Humanities desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 12[edit]

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force[edit]

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is related to the Imperial Japanese Navy, but JMSDF has thus far intentionally avoided using any names previously used by IJN vessels. For example, though JDS_Kongō_(DDG-173) and Japanese battleship Kongō have similar sounding names, their names are different when written in Japanese.

Many historians and commentators have speculated on the exact reason for this move (atonement, war guilt, etc), but by the end of the day it's just speculation and not official. Has any official from the JMSDF or the Japanese government ever commented on the reason for this naming scheme? Mũeller (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be difficult to find, as the Japanese tend to ignore the war entirely. When they do refer to it, it's in an oblique reference like "the unfortunate incident". SinisterLefty (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mũeller -- If it wanted to be sensitive, then it shouldn't have kept the old rayed flag (File:Naval_Ensign_of_Japan.svg), since that's something which probably a far higher number of people outside Japan (who aren't naval history buffs) would respond to negatively... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't they often name after IJN ships, but written in hiragana rather than kanji? Sample List of active Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships.—eric 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My question is basically: "why use hiragana ship names rather than the old kanji ship names?"

The obvious answer that everyone suspects is: "to avoid pissing off other Asian countries that Japan previously invaded". But I want to see whether the Japanese government ever made official comments on the issue. Mũeller (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting such a thing would seem so un-Japanese. Even during the war, they didn't say "We are going to invade your country, kill or enslave your people, and steal all your stuff". They claimed they were helping to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". SinisterLefty (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WHAAOE, in particular on Japanese ship-naming conventions. Our article claims that "Prior to the end of World War II Japanese ship names were rendered in kanji; after the end of the war this tradition was abandoned in favor of hiragana to separate the perception of the Maritime Self-Defense Forces from the old navy", but it does not provide an explicit reference for that fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something in The Japan Self-Defense Forces Law: Translation, History, and Analysis, but I'll let you peruse it at your leisure. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the various ships called Kongō are named after Mount Kongō which is not a particularly belligerent name. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the change was less "to avoid pissing off other Asian countries" and more internal, an outcome of the debate withing Japan itself post-war. Tho not dealing specifically with the Jieitai, you might be interested in chapter 4 of Gottlieb, N. (2016). Kanji politics: Language policy and Japanese script..—eric 22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been little "debate withing Japan itself post-war". They largely ignore the war entirely or minimize their guilt, for example by referring to the women they captured and forced to be sex slaves as "comfort women". SinisterLefty (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, please read at least the second paragraph of Post-occupation Japan#Politics, or maybe Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution#Debate. Even concerning your later example, claiming little debate within Japan is shockingly ingenuous.—eric 17:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

prevailing party[edit]

Joe sues BobCorp and there are protracted legal maneuvers and discovery, ending up with an out-of-court settlement where BobCorp pays Joe a negotiated sum. Is Joe now the "prevailing party" under US legal doctrine? Does one say in vernacular that Joe won the suit, given that it never went to trial? In the types of cases I'm thinking of, BobCorp is a huge company, the discovery produced juicy evidence, and the settlement amount is multi megabucks. I.e. it's not a nuisance payout but a settlement that a sane litigant would only enter if (on balance of probabilities) they expected to lose the case and decided not to roll the dice on the likely damage award. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on "prevailing party" and the wiktionary entry suggests that it is only determined by a trial outcome, but I think I've heard it differently.

Usual disclaimer: not seeking legal advice. Watching two idiots argue on reddit about a news event raised this question. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The standard formulation in the popular press for such occurrences is that the matter is settled out of court. Many of these are civil law equivalences of the criminal plea of nolo contendere or the Alford plea, in the sense that BobCorp expressly admits no wrongdoing, but agrees to pay Joe. --Jayron 32 19:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]