Talk:Hirohito surrender broadcast

Requested move 13 September 2020

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Jewel Voice Broadcast → Broadcast in the Emperor's Own Voice – The translation of "Gyokuon-hōsō" as "Jewel Voice Broadcast" is a literal translation of the Japanese that misunderstands the function of the "gyoku." In this context, honorific "gyoku" refers to the emperor. See https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%8E%89, in particular, the definition "③天子に関係ある事物につける美称。 「玉音・玉顔・玉座・玉璽・玉体」。" Alan Thwaits (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Alanthwaits, What is the name used in reliable English-language sources? According to guidelines (WP:Article titles) this is key. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, There are two reliable sources given in the references: (1) "The coup against the Emperor's broadcast that never was" (Kyodo, Japan Times) refers to the recording as the "Emperor's broadcast." (2) "Text of Hirohito's Radio Rescript" (New York Times, p. 3, 15 August 1945) refers to the recording as "Hirohito's Radio Rescript." Just about everywhere else, one finds "Jewel Voice Broadcast." If the title is determined by popular usage, I guess we have to live with the incorrect translation. I would favor "the Emperor's broadcast," as it conforms to Japanese etiquette prohibiting mention of the emperor's name. User:Alanthwaits 15 September 2020

• Relisting note: relisting to allow further input, particularly bilingual. SITH (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per several papers from a quick search of Google Scholar: this and this as examples, many more are here. For the purposes of this discussion, what it's called in Japanese is irrelevant. We must use the most common title given in English-language sources, if they exist (which they do, in this case). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reaffirm. I don't think we can say that "what it's called in Japanese is irrelevant." After all, "Jewel Voice Broadcast" purports to be a translation of "Gyokuon Hoso," only it turns out to be a particularly bad translation. I don't think you would ever catch the Japan Times using this translation. I have seen other poor translations gradually fall by the wayside oh so slowly. For example, "sosho" (草書) was formerly literally translated as "grass characters," but 草 also means "rough," and so today "sosho" is gradually coming to be translated as "cursive script." Unfortunately, this change has taken over 100 years. If, however, the community prefers common usage over an accurate translation, I can live with that as long as it is clear in the opening paragraph that "Jewel Voice Broadcast" is a mistranslation. User:Alanthwaits 1 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Alanthwaits: Wikipedia requires the use of the most common English-language title used in reliable sources That's been established for over a decade. An "Etymology" section can discuss the details of the alleged mistranslation as long as reliable sources have discussed it. A brief mention could then be included in the lead/lede (since the lead/lede should summarize the article). If the mistranslation is not covered in any reliable sources, then that bit of information may not be included in the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Alanthwaits: Also, the Japan Times has used "Jewel Voice Broadcast" in an article as recently as 2016. I didn't spend much time looking for more instances, but that claim is clearly incorrect. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 4 September 2021

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: page moved to alternate suggestion Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Jewel Voice Broadcast → Emperor Hirohito surrender broadcast – Per previous nomination by User:Alanthwaits in 2020. Not only is the translation incorrect, which would be fine if it really was the most common term, but it also appears to be Wikipedia neologism that now unfortunately appears in some reliable sources through WP:CITOGENESIS. This refers to a much-discussed broadcast that happened in 1945 - that there's not a single reference to it as the "jewel voice broadcast" in a single 20th century Google Books search is illuminating. (I tried the search ["Jewel Voice" Hirohito] and there's nothing). Notice also the Google Ngrams for "Jewel Voice" - no data to plot [1]. There doesn't seem to be a particular name used in English for this so I believe a descriptive title is appropriate. Personally I'm not fussed about the exact wording, but I saw "surrender broadcast" used in plenty of hits on Google Books. I think "Gyokuon Radio Broadcast" would be acceptable too. NEOGEO6 (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support a descriptive title is best in this situation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support although would somewhat prefer Hirohito surrender broadcast (no need for "Emperor"). Agree that "Jewel Voice" terminology is rather literal and unusual in English sources before Wikipedia popularized it (And even then, not very common). We don't need the office in the title though; compare First inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (not First inauguration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt) or Winston Churchill in the Second World War (not Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the Second World War). SnowFire (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Do note that there's a difference between royalty and democratically elected politicians. Note these article titles for example: Wedding_of_Prince_Charles_and_Lady_Diana_Spencer, Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. I think omitting "Emperor" from the new title would be a mistake, Hirohito is a personal name not reserved for royalty in Japan. NEOGEO6 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, but this is English, where "Hirohito" without clarification means the Emperor. And this action was as a world leader, so FDR & Churchill would be the best analogies IMO. Checking old contemporary sources, this 1945 NYT transcript uses either "the Japanese emperor" or "Hirohito" and does not combine the two. There's not a lot of consistency on Wikipedia on this matter (we also have, say, Wedding of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna) but I don't think the Emperor title is needed in this case. SnowFire (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support if rephrased as "Hirohito's surrender broadcast" or similar This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

article title

I just wanna point out that the German, French, Italian, Dutch and Portugese articles all use the original "Gyokuon-hōsō" as the article title, instead of a rather arbitrary translation thats not really based on anything. jonas (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Why not just use Gyokuon-hōsō, which is the name used consistently in numerous scholarly sources (and which predates the Wikipedia neologism Jewel Voice Broadcast), instead of an arbitrary "descriptive" title that is virtually never used outside of Wikipedia? Vissel0126 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Translation in the lede

@Herostratus: Alright, shortest explanation I can offer as of now:

As you can see above on this discussion page, the article was recently moved to a name that does not include any reference to gemstones or jewels. Given that the article title was changed to fix what users deemed to be a translation error, I see no reason as to why the same logic should not be applied to its content. Furthermore, an attempt to introduce the "jewel" mistranslation in the lede was already rejected once. That edit also was one where the erroneous nature of the translation was addressed, unlike in the two edits by User:Kylewong3310, in which the original was replaced without any commentary or explanation.

I also want to point out that at least Arthur Rose-Inness' Beginners' Dictionary of Chinese-Japanese Characters does not include "jade" as a translation of the term in question, only jewels in general, though of course it could be that some other sources do have "jade" as a meaning as well. However, I also believe that the translation should be based on the most obvious meaning, and between "emperor's voice" and "jade(/other gemstone) voice" the first one is vastly more intuitive; gemstones do not talk, emperors do. --85.76.144.177 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, very well, my apologies. Thanks for the engaging and the explain, carry on. Sorry about making you do the extra work. Herostratus (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I also want to commend you on your ability to talk this through. --85.76.144.74 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Jewel Voice Broadcast in Article

I see there's been some discussion about this post-move, as well as changes that were reverted, so starting a discussion. I think the article needs to mention that this is sometimes referred to as the "Jewel Voice Broadcast". Reliable sources use the term widely (e.g. [2], [3], many more in both above move discussions). Jewel Voice Broadcast continues to redirect here. It seems likely to be the case that this term came from a neologism coined on Wikipedia, but that doesn't change that the term now exists and is in use; it's no different from a common misnomer or neologism coined anywhere else. It's essential information for a reader that is either looking up "Jewel Voice Broadcast" or reading some of the sources on this very page that the two terms are synonymous. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll also address the statement in this revert that "If it is at all mentioned, we would need to mention a Wikipedian first came up with it". I have no problem noting that the phrase "Jewel Voice Broadcast" originated with a mistranslation on Wikipedia if reliable sources exist stating that. I'm not sure there is a reliable source stating that though—I couldn't find one. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The article does not and must not mention "Jewel Voice" based on on WP:CIRC, which is policy. "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." It was decided by vote in 2021 to remove the Jewel Voice mention. I don't think there's any need for further discussion.2001:CE8:147:183A:18F6:39BC:CC70:CD38 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources are websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia; CIRC is talking about Wikipedia mirrors or sources that say "according to Wikipeda, X". This is a case where the sources may be wrong, but it is not a case of clear circular referencing. "Wrong" is also complicated here, since plenty of things are commonly referred to by an unofficial name. That this may have originated on Wikipedia does not make it special when it "escapes" to being used more broadly (here are several other known examples of this very thing). I'm also unclear what 2021 "vote" you're referring to unless it's the RM discussion, which was about the page title and doesn't make any comment that I see about whether it should be mentioned in the article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)