Talk:Emperor of Japan/Archive 6

I guess we should avoid the debate about if the title should contain the word Japan or not. As you see, we certainly conflict in this point. Once again, please imagine actual usage.

If they do a word search with Japan, Godaigo of Japan would come up.

With tons of irrelevant articles. If the readers are doing research about Emperor of Japan, they would and should go to the article, Emperor of Japan and they can see the complete list of Emperors. Actually you are missing the whole point at all. This is not about use-friendly vs accuracy. Putting of Japan doesn't contribute any usability. They are interested in any articles related to Japan, then they certainly will go to Japan article first then find List of Japan-related topics. Your example simply doesn't happen in practice. I know what you mean, if the readers see the bunch of names that don't sound English at all and probably have no idea who are they, where they are from. Relax this is not the case. There is no such list in the first place. The only exception is a list in List of Emperors of Japan. But the context is perfectly clear. Who will wonder about the list of names in the article named with Emperor of Japan.

But anyway, again we don't have to dispute about this because both of our proposal contain Japan anyway. So actually I don't see your point. -- Taku 02:23 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Taku, we are talking at cross purposes. In any case as I have said, I think both proposals are fine. I am marginally more in favour of one rather than the other, but both will work. Wikilove. FearÉIREANN 02:36 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I guess we should avoid the dabate about if the title should contain a word Japan or not. As you see, we certainly conflict in this point. Once again, please imagine actual usage.

If they do a word search with Japan, Godaigo of Japan would come up.

With tons of irrelevant articles. If the readers are doing research about Emperor of Japan, they would and should go to the article, Emperor of Japan and they can see the complete list of Emperors. Actually you are missing the whole point at all. This is not about use-friendly vs accuracy. Putting of Japan doesn't contribute any usability. They are interested in any articles related to Japan, then they certainly will go to Japan article first then find List of Japan-related topics. Your example simply doesn't happen in practice. I know what you mean, if the readers see the bunch of names that don't sound English at all and probably have no idea who are they, where they are from. Relax this is not the case. There is no such list in the first place. The only exception is a list in List of Emperors of Japan. But the context is perfectly clear. Who will wonder about the list of names in the article named with Emperor of Japan.

But anyway, again we don't have to dispute about this because both of our proposal contain Japan anyway. So actually I don't see your point. -- Taku 02:23 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Taku, we are talking at cross purposes. In any case as I have said, I think both proposals are fine. I am marginally more in favour of one rather than the other, but both will work. Wikilove. FearÉIREANN 02:36 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Page 7

---

VOTE: Put your name at once

• {name}
  • +no title
  • -conflicts with place names
• {name}, Emperor of Japan - Taku
  • +Rather natural in English language
• Emperor {name} of Japan - Nanshu, Flunkie FearÉIREANN
  • +/- similar to western monarchy
  • +Status quo (no need for modifying existing links)
  • -Wicked notation in English language
• {name} Emperor
• Emperor {name}

---

I have set up voting since to me the issue is more like preference of each one. I put any variant that there seem people support. I hope we can finally end this debate. -- Taku 18:28 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I have cast my vote. lol FearÉIREANN 20:48 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

When will the poll be closed? --Nanshu 23:44 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think we have spent enugh amout of time for voting and it seems the result will change unlikely if we waited further more. Since I am the one who moved articles, I will revert them in days. -- Taku 03:55 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I applogize for leaving this vote for months. As decided on the votes, I will revert all of the title of emperors of Japan articles into "Emperor {name} of Japan". I will start reverting in 24 hours now. Please let me know if there is a problem. Cheers! -- Taku 02:32, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I haven't been following the discussion from the beginning. After I read several comments above, how about (name) tennou of Japan? kt2 04:47 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The bit about using personal names is incoherent as it stands. First it says that East Asians generally think it's discourteous; then it says that (except for the emperor) the custom really no longer exists. Well, which is it? Do they still think it's discourteous or not? --Tb 23:25 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To explain why it is 'discourteous' I have to explain a belief of mythology called 'Kotodama' (Kami(Soul/spirit/god/demon) of words) in Japan which is not yet in Wikipedia. Simply put, the word itself is believed to have power to cause event. 'Throwing around a name' would increase this chance of 'corriding with wrong word' and thus the use of name was minimized, to the point of calling by generalized name (in this case 'Tennou') or the name that meant something unimportant (Toyotomi Hideyori was in infancy called Sutemaru, a trashed son). Remember how YWHW, the name of God, remained unused to the point where no one knew how it could be read; this belief used to exist everywhere.

Answer to your question is, yes, at least to Japanese. Even today, when facing a important test like the entrance exam, words or sentence that contain the sound of 'otiru(to fall)', 'suberu(to slip)', 'kiru(to be cut)' are avoided even in the casual conversation. On the other hand 'katu(to win)' is used as a blessing and food like 'Tonkatu(breaded and fried pork)' or 'Katiguri(baked chestnut)' are sold in stores that reguraly don't have them. When calling someone by family name, words like 'san(roughly translate to Mr. or Ms.), 'chan(to someone young or feministic)', 'kun(to someone young or same age)' to lessen the 'trouble' it might cause by making 'evil spirits' harder to target. When someone Japanese let you call by his personal name, he/she is letting you know that you are trusted and calling someone Japanese not familiar to you by personal name will elicit a questioning look. Sorry about the reply being long one.

Revth 06:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Head of State

A question: Why is there that doubt about whether the Emperor is head of State or not? if he is not head of state, what is he? User:Marco Neves

The Japanese constitution says Emperor of Japan is a symbol that represents Japanese people or something. The old constitution has a specific mention that the Emperor is a head of state but the new one doesn't.

I just added a bit of further explanation on the word 'tennnou' that might help you. One of the problem is, 'tennnou' could be a figure of spiritual belief even with the declaration by himself that he is, a human. Check Shintō for more explanation to that. This creates a really big constitutional mess because the Japanese constitution, like most modern ones, states the separation of any specific religion from the nation. It simply wouldn't do for the head of State to be unconditionally tied to a certain religion. So the answer of that has to be both yes and no. Yes, because he performs the function of State and no, because he could be a religious symbol. Trying to make a constituion that are not at odd with nearly two-thousand year history, practices, and tradition is never a simple task.

Revth 16:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In my understandings the Japanese goverment and the Loyal Household try to solve this dilemma to the distinction of public/private life of Tenno. It is a fact some Shito celemony the Emperor hold but as a family event in the court. He doesn't attend to Shintoist meeting at least public. For example, Japanese prime ministers go to Yasukuni Shrine but Tenno has never visited it. Many Shintoists seem Tenno is the spiritual top of their hierarchy but there is no official statement (even a negative one) from the Loyal Household. Those matters are highly complicated and sensitive. KIZU 10:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Interesting that he is still called "Emperor", even though Japan no longer has an Empire. He's really a king. The word "Tenno" certainly doesn't mean "emperor". Can anybody explain why this is? --Auximines 08:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not really about translation, it's about status. At the time of the opening of Japan to the West, in the 1850s, the "Tenno" would be dealing with the Emperor of France, the British Empire (ruled by a Queen, but one who would become an Empress in 20 years) (and the German Kings, but this would become an empire in 20 years), and the "Tsar" of Russia and wanted equal status from which to deal. An "Imperial Highness" was preferable to a "Royal Highness". Translating "Tenno" as "Emperor" solved the equality problem. - Nunh-huh 09:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

So the use of the word "emperor" pre-dates the Japanese empire? That partially explains it. However, it's still a little surprising that the word "emperor" is still used, given its negative connotations. --Auximines 09:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

You have it backward. The word "emperor" was determined as a translation for "Tenno" at least over a millenium later than his status became stable, and it stabilized over a millenium before English language even existed. So, it's the problem with English. Japanese language allows for using different terms for various rulers like mentioned in the article, but English doesn't have THE word to represents Tenno and wikipedia didn't let Tenno as the word to accurately discribe the status. Thus, any feeling one may has of "emperor" is completely meaningless. It's like demanding every dead and living Germans and Austrians named "Adolf" to change his name because it reminds them of someone named Hitler. Revth 09:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some cracker decided the Tenno should be translated as the Emperor since he is monarch with a higher status than a king. Nonetheless the translation sucks. Don't accuse us of using so called 'negative connotations' when it's your people that accepted this noun as opposed to our native title of "Tenno, heaven's King of the Clouds"

An Empire is different from Imperialism. But the Emperor of Japan did preside over various territories with its own sovereign lords. Soooo he was pretty much, a "King of Kings". 24.14.120.92 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Until fairly recently, we had many small territories ruled by warlords (daimyo). In ancient times, many different tribes lived in Japan and they were crashed by the army led by Tenno. Thus, the term tenno (heavenly/divine emperor) came into use. It was also convenient at the time, as the Japanese were trying to have an equal status as the Chinese emperors. --TokyoJapan 15:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

There's an artcile for kokyo. --Outis 04:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Our Korean friend has inserted his poorly formatted entries into History. Someone please clean this up. --Golbez 16:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Certain dates and details may be in dispute among Japanese historians. Many emperors cited in the formal list of Emperors of Japan died at a very young age and can hardly be said to have "ruled" in any serious sense of the word. Others were overshadowed by their predecessors, who had ostensibly retired to a monastery but continued to exert influence."

This is repeated twice in the article; I'm not sure how it should be handled in this context, so its just a heads-up. Wotnarg 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Succession

Nostalgic. Three months ago I wrote the section about imperial succession traditions of Japan http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Emperor_of_Japan&diff=12935905&oldid=12889659
Today I came here to write about traditions of allowed marriages of imperials. And found the above text, only a little copyedited, recognized it as having come from my pen... nostalgic feeling. Arrigo 16:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if it might not be interesting to go into more detail about exactly what the succession crisis is right now and why Koizumi feels compelled to get involved? Milofischi 07:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonzai

I lived in Japan for 2 and a half years and am a WWII historian so I know a little bit about the Japanese Emperor during those years. I would really like to see some info here about the phrase the Japanese soldiers used to shout before going into battle. Forgive my attmept, but it sounds something like "Henjo Hayka! Bonzai!!" What is the translation and the significance of this battle cry? Thanks to whoever can give an answer -Husnock 02:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're very close. Banzai ="Ten thousand years". It's approximately how long East Asians used to wish to their leaders to live for. Give or take a few years. --Menchi 03:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to this Japanese Wikipedia article, the full shout used by the Japanese Imperial army was "天皇陛下万歳" (tennou heika banzai), or "Ten thousand years to His Majesty the Emperor!". -- ran (talk) 01:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

In short, analogous to "long live the king!"Uly 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ancient descent

Naka-no-oe (Tenji), ancestor of the line to today

Parents:

1. Princess Takara (Kogyoko, Saimei Empress), niece of her husband Tamura
2. Prince Tamura (Jomei Emperor), uncle of his wife Takara

Grandparents:

1. Princess Kibihime (Ohomata), sister of Prince Aya
2. Prince Chinu, brother of Tamura (Emperor Jomei) and son of Prince Oshisaka who was Pc of Maroko
3. Princess Nukatehime, half-sister of her husband Oshisaka
4. Prince Oshisaka, half-brother of his wife Nukatehime, father of Tamura and Chinu

Prince Oshisaka and Princess Nukatehime were children of Emperor Bidatsu, by consorts other than Empress Suiko (Oshisaka was son of pcs Hirohime dg Pc Okinaga, and Nukatehime was daughter of Wokumako herself dg of chief Ohoka of Ise).

Bidatsu's parents:

1. Princess Iwahime, Empress consort, daughter of Emperor Senka
2. Kimmei Emperor, younger brother of Senka, son of Keitai, nephew of Buretsu, grandson of Ninken

Grandparents:

1. Princess Tachibana, daughter of Emperor Ninken (by unclear) and sister of Emperor Buretsu
2. Emperor Senka, son of Emperor Keitai (by consort Meko of the family of lords in Wohari) and elder brother of Emperor Kimmei
3. Princess Tashiraga, daughter of Emperor Ninken (by Princess Kasuga, said to have been daughter of Emperor Yuryaku) and sister of Emperor Buretsu
4. Emperor Keitai, originator of an own branch or possibly a new dynasty, successor of Buretsu

Emperor Ninken (Prince Oke/Ohoke) was a member of the earlier dynasty/branch, reigned himself, and said to have been a grandson of Emperor Richu. Was adopted son of Emperor Seinei. Emperor Yuryaku was younger son of Emperor Ingyo.

Requested mass move

From WP:RM November 17 2005:

• Talk:Emperors of Japan#Requested mass move Bringing all articles about Emperors of Japan into line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names of Emperors
  • Chokei Emperor → Emperor Chokei
  • Go-Komatsu Emperor → Emperor Go-Komatsu
  • Go-Hanazono Emperor → Emperor Go-Hanazono
  • Go-Kashiwabara Emperor → Emperor Go-Kashiwabara
  • Go-Komyo Emperor → Emperor Go-Komyo
  • Go-Mizunoo Emperor → Emperor Go-Mizunoo
  • Go-Momozono Emperor → Emperor Go-Momozono
  • Go-Murakami Emperor → Emperor Go-Murakami
  • Go-Nara Emperor → Emperor Go-Nara
  • Go-Sai Emperor → Emperor Go-Sai
  • Go-Sakuramachi Tenno → Empress Go-Sakuramachi
  • Go-Tsuchimikado Emperor → Emperor Go-Tsuchimikado
  • Go-Yozei Emperor → Emperor Go-Yozei
  • Higashiyama Emperor → Emperor Higashiyama
  • Meiji Emperor → Emperor Meiji
  • Meisho Tenno → Empress Meisho
  • Nakamikado Emperor → Emperor Nakamikado
  • Ninko Emperor → Emperor Ninko
  • Ogimachi Emperor → Emperor Ogimachi
  • Reigen Emperor → Emperor Reigen
  • Taisho Emperor → Emperor Taisho

-- Mkill 19:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I was actually in the process of moving all of these (which is why the first hundred or so are already done), but many of these are blocked, which means I need the help of an administrator. The administrator who was helping me kind of petered out. I'll try contacting him again so we can get the rest of the moves finished. I don't think we need a vote here, since the article title was decided after a lengthy discussion already. -Jefu 15:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

altered formulation

"In fact, the emperor is never to be referred to by name (imina) unless he is dead"

"tenno" gets attached posthum (prefix), but not to the current time emperor. "Tenno" gets attached posthum (prefix), but not to the current time emperor.

this avoids to mention the subject of death, to use the word "death", even "unless he is dead", attaching information about gender.

nothing special but considerable for alteration. User:akidd_dublin 2005 12 10

Naming and divinity

The naming section states: Literally, the word tennō combines the characters for "ruler" and "heaven", but this is not a mark of divinity; the use of ten (天, "heaven") in the Japanese word was an adoption of the established Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven, which meant that an emperor was appointed in the heavens to balance the political and religious affairs of his domain.

I completely disagree. Firstly, regardless what the title implies, the office of tenno does claim the status of divinity. Among other things, the tenno is both the head priest and an object of worship in the Shintō, the imperial house claims direct descent from the chief god of Shinto, their claim to divinity was only given up after WWII, but even to date, there are still sacred locations and objects forbidden to all but the tenno and his priests. Secondly, Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven is inherently incompatible with Japan's imperial theory. Under the Mandate of Heaven, rulers theoretically only hold their divine right to rule based on their merit, and any unfit ruler can be rightfully overthrown, as their failings can be seen as evidence, both as cause and result, that they have lost Heaven's favor. This is the complete opposite of Japan's system, where the tenno are kept in place even after they had lost all real powers. Mandate of Heaven was proposed by a rebel to legitimize the overthrow. No ruler in his right mind would adopt such a theory at the height of his power. Of course, if they really did adopt the Mandate of Heaven, I doubt the imperial family would have survived the many ruling shoguns. Uly 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no doubt real and substantial differences between the Chinese and Japanese conceptions of the imperial theory. But this does not necessarily mean that the word "tenno" claims the status of divinity. After all, the Japanese are well known for borrowing the forms of foreign cultures, even if the substance is somewhat different. During the Taika Reform, they borrowed the entire administrative system of China without necessarily implementing it the same way. The same may be true of "tenno". In order to disprove the above assertion ("ten" for heaven is not a statement of divinity), you need to do more than claim that the two conceptions were different. You have to show that the adoption of the word "tenno" was a deliberate choice based on that particular Japanese conception and not simply a superficial copying of the Chinese concept.

Bathrobe 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that my arguments do not necessarily disprove it, which is why I did not go ahead and change it myself. But in the same token, I cannot find any basis for the claim that it is in fact based on the Mandate of Heaven. The mention of the MoH here was added by user Ashibaka on Dec 29, 2005, whom, in his edit summary, wrote that it is offensive and POV to suggest that the title has divine connotation. The previous version had a IMO more balanced description, reading: "Some scholars point out that the use of ten was, in relation to the Chinese concept of tentei..."

Considering the fact that there is no primary source that explains the precise meaning of the title, all interpretations must necessarily be conjectures. As such, I'd much prefer the previous approach ("some scholars say...") or not mentioning the question altogether; stating that it is based on the MoH so matter-of-factly is quite misleading -- that is, of course, unless someone can come up with a convincing argument for it being so.

It may be even more misleading to say that the 天 is not a mark of divinity, let's not ignore the very distinct possibility that the ambiguity is deliberate. And lastly, let's also not forget that the Chinese title of Tianzi/天子 does mark the emperor as at least demi-divine. Uly 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Article needs rewriting

I feel that this article needs a lot of rewriting. It appears to have started out reasonably coherent, but with various accretions, the same material (or different treatments of the same aspect) is now scattered here and there, wreaking havoc with overall coherency.

One problem is the strange way that the nature of the monarchy is talked about in a vague kind of chronological vacuum. In fact, the unspoken assumption at some places seems to be that the 'reconstructed monarchy' of the Meiji Restoration is the authentic historical version. It seems to me that what the Meiji Restoration did, in the name of reconstructing the monarchy and Shintō as it really was, was to create an entirely new type of monarchy and Shintō -- State Shintō. (In this respect, one interesting thing I found out some years ago is that the Japanese imperial court used Chinese court ritual for the accession of emperors for a thousand years, right up until the Meiji period. The austere Shinto ceremonies now associated with accession of the emperor were an attempt at reconstructing 'pure' Shinto ritual and were no more authentic than the Chinese ones they replaced. In fact, they were really ideologically based, along with many other aspects of the post-Meiji monarchy.)

In this sense, the section on the history of the monarchy is perhaps the most sadly lacking section of the article. What is needed is a clear history of the Japanese monarchy, with periodisation and a discussion of differences in the monarch's role. Only with this framwork properly in place can the role of the Japanese monarchy be properly discussed.

This would help sort out the mixing up ancient and modern preoccupations as though they are all the same. For instance, the concept of arahitogami, mentioned near the start of the article. In the modern era, this is seen (and presented) as a terrifying example of an entire nation willing to do anything for their god-king. In a historical context, however, it seems that the original concept of arahitogami was more like an attempt to elevate the emperors above their rivals and legitimise their power in ancient Japan, no different from what happened in some way or another with many pre-modern monarchies. The emperor was (I believe) still regarded as arahitogami when the shoguns were in power, but it wasn't a matter of national importance. The change, as I mention above, came with the Meiji Restoration, when the Emperor was made a focus of Japan's nationalism and national power. The nature of this historic change does not emerge clearly from the article.

There is also a disturbing sense that some sections (which again mix ancient and modern conceptions) trying to argue that the emperor of Japan is a different animal from emperors/monarchs in the West (e.g., the argument that the Emperor was never regarded as sovereign over specific territories and sections claiming the Emperor was only ever a kind of 'high priest', not a political leader) are really subtle counterarguments to the idea that the Showa Emperor had war guilt, not to mention their subtext of 'Nihonjinron'. These arguments again seem to be made against the background of the Meiji-style monarchy, with its "reconstruction" of the ancient monarchy for modern purposes. It would be useful if the point of these arguments could be made more explicit.

Bathrobe 04:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely the thing about exoneration from war guilt fails on its own merits - emperors quite obviously stopped being only high priests after the Meiji Restoration.

Julian Morrison 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for either position, but it has nothing to do with whether they are only "high priests" or not. Japanese emperors have nearly always been controlled by other political forces. It has only differed in degree. There are some pre-Meiji emperors who arguably had more political power than Emperor Showa ever had, and many who had virtually no political power at all. The exoneration from war guilt argument simply presumes that Emperor Showa and/or the various instruments of government were being controlled by other political forces to a degree such that he should not be held personally responsible for the decisions that were made.-Jefu 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was not whether the Emperor has war guilt or not, it is the fact that some comments and analyses are being made but the point of them is rather cryptic. Often in order to understand what someone is saying you have to understand what they are arguing against. In this case, it seemed to me that somebody is arguing against something... imperial war guilt? attempts to impose a Western interpretation on the Emperor's role?... without coming clean what they are arguing against. In other words, the whole point is kind of fuzzy.

Given that he has a good overall understanding of the Japanese monarchy and its history, and is sensitive to many of the nuances involved, Jefu is certainly better qualified than I am to comment on some of these issues and perhaps rectify some of the POV faults of the article.

Bathrobe 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh...You obviously haven't seen the big armored black truck I use to drive around Tokyo...I'd be happy to give it a shot, but it may be a while before I can get to it.-Jefu 15:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never suspected! I hope this is not too much for your sensitive uyoku nature, but I have just read an article by Basil Hall Chamberlain about the whole offence -- Shintō, Emperor worship, and Bushido. Thought you might be interested, if you haven't seen it already: THE INVENTION OF A NEW RELIGION.

Bathrobe 06:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to think about Basil Hall Chamberlain's article again. I have now run into someone who believes that his assertions about Bushido (that "Bushido" was largely invented by Nitobe and that it did not involve allegiance to the Emperor) are completely off the mark. I'm now engaged in a (rather silly) running battle with this guy on the Bushido talk page. I understand that he is unhappy about Chamberlain's assertions, but whereas I feel that these assertions should be at least noted and refuted by recourse to the facts, he is completely opposed to even acknowledging their existence -- even though he admits that he made certain points in the article specifically with a view to rebuffing Chamberlain.

Bathrobe 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In section History:Shoguns one can find the following sentence: "When Portuguese and Spanish explorers first contacted Japan (see Nanban period), they likened the relationship between emperor and shogun to that of the and king (earthly, but with a relatively large amount of political power) though this in itself can be considered ambiguous as, like the Emperor." - there seem to be some bits missing from this. --Grey Knight ⊖ 23:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

see Shogun-Emperor relationship analogy below --Danlibbo 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What will the new title be?

Out of curiosity, given that it's a dead cert Aiko-hime will be given the green-light this year to take over from her father in due course, what will the new title of the article be? Because I'm sure that she will be a "ruling empress" rather than a "female emperor".

How about "Japanese Monarchy"? It would fit in well with the "British Monarchy" piece. I think that it might be an idea to consider the new title now, rather than dither and argue when the law is (in all likeliness) passed. John Smith's 22:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, though not one we are likely to deal with any time soon. However, the other articles I randomly checked - Queen of England, King of Spain, and Queen of the Netherlands - weren't exactly about those offices. The first linked to a list of English monarchs; the second linked to Spanish monarchy, about the monarchy; and the third linked to Dutch monarchy, about the monarchy. However, this article isn't so much about the monarchy, as about the singular office of Emperor, and thus, at a cursory glance, seems different from the "X monarchy" articles. Thoughts? --Golbez 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just use Tennou. Translating Tennou as emperor was dogey anyway. Plus, Tennou is gender neutral. There is a talk of reviving other imperial families to ensure male succession so we won't know we will have emperess in Japan yet. To add further, the ancient rule of sucession merely state that Tennou must be someone from male line of imperial blood. So female tennou is o.k. as long as her father is direct male line of imperial family. .

It might not be so certain. It was just announced that the wife of the younger prince if pregnant. Milofischi 07:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This contains also very much dynastical history, to the point that this article actually serves as the article about the dynasty too (similarly as there are articles about Bourbon dynasty and Habsburg dynasty). I think Japanese monarchy would be a fitting title, if changed. Shilkanni 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But historically the British monarchs have had next-to-supreme power. There have been very few times in Japanese history when these "monarchs", as you lot are suggesting we call them, have ruled by themselves ("one-rule", or some such), and so I've almost never seen such words used. Also, as a side not to the Unsigner, the first "Emperor"s as mentioned in relatively objective Chinese sources were largely female, which the Chinese scholars found rather odd and about two centuries later introduced a more Sinicized system. elvenscout742 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that in order to be called monarchs, they should have ruled, irl? Btw, those female monarch(s) mentioned in early chinese writings (presumably you mean Himiko?) actually are not regarded as tenno, nor a part of the official list of these "emperors". When speaking about this as dynasty, I mean (and also restrict to) the so-called Yamato dynasty. Others were chiefs/kings/queens of distinctly other dynasties or traditions. Btw, do you mean "the Chinese scholars introduced a more sinicized system of choosing only male emperors about two centuries later"?? Shilkanni 07:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It'll still be Tenno. If Aiko becomes Tenno, it'll be translated as Empress Regnant in English rather than Jotei which is an Empress Consort.24.14.120.92 09:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Takano no Niigasa

Please get your facts correct before you start arguement please. Let me remind all of you Japanese history isn't the same history 100 or 80 or 55 years ago. Japanese historians always changed Japanese history better or worse. During Japanese military occupation over Korea Japanese historians changed the writing (Koguryo Gwanggaeto tomb) they changed it to give Japan political and military justification of colonial rule over Korea. Funny thing about Japanese historian or Japanese politicians is that Japan is only country in the world afraid of historical truth regarding to national origin. Japanese language is related to Korean language in grammar syntax. Korguryo ( Koma), Paekje (Kudara), Shilla ( Shiragi), Kaya ( Minama). All four Korean kingdoms were related to one Korean racial stock and culture they all contributed to Japanese racial and cultural origins. ( Truth hurts doesn' it?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Being skeptical of Kamosuke's edits is probably a good policy, given that 90% of them seem to be motivated by an anti-Korean/pro-Japanese POV. However, I now actually agree with this change for a couple of reasons, some of which Kamosuke may not agree with. First, this isn't really an example of two royal families intermarrying the way one would think of it in the European context. This is just someone who is recorded in a very untrustworthy book as being a descendent of Korean royalty. If you go back about 6 or 7 generations, I had a German princess as one of my ancestors, but believe me, nobody got excited when I got married. Secondly, if we count this as an example of royal families mixing, where do you stop? Whether the Kojiki or Nihonshoki (or many Japanese) admit it or not, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Japanese imperial line is descended from Korean immigrants. In fact, if we had a crystal ball we could peer into, most Japanese in the general population are probably descendants of Koreans at some time or another (and recently enough to make it count). In any event, I think that passage definitely conveyed the wrong impression to readers. This was far from an example of the Japanese royal family marrying the member of a royal family from another country, as was suggested.-Jefu 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefu, you are certainly insulting our imperial family and the Japanese people. How do you explain the difference between Japanese and Korean Language? The 2 languages are considered too different to have split from an common ancestor merely 2000 or 1500 years ago. Nihonshoki has the fact Japan needed interpreters to contact with the states in the Korean peninsula. Secondly, historical records of both sides of the straits, such as Gwanggaeto Stele of Goguryeo, Samguk Sagi, Kojiki and Nihonshoki, claim Wa (Japan) attacking the Korean peninsula and not vice versa. Finally, according to Shinsenjyojiroku 新撰姓氏録 (A.D.815), a list of nobele families indicates that only 30% of the aristocracy were descendants of immigrants, from China and Korea (not the same people as living today). Nobu Sho 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the excerpt was misleading because it was refering to Takano no Niigasa's marriage as a marriage between two royal families. I think the excerpt is noteworthy as one of the surviving records of international(or interracial, i suppose) marriage inside Japanese Imperial family. I'll make the necessary changes to the excerpt. Deiaemeth 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why this is important, or even interesting. Like I said, this is certainly not the only example of people of Korean ancestry marrying into the imperial family. One theory has it that the Sogas were from Korea as well, and many Soga women married early emperors. As modified I think this language sticks out sorely and causes the reader to see "What's this random bit of information doing in here?" Or it might cause one to think that this one example being singled out means that there wasn't much mixing going on between Japan and Korea (which, as I've also said, is far from the case.)-Jefu 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you could also include what you've said about Soga women and such on the article as well. The excerpt that exists now should be worded again so Takakno ni Niigas's marriage isn't the only example of interracial (or international) marriage. :) Deiaemeth 05:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply, the ancestor of Takano-Niigasa has been naturalized in Japan. And, it lived as one of aristocrats of Japan. Moreover, her mother is Japanese. Simply, the Kanmu emperor loved Takano-Niigasa as a woman. Her ancestor was only a Korean royal family by chance.　 How about this love if it writes in trivia?　 Linking with the Imperial Household Agency to prevent the misunderstanding might be also good. The comment concerning Takano-Nigasa is being written there.

The excerpt was misleading in its former form; it is supposed to be an example of inclusion of people of different ethnic descent than Japanese to the Japanese imperial family, not examples of marriage between two royal families of different countries. The correct changes have been made. Deiaemeth 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's think simply.

1.Baekje is ruined in 660 years. Emperor Kammu is an emperor from 781 ears. 2.Takano is not a clan who succeeds to the throne of right Baekje. 3.Ancestor and the 10th, He lived in not a Korean peninsula but Japan. 4.Ancestor before her generation 6th, He has been naturalized in Japan. (He received the family name of Yamato from the emperor. ) 5.Her mother is Haji Clan in traditional Japan. The insistence of marriage of the royal family of a different race is not appropriate if it says from the conclusion. Actually, there is no book written that the marriage of Takano-Nigasa is a marriage of different ethnic groups. Who besides you thinks Takano-Nigasa to be different ethnic groups? Reference Takano clan's family pedigree [1] Wikipedia-Japan Emperor of Japan]

[2] --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamosuke (talk • contribs) .

User:Kamosuke, it is generally a good idea to indicate your posting by adding four tildes (~)after your post to mark your name. Anyway, English sources, please. I had some hard time understanding what you've said, but the excerpt suggests Nihon Shoki mentioned Takano no Niigaasa's ethnicity as that of Baekje. Apparently, if you've read user:Jefu's comment, he suggested that Takano no Nigasa's marriage is not that of two royal families mixing. There is no doubt that Takano no Nigasa settled in Japan and assimilitated its culture and customs, but she was of different ethnic descent as noted by Japanese records, and that's what the excerpt is suggesting. You mentioned "2.Takano is not a clan who succeeds to the throne of right Baekje." - no one here is claiming she is to claim Baekje throne, just that she is of Baekje royal descent. Read again. Deiaemeth 03:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, The first information on the emperor family are all Japanese. Please do the effort to understand Japanese before requesting an English source. Next,Takano-Nigasa is a daughter of an ordinary Japanese aristocrat. And, she was an ordinary empress. Therefore, ordinary empress Takano-Niigasa is deleted. Her ancestor had lived in a Korean peninsula before he was naturalized in Japan. It is a story before the generation tenth when she was born. If this topic is written in trivia of Emperor Kammu and Takano-Nigasa if you hope, it might be good. Next,　You are doing the insistence based on the misunderstanding.Let's correct your mistake referring to the original source. [Verification of your insistence]　Your comment　"I had some hard time understanding what you've said, but the excerpt suggests Nihon Shoki mentioned Takano no Niigaasa's ethnicity as that of Baekje. but she was of different ethnic descent as noted by Japanese records"　Simply, You do not understand because your history knowledge is insufficient. Please look at the original source of shoku-nihongi (Nohonshoki is your mistake. ) 「皇太后姓は和氏、諱は新笠、贈正一位乙継の女（むすめ）なり。母は贈正一位大枝朝臣真妹なり。后の先は百済武寧王の子純?太子より出ず。皇太后曰く、其れ百済の遠祖都慕王は河伯の女日精に感じて生めるところなり、皇太后は即ち其の後なり。」 (続日本紀延暦8年12月28日条) Which part of this document did you feel the ethnicity of Takano-Nigasa?　It is being written that she is a daughter of aristocrat Yamato clan in Japan. [Mistake of material that you introduced]Information that you introduced doesn't accurately pass on the first information. An accurate content to talk is as follows. 「私自身としては，桓武天皇の生母が百済の武寧王の子孫であると，続日本紀に記されていることに，韓国とのゆかりを感じています。」(Press conference on birthday of 2002)　Why does this conversation become "Marriage of different ethnic groups" ?　At the end　If there is a desire that you contribute to this article, enhance the article on more important person Godaigo ,Seiwa,Shirakawa. Before publishing her long introduction. If it wants to emphasize the relation between Japan and Korea, it might be also good to do the topic of Bangja. She is a royal family who is more right than Takano-Nigasa. Adding it to the article on the emperor family when the necessity is felt after the article on Takano-Nigasa is enhanced might be also good.　kamosuke 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you think, but I certainly know what Emperor Akihito thinks. [3] [4][5]. If you think the placement of this excerpt in said paragraph is not appropriate, remove it and put it elsewhere on the article. If you want to expand the part on Godaigo, Seiwa, Shirakawa, you may do so yourself. I have hard time understanding your standards on "historical sufficience" since you claim Colonial rule of Korea does not have anything do with Japanese War Crimes in WW II -By the way, stop vandalizing that page please! Also, you may note that this is an English Wikipedia, and requesting English source is the most logical thing to do. If you want to present a strong case, presenting an English source is well-recommended. Your sources in Japanesemay well be accepted in Japanese wikipedia (http://ja.wiki.x.io I believe), but not in English Wikipedia.Deiaemeth 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous logic. Of course Japanese sources are acceptable, so long as the article is written in English. What is the source of the requirement that you must be able to read and understand all sources of information for articles in the English Wikipedia? Besides, if English sources were the only acceptable source for works about Japanese history in English, do you think English language sources on Japanese history would even exist? That would be a neat trick, wouldn't it...-Jefu 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

per wikipedia policy, "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." sure, there are some uncontroversial details only available in a native language, but a reputable english source should trump more obscure local sources in case of inconsistencies. also, a wikipedian's personal interpretaion of original source texts should be avoided, per WP:NOR, [6], [7]. Appleby 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple question　When the content of the Original source and the second information is different,　Which does the policy of wikipedia make give priority?

Answer: simply, both. The two differing contents should be both told, in a balanced way, and their value mentioned if possible. Basically, not an obstacle that one of them is not in English (we should trust in the editor who cites it, and hopefully there are other editors with skills in that language so it eventually will be checked by some others). Shilkanni 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ToDeiaemeth

It is not the first information. Your insistence is denied by the first information.(Takano-Nigasa is Japanese who has the lineage of 200 years. )Please enhance her page if it is interested only in Takano-Niigasa. Please introduce the emperor whose priority is higher than an ordinary Japanese empress. The unpleasantness to me doesn't become a reason to affirm your insistence. The emperor is Japanese. And, Japanese is spoken. If you want to learn emperor's correct history, you should read Japanese. Your insistence is emotional, and not the one based on the original source. Wikipedia is not a place where your insistence is announced. Wikipedia is not a place where your insistence is announced. And, Wikipedia is not a place where it introduces a strange theory. Your opinion is rejected for that.

My "opinion" is a personal statement from the Emperor of Japan himself. Deiaemeth 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"statement" is your mistake. It is one of the answers to the interview. His conversation doesn't say that Takano is a foreigner. Please explain the content of the emperor's interview if it is possible to object. --Kamosuke 00:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To Appleby

Simply, Do you think that it is correct to write the article on Sejong without the knowledge of Hangul or Chinese ? Simply, Please let me hear your opinions of an original source.

「皇太后姓は和氏、諱は新笠、贈正一位乙継の女（むすめ）なり。母は贈正一位大枝朝臣真妹なり。后の先は百済武寧王の子純?太子より出ず。皇太后曰く、其れ百済の遠祖都慕王は河伯の女日精に感じて生めるところなり、皇太后は即ち其の後なり。」 (続日本紀延暦8年12月28日条)

kamosuke 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

per wikipedia policy, "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." sure, there are some uncontroversial details only available in a native language, but a reputable english source should trump more obscure local sources in case of inconsistencies. also, a wikipedian's personal interpretaion of original source texts should be avoided, per WP:NOR, [8], [9]

this is wikipedia policy. if you find anything in the sejong article that is contradicted by reputable english publications, please feel free to correct the errors. you or i may have our personal opinions on how to translate and interpret original foreign texts, but wikipedia is a place where verifiable reputable english publications wins over your personal view. Appleby 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Kamosuke is referring to THE source which is in question, the Shoku Nihongi (続日本紀). Emperor Akihito also refers to the Shoku Nihongi in his quote, which you are all talking about. It's a matter of having the relevant passage(s) from Shoku Nihongi properly translated, rather than relying on hearsay about what Emperor Akihito said. I would certainly want to see the translation of the text above before passing any judgement. But it would seem that if the Baekje blood in Takano no Niigasa was less than, say, 2%, this whole bit of info would start to be insignificant. Once we know the details, we should all take a vote whether it is relevant enough to deserve mention in this particular article.--Endroit 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the emperor of Japan himself admitting that he has some Korean blood inhimself was noteworthy. Need I remind you, This excerpt in the article has been here for almost over a year before User:Kamosuke started deleting it without reason and several editors (including myself) restored it. Also, if he wants to refer to Shoku Nihongi, he should cite reputable English translations of the verses in questions and such, as this is English Encyclopedia. Just throwing in random excerpts from the book itself doesn't help much. As many of us can't understand it. Deiaemeth 00:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the comment by the current Emperor that he felt a "certain closeness to Korea", because it doesn't belong in this article. Also, I modified the following statement because it's implying something that is false: "Emperors of the imperial house of Japan rarely married people of other ethnic descent." Takano no Niigasa was a concubine, and therefore there was no marriage involved. I warn Deiaemeth and Appleby to refrain from making wild interpretations of the various citations... not just here but in other articles too. Please be accurate and listen to others in the discussions.--Endroit 17:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

endroit, just wondering, how come everyone you disagree with needs to wait for discussion & consensus even with proper citations, but you & kamosuke should just edit long-standing consensual language without citations or prior discussion? Appleby 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack, Appleby? Everybody, just ask yourself whether any of Appleby's citations mention that Takano no Niigasa was married to the imperial family. Now read the following 2 articles that are also long-standing in Wikipedia, Emperor Kammu and Emperor Konin. One of them says that Takano no Niigasa was a concubine. Obviously, the interpretations in the original text Appleby kept reverting to was wrong.--Endroit 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out Koreans (or Korean related people) took advantage our Emperor's statement which only aimed to promote friendship betweeen the nations. I feel some people are misinterpreting his words on purpose to make political claims as if Koreans are part of the Japanese royalty, although even in the 8C Takano no Niigasa has been a 200year descendant which means almost nothing today.Nobu Sho 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's quite pathetic, indeed. --Saintjust 04:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No one "took advantage" of the emperor's statements. The excerpt in question has been in the article for more than 1 year, and no one objected or tried to edit it out until User:Kamosuke did. So I posted some reliable sources (The Guardian, for example) about the Emperor's statements. He kept asking for "consensus" in talk, but he's the one who kept editing it out in the first place. Given his strong background of Anti-Korean edits, his edits were not viewed in an amiable light. I know the Emperor tried to mend relationships with Korea, as demonstrated by his statements and refusal to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, and I hold great respect for him and his efforts. This is not Korean POV information just added suddenly, but a long-standing consensual information that stayed in the article for over a year. Deiaemeth 01:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Baekje#Takano no Niigasa. Takano no Niigasa is not significant for the long, log history of the imperial family. And the Emperor's speech is not especially important for Japanese people because it is one of His Majesty's annual press conferences. But probably it is important for South Koreans, just as Appleby and Deiaemeth demonstrate. So how about moving the content in question to somewhere else, say, Korean-Japanese disputes and adding the background to the South Korean fever, Koreans' inferiority complex toward Japan or something? --Nanshu 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nanshu, that comment about "Koreans' inferiority complex toward Japan" was not very helpful. To others: the fact that the information was there for a year before someone challenged it is not a good argument for keeping it there.

There is a deeper problem in the background here, which is the old nationalist ideology of Japan, with its notions of racial and cultural purity and belief in the divine descent of the imperial family. Although nobody believes that the emperor is a god on earth (arahitogami) any more, the sentiment of the old ideology lingers on in strange ways. There is also the traditional contempt for Korea, regarded as inferior to the land of the gods. So Japanese have been reluctant for a long time to recognise that the imperial family might have Korean blood (which the reigning emperor has now admitted), or may even be Korean originally (beyond the pale). See this article for more information: Korean arguments on Yamato period. It seems to me that this is what this storm in a teacup is all about. Perhaps the article needs a section devoted to this particular issue, rather than slipping in a guerrilla reference to Takano no Niigasa, etc. etc.

Bathrobe 01:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be anti-Korean nor anti-Japanese. If you start talking about "inferiority" or "purity" or "racism" or "ideology" (in a separate section?), you're going to run into POV problems. And why all the negativity here? For the current argument, removing any mention of Takano no Niigasa from this article should diffuse a lot of problems. If Takano no Niigasa was 9th generation as Nanshu suggested, she only had 0.2% Baekje blood by my calculation. (100% /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 = 0.195%). And besides, Niigasa was NOT married to the imperial family at all. I vote to have any mention of Takano no Niigasa removed from this particular article. I understand that Nobu Sho, Jefu, Kamosuke, Nanshu and myself (Endroit) are all in favor of deleting also. As a consolation, the info is already in the Emperor Akihito article, because his famous quote about Takano no Niigasa is Emperor Akihito's legacy.--Endroit 02:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

it's not a matter of what percent of korean blood, but that the emperor's mention was considered newsworthy worldwide, for historical, cultural and political reasons. in light of the arcane details already in this article, an event widely covered internationally is surely relevant enough. Appleby 02:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it was newsworthy enough for about one year, good enough to be included in this article... which is a good thing for Korean-Japanese relations. However, as seen in this discussion, consensus has already built against that line of thinking, with respect to this article.--Endroit 02:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

：Simply, it is newsworthy only in the South Korean. Takano-Nigasa is one of the ordinary empresses in emperor's history. Please add Emperor Go-Daigo or Emperor Go-Shirakawa if you want to cooperate in the edit of emperor's history. You must think about the priority level.--Kamosuke 10:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

current position vs dynastical history: need of separate articles?

This article seems to contain a bit about the position of emperor today and constitutionally, and a lot about the evolution of the position and the dynasty. When seeking article about the Japanese dynasty, I realized that this has the vastest material about it, therefore I redirected Yamato dynasty here. Some people may think that there should be two separate articles: one for the dynasty and thus for all that history, and one for the current position as a sort of organ of state of Japan, analogous to those articles about Japanese diet and of cabinet, and so on. I was first thinkin the same, but then I realized that the current position of emperor is so trenched in its history - and probably would not exist without the historical reverence - that these issues should not be separated. Emperor's relevant functions seem to be influenced by past precedents also today. Additionally, I assess that an article about emperor as today's state organ would be poor and short, whereas almost all contents here would belong to the dynasty article. Shilkanni 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

References

This article is really close to being a Good Article, I believe, but we need to get references added into the article for that to happen. Anyone up to the job? (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Golden Y-chromosome?

Given the agnatic succession described in the article, can we assume that the newborn son of prince Akishino carries the same Y-chromosome as did the emperors 1,500 years ago (with possible mutations included)?

If a paragraph is really good, put it in the article multiple times

Apparently the following paragraph is so good that it needs to be duplicated multiple times in the article. "Certain dates and details may be in dispute among Japanese historians. Many emperors cited in the formal list of Emperors of Japan died at a very young age and can hardly be said to have "ruled" in any serious sense of the word. Others were overshadowed by their predecessors, who had ostensibly retired to a monastery but continued to exert influence". Should I put in 2 or 3 more copies of this paragraph, or do you all think 2 are enough? I mean, this paragraph is just wonderful. --Xyzzyplugh 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I suppose I'll remove the first instance of it. --Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

tennō

The description of the origin of the term "tennō" in the section Origin of the title conflicts with the description in Empress Suiko. Jeoth 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is correct and I have removed the passage in Empress Suiko.-Jefu 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in History-Origin

This passage contradicts itself: These two books state that the imperial house maintained a continuous lineage, though today some historians believe that many ancient emperors who were claimed to be descendants of Emperor Ōjin had no actual genealogical tie to their predecessor. However, the genealogy beginning from the late 5th century can be regarded as reliable, thus meaning that the dynasty has continued at least some 1500 years.

The first sentence states that later emperors may not have had genealogical ties with Ojin, while the second claims that the official genealogy can be regarded as reliable. --Himasaram 09:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the references to the incorrect centuries and years. But a citation is still needed, I mean, how can you prove that Emperor Keitai wasn't descended from Emperor Ōjin when the sources clearly state that he was? (31 October)

Shogun-Emperor relationship analogy

"...they likened the relationship between emperor and shogun to that of the and king (earthly, but with a relatively large amount of political power) though this in itself can be considered ambiguous as, like the Emperor."
this sentence doesn't quite make sense as there's the second half of the analogous relationship (presumably knights etc) - am i just reading this wrong or does someone have the texts and can correct it (also a citation would be good) --Danlibbo 04:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Duties/Possession of the emperor

I heard from a veteran in my community who was stationed in Japan that Japanese parks and national monuments are traditionally considered the property of the Emperor and managed by the Emperor's officers. Can anyone here back this up or think it should be added to the article?--Primalchaos 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the imperial line

ShinjukuXYZ, "elsewhere origins" is nonsense English. If there are credible theories of an origin for the imperial line other than China or Korea, please provide a reference. Then someone will help you edit the article so that it makes sense.-Jefu 12:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the emperor family has various hypotheses. Could you explain the reason thought that only the hypothesis of Korea and China is correct?　--ShinjukuXYZ 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe either is correct, but either might be. The point is either might be correct and are widely discussed as possibilities (Korea much more so than China). This has to do with the fact that the time back to which we can trace the imperial line with any reliability was preceded by a time of marked immigration, primarily from the Korean peninsula. There were also high ranking officials of the time who were of Korean immigrant families, and as the emperor himself has acknowledged, Emperor Kammu's mother was of Korean royal descent.

In any event, you have not, as requested, produced any support for the idea that the imperial family originate from anywhere else. Tell me what these "various hypotheses are, and who has put them forth. Barring that, your edit is improper (not to mention meaningless English).-Jefu 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not explaining "Original evidence of the emperor family exists in Kofun" at all. The Kanmu emperor episode doesn't relate to this topic at all.

I used Google Scholar[10]. However, there was no information written that there was an origin of the emperor family in Kofun.

Zainichi Korean is writing similar information to your insistence.[11] (He is an amateur historian. )Is your insistence corresponding to his insistence?　--ShinjukuXYZ 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know or care what zainchi Koreans think about this topic. I insistent only on 1. correct English and 2. assertions that have some basis in reality. A quick look at your history of attempted edits on English Wikipedia, on the other hand, demonstrates quite clearly where your emotions lie and what politics motivate you. 日本語でもいいから、天皇家の由来が日本・中国・韓国以外にあるという「ShinjukuXYZ説」の根拠がもしあれば、ご指摘下さい。言っておきますが、古事記には神武天皇が天照大神の子孫として天下りしたと書いてある等の主張をご遠慮下さい。-Jefu 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

お互い論点がずれていますね。下の段落で説明します。--ShinjukuXYZ 14:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shinjuku, I really don’t care whether this article states that the suspect origins are Sino-Korean or not (largely because I think the theory is a whole bunch of Korean nationalist propaganda). However, if you’re going to edit the article, at least use grammatical English. Instead of writing:

• On the other hand, some scholars have suspected that the real reason for the refusal may be Japan’s worry about the possibility of finding evidence of elsewhere origins to the Japanese imperial line therein.

Write:

• On the other hand, some scholars have suspected that the real reason for the refusal may be Japan’s worry about the possibility of finding evidence of the Japanese imperial line’s suspected xenogenesis therein.

“Xenogenesis” comes from “xeno-”, a prefix meaning “foreign” or “alien” (like the “gai” in “gaikokujin”), + “genesis”, meaning “origin” or “creation” = “foreign origin”; it is mainly used in biology to mean something different, but I think the rarer usage will be understood here. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that he should use grammatical English (as has been explained over and over again), but disagree that an esoteric word like xenogenesis would help clarify matters much.-Jefu 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but if you split xenogenesis into its two morphemes “xeno-” & “genesis”, then it’s pretty clear that the word means “foreign origin”. Intermediate level English students are taught the valuable ability of splitting words into their composite affixes in order to discover their meaning. In any case, if a reader is unable to do so, he could look the word up in Wiktionary or somewhere (if the entry isn’t already in the former, I’ll add it later today). However, if another word can be found which does the same job, then that’s fine too. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the origin of the imperial line, could someone tell me why the nonsense about "emperor Jimmu" is allowed in this article? Jimmu is a fictional hero along the lines of Maui or Gilgamesh who supposedly ruled Japan a good three centuries before the Yayoi (the probable majority-genetic and linguistic ancestors of the Japanese) even arrived in Japan. In fact, in 660BCE, when Jimmu was supposedly born, Japan was home only to mesolithic Jomon.

This problem (accepting national myth as historical fact) litters many of the wikipedia entries on both Japan and Korea (although the problem is more pervasive in the Koren history section). It is incredibly amateurish and grossly misleading.

Zoweee 09:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the way it is included in the article now is inappropriate. Most references in Wiki to the first 15 or so emperors makes clear that they are just mythical figures for which no evidence of their existence exists. However, I don't think it should just be deleted, because even the myths are an integral part of any discussion about the Japanese emperors. The current text just needs to be edited to clarify their mythical status. It almost suggests this currently because, right after mentioning Jimmu, the article goes on to say that the key to the origins of the imperial line (implying that Jimmu is not the true origin) may lie in the kofun.

By the way, the beginning of yayoi is being pushed back somewhat. The Japanese article currently says it started around 10,000 B.C., and I don't know whether that number has become widely accepted among Japanese paleontologists, but I think something earlier than the 400 BC currently stated in the English version has become fairly widely accepted. This has nothing to do with whether Jimmu existed or not, just a response to something you said above.-Jefu 11:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, a discussion of Jimmu is important, and the cultural power of the legend deserves it (Akihito claims to be the 125th direct descendent of Jimmu, after all), but I think a simple clarification is probably insufficient. Perhaps a new section describing the role of the Jimmu narrative as it relates to the Emperor? I would argue that leaving a mention of Jimmu in the "History" section is inappropriate.

Perhaps a section on "Origins in Legend" or something, preceding the History section and briefly recounting the tale of Jimmu and a summation of its importance to the imperial tradition?

Finally, as an aside, is there any peer-reviewed evidence for the assertion that the Yayoi showed up in Japan in c.10,000BCE? That is an *exceedingly* early date, and it still leaves the problem of the abrupt appearance of a fully formed bronze-age farming culture showing up in Kyushu in 400BCE, doesn't it? Or is there evidence for an earlier date for that as well? Or is this only to explain the Japanese language, and not the material culture? Zoweee —Preceding comment was added at 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)