# Talk:Emperor Tenmu

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Otterlyobsessed.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I associate him with an invasion of Korea during his reign. Is that incorrect? - Sparky

Perhaps incorrect because his goverment was in good terms to Silla.  I presume you talked on his elder brother Tenji, who led the army allied with one of Korean kingdoms and fought against the alliance of Silla and Tang dynasty in 663. --Aphaea* 00:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An edit erased the content of this article; a related change pasted the content onto the article Emperor Tenmu of Japan.  Irrespective of which name spelling should be used, a copy-paste should not be done.  If the new name is to be used, this article should be "move"d (by tab at top), not copied, so that the article's history and talk pages are associated with the new name. -R. S. Shaw 17:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks for pointing out the error. I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and wasn't aware of the move feature. See response below regarding proper spelling and consistency. -User:Jefu 1:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No problem.  There are always new users here learning the ropes. -R. S. Shaw 02:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently some think this Emperor should be known as "Tenmu" in the English Wikipedia, and others think the name should be "Temmu".  I personally have no knowledge on this subject, but an attempt to reach a consensus should happen before a rename, I think.  The most relevant policy pages seem to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).
I note that Google shows Temmu having 9,560 hits and Tenmu having 10% of that, 794.  -R. S. Shaw 17:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What we need more than anything is consistency in romanization. The most relevant page regarding this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, which suggests that it should be romanized as Tenmu. However, the more I think about this, the more I think English readers would probably mispronounce Tenmu as "Ten-moo" which is incorrect. Therefore, despite what is written in the manual of style, I'm actually in favor of Temmu after all. I did a few other similar copy and paste moves for other emperors as well (Kammu, Gemmu, Mommu), which I will undo (sorry for not doing this properly, I wasn't aware of the page move feature.) This also means that there are other pages (like Emperor Jinmu of Japan) that will have to be changed to the mm style as well. I'll work on these changes over the next few days. -User:Jefu 22:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't say what's best, but you're right about the inclination to pronounce Tenmu as ten-moo.  I take it that the "n" is (close to) silent, at least to an English-speaker's ear. -R. S. Shaw 02:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
That final n in Japanese is a tricky animal. It has nothing to do with the n found in the syllables na, ni, nu, ne or no (which are hard ns like we are used to.) In any event, when the final n comes before a syllable that begins with p, b, m or n, a fairly common romanization technique is to leave out the n and just double the next consonant. And that way of spelling it is actually very close to how it is pronounced. It's not that the n is silent so much as it causes the doubled consonant to be doubled in length. User:Jefu 04:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:MOS-JP does not suggest it should be romanized as "Tenmu", and it has nothing to do with how it's pronounced. It's romanized according to the most common name, as WP:UCN and WP:MOS-JP suggest. moocowsruletalk to moo 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


#### Homorganic consonants
I might have something on-point to offer?  A friend lent me a book about, among other things, the relationship between iki and Martin Heidegger; and, as so often happens, I read the translator's preface while waiting for a bus.  I smiled when I encountered this passage:

The modified Hepburn romanization system is used throughout for Japanese words.  Unlike the standard system, the "n" is maintained even when followed by "homorganic consonants" (e.g., shinbun, not shimbun).<:ref>Nara, Hiroshi. (2004). The Structure of Detachment: the Aesthetic Vision of Kuki Shūzō with a translation of "Iki no kōzō." Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-2735-X (cloth) ISBN 0-8248-2805-4 (paper) </ref>
If, like me, you're unfamiliar with this term, see Place of articulation for an overview explanation.  In any case, the on-going debate remains a valid one.  
Perhaps we can take a modest step forward with this new fancy label? I wonder if it may be worth mentioning that a similar discussion thread dangles unresolved at Talk:Tamba Province#Tamba versus Tanba.  My guess is that this is one of those instances in which the official "modified" Hepburn system illustrates a kind of "fuzzy logic" in which both "Tenmu" and "Temmu" are to be considered explicitly correct and interchangeable?
Suggestion: Why can't we work towards consensus text for an explanatory note -- something inserted in the same way as an in-line citation?   This brief note would plausibly metastasize across a number of articles like Jimmu, Mommu, Gemmei, Kammu, etc.  

Proposed compromise text:
Spelling note: A modified Hepburn romanization system for Japanese words is used throughout Western publications in a range of languages including English.  Unlike the standard system, the "n" is maintained even when followed by "homorganic consonants" (e.g., shinbun, not shimbun).  In the same way that Wikipedia has not yet adopted a consensus policy to address spelling variations in English (e.g., humour, not humor), variant spellings based on place of articulation are unresolved, perhaps unresolvable -- as in Emperor Temmu vs. Emperor Tenmu, which are each construed as technically correct.
Also, I suppose this terse commentary note could be construed as helpful in articles like Tamba Province?  Does this proposed compromise suggest a constructive path forward ...? --Tenmei (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps these spelling anomalies may be somewhat clarified by referring to this technical term -- Homorganic consonants.  In any event, I hope the addition of this one technical term will help ameliorate some of the barriers which affect moving towards consensus.
In my view, the central feature of dispute arises from a conflation of the sound of gemination with the sound of homorganic consonants ... and the romanization which represents double consonants for both phonetically distinct sounds.  Is this a fair way of summarizing the issues?
Could it be that the ear hears what the eye reads; or conversely, the more discriminating ear understands a disjunction between what is recognized aurally and what is represented in Western transliterations -- See Hepburn romanization#Variants of Hepburn romanization, n.b. sub-sections "Syllabic n" and "Double consonants"? --Tenmei (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see in the article the sentence "He is the first monarch of Japan, to whom the title tenno was assigned contemporaneously, not only by later generations." But as far as I know, it's the empress Suiko who used this title first... -Ash_Crow 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: my Japanese civilisation dictionary gives 622 for Temmu's birthdate, not 631. Which is good ? -Ash_Crow 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

His birthdate has been unknown, but at least Emperor Temmu was younger than Emperor Tenji. Several Japanese references show that his birthdate is around 631. (In minor discussion, Emperor Temmu was the son of Empress Kogyoku and her first husband, and was the elder half-brother of Emperor Tenji.)--Pentiles (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Jimmu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a rewrite, and I believe it to be a good general overview; but I'm leaving these as potentially useful sources that I'll like to add at some point when prepping for FAC:

  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   20:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emperor Tenmu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 20:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 11:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Image review

File:Emperor Tenmu.jpg: an identifiable reference to a reliable source and US PD tag are needed at Commons.
Added a US-PD tag. I think the Shūko Jisshu itself which it is sourced to works to a citation. It's not going to be an accurate scholarly portrait no matter what, but it is what some guy in the Edo period thought he looked like. -G
File:Three barriers in Japan.png: the source is a dead link at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
It is up on archive.org, which looks to be reliable and reflect the locations of the gates shown in the map. The source imagery for the satellite photo is also included and is PD.  -G
Source review

Academic sources of high quality are cited.
The cited sources should be listed in ABC order. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Oops, fixed the error there. - G
References 3, 6, 16, 27 checked. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments

I have not read the article or the lead, but my impression is that the lead should be shortened at least by 20%.
Done. -G
My concern is that the article has recently been rewritten. I think we need to wait some weeks to allow other major editors to review the recent edits. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@Generalissima: your thoughts? Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka: My apologies for the delay. It's been two weeks since the rewrite and no other editors have made more than routine formatting to the article, and no one's brought anything up on talk. To my understanding, the stability criterion is more about whether there is an active dispute over the article, rather than if the article has recently undergone major changes.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   04:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Ōama's father Jomei... I would delete "Oama's father" (alternatively "Jomei").
Fixed. -G
...Jomei was able to become emperor... I would rephrase it.
Fixed. -G
...ascend to the throne, as... Why "to"? I would avoid "as".
Fixed. -G
...the precedent of Empress Suiko's reign... I think not her reign set the precedent, but her ascension.
Fixed. -G
...led an assassination on Iruka... Rephrase.
Fixed. -G
...Prince Naka and Prince Ōama... I would delete the titles.
Fixed. -G
...and formally enthroned... I think "and was formally enthroned".
Fixed. -G
...new regulations were promulgated... Some more info?
Rephrased; the regulations themselves aren't noted, what's important is that one of them was tasked with doing it. -G
There are dublinks in the text.
Fixed these (though I kept them in the family list at the end for ease of use)
...the most powerful political appointments—while appointing a member of the imperial clan to the new post of Counselor (nagon), who served as his private secretary. Various other members of his immediate family received powerful political appointments:... Rephrase to avoid repetitions.
Fixed. -G
In addition to the new capital near Asuka,... Delete "near Asuka".
Fixed. -G
...following his victory... Whose?
Clarified. -G
Italicise "kami" consequently.
Fixed. -G
...Prelate's Office... Why not Prelates' Office?
Fixed. -G
...staffing it with prelates... I would avoid the term "prelates".
Fixed. -G
His worsening state led to increased urgency. I would delete the sentence.
Fixed. -G
Additionally, he adopted two of Tenji's sons, Prince Kawashima and Prince Shiki, that Tenmu adopted as his own. Rephrase.Borsoka (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. -G
@Borsoka: Got to everything!  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   22:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

(Lead) ..., the 40th such emperor according to the traditional order of succession I would delete (or alternatively rephrase it, because the present text suggests that he was the 40th emperor in the Asoka period).
(Lead) ...raised an army against his nephew's rule Why not "against his nephew"?
(Lead) ...Among the initiators of the Japanese imperial system,... I would delete it (especially, because it makes the sentence ambiguous).
@Borsoka: I did the fixes for the lede.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   01:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I will be away over the weekend, so I will not be able to start the source review before Monday. Borsoka (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Any updates on this?  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   16:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your latest edits. Thank you for complering this well researched and interesting GA. For technical reasons, I may need some time to formally pass the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)