Talk:Hirohito/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Appropriate Emperor Name

I believe that the title Hirohito should be used for the article, as that was his given name, and is the most common form of the name used in English. In the article, he should be referred to as Hirohito, except when describing his royal title and the Japanese process of re-naming emperors at death. In other articles he should be referred to as Emperor Hirohito to denote his position relative to the subject being discussed and his place in Japanese culture.
For example, I cite that The Encyclopædia Britannica, PBS, TIME magazine Asia edition, The BBC, and Encarta all refer to him as Hirohito.
Further, under Wikipedia naming conventions:
There appears to be a strong preference for the term most commonly used form. MBisanz talk 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I should note the choices are Emperor Hirohito, Emperor Showa, Hirohito, Showa. MBisanz talk 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer one of the two Hirohito forms. CraigWyllie (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Strongly support 'Emperor Hirohito' as per Bendono's notes #2. Hirohito should be disambiguous as per the notes below. --SirDecius (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep this article here at Hirohito. Create Hirohito (disambiguation) as the disambiguation page to link to all uses of the name. See my notes below as well as Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. Chaz Beckett 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth is listed as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", Tsar Peter as "Peter II of Russia". Isn't that a valid convention for monarchs? So, following this, the article should be "Hirohito of Japan". Since I believe he was more important during his lifetime than after his death, I'd vote for "Hirohito of Japan". And since "Showa" is the name of his era and not a given name, "(The) Showa Emperor" should be used instead of "Emperor Showa" when necessary. (as in: "the fifteenth-century emperor" instead of "emperor fifteenth century"...) (see also my above comment on Google search results) -- megA (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
So you will support "Albert of the United Kingdom" instead of "George VI of the United Kingdom"? Don't forget his birth name and the name by which he was called before taking a regnal name was "Albert". "George" was his younger brother. Why would his regnal name accepted upon his birth name? If it's matter of the length of his reign, what about Pope John Paul I? he was known his life long by the name "Albino Luciani" and renamed "John Paul I" only one mounth befor his death... Oh, but I'm loosing myself: I just forgot that there is an official list of popes and that we must stick to it. Švitrigaila (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should check your facts before taking part in this discussion. His given birth name was Michi (no miya). I never mentioned any birth name. And I wan't aware that Alberto Luciani was a monarch his whole life, sorry, I must have missed that. I also seem to have overlooked the fact that Hirohito was called by his posthumous name "Showa" during his reign. Thanks for pointing this out. -- megA (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In the few similar discussions in which I've participated I usually go for a combination of the proposed names; so why stop now? Therefore I propose: "Hirohito, Showa Emperor" or "Hirohito, Showa Emperor of Japan". The first title seems very reasonable and 'wieldy' to me. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I still agree with reasoning of WP:MOS-JP in regsd to Hirohito. In other words, the English Wikipedia should name his article using the most common name he is known with in Western world. I accept both Hirohito and Hirohito, Emperor Showa for use as name of this article. Let there be no uncertainty that I oppose strongly any leaving "Hirohito" away from the article name. Shilkanni (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not persuaded by the Google search results which show that "Showa Emperor" is more common[1] than "Emperor Showa"?[2] And as [User:megA] showed, the former is (more) correct.
In any case, I'd support either "Hirohito, Showa Emperor" or "Hirohito, Emperor Showa". With or without a macron. SamEV (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Uhhuh. I probably should have listed all combined variants which could be acceptable, to avoid that question. To recount my position, Hirohito cannot be left out, that's the ting I oppose. I do not much believe that long and unwieldy combinations receive enough support. But if they miraculously do, then one option I would also accept, is Hirohito, Showa tenno. Shilkanni (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Why wait for a miracle? All you have to do is say: 'yes, using both names makes sense; it's a win for both sides. And it wouldn't be in the running for most unwieldy title by a long shot - it's just 23 letters and spaces. I'm for it.' And that's how miracles happen. On variants, "Showa Tennō (Hirohito)" is another good variant. SamEV (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hirohito is the most appropriate name for this article. It is the name most commonly associated with the subject in sources originating in the English-speaking world. English usage trumps Japanese usage because the subject is a figure of world history and the English usage is established in a large body of works concerning him created outside Japan. Hirohito is even the name under which the Emperor published marine biology texts in English during his lifetime. It is true that this usage is incorrect by Japanese standards, but propogating Japanese usage into current English is not the mission of Wikipedia. It is true that this usage is inconsistent with the naming of rulers of other countries and other periods of Japanese history, but that is the nature of the English language. Further, Hirohito should also be preferred usage in the body of the article, though a discussion of "Showa Tenno" and Japanese usage is called for. -- Meyer (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

There are other Hirohito, including (but not limited to):

Regardless of the chosen title, Hirohito should be a disambiguation page. As such, there are better, more descriptive and appropriate names for this emperor as well. Bendono (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And there is another important one: Emperor Hirohito (1265-1317), known after his death by his posthumous regnal name Emperor Fushimi! Some other language Wikipedias showed an even bigger eurocentrism by calling him "Hirohito I", ignoring he was indeed "Hirohito II" !! Švitrigaila (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of those, I think there is a similar comment somewhere that there are also Showa-X articles that would necessitate a dis-ambig that route. Since we don't like to name people with title President Bush, Queen Elizabeth, etc, my suggestion would be, pending the outcome of this RFC to do it in the form of "X (emperor)" as in "Hirohito (emperor)" or "Showa (emperor)" Thanks for the research Bendono. MBisanz talk 04:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the primary use of Hirohito is the emperor, Hirohito should remain as it is (article on the emperor) and an {{otheruses}} template should be placed at the top. This template will display as:
Hirohito (disambiguation) should have links to the additional usages of Hirohito, as well as the primary usage (this article on the emperor). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic and Wikipedia:Hatnote for more info. Chaz Beckett 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as Bill Clinton is not the primary usage of Bill, and George W. Bush is not the primary usage of George, neither is this emperor the primary usage of the common given name Hirohito either. Bendono (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that this article on Hirohito isn't the primary usage of "Hirohito". The three articles listed above as other uses of Hirohito have a total of zero articles linked to them. If a user enters "Hirohito" and hits "Go", there a 99.9% chance they're seraching for the article on the emperor. On the off chance they're not, they'll be a link to the disambiguation page. Unless there are other (much more significant) usages of "Hirohito" that haven't yet been mentioned, the primary usage is definitely the emperor. Chaz Beckett 05:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that "Bill" and "George" do not have primary usages. Bill has a whole list of articles that a reader might be trying to reach. It could refer many objects or the nickname for William (name). Similarly, George has many different usages, none of which are primary. George W. Bush is rarely referred to as "George", in the US or elsewhere. Since there's no primary usage of these terms, a search leads to a disambiguation page. Chaz Beckett 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Those people are not known simply by their given name so it should be covered in Hirohito (given name) per WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames. Whether this article should stay here or Emperor Shōwa, the primary topic for Hirohito is apparently the emperor, not the given name. --Kusunose (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Chaz Beckett 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If insufficient weight is given to the other uses of Hirohito and the consensus is indeed that 99% of the people would be looking for the emperor, then keeping the article title as Hirohito may be justified. --SirDecius (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I agree that this page musn't be a disambiguation page and must lead to the article about Emperor Shōwa. But it must be a redirect to "Emperor Shōwa", not the name of the article itself. Švitrigaila (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes 2

Above there is an assertion that the emperor is commonly known just as Hirohito. That may or may not be, but he is also just as commonly known as Emperor Hirohito. Here is a quick list of professionally published English language resources to back the point:

  • American shogun : General MacArthur, Emperor Hirohito and the drama of modern Japan; Robert Harvey, 2006
  • Emperor Hirohito and Shōwa Japan : a political biography; Stephen S Large, 1992
  • Emperor Hirohito; BBC Active, 2005
  • Emperor Hirohito and his chief aide-de-camp : the Honjō diary, 1933-36; Shigeru Honjō and Mikiso Hane, 1982
  • The story of Emperor Hirohito; Bob Italia and Rosemary Wallner, 1990
  • Emperor Hirohito; Mike Wallace 198?
  • Emperor Hirohito : a pictorial history; Kodansha International, 1975
  • Reviews & Responses - Recent Books on International Relations - Emperor Hirohito; Lucian W Pye 2000
  • Emperor Hirohito; Wolper Productions.
  • American Shogun General Macarthur Emperor Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan.; Robert Harvey, 2007
  • The rhetorical transformation of Emperor Hirohito of Japan; Tomohiro Kanke, 2003
  • The last banzai Emperor Hirohito of Japan; J Walter De Hoog, 1989
  • Emperor Hirohito, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco; Mike Wallace and David Wolper, 1988
  • Emperor Hirohito and Japan's Decision to Go to War with the United States: Reexamined; Noriko Kawamura, 2007
  • A rhetorical analysis of Japan's dramas of modernity and Emperor Hirohito's wartime role; Takeshi Suzuki, 1996
  • Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan: A Political Biography (review); Jon Thares Davidann, 1999
  • Atomic bomb and a soldier : a dairy of the chronicle of the Emperor Hirohito; Tsuneo Hata and Lisa Shinohara, 1981?
  • Emperor Hirohito of Japan; Satan's man of mystery, unveiled in the light of prophecy; Dan Gilbert, 1944

Bendono (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is useful for showing a trend between Hirohito and Showa towards Hirohito. But since we can't have an article titled Emperor Hirohito (no royal titles in article names I believe), the choices are really Hirohito or Hirohito (emperor). I'm fine with either of those. MBisanz talk 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Take a look at Category:Japanese emperors. Bendono (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I fully support Bendono's notion. Emperor Hirohito is better given that large list of precedents. I have altered my vote above. --SirDecius (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm against expressing titles in the article's name. "Pope Benedict XVI" should be renamed simply "Benedict XVI" because there is only one Benedict XVI, and "Pope John II" should be renamed "John II (pope)" like every other pages vith an ambiguity. Or else, why not renaming "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" or "George W. Bush" to "President George W. Bush"? I don't know where the diference is. About Japanese emperors, "Emperor" is a partial translation of Tennō which is a part of the name itself. For myself, I'd prefer to keep this "Tennō" instead of translating it and have "Meiji tennō" instead of "Emperor Meiji". Of course, Emperor Shōwa is never called "Hirohito tennō". (And I must add that "Emperor Hirohito" could be a dab page between Emperor Fushimi and Emperor Shōwa). Švitrigaila (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Bendono is right, their dead, he's dead, there's no reason we can't use the Emperor title, so I'll support Emperor Hirohito, Hirohito, or Hirohito (emperor), in that order of preference. MBisanz talk 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a confusion here. The word Tennō or Emperor does apply to dead or living Emperors. That's not a problem. The problem is the regnal name. The other are dead, he's dead, there's no reason we can't use his posthumous name. So I support "Emperor Shōwa". Švitrigaila (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually this article should be called Hirohito of Japan. In fact all the Japanese emperor/empress regnant articles should be X of Japan. That's how the other monarch biographies are styled ('monarch name' of 'country'). GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody calls George VI "Albert" after his accession, nor does anyone call the pope "Ratzinger" anymore. The situation with Hirohito is different. As to "of Japan" that is entirely unnecessary - "of Country" is only used for countries where a name might be reused in different countries - we specifically say Christian and Muslim rulers, I believe. There is no other Hirohito, no other Meiji, no other Qianlong Emperor, and so forth, so no need to use country names. john k (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We certainly can't have it as Showa, on the grounds of common usage (Oh, when I said 'monarch name' of 'country', I menat 'regnal name' of 'country'). GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
On these grounds you're right. But they are not the "good" grounds to me. "Common usage" can't overrule "correct usage". Švitrigaila (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "correct usage"? Most English language texts call him "Hirohito," which was, of course, his name.; Obviously it is not correct in Japanese to call him Hirohito, but that can't determine what is correct in English. john k (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Those official websites show that "Emperor Shōwa" is his correct name even in English: [3], [4], [5] Švitrigaila (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Japanese government websites do not determine what English language usage - English language journalists and historians do, and they've always called him "Hirohito". john k (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"always" is almost never the appropriate term. After less than two minutes of searching, here are some professionally edited, English language resources that are quite informative:
  • Reporting the death of the Emperor Shōwa; David Williams, 1990
  • Visit of President Bush for state funeral of Emperor Showa, February 23-25, 1989, United States Information Service, 1989
In the context of the now dead emperor, Emperor Shōwa is quite appropriate. The issue is not English vs. Japanese. Just like Pluto, information and titles change. Bendono (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are of course correct - he is not always called Hirohito. But he is usually called Hirohito, even now, nearly twenty years after his death, in most English language sources. john k (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that other articles on Japanese monarchs give their title - e.g. Empress Suiko. So I think we should use that here. As for the name used, I think it should be "Showa". So I would plump for "Emperor Showa". John Smith's (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would name the article Hirohito, because that is what high school and college students would be looking for. WP should be user-friendly, not a technician's delight. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This argument seems to me to be a complete nonsense (with all due respect, I don't want to seem rude): a college student is suposed to look for informations he doesn't already knows. An encyclopedia can and must be at variance with the reader's knowledge if the facts require. Every encyclopedias are written by technicians in their field. It's not a matter of delight but of facts. Švitrigaila (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I support either leaving the article here (at Hirohito) or moving it to Emperor Hirohito due to common usage. Those two forms are by far the most common way to refer to this person, though I give preference to Hirohito I believethat usage is a little more common than the other. Emperor Showa, Emperor Shouwa, and Emperor Shōwa should all redirect here. If someone wants to create redirects for Hirohito of Japan and Shōwa of Japan, I'd be fine with that, though I have never seen either used in anything. Not even once (until this discussion). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I guess all the people who thought this guy was (Emperor) Hirohito were wrong. He was really...well, we'll have to let the expert inform us of that...repeatedly. What must his life have been like, having to use the wrong name while he was alive? Only in death did he find his real identity apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.110.244 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, The Encyclopædia Britannica, PBS, TIME magazine Asia edition, The BBC, and Encarta all refer to him as Hirohito or Emperor Hirohito, I know some individual authors may refer to him in other manners, but I'd say those are pretty reliable, independent, English-language sources of what is the most-common name of an individual. MBisanz talk 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the official name : Emperor Shōwa. It is time Wikipedia use the correct appellation and there is no problem about some users unable to find the article as, with the miracle of technology, Hirohito should redirect here. As for emperor Hirohito, I strongly reject it as Hirohito is his personnal name, not his regal name. I would prefer keeping Hirohito than this. --Flying tiger (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Moving "Hirohito" to "Emperor Hirohito" instead of "Emperor Shōwa" would be like moving "Joseph Ratzinger" to "Pope Joseph Ratzinger" instead of "Pope Benedict XVI". Švitrigaila (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

English language media utilize the Emperor's given name (Hirohito) more often than the official name given by the Japanese government (Emperor Shōwa). As per WP:NC(CN), the more common usage in the English language is what is used over any official or full name, which in this case is Hirohito. "Emperor Hirohito" is used most after just "Hirohito" and "Emperor Shōwa/Showa/Shouwa" are practically unheard of in regular English usage. While they are used, they aren't as used as "Hirohito" so the page should remain where it currently is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hirohito" is only a first name, as can be seen with other articles with that name. The emperor should be moved to "Emperor Hirohito" or "Emperor Showa", and a disambiguation page for the names, see Michiko for example. Gryffindor 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We have Emperor Meiji and not "Mutsuhito" or "Mutsuhito of Japan". Likewise, we have Emperor Taishō and not "Yoshihito of Japan", and similar for all of the 100+ other deceased emperors of Japan. Wikipedia should be consistent and use Emperor Shōwa with disambiguation pages as necessary. There is a lot of comment on "most common usage" in English. "Most common" is not necessarily "most correct". If wikipedia is to be a meaningful reference and encyclopedia, it should promote usage of the "most correct" term over what some people may feel is "most common". With the automatic re-direct function, there should not be any confusion at all if the article is titled Emperor Shōwa and the commonly used name "Hirohito" redirects to it. --MChew (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well said, MChew. Shōwa should be treated like Meiji and Taishō. (Although the Japanese monarchy is largely a 19th-century invention, in this respect it does resemble its predecessor, so Kōmei and his predecessors have some relevance too.) "Emperor" seems a bizarre term, but "king" would raise eyebrows: my preference would be Meiji (monarch), Taishō (monarch), Shōwa (monarch). -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All the Japanese emperor/empress regnants should be moved to their 'living names', as these articles are mainley about them when they were alive. Let the Japanese Wikipedia worry about 'living/dead names' titles. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Way to make all of us who prefer "Hirohito" look like ignorant morons. This is an incredibly terrible idea. Do you really think "Mutsuhito" is more common than "Meiji," for instance? And going back before that, the personal names are never used. We should use the names that are used in English language literature, not "names used in life" because the articles are about them when they're alive. Usage of posthumous names for East Asian monarchs is common and standard, and we should follow standard procedure. This being said, we should also follow common usage when common usage is not to use the posthumous name, but the name used in life. This is clearly the case for "Hirohito." john k (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers, it was just a suggestion. My intent wasn't to make us look like morons. I hope we leave out those 'cubes' in the names. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was rude, it was uncalled for. But it really is a bad idea. What do you mean about cubes? john k (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The diacritics. If Showa is used (which shouldn't be) it must not be spelt as S-h-square-w-a. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gooday is right on that, I have the IE lang pack installed on my desktop and not on my laptop, and whenever I hit an Asian page on Wikipedia on the laptop, I get a nice set of black checkboxes. MBisanz talk 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a matter to be taken up on a much broader front. I largely agree with you, in that I think that only the basic diacritics found in ASCII should be used in article titles, and the others ignored, but that doesn't seem to be the way things are done at the moment. john k (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The diacritics found in ASCII are ` and ^ and that's all. ASCII provides a grand total of zero letter-diacritic combinations. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding was that all the basics were in ASCII - é and û and so forth. This is what I meant - the Latin-1 characters, I guess. john k (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Even MSIE is perfectly capable of displaying characters such as "ō" as intended. Just set it up to use suitable fonts (which are even supplied by Microsoft, free). And that's without even considering use of a superior (free) browser or superior (free) OS. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is not so much that GoodDay and MBisanz cannot see it, as that our readers might not be able to. john k (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's true that some mightn't. They won't be able to if for example they are using Japanese-market cellphones for browsing. (These won't provide "é" and the like either. Or anyway, the models I've encountered won't. But I could well be out of date.) However, I believe that even antique (by computing standards) computers running 'Doze 95 can handle TrueType fonts that provide for these characters. -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion on must we allow diacritics in Wikipedia or not is quite another discussion. I don't think it mus be discussed here. If, finally, we choose the name Emperor Shōwa or Emperor Showa for this page, the final choice will be done according to the general rule about macrons in Japanese names. Švitrigaila (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be "Emperor Showa" in order to be compliant with the other emperor articles (with or without diacritics I don't really care). The article "Hirohito" should be a listing of persons with that name, see for example Michiko, or Yasuhito. Gryffindor 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Resetting left margin...>
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).
Also, I feel it's slightly disrespectful to have all the others at 'Emperor <so-and-so', and him at plain old 'Hirohito', so I would cheerfully support moving the article to 'Emperor Hirohito' (and yes, I know that no such term exists in Japanese). That would also allow us to make 'Hirohito' a disambiguation page. Noel (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Shōwa references

Below is a list of English language resources using either Emperor Shōwa or Emperor Showa. In an attempt to provide high quality resources, I attempted to list only published books and journals, although with so many resources, a few may have slipped though.

  • In the Realm of a Dying Emperor: Japan at Century's End, Norma Field, 1993
  • Lonely Planet Japan, Chris Rowthorn, Ray Bartlett, Andrew Bender, and Michael Clark, 2007
  • Japanese Today: Change and Continuity, Enlarged Edition, Edwin O. Reischauer, Marius B. Jansen, 2004
  • Japanese Political History Since the Meiji Renovation, 1868-2000, Richard L. Sims, 2001
  • Japan Among the Powers, 1890-1990, Sydney Giffard, 1997
  • Architecture and Authority in Japan, William H. Coaldrake, 1996
  • Kamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers, Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, 2006
  • Eastern Phoenix: Japan Since 1945, Mikiso Hane, 1996
  • Why Are the Japanese Non-Religious?: Japanese Spirituality Being Non-Religious in a Religious Culture, Toshimaro Ama, 2004
  • Above the Clouds: Status Culture of the Modern Japanese Nobility, Takie Sugiyama Lebra, 1993
  • The Birth of Japan's Postwar Constitution, Shoichi Koseki, 1997
  • Eloquent Zen: Daito and Early Japanese Zen, Kenneth Kraft, 1997
  • Multiethnic Japan, John Lie, 2001
  • The Autobiography of Ozaki Yukio: The Struggle for Constitutional Government in Japan, Yukio Ozaka, Fujiko Hara, 2001
  • Japan's Hidden Hot Springs, Robert Neff, 1995
  • Frommer's Japan, Beth Reiber, Janie Spencer, 2006
  • The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945, John Toland, 2003
  • Censored 2007: The Top 25 Censored Stories, Peter Phillips, Robert Jensen, 2006
  • Art Beyond the West (2nd Ed), Michael Kampen-O'Riley, 2006
  • The Insider's Guide to Sake, Philip Harper, 1998
  • Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death, Margaret Lock, 2001)
  • Japan for Kids: The Ultimate Guide for Parents and Their Children, Diane Wiltshire, Jeanne Huey, 2000
  • Women of the Pleasure Quarters: The Secret History of the Geisha, Lesley Downer, 2002
  • The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions: Second Edition, John R. Hinnells, 2003
  • The History of Japan, Louis G. Perez, 1998
  • Matsushita Leadership, John P. Kotter, 1997
  • The Flower Master, Sujata Massey, 2000
  • Comparing Asian Politics: India, China, and Japan, Sue Ellen M. Charlton, 2004
  • The Floating Girl, Sujata Massey, 2001
  • Women of Okinawa: Nine Voices from a Garrison Island, Ruth Ann Keyso, 2000
  • Tabloid Tokyo 2: 101 (All New) Tales of Sex, Crime and the Bizarre from Japan's Wild Weeklies, Mark Schreiber (etc), 2007
  • Japan: A Reinterpretation, Patrick Smith, 1998
  • The Borderless World, rev ed: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy, Kenichi Ohmae, 1999
  • Garden Plants of Japan, Ran Levy-Yamamori, Gerard Taaffe, 2004
  • Beyond the Rising Sun: Nationalism in Contemporary Japan, Bruce Stronach, 1995
  • Atomic Bomb Cinema: The Apocalyptic Imagination on Film, Jerome Shapiro, 2001
  • Fundamentalisms Observed, Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby, 1994
  • Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (Studies in Language and Gender), Shigeko Okamoto, Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 2004
  • Classic Japanese Inns and Country Getaways, Margaret Price, 1999
  • Kingdom of Beauty: Mingei and the Politics of Folk Art in Imperial Japan (Asia-Pacific), Kim Brandt, Kim Brandt, 2007
  • What Really Happened in Nanking, Tanaka Masaaki, 2000
  • The Emperor Shōwa standing at ground zero: on the (re-)configuration of a national 'memory' of the Japanese people, Takahashi Tetsuya, Japan Forum, March 2003
  • The Gift of Remembrance, Kim Esther, 2007
  • Women's International Tribunal Finds Japan Responsible for Wartime Sexual Slavery, "Emperor Showa" Guilty, The People's Korea, December 23, 2000
  • Ideology and Practice in Modern Japan, Roger Goodman, Kirsten Refsing, 1992
  • The Funeral of the Emperor of Japan, Adrian C. Mayer, Anthropology Today, June 1989
  • Electronic Pageantry and Japan's "Symbolic Emperor", Takashi Fujitani, The Journal of Asian Studies, Nov. 1992
  • Qualitative Social Research in Japan, Kazuyo Suzuki, Qualitative Social Research, January 2000
  • Henry A. Pilsbry and Yoichiro Hirase, with a Translation of Tokubei Kuroda's (1958) "In Memory of Dr. H. A. Pilsbry: Pilsbry and the Mollusca of Japan", Paul Callomon, Tokubei Kuroda, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Dec. 2003
  • Octocoral research–past, present and future, FM Bayer, Atoll Research Bulletin, 2001
  • Who Became Kamikaze Pilots, and How Did They Feel Towards Their Suicide Mission?, M Sasaki, 1997
  • Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora, SI Akasofu, 2002
  • Learning from Japan?: Interpretations of Honda Motors by Strategic Management Theorists, Andrew Mair, 1999
  • Global Civil Society Remakes History: The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal 2000, K Puja, Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 2001
  • Japan and Korea: A Turbulent History, Kwan-young Kim, March 1999
  • Asian Nationalism, Michael Leifer, 2000
  • Shallow-water Crabs from Western Part of the Sagami Sea, Central Japan, Masatsune Takeda, Rei Ueshima, Memoirs of the National Science Museum, 2002
  • Know Your Ally Japan, Frederick Dickinson, Orbis, 2006
  • Death of the Father: An Anthropology of the End in Political Authority, John Borneman, 2004
  • The Beginning of the End? The Problem of Imperial Succession in Modern Japan, Benami Shillony, Turning Points in Japanese History, 2002
  • Fluid Dynamics Research (Preface), Tsutomu Kambe, July 2007
  • From Imperial Myth to Democracy: Japan's Two Constitutions, 1889-2002 (review), Yasuo Hasebe, The Journal of Japanese Studies, Winter 2004
  • Neuropathology, Asao Hirano, September 2000
  • Frontier of plant biology, Masaki Iwabuchi, Journal of Plant Research, 1998
  • Geriatrics and Longevity Sciences in Japan, Nobuo Yanagisawa, Internal Medicine, Vol. 36 1997
  • Events and Sightings, Anne Fitzpatrick, Mary Croaken, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, July-September 2001
  • America's Wars in Asia: A Cultural Approach to History and Memory, Philip West, Steven I. Levine, 1997
  • Winners in Peace: MacArthur, Yoshida, and Postwar Japan, Richard B. Finn, Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol 19, 1993
  • "Our Respective Empires Should Stand Together": The Royal Dimension in Anglo-Japanese Relations, 1919–1941, Antony Best, Diplomacy & Statecraft, June 2005
  • Awkward Talisman: War Memory, Reconciliation and Yasukuni, Jeff Kingston, East Asia, Volume 24, 2007
  • Quoting God: How Media Shape Ideas About Religion And Culture, Claire Badaracco, 2005
  • Globalization and History of English Education in Japan, Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson, Asian EFL Journal, September 2006
  • Creation of the ideal society for long life: Some challenges in Japan, Akihiro Igata, Geriatrics & Gerontology International, December 2005
  • Business Ethics: Japan and the Global Economy, Thomas W. Dunfee, Yukimasa Nagayasu, 1993
  • Japan in 1990: Limits to Change, Kent E. Calder, Asian Survey, January 1991
  • Japanese Immigration into Latin America: A Survey, James L. Tigner, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 23 November 1981
  • Financial Reporting in the Pacific Asia Region, Ronald Ma, 1997
  • How to do historic pragmatics with Japanese honorifics, Journal of Pragmatics, October-November 2003
  • Ghosts of the Past: The Japanese History Textbook Controversy, Tim Beal, Nozaki, Yang, New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, 2001
  • A Gentlemen's Agreement, Tei Yamashita, Review: Literature and Arts of the Americas, 2006
  • Reflections on the Allied Occupation of Japan, Sebastian Swann, 1999
  • Turning Points in Japanese History, Bert Edström, 2002
  • The Worlds of Japanese Popular Culture: Gender, Shifting Boundaries and Global Cultures, D. P. Martinez, 1998
  • Cabillus atripelvicus, a new species of gobiid fish from the Ogasawara Islands, with a key to species of the genus, John Randall, Ichthyological Research, February 2007
  • A Companion to Postcolonial Studies, Henry Schwarz, Sangeeta Ray, 2000
  • Old soldiers never die, Louis Allen, Japan Forum, April 1992
  • Dissociative identity disorder (DID) in Japan: A forensic case report and the recent increase in reports of DID, Yukio Uchinuma, International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, June 2000
  • Interpreting Japanese Society: Anthropological Approaches, Joy Hendry, 1998
  • Xenobiotics and Cancer; Implications for Chemical Carcinogenesis and Cancer Chemotherapy, Lars Ernster, 1991
  • Seimeizan: A Living Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, Roger Corless, Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 12, 1992
  • Master Potter of Meiji Japan, Clare Pollard, 2002
  • Self as Person in Asian Theory and Practice, Roger T. Ames, Wimal Dissanayake, Thomas P. Kasulis, 1994
  • The Socialization of Aristocratic Children by Commoners: Recalled Experiences of the Hereditary Elite in Modern Japan, Takie Sugiyama Lebra, Cultural Anthropology, Feburary 1990
  • Japanese Christians and the world of the dead, Mark Mullins, Mortality, February 2004
  • In Search of Innocence: Feminist Historians Debate the Legacy of Wartime Japan, Vera Mackie, Australian Feminist Studies, July 2005
  • "Zen Is Not Buddhism" Recent Japanese Critiques of Buddha-Nature, Paul L. Swanson, Numen, May, 1993
  • Freedom of Expression: The Continuing Revolution, Lawrence W. Beer, Law and Contemporary Problems, 1990
  • Ceremony and Ritual in Japan: Religious Practices in an Industrialized Society, Jan van Bremen, D. P. Martinez, 1995
  • In Name Only: Imperial Sovereignty in Early Modern Japan, Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, Journal of Japanese Studies, Winter, 1991
  • "Hull-House" in Downtown Tokyo: The Transplantation of a Settlement House from the United States into Japan and the North American Missionary Women, 1919-1945, Manako Ogawa, Journal of World History, September 2004
  • Infanticide in Early Modern Japan? Demography, Culture, and Population Growth, Laurel L. Cornell, The Journal of Asian Studies, February 1996
  • Adoption among the Hereditary Elite of Japan: Status Preservation through Mobility, Takie Sugiyama Lebra, Ethnology, July 1989

Bendono (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Much has been said about common name. However, please notice that common name (see WP:NC(CN)) is immaterial to this case. That guideline state:

The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles.

This links to WP:NCNT. While there are many instructions, WP:NCNT ultimately states:

These conventions do not apply to Eastern and Polynesian civilizations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)."

Thus, the guideline relevant here is Wikipedia:MOS-JA#Names_of_emperors.

If the issue can not be resolved here, perhaps it should be rediscussed at WP:MOS-JP. Bendono (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

At the beginning of this RFC, I dropped a note to that talk-page, asking them to participate. So I'm not sure how moving the debate there would change much. MBisanz talk 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It is completely incorrect to say that naming royalty is not done according to WP:NC(CN). In the first place, the "exception" mentioned is only for westerners. In the second place, all the "exception" consists of is a certain standardized format for disambiguation, and the use of pre-emptive disambiguation (thus, the absence of any Louis XVI's besides the King of France doesn't prevent us from using Louis XVI of France rather than just Louis XVI). But this simply isn't true for eastern monarchs, in any event. And all articles are subject to WP:CN, it's just that how that is applied is different. john k (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely correct and verifiable that WP:NC(CN) is irrelevant and immaterial to naming royalty. Quoting once again:

The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page.

The unnameable present subject is royalty and has a title. Thus, it is an exception. WP:NC(CN) says nothing about "westerners". Please re-read the guidelines.
By the way, WP:CN is the "Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard" and is probably not the link that you intended. Bendono (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You are taking a passage out of context and using the letter of the law to get around its spirit. As Shilkanni says, the exception for monarchy has a sub-exception for eastern rulers, which sends them back to the normal standard. john k (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Shilkanni is incorrect. Please read the guidelines. In context and per the guidelines, WP:NC(CN) states:

The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page.

The present subject is royalty and has a title. So, per the guideline, we ignore WP:NC(CN) and move on to WP:NCNT which quite clearly states:

These conventions do not apply to Eastern and Polynesian civilizations. See also: [...] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) [...].

Again, this is very clear and in spirit with the guidelines. Specifically, which part of the interpretation are you having difficulty with? If you disagree with the guidelines, then take them up at the respective venues; this is not the right place. Here we just apply them. Bendono (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If this can be argued, WP:NCNT may possibly require further clarification. But I assure you that John Kenney, Shilkanni, and I were all part of the consensus that wrote WP:NCNT. It is not intended to apply in any way to royalty outside Europe (and perhaps the Islamic world). It does not provide an exception to WP:NAME for Hirohito; it has no effect whatsoever. Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved with developing WP:NCNT. The exception there stated for Eastern and Polynesian civilizations is meant to say that no detailed instruction in that page is applicable to, for example, Japan. Forget them. Forget also the basis for standardizing Western monarchs, because similar need does not exist with Japanese monarchs. The exception returns the matter nicely to Wikipedia's general naming instruction, WP:NC(CN). Which should be leading principle always. WP:MOS-JP is such a small thing, it does not govern, or, rather, it gets altered if another naming convention for Japanese monarchs wins consensus. That said, there is certain wisdom in the current instruction there, with Hirohito. I am not eager to alter it. Shilkanni (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC(CN) sends you to WP:NCNT. You say that WP:NCNT returns you to WP:NC(CN). Notice that that puts one into an infinite loop without resolution. However, that is incorrect. WP:NCNT specifically (twice, actually) sends you to WP:MOS-JP (for Japanese subjects). Bendono (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Which says that we should use Hirohito. We should. Wikilawyering our conventions will not change the facts: Hirohito is most widely used and most widely understood by English-speakers, for whom this Wikipedia is intended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia:MOS-JP#Names_of_emperors says Emperor Hirohito. Perhaps you missed the first link, so let me quote that for you:

For Japanese emperors before Emperor Hirohito [...]

. Also notice

The word Emperor is an integral part of the name and not merely a title, so it should be capitalized and the article the should not appear before it.

Claiming wikilawyering does not exempt you from proving that Hirohito is the most common form. Also, the information needs to be WP:V. Reviewing this thread, I seem to be the only one who has provided any published English language resources (for all three names). Bendono (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, do let us quote what it says on the actual subject at hand, shall we?
Although posthumously named Emperor Shōwa, Hirohito can be called Emperor Hirohito (or simply Hirohito), as this continues to be the most widely known name for him in the West. Similarly, the current emperor may be referred to as Emperor Akihito, or just Akihito. It is incorrect to refer to him as Emperor Heisei, as he will not be renamed Heisei until after his death.
That is clear enough: either Hirohito or Emperor Hirohito is acceptable, and they are (as indeed they are) more well known than Emperor Showa in the West. Therefore, we should use one of the former; forms including Showa violate the purpose of our naming conventions. Of the two, I retain some preference for Hirohito as the simpler and easier to link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as you quoted, it lists all three names: Hirohito, Emperor Hirohito, and Emperor Shōwa. Guidelines can not be used in place of WP:V. Or are you suggesting that we start tagging guidelines with {{Fact}}? Bendono (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
So do tell us: what verifiability question do you claim to see here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This claim: "as this continues to be the most widely known name for him in the West." Bendono (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, regarding Hirohito, per Wikipedia:MOS-JP#Names_of_emperors, it is only acceptable to omit the word Emperor only after the first usage in full. Quote (my emphasis):

The word Emperor is an integral part of the name and not merely a title, so it should be capitalized and the article the should not appear before it. It is also acceptable to refer to a Japanese emperor without "Emperor", so long as the first appearance of the name uses the above format.

So plain Hirohito is really not acceptable until later in the article. I slightly disagree, but at least that is what our guidelines say. Bendono (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The first word in the article is Emperor, as the guidelines suggest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhhuh. Wikilawyering. AFAIK when a couple of years ago the Japanese MOS was built, the idea of Emperor being a part of the name actually was grounded on the fact that it is part of the posthumous name, such as Meiji tenno. = Emperor Meiji. In this sense, Hirohito and Akihito are exceptions, because the word tenno is not generally attached to those names. anyone who knows anything of Japanese usages, knows that there should not be appellations "Hirohito tenno", "Akihito tenno" (deep laughing, sounds of disgust...). Then, we can speak volumes, indeed forever, how tenable actually that "Emperor" is as translation of "tenno" - but some forced it upon us as its official translation for Wikipedia purposes. So, forget any specific obligation to use Emperor as part of name when Hirohito, Akihito, Yoshihito, Mutsuhito (and if ever their predecessors get mentioned by personal name and not by posthumous or regnal name) are in question.
Why do I feel that these issues here are discussed by editors who actually know next to nothing on English appellations' grounds in Japanese usages, but eagerly seek their basis from MOS which is not as informative as it could. Shilkanni (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a term such as 'Emperor Hirohito' is not a direct translation of anything in Japanese, but at the same time, it is an attempt to both i) use the name by which he is most commonly known in the West, and ii) do so in a way that shows respect for his position. Note also that if we do move the article to 'Emperor Hirohito', we would then free up 'Hirohito' to be a disambiguation page (or, more exactly, a redirect to the disambiguation page at Hirohito (disambiguation), to make it easy to find pages which have unknowingly linked to a disambig page). Noel (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User RFC?

At this point, I must conclude that Bendono is misquoting our guidelines intentionally, and is acting in good faith only in the sense that he genuinely believes that his actions subserve the Most Important Thing. I strongly oppose any move of this article, and will cheerfully endorse an RFC on his conduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuss me? What exactly have I misquoted? I have not even yet weighed in on whether I think the page should be moved or not. (And I have no idea what this most important thing is.) There are three options, and I am trying to rationally discuss them in relation to our policies and guidelines. If we ignore them, then all we have is nothing more than POV and pointless arguing. That is precisely why I have provided so many quotes. If there are problems with the guidelines, then fix them. I have not moved the page and merely trying to rationally discuss the issues. Bendono (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Tsk tsk, Bendono. I think Pmanderson's talk (rather than mere silent contemplation) of a cheerful RfC is supposed to add to the persuasiveness of his strong oppose (in bold, please), or at least to cow you into silence. Note that you may here be dealing with somebody who seems actually to enjoy the prospect of what strikes me and perhaps you too as a tedious affair. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If I enjoyed the process, I'd write the RFC myself; but if one of the other editors whose words are being misconstrued here is sufficiently annoyed to do so, I will certainly certify that the dispute exists and is meritorious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Below I have attempted to summarize the above options and related issues.

Hirohito

Pros:

  • common (but no references given)

Cons:


Emperor Hirohito

Pros:

Cons:

  • historical name; not current anymore as he is dead

Emperor Shōwa

Pros:

Cons:

Bendono (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

[Regarding disambiguating Hirohito]: Oh, please. This is a clear example of a primary topic. john k (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Ċ

If it's not too late to make a difference, I vote for Hirohito or Emperor Hirohito. The rest of you can tangle over the details. I am opposed to calling him anything with Showa in it. That's not what we know him as. And all of you know it. Even those of you who, for whatever reasons, pretend that he should be known in this English language version of Wikipedia as anything other than Hirohito. It's that simple. Give it up and move on and stop gnawing on this dead bone. JGC1010 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that a vote was taking place. What follows is not a vote.

We've been shown evidence that "Emperor Showa" and "Showa Emperor" are both common in recently published books and that if combined they are commoner than "Emperor Hirohito". (Combinations with "Shōwa" weren't mentioned.) I'm not particularly impressed by this evidence, but it seems undeniable that "Showa" is common while "Hirohito" remains common. And my guess is that Showa/Shōwa is going to become commoner.

Showa now redirects to Shōwa, which is a disambiguation page. One of the items is Shōwa period (which, as you'll all know, ran from 1926, but whose article is bizarrely illustrated with a photo of good ol' boys from sixty years earlier). This Shōwa is of course phonetically and orthographically identical to the Shōwa of the dead emperor. So all in all "Shōwa" seems perfectly fine for him too. Whether you stick the rather odd but conventional (mis)translation "Emperor" before or after "Shōwa" seems of minor importance; might as well regularize it with what's done for his, er, father (was Taishō really capable of such a virile deed?) and beyond. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we have not. This is an example of the flaws of Google. Many books have both "Emperor Showa" and "Showa Emperor"; adding the totals counts these double; I am sure several books have all three.
Google cannot determine which name a book uses; merely whether a book mentions the phrase (as most histories of Japan will). (Observe, for example, that this list of books that use both "Showa Emperor" and "Emperor Showa" contains several that use plain "Hirohito" in the title, as we should.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why Google, even Google Books, is not the only test, or the best. Encyclopedias and other works of general reference (as Wikipedia should be) are a better guide; the ultimate test is the opinion of native speakers of English, for whom this English Wikipedia is intended, as to which name is idiomatic, and fulfills the Principle of Least Astonishment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
At least until your last clause, you're right. The main point I was making, though, is that G-book hits for "Hirohito" and "Showa" both number in the hundreds. The commoner of the Showa options gets over half the score that the Hirohito option gets (for what this is worth). Thus, to me, the relative numbers mean little. (It would be different if one outscored the other by a factor of five.) en:WP may be indeed be primarily intended for native speakers of English, but the "Principle of least astonishment" fails to impress me, with its talk of conflicting or ambiguous "elements of an interface": we're talking here about taxonomy and I see no potential conflict or ambiguity for the reader. Instead, it's mild surprise: "'Shōwa'? I thought he was Hirohito" versus "'Hirohito'? I thought I read that the old geezer was called Shōwa now that he's dead". -- Hoary 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we're talking about "Showa? Who the *&^()*^& is that?"
Many English-speakers will not recognize the name Showa; almost all will know Hirohito. (Some readers have never heard of Hirohito under any name; but all we can do for them is make the article clear.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So after all this discussion, doesn't it seem evident that those in favor of calling the subject of this article Hirohito have been out-generaled? Only the title of the article has been changed. He's still called Showa throughout. Maybe the proper attitude for us is to admire him for inspiring as much die-hard devotion in his current crop of generals in this century, as he did in his former lot during the last century.JGC1010 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a pair of assertions for which you give little evidence. You may be right, but you seem curiously certain of what you're saying. My own guess is that you're out of date: what you're saying would have been true even fifteen years ago (let alone twenty), but is dubious now and likely to become more dubious. However, I'm not sure of this and not pretending to be sure about it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reason why

I strongly oppose the moving of this article to “Emperor Showa”. That’s because doing so would be a completely artificial bowing to a partial, unbalanced, Japanese-nationalist-centered version of things. In fact, practically nobody outside Japan calls Hirohito "Showa". And, obviously, the immense majotrity of the people who effectively uses and speaks the English language know Emperor Hirohito as… Hirohito. I know that the traditional naming system can make all sense to patriotics of Japan, but sorry, Wikipedia is not a Shinto shrine

Let’s get down to the facts. Making a search "Emperor Showa" versus "Emperor Hirohito" gave me the following results:

  • In Google: 16,200 results for "Emperor Showa"; 153,000 results for "Emperor Hirohito";
  • In TIME: 3 results results for "Emperor Showa"; 481 results for "Emperor Hirohito";
  • In BBC: 1 result for "Emperor Showa"; 4 results for "Emperor Hirohito", including the title of the historic biography of the Emperor. Is the BBC “offensive against the Japanese homeland and people”? Well, sincerely I don’t think so.

In my opinion, the article should remain at Hirohito or moved to a more explaining title like Emperor Hirohito. That’s it.--MaGioZal (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That’s because doing so would be a completely artificial bowing to a parcial, unbalanced, Japanese-nationalist-centered version of things. Well well. And why might that be? (This is the first time that I've had the sensation of being mistaken for a kowtower to Japan-worship; I suppose if I'm to be accused of bowing to this monarchical silliness I should be grateful that my bowing is seen as insincere.) Google: yes, yes, we know. Time: This is one source, and one that presumably has its own style guide. BBC: Again, a single source. Incidentally, while the bio was clearly written (or last fiddled with) after the old boy's death, we aren't told whether this was as early as 1989 or as recently as last month. -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Those results are extremely incomplete and also out of date. For a more complete bibliography of professionally edited, English language resources, see Talk:Hirohito#Emperor_Shōwa_references. Notice that they all begin at or after 1989. Bendono (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the "Hirohito" vs "Emperor Showa" debate, I'm not going to let MaGioZal get away with such wild claims, unchecked. MaGioZal, please provide support for your claims that a preference for "Emperor Showa" over "Hirohito" refelects a "completely artificial bowing to a parcial [sic], unbalanced, Japanese-nationalist-centered version of things". If you cannot produce support for these claims, I assume we will then all be free to disregard them as nothing but baseless hyperbole spoken by someone with very little knowledge of the subject matter.-Jefu (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the “parcial”; you know, my first language is Portuguese, so sometimes one or another time I can commit some linguistic slips
Anyway, I think that I think I know enough to say that in my opinion moving this article to “Emperor Showa” is anachronistic, to say the least; if the immense majority of people know Showa as Hirohito, and if the immense majority of mass media outside Japan calls Showa as Hirohito too, why we should move to such an unpopular renaming just because the post-mortem name is more “respectful” in the traditional Japanese way? For what? For political correctness? I just can?’t see the move would be neccessary and reasonable in this English open Encyclopedia.
As for the search results, I put them here just to show how little the name “Emperor Showa” is used in the Western World outside Japan to describe Hirohito. If you have any doubt, go make the search on the webpages cited above. And I’ve cited the BBC and the TIME Magazine because they are between the most important and relevant mass media vehicles in the Western World. And just to add one more, here’s the search results made in all articles published between January 1, 1990 and today in the U.S. newspaper of record New York Times:
May I need to say more?
PS: One of my best friends is a Japanese Brazilian. I never asked her about it, but I’m almost certain the she wouldn’t care less if I called Showa as Hirohito. In fact, I suspect she even doesn’t know the former Emperor post-mortem name, and much probably in her everyday life she doesn’t care a dime about it.--MaGioZal (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a few little reactions. (1) Please don't apologize for your (very small) slips in English. Your command of English is hugely better than my command of any Romance language. (2) The charge of anachronism might cut the other way: I am not at all sure that the immense majority of people know Showa as Hirohito, even that the immense majority of people who speak English and not Japanese. Even if it is a majority, my guess is that it's a gradually diminishing majority. (3) I have no respect for either that particular "emperor" (who I regard as an unindicted war criminal) or for the "imperial system" (which I regard as a bad Meiji-period joke well past its shelf-life, and a waste of tax money). (4) BBC News is pretty bad but I suppose it is major; Time is a very puny (if self-important) magazine with dribs and drabs of news and plenty of stuff about "lifestyle" and miscellaneous gossip. (5) You can be certain that I wouldn't care if you called the most recent dead emperor "Hirohito". (Personally, I call him all kinds of things.) But as we learn in Psychology 101, single informants are neither here nor there. -- Hoary (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First, that's a much more balanced and less emotional from-the-hip response. And yes, no need to apologize for slips. It is common practice to note things like that when making direct quotes, so no need to take it personally. Nothing personal was intended by it, and I certainly make typos and slips, even in my native language, all the time.

It seems that your opposition is focused primarily on those who prefer Emperor Showa out of some sign of respect. I have not (and do not intend to) read all of the ink that has been spilled on this topic above (this argument gets repeated on Wikipedia regularly), but I don't think the primary reason people are arguing in favor of changing it to Emperor Showa is to demonstrate respect. I think accuracy (since that is now his name, after all) and consistency with the 100 some odd other emperor articles are probably the primary reasons. And I think accuracy trumps convention in something like an encyclopedia. If you are just writing your own book or article, by all means, use whatever you prefer. In an encyclopedia, however, one demands accuracy. And the beauty of Wikipedia is that you can provide links to the admittedly very large number of people who are probably going to go searching for "Hirohito".-Jefu (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose changing the name of the article because the claim of greater accuracy for "Showa" over "Hirohito" has not been proved. Unquestionably, Showa is the vastly predominant usage and the more accurate within the context of Japan and the Japanese language. However, that is not the context of this Wikipedia or the majority of its users. In the English-speaking world, the man who sat on the Japanese throne during WWII is a known historic figure, and known then and now by the name Hirohito, making that the more accurate in the present context. There are those who argue that English usage should conform with Japanese for various reasons. Some of those reasons merit consideration, but it is an issue that should be debated in forums of academia and public opinion. It is not the mission of Wikipedia to encourage particular opinions in its readers, but to neutrally describe what exists in the world. If and when the day comes that the man is commonly known as Showa in the English-speaking world, I will favor a corresponding change in the article's name. -- Meyer (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As can been seen from bibliographies, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese language, which doesn't even call him Emperor Shōwa but rather Shōwa Tennō (昭和天皇?). Emperor Shōwa is entirely an English matter and supported with numerous references. The references indicate that since 1989, English usage in professionally edited, reliable English language resources do use the title Emperor Shōwa; it is not something that Wikipedia itself is trying to force. Bendono (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Your earlier list of books included a number of works after 1989 preferring the name Hirohito. So there is still no basis for saying that Showa is any more accurate than Hirohito. Usage may change to favor Showa in the future, but until that happens I think the name of the article should remain 'Hirohito'. -- Meyer (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
For similar reasons, there is no basis for 1) suggesting that [Emperor] Hirohito is any more accurate or 2) that it is the favored usage. The point of the references was to illustrate that all three names exist in (English) literature and then to choose the most appropriate and accurate one. With the abundance of Emperor Shōwa (or Showa) references, I am unsure what more you want. The list seemed sufficiently long and I got tired of typing it. If more are desired, I suppose I can try again the weekend after next when I next go to the library (this weekend is very busy for me). As for accuracy, others have already said much above, but the Imperial Household Agency (in English no less) should be a sufficiently verifiable resource to back the statement. Bendono (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Is your list of 'Hirohito' books exhaustive, or is it possible that if you researched with equal dilligence you might find additional recent 'Hirohito' works as well? And regardless of the number of books you find, we don't have any way of evaluating their authority. At best you have documented that there is mixed usage of Hirohito and Showa in current English. With use of Hirohito having longer history, there is still no reason to rename the article at this time. Also, the Imperial Household Agency is not an authority on current English usage. Their English publications are understandably strongly influenced by Japanese usage. In particular, the page you site above is a translation of a Japanese original. -- Meyer (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
None of the lists were exhaustive. However, I put roughly about the same amount of effort into all three. I should note that as I in Japan, libraries have a rather limited selection of English titles. Certainly someone in an English country could find much more (and I encourage others to do so).
You raised two issues, but confused the responses: 1) English usage of Emperor Shōwa (Showa) and 2) accuracy. I would think that issue 1) has already been sufficiently demonstrated. You asked for accuracy, and I still assert that Imperial Household Agency provides that. The Imperial Household Agency, pretty much by definition, should most definitely know the most accurate way to refer to this deceased emperor. Whether it is a translation or not is beside the point; it is accurate and verifiable. Again, this says nothing about issue 1) which other (separate) sources have dealt with. Bendono (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems that this discussion is not ending, I'll help keep it going by expressing my opinion again. I think it's important to acquaint the reader with the concept of regnal names and to inform him that Showa, or Enlightened Peace, is the regnal name of the deceased Emperor Hirohito, or perhaps it is the name of the era during which he reigned. A mention of this at the beginning of the page is sufficient, along with redirects, which are present in the article now. Aside from that mention, I believe strongly, very strongly, that only the name Hirohito should be used for the emperor...throughout the entire article. We come here to read about him, because of his role while he was alive. We know of him in history as Hirohito. His era was given the name of Enlightened Peace after he died. We know him as an emperor. We do not know him as Tenno, or a Tenno, whatever the proper way to express it is in English. We know him as Emperor Hirohito.JGC1010 (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But mere repetition doesn't make a PoV more persuasive. ¶ Yes, you have a point (though a rather confused one). But it could so easily be turned around: I think it's important to reassure the reader that Shōwa is the regnal name of the dead Emperor Hirohito, or perhaps it is the name of the era during which he reigned. A mention of this at the beginning of the page is sufficient, along with redirects.... ¶ Also: We come here to read about him, because of his role while he was alive. Ditto for his grandpa, whom en:WP refers to as "Meiji". ¶ We know of him in history as Hirohito: you and many other people, yes; me and many other people, no. ¶ His era was given the name of Enlightened Peace after he died: I can't think what this might mean other than that it was named Shōwa after he died; if this is indeed what you're saying, it's a howler. (It was named Shōwa when he became monarch.) ¶ Incidentally, your use of "Enlightened Peace" seems to me an unwarranted and potentially somewhat misleading exoticization of the name "Shōwa"; yes it meant/means that, and yes most relevant history books have a solemn paragraph about this (as rhetorical groundwork for the entirely justified slamming of militarism which will come some pages later), but I venture to suggest that "Shōwa" is no more often thought of as enlightened peace than Tōkyō is thought of as eastern capital or Matsushita Electric is thought of as being under a pine tree. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And I'll express mine again. I still have difficulty understanding why this is such an issue, let alone such an emotional issue for people, unless they are under the impression that Emperor Showa is preferred out of respect where Hirohito is seen as derogatory (which may be a view held by some Japanese, but is certainly not the driving force behind the preference for Emperor Showa on Wikipedia). This is not a linguistic issue, nor is it a usage issue. This is a person. He has a name. That name (partially Anglicized) is Emperor Showa. That should be the end of the discussion. If people wish to refer to him as Hirohito in discussions -- or even in the text of the article -- because that is what he is more commonly known by (since that used to be his name), that is fine. But the title of an article about a person should be that person's name. Period.-Jefu (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To add yet a few more comments to this endless discussion/argument - If "Hirohito" is the name of the article, then Ho Chi Minh City should immediately be renamed "Saigon", which is certainly the name by which the vast majority of Americans still (and incorrectly) know it, and which is far more common on Google. And while we are at it, let's change Zimbabwe back to "Rhodesia", since the name Rhodesia was in use much longer. I remember how disconcerted I was when I first saw the spelling "Beijing". What happened to the familiar "Peking"? These same issues apply with Emperor Showa versus Hirohito debate. Names change. With automatic re-direct, someone typing in the commonly known name "Hirohito" can be automatically and effortlessly sent to the currently used, historically consistent, officially correct "Emperor Showa". Comments that "since people know "Hirohito" but never have heard of "Emperor Showa" and will not be able to locate the article" are nonsense. --MChew (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. The most relevant rule is Wikipedia:Use common names; that's what he is generally known as. Other names should, of course, be discussed in the introduction. Furthermore, the appropriate forum for move discussions is Wikipedia:Requested moves, not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Gene Nygaard (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The usage throughout the article would seem, however, to be an appropriate consideration under RfC. In that regard, the repeated refusal to use the name by which he was known at the times various actions were taken, making it look like it was someone else doing these things, is ludicrous. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to say I am bemused by this. Hirohito is vastly more well known as his name than the post-mortem name of Showa. Even if we decided to go by official name, why is a name given to him after his death by others more official than say, Michinomiya Hirohito? In cases like this other encyclopedias are a good place to check, with Encarta and Brittanica both prefering Hirohito (Britannica even gives Michinomiya Hirohito before Showa in the alternate names), probably other encyclopedias too. Narson (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Narson. 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 almost 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. Those who don't like the policy should feel free to try and change it - I'd be more than happy to support you in that (and of course we'd change this to 'Emperor Showa' if it passed).
However, I feel it's slightly disrespectful to have all the others at 'Emperor <so-and-so>', and him at plain old 'Hirohito', so I would cheerfully support moving the article to 'Emperor Hirohito' - and yes, I know that no such term exists in Japanese. However, it is an attempt to both i) use the name by which he is most commonly known in the West, and ii) do so in a way that shows respect for his position. Note also that if we do move the article to 'Emperor Hirohito', we would then free up 'Hirohito' to be a disambiguation page (or, more exactly, a redirect to the disambiguation page at Hirohito (disambiguation), to make it easy to find pages which have unknowingly linked to a disambig page). Noel (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I already expressed my point of view earlier on this, but your suggestion is the worst of the three possible choices. It is not "slightly disrespectful" but mostlty unrational... Hirohito is a personal name while emperor Shōwa is an official/political one. Combining a personal name with "tenno" is absurd. It is not similar to emperor Frederick of Hohenstaufen or any other occidental emperor who were know by their personnal name while ruling. As User:Švitrigaila already wrote, it would be like calling Benedict XVI "pope Joseph Ratzinger". I would greatly prefer keeping Hirohito alone even if it is far from perfect... --Flying tiger (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, delete the word Showa from the article entirely and sustitute the word Hirohito.JGC1010 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tally 11/24 - 1/31

  • Move page to "Showa" or variation
  1. User:elf
  2. User:Gailim
  3. User:Švitrigaila
  4. User:Nightstallion
  5. User:Oda_Mari
  6. User:Jefu
  7. User:Mr.Clown
  8. User:Bendono ("'Hirohito' should be a disambiguation page.")
  9. User:John_Smith's
  10. User:Flying_tiger
  11. User:MChew
  12. User:Hoary
  13. User:Gryffindor
  • Keep page at "Hirohito" or variation
  1. User:Calton
  2. User:MBisanz
  3. User:ChazBeckett
  4. User:SirDecius
  5. User:CraigWyllie
  6. User:megA ("Hirohito of Japan")
  7. User:GoodDay ("Hirohito of Japan")
  8. User:Shilkanni
  9. User:SamEV
  10. User:Meyer
  11. User:Pmanderson
  12. User:Bearian'sBooties
  13. User:Nihonjoe
  14. User:Ryulong
  15. User:John_Kenney
  16. User:JGC1010
  17. User:MaGioZal
  18. User:Gene_Nygaard
  19. User:Narson

(Please correct if I've missed or misrepresented your opinion.)

19-13 against. A vote does not constitute a consensus, but that even a split shows that there is no consensus for a page name change at this time. -- Meyer (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)