Talk:Hirohito/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Hello everyone, this is Steven from In this article, my website is sourced as the source listing Hirohito's death. I DO know that he died of duodenal cancer, but, and this is only as good as I can remember, I am almost positive that I sourced Wikipedia for the "traditional" hiding of the cancer. Unfortunately, now my article has been sourced as the site with the fact, when in reality the line has no source.

I think it would be best to remove this line until someone can find another source. I apoligize for this happening, but I also want it taken care of as soon as possible!

Steven 15:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias in this article

I would have to agree with many of the observations put forth here. Although I am not equipped to suggest or write what specific changes should be implemented, it is safe to say that a detailed entry about Hitler without specific details provided about the effect his reign had on German Jews and the unique nature of their treatment would be miss-leading. There is certainly a very unique personality given to the way Japanese soldiers behaved in Manchuria, and I feel it would be extremely informative for Hirohito's reign to be linked to this. Whether he was personally responsible or not, since it is up for debate, can be included as information and left up to the discretion of the reader. Nevertheless, attrocities committed at the hands of Japanese soldiers should most certainly be linked to the leadership of that nation.
Currently, this article presents Hirohito as a wartime ruler and little else. Much of the detail about his reign and the specifics of internal politics are almost unnecessary according to me. If someone capable is able to create an additional paragraph about Manchuria and the unique nature of the war crimes committed there, it would provide much additional justification for the question of Japanese leadership being tried for war crimes. Right now, it is not clear why that was considered. 19:21, 2007 Mar 14 (UTC) SirDecius

We can argue as much as we like about Hirohito's private polical beliefs, whether he approved/disapproved of Japanese aggression in the 1930s and 1940s and the atrocitities committed in his name, or whether he had any real influence that could have been brought to bear on the policies followed by Japans leaders.

But the fact remains, for tens of thousands of people around the world, Hirohito's name is primarily (or even mainly) associated with the most appalling crimes - crimes which were committed in Hirohito's name and for which a number of other members of Japan's ruling elite were tried, convicted, and executed for War Crimes.


By confining the association between Hirohito and Japanese War Crimes to the middle paragraphs of the article in a kind of Ideas Ghetto called "Hirohito and the Second World War" we are marginalising the sufferings of thousands of people and distorting the way that twentieth century history is seen by many, many people.

YES, there are many interesting things to learn about Hirohito that have little to do with the Second World War, Pearl Harbour, etc and it is good to read them in the article - but for large numbers of people the main significance of Hirohito is his role as the figurehead of Japanese Imperialism in the 1930s and 1940s.

I don't think that the article needs to paint Hirohito as some sort of Antichrist - or even as a Hitler - but it needs to make a more prominent acknowledgement of the shameful side of Hirohito's reign.

(TS - 26th February 2006)

I haven't seen any reputable recent historical work not argue that Hirohito was very reluctant to begin the war, or that he did not play the key role in ending it. Am I just reading the wrong books, or is the entry here badly out of date? (I'm not going to change it right away, first I'll wait and see if anyone can bring any current and reputable evidence that H was one of the warmongers.) Tannin

See Herbert P. Bix - Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. Roadrunner
Ditto. People have presented rational arguments and well-researched documentary evidence both for the emperor's innocence and for his guilt (Bix has done the most recent and most thorough job arguing for the emperor's guilt). In the spirit of Wikipedia, we have to leave culpability as an open question and acknowledge both sides of the debate in this article, however obvious his innocence might have seemed to people in Japan and to others (such as General MacArthur), and however obvious his guilt might have seemed to people in Korea and Manchuria and to others (such as President Truman). David 23:14, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
It is a true story hirohito and then the government both are unwilling to wage the war and wanted diplomatic resolution. -- Taku 16:23 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, those nasty Americans forced them at gun-point to mount a massive, surprise, attack on the US Pacific fleet. Oh, wait, I forgot, it wasn't any part of the Japanese government that decided to do that, it was a unilateral action of a confused lieutenant.
Please forgive my lapsing into sarcasm, but this attempt to whitewash the past offends me. I don't blame the current generation of Japanese in any way for anything their ancestors did (people who weren't born yet can have no possible responsibility for actions taken prior to their birth) - but if contemporary people do attempt to act like the past didn't happen, that's a separate failing for which I do hold them responsible. Noel (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
there can be no doubt that Hirohito approved and encouraged the military strategy of establishing a far eastern empire. After all, pre-1945 he was considered a divinity and they would not have done this had he not approved. The war led to millions of deaths for which he is responsible. He should be listed in the mass murderers section along with Hitler and Stalin. --Marcel1975 20:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh geez. Read up on your history. Had Hirohito not gone along with the military's desires, he would have been overthrown or perhaps assassinated. There was talk of replacing him with Prince Chichibu, who was more sympathetic to the military's causes. Hirohito strongly pressed for diplomatic resolutions; even Bix concedes this in his recently published book (a thorough 600+ pager detailing Hirohito's involvement in the War).. specifically on the Mukden Incident and the establishment of the state of Manchukuo. During this time, Hirohito experienced severe insomnia (Edwin Hoyt writes this), and during the course of Second World War, he recited to his advisers a poem his grandfather, Emperor Meiji had written about peace. I know that last sentence was one big run-on, but this is just the discussion section. Tlaktan 04:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tlaktan,

Would it not have been less dishonourable and shameful had Hirohito "not gone along with the military's desires" and had "been overthorwn or perhaps assassinated" as you put it above?

Yasuhiro Nakasone (former Prime Minister of Japan) recently said that the emperors of Japan, "symbolise national unity and are supported by the citizenry, who take great pride in them as a historical achievement unique to Japan" (source The Guardian, 3 February 2006).

Given that Japan's rulers in the 1930s and 1940s expected thousands of ordinary Japanese people to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for the Emperor - would it have been too much to have expected that Hirohito (this symbol of unity and national pride) would have been prepared to risk his throne or even his life for the greater good of the Japanese nation and humanity in general?

The fact is that the reign of Hirohito was a shameful and disgraceful episode in human history and because of his position as the focus of Japanese public life at that time Hirohito will forever be associated with that shame and disgrace. No amount of hair splitting over how much he knew or what he could have realistically done will change that.

(18:10, 10 February 2006)


There are three sections about this subject but none seems specific so I choose to write my comment here.

Having read the article, I must write write here that it is deeply flawed for two main reasons :

1) The content is outdated in its evaluatuation of the emperor's role before and during the war. The writers seem to consider that Herbert Bix is an "original" and that he is the only marginal advocating a direct implication of Showa in the conduct of the state, not as a dictator but as an opportunist who governed in a pluralistic way. Contrary to this belief, Bix's view is shared by a vast majority of serious historians who are, by the way, mostly japanese.

Here are some citations, excluding Bix :

-Peter Wetzler, Hirohito and war, 1998, p.200 : «In Japan, the head of the imperial house had a more subtle, but no less important influence on political and military decisions... During the crucial time immediately before the outbreak of the war, Hirohito stood for the imperial line -and that meant asserting is right to participate in the decision-making process. In particular, consonant with his role as the emperor of Japan, Hirohito was told well in advance exactly how the attack on Pearl Harbor was to be carried out. This was done in a private audience on 3 novembre 1941. If Hirohito had any objections, as he had expressed unmistakably in similar private audiences previously, they were not voiced or recorded.»

-p.55 «The army's efforts, however, do not absolve the emperor from responsiblity for going along with their plans. Not only was the emperor well informed, he was given ample opportunity to make his concerns known in private before decisions were officially promulgated.»

-p.32 « means the emperor was a party to resolving disputes among governement leaders... If individual military officers acted arbitrarily and illegally in pursuing a certain policy, by ignoring the emperor's prerogative of supreme command, then the emperor, among others, acted illegally in not fulfiling the duties of his office and caling them to account.»

-David Titus, Palace and politics in prewar Japan, 1974, p.300 «The emperor did not simply keep himself informed; he also pressured his officials in regard to correctness and consistency of their policies.»

-Akira Fujiwara, Shôwa tennô no jû-go nen sensô, 1991, p.122

«...considering the discussions that went on behind the scenes prior to these (imperial) conferences and the liaison conferences that preceded them, the thesis that "the emperor as an organ of responsibility" could not reverse cabinet decisions is a myth (shinwa) fabricated after the war.»

2) All the text is written in a way to absolve Hirohito.

If it is true that he was reluctant to go to war against the Occident, it was certainly not the same in 1937 when he sanctionned without hesitation the invasion of China. However, there is nothing about China here.

Also, focusing on the imperial conference of september, the text omit the multiple "behind the chrysanthemum curtain" meetings where the real decisions were taken between the emperor and his chiefs of staff.

For example, on september 10th, four days after having read his poem, Hirohito said to Sugiyama :«You may go ahead and mobilize (the army). But if the Konoe-Roosevelt talks go well, you'll stop.»

Nothing here about those meetings. All we have is this view of a poor fellow who reads his "peace poem" and go dissecting marine invertebrates...

What about Konoe's confession to his cabinet secretary Tomita :«In short, I felt the emperor was telling me : my prime minister does not understand military matters; I know much more. In short, the emperor had absorbed the view of the high commands.» ( Tomita Kenji, Haisen Nihon no uchigawa, 1962, Akira Fujiwara, ibid p.126)

As for the choice of Tôjô, nothing is written about the rejection of Higashikuni's appointement who was the choice of the army and the navy. Hirohito himself wrote : «I think the apointement of a member of the imperial house to a political office must be considered very carefully. Above all, in time of peace this is fine, but when there is a fear that there may even be war, then, more importantly, considering the walfare of the imperial house, I wonder sbout the wisdom of a member of the imperial family serving (as prime minister).»

In conclusion, Shôwa was not a bellicist, certainly not a poem-freak-pacifist, but an oportunist who, as written below by Tannin, governed in a pluralistic way. Serious historians have made the consensus and there is no justification to keep this article the way it is. The article should have a section about the historical perspective about the controversy on the emperor's role and the Mac Arthur propaganda but present a very more larger perspective than a poem read on one imperial conference.

--Flying tiger 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Warning added

I've added a NPOV (Neutral Point of View) warning at the start of this article. The article appears to bias towards a particular view toward the Emperor and his actions, and doesn't appear to present the counter view in equal weight. Given that this is such an extremely controversial topic and significant historical character, I think that it's fair to suggest that it warrants a better balance.

I personally have no particular opinion on the matter, but I am informed of both arguements, and it seems that one side is over represented in this article to warrant the warning. Sean White. -- 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC), I notice you wrote the same thing on the articles on which you let contributions. Instead of "crying wolf" and criticizing ALL the article before going away and letting others do the job, it would have been interesting to first, read all the comments made on this subjects by all the contributors and, second, explain what is the "particular view" you contest and what is "the counter view" you would like to see.
Is it the opinion that Hitohito was a "criminal mastermind" vs a "figurehead"? When I read the article, I think that it is written in the middle of these two positions and that it is "neutral" but it is just my opinion. You specify that you "have no particular opinion on the matter" however you criticize all the article and give no example of what is wrong in your mind and what should be done. It would be interesting that you could write some arguments on this page or in the article itself with credible source before just vaguely criticizing the work.
--Flying tiger 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Flying Tiger, I have no idea about what you're referring to when you mention previous articles or tactics etc - you are mistaking me with someone else perhaps - but let's stick to the issue instead of resorting to character assasination. I have already explained that the article is too much in favour of an apologist view of the Emperor, and so is therefore unbalanced - please reread this comment carefully. As I have said, I have no particular personal view as I would only be able to make a definitive conclusion if I researched reliable sources. My opinion still stands that this article is not balanced regardless of the historical truth of the matter. I am therefore adding the NPOV warning once more.

I would respectfully suggest, that if you easily make wild accusations against people such as you have to me, it indicates that a NPOV is a subject you might want to reflect further upon, in the pursuit of improving your understanding of the World. Such inferior tactics aren't going to make your comments any more likely to be believed. Sean White -- 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When I refer to your comment on other article, it is NOT a wild accusation as I refer to your NPOV on the Jimmy Wales article that you left the same day.... If it is not you, you have the same adress Again I have big problem to understand what you mean. You wrote for two paragraphs but I can not see what is your position. Do you want to see more sources reffering to the fact that Hirohito was a war criminal ? Is it that what you mean ? In your first comment, you refer to "a particular view", now you write "apologist view". Would it be to much to show where in the article is this "apologist view" ? Your opinion maybe good but for now it so vague that it is impossible to correct the article.
--Flying tiger 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a wild accusation if you are trying to portray my comment on one other article as "crying wolf" and claiming that I ".. wrote the same thing on the articles on which you let contributions". This is a misrepresentation of my one other comment that you are aware of, and seems quite deliberately misleading.

My position is that the article stronbly represents an apologist view toward the Emperor and his responsibilities and culpability without sufficiently discussing the opposing view to the same proportion.

The article goes into detail about attempting to describe him as a pacifist, and reciting vague flowery poetry deploring war, however this just isn't a strong enough arguement, and the counter arguement isn't sufficnetly explored. An example is where the article attempts to reduce the Emperor's ambigious surrender by claiming that "there was a clear difference between standard Japanese speech and the emperor's". It fails to propose the other alternative that Japanese war memos showed that the Japanese military believed that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction. It also fails to present that the Potsdam Proclamation was sufficiently vague to be desirable as an alternative to total surrender, it instead tries to claim that the Emperor's honorific form of Japanese was far too vague to the normal Japanese listener. This is an unsubstantiated claim, and considering that the Japanese aristocratic education of the time was enough to teach all the honorific, informal and high honorific forms of address, it's a great leap of faith to assume that the Emperor was incapable of knowing what his relatives were capable of.

It also completely overlooks the undesirability of a land invasion of Japan from the perspective of the American military - which was a major factor in negotiational compromise. It overlooks that The American Embassy in Tokyo forwarded Hirohito's name on a list of individuals facing military trial before an unnamed State Department official sqaushed it. It also fails to mention how Senator Richard Russell, trying to take the issue out of the hands of the executive branch, introduced a bill that would force the government to try the Emperor as a war criminal.

The article fails for example to sufficiently outline the counter argument that "the standard portrait of Hirohito as a passive figurehead who did the bidding of Japanese militarists as propaganda.

It doesn't sufficiently present the core ideas that Bix argues that Hirohito's passive character portrayal helped the emperor avoid responsibility (and trial) for Japan's war crimes, kept him politically "clean" enough to be used by U.S. officials to help manage postwar Japan in the Occupation period and in the Cold War, and in general helped shore up the reconstruction of a more conservative politics than would have been possible if the emperor had been discredited for the role he played in the war."

I therefore claim that the article represents an apologist view. Sean White -- 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least I understand your position and I can not contradict your arguments. You see, all the examples to which you refer are part of the first draft of the article, written some years ago. Those elements are there because there is are still some people who think that Hirohito was, as said by Mac Arthur, "the first gentleman of Japan". The consensus has been obtained on this article by keeping all those elements. I am affraid the NPOV will be there for ever as if the changes you want where made, another guy would claim the exact opposite point of view and add the NPOV banner. So THIS is the neutral point of view of the community. If you read the comments on this page you will see my arguments on the subject and all the elements I added to give a "updated" twist to this article. I suggest you try to add those infos by yourself as I am tired of arguing with people, in general, who desperatly stick to old traditionnal view of the "poor peace figurehead" without being able to contradict the primary sources. I had many arguing on other articles and other places than Wikipedia and I am sure the debate is just latent.
--Flying tiger 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the NPOV is not the same thing as the consensusal view. NPOV is presenting all the sides of an argument in a balanced manner and letting the reader decide. My objection is that one side of the argument is represented too much without the counter view. I don't object to the article - it's well written, but the point is that it needs more balance because the counter view is a fairly important one to represent.

Sean White -- 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following comment from the article;

"It is argued that this article presents an apologist view of Hirohito"

That is taking it taking it too far. I can understand the addition of the POV template; however, the conclusion that the article presents an apologist view of Hirohitio is the conclusion of one user alone. The conclusion itself is POV; I felt this sufficient reason to remove the comment--M W Johnson 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not understand the distinction you make as the NPOV template is the addition of the same one user who argue that the article presents an apologist view of Hirohito. --Flying tiger 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. I only added the NPOV warning. I did not add any comment about an "apologist view". That was done by another user. Sean White -- 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sean White, I am not accusing you of adding the apologist view comment; in hindsight I probably should have explained that I was in fact referring to flying tiger. His user contribs list says that It was he who added the comment. flying tiger and I have sorted out the issue between ourselves, so the issue appears to have concluded--M W Johnson 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Endure the unendurable"?

The article states in the 'Last days of the war' section that "the broadcast ordered the Japanese to 'accept the unacceptable' in surrender".

I have just watched The History Channel documentary series Hell In The Pacific and it states that Hirohito's words were "endure the unendurable", not "accept the unacceptable".

There are many links to suggest this is also the case, for example

Worthy of an edit? Reuptake 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reuptake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reuptake (talkcontribs) 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, "endure the unendurable" is a better translation, and the text should be changed. My two cents. Arjuna 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fusion of two parts

The "Post-war reign" section is growing again and again. But most of what is written in it should be part of the "The problem of imperial responsibility" section. I suggest two things : to move the "The problem of imperial responsibility" section between the "Last days of the war" and "Post-war reign" sections, and to incorporate most of the "Post-war reign" informations into the "The problem of imperial responsibility" section. Who agrees? Švitrigaila 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the content of "Post-war reign" is directly related to "imperial responsibility". It is more about the actions of the imperial family, the Mac Arthur team and the new constitutional status of the Emperor than about the interpretation made by historians of his power during the first part of the reign and the war. The way you organized earlier "The sino-japanese war and WW II" section seems fine.
--Flying tiger 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked this because there was a controversy on the French article fr:Hirohito about the place of the "imperial responsability" section. In fact, it was a long section placed at the beginning of the article, and I thought I was better to expose the facts first (the war) and the judgment of History after. I think here too the "imperial responsability" section should be after the war and merged (maybe in one two-subsections section, with another title) with all the consequences of the war upon him, and let the "post-war reign" section deal about the part of his activities which are not related with the war. Maybe the "Yasukuni shrine" subsection should be incorporated into the new section. Once again, the aim is to discribe the facts first ("The Emperor decided that... The Emperor said that...") and to judge him after. ... Just a little question: are you the same person as fr:Utilisateur:Tigre volant? In this case, I don't learn you anything. Švitrigaila 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong objection against your proposition but, honestly, I think the article can be easily understood the way it is written.

However, if the section about the imperial responsibility had to be placed elsewhere, I believe the main concern should be to clearly make a distinction between the events of the post-war reign such as the acts of the MacArthur team and the position of the imperial family, and the analysis of the historians regarding the effective power of the emperor. The imperial responsibility is an "analysis" of the imperial power and should not, in my mind, be composed of events. As for the post-war reign section, there should be more in it than Yasukuni shrine.

For these reasons, the only way I see it could be merged to other sections without losing clarity is by creating sub-sections about the Tokyo trial and imperial responsibility.

It could be interesting to have the point of view of other users about your suggestion. --Flying tiger 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on everything you said. But I'm to lazy to do it myself. Švitrigaila 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


This article needs some major tune ups, it is biased in the point of view in giving light to the Emperor's motives during the Invasion of Manchuria to the Axis Alliance. It positions the reader to perceive Hirohito as the victim. Neutrality please! Thk Dailly Rubbings 11:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I know use of a Japanese emperor's personal name is Just Not Done, but was surprised to read in the article lead that it's considered "blasphemous". Does Shinto have a concept of blasphemy? This needs to be verified. --Meyer 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wrote it was "derogatory". Someone else changed the word "derogatory" to "blasphemous" witout any reason... Švitrigaila 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll strike the phrase, then. --Meyer 08:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Tahnks... and the next question is of course: when will we have a serious discussion to rename the article? Švitrigaila 10:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why rename the article? The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information even if that information is offensive some people. If they are offended by the current name of this article (and others have explained why it's appropriate), then Wikipedia is simply not for them. If we bow down to cultural sensitivities and various definitions of derogatory content, we will soon be left without a credible online encyclopedia. WorldWide Update 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply because Hirohito is not the name by which the article must be named. The Emperor Meiji article is not named Mutsuhito, and the Elvis Presley article is not named Elvis, nor The King. It's not a matter of sensitivity, it's a matter of calling people by their official name (or by a pseudonym if they have taken one), but not by a nickname or just a first name. Švitrigaila 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Though both choices are controversial, Hirohito is the correct article title. The Manual of Style of Japan-related articles indicates that for names of modern figures like Emperor Showa general usage in English sources trumps Japan-official forms. If you can think of a better rule, discuss and gain a new consensus on WP:MJ before worrying about changing this article's name. --Meyer 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I already did it here. Although most of the answers to my proposition were rather positive, I was told that the proposal must be discuted on the Hirohito talk page and not on WP:MJ! Švitrigaila 11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Showa" versus "Hirohito"

I've rewritten the lead paragraph on usage of the emperor's reign name versus his personal name. The previous version was repetitive, confusing, and used too many categoricals to accurately reflect complicated historical customs. I did think of one case in which contemporary Japanese might refer to the man as "Hirohito" without being improper: A historical work on the Taisho era might very well refer to Emperor Showa prior to his ascending the throne by his personal name, Prince Hirohito. However, this is way too much detail for the current article and speculative besides. (Is there anywhere this fine level of protocol is written down, or is it all a Kunai-cho oral tradition?) --Meyer 03:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. When we write about Pope John Paul II's youth, we call him Karol Wojtyła. And later we call him Cardinal Wojtyła. But it doesn't change the fact that his article is named Pope John Paul II. When Joseph Ratzinger became pope, his article was renamed into Pope Benedict XVI at once. So even if we can call the present emperor "Akihito", it doesn't change the fact that his article will have to be renamed into Emperor Heisei upon his death. And Hirohito's article should be renamed into Emperor Shōwa at once. Švitrigaila 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No comment on page name controversies. Those disputes generate all heat and no light. Between the strategic redirects and the search page, the article page can be found regardless of its name. --Meyer 09:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
True enough, but Shōwa is still the correct name. —Nightstallion (?) 16:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with you, Meyer, on your comment about the possible disputes born from name controversies, because they can apply to every naming convention. What are the naming conventions for if they're only seen as a source of controversy? Articles can be reached regardless of their name, yes, but readers can be more profitably taught by a well named article. Švitrigaila 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it more correct to say "Emperor Shōwa", "Shōwa Emperor", or "the Shōwa Emperor"? On later reference should it be "Shōwa" or "the Emperor", or does it matter?
—wwoods 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct form depends on your point of view. The conventional form for the English Wikipedia is "Emperor Blah" (no "the") with "Blah" being an optional alternative for the second or later use within an article. "The emperor" is also an alternative in contexts where it is clear which emperor is being referred to. --Meyer 03:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I thnik the current title, “Hirohito”, is more apropriate to an English (not Japanese) Wikipedia. Pratically nobody outside Japan calls Hirohito “Showa” — even the Popes cannot be used as example, because even non-Catholic people refers to them as their ecclesiastic names, that they get before they die. To bow our heads to “respect Japanese traditions” and rename the article to “Showa” is a repression of the freedom of speech in the name of political correctness — if people thought the same way, the image on the Muhammad Cartoons article should be deleted, too.
When you say "practically nobody outside Japan calls Hirohito 'Showa' ", you're right, but it only sends us back to the old same argument : "Hirohito" is the most used name in English context, I agree. But we're still back on the starting point : why should we use on Wikipedia the most used name rather than the most pertinent one? The fact it's the most used doesn't make it the most pertinent. When Emomali Rahmonov decided three mounths ago to change his name, his article was renamed only one week later into Emomalii Rahmon (we couldn't guess he would change it again to Emomali Rahmon only one mounth later!) It was not a matter of the frequency of a name over the other. Wikipedia is a champion for changing at once this kind of informations as soon as they happen. And if the present emperor of Japan died today, I would be the first to rename the Akihito article into Emperor Heisei, and I supose no-one could oppose that move. Even Emperor Shōwa's wife, Empress Kōjun (dead in 2000), is called by her posthumous regnal name.
So why not Emperor Shōwa? Only because Wikipedia didn't exist yet when he died, it's the only reason I see. A very bad reason of course.
Your argument about the freedom of speech is very strange. Why is your freedom of speech more hurt when we speak about Emperor Shōwa instead of Hirohito than when we speak about Emperor Kimmei instead of Amekuni Oshiharuki Hironiwa no Sumera Mikoto? If it hurts your freedom of speech, try to explain why, and what you want to say freely. Does it mean that the Pope John Paul II article must be renamed into Karol Wojtyła to respect the freedon of speach of non Catholics? Or that Pluto must be called a planet because some beleive it was wrong to call it a dwarf planet instead?
Or better : we must rename Mao Zedong into Zedong Mao since we don't have to "bow our heads to 'respect Chinese traditions' " of using the family name before the personnal name. But we don't. "Mao Zedong" is the only name Mao has in the Chinese system of naming people, as "Emperor Shōwa" is the only name he has in the Japanese system of naming the emperors. There is no other solution.
Švitrigaila 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Švitrigaila. —Nightstallion (?) 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I like when you agree with me even when I don't solicit you to do. :o) Švitrigaila 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert "Emperor Shōwa, not Hirohito" changes

Sorry, Švitrigaila, I know the issue means a lot to you, and your arguments have some merit, but Wikipedia is not a forum for editors to launch personal crusades against the unenlightened masses. Regardless of your feelings, the fact is the previous emperor of Japan was called Hirohito outside of Japan during his life and today. You are free to try to change people's habits, but Wikipedia is a forum for documenting what verifiably is, not for trying to convince people how things ought to be. --Meyer 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry too, Meyer, but an encyclopedia is by definition an instrument made to enlighten "unenlightened masses". It's not a democracy where a fact can be aproved or rejected by a vote. The facts that "hara-kiri" is a more commonly used term than "seppuku", or that "Fujiyama" is more commonly used than "Mount Fuji", or that "East Germany" is more commonly used than "German Democratic Republic" don't make that "hara-kiri", "Fujiyama" or "East Germany" better titles for those articles. Švitrigaila 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Aye, I agree. Just because many people use grammar incorrectly in German (use of "wegen" with dative is prevalent in commong speech) doesn't mean we suddenly change the correct way of doing it to the wrong way only because the majority does it incorrectly. Information is not subject to democratic approval -- what's right is right, no matter how many people know it. —Nightstallion (?) 09:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Marine biologists

How do you think about adding this article to Category:Marine biologists? (See the last paragraph of 'Post-war reign' section of the article.) --Acepectif 10:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


This article has been at Hirohito for a long time, and moves have been discussed in the past. As such, it is completely inappropriate to move it without any discussion. I've moved it back. Discussion of a move should be had here before any move is carried out. john k 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"and the coup was quickly crushed on the emperor's order"

The entire section on the Coup in the Surrender of Japan article makes no mention of the Emperor having anything to do with the failure of the "coup". Instead it goes on and on about how they spent the night searching for the audio recording, trying to convince others to support them and failing, and in the end "quitting" because they realized no-one supported them and upon hearing that an army unit might be marching on them. CraigWyllie 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign visits

In 1975, the emperor and the empress were honored guests at Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, the first such visit by Japanese royalty.

Is this particularly notable? Above all the other places he visited? -- Blorg 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think his meeting with Gerald Ford in Washington is more notable. He declared he deplored "that unfortunate war". Before and after this trip, he also gave interviews and refused to comment about his and the military's war responsibility. In 1971, he made a seven coutries european tour during which demonstrators hurled objects and insults at his motorcade. --Flying tiger 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


The early life section lacks any details about Hirohito's role during the regency period. It would be useful to have someone with knowledge add some facts about this period.Vontrotta (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Coronation date

I thought Hirohito's coronation was held in 1928? GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bloody butcher of Manchuria and foster father of the Bataan Death March?

Well, why not? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that would not be NPOV. John Smith's (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

I added categories in the Emperor Shōwa article, though it's now a redirect to the Hirohito article. They've been erased by Raul654 with this comment : "we do not put categories on redirects". I'd like to know were it's written we can't put categories on redirects. The fact is Wikipedia's software allows it: in category pages redirect pages are even listed in italics. And even if we don't find a consensus about which name to chose for this emperor, it's not a reason to exclude Emperor Shōwa of this list. By the way, ther's no reason to exclude Japanese reigning empresses, like Empress Go-Sakuramachi. Švitrigaila (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask Raul about this, he's a pretty reasonable guy and I'm sure he give a deeper explanation. BTW, I've got to agree with him, categories are designed so a person browsing one topic, will be able to see related topics. Anyone browsing Japanese Emperors, will see Hirohito, know who he is, and be able to click on him.
For the record, some policies, include:
  • Wikipedia:Redirect#Categories_for_redirect_pages "Redirects should not normally contain categories that would fit on the target page because it can result in duplicate listings of the same page within a category." If he was both the Emperor of Japan and a popular talk-show host, then the talk-show host might need a categorized redirect.
  • Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects "Alternate names for articles" but I'd say we've established here that Showa and its versions are not common, acceptable alternate names for this article in the English wikipedia and this feels like an attempt to end-run around one process with another process with a fork MBisanz talk 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for these explanations, but even if you can prove "Showa and its versions are not common", you didn't prove they are not "acceptable names for this article". If finally we decide to move the article to Emperor Shōwa, I'll be glad (and sure you will too) that we put categories in the Hirohito redirect page. Švitrigaila (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what happens with the article name, having 2 links in the same article in the same category when both names mean the same and are unlikely to be confused, does not seem useful. If someone is looking for Japanese emperors during their lifetime, they will look at the category, and see the name Hirohito and recgonize it. Assuming they've heard of the name Showa, they'll most likely know its the same at Hirohito. And if they don't then they'll search it and pop up through that means. I cannot imagine though the situation of a person knowing the name Showa and not knowing it means Hirohito, but thats just me. MBisanz talk 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GA assessment

This article is currently substantially below par for a GA and I am thus giving it a week from today to come up to standard or I shall delist it. I am aware from extensive discussions above that there is substantial debate about the article's name. This is however irrelevant to GA as what ever the artile is called, it lacks important parts of the GA criteria.

  1. Citation. Vast swathes of the article are uncited, which is bad in a regular article at GA but for an article as controversial as this, is a serious problem. As a rule, every paragraph should have at least one citation and further, citations should be provided for anything which is likely to be challenged (i.e. controversial), any direct quotes, and any statistics. At the moment, many paragraphs are totally uncited, as are numerous statements which may be potentially controversial. There are [citation needed] tags in the article and there are several improperly formated weblinks amongst the citations.
  2. I'm concerned about comprehensiveness because although his life during World War II is well covered, the first forty years are not. Substantially more detail could be provided about this period.
  3. Some of the lower sections seem uneccessary, especially the "In popular culture". This shoudl be expanded to a proper section, intergrated with the other text, or removed. Also, why is there a link to Is this a reliable source?
  4. The lead is much too short and should be expanded to provide a proper summary of the major events of this man's life.
  5. The article does not appear to be stable at all. Please can a summary be provided here explaining why and whether there is a solution to this problem. I have found that the better cited an article is, the less controversial it becomes.

That is enough for now. The images are good and much of the prose is well written, the problems above are severe enough however to result in delisting if nothing is done within a week. If work is progressing, I will give an extension to this time limit and I will be happy to reassess the article at a future time. At a reassessment I will provide another list of problems, probably smaller and easier to fix, which should see this article on its way to passing GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will answer to point 5. Having followed this article for almost two years, I must emphasize that the article is indeed very stable. All major points added in each section where kept without quarrel. The frequent reversions to which you may refer are in fact either related to the "name controversy" (Emperor Shōwa vs. Hirohito) or some POV comment like «He was a war criminal and killed all people of the Far East» such as this one [[1]]. So, I do not think there is need to worry about «stability» .... I however agree on your 4 other points. We must yet remember that most of the unsourced material is part of the old stuff which was added years ago. --Flying tiger (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept Flying Tiger's comments above, but all my other points remain and there has been no effort to deal with them during the last week. As a result, I am removing this article from the Good Articles list. When it reaches good article standard once more please renominate it at WP:GAN. I am happy to respond to any queries about this in the future, but any attempt to reinstate this article as it is must go through WP:GAR. I am sorry to have to do this, but the article is nowhere near GA status at the moment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed article page MOVE

Perhaps it would be better to move this page to "Emperor Shōwa", like other deceased Japanese Emperors (eg. Emperor Meiji)? --Wood elf 15:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As per the above discussion it would appear that "Emperor Showa" would be the correct title of this article even if Hirohito is more popular. so I agree Gailim (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, but I'm scared. I wish this article was renamed as Emperor Shōwa and I would be very pleased if it were possible. But the precedent on the French Wikipedia makes me feel a great ball in my stomach... Švitrigaila (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too. —Nightstallion 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Oda Mari (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, but I'm shocked that nobody has objected yet. This topic has been discussed many times, and the opposition is quite fierce because he is still more widely known as "Hirohito" outside of Japan. I suspect if you actually move it, they will come crawling out of the woodwork very quickly.-Jefu (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved. Mr.Clown (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reality check, guys: this is the English Wikipedia, the Manual of Style -- and common sense -- says to go by the widely accepted name in English rather than a pedantic version that 99.99 out of 100 non-Japanese won't understand. Try again. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's only beginning.... Seven votes for the move, and already one insult against. "Pedantic", the first missile is launched. This is far stronger than one single argument. And to begin the year with grace, look at what Raul654 and Calton and is doing to destroy all the work I made today: They're replacing "Emperor Shōwa" sometimes by "Showa Emperor" ([2]), sometimes by "Emperor Hirohito" ([3]), sometimes with a doble link to a single article ([4]) and so on. Never directly to "Hirohito". Because in their rage to destroy all what I have patiently done, reading the articles I was modifying, they didn't even remark that I avoided to modify the articles linking to "Hirohito" (except one template)! Writing stupidities (like this one: [5]) is more important than thinking of the sense of they write. Švitrigaila (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna say that I'm against the move,a s int he English speaking world, the individual in question is almost universally known by a certain name "Hirohito", in 100 years, he might well be known by "Showa", but somewhere in there when news shows, magazines, and the generally colloquial usage changed, we would probably have moved it as well. Wikipedia reflects the facts as they are now, not as we could predict them to be or want them to be. MBisanz talk 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think the article should remain at Hirohito, as this is how he's known in the English speaking world. Although he probably could have stated it in a friendlier manner, I agree with Calton's point that "Hirohito" is the common usage and this is where the article should be located. Chaz Beckett 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We have here a clash between two conceptions of what an encyclopedia must be. Must it favour facts or customs? For myself it's absolutely obvious that an encyclopedia must always chose facts upon customs. If we stick to customs, then we should still write that Pluto is a planet, at least as long as the public has not changed its mind about it. Švitrigaila (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you taken a look at
Consensus can change, but this is not the place to change it, Wikipedia:Naming conventions ("New naming conventions should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and explained at Requests for comment, the Village Pump, and any related pages.") is however a good place to put a proposed change like this. MBisanz talk 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
My answer point by point:
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is out of the subject, neither "Emperor Shōwa" nor "Hirohito" are common names.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision): If you enter either "Emperor Shōwa" or "Showa Emperor", or "Hirohito", or "Hirohito of Japan", or "Hirohito, Emperor of Japan", or "Emperor Hirohito" and so on and push "go", you will allways find the good article. Just try, it's magic. That's what redirects are made for. The sentence you quote means that if you want to look for "Andrew Johnson", you must be redirected to US president Andrew Jackson and not to Canadian actor Andrew Jackson. As you can see, it's quite not the same issue.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia name convention..." That means that other accepted Wikipedia conventions can go against it. So we can't forbid a particular naming convention to go against this principle because of this general namaing convention. "If an article name has been stable for a long time..." That means that we were wrong when on April 19, 2005 we changed the title of this article, despite the fact it has existed for two years with a quite satifying name,
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles): I have already proposed here to change this naming convention. There was a discussion and finally the conclusion reached by other users was that they were either for the change or neutral (but not against) but the article about the Emperor had to be moved first. Now you tell me the convention must be changed first. It's endless: it's a a snake seizing its own tail. The present convention allows the article to be named "Emperor Shōwa". It just says it can be named "Hirohito". And as I showed above, particular conventions have the right to overrule the general one, so you can't use the general "common use"-principle to forbid us to erase the sentence about Emperor Shōwa in this naming convention.
I think there shoud be a discussion about naming conventions of regnal names in general. These names are special because they change. When the present emperor of Japan dies, he will be renamed at once "Emperor Heisei". When her mother died in 2000, she was renamed at once Empress Kōjun. That's not a matter of "common use": those names are new and appear suddenly, like Pope Benedict XVI's name. All those names are officials (see here the official homepage of the Imperial household Agency and here and there the web site of the Japanese Government). We can't wait for a new name to be popular before we accept it. If it officially changes, we must accept it at once.
Švitrigaila (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that this is a potentially contentious issue, and as you point out, faces a circular-reasoning problem, and probably can't be addressed by discussion flung over several naming convention talk pages, article talk pages, AN, etc, could I suggest an Wikipedia:Requests for comment which would bring a wider range of editors (I think there were 4-5 contributors at the discussion you linked, and 9 in this current discussion). MBisanz talk 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
keep Hirohito Why? Because this is the English encyclopedia and the title of the article is used as a reference to provide information on the subject of the article. If 90% of the people looking for information in the English encyclopedia on Hirohito have trouble finding it because it is conforming to the suggested standardized Japanese way of addressing Hirohito it is not a change made in the best interests of providing unbiased information.
That isn't to say that people should not be encouraged to conform to legitimate and correct historical titles, but since Hirohito is not a made-up English name and clearly directly is at least as correct as Showa (since it was his given name), to me the primary factor with which to determine what title to use should be the ease of locatability. I think any and all arguments refering to Hirohito as 'Hirohito' being disrespectful are regional (Japan) and should have no bearing on the name used here. In my opinion, that is the main and only argument that forms all basis and drive behind the suggested change of title, for it has no informative merit (since the article already informs the reader that he is referred to as Showa). --SirDecius (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with these arguments.
Firstly, as I said above, whatever the name you type in the search box, you'll find the good article. Making "Hirohito" a redirect to an "Emperor Shōwa"-page is not misleading. A person looking for "Hirohito" will find the good page at once with no trouble. As someone looking for "Mutsuhito" will be redirected at once to the good article : Emperor Meiji. I can't understand why "90% of the people looking for information in the English encyclopedia on Hirohito [should] have trouble finding it". And if you think they'll have trouble understanding that the page they are redirected to is the good page, I won't beleive it, because it would mean that 90% of the readers don't even read the first sentence of an article!
Secondly, you say that "Hirohito" is not a made-up English name. It nearly is. I read somewhere (but I don't like to use this argument since I can't remember where and when I read it, so I can't prove it) this name was above all wildly used in the American newpapers since the beginning of the Second World War in order to name the enemy and because of its "exotic"-sounding form. I don't know if it's true or not. But if, for instance, you consider that my French first name is "Évariste" and I never use it in public because everybody here call me "Mr. Švitrigaila", and you take the bad habit to call me "Évariste", then I'd say that even if "Évariste" is not a made-up English name, it's a made-up English bad habit to use it unproperly. Even if "Évariste" is "at least as correct as Švitrigaila" (by the way, my real names are neither Évariste nor Švitrigaila...)
Thirdly, you speak about "regional (Japanese)" customs that "should have no bearing on the name used here". I recall you that the same customs apply for the other Japanse Emperors. Do you want to rename the "Emperor Meiji", "Emperor Taishō", "Empress Kōjun", "Emperor Chūkyō" articles to "Mutsuhito", "Yoshihito", "Nagako" and "Kanenari-shinnō" respectivly (the last one was posthumously renamed six centuries after his death!) If not, can you explain why?
And what do you call "here"? This is an English encyclopedia, that means it is an encyclopedia written in English language, not an encyclopedia about England. "Hirohito" is not the English name of Emperor Shōwa. As I showed above, every official or diplomatic English language document speaking about him (and written after his death) will call him "Emperor Shōwa". Every official communication of the Japanese government in English will call him "Emperor Shōwa". The fact that this is English Wikipedia is out of the subject regarding the use of a custom upon another.
Fourthly and more generally, the whole argument in favor of "Hirohito" is : the reader mustn't be surprised. I'm strongly against this argument. An encyclopedia must stick to facts. If a fact suprises the reader, it mustn't be omitted because of that. My old example about Pluto is relevant: even if most of the people still think it's a planet, it's not a reason to write in its article it is a planet. The reason is there is an official body (the IAU) that decided it is a "dwarf planet" and not a "planet", and the public has no power to change this decision. As for the Japanese Emperor, there is an official body, the Imperial Household Agency that decided Hirohito's name is "Emperor Shōwa", and the public has no power to change this decision.
Švitrigaila (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a very close discussion. However, the title by which a historical person is referred to, especially one as relevant to the international community as Hirohito, should be determined by two factors:
1) Accuracy
2) Recognizability
In my opinion you are solely targeting the accuracy point, stating that Japan and all official documents refer to Hirohito as Emperor Showa. This makes the use of Emperor Showa more accurate than the use of Hirohito. In addition, other Japanese emperors have been referred to by their dynasty name, not given names. In favour of Hirohito, the simple and obvious point is that this was his given name, and it is therefore clearly accurate from a literal point of view. I think a majority of your points against Hirohito are not valid - a majority of historical and public figures in Wikipedia are referred to by their given names, not the titles their nations have bestowed upon them.
So, let's just assume for argument's sake that both Hirohito and Showa are at least equally correct - Showa is official, Hirohito is given, and given names are what are used more frequently in Wikipedia. If we equate these two points, then the only variable is recognizability. Certainly, Hirohito is far more recognized on a global scale.
I think if Hirohito was not his given name, I would definitely support your suggestion. If Showa was a more well known reference for him, I would probably support your suggestion. Accuracy is much more important than recognizability, but in this case I think the argument for the official name versus the given name does not have sufficient merit because both names are correct assignments for the man. If there is a rule somewhere in Wikipedia that supports using the official name over the given name, point it out so you have some precedent to work with. Also, I would suggest you make your points more concise and targeted - there is a lot of writing on this talk page and I feel you have repeated a lot of statements and they are somewhat bloated which makes it hard to follow some of your thoughts.
Here is a reference for you: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) - the Most general rule overall is to use the most common form of the name used in English - word for word, Wikipedia policy. I'm sure you could find some variable or another that 'may' provide some reason as to why it should be changed to Showa, but unless you show a rule that is more strong, clear, and direct as this I doubt your suggestion can be validated. --SirDecius (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree with SirDecius. Using a standard rule of the most common English form provides consistency. For instance, no one would be surprised to type in "Jimmy Carter" and be redirect to James Earl Carter Jr. or typing "Bill Clinton" and getting William Jefferson Blythe III, but a consensus was reached that for ease of use in naming articles, we go with the most common English name in use at the time the article is being written. As far as I can tell, looking at major, reputable English language sources of PBS, BBC, and Britannica, Hirohito is the preferred and more commonly used version. MBisanz talk 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Sir Decius, I can't agree at all with your "So, let's just assume for argument's sake that both Hirohito and Showa are at least equally correct - Showa is official, Hirohito is given, and given names are what are used more frequently in Wikipedia." For people who have a regnal name, the regnal name is what is used more frequently in Wikipedia.
Neither do I agree with the "recognizability factor". I made this kind of changes in the past : [6]]. The purpose was not to loose the reader who knows who "Hirohito" is but not "Emperor Shōwa". Articles must explain. But articles are not made up to tell the readers only facts he already knows. If there is something new to them, it must be told and explained.
Švitrigaila (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been a huge amount of opinion expressed here so far - but little evidence either way. Here's some from Google Books - a fairly good way of seeing how a person is referred to in published literature (the hits from recent publications surprised me):

  • Hirohito 10560
  • Showa 4700
  • Hirohito (limiting to works published after 1990) 2051
  • Showa (limiting to works published after 1990) 2640
  • Emperor Hirohito (limiting to works published after 1990) 1198
  • Emperor Showa (limiting to works published after 1990) 1017

Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Remember to put your complex word searches in quote marks, otherwise you get every instance of "Emperor" and "Hirohito" each occurring anywhere in the text:
  • "Emperor Showa": 298
  • "Showa Emperor": 566
  • "Emperor Hirohito": 794
So, actually, the decision should be between "Emperor Hirohito" and "(The) Showa Emperor"! -- megA (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I purposefully did not search for the phrase "Emperor Hirohito" but merely for the two words "Emperor" and "Hirohito" since I intended the search to be broader in order to find things such as "the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito, ...". Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a "request for comment", here's my comment - I think either Hirohito or Emperor Shōwa would be best. Hirohito is easily the most common name in general English-language usage (ask a random person on the street, and if they know the name at all, chances are they'll say "Hirohito", not "Emperor Hirohito" or "Showa Emperor" or anything else). And "the Shōwa Emperor" is the officially correct name. So either of those is fine, and as has been pointed out, redirects will solve any other problems. But I do think we need to consider the style format of the other Japanese emperors in naming this article - if we decide to make an exception and leave this at Hirohito, that's one thing, but I really don't think we should be doing anything different like Hirohito of Japan, Hirohito (emperor), Hirohito II, or the like. LordAmeth (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a little nit to pick: Yo say you think Hirohito or Emperor Showa would be best, but later on you state that "the Showa Emperor" is the officially correct name. Which "Showa" form do you actually favor? -- megA (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never been happy about the Wikipedia naming policy (I'd rather have articles at the most accurate name, and redirects from the 'common' name, so that e.g. the article would be at Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, with a redirect from Lorenzo de' Medici), but as long as we have the 'most common version' rule, let's follow it. Basically nobody in the world of 'English as a principal language' speakers, other than people with some special interest in Japan, will know who 'Emperor Showa' is. End of discussion. Feel free to try and change the general policy - I'd be more than happy to support you in that (and of course we'd change this to 'Emperor Showa' if it passed). Noel (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Should a seperate coup d'état article exist?

I was trying to find an article on the attempted coup d'état to preempt the emporer's speech announcing the surrender. I could not find one.

Perhaps a new article is in order, unless one is already out there. Piercetp (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)