Talk:List of emperors of Japan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Alright, let's try again:

Why Hirohito and Akihito, but Meiji and Taisho? The latter two ought to be Mutsuhito and Yoshihito (or the former Showa and Heisei, but that would just be bad). Obviously, there should be references between the two ways of referring to emperors, but why such a discrepancy? At the very least, both names should be listed for all four on this page. john 10:02 17 May 2003 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure there is such an inconsistency but the truth is Hirohito and Akihito are hardly referred as showa and heisei while the meiji emperor is usually referred as the era name of his time. Your question is perfectly good and absolutely covered by the article either empeor of Japan or this one. -- Taku 20:15 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, backing down a bit, I note that my "World History" dictionary does it exactly the same way as Wikipedia. "Hirohito" succeeds "Taisho". But...what were the Meiji and Taisho Emperors called in the west during their lifetimes? What was Hirohito called in the west before 1945? Was there really a change in 1926 in the way Emperors were called in the west (because I'm fairly sure "Hirohito" was already mostly called "Hirohito" in the west even before WWII)? I'm rather confused by the whole thing. john 07:07 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I AM confused either. Please don't expect me to know a lot about emperors of japan or history of japan. I really don't know how the Meiji emperor was called in his time. Maybe simply mikado of Japan or something like that? There are also a lot of troubles. For example, the several first emperors are never called emperors in their time. The Japanese government during WWII just decided to regard them as emperor. So they probably should be named different one. I know I never answer your question. It is simply because I don't know. I need more time to do research. -- Taku 15:02 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Why not both? I think we should offer both names so the gajin and the Nihonjin can both recognize the emperor...

Real Name (Era) (dates)

Emperorbma 05:08 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put both up there, so it now reads "Mutsuhito (Meiji emperor)" Emperorbma

---

I'm confused? I'm not attacking you over the naming. I actually wished you the best of luck. But I do think what is being done is seriously unwise. I am a passionate believer in having as much accuracy as possible on wikipedia. But 100% accuracy is no use if it also leads to 100% confusion. We have been having this debate over on the page Sophie, the Countess of Wessex. That name is 100% wrong. The correct name should either be [[The Princess Edward, the Countess of Wessex]] or [[The Countess of Wessex]]. Those are her correct titles. But they are utterly unusable on wiki. The first, The Princess Edward is unknown to most people (even royal watchers) while the second is unworkable because for clarity we need to use a first name. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother should be in as [[Queen Elizabeth]] as that was her highest title. But instead she is in as either Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother because Queen Elizabeth is unworkable. Similarly it is wrong to have an article on King Constantine II of Greece or King Albert II of Belgium. Constantine like his predecessors was actually called King of the Hellenes, Albert's title is actually King of the Belgians. But if we called a page [[Constantine II of the Hellenes]] or [[Albert II of the Belgians]] no-one outside Greece or Belgium would a clue what it means.

There is no point in using a form of title that is 100% accurate if it cannot be followed. That, my friend is the problem. You are trying to do the impossible on wiki, have a title 100% accurate when in doing so you make it into a form that no-one other than those who are (a) Japanese, or (b) already know the information will be able to follow. I would dearly love to have 100% accuracy in titles. I am always demanding accuracy of people. But if it produces a version which is impossible to understand and so not user-friendly it is not workable. You instinctively because of your cultural heritage and knowledge of Japanese can tell for example if a word is Japanese and not from any other East Asian nation. 80% of the world can't do that. So how will they know that a strange sounding name is a Japanese emperor? It could be a car, a planet, a type of mouse, a computer game or anything else. How is someone in Harare in Zimbabwe who has english perhaps as a second language, has had no contact with Japanese culture and so cannot recognise Japanese from Chinese, going to know what Go-Sakuramachi means? Is it a word? A person? A type of shoe? A computer game? How will a person in Lille in France, who has english as a second language and has not had direct experience with the Japanese language meant to know what the word Ogimachi means? It could mean just about anything and you are not giving enough information for him or her to know what it is. Will someone in London who has english as their first language, lives in a cosmopolitican city that has a Japanese community, who may (though it is unlikely) be able to tell Japanese from any other East Asian language, know what Nakamikado means? Even if they know it is Japanese, the odds are they still won't ahve a clue what it is. They'll end up wondering do they drink it, smoke it, drive it, go on holiday to it, use it to relax, etc

What you are doing is providing a form of name that is absolutely meaningless to anyone who doesn't already possess information about Japanese culture not to need to consult the list in the first place. If you don't know Japanese history you won't be in any way helped by your naming to find pages on Japanese history. And before you say it, people don't instinctively recognise Japanese from Chinese, any more than they recognise Norwegian from Swedish, Irish gaelic from Scottish gaelic, etc. Like all these cases and many many more, it just looks incomprehensible. Saying the word 'Japan' immediately lets them know where exactly the page is from. Saying 'Ogimachi of Japan' immediately tells them it is something to do with monarchs in Japan and if they are looking for that information they then have some idea of a page to begin their search. Yes it isn't 100% correct, but neither is Sophie, the Countess of Wessex. Constantine II of Greece, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother but if we did use the 100% correct form, only a tiny minority would have a clue what we were talking about. With Japanese emperors, the less information you give in the title, the more difficult you make it for people. It is difficult if they are english and don't speak japanese. it is more difficult again if not incomprehensible if their english is poor and unlike in somewhere like the US they haven't met a Japanese person, don't know what Japanese is like, how the language is written. All you are achieving is making your pages on Japanese emperors useless to the vast majority of wiki users who won't have the elementary amount of information required to know what these mysterious 'one word' named pages are. If people do not have more information than you are giving them, they will simply ignore the pages, and all your hard work will be useless if the article titles you use are such that no-one ever reads them. And what will happen is that at some stage in the future, it could be tomorrow, next week, next month or next year, a user will come on, stumble upon these mysterously unclearly named articles, think "what the hell????" and start renaming them by adding in the words "of Japan" to make it clear to people what the pages are all about.

But as I said above and to Mintguy, I am not getting involved. I know you are doing is what you think is right. I understand the desire to get things 100% right. But if getting things 100% right means making it 100% obscure to users, then you are wasting your time, because in the interests of accuracy, the more obscure you make the titles, the less people are going to use them, so the less information they will have about Japanese emperors, which is exactly what you don't want. Because you understandably want people to know about Japan and its emperors. The tragedy is that the way you are doing it will make it harder, not easier, for people to learn about the information you would like them to learn.

All I would ask you to do is think very very carefully and ask yourself, will what you are doing make it easier or harder for non-japanese people, who don't already know about Japanese emperors, to find information about them and recognise what pages there are about Japanese emperors on wiki? lol. FearÉÍREANN 05:05 19 May 2003 (UTC)

BTW: Please don't take offence at my use of Japanese imperial names. I was not in any way attacking the emperors and empresses in question, just illustrating the problems caused by using their name in isolation to people not already knowledgeable in Japanese culture, language and/or history. Is there any new yet on Emperor Akihito's battle with cancer? I hope his Majesty survives it. My own father died of cancer last July so I know what a dreadful illness it is. FearÉÍREANN 05:05 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult you at all really, but as I said before, you completely keep missing the whole point about the title of an article in wikipedia. The title of articles here are not the same as what you see in ordinary dictionary. The title is rather mere label. We need a label otherwise, there is no way to make a link. In other words, it really doesn't matter the title is informative or not. Your point is always simply, that is, the title should be informative and that is not the convension here. -- Taku 15:02 20 May 2003 (UTC)

A few points

Hello all. I'm trying to provide some order and consistency among the various pages on Japanese history, including the pages about emperors and empresses. I would suggest the following conventions and I welcome comments:

1. I don't understand why the post Meiji restoration emperors are all "X Emperor" while every other emperor in Japanese history is referred to as "Emperor X". Emperor Meiji (being a translation of Meiji Tennō) is not merely a reference to the emperor who reigned during the Meiji era. It is his posthumous name. People in Japan refer to the guy exclusively as Meiji Tennō and treat it like a name, just as they refer to every other emperor in history as "X Tennō". I think we should keep this consistency. I also plan to move the articles Meiji Emperor, Taishō Emperor and Shōwa Emperor to Emperor Meiji of Japan, Emperor Taishō of Japan and Emperor Shōwa of Japan, respectively, so that we can maintain consistency with the 121 other Japanese emperors in Wikipedia.
2. I strongly disagree with using the title Hirohito for the article about Emperor Shōwa. A redirect I can understand, but any sense of consistency with Wikipedia or understanding of Japan and its conventions tells you that this article should be titled Emperor Shōwa of Japan. And although he was widely known outside of Japan simply as Hirohito while he was alive, a fairly significant number of English speaking people now know him as Emperor Shōwa as well. Similarly I'm going to change the title article about Akihito to Emperor Akihito (widely used in the Western press), all with appropriate redirects.
3. I've noted some confusion over the word Empress. It seems that the titles of all of the female tennō have settled to Empress, and I agree with this. The problem is what to call the spouses of the emperors who haven't actually ruled. I think we should adopt the following conventions:
   1. continue referring to actual female monarchs in the past (and likely in the not so distant future) as "Empress X";
   2. refer to the spouse of the reigning emperor as empress, since that seems to be the English language convention (although we'll have to wait and see how people refer to Princess Aiko and her future husband when she likely becomes empress one day);
   3. refer to spouses of the recent past emperors by their posthumous titles where applicable (e.g. Emperor Shōwa's spouse, Empress Kojun); and
   4. refer to spouses of emperors in general, as well as historical spouses without specific titles, as consort. -Jefu 09:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

1. I think I agree with you. Perhaps the reason for using "the Meiji Emperor" instead of "Emperor Meiji" is that the former is arguably less of an anachronism when referring to times when he was alive. By comparison, the current emperor is arguably already the Heisei Emperor (he is the emperor who reigns during the present Heisei Era), but he is certainly not currently Emperor Heisei. I don't find this argument very compelling, though, so I agree with you on standardizing to Emperor Meiji.

2. I can't agree with moving Hirohito to Emperor Showa. The former is more common in Western usage, many times over. I'm pretty much neutral between

"Emperor Hirohito of Japan" or "Hirohito" or "Emperor Hirohito", etc.

3. Thanks for your comments. I want to use the customary English-standard, which seems to be about the same as what you suggest. That is, "empress" has two meanings: it can either be a reigning female monarch or the wife of a reigning male monarch. In the Japanese context, this probably only applies to the primary wives; as for secondary wives, they should probably be refered to as "consort", as you suggest. - Nat Krause 08:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the English word consort refers to the primary spouse. Secondary spouses are concubines. -Jefu 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

title anachronisms, territories etc

Dozens of early "emperors" were apparently just local kings. And did not understand to have been emperors, at all. I would gladly get to know rom which era the title "tenno" became into use...??? Anyway, I bet that before, say, 6th century CE, those monarchs simply cannot be titled as emperors. We should be more careful with giving anachronistic titles to those early monarchs.

For quite a long time, and possibly as long as with the title, the realm was just Yamato, not Japan. We should keep that in mind when writing texts of articles. I would like to see "Japanese ruler" instead of Ruler of Japan, to be in use in early millennium or so.

Several of those should probably be called as kings or monarchs of Yamato. Not emperors of Japan.

With certain earliest ones, even Yamato could be exaggeration or error. - Unsigned comment by 84.251.178.249

Please sign your comments. The term "tennō" is generally first assigned to Emperor Temmu. However, while this is a worthwhile point to make, and I have seen at least one Japanese historian who prefers to refer to the emperors prior to Temmu as "ōkimi" rather than "tennō", the usual convention (both in Japanese and in English) is to refer to all of them as "tennō".-Jefu 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am against referring some earliest two dozen of them as "emperors" (the english word) and "of Japan". I am going to go around the problem by preferring "Japanese ruler", "Japanese monarch", in some cases "monarch of Yamato", and in some cases "local king...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

Once again, sign your comments. If you don't know how, ask. When you are ready to discuss your proposed changes to the articles, rather than unilaterally declaring what you are against, I'll be listening. When you have convinced me and anyone else who is reading this, then you can make whatever changes are acceptable. And we can do it correctly. What you did with your edits was suggest that 天皇 is sometimes read ōkimi, which is incorrect.-Jefu 16:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you have vandalized a lot of proper matertial, in your pursuit to change just okimi away. Such high-handed - blind reverts you done are regarded as vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

I must beg to differ, 84.251.178.249. I stumbled across your earnest editing activities when you recently added ōkimi to Emperor Nintoku. While I assume you are trying to correct what you see as a deficiency, which would normally be good, the content you have added does not seem to be backed up by the majority views of either the web or general convention, and as such other editors take it upon themselves to revert. These reversions are not in bad faith, mind you -- ōkimi looks to us as an aberration, i.e. not the norm, and we have changed the articles back to what is more conventional. As earnest as your edits might be, they appear out of place. Any editor that insists on putting out-of-place content on a page without justifying those additions to the community is, in doing so, out of community, and more likely to be judged negatively as a result. I strongly recommend you talk with us about this. If you are willing to talk to us and can provide evidence that ōkimi is in fact an alternate title to tennō and is widely acceptable in academic circles, I rather suspect that we will be convinced and thenceforth happy with your proposed additions.

I look forward to your reply. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My criticism of that vandal was, and is, that while he tried to make okimi away, he destroyed a lot of other text from several articles. Eirikr, please read first the edits in question, before assuming that the question is just only the okimi. Also, the infamous "vandal" should read everything (s)he is reverting, before acting so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

84.251.178.249, thanks for pointing that out. The first several edits that I looked at previously that are in dispute between you and Jefu showed nothing but Jefu removing your ōkimi addition. In numerous places, you re-added the content and in your edit comment characterized Jefu's reversion as vandalism. Regardless of your intent, I think you must admit that your wording might be construed as not terribly polite, which is unfortunate.

I've now gone through probably most of Jefu's edits that you dispute. I count seven instances of additional text being reverted beyond just ōkimi. Looking over these later and more extensive edits, I note the following characteristics about the additional text that was then reverted:

• apparently tangential, as opposed to directly relevant, legends (c.f. [1], [2], [3], [4])
• uncited additions about historical identity (c.f. [5], [6], [7], [8])
• confusingly presented name variants (c.f. [9], [10])

I suspect the biggest issue here is community convention. By that, I mean that while your edits may well be valuable, the way in which they were presented (all of a sudden, without citations, with some typos and logical structure issues, and with some aggressiveness in labeling the reversions as vandalism) has apparently alienated a number of editors, and this has possibly cast some (hopefully temporary) doubt on your editorial dependability. Bear in mind, I'm not trying to blame you for anything here, I'm simply trying to suggest what might be happening and why this dispute has arisen. In future, please assume good faith, even for edits or reverts that you don't agree with. I also suggest you bring up any questions or concerns on the Talk page before re-adding such content. Hope this helps, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ōkimi?

Note: Discussion moved from Talk:Emperor Nintoku

Eirikr, you have not presented any reasons why okimi would be incorrect, and this is even contrary to your "promise" in the edit summary you yourself wrote. We all know that monarchs of that period did not know, nor use, the title tenno, they were known by other titles, of which okimi is one and recognized in scholarly works. Or did you not know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

Hello 84.251.178.249 -- (You beat me to the punch in commenting here, お待たせしました。) Sorry to butt heads, but where have you run across Nintoku Ōkimi?

Googling for either "Nintoku Ōkimi" or "Nintoku Okimi" results in zero hits. Googling for "仁徳大君" yields exactly one hit, which in and of itself seems to be a Goofle, as it were -- the "cache" link fails out, and simply viewing the link itself shows no instances of 仁徳大君, with only one 大君 on the page at all, but in an entirely different context, talking indirectly about the Meiji emperor (where we see 明治天皇 but not 明治大君). Looking up the term 大君 in Shōgakukan's 1988 edition of the 国語大辞典 does list 「天皇の敬称」 as the first definition, and the 和英中辞典 第2版 of 1993 shows 大君 as His Majesty, both suggesting an indirect address rather than a title. Googling for "仁徳天皇"+"大君" yields around 245 hits, but 大君 is again not used as a title -- there are no instances of 仁徳大君 anywhere I can find. I know that the web in Japan is not as developed as it is here, but if the appellation 仁徳大君 were common, I'd expect to find at least one hit.

If you have some source showing this use, please clue me in here. As it presently stands, I find no evidence for Nintoku Ōkimi, and have thus removed this from the article text. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am asking why okimi would be incorrect. It does not necessarily need to be in form "Nintoku Okimi", some other form showing that title which is more correct than tenno, is also acceptable. Are you contesting that Nintoku was truly called okimi? "The ruler of Japan was variously known as ヤマト大王/大君 (yamato ōkimi, Great King of Yamato), 倭王/倭国王 (waō/wakokuō, King of Wa, used externally), 治天下大王 (amenoshita shiroshimesu ōkimi or sumera no mikoto, Great King who rules all under heaven, used internally) in Japanese and Chinese sources prior to the 7th century. The first documented use of the title "tennō" is in the diplomatic letter from Empress Suiko to Emperor Yang of Sui China in 607 CE..." Btw, my computer does not display Japanese signs... thus, no need to write them, please use transliterations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

Hm, I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from. The problem for me arises in the way in which ōkimi was introduced in your edits, like this example from the Emperor Nintoku page:

Emperor Nintoku (仁徳天皇 Nintoku Tennō), or rather Nintoku okimi ...

So far as I can tell, ōkimi is not used directly after the name, making the usage in this edit apparently incorrect. And regarding more correct, as you put it, it's important to specify in which context -- I assume here you mean that tennō was not the term that was used in [choose your title] Nintoku's lifetime, which makes perfect sense to me. However, what is more conventional in modern writings about the rulers of Japan seems to be the tennō appellation, which is why numerous editors have changed this addition back. Perhaps you could word your addition differently? The following note, for example, might express what you're getting at:

Note that the modern Japanese suffixed title tennō ("emperor") was not in use at the time, and that it's implications of a central imperial state governing multiple vassal states do not apply.

Does this cover your intended meaning? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that also those early monarchs are now, in later literature, retrospectively titled tenno, is the reason why I do not want to rid that title from those articles altogether. Rather, I would like to see an explanation in the articles that states the anachronic nature of THAT title, and states at least one contemporary title, by expressing that in reality they were RATHER this and that than tenno. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

Then explain away in the body of the article. But do not invent names in a language that you apparently don't speak and that are not used (and which, incidentally, mean absolutely nothing to English readers in any event). Nobody is saying that you don't have a valid point, just that your chosen way of expressing it is wrong. Do you expect readers to see "ōkimi", slap their foreheads and say, "ohhh, this so called 'emperor' wasn't an emperor at all, he was just a monarch of some local region of what we today call Japan!" And for at least the third time, sign your posts.-Jefu 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there never were any actual period when the state was a real empire and governed multiple vassal states. (I do not count the WWII.) Some federation-like formation in 5th century where chieftain of Yamato possibly was primus inter pares among other chieftains of central Japan, does not fit as none of those polities preumably were states nor that system was centralized. I have attempted for a longer time to improve Emperor of Japan to reflect the nature of the position and the state throughout times, and I think everyone should read first that information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

Part of the problem here is undoubtedly one of magnitude. I'll bet to the Yamato rulers who began to emerge as the most powerful of the various "countries" that made up the country the Chinese called "wa" at the time would indeed have considered their attempt at exerting their influence beyond Yamato, and eventually all the way from the Emishi in the north down to the Yakubito in the South, and eventually Okinawa, would indeed have considered themselves as rulers of multiple vassal states. It wasn't until the Meiji restoration when Japan actually began to pull together as one truly unified country.-Jefu 14:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Emperor/Empress/Monarch

I would like to make a proposal for some clean-up in the Japanese emperor articles. First I generally agree with some of the 84.251.178.249's points (although not the way he/she is going about trying to express them). I started making some changes (imperial ruler -> emperor), but then got bogged down with another recurring issue: the fact that tennō is gender neutral and emperor/empress is not. Is Empress Suiko the 33rd emperor? the 33rd empress? Neither really. And Emperor jomei is technically the 33rd "emperor", not the 34th, since Suiko was not an "emperor". I suspect this problem is what lead someone to use the term "imperial ruler" in the first place.

So here is my proposed resolution. First, I don't think we can or should try to fix the fact that tennō is almost universally translated as emperor. We just have to live with it. And I think we should avoid references to "imperial ruler" because that does tend to inflate their status. But when referring to them collectively, I think we should refer to "emperors and empresses of Japan" rather than just "emperor of Japan". After all, there are eight women on this list. So one thing I would propose is moving this article to a new "List of Emperors and Empresses of Japan" (with appropriate redirects of course). Second, when talking about the ordinal number of a tennō or referring to the position conceptually (as opposed to collectively), I think we should use the gender neutral "monarch", so Emperor Sushun would be the 32nd monarch of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession, and Empress Suiko would be the 33rd monarch of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession. I'll do the work of implementing these various fixes, but I want to throw this out for consideration.-Jefu 07:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Earliest ones were not very high, perhaps just local chieftains. Unwise to use anything else than Monarch. "of Japan" is unwise, partcularly due to first dozens of them, better use "Japanese" for all than of Japan.

"Emperors and Empresses" is clumsy title for a list. List of Japanese Monarchs is shorter, and for other reasons better too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

You're not going to succeed in rewriting the English language. They are and have for several hundred years been referred to as emperors in English. So naming them all "monarchs" is not a viable option.

And, I'm done responding to you until you start signing your comments.-Jefu 00:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jefu, your proposal sounds good to me. I agree somewhat that "emperors and empresses" is clunky, but sometimes that's the best you've got.  :) It's either that or something like "emp[erors|resses]", which is also pretty ugly now that I've typed it in. I also agree that English writing has consistently used "emperor / empress" to refer to the Japanese ruler for a very long time now, and throwing in another title in anything but a parenthetical note would just be confusing. Anyway, there's my ¥2. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable label Yayoi

User Jefu decided 16.4.2006 to label the first dozen or so monarchs to Yayoi Period of Japanese archaelogy, again. I disagree from such classification. First, we must remember that these monarchs are so-called legendary ones, thus they are not historical ones, possibly just inventions or myths. Even so, if some (or all) of them are derived from lives of some persons who actually lived and were chiefs, there seems to be no evidence to link any of them to the Yayoi period - nor to any other period specifically. Dates are not acceptable links, as we acknowledge that so-called traditional dating regarding these early monarchs is simply baseless. Now I have to ask what are the evidential pieces (to justify the label Yayoi for any of them) linking them to pottery and other characteristics of Yaoi era. And are these dozen or so monarchs really chiefs in a female-priestess-led society, as apparently was a cultural feature of Yaoi period, concluding from chinese etc sources regarding queen Himiko and her priestess-dynasty (who are not mentioned anywhere in Japanese legends that narrate about those early monarchs). Are we to believe that those male monarchs were rulers of the society that was led by female priestess-queens (apparent though incredible explanation is some transgender role with all of them...)? Moreover, what are the pieces of evidence that show they do not belong to e.g Kofun period, an era when patriarchal mode of society was evident??

The burden of proof rests with the one who decided to label these mythical monarchs into Yayoi era. Their assignation to any archaeological era should be based on clear sources, not just on Jefu's feelings. (Also I have to point out that Jefu should have been aware of the problematics when he did that assignation, as my doubts were already then mentioned in the edit history.)

If allowed to speculate, I would assign many of the persons behind those mythical characters to Kofun era. However, since it's quite difficult to present any evidence about archaeology of non-historical, legendary/mythical characters, I have not done so, preferring to label them under the terminolgy "legendary, non-historical"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC.

84.251.178.249, please sign your posts. Your continued posting without signing is beginning to look like contempt for Wikipedia custom, which does not endear yourself to the rest of the community. To sign your posts, simply add four tildes at the end: ~~~~

Regarding your claims, please be careful with your wording, to start. Yaoi refers to a male homosexual Japanese comic book genre, which I sincerely doubt is what you intend.

Secondly, the Yayoi period is loosely considered to span from about 300 BC to 250 AD, as indicated on that page. However, it should be noted that the starting date in particular is a bit fuzzy, with some sources suggesting an older beginning. At any rate, the main dividing line between the previous Jōmon period and the Yayoi is the arrival of a culture with a centralized power structure and the physical trappings that we now associate with early post-neolithic Japan. An emperor would seem to indicate such a centralized power structure, and thus emperors have generally been roughly classified as starting in the Yayoi period.

Thirdly, be more careful in your research regarding Wikipedia pages. Jefu did not make the first such assertion that the first group of emperors on the list belong to the Yayoi period. The history of the List of Emperors of Japan page shows that the Yayoi label first appeared in this edit on 14 June 2005 by anonymous user Special:Contributions/61.199.254.34.

Fourthly, as Jefu noted here, the right-hand "Notes" column already explicitly states that these emperors are "legendary". Consequently, I'm not entirely sure what your concern is about the Yayoi designation.

84.251.178.249, I understand your reservations about calling the early rulers on the list "emperors", and to some extent I agree with you. But the way you are going about trying to make your point is not conducive to easy agreement, on the one hand because your behaviour to date has not been very respective of community norms, and on the other because, like it or not, most English-language texts use the title "emperor". Please understand that we here must abide by what others have written. Read up on Wikipedia:No original research for details. You may also find Wikipedia:Civility informative regarding some of the customs here, and how to help make things go more smoothly. I hope these help. Regards, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

84.251.178.249, you are missing the point entirely. Legendary or not, all of the Japanese emperors have years assigned to them. The years assigned to the first dozen or so emperors fall in the Yayoi period, and so, to be consistent with all of the other emperors in the list, and to help break them up into recognizable categories, they are labeled "Yayoi". I fail to see any harm in doing so. And as I and Eirikr have both pointed out, they are all clearly marked as being legendary. In fact, making your suggested change (indicating a question regarding what period to assign them to) seems to be making exactly the opposite of your intended point. Questioning what years should be assigned to an emperor who is widely accepted as being a legendary figure, actually lends support to the notion that he may have been a real person who existed during some unknown time period.

And generally, I think your method of editing Wikipedia is incredibly unproductive. In addition to the fact that you have been asked repeatedly to sign your posts and still have not complied (Don't worry. Your identity won't be revealed. It will just put 84.251.178.249 after your posts so that people will have some idea of who wrote them.), you seem to be on some emotionally motivated crusade to raise questions about Japanese history that aren't really in dispute by anybody. You are also engaging in erratic behavior like undoing my bona fide attempts at clarifying some of the confusing terminology that you yourself raised as vandalism. Specifically, you went back and changed the word "emperor of Japan" back to "imperial ruler of Japan" (the latter being far more misleading and aggrandizing than the term "emperor") in several articles as "vandalism". Why don't you go cool off and come back when you are ready to engage in a productive effort to improve the articles on Wikipedia.-Jefu 06:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you cannot require any civility as you yourself are continuously doing unexplained reverts that seem to be vandalism in their habit of destroying also other information than the systematical change of "imperial ruler -> emperor" you claim is your only goal in those edits. That's a really unproductive way of working here, in an incredible way. I am quite fed up with Jefu's "blind reverts" and I will regard them as vandalism always when appropriate. I believe Jefu should be banned for some time... Secondly, resurrecting and repeating a bad idea of labeling certain ones to Yayoi period (why to assign any period to them?) is simply untenable, particularly after having seen doubts about that. Thirdly, Yayoi's starting date is not very important here, rather it would be important to know the end date of Yayoi and start of Kofun period - which however is a thing that cannot be used directly with TD of Japanese monarchs. I believe, besides, that Jefu is totally wrong in desiring to use Japanese TD years directly with these archaeological periods. Regarding your zeal to deliberately calling all these early monarchs as emperors, I believe it is not Wikipedia's goal to strengthen or repeat anachronisms, despite of how some other literature has (stupidly) designated them. I am saying that we could very well adopt a cautious way of writing regarding those titles - "monarch" would certainly be something that does not contradict with reality. After all, irrespective of what sort of titles their contemporaries used or did not use, all of those (including the legendary ones) are such we could safely describe as monarchs. Then, why deliberately try to use the anachronistic word "emperor"! I cannot approve someones' attempts to make all these monarchs uniform, and particularly to do it retrospectively, using titles that just developed centuries later. Concluding from certain series of edits, it seems that there has been a deliberate attempt to make then untenably uniform. Btw, Eirikr and Jefu, have you considered a cooling-off period for yourselves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi guys, please sign your comments using " ~~~~ ". Please try to be civil with each other, even "why don't you go cool off when you are ready to engage.." is provocative and unproductive. T. J. Day 07:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Untitled section

I renamed the title to List of Emperors of Japan. I mean why was the title changed in the first place? -- Taku

---

What does it mean to say "(in Japan only the wife of an Emperor is called an Empress)", as per User:Sheridan's edit? "Emperor" and "Empress" are, after all, English words. Is there some commonly accepted English-language standard specific to Japan? - Nat Krause 10:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think what it is trying to express is this: the ruler of Japan, whether male or female, is called tenno. The word that is rendered as "empress" in English (kogo), means the wife of an emperor, not a female ruler, or at least it has since 1889. The people on this list were all tenno — emperor — and we should not refer to the women among them as "empress". (That's my interpretation, not my opinion.)

So someone, perhaps wishing to be correct by avoiding the word "empress", has written "female Emperors" instead, and someone else has come along and tried to clarify the point. Me, I'd rather dodge the point and say "Women are in italics," or "Names in italics are women who ruled in their own right." While technically correct, I'm afraid the phrase "female emperors", if kept in the article, will attract corrections until doomsday. SRH 05:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had forgotten about it for a while, but I went ahead an changed it in a neutral manner. Personally, I feel that the expression "female emperor" is an abuse of the English language. "Empress" has two distinct meanings: one is "the Emperor's wife", but the other is "the female ruler of an empire". Not everyone agrees with me on this point, though. - Nat Krause 00:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Empress regnant / Empress consort Joestynes 09:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand that some of the first emperors are considered mythical/legendary, and that no firm years of reign could be assigned. Shouldn't this be noted in this list?

Some speculation of monarchs in Kofun, others in Yayoi periods

I have some ideas about dating certain monarchs, and at this point my ideas are just something called original research. I am asking whether anyone happens to know anything in literature to confirm or contradict these. There have been some sources to indicate that the real founder of male-dominated Yamato monarchy was Sujin, and that he conquered the remnants of the lady-shaman-led polity (Himiko realm). As chinese sources are helpful to put Himiko's end somewhere close to 250 CE - which also happens to be the assessed start of Kofun period in archaeology (which is independently based on dating by C14 and other methods), Sujin COULD be assigned to as the first monarch of Kofun period. After all, such change in who, and which gender, dominated the monarchy (the change could mean a change of ethnical group having dominance), would be a huge change, and -culturally seen- quite probably related to a change of archaeological period too. If so, then Sujin's immediate successors, as legendary as they are, seem to belong to Kofun period also - if the real persons behind those legendary figures actually were Sujin's successors, i.e there is no mix-up with their chronological order (such mixups are quite possible when legendary figures have by much later generations been cobbled together to form some dynastical succession).

For some reasons, scholars tend to link Himiko to the Yayoi period. Thus Yayoi era seems to have a feature of rule by female shamans.

Sujin's predecessors are legendary or rather, mythical ones - if the real persons behind those legendary figures actually lived before Sujin, they MAY thus belong to Yayoi period. Provided there is no mix-up with their chronological order and relation to Sujin. Such mixups are quite possible when legendary figures, possibly not at all related to each other, have by much later generations been concocted together to form some dynastical succession.

One worrying aspect is that it seems at least two legendary monarchs feature the life of one actual person, the "founder": both Jimmu and Sujin are so described. If it means that legends are doubling or simply inventing persons, then nothing is sufficiently certain in those legendary monarchs. It is entirely possible that the nine first monarchs also were persons living in or after Sujin's time, and thus possibly during the Kofun period, if they ever existed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.178.249 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

Interregnum?

This article records 200 to 209 as interregnum while 209 to 269 as era of Jingu. I'm quite puzzled because I have never seen such stories in any Japanese resources records that nine-years interregnum. If someone who added this still sees here, please show me the source. At least, year 209 of Kojiki or Nihonshoki shows no record that interregnum was over after nine year since death of Chuai by Jingu ascending to regency, or even not in other alternative historical records such as Fuso-Ryakki.

Mahal Aly 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

By Nihon Shoki, after Emperor Chuai's dead, Enpress Jingu served as regent for 69 years. So, this table shows that Empress Jingu reigned from 200 to 269. In Japan the regent period of Empress Jingu is not counted as the era of Empress of Japan. The regent period of Princess Iitoyo-no-ao between Emperor of Seinei and Emperor Kenzo is not also counted in the reign of Emperor/Empress in Japan. Please don't believe these era directly, because the eras from Jimmu to Kimmei are not all correct but including somewhat legend. We can't know if Empress Jingu and ancient emperors existed or not...--Pentiles 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree

from my point of view and following the historical writings of NihonShoki, monarchs from Jimmu the first, to kobun who is 39th monarch, should be shown under the title of King 王, or more correctly as a great king of Yamato ヤマト大王 / 大君, and do a little emphasis in the article of the Emperor Temmu, explaining the change of title of King of yamato, to Emperor of japan {tenno} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.94.135 (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures on List

As you can tell from List of English monarchs there are pictures next to each ruler. Why don't we do the same for this list? If there's no picture, simply don't leave blank. --24.192.77.200 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As everyone can see, I added pictures of Emperors on the list. I can say it was a hell of a job, it took almost a whole day to do it but I think its really worth of it. Now the list looks much more alive then before. I don't expect to earn a barnstar for this, but I wouldn't refuse one :) Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Uppercase "Emperor" or lowercase "emperor"?

I see this mix in many emperor related articles, e.g.: "The following is a traditional list of Emperors of Japan. Dates for the first 28 emperors, and especially the first 16, are based on the Japanese Calendar system." Is there a meaningful distinction in casings? --Bxj (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Traditional Dates"?

The notes next to most of the emperors say 'traditional dates'. This phrase implies that the dates are not certain. But of course in most cases they are.

So (for example) Emperor Go-Momozono reigned from 1771-79. There is no doubt about this. So why does the note say that the dates are traditional?

Maybe someone more confident with the subject could clarify this, as otherwise it makes it look as if Japanese chronology rests on tradition rather than historical fact. asnac (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe (but am not sure) that "traditional date" refers to the Japanese calendar here, but I agree that the phrase is confusing. bamse (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Empress Jingu

Why exactly is she not counted in the numbering? (She would be the 15th sovereign.) It can't be simply because she's female, because later empresses such as Saimei (37th) and Gensho (44th) are counted. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is some information in the Empress Jingu article. Some more in this book page 255, footnote 23, which basically says that per Nihongi her rule was a regency not a reign. Another source, page 195 sees the reason in "Confucian influence" by the time the imperial lineage was written down. bamse (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Romaji question

I know this is probably a common topic when it comes to English articles based on Japanese topics, but maybe it would be better to use the modified Hepburn romanization as compared to the Hyojun-shiki romanization. i.e. し would be "shi" and not "si." On the whole, it's a small problem (some would say it's not even a problem) but I think it would make the list easier to read and understand for those that don't know that much Japanese.

Jeisensei (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Shortest-reigning Emperor

Who was the shortest-reigning Emperor in Japanese history? 99.199.237.60 (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bundled citations

A reliable source cite was deleted here. It was restored here.

This bundled cite format is used in many articles, including the 100+ articles about the Japanese emperors. The cross-referenced source cites are reasonable in the context of the Historiography of Japan. --Enkyo2 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not allowed bundle several sources that say different things (or some give more detail than others) and imply they all say the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Traditional dates"

Does this refer to the traditionally ascribed dates to the legendary emperors? Or, as is implied by its use for emperors running into the 19th century, does it mean we are citing the dates in the traditional Japanese calendar? Titsingh appears to be cited for almost every instance of this phrase, but Titsingh clearly doesn't mention a lot of these specific dates, so is the source just for the statement that Japan has its own calendar and these are formatted to that? WP:JG also seems to imply that we need to include the Gregorian or Julian dates, although that's a minor issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Timeline of Japan's Emperors

I create this timeline to better show the emperors during the time. Maddiberna (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusion on the reign of Emperor Kogon

The List of Emperors of Japan shows Emperor Kōgon to have reigned from 1331 to 1333.

The article Northern Court shows Emperor Kōgon to have reigned from 1332 to 1333.

The article Emperor Kōgon shows Emperor Kōgon to have reigned from 1332 to 1333 AND from 1331 to 1333.

Murdoch's History of Japan indicates that Kōgon reigned from 1331 to 1333. (Volume I, page 545)

I'm not an expert in Japanese history so I have no idea of how to correct this confusion. I'm studying Japanese history and would like to not be confused any more. :) Iowaplayer (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The 1332 dates are both referenced to Titsingh (1834). The Emperor Kōgon article goes even further to state that According to pre-Meiji scholars, his reign spanned the years from 1332 ... (which I don't know whether this is generally true for all pre-Meiji scholars). In any case 1331 seems to be the currently accepted date and is also found at the Imperial Household Agency. bamse (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Undefined Obscure terminology.

What does "presumed legendary" mean? Looking through the sources and some google searches shows nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.119.61 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

(I did not put it there.) I understand it to mean that it is generally (by historians) believed/presumed that these emperors were legendary (did not exist for real). bamse (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)