Talk:Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

Linden Tree monument

At the bottom of the page is a list of (I assume) related monuments, one of which is the "Linden Tree monument." The link says there is currently no page by that name. I tried Google and several other sources, but came up dry on exactly what this might be, but it sounds like something I need to explore for a book I'm writing (it's too involved to explain why here). Can anyone suggest more information or share any knowledge of what and where this is? I'd be happy to have a crack at writing the missing page if I can find it. I'd volunteer to work on the Japan project, but I'm already buried in the German project, not to mention the aformentioned book. Wood Artist 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

Currently this article is in sore need of help as there are very few citations and many statements that, while probably true, have no references. I will be adding this to the list of articles that need citations. This is the first time I have done this though so if there is an issue with this please let me know. Kaid (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor link political flamebait?

What's the point of the Pearl Harbor link first in the See Also section? It's not directly connected to the peace park afaik. In my experience, it's often given as an excuse or reason for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which makes it completely inappropriate. I say we remove it complately. HertzaHaeon (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. That's my photo of the peace bell. On the same trip I visited Pearl Harbor. One of the audio-visual displays at the visitors centre gave the impression that Hiroshima was payback. I found this utterly revolting, unless one takes the position that one sneak attack deserves another. In encyclopaedic terms, there is no link between the two links, save that they are incidents in the same war. Link to WW2, sure, but not PH. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "yoneyama" :
  • {{cite book |title= hiroshima traces |last= yoneyama |first= lisa |year= 1999 |publisher= university of ca |location= los angeles |isbn= 0-520-08586-8 }} {{cite book |title= hiroshima traces |last= yoneyama |first= lisa |year= 1999 |publisher= university of ca |location= los angeles |isbn= 0-520-08586-8 }}
  • {{cite book |title= Hiroshima Traces |last= Yoneyama |first= Lisa |year= 1999 |publisher= University of California |location= Los Angeles |isbn= 0-520-08586-8 }}
  • {{cite book |title= hiroshima traces |last= yoneyama |first= lisa |year= 1999 |publisher= university of ca |location= los angeles |isbn= 0-520-08586-8 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Fixed --Superyetkin (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Architecture

Why does this article not mention the architectural aspects of the memorial? I believe at least a mention of the authorship of Kenzo Tange is necessary.

Absolutely, I'm kind of surprised, that neither Tange Lab, nor Kenzo Tange himself is mentioned in the Article. It is like not mentioning the atom bomb in an Article about postwar Hiroshima. --Dayman ger (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I roughly added the basic information, that Tange designed the Memorial Park. But there should be more Information about the architectural aspects. --Dayman ger (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation of Japanese inscription on the cenotaph

02:08, 16 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-351)‎ . . m Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park ‎ (→‎Memorial Cenotaph: Information regarding the interpretation of the inscription is incorrect.)

The rejected information: ①While the epitaph does not include an explicit subject (we), the subject is inescapably present. "安らかに眠って (yasuraka ni nemutte) Rest in Peace": it is a request, "下さい (kudasai) - please give me/us: the giving referred to by "kudasai" can only be directed to those making the request". 繰返しませぬから for [we who make this request] will not repeat the error." The subject is established by 下さい: If the subject were any other, the change would need to be made explicit.

http://www.cjvlang.com/Writing/writjpn/signs/kudasai.html 2. In honorific terms, the person giving is accorded elevated status. The 'familiar' word for giving in this situation is kureru, which does not elevate the giver to a high status. (Learning when to use the honorific form and when to use the familiar form is, of course, one of the more subtle and difficult points of Japanese.) Kudasaru is figuratively conceived as a 'giving down'. In fact, the verb kudasaru is related to the verb kudaru 'to come down' and the verb kudasu 'to lower, to give orders, to pronounce judgement'. It is written using the character meaning 'down'.

Kudasai in its imperative form is extremely common in Japanese. It may mean either 'please give me' or it may be used in combination with another verb in the construction -te kudasai "please (do something for me)".

"nemutte kudasai" at the end of the first clause thus establishes an implicit subject for the second clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language Japanese Consider the following examples from Japanese: このケーキは美味しい。誰が焼いたの？ Kono kēki wa oishii. Dare ga yaita no? This cake TOPIC tasty-PRESENT. Who SUBJECT bake-PAST EXPLAIN.? "This cake is tasty. Who baked it?" 知らない。気に入った？ Shiranai. Ki ni itta? know-NEGATIVE. like-PAST? "I don't know. Do you like it?" The pronouns in bold in the English translations (it in the first line, I, you, and it in the second) appear nowhere in the Japanese sentences, but are understood from context. If nouns or pronouns were supplied, the resulting sentences would be grammatically correct but unnatural. (Learners of Japanese as a second language, especially those whose first language is non-pro-drop like English or French, often make the mistake of supplying personal pronouns where pragmatically inferable. This is an example of language transfer.)

http://web-japan.org/factsheet/en/pdf/e19_language.pdf Japanese often omit the subject or the object—or even both—when they feel that it will be understood from the context, that is, when the speaker or writer is confident that the person being addressed already has certain information about the situation in question. In such a case, the sentence given above might become, ringo o tabeta (“ate an apple”) or simply tabeta (“ate”).

http://www.gojapango.com/japanese_language/learn_japanese.htm Japanese Grammar Japanese generally employs a subject-object-verb order, using particles to mark the grammatical functions of the words: 私がハンバーガーを食べる watashi-ga hamburger-o taberu, "I-subject hamburger-object eat". It is common to omit subjects and even objects if these are clear from previous context.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Japanese/Lessons/Introduction/Konnichiwa/Formal_salutations Japanese regularly omit the subject from sentences when they are obvious from context. Hence, pronouns are hardly used. Whenever forced to use a pronoun, it is better to refer to someone by their proper name or title. あなた, may give the impression of a news anchor speaking at them or some unfamiliar person.

The above statements, including those cited from Wikipedia itself, show that the use of the “null subject” is included in Japanese learning at its most basic level. An affirmative sentence MUST have an obvious subject.

Quoting one relevant citation in the list used for the current entry (Footnote 12): The activist cut a hole in the granite Memorial Cenotaph dedicated to Hiroshima's 140,000 bomb dead that read, "Let all the souls here rest in peace as we will never repeat this mistake." ～～～　The memorial was dedicated in 1952 by then mayor Shinzo Hamai who said the "mistake" referred to Japan's militarism and that visitors to the cenotaph should "pledge never again to repeat the same sin."

The Japanese (and not just the militant right) think that the inscription says "we will not repeat the mistake."　　 Biribirisaa (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great that you have so much information, but it constitutes original research, which isn't admissible on Wikipedia. It also contradicts existing citations. If you think the correct interpretation is that the subject "we" is implied without any doubt, you need to find a reliable source for it, not just a bunch of sites that talk about Japanese grammar in general without providing a specific interpretation of this sentence.

And to be clear, the cited article is written in English, with no analysis given on the translation of the inscription as to why it's the correct translation. It doesn't claim that "we" is the only correct interpretation.

Lastly, if the sentence is unambiguous, why was it deliberately written in an ambiguous manner in English? It would be very simple and more natural to cast it as an active sentence and say "we will not repeat the error", if that's how they wanted it to be interpreted. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Where was it written in an ambiguous manner in English? http://stat001.ameba.jp/user_images/c4/8f/10003781834.jpg Not in Japan, certainly. Biribirisaa (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your link returns an error, so I have no idea what you're talking about since you provided no description. Anyway, there are scholarly articles written by native speakers of Japanese which make it clear that the Japanese sentence is ambiguous. For instance, http://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/download.php?file_id=64799 page 161.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me or anyone else the the sentence unambiguously means one thing in Japanese by ignoring evidence to the contrary. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The link is a photo of a monument in Hiroshima Peace Park, on which an English translation of the Japanese epitaph is written. However, given the follow up citation provided, that is a mere relevance. The section of the article you cited: Tadayoshi Saika, Professor of English Literature at Hiroshima University, who wrote the epitaph, translated it as follows: "Let all souls here rest in peace; for we shall not repeat the evil." The ambiguity referred to in that same article (page 161) relates to the precise identification of "we" - in opposition to the identification provided by Mayor Shinzo Hamai. Biribirisaa (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Three Peace Bells? Where's the third?

The article mentions three Peace Bells, but then goes on to discuss the location of only two bells. Where's the third? --103.5.142.32 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. 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/20131013191113/http://www.kombe-jarvis.com/japan.html to http://www.kombe-jarvis.com/japan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091103164158/http://www.env.go.jp/air/life/oto/SK/P76.html to http://www.env.go.jp/air/life/oto/SK/P76.html

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) 09:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Link broken

The link for reference #19 is broken. When I Google the text it takes me to this link and then to a "way back machine" site where a PDF downloads that I can't open. Mcgrohow (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)