Talk:Meiji era

message: I'm by no means an expert on Japanese history, but from my reading I find this account a bit uncritical of the actions of the oligarch-politicians of the Meiji era. For example I would argue that to properly deal with the movement for a representative assembly, or the minken popular rights movement, you'd have to deal with how far and for whom 'popular rights' was mainly ploy for achieving political power rather than disinterested idealism. For example, many were easily bought off and coopted into government. The minken movement was temporarily abandoned in April 1874 when these outsiders were extended a carrot of participation.
It should also be made clear that when mainstream Japanese political thinkers at this time talked about giving representation to 'the people', while they might have meant to imply an organic nature and a national destiny in a similar way to the European nationalist tradition, they were politically referring to the shizoku, the noble estate. They often criticised the 'common people' for their ignorance and moral character.
I'd recomend P.Varley, Japanese Culture (New York, 1984)
H.Wray and H.Conroy (eds.), Japan Examined: Perspectives on Modern Japanese History (Honolulu, 1983(
--Rich Shore 14:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This complaint is now over 7 years old. Has this issue been satisfactorily resolved? — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  10:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics or ideology? 

message: As in subject. Can we have some? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures needed 

message: Did the era begin in 1867, or 1868? This article contradicts itself. Brutannica 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Era beginning

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
#Strong Support Scholar.google.com shows usage almost equally divided, and since the purely chronological use must be era, this is the more convenient usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call 4,070 versus 3,040 "almost equally divided". And nobody is claiming that the term "Meiji era" is unheard of, or even wrong, which is why it shows up in your search. But the use of the term Meiji Period (明治時代) could only be controversial for people who aren't familiar with the subject (as is evidenced by the need to consult Google in the first place), or who are motivated by misconceptions (as Švitrigaila seems to be in his series of incorrect statements above about the treatment of "periods" in Japanese history).-Jefu 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Meiji Period is a universal way of refering to" [the subject of this article] sounds remarkably like such a claim. For the purpose of determining the name of this article, Japanese usage is almost immaterial; whether or not there is a consensus Japanese term, the question here is how it is most commonly and conveniently represented in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English dictionaries and encyclopedias are more likely to consider "Meiji" to be a period rather than an era, even if you throw out Google counts as you seem to be suggesting.  As I stated below, Meiji is a period according to Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia Americana, and Encyclopedia Britannica.  Therefore, Meiji period is considered to be more correct in English.--Endroit 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Oxford English Dictionary as well: OED.-Jefu 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the OED's entry for Meiji. It cites two quotations that use "Meiji era" and none that use "Meiji period". It tends to use period itself, but so what?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. The definition of Meiji in the OED describes it as a period, just like the MW reference (which I notice you failed to criticize). And as I already pointed out, nobody is saying that "era" is unheard of or not used. Your Google search, in which Meiji period edged out Meiji era by about a 33% margin, already made that clear. This is also why I added "era" references to all of the articles in question, since on some level Švitrigaila did have a legitimate point, and was obviously confused. What I'm curious to know is whether there is some specific experience you have had (perhaps books or articles you have personally read, or any experience with Japanese history at all) that have lead you to be the only person to vote so far who believes so strongly that we should move the article to "Meiji era". Otherwise, I think the vote, and all of the reasons that have already been given by everyone, speak for themselves.-Jefu 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do speak for themselves. Jefu has now twice misquoted himself, and misrepresented the OED. Further deductions would be uncivil speculation.  As for the substantive point, my experience is that Meiji era is common, and Showa era was almost universal. No substantive argument, other than an exaggeration of a 4-3 google result into alleged meaning, has been made to the contrary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has become tiresome. I have not misquoted myself or anyone else, nor have I misrepresented anything. My comment above was all of "And the Oxford English Dictionary as well: OED", which means you need to refer to the post above it for context. And that post says, "English dictionaries...are more likely to consider "Meiji" to be a period...." which is exactly what both MW and the OED do. On the other hand, calling a 3,000 versus 4,000 Google contest (not even in your favor, no less) "almost equally divided" as support for your position is probably the clearest misrepresentation in this entire discussion, other than Švitrigaila's claim to knowledge of Japanese history and terminology that began it in the first place. And as for the substantive arguments, there are several below. And note that nobody has claimed the Google statistics in support of Meiji period, including myself. I have only pointed out why it is not support for moving the article, as you claim it is. Everyone who has voted below, including myself, is speaking from familiarity with the subject, not from Google statistics. I've already engaged you too much already. This will be my last response to you on the subject.-Jefu 08:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to hear that; since you have now misrepresented my position also. You have a majority, so this ill-advised and unidiomatic name will stay; so be it - but I still dislike it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Strong Support Scholar.google.com shows usage almost equally divided, and since the purely chronological use must be era, this is the more convenient usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call 4,070 versus 3,040 "almost equally divided". And nobody is claiming that the term "Meiji era" is unheard of, or even wrong, which is why it shows up in your search. But the use of the term Meiji Period (明治時代) could only be controversial for people who aren't familiar with the subject (as is evidenced by the need to consult Google in the first place), or who are motivated by misconceptions (as Švitrigaila seems to be in his series of incorrect statements above about the treatment of "periods" in Japanese history).-Jefu 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Meiji Period is a universal way of refering to" [the subject of this article] sounds remarkably like such a claim. For the purpose of determining the name of this article, Japanese usage is almost immaterial; whether or not there is a consensus Japanese term, the question here is how it is most commonly and conveniently represented in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English dictionaries and encyclopedias are more likely to consider "Meiji" to be a period rather than an era, even if you throw out Google counts as you seem to be suggesting.  As I stated below, Meiji is a period according to Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia Americana, and Encyclopedia Britannica.  Therefore, Meiji period is considered to be more correct in English.--Endroit 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Oxford English Dictionary as well: OED.-Jefu 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the OED's entry for Meiji. It cites two quotations that use "Meiji era" and none that use "Meiji period". It tends to use period itself, but so what?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. The definition of Meiji in the OED describes it as a period, just like the MW reference (which I notice you failed to criticize). And as I already pointed out, nobody is saying that "era" is unheard of or not used. Your Google search, in which Meiji period edged out Meiji era by about a 33% margin, already made that clear. This is also why I added "era" references to all of the articles in question, since on some level Švitrigaila did have a legitimate point, and was obviously confused. What I'm curious to know is whether there is some specific experience you have had (perhaps books or articles you have personally read, or any experience with Japanese history at all) that have lead you to be the only person to vote so far who believes so strongly that we should move the article to "Meiji era". Otherwise, I think the vote, and all of the reasons that have already been given by everyone, speak for themselves.-Jefu 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do speak for themselves. Jefu has now twice misquoted himself, and misrepresented the OED. Further deductions would be uncivil speculation.  As for the substantive point, my experience is that Meiji era is common, and Showa era was almost universal. No substantive argument, other than an exaggeration of a 4-3 google result into alleged meaning, has been made to the contrary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has become tiresome. I have not misquoted myself or anyone else, nor have I misrepresented anything. My comment above was all of "And the Oxford English Dictionary as well: OED", which means you need to refer to the post above it for context. And that post says, "English dictionaries...are more likely to consider "Meiji" to be a period...." which is exactly what both MW and the OED do. On the other hand, calling a 3,000 versus 4,000 Google contest (not even in your favor, no less) "almost equally divided" as support for your position is probably the clearest misrepresentation in this entire discussion, other than Švitrigaila's claim to knowledge of Japanese history and terminology that began it in the first place. And as for the substantive arguments, there are several below. And note that nobody has claimed the Google statistics in support of Meiji period, including myself. I have only pointed out why it is not support for moving the article, as you claim it is. Everyone who has voted below, including myself, is speaking from familiarity with the subject, not from Google statistics. I've already engaged you too much already. This will be my last response to you on the subject.-Jefu 08:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to hear that; since you have now misrepresented my position also. You have a majority, so this ill-advised and unidiomatic name will stay; so be it - but I still dislike it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: # Oppose — "Meiji" is an era as well as a period.  However, it is more commonly referred to as a period.  Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia Americana, and Encyclopedia Britannica all refer to it as the Meiji period (or the period), but never the Meiji era (or the era).--Endroit 20:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: Is there room for a paragraph on the introduction of compulsory education, or is the matter dealt with more fully on another page?andycjp (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This should go in the section-stub called "Society". — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: How about one of these sections? It would be interesting to see a list of works set in the Meiji era. --217.76.87.120 (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, it wouldn't. That's not what Wikipedia is for. And "a list of works" isn't even what "In popular culture" sections are for (they are for concise annotation of some exemplary and genuinely notable cases of influence of the subject on popular culture, and not all articles here, by any means, need such a section. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  10:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Meiji era in popular culture

message: Why is this listed in the "See Also" section?  From what I know about it it's simply a manga that has some historical underpinnings.  If a popular culture section is included then this would be pertinent, but it is not another historical source of information.  Looking for input as to why this is listed.  Robin.dave (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, as it is not appropriate for the "See also" section, and borders on spammy/promotional. If we listed every piece of fiction set roughly in this period, we'd have thousands of entries in the "See also" section. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rurouni Kenshin 

message: This article is missing all information about the insanely influential Meiji period art, which (through influencing Art Nouveau almost as much as Arts and Crafts did) helped define modernity in art and design. It was also, in turn, reflexively influenced  Nouveau and, later, early Art Deco.  The "Society" section is also devoid of all other humanties information – literature, philosophy, poetry, music, film and other arts, education, etc.  Given the enormous impact of Meiji art, and the intensive cross-polination it represents between East and West, the omission borders on the absurd. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arts and humanities 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Meiji period. 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  tag to http://dispatch.opac.ddb.de/DB=4.1/PPN?PPN=128842709
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130209204039/http://ndl.go.jp/scenery/kansai/e/column/osaka_army_arsenal.html to http://www.ndl.go.jp/scenery/kansai/e/column/osaka_army_arsenal.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://eprints.bice.rm.cnr.it/3078/1/La_rivalutazione_della_narrativa_premoderna_nella_critica_letteraria_Meiji_-_Milasi.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reiwa period which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Presently in the article there is a section headed "Conversion table" containing "To convert any Gregorian calendar year between 1868 and 1912 to Japanese calendar year in Meiji era, 1867 needs to be subtracted from the year in question." and a table that maps years of the Meiji era to AD years. It seems to me that the instruction to subtract 1867 from the number gives all the information necessary, and the reader doesn't need to be shown what happens for each number from 1868 to 1912 what happens when you subtract 1867 from it. This is already a long article, it could be much longer, and it doesn't need a lot of space given to this one piece of information. The sentence explaining the conversion could go early in the article and there would be no need for a table or a dedicated section. I welcome other input on what should happen to the table. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing it from the article. If anyone wants it replaced, please continue the discussion here. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion table 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Meiji (era) →  – Natural disambiguation is preferred. Interstellarity (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 October 2022