Talk:Emperor of Japan

message: 『古墳（仁徳天皇陵など）を調査しない理由は、そこにＸＸＸことを隠したがっているからだ。』この陰謀論において、ＸＸＸに当てはまる言葉は複数あります。
①古代の天皇の存在が否定される
古田武彦などが提唱している説。
仁徳天皇陵などに葬られているのは、天皇家が大和地方を征服する前の支配者である。
このことが証明されると、仁徳天皇たちの存在が否定されてしまうため、宮内庁は調査を禁止している。
②天皇家が朝鮮から来た
井沢元彦『逆説の日本史１』に紹介された噂
あえて噂のまま記してみよう。それは「天皇陵を発掘すると天皇家と朝鮮半島の関係が明らかになるから、反対しているのだ」という見方である。もっと具体的に言えば、「天皇家の祖先が朝鮮半島から渡来したことの証拠が出てくる恐れがあるからだ」ということだ。
③天皇家が中国から来た
この説を主張している人は、私の知っている限りではいません。
 
④天皇家がユダヤから来た
佐伯好郎などが提唱した説。いわゆる日ユ同祖論に基づいた説です。
上記の理由から、私は以下の設定を行いました。
『天皇家の起源が中国系である証拠が天皇陵には隠されている。』このような主張をしている歴史研究家は存在しません。そのため、Chinaを削除しました。
『天皇家の起源は･･･である証拠が天皇陵には隠されている』にあたる部分は、中国・ヤマト先住民(邪馬台国)・ユダヤなどの説があります。そのため、私は elsewhere を使用しました。
（私個人としては、これらの陰謀論を全て等しく価値がないと考えています。これらの陰謀論は、その主張を証明する証拠を持っていないためです。）
そもそも、この陰謀論に関しては読売新聞の１月１日記事によって、全削除できると思いますがいかがでしょう？
<Blockquote>宮内庁が陵墓立ち入り調査容認、古代史研究前進に期待 
宮内庁は、これまで原則的に立ち入りを禁止してきた天皇陵などの陵墓について、広く学術団体の「見学」を認めることを決めた。1日から施行する。立ち入りには多くの制約があるが、日本の古代国家の成立過程を解明する上で重要な鍵を握る陵墓の調査が本格的に進むことが期待される。陵墓公開をめぐっては、日本考古学協会など15の歴史関係学会が2005年7月、大阪府堺市の仁徳天皇陵（大山古墳）など11か所について、立ち入り調査を認めるよう宮内庁書陵部に要望していた。これに対し同庁は、歴史関係に限らず、動植物学などの学術団体にも門戸を開くことを決定。見学は当面、各学会1人とし、立ち入りは墳丘の1段目の平たん面までとする――などの条件付きで、要望があった陵墓の見学を認めることを先月下旬、同協会に伝えた。宮内庁はこれまで「皇霊の静謐（せいひつ）と安寧」を守るためという理由で、陵墓立ち入りを原則として拒絶してきたため、そのほとんどが陵墓に指定されている巨大前方後円墳の調査ができず、古代史研究の大きな障害となっていた。古代の天皇陵の多くが指定が間違っているとされているが、築造年代などを明らかにする手がかりが得られれば、被葬者の真偽を論議する契機になると期待が高まっている。</Blockquote>
ご意見をお待ちしております。--ShinjukuXYZ 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC
Okay, his argument, in a nushell, is that the only theories that have really been put forth about why the Imperial Household has refused to open the graves are: 1) some of the old tombs (like that of Emperor Nintoku) may not be the tombs of emperors at all, 2) evidence of Korean origin might be discovered, 3) origins of a Jewish origin might be discovered. He also points out that nobody, to his knowledge, has suggested that the emperors may have a Chinese origin. In any event, he personally disagrees with all of these theories (which isn't particularly relevant, I disagree with them too, except to the extent that virtually all Japanese have some Korean blood from Yayoi era immigrants, if you go back far enough). He also suggests that the whole paragraph should simply  be deleted because the Imperial Household has agreed to open the tombs to researchers (with certain conditions) and quotes a whole paragraph from the Yomiuri Shimbun regarding the decision.
My response: the fact that the tombs have been opened is clearly stated in the article and is not a basis for deleting the paragraph. The fact that he (or I or anyone else) disagrees with these conspiracy theories is not relevant. The fact is that they are out there and at least deserve mention. I agree that we should edit this to at least remove specific references to Chinese origins. Korean origins is the main alternative theory that people cite, so I think Korea should at least be mentioned. My suggestion is to make a general statement about the Imperial Household having been afraid of what researches might find, and throw in a "such as Korean origins". Anyway, I'll make an edit and we'll see how it flies.
SHinjukuXYZ, in the future, PLEASE get help from someone before you edit English articles. Introducing ungrammatical nonsense changes like "elsewhere origins" does nothing to clarify the article or further any of the points you want to make.
:A Jewish origin? Are you kidding? Last I look, ancient Judaism was on the OTHER side of Asia. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't stop numerous Japanese conspiracy theorists, cult leaders, and other "minority opinion" types from asserting their theories about it. Check out just about any book with "Jews and Japanese" in the title, and you'll see what we're talking about. The theory itself may be absurd, but that there are plenty who assert it and write about it is a true, encyclopedia-worthy, fact. LordAmeth (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my god!! お前狂ったの? --Softall (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: There would not necessarily be much Korean ancestry going back to the Yayoi period. For starters, the rice brought over is definitively from the Yellow River Valley. Given technology level at the time, this rice was practically unusable in Korea. Secondly, at least the Historians in Cambridge's 6-volume exhaustive account of Japanese history believe it likely that disturbances in the Yellow River Valley instigated a (forced) migration first to the Shandong Peninsula and then the Korean Peninsula. Whereupon, the non-Han migrants would discover their rice doesn't grow and perhaps in desperation, some of them find their way to Kyushu - where the Ocean currents create a climate very suitable for rice.
The issue of Korean blood in the imperial line isn't much of a worry either. Though it's almost certain they would find Manchurian or Chinese blood. I'm not sure if that'd be better or worse for the few but loud Ultranationalists. Nonetheless, it's pretty much accepted fact that the imperial lines of Paekche and Japan intermingled to some degree. But the nobility of Paekche were foreign rulers. They weren't Koreans, that much is universally agreed upon. What's uncertain is if they were military allies of China rewarded land in Korea, or remnants of the Han Dynasty nobility. Then again, Korea attempts to claim the entire history of Manchuria as their own... even on Wikipedia you see such absurdities as Buyeo being called a "Korean kingdom" when the only links are legendary accounts of the monarchs of Paekche and Goguryeo coming from Buyeo - though this would suggest that, rather, Paekche and Goguryeo pages should be relabeled as "Manchurian Kingdoms" rather than the opposite and current situation. And indeed the linguistics would suggest Buyeo is either unrelated or barely related to Korean. Which also jives with the fact that Silla was the only one of the 3 "Korean" Kingdoms to actually be ruled by the local population (ie: Koreans).174.16.214.45 (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: real reason for the refusal

message: Does anyone know what this order is ?  Dowew 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ORDER OF THE AUSPICIOUS CLOUDS 

message: There is a whole section earlier in the talk page about why the word Emperor is just an English translation of the Japanese word Tenno, and that the name was decided on for particular reasons. Is it really meaningful to say that the Japanese Emperor is the world's only reigning emperor? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is the world's last remaining monarch to be styled 'emperor' in English. Because that's what it really means!
Bathrobe 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "In world politics, he is the only reigning emperor"?

message: The following whatever-it-is was to be found in Emperor of Japan at the bottom of the page.  I removed it and used cut-and-paste to bring it here.  Wondering what it is -- vandalism of a curiously subtle sort ...? --Ooperhoofd 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Does anyone know what the style of the Emperor is in English? For instance Queen Elizabeth II is Her/Your Majesty. What would the Emperor be called in English if he was being introduced in a formal situation?  Brettr (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: The picture is not of the arms but the mon of the Emperor.  There is a picture of his coat-of-arms at http://www.numericana.com/arms/akihito.htm .  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arms

message: Since tenno is gender-neutral, and there were ruling empresses, wouldn't it make more sense to rename this article into "Monarchs of Japan"? See List of Portuguese monarchs for reference sake. Gryffindor 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of  course it would. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename into "Monarchs of Japan"? 

message: 72.134.16.158 replaced the entire article with: "toasty is the emporer of jampan." With a second edit adding: "oh sorry i mean she is the japanese princes."
I simply copied the previous revision edited by "THEN WHO WAS PHONE?" on August 25th. I think I did this right. Please let me know if I did not. 
Kmrivers (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Vandalism 

message: This article has almost no inline sources, citations, or references. It has a short "Further Reading" list and a few footnotes, but nothing like the detailed and comprehensive list of references in Japanese and English needed to document the assertions in the article. The article is thus a compendium of unsourced and therefore dubious assertions. So I tagged it with . Please add references and sources -- the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is not enough. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Inline Sources 

message: Chrysanthemum Throne was merged/redirected here. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chrysanthemum Throne

message: Seeing the discussion by Zoweee and Jefu on the inclusion of Jimmu as a factual first emperor I have to agree: it startled me when I looked at the page (and also there hes been no change since December 2007). My suggested solution is rounding off the edges by (e.g.) adding a "legendary" or "according to tradition" tag to the two entries, and also a brief explanation in the "Origins" section. I will not do it without saying so, but would rather leave it to the groups taking care of the page.
Yarner (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperor Jimmu as First Monarch? 

message: Does anybody know the significance of the suffix "-hito."  It seems like the personal names of nearly every emperor since the 11th century and a few before that all end in "-hito."  Is it some sort of special surname or another Japanese word for emperor or what?  Do regular Japanese people also have "-hito" names or is it a custom reserved for the emperor (and his heirs)?--Lairor (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The character 仁 means benevolence.  I don't think it has a special empirical meaning, and, the suffix is common (Tadahito Iguchi being one example that comes to mind right away). Neier (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "-hito" 

message: Stubbed thread, don't see anything above, if nothing added to this thread to specify the problem then tag should be removed. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of OR and/or Unverified claims tag 

message: When Japan signs treaties with foreign countries and does things for international organizations and it signs those documents is it represented as for the Japanese state or for the Emperor himself. The reason I ask is because in most constitutional monarchies, for example the United Kingdom, treaties are always signed in the name of the prince himself, not the state, since the prince is nominally the sovereign of the state even when he has no political power, for example after the American Revolution in 1783 Great Britain's peace treaty was signed as one between "the most serene and most potent prince George the Third" and the United States, and the British-American non-aggression pact Jay's Treaty was called a treaty between "His Britannic Majesty and the United States" rather than between Britain and the US, as was the peace treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States at the end of the War of 1812, and in the League of Nations for the UK mandate in Palestine it was "His Britannic Majesty" who was designated mandatory for Palestine, because the British King (or Queen) is still nominally sovereign of the United Kingdom and still nominally controls the government, even though de facto sovereignty belongs to Parliament. But in Japan the monarch is not even nominally sovereign, it explicitly says in the Japanese constitution that the Emperor has "no power related to government", so in treaties is the Emperor mentioned since he is still on the throne or not since he isn't even nominally head of state in Japan. --67.52.196.179 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaties and International Relations 

message: Do the emperors ever have "real names", as in a first name and a last, family name? I know the japanese consider it rude to refer any noble person by his given, or real name, but do they still have a real name? How does the naming of emperors work? --80.223.127.229 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article, you will see that Emperors do have first names. Family names are rather modern invention and do not apply to monarchs. Str1977 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the emperor 

message: the meaning of the title which belongs to Japanese monarch, shown in this publication is incorrect, there is no literal translation of the word emperor of origin in the Latin language, Japanese language,
the correct meaning of tenno is heavenly ruler  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: title of the tenno

message: ok, thanks for your scientific approach, the truth I do not think my research is not an original research on the failure to provide any verifiable source,
simply, my research,are based in some articles from Wikipedia, and to consider each and every one of the 125 articles of the japanese emperor,from tenno jinmmu to meiji, also on articles of Japanese history since the Asuka period to Edo period.
including some articles in Japan's diplomatic relations with China and Korea as well as other publications such as the sinocentric concept, which I clarified many answers, I, to read all these articles published in the same wikipedia, i reach the conclusions about the most approximate meaning title of the japanese monarch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good for you to use Wikipedia for your primary source of your knowledge. However Wikipedia is quite unreliable, so it should not be used as the source for Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably stick to editting the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly.--Anthonzi (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: CLARIFICATION (specifically aimed at User:Oda_Mari: The above statement is made after assessing the user's comprehensibility in the original post.  Please avoid censoring valid criticism.--Anthonzi (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really not called for.  The IP's edits to the article have been entirely reasonable as far as grammar goes.  Their content might have been questioned here, but it wasn't on those grounds, and he provided a fair answer when questioned.  I've seen worse English here from native speakers.  I'd suggest you refactor your criticism in some way that sounds less like "You're not welcome here." Shimeru (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is why 

message: I made an small edit in the first paragraph. I change it from "This is similar to the British monarch being both the Head of State and the Head of the Anglican Church, in that the the Japanese Emperor is both the Head of the Shinto religion and the Head of the United Kingdom." To "This is similar to the British monarch being both the Head of State and the Head of the Anglican Church, in that the the Japanese Emperor is both the Head of the Shinto religion and the Head of the State of Japan."
If anyone thinks that Hirohito really is the head of the United Kingdom, I am going to need some references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaz2wsx3 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit 

message: Very little is said in the article is said about how the Japanese people regard their emperor. I understand they don't like to discuss it, but could that at least be stated, possibly with reasons why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.51.229 (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably has to do with the fact that "emperor" is a misnomer to begin with. There has never been an "emperor" in Japan. Thus it's difficult to have a discussion on the topic to begin with. First it has to be clarified what role these so-called "emperors" have actually fulfilled in a historical sense.174.16.214.45 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, his role/powers relative to Western political figures matches up with "emperor," so to avoid confusion that's how he is referred to in English in all reliable political and historical works. That argument is D.O.A.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.100 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitudes of the Japanese people toward the emperor? 

message: During most of the Kamakura period, the family that controlled the emperor was in actuality the Hojo family, not the Minamoto family.  It might be thus better to say that seven families have controlled the emperor.  In actuality, it was only during the reign of Minamoto Yoritomo himself that the Minamoto family controlled the emperor.  So the period of control by the Minamoto was, like the Taira, brief.  --Westwind273 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factional Control 

message: It might be misleading, since the Emperor has a religious role in the religion of the majority of the population, unlike (say) the USA or other western countries that use this phrase.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "church and state in Japan" 

message: There seems to be some confusion regarding the position of the emperor. He clearly is the head of state. Emperors, Kaisers, Kings, Czars, Presidents, etc. are all by definition heads of states - if the respective person abdicates, loses his position or the political system changes that person is no longer called emperor or a kaiser, president, king (because those titles denote a political position at the top of a state structure) but is instead called "royal highness" (like the abdicated king Edward), just "Mister/Herr" Otto Habsburg (in the case of the son of the abdicated Emperor of Austria) or "former president". A lot of constitutions do not explicitly name a head of state; the German constitution for example does not explicitly state that the federal president is the head of state, does that mean that Germany does not have a head of state? Of course not, the title "Federal President" in the context of the constitution clearly means "head of state" and denotes a political position, just like the title "Emperor". The constitution of Denmark also does not explicitly call the King "head of state", nonetheless it is clear that a "King", by definition, is a head of state. The usage of the symbol-metaphor is also not that uncommon as both the King of Spain and the King of Cambodia are described as symbols of the state or the nation in their respective constitutions. If the emperor really is just the "Symbol" and nothing else, then what is Japan? A symbolocracy? Of course not, it's a constitutional monarchy and the emperor is the ceremonial (i.e. non-executive) head of state. As I do not want to start an edit-war I will refrain from changing the article but it is very misleading and also inconsistent to state that the emperor is not the head of state.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.179.241 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refain from unnecessary editing. Thank you.118.174.178.39 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Christina of Sweden, Isabella II, William I of the Netherlands, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Juan Carlos I, among others, were all hereditary heads of state who abdicated yet retained the title each held while reigning. That is the norm. The Dutch tradition of adopting a lower title ("Princess") and style ("Royal Highness"), begun in the 20th century by Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, remains the exception. FactStraight (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Juan Carlos I retains the title of King (i.e. he is a titular king), but he no longer fulfills the political position/office of King of Spain. Are you suggesting that the Tenno is just a "titular" Tenno, that the Allied Powers let him retain the title as a courtesy (comparable to Napoleon on Elba), but that the office no longer exist in reality and has been replaced by the "Symbol-Ship"? Interesting. But to be honest, i find the whole discussion a bit too technical. MacArthur clearly intended for Hirohito to remain the Head of State, written Notes by the SCAP confirm as much. 95.168.132.235 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of the emperor 

message: A citation from the British Royal Household does not overrule Japan's Imperial Household when it comes to the use of styles by Japan's Imperial household.
http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/eindex.html 
http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/genealogy/koseizu.html
The Emperor is "His Majesty", the rest of the household is "Imperial Highness Prince/Princess". There is literally no higher source for style use than the sovereign's own household.
:My view is that the title of "His Imperial Majesty" is the actual former title viewed and known to many sovereign states, and is officially and commonly called as such. "His Majesty", on the other hand, may possibly be a domestic title used by the IHA(Imperial Household Agency) to call the Emperor.
:Title called by the British Monarch to the Emperor formally:
:http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheGarter/MembersoftheOrderoftheGarter.aspx
:To put it simply, Imperial Majesty is used by many nation sovereign heads and common people to address the Emperor formally. While the IHA themselves calls the Emperor simply as Majesty. What do you think? 42.61.183.27 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The referenced work in English (a letter from President Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan, as well as two from Commodore Perry to the same) do not indicate that the Tokugawa Shogun is the intended recipient. Due to very little interaction, it's very likely the President was misinformed as to the political structure of Japan. I do not currently agree with these additions which indicate that the Shogun was called "Emperor of Japan". I think we need a lot more discussion about this before any such change is made. I have reverted it for now so discussion can take place here.  ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Imperial Majesty for the Emperor of Japan. 

message: It is absurd to baldly state in the infobox that the imperial house of Japan was formed in 660 BC. Just about the only certain thing about the earliest legendary emperors of Japan is that, if they existed at all, it was at a different time than legend has it and they most certainly didn't even attempt to lay claim to rule over all of Japan. Even in the early Kofun period and independently attested Japanese rulers from Chinese sources, the connection of the imperial house to any known figure of the time is extremely shaky. As far as I know the imperial house can only be confidently dated to the Kofun period, or late Yayoi, with the formation of the Yamato polity, whenever that actually happened. 192.35.35.36 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to complain about the same thing. Almost 3 years on and no one has fixed it. Maybe I'll do something about it, but no idea who to put for the founder. Ojin, maybe? 192.31.106.35 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox, "Formation" 

message: made an couple edits 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:Imperial House of Japan. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest changing the title back to the "Emperor of Japan". This (first line) usage of the whole title seems to be the standard and convention for most pages, including the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the King of Spain and the Prime Minister of India.119.74.14.132 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 119.74.14.132, you seem to not have read the comments left on the talk page of User:Nihonjoe. You can see these as an example Prime Minister of Spain, Prince Harry, President of the United States, President of Russia, Prime Minister of Russia, etc. where the name of the article does not reflect the intro statement. The intro statement has to be as precise as possible and not reflect inaccuracies. Additionally, it could be discussed if the name of the article should be "Japanese Emperor" to make it even more correct, or "Japanese Monarch" since there were also ruling empresses. Gryffindor (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , your examples are based on WP:BEGIN, While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead. Then what guideline are your edits based upon? While your preferred guideline WP:Other stuff exists, there are many examples contradicting your insistence;  British Emperor, "British Emperor", German Emperor, "The German Emperor", Emperor of China, "The Emperor of China", Emperor of India, "The title Emperor/Empress of India", Emperor of Mexico, "The Emperor of Mexico", Emperor of All Russia, "Emperor of All Russia, Empress of All Russia". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How do your examples apply to this specific case? I have given the examples where the intro does not reflect the name of the article. Fact remains that the correct name in Japanese does not translate into "Emperor of Japan", and although commonly used in English, is strictly speaking an incorrect usage. The introduction needs to accurately reflect facts, and we can also discuss and explore whether to keep the current name of the article or correct it to something more accurate. Gryffindor (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I do not concur that we need to have a direct translation of the Japanese term, Tennō (天皇), as either the article title or the subject of the first sentence, or that it is more correct to include such. I suggest that we should include the English WP:COMMONNAME, which would be "Emperor of Japan". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity (to Gryffindor above), what do you think 天皇 "translates" as? What is this "translate", exactly?　天 refers to "the heavens", but 皇 basically means a "ruler". So "Ruler of the heavens"? "Astroprince"? ... But anyway, while I think the current title is the most appropriate (titles should as far as possible be English terms in their normal usage), of course I think it is also appropriate to give the Japanese term, and any appropriate explanation of what it means. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and first line of the article 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tennno. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  CycloneYoris talk! 22:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennno listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 'In Japanese, the Emperor is called Tennō (天皇, pronounced [tennoꜜː]), literally "The God certified sovereign".'
This is just plain wrong. Literally, it means "Heaven Sovereign" or "Heavenly Emperor".
I propose to change it or to completely remove the last part ', literally "The God certified sovereign"'
--2003:F6:2716:8500:10EA:1D2E:FFB1:698E (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that it was recently changed from "heavenly sovereign" to "God certified sovereign." (edit from 07:11, 3 June 2020). There is no summary or section in the talk page by the editor which explains the change. I'm undoing it. --2003:F6:2716:8500:10EA:1D2E:FFB1:698E (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well done. This is a persistent bit of arguing for something-or-other; I can't imagine quite what, but plainly 天 has a meaning of "the heavens" or similar, in a "prime mover" sort of sense, but not obviously in a monotheistic context (which is where "God" is likely to lead). The two religions involved have either zero or many "divinities". So perhaps it must be either anti-monotheism or anti-anti-monotheism; either way it should be ignored. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal translation of tennō in lead seciton. 

message: This is an important subject, especially in the eyes of the victims of Imperial Japan of the Thirties and Forties, or their descendants, and should be intensively referenced properly! 50.111.11.25 (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No real improvements for over a year ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  huge portions completely unreferenced 

message: Name of any Japanese Emperor 43.255.151.21 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer 

message: There is a long debate over who the first historical emperor is, and we oppose having only Emperor Kinmei. There are many theories such as Emperor Sujin, Emperor Ojin, Emperor Yuryaku, and Emperor Keitai. --たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: agree there is no consensus PenginFlysheets (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First historical emperor 

message: "Emperor of Japan" should be capitalized everywhere it occurs like The Emperor of Japan. Not The emperor of Japan, just like "King of Something" = "Emperor of Japan". 202.9.46.199 (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you, but title forms are stipulated by MOS:JOBTITLES. I was never comfortable with the uncapitalized form of a title following the article “the,” as it would make more sense for a title to be a proper noun, but I don’t make the rules. AKTC3 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The Emperor of Japan

message: There are several myth tags on this page without any real sources - shouldn't several other pages have these then as well, such as popular religions in many other countries to avoid bias? Here religion isn't highlighted as much as in some articles that don't have the same tag but are fully focused on religious beliefs, such as Christianity, that doesn't have verifiable proof for anything. Wouldn't it be best to get rid of this bias in a site that claims to be fact based and unbiased? 2001:14BA:A302:5C84:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth tags