entitled "Behind the Torii.' Unfortunately they've taken them offline, but I have some excerpts on my blog here. http://www.mutantfrog.com/2005/06/13/yasukuni-behind-the-torii/ Stupidly I didn't save the entire article, forgetting that Yomiuri doesn't have an online archive.

Sourcing

I made a recent edit that attempted to clarify, tighten, and in a number of places adopt a more neutral form of language. Better use of citations and external sources would really help towards the improvement of this article, particularly on a number of the quotes and events mentioned; I left a number of notes to this effect with HTML comments, which hopefully other editors can make use of. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 11:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"War shrine" vs. Shinto shrine

Is it necessary, and is it properly neutral, to refer to Yasukuni Shrine as a "war shrine", as opposed to a Shinto shrine, in the lead sentence for this article? It seems to me the latter is more technically accurate, the link more informative, and the terminology less likely to be viewed as potentially inflammatory. The focus of the shrine on war and soldiers is quite clear as it is, from the first paragraph. It has been changed back and forth a number of times, so rather than altering it again, I'm hoping to get some input from editors on this matter. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 11:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Shinto shrine" is indeed more technically accurate. The shrine is not devoted to war itself, but to the soldiers that have served in past wars. Calling the shrine a "war shrine" in the lead sentence is therefore misleading. It is true (of course) that the Yasukuni Shrine is controversial because of its implied support for Japan's actions in previous wars, but the article already covers this controversy well. Colin M. 12:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

But what we call "war memorials" today generally commemorate fallen soldiers in past wars, not war itself. Note in War memorial:

For most of human history war memorials were erected to commemorate great victories and remembering the dead was a secondary concern. . . . In modern times the intent of the war memorial is not to glorify war, but to honour those who have died, or been injured.

Regardless, I don't think we should use "war shrine" in the lead sentence. According to one point of view--and the name itself--it is a "peace shrine". Of course the other point of view would call that a euphemism; it's two sides of the same coin. However, "war shrine" doesn't have the same currency as "war memorial", and it may be perceived as having different connotations. To call it a "war shrine...dedicated to the spirits of dead Japanese soldiers" is somewhat redundant, and less informative than "Shinto shrine...dedicated to the spirits of dead Japanese soldiers". "War shrine" may be acceptable as newspaper headline shorthand, but we're not working under the same constraints and can afford a more verbose and accurate description. --Dforest 16:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MC, Colin, and Dforest. "Shinto shrine" is a neutral and well-understood concept. The phrase "war shrine" is ambiguous, probably POV, and as Dforest notes does not have the same currency as the neutral "war memorial." For as controversial as Yasukuni is, I think this article is remarkably NPOV. Let's not ruin that by calling Yasukuni a "war shrine" unless we have an agreed upon, NPOV definition of what the phrase means. CES 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

More on Sourcing

"Japanese culture, unlike Chinese culture, views one's crimes absolved after death."

I would absolutely love to know where that kernel of pure BS about Japanese culture came from. Go ahead and try to find it in Buddhism, or Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism influenced Shintoism. None of the above has an "one's crimes automatically absolved after death" clause.

"Japanese Culture" part is BS. However, "Shinto" views one's sin absolved after death is quite correct. One reason is that Shiton doesn't really have clearly defined afterdeath concept. Secondly, to assert Shintoism as a mere synthesis of Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism is quite off. FWBOarticle

Chinese & Koreans

Is there a breakout that lists the number of Koreans & Chinese honored at the Yasukuni Shrine ?--Woogie10w 02:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rambling non-NPOV

This paragraph doesn't seem NPOV (or particularly well-written, either) to me:

Another solution which is demanded by leftists (Socialists and Communists) and the Komeito (supported by the Soka Gakkai, a Buddhist group) is to create a separate secular memorial so that the Prime Minister can make official state visits to pay respect to the war dead. Though the proposal is probably the most politically correct one, it is often described as rather farcical. Critics point out that groups representing families of the war dead express no interest in such a memorial, preferring Yasukuni Shrine. Only those who are ideologically committed to demilitarization and the secular constitution of Japan would have any interest in such a site. Furthermore those Socialist, Communist and Komeito members are usually hostile to anything associated with Japanese militarism and are least likely to visit a memorial to pay their respects to the war dead. So the entire demand is farcical and mere political posturing to score ideological points. Critics point out that the proposed site for a secular memorial is deliberately located a great distance from Yasukuni Shrine. The Japanese government conducts yearly secular commemoration services in the Budokan for the families of soldiers killed in World War Two. Afterwards, these families usually make private visits to Yasukuni shrine, which is located only walking distance away from the Budokan. Were the ceremony to be relocated to the proposed memorial site, it would make such visits more difficult. Many see this as a leftist attempt to inconvenience the families and marginalize Yasukuni Shrine.

However, I'm not sure how best to edit it to fit: my first thought was to delete it entirely (most of it doesn't add much) but there are a few parts that would still bear mentioning. -210.54.99.8 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and tried to make this and a few others less POV in nature; I'd be interested in adding a bit more information and perhaps fleshing it out a bit. Unfortunately, user:Abab at the moment seems deadset on just reverting them without giving reasons or discussion (4 reverts in the last few hours), but I am fairly certain that the language I've put in place is clearly less POV in nature. LactoseTI 18:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I don't think this paragraph in "Political impact" section is appropriate. Tens of millions chinese were killed by Japanese during World War II. The protest to the shrine from China should not be interpolated by "Japanese observers", and it is nothing with Communism or the difference between Chinese and Japanese cultures. The pure, bloody fact is Japanese government and lots of japanese is still thinking there is nothing wrong with the war crime they did to the Asia neighbors.

"The government of the People's Republic of China has been the most vocal critic of the shrine and some Japanese observers have suggested that the issue of Yasukuni Shrine is just as heavily tied to China's internal politics as it is to the historical conduct of Japan's military and its perceived remorse for its actions. They state that tolerance on the part of Communist Party of China authorities for large-scale public protests in mainland China against the shrine contrasts strongly with the authority exercised against any kind of domestic political dissent. This has been interpreted as an effort by the party to channel public frustrations away from their rule, and preserve their legitimacy by aligning themselves with popular nationalist sentiments. Many have commented on the cultural difference between Chinese and Japanese cultures. Japanese culture, unlike Chinese culture, views one's crimes absolved after death."

Takeshima

I don't understand why Koizumi is visiting the Yasukuni war shrine. Doesn't he already know that Japan has a really strained relationship with Korea about Dokdo? Good friend100 05:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see what your comments about the issue of Takeshima has to do with the Yasukuni shrine. Are you suggesting more about this should be added to the main article body? Komdori 15:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because I asked a question about Dokdo/Takeshima doesn't mean it should be added to the article. The point is, the overall attitude of Japan, they are not sorry. A leader is supposed to be have strong leadership and that leader should make a good example of himself so that his people look up to him. Isn't that true?

It seems you are a little angry, enough to ask on my talk page. But, I am just asking why Koizumi is visiting the war shrine. Of course, there are other famous Japanese generals and leaders... Good friend100 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not angry at all, just I suspected it was more of a question reflecting political motives than a true desire to discuss improving this article, and so a waste of time. Some of the links available on the article already detail some of the reasons for the visits in addition to some already discussed in the article; read there, and if you think it's insufficient perhaps the article could be expanded? As far as I knew, Koizumi was only the leader of Japan, and so his duties are to them, not to Koreans. Komdori 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. You and the other user, was it LatoseIT? Just because I bring up the issue about the Dokdo doesn't mean I want to edit the article with Dokdo plastered all over it as propoganda.

Are you Korean or Japanese? Its because your username means "bear" in Korean.Good friend100 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He is Korean. Because he said Dokdo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.186.52 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV NPOV NPOV

Although victorious against the invading Japanese, Korea suffered great loss of life, looting of cultural artifacts, and significant damage to its economy. -Imjin War

Korean success in Siege of Jinju (1592) had saved this area from further devastation during the first invasion. -Imjin War

Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, a large number of innocent men were wrongfully identified as enemy combatants and killed. -Nanjing Massacre

Japan began the invasion of Manchuria, China. Several important battles ensued, such as Shanghai (1932), Great Wall (1933), and some agreements were signed between China and Japan which demilitarized parts of northern China in the proximity of Manchuria. -Nanjing Massacre

The Serbian army fought a defensive battle against the invading Austrian army... -WWI

between Nazi Germany in Western Europe and the invading Allied forces. -Battle of Normandy

officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people. -List of War Crimes

German Wehrmacht during its military actions engaged in executions of Polish POWs, bombed hospitals, murdered civilians, shot refugees,executed wounded soldiers. -List of War Crimes

North Vietnamese troops executed 2500 civilians while occupying the city of Hue -List of War Crimes

I added the articles where you can find them. "Executed" or "invasion" are both NPOV words used in different articles. I strongly suggest someone revert the edits. Good friend100 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed something--while execution is not a POV word, the fact is they were not all executed. It was an error of fact, not a POV change. In that particular list, I don't see what is lost by having it consistently say conflict. Saying otherwise makes it stand out as being unique in the list when it's not. Komdori 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The edits by Latose IT..he claims that "invade" and "execute" are POV and replaced them with "conflict" or "convicted". The references above show that execute or invade are ok NPOV words used in many articles. That is why I edited it. Good friend100 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed "execute" was a POV word. It's simply factually incorrect/misleading to say they were executed. It's explained further down in the article. Komdori is on to what I mean by "invasion"--having it in only some of the list makes it sounds like those events were different somehow. "Invasion" is often a very charged word since usually one side thinks of it/remembers it as an invasion and the other side doesn't. That's pretty much the definition of POV. LactoseTI 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I reedited the article because the word invasion is not POV. "Invasion" is simply what one country did to another. If "invasion", as you say, is a charged word, then how do explain the above sentences? Good friend100 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the point of the edit? Those sentences are not juxtaposed against others saying "conflict." You made the change, I guess, because you felt "invasion" held some "charge" that "conflict" didn't. That "charge" in this situation is what makes it POV. "Conflict" is fine, and loses nothing. What's more, it's clearly non-POV. It may be the case that during your search you found other things that should be changed as well. In this article's list, however, it said "conflict, conflict, conflict, conflict, invade, conflict." Doesn't the "invade" kind of stand out? I think so, and this is wrong--consistency should be the goal. LactoseTI 02:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Invasion is a "charge" and it should be credited to the invaders. A "charge" of the "invasion" word can be read in the examples that I wrote above.

"Although victorious against the invading Japanese, Korea suffered great loss of life, looting of cultural artifacts, and significant damage to its economy." There is a "charge" to the invaders, who are the Japanese. The sentence, to you, can be POV since it may look as if Japan is "bad". But the sentence is true.

If Japan didn't invade Korea, then what was it? A tea party? Or a "conflict"? "Conflict" of course is NPOV, but that is not the correct term. "Conflict" may look as if both sides have aggraveted each other. Did this happen when Japan invaded China, Korea, or Southeast Asia? Japan definitely invaded those countries. Good friend100 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so now we come to the main point--you feel Japan did something without provocation. If you bother to read at all from the primary sources at the time and documentary later, it's definitely not quite so clear. When we have a murky situation like this, it's better to be neutral, and not take either side. It's especially easy to make your error when one country lost (as Japan) because the winners have the opportunity to rewrite history.

One example might be Korea and Taiwan--one view is that they were annexed into part of the empire, which could be construed as a gift or blessing. Many older Taiwanese I've spoken/interviewed still remember the Japanese with fond words and credit them for their current mass transit systems, among other things. Both Koreans and Taiwanese with which I've spoken often eagerly brag about their knowledge of the Japanese language which they maintain from when they learned it when younger. My point is if Japan had won, I'd probably be on here warning some headstrong Japanese guy to be more neutral. Some might object to painting the above story without also pointing out that some feel it wasn't so nice. This is where NPOV comes in.

Futhermore, an article about a shrine is definitely not the place to be worried about such details--try going to the page describing the conflicts themselves. LactoseTI 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point. Are you saying Korea wanted to be annexed and liked it because "if it wasn't for Japan, Korea wouldn't be like this today". Good friend100 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying "invasion" is too strong of a word, and at least in this case is reflecting your POV. LactoseTI 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It cannot be. Invasion has been used in the above articles and they are not POV. I don't think you want to change every single "invasion" in the entire Wikipedia to "conflict". Good friend100 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not perfect, and in many cases "invasion" would be better off as "advancement" or "conflict." This case is more clear cut since there is a list that would otherwise seem to be drawing a distinction between the two terms. LactoseTI 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my point. Korea or China never aggravated Japan. Japan invaded them both. And its a conflict? The Japanese invaded and "invaded" is the right term for when any country decides to attack another without specific reasons other than to get their land, resources, or people.

"conflict" doesn't even make sense. "China and Japan went into a conflict". That sound's so much like as if both countries started a "war". But that is misleading. Japan invaded China and that is the point. Japan invaded China and Korea.

It seems you are pushing for "conflict" since you don't want the Japan side to look in a worse way. Thats too bad. Its Japan's fault for attacking the other countries and it cannot be erased off the history. Good friend100 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it might be valuable to save the above comment as a good example of a POV argument. Conflict with the Allied forces makes perfect sense. Yes, it's true that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. By your logic you might say it was unprovoked--but many non-military events led up to that occasion, and it's not so clear cut. The same applies to the conflicts that happened in Asia. Some feel Japan was forced into it. Others feel they did it unilateraly. The point is it all depends on your POV--so simply head off the issue by avoiding such language.

I don't see the instance you refer to ("Japan and Korea went into a conflict")--if such an instance exists, I agree it sounds like bad wording... the cases about which I was talking were simply the ones in the list of events from which spirits were enshrined. LactoseTI 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So whether it's an invasion depends on pov? Japan forced to bomb pearl harbor? Typical for a revisionist. You're pushing a revisionist pov by absurdly claming it's npov. Japan definitely invaded China, Korea, and the rest of Asia. You can't deny the fact that there were invasions by saying, oh poor japan, it was forced to invade these countries because the big bad america was not selling war material to it, oh poor japan. Stupid revisionist crap, please cut the illogical bullshit.

Although you clearly have an agenda, I suppose it's still worth bothering to reply for those following along. In other articles, the consensus has been to avoid even the term "occupation" since it was determined to be a POV term. Some may say the Americas were invaded by Europeans or that the moon was invaded by Americans. Conflict and invasion both get the point across--people died, and the spirits wound up in Yasukuni. One is debatable (invasion), one is not (conflict). What's more, one is POV (invasion), one is not (conflict). Please state how the Yasukuni article is harmed by having the term "conflict" instead of "invasion" when discussing where people died. LactoseTI 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My agenda is to prevent revisionists like you for mucking up decent articles. The term "occupaion" is used throught the articles, see post-invasion iraq, german occupation of france, and a whole list of japanese occupations. There is nothing debatable about wartime occupations, particularly in situations as specific and documented as ww2 occupations. So please point out where the concensus came from. Dont' try to push for revisionist pov by claiming that you're pushing npov, which is a really cheap tactic. And please do better to back up your statements than to resort to a ridiculous commment that the moon was "invaded" by americans.

I wasn't referring to the term "occupation" as used elsewhere in Wikipedia, but the consensus formed on this particular issue, leading to the current naming conventions on certain articles (abstaining from using the word occupation). While I think it's a bit overly sensitive to be worried about the word "occupation", if someone has a problem and there's an equally good way around it, why not? It wasn't so much a wartime occupation as an annexation (see the article on the period of Japanese control of Korea).

You seem to be missing the main point--how does the article on Yasukuni suffer from maintaining consistency in the list of events leading to deaths recognized by the shrine? LactoseTI 07:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"So whether it's an invasion depends on pov? Japan forced to bomb pearl harbor? Typical for a revisionist. You're pushing a revisionist pov by absurdly claming it's npov. Japan definitely invaded China, Korea, and the rest of Asia. You can't deny the fact that there were invasions by saying, oh poor japan, it was forced to invade these countries because the big bad america was not selling war material to it, oh poor japan. Stupid revisionist crap, please cut the illogical bullshit."

I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE COMMENT. Don't misunderstand me. I don't swear!! Good friend100 00:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Typical thoughts pervasing in westerners, never understand the relation between 日本 and 中國.Geistcj 17:38, 19, September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but there is an article on State Shinto that could possibly answer some of your questions... TomorrowTime (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Camp Labour

In the article it says that one of the eligible categories for the shrine is to have died in Soviet labour camps after the war. Is does not cites sources, can someone add them? Was it during the pre-WWII border wars between Japan and the USSR? --190.49.170.142 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Eligible categories" section of the article is a point of discontent for me. I've sourced most everything else in the article except that section... because I can't find a source. I'm hesitant to delete it all, however, because it seems like great information. Can anyone else help me out with finding some sources for these? Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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.[2] 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

I would like to add that the current and previous Emperors refusal to visit the shrine has a few implications in terms of 1) Hirohito's acknowledgement of the Potsdam Declaration 2) The succession of the new head priest at Yasukuni who replaced Tsukuba (his name was Matsudaira) and 3) Perhaps Japan's normalizing relations with China around the same time. I am currently finishing a Masters thesis on Yasukuni, so if anyone has any interest in continuing this thread, perhaps I can add some peer reviewed sources in order to expand on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokones (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely Edited

I beg all of your time to read the page as designed now. I split off all the controversy topics on to that article and attempted to "neutralize" or make dispassionate the discussions as it appears that some people who had made additions were of one particular political bent. Also for those who understand shrine Shinto, the passage of the festivals is one of the most important aspects of a Shinto shrine. Yet this shrine had no festivals listed. I added them. I have been to this shrine and toured the facilities in depth as well as having been the only gaijin to have visited the inner shrine in recent historical memory. I agree that there needs to be a thoughtful discussion of the museum and the controversies, however clearly significant bias has crept into the articles. I am currently doing a documentary film on Yasukuni and have had lots of access where others have not. I do feel that a remake was needed and I took almost 8 hours of editing to get there. I also added that there has been a new release of information (2007 new) from the Japanese Diet Library detailing the relationship between the government and Yasukuni. It is all in Japanese, but I am trying to acquire a copy for reference here. Give me a chance to help as I do understand these topics well. Takashi Ueki —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Who Controls Yasukuni Shrine?

I think it would be good for the article to discuss who it is that actually controls Yasukuni Shrine. After all, the main reason that Yasukuni is controversial is that the new Chief Priest in 1978 decided to enshrine the Class A war criminals. Were it not for this act, the whole controversy would have been avoided, and the Asian nations would not be so upset. So who chooses the Chief Priest? And how does one get to be one of the choosers? According to the Japan Times article at http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090613a2.html the Chief Priest is chosen by the "representatives of the shrine attendees". But how are these representatives chosen? And if they are elected by the "shrine attendees", then who gets to be considered a "shrine attendee"? If you regularly attend services at Yasukuni and contribute money, are you then a "shrine attendee"? Or are "shrine attendees" strictly decided by the oligarchy that currently rules Yasukuni? For too long, these issues have gone unexplained. After all, if a new Chief Priest were chosen who would dis-enshrine all the Class A war criminals, then the whole controversy would be gone. A major international issue would be resolved. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As with most of the Shinto Shrines that are of antiquity, they are run by families. Usually a father-son relationship. There are paritioners who may have some minimal sway in the decisions, but typically very few candidates qualify as it takes a lifetime to memorize all of the rituals and practices needed to be a Shinto Priest (guji). Most priests are picked in advance of the change many years ahead and trained for the job coming. They may be "picked" but in reality it was a pre-determined decision.

You vastly oversimplify the situation, you can't just separate some kami from the rest like taking a slice of bread from the loaf. It simply does not work that way. Takashi Ueki (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then how was the Chief Priest in 1978 able to "add slices to the loaf"? It shouldn't work that way either. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Japanese Communist Party's news paper Shimbun Akahata web site[3], former Chief Justices of Japan Kazuto Ishida who was the chairman of Eirei ni kotaeru kai (英霊にこたえる会; literally means, Association of Replying the War Dead Sprits) persuaded Nagayoshi Matsudaira to accede to the new Chief Priest in 1978. The web site is comunist, however some Japanese non comunist informal web sites write so too. I think it seems true.--Bukubku (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Other Options

What tends to get overlooked is that there are other non-controversial options for honoring the war dead in Tokyo: Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery, 東京都戦没者霊苑, and 東京都慰霊堂. It can be claimed that certain Japanese politicians are trying to stick it in the face of other Asians by purposely choosing Yasukuni over these other options every August. --Westwind273 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

靖 vs 靖

Why, I have no idea, but if I copy-paste 靖 "as is" and save it, it turns into 靖, with　a 月 instead of a 円. So it has to be kept as 靖. Jpatokal (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Unicode specifications state that 靖 and 靖 are the same, but they are displayed as kyūjitai and shinjitai respectively. I guess that Wikipedia "knows" that they are the same according to the Unicode specifications and thus changes the characters to the shinjitai variants. Same with the kyūjitai for 神社 which must be stored as 神社. Very annoying since it makes the source harder to read. I inserted the kyūjitai for jinja by the way, since the kyūjitai name used the shinjitai version of these characters. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC))

Controversies

If there is to be any discussion of the controversies here. 1. It needs to be unbiased. 2. It needs to be fact checked and cited. 3. It needs to be a rational approach to the article. This article is about the Shrine itself, the addition that the information as written was unfortuanately innaccurate. The government had no say in the enshrinement. It was not done "secretly'. It was not an attempt on the governments side to enshrine war criminals intentionally. The Prime Ministers visit only on personal time and not "official visits" which are completely separate events. There needs to be careful thought put in to any changes of this type. I do disagree with the changes made. Please cite all sources and do not create inflammatory statements. Takashi Ueki (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, all statements should be sourced and cited. But the controversy surrounding the shrine is more than worthy of mentioning in this article. Some statements already have some sources, others could use more. Any statements that you think are blatantly incorrect, feel free to remove or correct them. Do not just delete them, however, as that is not promoting any further editing and correction. --Torsodog^Talk 15:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree a mension of it is needed, however I had this article at "B" grade without the mess that caused. This is a Shinto Shrine first and foremost. If the contraversies need to be mensioned, link it to the controversies site and let the reader get a full discussion of these topics. I am currently working on that site as well, and will flesh out the complete story there as well. The shrine is dedicated to 2.6 million other dead as well. I liken this to having an article on Arlington Cemetary, but having 25% of the article about Mai Lai, or any other War crime that the dead buried there may have caused. It is generally unnecessary, except to redirect to a full discussion of the actual facts as this is a complex matter. I stripped it down before due to the problems it caused, and vandalism it attracted. Takashi Ueki (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from. When I first starting editing this article about a year ago, the Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine article did not exist and ALL of that text was in this article. It was about 90% about the controversy and 10% about the shrine. That is why I created the controversy article and dumped most of the text in there. I don't mind if you edit the section now, as long as it exists in some form. --Torsodog^Talk 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad that we agree - I shortened it to the base discussion and put it near the end. I want to make sure that we are sensitive to to the millions of Japanese families whos sons and daughters are enshrined here and they honor for their service to country. To them, the controversies are irrelevant and the Shrine is one to honor their family dead who died in the war. Also I find it interesting that other Asian countries feel that they have the right to tell each other how and when they can honor their war dead. I doubt that China would respond well to Japan telling them that the massacres of the communit revolution require that the Communist leaders of today never pay resepcts to their predecessors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Added to Chart Section a reference to the Class A, B, and C War Criminals as it seems that should be referenced in the Chart as the Chart provides a summary of the War Dead included and it seemed to me that this amendment could present this matter simply and clearly for completeness. Students may provide such summaries in papers and hence, it is good that the Chart be as complete as possible. If an supervising editor does not agree, they will be able to simply reverse edit.Charley sf (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the controversy

Hi there. I have edited the part of the controversy section for clarity, and have wikified the more esoteric terms so that readers will be able to get to them more easily. I hope I haven't disrupted the good work that has been done here! Elchori01 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Word "Controversial" Should Be Somewhere In The Opening Paragraphs

Hello. I believe that to have an article on the Yasukuni Shrine and not make a single comment in the opening paragraphs about how controversial this shrine is not only to millions of Japanese citizens in Japan but to millions living all across Asia is nothing less than a whitewash of an extremely crucial aspect of the subject under focus here. Ferocious differences in opinion exist throughout Japan as well as in the numerous countries that suffered so terribly under the oppression of millions of soldiers being worshiped regularly at Yasukuni. Additionally, annual visits to the shrine by domestic politicians is a huge controversy as well, to say nothing of the Class-A war criminals whose remains were so surreptitiously slipped into the shrine.

In sum, to neglect at the very least to identify this place of worship as "controversial" somewhere in the opener is nothing less than a failure by Wikipedia to have the courage to face up to the facts. Thank you122.26.23.104 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. WP:LEAD mandates that we summarize "the most important points—including any prominent controversies" in the lead paragraphs. Reverters' arguments that "it's already in a controversy section"[4][5] don't address this norm. Without quickly mentioning the controversies, this article isn't useful. After all, the only reason why non-Japanese ever hear of Yasukuni Shrine is because of the yearly explosion of pan-East Asian outrage when some right-wing pol pays his respect to the war criminals at this shrine. I just did a search on Google News for "Yasukuni shrine",[6] and here are the first three blurbs that come up: "Tokyo's controversial Yasukuni shrine, often seen as a symbol of Japan's wartime aggression," (London Telegraph); "Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine where Japanese war criminals are enshrined" (Korea Times); "the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japan's war dead including Class-A war criminals" (China Daily). Of course Wikipedia doesn't need to follow exactly these sources' description of the shrine, but there must be some substantial acknowledgement of the contemporary controversy in the lead paragraphs. Shrigley (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a more neutral single-sentence mention of the war criminal controversy to the lede. It's not reasonable that the article has a sizable controversy section that isn't mentioned at all in the lede, which is intended to summarise the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction Edition

I spotted some spelling mistakes while reading the introduction (Japan's, not Japans). Someone should check that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.245.38.143 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of duplicated subsections

I deleted the detail of the section Controversy because the section has a main article Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine.

The subsections correspond to each other:

- Enshrinement of war criminals
- Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine#War criminals
- Yūshūkan
- Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine#Yūshūkan War Museum
- Political visits
- Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine#Politicians' visits
- December 2011 Arson attack
- Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine#December 2011 Arson attack

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Lead

Recently, there have been some significant changes to the lead of this article, covering both issues of NPOV and also issues of wordiness, as well as striking a balance between the two. As it stands right now, the lead has been purged to the bare minimum, containing an extremely brief description of the shrine. However, for an article of this size, I think such a lead fails to provide a completely adequate overview of the article; in particular, it misses out quite important aspects of the article such as the significant political controversy associated with the Shrine, including enshrinement of war criminals and political visits by Japanese prime ministers. Even for the purpose of just describing the Shrine itself, the lead itself is still extremely vague and performs poorly in summarizing and introducing the article.

Here is what I think might be a good lead for the article. Please feel free to comment and suggest improvements:

Yasukuni Shrine (靖国神社or靖國神社, Yasukuni Jinja) is a Shinto shrine in Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan. It was founded by Emperor Meiji to commemorate any individuals who had died in service of the Empire of Japan during the Meiji Restoration.^[1] The shrine's purpose has been expanded over the years and now lists the names, origins, birthdates, and places of death of 2,466,532 men, women and children from conflicts spanning from the Boshin War of 1868 to the end of World War II.^[2]

The Honden shrine commemorates anyone who died on behalf of the Empire, including not only soldiers, relief workers, factory workers, and other citizens, but also those not of Japanese ethnicity such as Taiwanese and Koreans who served Japan. There is also an archive library which collects information about each individual enshrined, numerous statues and memorials, and a conservative war museum which has attracted some controversy for presenting a revisionist view on history.

Controversies and political tension have arisen due to the enshrinement at Yasukuni of over 1,000 war criminals, including 14 "Class A" war criminals, from World War II and the shrine's historical revisionism, and intensified following visits by senior government officials such as prime ministers Yasuhiro Nakasone, Ryutaro Hashimoto, Junichiro Koizumi, and Shinzo Abe, in addition to foreign politicians such as Lee Teng-hui, whose brother is enshrined in the honden.^[3] The only requirement for being enshrined is to have died in service of the Empire of Japan, as such the shrine owners felt there was no reason to exclude those convicted of crimes.^[4]^[5] The inclusion of their names causes political tension, particularly with China and South Korea, who argue that it is evidence Japan denies any wrongdoing during World War II. Supporters have argued that rejecting their names for enshrinement would remove them from the Empire of Japan's service thus denying they existed or committed any crimes on behalf of the Emperor. Some far-left politicians see the shrine as a symbol of Japanese imperialism, while some far-right politicians consider the shrine a symbol of patriotism.^[6]

The first paragraph is largely identical to the lead as it is now, and briefly describes the shrine in a non-specific way, as described in WP:LEAD. The second paragraph's purpose is to expand on the first paragraph's specific definition of the lead, and include more non-specific information, including details of who is and who is not enshrined, and brief details of other parts of the shrine.

The final paragraph has the purpose of introducing the political significance of the shrine, which is tied directly to visits by prominent politicians, and the enshrinement of war criminals, in addition to giving a brief overview of the various political viewpoints on the shrine itself.

The above generally fulfills the requirements of the lead, to provide a brief 'mini-article' that generally sums up the points visited the during the main article, without becoming overly long, including trivial or overly-specific information, or excluding information key to the main points of the article itself.Zmflavius (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks POV-pushing. There's already an entire article for the controversy, including a large section in the main article. I think just mentioning it briefly in the lead is good enough. Otherwise, I suggest a merge or redirect to the controversy article(which is heavily one sided that I hesitate to go on it). I'd say the current lead is more neutral (even though this article is technically not about the controversy, there's another entire article for that, including a huge section in this article). But I support mentioning it briefly in the lead. If not, then I suggest merging or redirecting to the controversy article. To be honest though, I think the lead before December 26 was better for this article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

TBH, I don't really see how it counts as POV pushing; It's simply fact that Yasukuni Shrine in very large part is famous precisely because of these controversies, not to mention that I have a difficult time seeing what POV is being pushed precisely. While we are on this subject, it's also important to note that NPOV does not mean "balanced", and being "unbalanced" alone should not be grounds for rewriting an article; Wikipedia does not give equal weight to all viewpoints, merely significant viewpoints backed up by RS. For this reason, to present both significant and fringe viewpoints (see WP:FRINGE) as being of equal weight would in fact be POV, by giving undue weight (See WP:UNDUE) to those viewpoints. In the context of Yasukuni Shrine for example, this means not giving equal weight to both mainstream historiography on Japanese history, and the relatively fringe historiography advocated by the Yushukan museum, except in the context of presenting the viewpoints as so advocated (for which reason, I also have difficulty seeing why the controversy article is unbalanced; while we are on this subject, could you list some reasons as to why it and this article are apparently unbalanced, and how you think these should be corrected)?

Having said all of the above, the third paragraph does seem a bit wordy to me, but I also am unsure of what precisely should be cut. Obviously, in its present form, the lead is quite inadequate, making no mention of the above political controversies, however all of the sentences, while they could be trimmed, present a relevant aspect of the controversy (the existence of the controversy, the reason (war criminal enshrinement), the visits by politicians, and domestic viewpoints).Zmflavius (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then like I said, this article should be redirected or merged into to the controversies article. According to you, the Yasukuni shrine is all about those evil unrepenting Japs worshipping their Jap Hitlers (despite the fact that only a very small minority of Japanese deny the crimes). There are also rumors that the Japs gloss over WWII completely, even though that's not the case. I doubt communist China's education is any better than the current evil Jap nation and race. But since superpower China and war criminal-loving Japs are both considered very intelligent and loved compared to other nations it doesn't matter.

In any case, here are some earlier versions of the page. It didn't mention the controversies anywhere in the lead, especially since there's another whole article on it. Regarding the controversy article, I haven't gone on it at all recently, so here's what it looked like before December 26, and the changes it went through since then wasn't much on the lead, although I'm afriad to read what the 50 centers wrote on the rest of the article. I think it's best to leave the tension and politics out at this point, like for example the Liancourt Rocks mentions very briefly the dispute, although that big dispute is all those rocks are only known for. However, they also have another whole article covering the dispute. This shouldn't be an exception. Just like this reason, this article should be about what the shrine is about with the controversy going on its own respective article, but still obviously included in this article too. Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liancourt_Rocks&action=edit and I think should apply to this article at this point. Keep in mind the dokdo controversy is bigger than this religious shrine, but yet, they still pretty much leave it completely out of the lead. So in conclusion, I think we should also avoid the tension and politics on this religious shrine. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the hyperbolic tone is quite out of place, and not really appropriate to a talk page (WP:BATTLEGROUND), and request that you dial it back a bit. Secondly, I also think it's quite out of place to dismiss the work of other editors as "50-centers," specifically in this case Sekicho, but also anyone else whom you've seen fit to denigrate in your response, particularly if the basis is that they disagree with you. Thirdly, it frankly seems to be the case here that your purpose on wikipedia is to suppress as much an appearance as possible of controversies related to the Yasukuni Shrine, because as you describe it, it's "communist 50-center propaganda," and apparently makes you feel uncomfortable, something which is also not appropriate for wikipedia. Fourthly, you seem to be under the impression that the article is almost exclusively anti-Japanese propaganda (or possibly not, since you have insinuated you're too afraid to read the rest of the article), whereas it is in fact the case that the presence of text relating to the controversies is actually relatively proportionate to the text on the example given in the Liancourt Rocks (it has less, actually; the Liancourt Rocks text has a full section devoted to it, and a link to the main article; this article merely references it in one of the subsections) and a reference to said controversy in the lead. Fifthly, I will ask again whether you have any coherent points to make about the lead, despite your recent screed and apparent purpose to suppress information relating to the controversy. Finally, I would suggest you have a good readthrough of WP:CIV, before posting any further here.Zmflavius (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll dial it back a bit. And I never "specifically" dismissed anyone as a 50-center. I have re-added the controversies, but keep in mind that there's already a section devoted to it in this article, as well as another whole article for it. But read these [7][8][9]. Do they also look like supressing controversy in the lead? And yes, the 3rd paragraph did look a bit wordy and a little bit anti-Jap in my opinion. But to be honest, I think the lead before December 26 was better or any similar to it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My opinion remains the same before, that since the role of the lead is to provide a brief overview of the entire article, it certainly should not neglect a substantial part of that article's topic. For this reason, if the lead is missing certain inconvenient facts, it would be failing in role as a lead. As I see it, the lead fulfills its role now.Zmflavius (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so the lead fullfills its role now. Geuss I misunderstood your intent at first. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

References

^ "History". Retrieved 2008-03-23.
^ "Deities". Retrieved 2008-04-13.
^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-japan-taiwan-lee-idUSSP1617120070607
^ http://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/about/
^ http://personal.stthomas.edu/smsletten/yasukuni/aboutyasukuni/yasukunikami.html
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19987251

Date Error

"Guji (Chief priests)： Term of office

   Kiyoshi Aoyama (青山清): 16 July 1879 – 6 February 1879 (died in office)"

The term is obviously incorrect (ended before it began?).

108.180.121.95 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Terrible English

In the timeline section the following sentence appears:

"Pope John Paul II hold a mas keping the PaulVI ward and hold a mass for all the fallen in secod warld war on Pacific battle fields but he only blessed the pagoda with the names of Japaneese from Yasukuni shrine,and ttalk with the zen monk from the shrine he made no special atention for the pagoda with the names off falen and over 1000 executed Japaneese criminals Jaspaneese,he did not prayed for them but for all fallen Asian people including Japaneese that died or where killed in second warld war in East Asia.."

I hope someone can correct it. JimBreen (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yasukuni Shrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120623070135/http://www.cnngo.com:80/tokyo/visit/mitama-matsuri to http://www.cnngo.com/tokyo/visit/mitama-matsuri

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yasukuni Shrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070129043243/http://www.transpacificradio.com:80/2006/09/09/seijigiri-3/ to http://www.transpacificradio.com/2006/09/09/seijigiri-3/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yasukuni Shrine. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417170354/http://www.japanfocus.org:80/products/details/2060 to http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2060

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) 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Yasukuni Shrine. 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) 21:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yasukuni Shrine. 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) 23:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yasukuni Shrine or Yasukuni Jinja?

The official name of Yasukuni Shrine is Yasukuni Jinja as can be seen in the English pages of its official web site: http://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/forvisitors.html

Times have changed since all things Japanese had to be explained and translated and now we know that sushi is not just "raw fish" and "harakiri" is not seppuku. If you google "Yasukuni Shrine" you may notice that among the only sources that use the wording "Yasukuni Shrine" Wikipedia is the leader. Yasukuni Jinja, meanwhile, calls itself in English what it is: Yasukuni Jinja.

--EsperantoItaliano (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Yasukuni Radha Binod Pal Commending Stele.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Abe and Nippon Kaigi

the multiple visits by Abe and the strong reactions by China and Korea should probably be mentioned in the lead section, not just the very expansive chronology. Also the entire article does not mention the Nippon Kaigi organisation once, which seems like a notable omission. There is an entire book on the subject, Yasukuni Fundamentalism, so sourcing should not be an issue. -- jonas (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Enshrined pets

I removed a claim that pets are honored at the shrine, as this information is not reflected in the cited source and I couldn't find another. If someone else can back this up, feel free to reinstate it. Candent shlimazel (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Candent shlimazel at first glance I found this https://muza-chan.net/japan/index.php/blog/dog-statue-yasukuni-shrine not exactly a reliable source but it supports the idea that pets that died in the war play some kind of role Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Why no controversy section?

Given that the shrine is best known for enshrining convicted war criminals and serving as a gathering point for Japanese ultranationalists, it seems quite strange that this article makes no mention of these facts at all. 120.17.39.216 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

yes this is odd. There is also no mention of its continued symbolic value to politics. With prime ministers or former prime ministers also choosing to visit or not to visit the shrine. Tornbetween (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tornbetween and IP - see Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine. It's mentioned+linked in the middle of the second lead paragraph.

If I had to guess, the idea was to split the building itself from the political storm surrounding it. Not sure if I agree with that process, but that's the status quo. Couruu (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. As of now there is a small section of the article that covers 2 parts of the controversy article, the war criminal portion in great detail. Maybe it would be better to instead leave a reference to the Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine article and add a small summary? I would be up to make this change when I am free. Of course it can always be reverted. Tornbetween (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE = according to wiki rules, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." and

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)"

The guidelines offer an excellent example of how to incorporate information regarding minority perspectives. the controversy surrounding the shrine is not a minority view. I don't understand why there is a separate article for information about the shrine's controversy. wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to provide a wide variety of information, including information about sensitive topics. Shouldn't the two articles be merged?

WP:OM - "Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend." LilAhok (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine is 6,000 words of readable prose, while Yasukuni Shrine itself is around 2,500 - combined, they would probably make up around 8,000 (eliminating redundancies). If merged, this article would become around 75% controversy - which is undue weight.

I do believe a solution similar to Nestle would be appropriate - a controversy section outlining the main issues (that isn't buried under History), with a "main article" link to the other page. Couruu (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I agree, a nested controversy section linking to the larger article seems appropriate. I will get to work on this when I find the time after the semester has quieted down. Tornbetween (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

[1] "History". Retrieved 2008-03-23.

[deities-2] "Deities". Retrieved 2008-04-13.

[3] ttp://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-japan-taiwan-lee-idUSSP1617120070607

[4] ttp://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/about/

[5] ttp://personal.stthomas.edu/smsletten/yasukuni/aboutyasukuni/yasukunikami.html

[6] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19987251

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]