User talk:JusticeForce

General Order No. 1
Thanks for trying to improve the page General Order No. 1, but the capitalization has been transcribed from the source of the text at https://www.taiwanadvice.com/gen_order1.htm and so it should stay faithful to this source. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message.
 * However, it should be noted that the actual and final texts of the General Order No. 1 were not those at https://www.taiwanadvice.com/gen_order1.htm you provided.
 * The actual texts received by the Japan government on 2 September 1945 were those provided by the Japan government at https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/9885063/1/8, which I used to make changes with.
 * The texts provided at https://www.taiwanadvice.com/gen_order1.htm you mentioned here were actually "draft" proposed to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) by the United States of America on 17 August 1945.
 * The SCAP was not bound by the proposal provided by the US and had the authority to modify its contents in his capacity as the SCAP.
 * There were at least 4 differences between the final version and the draft proposed by the US:
 * 1. The final text of the General Order No. 1 contained 13 articles rather than 12.
 * 2. Part I, (c) were changed.
 * 3. Part I, (d) were changed.
 * 4. Part I, (e) were changed.
 * Anyways, the contents on the page General Order No. 1 were wrong. You confused the draft provided by the US on 17 August 1945 with the actual texts of the said order received by the Japan government on 2 September 1945.
 * Please refer to the official document and record of the Japan government for the final texts.
 * 1.https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/9885063/1/1
 * 2.http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000097066.pdf
 * I made changes in accordance with the official document and record provided by the Japan government.
 * Please use my version. JusticeForce (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you have an alternative source, you can transcribe that copy to a separate page, and Wikisource can host both editions of the text. But we wouldn't mix sources, or drop one source in favor of another on a document that is already faithful to its source.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem here is not whether faithful or not, but "correct" or not.
 * The General Order No. 1 is an order of the SCAP, not an order of a US President.
 * You confused the internal working document proposed by the US to the SCAP with the document actually issued by the SCAP.
 * Your source is a faithful source of an internal working document of the US, not a faithful source of the SCAP's General Order No. 1. JusticeForce (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, which draft of the Gettysburg Address is "correct", by your standards? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gettysburg Address and the SCAP's General Order No.1 are not comparable.
 * Again, do not confuse the US' internal working document with the order of the SCAP.
 * The SCAP was the representative of all Allied Powers, and the US was merely one of the Allied Powers. The US government was not the SCAP.
 * The SCAP had only one version of the General Order No. 1 which was the one provided by the Japan government. You cannot regard the US' internal working document as the document issued by the SCAP in its capacity.
 * You have faithful source for the US' internal working document? That's good. But this would not make the US' internal working document an Order issued by the SCAP. JusticeForce (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But is there is a preserved copy of the working document, and so we would present that too, just as we have drafts of the Gettysburg Address. We don't throw one version out just because it is a draft; we keep and present both versions on Wikisource.  The reason your edits were incorrect is that you altered our transcription of the draft.  What should happen is a transcription of the final document, then we present both the working document and the final version. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See, for example, Gettysburg Address, where we have multiple drafts and copies. Having those multiple sources, with their variations preserved, is valuable to historical researchers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gettysburg Address is not a good example here.
 * General Order No. 1 is an order of the SCAP, not an order of the US government/President.
 * Drafts prepared by the SCAP could be regarded as drafts of the said Order, proposals provided by the US government, even approved by her president, were merely non-binding references for SCAP, not SCAP's own document.
 * Say, if you personally write a letter to Biden, the current US President. Even if part of the contents of your letter are included in a letter later written by Biden, is it correct to regard your letter as a draft of the US President's letter? Nope. Because you are not the US President. You may even find the contents of your letter well preserved in the archive of President Biden's record, but this would not make your letter a draft of a US President's letter. JusticeForce (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, the source you provided is very interesting. I have uploaded the pdf from the source to Commons (see File:Scap Directives to the Imperial Japanese Government, volume 1.pdf) and created the Index:Scap Directives to the Imperial Japanese Government, volume 1.pdf where individual pages can be proofread. After this is done, we can transclude the text to the main namespace. For details see Help:Proofread. If needed, I can help with anything during the process, or you can also ask for help at WS:Scriptorium/Help. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)