Talk:Emperor Taishō

Lead poisoning?
Is all we know about Hirohito's predecssor, that he may have suckled from some wet nurse with lead-tainted nipples? One would think he had a BIT more historical significance than THAT. --Uncle Ed 17:08 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Don't know where the lead poisoning bit comes from, but it is well known that Yoshihito contracted meningitis as a baby and was a few fries short of a Happy Meal for the rest of his brief life. Page updated. Jpatokal 01:15, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I assume that Emperor Taisho was given the honorary title of Field Marshal in the British Army at some point, but obviously he never acted in that capacity. I suggest deleting his name from this category. MK 18:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Name Change
To make this consistent with the 121 emperors in Wikipedia that precede him, I propose changing the name of the article to "Emperor Taisho of Japan" with appropriate redirects and link changes. I'm proposing similar changes for Emperors Shōwa and Meiji. I think the current name for this article and for Emperor Meiji probably stem from a mistranslation of Taishō Tennō and Meiji Tennō. While it is correct that the word for emperor comes second in the Japanese name, the convention is for it to come first in English. Every other emperor in Japanese history is referred to as "X Tennō" in Japanese but "Emperor X" in English. And here are my reasons for changing the name of the article on Emperor Shōwa for your reference: -Jefu 12:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) First, and foremost, the Imperial Household Agency itself refers to him as Emperor Showa in English (For example, see this). That alone should be enough to put this silly bickering to bed.
 * 2) It makes sense sense from the standpoint of consistency because all of the 121 emperors in Wikipedia that precede Emperor Meiji have articles named "Emperor X of Japan". There is no reason why this article should be an exception.
 * 3) For people who are familiar with the name Hirohito, a redirect will be sufficient to take them to the proper article (that's what redirects are for.)
 * 4) As a native speaker of English and a fluent speaker of Japanese who has studied Japanese for over 17 years (and lived in Japan for 10), referring to him as simply Hirohito is disrespectful.
 * 5) Emperor Shōwa is a direct translation of what he is called in Japanese. And in a situation like this where you don't have decades or centuries of English language convention on how to refer to the emperors (like you have for English royalty), an English translation of the convention that has been adopted in Japan simply makes sense.

Who cares what the Imperial Household Agency says? In English, he is universally called Hirohito. As to Meiji and Taisho, for whatever reason, I have normally seen "the Meiji Emperor" in English. I'm less certain of Taisho - I've often seen just "Yoshihito." But in English he seems to most be called the "Taisho Emperor." I see no reason to insist on uniformity when these emperors are not referred to uniformly in English literature about them. john k 15:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It matters what the Imperial Household Agency says for the same reason that we don't just call Japanese companies whatever we want in English, we stick to the names and spellings they have chosen for themselves. And how can you say "he is universally called Hirohito" in the same breath as "these emperors are not referred to uniformly in English"? At the very least he is referred to often in the western press as "Emperor Hirohito." In any event, there is no reason why these 4 emperors should be treated any differently than the 121 that came before them. If there are other names people might use, that's exactly what redirects are for. Taishō Emperor as opposed to Emperor Taishō is just an overly literal translation of the Japanese "Taishō Tennō" where the word for emperor comes second. Emperor Taishō is simply better English at the expense of reversing the word order used in Japanese. -Jefu 15:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * By "these emperors are not referred to uniformly in English," I mean "in English, there are different standards for referring to different emperors." Hirohito and Emperor Hirohito are the same name - I have no idea what point you are making with that.  As to the Imperial Household Agency - it is not our job to use official names.  For Japanese companies, this may make sense, but that is only because this is the name generally used in English for these companies by the knowledgeable.  In the case of Hirohito, knowledgeable historians and the like call him "Hirohito."  As to puttting Emperor second, this is not an issue of "simply better English."  The use of "Meiji Emperor" and "Taisho Emperor" indicates that these are reign names, rather than personal names.  "Emperor Meiji" would suggest that his name is Meiji.  These emperors are generally called in English "the Meiji Emperor" and "the Taisho Emperor" for that reason.  This parallels with similar use of reign names for Ming and Qing Emperors of China.  See Kangxi Emperor, Yongle Emperor, and so forth. john k 16:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So when you say "knowledgeable historians" you must be excluding Delmer M. Brown, Department of History, University of California, Berkeley who, in the Introduction to The Cambridge History of Japan: Volume 1, Ancient Japan, refers to "Emperor Meiji." The reason he does this is because of the other mistake you make above. Meiji is his name. Emperors are posthumously named for the era over which they reigned. His name is now Meiji Tennō, or in English, Emperor Meiji. The act of assigning a posthumous name in Japanese is called tsuigō and if you could read the Japanese definition of tsuigō it specifically refers to act of assigning a "name" posthumously.


 * Wow, very patronizing you are. When I was talking about historians, I was discussing Hirohito, and I certainly did not say that no historians might use another name.  As to whether the era name/posthumous name is "his name" - I think that depends on one's definition of what a name is.  Meiji was certainly not his personal name, which was Mutsuhito.  Westerners did not really have much contact with Japan before Meiji's time, so all writing on previous emperors has been after the fact, and thus the reign names tend to be used.  But for the recent emperors, the name change was clear to contemporaries, so westerns presumably kept more in mind the distinction between the emperor's personal name and his reign name, and used terms like "the Meiji Emperor" to remind themselves of this.  The basic fact remains that, in English, "the Meiji Emperor" and "the Taisho Emperor" are more commonly used than "Emperor Meiji" or "Emperor Taisho."  Whether this is justified or not, it is how they are, and were, normally called in English.  I am certainly not saying that it is incorrect to do it the other way, but what I am saying is that the reason they are called such has little to do with people misinterpreting Japanese. john k 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we move the discussions related to the names of the latest four emperors to Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). I believe it is necessary for us to come up with some uniform policy on this issue rather than debating in each article. -- 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Great War
''In 1914 Taisho declared war on the German Empire prior to the breakout of the Great War when Germany was embroiled in a war against the Entente. Japan quickly seized Germany's Micronesian colonies and the German overseas coaling port of Quingdao in the Chinese Shandong peninsula. Japan was one of the major negotiaters of the new post-war world order in 1919.''

I wrote this because this Japanese Emperor was a participant of the World War (on the allied side). It's odd it's not mentioned. Perhaps someone could include my suggestion into the context? --PaxEquilibrium 21:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a comment about World War I to the article. However, the above statement is not quite correct. The major European powers declared war on each other during the first week of August, whereas Japan did not declare war on Germany until August 23. The declaration came after prodding from the British, and the Japanese Diet was quite divided in opinion on Japanese participation. By this time, Emperor Taisho was little more than a figurehead. --MChew 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

coronation date
I think the coronation date given in the info box is incorrect. 82.95.211.92 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Height
does anyone know his height? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.10.111 (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming Discussion
Is current opening paragraph concerning in length of ways to call him necessary? I think that should belong to more generic article of Japanese emperor or something. 59.61.125.155 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates
This page claims Prince Takamatsu is born on 1 March 1905, his own page claims the opposite, January 3, 1905. I guess someone confused the birthdate.

Explanation of name in intro
Those last two paragraphs are a great explanation of the naming style. However it's excessive for the intro. Could we keep just the first sentence of the second paragraph, and move the rest to the body of the article? And while his reign was relatively short, it would be nice to give at least a short summary of the key events of his life.  Will Beback   talk    09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the reference to the Pope as the situation is not similar at all. A Pope commonly takes a papal name upon election (but is not required to do so). He relinquishes that name again upon death. The papal practice is not different from that of other monarchs who also may use a different (previously uncommon) name, see "George VII". The Japanese Emperor however does not take a throne name upon accession but becames simply known as "the Emperor", also not unlike European monarchies, where the ruler is commonly not referred by name. The Emperor "assumes" that throne name only upon death, which makes matters entirely different. During his life time, Yoshihito was never known as Taisho. Finally, it might be blasphemous in Japan to use the personal name but it is not blasphemous to use the personal name of the Pope. And why is WP only concerned to avoid "foreign" blasphemy? Str1977 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine and Tonkatsu
I find the non sourced cuisine section a mystery to me : It talks about a " beef fried Taishō Tonkatsu" made by the Emperor.

First the "Ton" in TonKatsu specifically means pork (豚) and katsu made of beef would not be named tonkatsu. Today we can see beef-katsu in Japan, but it's rare.

Moreover, TonKatsu was created by a restaurant in Ginza in 1899 (Taisho becoming emperor in 1915) (source : the Japanese tonkatsu page).

There is no reference to tonkatsu in the japanese page for the Taisho Emperor, and I can't find any reference to a Taisho-tonkatsu on the Japanese google (except tonkatsu made by restaurants named Taisho...)

Even if the emperor might have liked tonkatsu, I think unless reliable sources are given, this part presenting him has the origin of tonkatsu in Japan should be erased.

--Luinil (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Much of this article is unreferenced and should be 'fixed.' I have no idea what "beef-fried" means, either, but suspect it is a mistake for "deep-fried"? HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

More than a year after this issue was raised in the talk page, the entire section is still unsourced, so I have erased it. Looking back, it's even possible this might have been a clever work of vandalism. Coldlight (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Emeror's religion
I have just reverted a change to the religion in the infobox. An IP editor changed Shinto to Nembutsu, but I have changed it back. The Emperor's reign was in the middle of the State Shinto period, so I think there must be some mention of Shinto in there. However, because of the situation at the time, I suspect there would be little in the way of contemporaneous sources on the Emperor's personal beliefs regarding Buddhism. If anyone has any light that they would like to shed on the topic (including the original IP editor of course), I would welcome it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Identical tables of issue
The article contains two presumably identical tables showing the Emperor's issue. At best, this is unnecessary in such a short article, and at worst it could lead to discrepancies, as one table might be edited but not the other. Suggest comparing the two tables, resolving any existing discrepancies, and then deleting one of them. Doug Ewell (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)