Talk:Imperial House of Japan

message: How can both the Japanese monarchy and the Danish both be "the oldest" in their respective articles?. A bit of clarification might be in order.--195.84.66.130 (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest

message: "Imperial Household of Japan" is so prevalently a concept that begins from Meiji Era, that I would restrict the article's substantial content to the past century and so. Earlier history is somehow so separate and seems a fragment of much more relevant content that is residing in clearly other articles. Do we have e.g Imperial Dynasty of Japan. Arrigo 18:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: His Imperial Highness Prince of Akishino (born 6 September 2006) at 8:27 AM (2327 GMT) and weighed 5.64 pounds.
Is that weight correct?  5.64 pounds would be rather small.  On the other hand, 5.64 kilograms would be rather large.  Nik42 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Akishino's Child 

message: I think this line from the article requires revising:
In an effort to control the size of the imperial family, the law stipulates that only legitimate male descendants in the male line can be dynasts; that imperial princes and princesses lose their status as imperial family-members if they marry outside the imperial family; and that the Emperor and other members of the Imperial Family may not adopt children.
If I am reading this correctly, then don't all imperial family members need to marry their sisters or brothers or cousins in order to remain within the imperial family?  Also, Crown Prince Naruhito married Masako (not a member of the imperial family) but remains the crown prince, contradicting the above statement.  Any explanations before I revise? -Sarfa 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  That's an error.  Princesses lose their status if they mary outside the imperial family, but princes do not.  For example, the Emperor's daughter, the former Princess Sayako, is now a commoner named Sayako Nori, because of her marriage to a commoner. Nik42 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The former Princess Sayako assumed the name Kuroda Sayako upon her marriage to Kuroda Yoshiki on 15 November 2005. Nori no miya was her childhood appelation as the daughter of the crown prince (and from 1989, the emperor). --Duke of Yarmouth 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I knew that, I just got those two mixed up. Nik42 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage outside imperial family 

message: Please explain historical value of Takano no Nigasa. If she has important value, we should write her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.215.11 (talk) 
:Oh, I missed the same argument without any reason. I added my comment right below the thread. She is not only a Korean descendant in Japanese house. --Appletrees (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: important historical ground

message: Is it possible, that Aiko marries her cousin Hishato, when they are adult ? So she become Queen of Japan, from her own right and her cousin was the King, from his own rights, after his grandfather and his uncle (Aikos father).
What do you say about this ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She could not possibly be Queen. She would have been Empress if such situation arises. Anyway, it's an interesting possibility. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen of Japan ?  

message: Could someone please create a family tree for the Imperial Family? Thanks. --Woodelf 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ? It's already in the article. Oda Mari (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant an interactive family tree, like the one I have now created myself. (~.^)--Woodelf 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. But is it possible on Wikipedia? Anyway, I cannot create it. Oda Mari (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you don't have to: I have already created one in the article. Scroll down to where the family tree is to see!! --Woodelf 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: 女王 is じょおう jooo and means queen. Any reference for Nyoo?
:'Nyo' is a somewhat archaic reading of '女'. Look it up in any reasonably comprehensive Japanese dictionary. 67.180.80.178 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nyoo ? 

message: Princess Sachiko died as a child, she never married and thus remained a member of the imperial family her life, yet her name (or number !) on the family tree is in italics.
Is there a way to fix this ? Thanks in advance ! --Killuminator (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sachiko, Princess Hisa 

message: The following family tree shows the lineage of the current members of the Imperial family. Some of these people in the family tree are long deceased and have no descendants in the royal family (Takamatsu, Chichibu, Katsura households). I see no reason for their inclusion in the tree or former princesses too for that matter. See British Royal Family for example, they just list current members, and deceased members are only included to show connections between the living ones, thus some royals like Princess Margaret, Prince John etc. are not included. I propose removing some people on this family tree as well. --Killuminator (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously, British Royal Family's family tree included the names of deceased members but now they're removed. I see no problem in removing Chichibus, Takamatsus, Katsura and former princesses. But for example Prince Tomohito of Mikasa or Prince Takamado should stay to show the connections. Keivan.fTalk 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the Imperial Household Agency website has removed the names of former princesses and some deceased members like Princess Sachiko from its family tree. Keivan.fTalk 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a newer, updated tree based off the one used by the British Royal Family page: Imperial House of Japan family tree. Please let me know what you think. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's perfect ! Just what I had hoped for, thank you. Your work is most appreaciated. Could you do something similar for some other notable current royal families (Norway, Sweden etc.). It shows the relations between the current members better than some dull list. Cheers ! :) --Killuminator (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I really appreciate that. I'll do my best with the others, as well. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Imperial House of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QbrZqt5F to http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/eindex.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 - checked Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: made a edit changing the first line of this article. I disagreed with him and changed it back. He has since reverted it again back to his preferred version without any discussion (outside of a "this is the way it is" post on my talk page). Obviously there is some disagreement here. Please chime in on what should be the proper introductory line(s) in the article. 
Please note the similar discussion taking place over on Talk:Emperor of Japan. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As similar, though, I suggest changing the title back to the "Imperial House of Japan". The full name is used for pages of other royal and imperial houses, including the British Royal Family, the Dutch Royal Family, the Liechtenstein Princely Family and the Swedish Royal Family. 119.74.14.132 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear Liechtenstein Princely Family is actually at Princely Family of Liechtenstein. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the more correct name of the article should be "Japanese Imperial House". Any thoughts? Gryffindor (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Japanese Imperial House would be fine. It's technically the same thing as the current title, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

text: , could you elaborate on why Japanese Imperial House is "more correct"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It follows the naming format of the other royal families mentioned above. Also "of Japan" does not exist anywhere in the term kōshitsu, so in order to get as close as possible to the correct translation and term, "Japanese Imperial House" seems to be more correct than the current one. It would also help us alleviate the discussion on the intro formulation. Ps: the "Princely Family of Liechtenstein" is an incorrect format and should be moved. Ruling houses should be named "House of x" such as "House of Windsor" for example, therefore "House of Liechtenstein". Gryffindor (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The English title doesn't have to be a correct translation of the Japanese title. In fact, they are frequently different for Japan-related articles. That's when you do something like . It gives the most common English language name for the topic (which should also be the title of the article), then it gives the Japanese, the Romanization of the Japanese, then a literal translation. It's concise and clear in that format. Another example would be The Adventures of Milo and Otis. That's the common English name of the film, but the original Japanese name is different. So, we have  at the beginning of the article. The point is, contrary to what you seem to believe, the English title does not have to be the same as the Japanese title. It often isn't, and that's perfectly fine. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Japanese language title states, "The Imperial House is the term given to the Emperor of Japan and family." When I read 'Imperial House'(皇室) in the Japanese language, I fell it means the Japanese Imperial House. In Chinese 皇室 is used only for Japan and 王室 is used for European Royalty, Thai royalty and other Asia royal families. Leveni (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and first line of the article 

message: The following family tree shows the lineage of the current members of the Imperial family (living members in bold). This is the first sentence and it describes who is depicted on the family tree. The tree is fairly large and it could use some trimming. What is the scope of this family tree. Should we remove Prince Katsura who is deceased and whose lineage ended with his death? Also, regarding the daughters: should we remove daughters who married to commoners and subsequently lost their status or perhaps just the deceased ones? Summa summarum - who belongs on this family tree as described in the first sentence? --Killuminator (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree scope 

message: Despite some IP address continued effort at finding a proper reference for the term "Yamato dynasty", where exactly is this term coming from? If this is to be mentioned in the introductory lines, it needs at least three different references. Gryffindor (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Imperial House does not have a "of Japan" in its name, we need to be as correct as possible with the terms. Gryffindor (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I have never heard of the Yamato Dynasty ever. The Yamato are a race of people, the Japanese people. The Yamato is not a Dynasty. I went through the entire Japanese Language version (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9A%87%E5%AE%A4) and never once was the Imperial Family referred to as the Yamato Dynasty. Also, the reference for the Yamato Dynasty is from ONE tabloid book, it is not from any reputable source. Delete the reference. Leveni (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-added the source citation needed. Either this finally gets properly sourced by multiple sources, or it needs to be removed as this is original research. Gryffindor (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to find these sources, not necessarily good enough but something to start with: 1, 2, 3 and 4 (the 124th Emperor of the Yamato line, so far the only royal house that has ever ruled. Japan and believed by all Japanese to be). The oldest one is from 1928. --Killuminator (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these newspaper or blog sources state "House of Yamato", it only says "Yamato dynasty" or "Yamato line", and it seems to be used more as a descriptive term by journalists as opposed to a proper term coined by historians or even from the official side. If there are no official or historiographical sources then the sentence will have to be changed to remove this. For the last source is there an open version, otherwise it's not possible to verify? Gryffindor (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yamato dynasty? 

message: There is evidence that the imperial family ruled in 400 AD and 300 AD.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1RcFEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT80&dq=Yamato+clan+history&hl=en&source=newbks_fb#v=onepage&q=Yamato%20clan%20history&f=false
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Voyages_in_World_History/VckaCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Yamato+clan+history&pg=PA238&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kata/64HQAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=yamato+clan&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover
CycoMa (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The imperial has been around longer 

message: Isn't it literally uncontroversial & universally accepted fact that there was a complete rupture in the 1300s, with the prior hereditary line being replaced by the Northern Court? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Source please.CycoMa (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Well, I linked to the article on the Northern Court, so I think you should be able to find this information, which once again is not contested by any party and is the uncontroversial simple history of Japan. It's pretty cleanly recorded and sourced right here on Wikipedia, in any article related to that period and those events. Just click --> Northern Court. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Northern Court emperors were descended from the prior hereditary line, so the line was not ruptured. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess then I'm left wondering what the semantic content of each word in " oldest continuous hereditary monarchy" is. What are the criteria for "continuous" and "hereditary" such that the Northern Court period doesn't break it? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Emperor Nintoku is considered a historical emperor. He has a large Kofun tomb in the city of Sakai. So it should be counted from Nintoku, not Kinmei as the earliest. -Artanisen (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I think this issue has been like a sore point on the page for quite some time at this point. The infobox in particular seems to suggest that Kimnei is the founder of the dynasty, which is a bold claim with tenuous links to what the sources are saying. He is the first emperor with exact and believed to be accurate dates but the founder of the dynasty is another thing entirely. I'll try to implement an interim solution until a proper discussion finds a long-term remedy. --Killuminator (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "but there is firm evidence for the hereditary line since Emperor Kinmei ascended the throne 1,500 years ago.[3]"