Talk:Emperor Meiji

minister of the left

"minister of the left" or sadaijin needs explaining..even if it is only a one-liner. I haven't a clue what this means, I bet most others that are not experts on the Japanese courts do not either, and it is referenced repeatedly, implying some importance. (KMC 2/3/2006)

No date of death for him?!? --JohnOwens 08:30 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

30 July 1912. It says on the page

Mitsuhito?

Removed the spelling "Mitsuhito" from the article. Can find no reference in Japanese WP or other languages, nor in books at hand. Please restore if correct. Fg2 01:23, Feb 27, 2005 (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 Meiji of Japan" with appropriate redirects and link changes. I'm proposing similar changes for Emperors Shōwa and Taishō. I think the current name for this article and for Emperor Taishō probably stem from a mistranslation of Meiji Tennō and Taishō Tennō.

I'm not sure it is a mistranslation. In Meiji Tennō, Meiji is an adjective rather than a name, since it's simply the name of the era that corresponded with his reign. Earlier Emperors, on the other hand, are referred to by a posthumous name. Nik42 02:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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:

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.

-Jefu 12:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This issue has been taken up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names of modern Japanese emperors. One thing, though: I don't agree that it's disrespectful to refer to the Showa Emperor as "Emperor Hirohito". If nothing else, using the principle from Danzig that it be referred to as "Danzig" when writing articles about historical periods in which that was its name, most of the references to Hirohito will be articles about historical events in his lifetime - when he was properly referred to as "Emperor Hirohito". Noel (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he was never properly referred to as "Emperor Hirohito", at least, not in Japan itself. The reigning Emperor is never referred to by name, but only by Emperor, or Reigning Emperor. Arguably, tennō isn't even best translated as Emperor, but should've been borrowed like Tsar and Kaiser, but that's another issue entirely. Were the West to have followed Japanese custom, he should've been called simply "Emperor of Japan" during his life, but I suppose it sounds odd in English to not use a ruler's name. Nik42 02:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, my lack of precision: I meant "properly in the West", or something like that; I wasn't speaking of usage in Japan. Your point about Tsar/Kaiser is a good one, but do note that those title are often translated into "Emperor" in English works; I can point to many books which refer to "Emperor Wilhelm of Germany", etc. Noel (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it should be noted that for Tsars after 1721, calling them "Tsar" rather than "Emperor" is technically incorrect, so not an analogy at all. john k 15:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

About disrespect: As someone wrote elsewhere, there seems to be many NorthKoreans who would burst to tears were they to know that we do not call Kim as Dear Leader here - and that however is no reason for us to change how we name or call that statesman here. IMO, we do not need to depart from objectivity towards such respect. It ill suits to an encyclopedia to adopt sycophantic usages here. 217.140.193.123 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

While I personally prefer Showa, I agree that we should go with what's most common in English, which is Hirohito by a landslide. Nik42 02:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my request to change Hirohito, and I also take back my point above about it being disrespectful. That has no place in an encylopedia. I too still prefer Showa personally, but I understand the point about Hirohito being more common by a landslide. However, I still think this article and the article on Emperor Taisho should be renamed Emperor Meiji and Emperor Taisho. The current titles sound like little more than a poor translation. And all 121 emperors prior are almost exclusively referred to as "Emperor X" -Jefu 04:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the order of words, "Emperor Individualname" or "Individualname Emperor", I favor the latter, for several reasons, one of which however is that IMO we should not begin headings with titles but they should begin with something individual, if that can be arranged - and here it can be arranged (other alternative is to leave the whole title out from the heading). When putting articles in alphabetic order, if all those begin with "Emperor", they all clump under "E". I understand there are several different things named e.g Ichijo, thus disambiguation is the ground to have Ichijo Emperor or Ichijo (emperor), of which I favor the first, but some strict disambiguationists may favor the latter. 217.140.193.123 08:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I've explained this elsewhere, but "Emperor" is not merely a title. It is actually a part of their name. The Japanese emperors are all named posthumously "X Tennō" (this renaming is referred to as tsuigō in Japanese). So strictly speaking the word Tennō is part of their name. For better or for worse, the Tennō part of the name is translated as "Emperor" in English, although someone suggested above (and I tend to agree) that it might have been better if English speakers had just adopted the word into English (the way we did Czar and Kaiser) rather than translating it into Emperor. Be that as it may, for me, whether the name is expressed as "Emperor X" or "X Emperor" comes down to (1) what sounds proper and natural in English, and (2) what the convention is. Regarding both of these I think the answer is "Emperor X".-Jefu 08:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

And regarding the "of Japan" bit, I'm not very animated about that. And the Wikipedia style as I understand it is to preemptively disambiguate all monarchs by appending the country to their name, not only in situations where there might be some confusion. I don't think it is worth the effort to go back and change all 121 of them plus the hundreds of articles that link to them. -Jefu 08:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

At least I agree that for those 100+ ancient monarchs, the "of Japan" is redundant. It does not add any disambiguation, as no other country uses same first names/reign names/whatever those individual names precisely are. Redundancies basically should not be in headings - all such can be explained in the text of the article. I request that the "of Japan" is allowed to get rid of (perhaps sooner or later some editors find time and effort to go through that heap of articles). 217.140.193.123 07:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia style you referred, preemptively disambiguating all monarchs by appending the country to their name, is intended to European and Muslim monarchs as there several countries share same first names. The WP Naming Convention in question states clearly that those are NOT guidelines for Eastern civilizations. Already the "pre-emptive" and "disambiguation" says it: it is used for civilizations where it presumably helps to disambiguate. It IS intended to prevent confusion, opposite to contention "not only in situations where there might be some confusion". I am happy that we agree that "of Japan" can be dropped. I will follow that agreement. I believe sooner or later editors will take "of Japan" away from the said approx 121 headings. 217.140.193.123 10:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Understood. Please just remember to also use the "What links here" feature to change all of the links to the page too, if you change any of them yourself. I may change some too as I work on cleaning up some of the emperor articles. -Jefu 10:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The proposal affects more than one article and so should probably be carried out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) to reach a wider community. Fg2 12:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD

On 11 Aug 2005, this talk page was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Meiji Emperor for a record of the discussion.

Japanese Imperialism

Japanese territorial expansion began under Meiji's rule, during the Meiji-Restoration period. This includes, most specifically, the Japanese annex of Korea. I will be editing this article to add this information. http://nationalhistoryday.org/03_educators/teacher/art1.htm

Also called Mutsuhito?

I don't think I've ever heard him called this except when specifying his given name, which Wikipedia does with all his predecessors, but in a more appropriate manner. Should we not structure it more like that? elvenscout742 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

His birth name?

The article states :

"He was formally adopted by Asako Nyōgō (later Empress Dowager Eishō), the principal consort of Emperor Kōmei, on 11 July 1860. He also received the personal name Mutsuhito, the rank of shinnō (imperial prince, and thus a potential successor to the throne) and the title of Kōtaishi (Crown Prince) on the same day."

Does that mean that between 1852 and 1860 Mutsuhito was not his personal name ? Did he have another one ? Or is the sentence simply misturned? Švitrigaila 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it means. As noted in a below section, he was called Sachinomiya as a child. I believe this is adequately explained in Japanese names#Imperial names, which seems intuitive enough for those interested in the naming system. 213.243.160.224 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

KG?

What does "KG" after his name mean? King? Kwansei Gakuin University? It leads to a disambig page which doesn't lead to an obvious place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.59.254 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I delete it at once. Švitrigaila 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Knight of the Garter, there is even a photo of him receiving it in the article. Scarlet (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What was the reason of his death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.128.254 (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Died

Meiji died of diabetes --69.157.65.49 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Unknown

this article is terrible

Why are their picture of hirohito everywhere? He is a completely diferent person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.48.152 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I included a picture in the infobox of the Meiji Emperor. It is one of the few good images there are of him. I believe it to be better to include a photograph rather then a drawing as was previously the case, as it is closer to nature and of a much better quality. How are the other editor's views on this? Much regards, Polozooza (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Meiji Emperor

Why "Emperor Meiji" and not "Meiji Emperor"? I realize the former is a common usage, but it is technically incorrect and an awkward attempt to make East Asian era names conform to customary English monarch naming. Meiji is not the name of a person, but rather of a time period that corresponds to the reign of a person (whose personal name was Mutsuhito). Thus the latter usage ("Meiji Emperor") is the preferred one in academic materials. Wikipedia already uses x Emperor rather than Emperor x for Chinese monarchs of the Ming and Qing dynasties, so I don't know why Japanese ones are treated differently. (If the reason is because of popular usage, I might point out that Googling "Emperor Kangxi" or "Emperor Qianlong" yields more hits than their counterparts, so clearly popular usage is not the only factor here.)--50.47.85.51 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)