Talk:Empress Dowager Eishō

Article title

If I'm correct, Empress Eishō's official posthumous name is Empress Dowager Eishō (英照皇太后, Eisō Kōtaigō). Shouldn't this be used as the article's title then? --JadziaLover ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be correct, but I guessed that it probably made sense to follow the pattern established by articles already written about the widows of Emperor Taisho and Emperor Shōwa. As you may know, both were kōtaigō.

In these article titles, I construed the "Empress" to be general rather than specific -- in the same way that George V of the United Kingdom is commonly identified among the category of British "kings," even though it would have been more precisely accurate to refer to him as King-Emperor or as "His Majesty George V, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." Also, I reasoned that it made sense to keep the title as short as possible so that it might be easier for someone else to find ...?

I hope this explanation sounds persuasive? In any case, please note that I did incorporate "Empress Dowager Eishō" in the Japanese section of Empress Dowager article.

Proposal: Perhaps our strategy can be guided in part by Taira no Tokuko? The first sentence mentions that she was "later known as Empress Dowager Kenrei (建礼門院,, Kenreimon-In)" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just been reading the official site of the Meiji Shrine and I found some information that might be relevant here. According to this site, the wife of Emperor Meiji, Empress Shōken, was enshrined under the posthumous name of Empress Dowager Shōken (昭憲皇太后, Shōken Kōtaigō). However, as it explains in great length, this was apparently a mistake that was never corrected. This raises an important question: do we have a good, official source for Empress Eishō's posthumous name? --JadziaLover ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited in this article are from the published work of reputable scholars -- see articles on Richard Ponsonby-Fane and Donald Keene. Please note that the in-line citations for Keene are linked to on-line text for further assurance that the material was correctly interpreted. This gives me some confidence that the decisions in entitling these articles are a well-informed and justified in terms of WP:V. In other words, these historical figures were known as "empresses" and the names which go along with that title do make sense in the context we are creating. Of course, I understand that this process of deciding what to name any particular article is going to become more difficult as we move further back from the Meiji period, e.g., Taira no Tokuko?

I wonder if we need to create a number of re-direct pages in order to make sure that the articles are easily accessible? Your questions are causing me to re-examine how this article and its corollaries can be improved -- and that's your point, right? --Tenmei (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is always my point to improve Wikipedia.

The reason I asked my previous question is thus: I believe we should use the translation of the official posthumous name as the article title. If that translation is Empress Dowager, I could understand it being generalised to Empress, but at the very least the posthumous name should be correctly stated in both Japanese and English in the article's introduction.

Given that Empress Dowager Shōken was given her posthumous title in error, I wonder what Eishō-sama's exact posthumous title is. If it's Empress (皇后, Kōgō), then this discussion has been much ado about nothing and the mention of Empress Dowager Eishō should be removed from the article. If it's Empress Dowager (皇太后, Kōtaigō), I wonder why it wasn't mentioned in the explanation of Empress Dowager Shōken's name.

Now I don't want to degrade the sources used in the article, but they are English books. I don't have access to these books, but most non-Japanese books I know don't actually give the Japanese for names or titles, or they confuse titles held in life with posthumous titles. That's why I was wondering if there was a good source for Eishō-sama's posthumous title. Preferably one that gives the Japanese and states unambiguously that it's her posthumous title. The one she was enshrined under. --JadziaLover ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be on the right track. I look forward to following your lead on this as we work together to improve the accuracy and specificity of these articles. For now, I gather that you're trying to suggest that the sources I've cited may not be wrong, but you're guessing that it is likely possible that something better can be found. In this, I think we're probably in agreement. Yes, we're on the same page.--Tenmei (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I read through the site of the Sennyū-ji (where, if I'm not mistaken, Eishō-sama is interred). They don't really say a lot about Eishō-sama, but when they do mention her, they consistently use Empress Dowager Eishō (英照皇太后, Eishō Kōtaigō).

They also use Empress Dowager Shōken (昭憲皇太后, Shōken Kōtaigō), but they use Empress Kōjun (香淳皇后, Kōjun Kōgō) and Empress Teimei (貞明皇后, Teimei Kōgō). If not irrevocable proof, it at least strongly supports that Eishō-sama's posthumous title is Empress Dowager.

This would mean that Empress Eishō (英照皇后, Eishō Kōgō) is incorrect.

Also, thanks to Google Book Search, I was able to peek inside R. Ponsonby-Fane's The Imperial House of Japan. I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised. Not only does he give both kanji and rōmaji (macrons and all), he clearly states on page 335 that Eishō-sama's posthumous name was Empress Dowager Eishō (英照皇太后, Eishō Kōtaigō). --JadziaLover ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)