Wikipedia:Peer review/Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)/archive1

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I tried looking last night to see if there is any featured articles on topics related to laws. While there are FA's related to court cases or legal concepts, I could not find one specific to legislation of any kind. Because of that, I have no earthly clue what else to add into this article. I added a lot of information last night, so I do need to check on copyediting, making sure the links are still alive and also rearrange the citations just like it was done at Flag of Japan. Anything yall can suggest will be helpful. Thanks, User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• The article should be renamed. If I am not wrong, "Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem" is an invention by our editors here. The Japanese Ministry of Justice states it to be the "Act on National Flag and Anthem".[1]

• Any Japanese reference should be stated to be Japanese and provide a translation of its title.

  I had no idea {{harvnb}} had issues with including trans titles; in light of this, I switched the short refs to the English titles, which I think are more accessible to the general readers on this project. Jappalang (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Standardise the citations; use the {{cite ???}} templates if convenient.

Lede

• The lede fails to state in the first paragraph when this Act was implemented, a question essentially raised when the same paragraph states "Before the passage of this law, ...".

• "After incidents at school ceremonies, including one where a principal took his own life, it was suggested to make both symbols official in 1999."

  This does not work in the lede: why would "incidents at school ceremonies" be keys to making the symbols official?

• "... in recent history."

  How "recent" would it be in 2015, 2025, 2050, etc?

• "Politically, it also showed a ... and showcased ..."

  The law showed/showcased, or the events that surround the enactment/rectification of the law did all those?

• "In the countries that Japan occupied in World War II, ..."

  "In the countries occupied by Japan in World War II, ..."

• "... a shift toward the right."

  I am often unsure what the "right" connotes, and I am pretty sure many ordinary people outside the United States are unaware what this political jargon means.

• The lede compares the views of some citizens to the views of nations: "In the countries ..., some felt ... . Other nations felt ...". Scale- and grammar-wise, I feel it is wrong and confusing.

Summary

• Why the title ("Summary")? Is the lede not a summary of the subject?

• "The main purpose of the law was to establish the ..."

  "The Act on National Flag and Anthem was to establish the ..."

• "... provided in appendixes in the law, ..."

  "... provided in appendixes of the law, ..."

• "The law did not provide any protocols involving both symbols or how they should be used or respected."

  "The law made no provisions for the use of either symbol or how they should be respected."

• "One reason for the lack of protocols for both symbols is that if such regulations were in the bill, passage in the Diet might not have been able to take place."

  "The rules were not in the bill because of fears that if included, opposition to the act would increase and prevent its passing by the Diet."

• Again, should this whole section not be integrated into the lede?

Hinomaru and Kimigayo before 1999

• "However, whenever the song was played at official ceremonies shortly after the war, it was not sung."

  "However, only the score of the Kimigayo was played during official ceremonies that took place shortly after the war; the lyrics were not sung."

Background of the legislation

• "On one side is the Hiroshima Prefecture School Board, was demanding that both symbols should be used in every school for ceremonies and instructed all principals to follow this. On the other side of the issue was the teachers in Sera High School did not want the symbols used and their opposition was as high as ever."

  "The Hiroshima Prefecture School Board was demanding all principals to ensure the use of both symbols at every school ceremony. However, the teachers at Sera High School were vehement in their opposition to the use of the symbols."

• "For Hiroshima Prefecture, the use and view of both symbols were low due to their experiences in World War II, which resulted in being attacked by a nuclear bomb in 1945."

  "The people of Hiroshima Prefacture had a low opinion of the symbols due to their experiences in World War II; their capital was obliterated by a nuclear bomb in 1945." Is that their only grouse, that their capital was nuked? Or were there other circumstances that led to their resentment of the symbols?

  To clarify my query over the Hiroshima citizens' WWII experiences, if their capital was nuked, should they not be angry with the US instead? Or do they blame the Emperor or the wartime cabinet for inviting such trouble to their land? Jappalang (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  What the citizens were getting at is if the military government was not going around and taking countries over and attacking the US at Pearl Harbor, the United States would not have struck back with the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima. The book also stated that another area where there was heavy fighting, Okinawa, also has a very low opinion on the symbols. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  That is what I had thought, but it is not reflected in the books (only Okinawa's reasons are studied); it should be noted that after the principal's suicide, the support level in Hiroshima shot up. The point is that without explanation (and we need a source for that), the attitude of the Hiromshima people towards the symbols raise questions when simply attributed to "their experiences in World War II" since the general thought is that the defeated would resent the victors. Jappalang (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Seems to have been removed. Jappalang (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  I looked and looked and the only info the books would give me is (Prefectures that had dealt with severe consequences fom World War II had a lower view of the symbols) and only cited Okinawa and Hiroshima (nothing from Nagasaki and they got hit by a nuke). So, I took it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... decided that not action should be taken with ..."

  "... decided that no action should be taken with ..."

• "Originally Prime minister Keizo Obuchi of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) decided that not action should be taken with legislation about the two symbols. After the suicide of Toshihiro, Obuchi changed his mind and that he would like to draft legislation to make the Hinomaru and Kimigayo the official symbols of Japan in 2000. His Chief Cabinet Secretary, Hiromu Nonaka, wanted to have it by November 1999, which was the 10th anniversary of the coronation of Akihito as Emperor."

  "Toshihiro's suicide induced Prime minister Keizo Obuchi of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to draft the legislation for making the Hinomaru and Kimigayo official symbols of Japan. He intended the law to be introduced in 2000, but his Chief Cabinet Secretary, Hiromu Nonaka, wanted it in effect by November 1999, which was the 10th anniversary of the coronation of Akihito as Emperor."

Pre-1999 attempts

• "In 1974, with the backdrop of the 1972 return of Okinawa to Japan and the 1973 oil crisis, Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei hinted at a law being passed legalizing both symbols."

  "After the return of Okinawa to Japan in 1972 and the global oil crisis in 1973, Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei hinted in 1974 of the passing of a law that would legalize both symbols to be used in Japanese society."

• "At the time of his suggestion, the Japan Teachers Union was in direct opposition of using the anthem because it "smacks of emperor worship" and its' connection to pre-war militarism."
• "At the time of his suggestion, the Japan Teachers Union was in direct opposition to using the anthem because it "[smacked] of emperor worship" and was connected to pre-war militarism."

• "While Japan also had a literacy rate of 99%, however a lot of students did not know what Kimigayo was or how to sing it. Kakuei, along with getting the schools to teach and play Kimigayo, he wanted mandatory raising of the Hinomaru flag and reinstatement of the reading of the Imperial Rescript on Education pronounced by the Meiji Emperor in 1890."

  "Although the literacy rate in Japan was 99%, a lot of students did not know what Kimigayo was or how to sing it. Aside from instructing the schools to teach and play Kimigayo, Kakuei wanted them to raise the Hinomaru flag and read the Imperial Rescript on Education, which was pronounced by the Meiji Emperor in 1890, every morning."

• "Kakuei tried to pass a law in the Diet that same year but failed to obtain a majority."

  "Kakuei tried to pass the law through the Diet in that year but failed to obtain a majority."

• This subsection should perhaps be before the Background of the legislation.

Party positions

• "The main conserative parties of Japanm, the LDP and the Liberal Party, were the main supporters of the bill"

  "The main conservative parties of Japan, the LDP and the Liberal Party, were the main supporters of the bill"

• "The President of the Liberal Party (and future leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)) ..."

  No same braces for nested parantheses

• "... echoed the same setiment ..."

  "... echoed the same sentiment ..."

• "While some of the leadership did concede the fact ..."

  "While some of its leadership conceded ..."

• "... the idea of a law establishing that fact was only a possibility but could also violate the Japanese Constitution."

  ".. they considered that establishing the idea as a law could be a violation of the Japanese Constitution."

• "... because of the connotations of both symbols have with the war era;"

  "... because of the connotations both symbols have with the war era;"

• "... the CPJ was further opposed for not allowing the issue to be decided by the public."

  "... the CPJ further opposed on the basis that the public was not allowed to decide the issue."

• "The chairman of the CPJ even went further, saying that while they ..."

  "The chairman of the CPJ said that while they ..."

• "Previously, Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama of the Socialist Party of Japan (former name of the SDPJ) accepted both the Hinomaru and Kimigayo as the symbols of Japan in exchange for support from the LDP in the Diet."

  How does this tie in with "The Social Democratic Party (SDPJ) ... were opposed to the bill because of the connotations both symbols have with the war era;"

  "This was a change from the stance held by the SDPJ; Prime Minister ..." was added, but the preceding sentences are referring to the CPJ... Might I suggest "The SDPJ's opposition was a change from the previous stance they have held toward the symbols; Prime Minister ..." if it is accurate? Jappalang (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "This was done so a possible alternative anthem could be found."

  "This was done to find an alternative anthem.

Public opinion

• "For the legislation overall, there was roughly 46% in favor of the bill."

  "Overall, roughly 46% of population were in favor of the bill."

• "Respondents believe that while the Hinomaru is the flag of Japan, a design that is easy, the history behind the flag should be taught."

  Huh?

• "... felt that the use of both symbols are school ceremonies are desired and that 68% felt a law should be made for both symbols to be declared official."

  "... felt it desirable to have both symbols used at school ceremonies, and 68% felt both symbols should be made official by law."

• "..., with 68% felt that both the Hinomaru flag and Kimigayo are the symbols of Japan and 71% supported the bill in the Diet."

  "...; 68% felt that both the Hinomaru flag and Kimigayo are the symbols of Japan and 71% supported the bill in the Diet."

• "... slightly under 2000 ..."

  "... slightly less than 2000 ..."

Vote

• "It was enacted into law on August 13."

  "It was enacted as law on August 13."

• I would prefer to have the tables side-by-side than to have that big, disruptive, white space on the right.

Provisions about the flag

• "The overall ratio of the flag is to two units length by three units width (2:3)."

  "The overall ratio of the flag is two units length to three units width (2:3)."

• "The diameter of the red disc is 3/5ths of the length of the flag and is completely centered on the flag. placed toward dead center."

  "The red disc is at the exact center of the flag and its diameter is three fifths of the flag's length."

  "... and its diameter is three-fifths of the flag's length placed toward dead center." does not make sense. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  I've clarified that. I hope Zscout370 does not mind. Goodvac (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  It works. The reason why for that wording is as follows; before the 1999 law, not only the flag ratio was different (7x10) but the sun disc was shifted towards the hoist by 1/100th. When the 1999 law came out, the position of the sun was placed in direct center (中 in Japanese) and the ratio changed to 2x3. The size of the sun disc is 3/5ths of the length of the flag (so if the flag has a size of 10x15, the size of the sun would be 6x6 and placed in the middle of the flag). I hope that made sense. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... seven by ten units ..."

  "... seven to ten units ..."

• "... the red disc was shifted 1/100ths toward the hoist."

  "... the red disc was off-center by one hundredth of the flag's length toward the side of the hoist."

• "Documents published by various government ministries provided different shades of red used on the flag."

  "Documents published by various government ministries provided different shades of red for the flag."

Provisions about the anthem

• "The text of the law does not give credit to a single person for the lyrics or music, the musical notation does credit Hiromori Hayashi for the musical arrangement."

  "The text of the law does not credit a single person for the lyrics or music, but the musical notation credits Hiromori Hayashi for the musical arrangement."

• "However, evidence suggests that it was Yoshiisa Oku and Akimori Hayashi (son of Hiromori) who authored the music and Hiromori put his name on it in the capacity of their supervisor and Chief Court Musician of the Imperial Court."

  "However, evidence suggests that it was Yoshiisa Oku and Akimori Hayashi (son of Hiromori) who authored the music; Hiromori put his name on it in the capacities as their supervisor and Chief Court Musician of the Imperial Court."

Reactions

• "Obuchi hailed the passage of the law as it gave "clear basis by written law" for the usage of the symbols."

  "Hailed" is wrongly used here; "Obuchi was enthusiastic over the passage of the law because it established a "clear basis by written law" for the use of the symbols."

• "According to Obuchi, this was one of Japan's biggest moves before the start of the 21st century. When asked at a press conference on his birthday (December 23), Emperor Akihito declined to give his personal opinion about the passage of the law."

  "He called the law's passing one of Japan's biggest moves before the start of the 21st century. Emperor Akihito declined to comment on the law when asked at a press conference on his birthday (December 23)."

• "The legislation was praised by the head of one teachers' federation that with the formalization of the symbols, proper civics education can be taught and reduce incidents such as Japanese booing other countries' anthems."

  "The head of a teachers' federation praised the legislation, believing that it would help them incalculate people with a a proper sense of respect for a country's symbols, thereby reducing international incidents such as the booing of other countries' anthems by the Japanese."

• "The legislation also drew condemnation because without a formal apology and "true remorse" over the actions of Japan during World War II, Japanese will not be proud of these symbols."

  Comdemnation from who?

  Current: "The legislation also drew some public condemnation because without a formal apology and "true remorse" over the actions of Japan during World War II, Japanese will not be proud of these symbols." Is "public condemnation" from the Japanese themselves? If so, why not "The legislation also drew condemnation from certain Japanese who are disdainful about their country's actions in World War II. They felt that unless their government issue a formal apology—expressed with "true remorse"—for those incidents, they see no reason to be proud about the flag and anthem."? Jappalang (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Ozawa saw that with the series of laws passed in 1999, including the one on the symbols of Japan, as a "bloodless revolution" toward a new future, changed Japan's national identity and set up for a possible revision of the constitution."

  I am unable to decipher this sentence.

  Current: "Ozawa saw that with the passage of this law and a few others in 1999, he foresaw the coming of a "bloodless revolution" toward a new future, changing Japan's national identity, possibly setting up changes to the constitution."

  "Ozawa saw the passage of this law and a few others in 1999 as the herald of a "bloodless revolution" toward a new future, which would change Japan's national identity and set up changes to its Constitution." (capitalized to differentiate it from the meaning of "composition" or "health) Jappalang (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... both of which had been occupied by the Empire of Japan ..."

  "... both of which had been occupied in the past by the Empire of Japan ..."

• "... met with reactions of Japan moving toward the right and also a step toward re-militarization."

  "... met with reactions that Japan was moving toward the right and toward re-militarization." Again what is the "right"?

• "However, the a spokesperson for the ..."

  "However, the spokesperson for the ..."

• "... that not only the bill is a matter of Japan's internal debate, it should be resolved to move Japan toward a peaceful future."

  "... that the bill was an issue for the Japanese to resolve on their own to move their country toward a peaceful future."

• "... that Japan occupied, ..."

  "... that Japan had occupied, ..."

• "In Singapore, the older generation still harbors ill feelings toward the symbols while the younger generation does not hold similar views."

  "In Singapore, the older generation harbored ill feelings toward the symbols while the younger generation did not hold similar views."

• "The Philippines government not only believed that Japan was not going to revert back to militarism, but the goal of the 1999 law was to formally establish two symbols (the flag and anthem) in law and every state has a right to create national symbols."

  "The Philippines government believed that Japan was not going to revert to militarism and that the goal of the 1999 law was to formally establish two national symbols (the flag and anthem), which every state has a right to do so."

Political ramifications

• "The entire vote showcased that the unity of the DPJ was in tatters."

  "The split in DPJ's votes for the Act showed that the unity of its members was in tatters."

• "While the DPJ allowed a free vote, the leadership of the DPJ was split."

  Incorrect use of conjunction, the leadership would still have been split regardless of the "free vote". This sentence is redundant or should be rephrased to "DPJ had allowed their elected members to cast their votes without care for the party line."

• "... each party voted strictly on party lines and there was no break in party discipline."

  "... each party voted strictly along its party line and none among them broke party discipline."

• "This was in contrast to the desired hope of Hatoyama, who wanted to not only vote for the bill to support party unity but to also bring party discipline to the forefront. Due to the split of the DPJ, this allowed the easy passage of a bill that could have been made impossible."

  "Ironically, Hatoyama wanted to use his vote for the bill as a call to his fellow DPJ members for unity. Half of the DPJ supported the bill, reducing the numbers that would have opposed it and making it easy for the bill to pass."

• "... was the union between the LDP, the Liberal Party and the CGP."

  Union or alliance (whole lot of different meanings)? Furthermore, "between" is used for connections of two subjects, not three.

• "While the CGP only had 52 seats in the lower house, and had nothing in common policy wise with the LDP, the ideal of being a part of the ruling cabinet caused CGP to join the LDP and support this measure."

  "Although the CGP had a relatively small number of seats (52) in the lower house and had nothing in common with the LDP in terms of policy, it was tempted by the idea of being part of the ruling cabinet and supported the LDP in passing the bill."

• "The SDPJ also had to abandon key party platforms, such as their earlier opposition to the symbols, security treaties with the United States and the existence of the Self Defense Forces, in order to be a part of the coalition government."

  "The SDPJ had to abandon key party platforms, such as their earlier opposition to the symbols, security treaties with the United States and the existence of the Self Defense Forces, to be a part of the coalition government."

  Various redundant words; furthermore, why are we only told now that a coalition government was in place in 1999?

• "Despite these concessions, the LDP did not advance any of the traditional platforms of the SDPJ and eventually removed any sort of national policy debate on them."

  I am not really clear what is this trying to say.

• "With the about face by the CGP, Liberal Party and the SDPJ on this issue, the only party that held a consistent stance on the issue of the symbols was the CPJ."

  "The only party that stuck to its stance throughout the entire debate was the CPJ; the CGP, Liberal Party and SDPJ switched sides to support the bill."

• "This led to one Japanese paper questioning where the rationality of Japanese politics went with the passage of this bill."

  "The vote switching led one Japanese paper to question the rationality of the country's politics over the passage of this bill."

  What is the name of this paper? If it was pointed as "one Japanese paper", then surely it would be a notable one, right?

• "The political commentary after the vote considers this law to be the most controversial passed by the Diet since the 1992 "Law Concerning Cooperation for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Other Operations", also known as the International Peace Cooperation Law."

  Political commentary by who?

• "The "International Peace Cooperation Law" committed Japan to United Nations peacekeeping operations, which was a deviation from Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution that calls for the renouncing of the "use of force as means of settling international disputes.""

  "The "International Peace Cooperation Law" was an act that committed Japan to United Nations peacekeeping operations; it was a deviation from Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which calls on the country to renounce the "use of force as means of settling international disputes.""

See also

• Why are Kimigayo and Flag of Japan here when they are already linked in the article?

Images

• File:国旗及び国歌に関する法律.jpg

  Per WP:CITE#IMAGE, point to the page that displays the image, not the image itself. That image link is also dead. Furthermore, where is the tag for the copyright status in US?

References

• 国旗及び県旗の取扱いについて is stated to be a PDF and has an accessdate; however, the url field is empty. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there are serious issues with the article, namely the title and the prose. Several parts are confusing and could be made easier to read with simpler words than with political jargon. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Article moved to suggested title, still working on the cite templates. Legislation is uncopyrighted in Japan, so no protection in the US (and no US tag is really needed). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the political "right" issues may be fine (at least it gives a hint that it is of the "political spectrum"), but I am leaving it unstruck in case someone comes up with another idea. Jappalang (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we got rid most (if not all) of my peeves with the article. It might be beneficial to get another (best a proficient copy-editor) to look through since my language has been known to cause consternation among readers (so my suggestions might still provoke "huh"s)... Otherwise, I would say this is ready for a shot at FA. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Goodvac did an awesome job on the copyediting, but I will go ahead and ask others. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Goodvac did good there (heh). Jappalang (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sonia (talk · contribs) went through some sections, and found some stuff I missed. Goodvac (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Goodvac

• Throughout the entire article Hinomaru is used to refer to the flag. In "Text of the Act", Nisshōki is used. It may be better to just use Hinomaru since that name will be used in the rest of the article. Also, I don't think it's necessary to have the Japanese text in parentheses or to link Hinomaru and Kimigayo since they have already been linked in the lead. Goodvac (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Because Nisshouki is the official name of the flag and it is used as such in the law. Hinomaru is the more common name and I think I touched that in the lead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. Another suggestion: in the lead, how about say "...the Nisshōki (日章旗) flag, more commonly referred to as the Hinomaru (日の丸)..."? Goodvac (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• In the "reactions" section, it says, "The passage of the law also coincided with the debates about the status of the Yasukuni Shrine, US-Japan military cooperation and the creation of a missile defense". This is vague; how did it coincide? Also, "In Singapore, older generations harbored ill feelings toward the symbols while younger generations did not hold similar views". This is vague too; what were the views of the younger generation? Goodvac (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)