Talk:Emperor of Japan/Archive 6

message: --------
VOTE: Put your name at once
* {name}
**+no title
**-conflicts with place names
* {name}, Emperor of Japan - Taku
**+Rather natural in English language
* Emperor {name} of Japan - Nanshu, Flunkie FearÉIREANN
**+/- similar to western monarchy
**+Status quo (no need for modifying existing links)
**-Wicked notation in English language
* {name} Emperor
* Emperor {name}
--------
I have set up voting since to me the issue is more like preference of each one. I put any variant that there seem people support. I hope we can finally end this debate. -- Taku 18:28 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I have cast my vote. lol FearÉIREANN 20:48 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
When will the poll be closed? --Nanshu 23:44 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think we have spent enugh amout of time for voting and it seems the result will change unlikely if we waited further more. Since I am the one who moved articles, I will revert them in days. -- Taku 03:55 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I applogize for leaving this vote for months. As decided on the votes, I will revert all of the title of emperors of Japan articles into "Emperor {name} of Japan". I will start reverting in 24 hours now. Please let me know if there is a problem. Cheers! -- Taku 02:32, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Page 7

message: A question:
Why is there that doubt about whether the Emperor is head of State or not? if he is not head of state, what is he? User:Marco Neves
:The Japanese constitution says Emperor of Japan is a symbol that represents  Japanese people or something. The old constitution has a specific mention that the Emperor is a head of state but the new one doesn't.
:I just added a bit of further explanation on the word 'tennnou' that might help you.  One of the problem is, 'tennnou' could be a figure of spiritual belief even with the declaration by himself that he is, a human.  Check Shintō for more explanation to that.  This creates a really big constitutional mess because the Japanese constitution, like most modern ones, states the separation of any specific religion from the nation.  It simply wouldn't do for the head of State to be unconditionally tied to a certain religion.  So the answer of that has to be both yes and no.  Yes, because he performs the function of State and no, because he could be a religious symbol.  Trying to make a constituion that are not at odd with nearly two-thousand year history, practices, and tradition is never a simple task.
:Revth 16:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really about translation, it's about status. At the time of the opening of Japan to the West, in the 1850s, the "Tenno" would be dealing with the Emperor of France, the British Empire (ruled by a Queen, but one who would become an Empress in 20 years) (and the German Kings, but this would become an empire in 20 years), and the "Tsar" of Russia and wanted equal status from which to deal. An "Imperial Highness" was preferable to a "Royal Highness". Translating "Tenno" as "Emperor" solved the equality problem. - Nunh-huh 09:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So the use of the word "emperor" pre-dates the Japanese empire? That partially explains it. However, it's still a little surprising that the word "emperor" is still used, given its negative connotations. --Auximines 09:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: You have it backward.  The word "emperor" was determined as a translation for "Tenno" at least over a millenium later than his status became stable, and it stabilized over a millenium before English language even existed.  So, it's the problem with English.  Japanese language allows for using different terms for various rulers like mentioned in the article, but English doesn't have THE word to represents Tenno and wikipedia didn't let Tenno as the word to accurately discribe the status.  Thus, any feeling one may has of "emperor" is completely meaningless.  It's like demanding every dead and living Germans and Austrians named "Adolf" to change his name because it reminds them of someone named Hitler.  Revth 09:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Until fairly recently, we had many small territories ruled by warlords (daimyo). In ancient times, many different tribes lived in Japan and they were crashed by the army led by Tenno. Thus, the term tenno (heavenly/divine emperor) came into use. It was also convenient at the time, as the Japanese were trying to have an equal status as the Chinese emperors. --TokyoJapan 15:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Head of State

message: Our Korean friend has inserted his poorly formatted entries into History. Someone please clean this up. --Golbez 16:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Certain dates and details may be in dispute among Japanese historians. Many emperors cited in the formal list of Emperors of Japan died at a very young age and can hardly be said to have "ruled" in any serious sense of the word. Others were overshadowed by their predecessors, who had ostensibly retired to a monastery but continued to exert influence."
This is repeated twice in the article; I'm not sure how it should be handled in this context, so its just a heads-up. Wotnarg 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Nostalgic. Three months ago I wrote the section about imperial succession traditions of Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emperor_of_Japan&diff=12935905&oldid=12889659
Today I came here to write about traditions of allowed marriages of imperials. And found the above text, only a little copyedited, recognized it as having come from my pen... nostalgic feeling. Arrigo 16:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession

message: I lived in Japan for 2 and a half years and am a WWII historian so I know a little bit about the Japanese Emperor during those years.  I would really like to see some info here about the phrase the Japanese soldiers used to shout before going into battle.  Forgive my attmept, but it sounds something like "Henjo Hayka!  Bonzai!!"  What is the translation and the significance of this battle cry?  Thanks to whoever can give an answer -Husnock 02:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very close. Banzai ="Ten thousand years". It's approximately how long East Asians used to wish to their leaders to live for. Give or take a few years. --Menchi 03:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, analogous to "long live the king!"Uly 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonzai 

message: :Add any additional comments
I was actually in the process of moving all of these (which is why the first hundred or so are already done), but many of these are blocked, which means I need the help of an administrator. The administrator who was helping me kind of petered out. I'll try contacting him again so we can get the rest of the moves finished. I don't think we need a vote here, since the article title was decided after a lengthy discussion already. -Jefu 15:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Out of curiosity, given that it's a dead cert Aiko-hime will be given the green-light this year to take over from her father in due course, what will the new title of the article be? Because I'm sure that she will be a "ruling empress" rather than a "female emperor".
How about "Japanese Monarchy"? It would fit in well with the "British Monarchy" piece. I think that it might be an idea to consider the new title now, rather than dither and argue when the law is (in all likeliness) passed. John Smith's 22:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting proposal, though not one we are likely to deal with any time soon. However, the other articles I randomly checked - Queen of England, King of Spain, and Queen of the Netherlands - weren't exactly about those offices. The first linked to a list of English monarchs; the second linked to Spanish monarchy, about the monarchy; and the third linked to Dutch monarchy, about the monarchy. However, this article isn't so much about the monarchy, as about the singular office of Emperor, and thus, at a cursory glance, seems different from the "X monarchy" articles. Thoughts? --Golbez 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This contains also very much dynastical history, to the point that this article actually serves as the article about the dynasty too (similarly as there are articles about Bourbon dynasty and Habsburg dynasty). I think Japanese monarchy would be a fitting title, if changed. Shilkanni 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But historically the British monarchs have had next-to-supreme power. There have been very few times in Japanese history when these "monarchs", as you lot are suggesting we call them, have ruled by themselves ("one-rule", or some such), and so I've almost never seen such words used. Also, as a side not to the Unsigner, the first "Emperor"s as mentioned in relatively objective Chinese sources were largely female, which the Chinese scholars found rather odd and about two centuries later introduced a more Sinicized system. elvenscout742 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that in order to be called monarchs, they should have ruled, irl? Btw, those female monarch(s) mentioned in early chinese writings (presumably you mean Himiko?) actually are not regarded as tenno, nor a part of the official list of these "emperors". When speaking about this as dynasty, I mean (and also restrict to) the so-called Yamato dynasty. Others were chiefs/kings/queens of distinctly other dynasties or traditions. Btw, do you mean "the Chinese scholars introduced a more sinicized system of choosing only male emperors about two centuries later"?? Shilkanni 07:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What will the new title be?

message: This article seems to contain a bit about the position of emperor today and constitutionally, and a lot about the evolution of the position and the dynasty. When seeking article about the Japanese dynasty, I realized that this has the vastest material about it, therefore I redirected Yamato dynasty here. Some people may think that there should be two separate articles: one for the dynasty and thus for all that history, and one for the current position as a sort of organ of state of Japan, analogous to those articles about Japanese diet and of cabinet, and so on. I was first thinkin the same, but then I realized that the current position of emperor is so trenched in its history - and probably would not exist without the historical reverence - that these issues should not be separated. Emperor's relevant functions seem to be influenced by past precedents also today. Additionally, I assess that an article about emperor as today's state organ would be poor and short, whereas almost all contents here would belong to the dynasty article. Shilkanni 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  current position vs dynastical history: need of separate articles? 

message: This article is really close to being a Good Article, I believe, but we need to get references added into the article for that to happen. Anyone up to the job? (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Apparently the following paragraph is so good that it needs to be duplicated multiple times in the article.  "Certain dates and details may be in dispute among Japanese historians. Many emperors cited in the formal list of Emperors of Japan died at a very young age and can hardly be said to have "ruled" in any serious sense of the word. Others were overshadowed by their predecessors, who had ostensibly retired to a monastery but continued to exert influence".  Should I put in 2 or 3 more copies of this paragraph, or do you all think 2 are enough?  I mean, this paragraph is just wonderful.  --Xyzzyplugh 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I suppose I'll remove the first instance of it.  --Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If a paragraph is really good, put it in the article multiple times

message: The description of the origin of the term "tennō" in the section Origin of the title conflicts with the description in Empress Suiko. Jeoth 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is correct and I have removed the passage in Empress Suiko.-Jefu 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tennō

message: This passage contradicts itself: These two books state that the imperial house maintained a continuous lineage, though today some historians believe that many ancient emperors who were claimed to be descendants of Emperor Ōjin had no actual genealogical tie to their predecessor. However, the genealogy beginning from the late 5th century can be regarded as reliable, thus meaning that the dynasty has continued at least some 1500 years.
The first sentence states that later emperors may not have had genealogical ties with Ojin, while the second claims that the official genealogy can be regarded as reliable. --Himasaram 09:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in ''History''-''Origin'' 

message: "...they likened the relationship between emperor and shogun to that of the and king (earthly, but with a relatively large amount of political power) though this in itself can be considered ambiguous as, like the Emperor." 
this sentence doesn't quite make sense as there's the second half of the analogous relationship (presumably knights etc) - am i just reading this wrong or does someone have the texts and can correct it (also a citation would be good) --Danlibbo 04:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shogun-Emperor relationship analogy 

message: I heard from a veteran in my community who was stationed in Japan that Japanese parks and national monuments are traditionally considered the property of the Emperor and managed by the Emperor's officers. Can anyone here back this up or think it should be added to the article?--Primalchaos 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duties/Possession of the emperor