Talk:List of emperors of Japan/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some speculation of monarchs in Kofun, others in Yayoi periods 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interregnum? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  i agree 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures on List 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uppercase "Emperor" or lowercase "emperor"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Traditional Dates"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Empress Jingu 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Romaji question 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bundled citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Traditional dates" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion on the reign of Emperor Kogon