Talk:Imperial Rescript on Surrender

Information about this edition
Edition:
Source:	Text of Hirohito's Radio Rescript, The New York Times 15 August 1945
Contributor(s):
Level of progress:
Notes:
Proofreaders:

Untitled comment 1

In the Formal Translation, third paragraph from the end, should the word "strike" read "strife", instead? 162.84.72.171 16:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Untitled comment 2

What happened to the simple interpretation? 24.216.66.94 08:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Untitled comment 3

198.240.212.25 (talk • contribs) added this link to the page: Surrender Translation on Ibiblio. John Vandenberg 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Licensing of the "Simplified Interpretation"

I assert that I am the original author of the subsection of this article entitled "Simplified Interpretation". I retroactively release the entire text as authored by myself (specifically as of this version of the page) into the Public Domain, effective as of 07 Aug 2005. Signed Manning Bartlett 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Formal translation

Per this response from LordAmeth (talk • contribs), the formal translation appeared in Lu, David. "Japan: A Documentary History" OCLC:43476237^{all editions}, but the translator is not known. As a result, I am removing this translation until that can be cleared up. John Vandenberg 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WHat the hell?

This isn't a translation by any acceptable definition of the word. You people are incompetent. 74.14.70.54 04:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shina

@Ibicdlcod: I think the footnote that says it used "Shina" in original is confusing. What does the original refer to? If the English translation used it then we should have it in the body with note saying it means China. The source is paywalled, but I don't think that could be the case. If the original is supposed to mean the Japanese text then this note makes no sense at all. Firstly because 支那 was the normal way to refer to China in Japanese (as explained in the linked article) and it is as relevant to the English translation as asserting that the original uses England for Great Britain and 'Murica for United States would be. Keikaku means plan. Secondly, it doesn't even use the word in full. The Japanese text refers to the powers behind the declaration in an abbreviated way as 米英支蘇四國 bei-ei-shi-so shikoku, not by their full formal names. Using 支 for China is of course obsolete today, just like using 蘇 for Soviet Union is, but the whole text was in a quite obsolete language in the first place. No, Emperor Shōwa didn't use a racial slur. MwGamera (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)