Talk:Emperor Jimmu

Sentence removed

The following sentence was moved from the article:

In 2000, the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform (Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho o Tsukurukai) treated Jimmu's foundation of the kingdom as historical fact in its proposed "New History Textbook" (Tsukuru-kai) for junior high schools [1].

It is a typical trait of critics of Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho that they don't examine the textbook by themselves. Here I quote from the textbook (p.36):

神武天皇の東征伝承

一つの政治的まとまりが，大きな力を備えた統一政権になるには，通常，長い時間を必要とする。大和朝廷がいつ，どこで始まったかを記す同時代の記録は，中国にも日本にもない。しかし『古事記』や『日本書紀』には，次のような伝承が残っている

This is followed by a summary of the legend.

I compared history textbooks.

• The New History Textbook introduces the foundation myth as a legend.
• The other Japanese textbooks completely ignore the foundation myth.
• The South Korean national history textbook explains a medieval myth as a historical fact.

BTW you may wonder why the other Japanese textbooks ignore the foundation myth. It is because they are complied by communists or communist sympathizers. That's why Japanese conservatives feel a sense of crisis about education. --Nanshu 00:16, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BTW, you may wonder why the other Japanese text books ignore the foundation myth. It is because it is a "history" textbook. It is as ridiculous as teaching the account of Genesis in bible as history. That is why Japanese "conservative" (read right wing nationalist) are considered as nutter.

Well, it is a nationalist myth. But I don't suppose they teach Greek mythology in their schools either. Ashibaka (tock) 16:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

They teach Greek mythology in Greek schools, and most Western schools for that matter, and it is taught as mythology, not as actual events. Emperor Jimmu's myth/legend may have a factual basis, but still needs to be regarded as legendary. Rlquall 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As of Korean sailor theory, given that Jimu Emperor himself is a part of foundation myth, how one can claim that he was actually a Korean sailor is totally beyone me. I will delete it until someone can attribute it to archival source. Given that Kojiki and Nihonshoki are the only one at the moment, I doubt anyone can. --(FWBOarticle 5 Aug 2004)

Picture error?

Just a quick question, is the picture correct? The Empress Jito page has the same photo, or were multiple people buried in same tomb? Hellfire83 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Citing a legend

Of course, many will argue that Emperor Jimmu and all of the early emperors are at most legendary. Does the tagging editor (with regard to his purported birth dates) want something that cites these legendary dates and describes them as legendary? The article states that these dates are legendary, so it would seem to suffice that stating such means that nothing can be cited which will make them live up to the standards of WP:V. Stating the fact that a legend exists is not the same things as asserting that a legend is a fact. Rlquall 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike an urban legend, a legend in the proper sense is a real history that has merely been exaggerated over the centuries. The trouble is how to separate the exaggerations from how it really happened. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange definition. So I guess the legend of the Fountain of Youth is based on reality but exaggerated? Perhaps it only extends your life by 50 years and not eternity? Angry bee (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Fountain of Youth is not a legend except in poor colloquial use of the word. It's more properly called a myth, nice try, but there is a difference.

An example of a legend as opposed to a myth (although not a Japanese example; still illustrates my point) would be the bastard son of a prostitute raised by his actual mother, and from these humble beginnings he grows up to found a city; and because prostitute and female wolf are the same word in the language he would have spoken he was later fictionally raised by a wolf.

That is what I mean by exaggeration of real history as the true definition of legend.

Please understand why legend and myth are 2 different words. The Fountain of Youth is not properly a legend no matter how hard you bold the word in that sentence. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point that Troy was considered a leyend, or a myth, according to mainstream historians before Schliemman. So historians should be cautious when disregarding the so called leyends. CalaClii (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

All romaji text

Please excuse the profane, but wouldn't it be better to drop the -hime and give it the real meaning, which is I think, princess? That would give for instance princess Konohana-Sakuya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.60.246 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

No, I really do not think that is necessary. The Japanese honourific suffixes are fine and the English meaning may not portray the same meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.235.74 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure, taken in context, the English word will portray the exact same meaning nor am I convinced by a mere proclamation that Japanese honourific suffixes are fine. Let's write in English. JIMp _talk·cont 09:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In-line citations?

User:JaGa -- You were quite right to notice mistakes in the in-line citations in Emperor Jimmu; and your corrections did make each one better. However, I disagreed with some elements of your "clean-up" edits.

The most important disagreement has to do with the citation in that initial paragraph:

• ^[1] <:ref>Brown, Delmer et al. (1979). Gukanshō, p. 249; Varley, Paul. (1980). Jinnō Shōtōki, pp. 84-88; Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du Japon, pp. 1-3.</ref>

The intent of this deliberately-crafted citation is to suggest that Gukanshō, Jinnō Shōtōki, and Nipon o daï itsi ran are redundant confirmations of each other. Listing these books serially in one citation is intended to convey this implied cross-checking. In my view, breaking the references into three separate citations would be less strong, less clear. Perhaps you can help me re-think this?

The second citation references the Brown-Ishida translation of Gukanshō:

• ^[2] <:ref>Brown, p. 249 n10.</ref>

This text is a bit dense, and the citation refers to footnote 10 on page 249. Can you suggest an alternative format which might have been better?

The third and fourth citations introduce a style question which is especially relevant in Wikipedia -- in-line citations which incorporate an external link to the exact page specifically being cited. This is perhaps, in my view, the one thing which most distinguishes Wikipedia as a valuable, innovative, 21st century research tool. In this instance, the reader can assess the Wikipedia text by clicking on a digitized page from a book which supports and amplifies what has been posted in this article about a legendary Japanese emperor.

• ^[3] <:ref>Brownlee, John. Japanese Historians and the National Myths, 1600-1945: The Age of the Gods, pp. 136, 180-185.</ref>
• ^[4] <:ref>Aston, William. (1896). Nihongi, pp. 109-137.</ref>

Do you have any suggestions for improving these linked citations?

In the academic and non-academic worlds, there are a variety of acceptable, "standard" citation formats. Wikipedia is flexible enough to incorporate them all -- but it important that the citations serve their intended purpose, which is to give the reader some sense of the extent to which the information in any article can be taken as verifiable from a published source. There is a similar pattern of citation in the following; and if there are correctable problems, why not begin to address some or all of them now?

• Compare, e.g. -- Sakai clan, Ogasawara clan ...?

If the referenced sources in the current iteration of this Jimmu article are not sufficiently accessible, then maybe we can work together to find a better way ...? -- Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should get a third person to look at it. Otherwise, each of us is likely to favor our own edits, and get nowhere. Do you know any citation gurus? I pretty much follow the system for El Greco for citation formatting decisions. --JaGa (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An elegant choice for a citations model. The final result is crisp, clear, clean. There are no gurus for this subject, but your choices and your implied rationale are unimpeachable. At first blush, I'm finding myself hard-pressed to defend an alternative citation format which, in comparison, seems cluttered, clumsy. I'm so glad I took the time to pose this question because your response is thought-provoking, helpful, constructive. For now, I'll just have to let it rest ... but I'll get back to this perhaps tomorrow or the day after. Thanks for the prompt feedback. --Tenmei (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Succession box

The succession box needs to be updated. OneWeirdDude (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hakko Ichiu

Founding Ceremony of the Hakkō ichiu Monument. It had Prince Chichibu's calligraphy of Hakkō ichiu, carved on its front side. <:ref>David C. Earhart, Certain Victory, 2008, p.63</ref>

Text and image not adequately supported by reference sources explaining why inclusion in this specific article is appropriate or plausibly relevant. --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1940, the Shōwa regime also constructed on the legendary site of Emperor Jimmu's palace, near Miyazaki, the Hakkō Tower, symbolizing the divine right of the Empire of Japan to "unify the eight corners of the world". The ancient phrase of Hakkō ichi'u, used according to tradition by the Emperor to describe the unification of the world under his sacred rule, was an imperative to all Japan subjects.

I gave the source which is Certain Victory page 63 by David C. Earhart... This is very relevant as those words to "unify the eight corners of the world" were attributed to Emperor Jimmu by the Shōwa propaganda as the basis of the Holy war (seisen) and the Greater East Asia War. So the character of Jimmu is intimately related to Shōwa miltarism. --Flying tiger (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That seemed likely, but since I wasn't sure, I thought this might be a way to resolve that modest question. So -- the in-line citation does belong with the text? I see. I would have thought the citation is probably better removed from the caption now that it is clearly associated with the related text of the main body? Adding Bix was a help. The additional citation makes it very clear. --Tenmei (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevance and meaning of the following passage is unclear, hence I move it here:

"The naval limitations treaties of 1921, and especially 1930, were a tragic mistake in their unanticipated effect on internal political struggles in Japan; and the treaties provided an external motivating catalyst which provoked reactionary, militarist elements to desperate actions which eventually overwhelmed civilian and liberal elements in society.< ref >Morrison, Samuel Eliot. (1948). History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: The Battle of the Atlantic, September 1939 - May 1943, p. 3-10.</ ref > The evolution of Hakkō ichiu serves as a changing litmus test of these factional relationships during the decades of the 1930s and 1940s.< ref >GlobalSecurity.org: "Kodo (Way of the Emperor)"</ ref >

Str1977 ^(talk) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Life dates

Although life dates are conventionally found in the first paragraph of the articles about h1storical figures, this conventional pattern has been modified somewhat for the articles about the legendary emperors of Japan. Consistent with WP:V, this is because Emperor Kimmei's reign is the first for which contemporary historiography are able to assign verifiable dates.<:ref>Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du Japon, pp. 34-36; Brown, Delmer et al. (1979). Gukanshō, pp. 261-262; Varley, H. Paul. (1980). Jinnō Shōtōki. pp. 123-124.</ref>

The specific dates which were contrived from the Kojiki during the Shōwa era are included in the second paragraph of the introduction. Also, the legendary age of the emperor is mentioned near the bottom of the page when he is said to have died. By folding the legendary data into the body of the article helps establish its context.

It seems elegant to me that the infobox identifies the dates of Jimmu's reign as "traditional," and the dates of his life are identified as "legendary." This pairing helps clarify the very slight differences between the traditional list of emperors and the legendary historical figure who is said to have been Japan's first emperor. --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jinmu versus Jimmu

Re: explanatory spelling note in first paragraph, see discussion thread at Talk:Emperor Temmu#Tenmu versus Temmu. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Was Jimmu an Ainu?

This is a serious question, Jimmu who lived on Japan in 660 B.C., is it more realistic that he would be Ainu descent or Yamato/Han descent? 216.160.137.99 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more realistic to say Jimmu was a complete fabrication. And if not a fabrication, he did not live in 660 B.C. Angry bee (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Form and implication

A good proportion of articles on the early legendary emperors of Japan contain a sentence like this about their posthumous names:

It is undisputed that this identification is Chinese in form and Buddhist in implication, which suggests that the name must have been regularized centuries after...

There are at least two problems with this.

• Not once is it cited. Usually there's a citation at the end of the paragraph, but it seems to have nothing to do with this sentence. If it's an undisputed fact, it ought to be easy to find at least ONE cite for it.
• Could whoever inserts it EXPLAIN WHAT THE FUCK IT MEANS? What about its form makes it Chinese, cause it sure as shit doesn't sound Chinese to me. And please explain for the benefit of those few billion of us who are not Buddhist just what about it implies Buddhism? Otherwise, this is a totally meaningless phrase that can be excised from every article in which it appears, and nothing of value will have been lost. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei stop reverting

You constantly revert my changes and you give NO justification. You want to talk? Talk! Angry bee (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is actually tempting me to log on for the first time in almost 4 years. (In case my IP address is different, I'm also the one who added the "Form and implication" section above.)

The citation has, frankly, nothing to do with the statement to which its attached. Tenmei needs to show us EXACTLY where the supporting material is. Where does it say these legendary emperors might have existed? If it doesn't say so clearly, then Angry bee's removal should stand.

Edit: In fact, the cite in question says EXPLICITLY that Jimmu is mythological. See the table near the end of the page. Based on that you absolutely should not employ weasel words to make it sound as if there's a good chance this was a real person. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war

A slow-motion edit war has unfolded during the past six months. I don't know what to do, nor do I have good guesses about how to resolve a dispute when I don't really know what it is about.

A. These following few sentences were added in August 2010 here.

Jimmu is regarded by historians as a "Legendary Emperor" because of the paucity of information about him, which does not necessarily imply that no such person ever existed. There is insufficient material available for further verification and study.

B. Angry bee removed the paragraph several times, and each deletion was explained by an edit summary with provocative adjectives. The words "bogus" and "fake" caused uncertainty about how to respond appropriately. I construed WP:Burden to require an explanation for blanking the text + inline citation. In the absence of words other than the edit summary, I guessed that blanking parts of Emperor Jimmu was something like a hobby horse. I guessed that no words from me were actually wanted or anticipated.

• diff 01:13, 28 October 2010 Angry bee (13,723 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Bogus references. Especially when cited references say Kojiki is mostly political fabrications.)
• diff 19:26, 25 January 2011 Angry bee (13,940 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Fake citation; useless words removed.)
• diff 19:53, 6 February 2011 Angry bee m (14,535 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: fake citations)
• diff 05:48, 11 February 2011 Angry bee m (14,557 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Fake citation removed)
• diff 04:49, 16 February 2011 Angry bee m (14,704 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Want to talk? Go to the Talk page instead of telling me to talk and you remain silent.)

C. The words of the most recent diff make clear that something else is needed, but what? The disputed citation is neither "bogus" nor "fake"; therefore, according to WP:V, there is no problem. As you kinow, the opening paragraph of the policy page explains:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

I complied scrupulously with WP:V, and I don't know what else to say?

As nearly as I can tell, the underlying complaint is about what Angry bee believes is true. If so, let me make it simple: I have no personal opinions or interest in the early Japanese monarchs. However, having provided a cite with an embedded hyperlink showing a correspondence between the sentences in our article and statements in the source, my job as a Wikipedia contributor is completed satisfactorily.

In sum, this explains my revert of Angry bee's newest deletion. --Tenmei (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, sir. You did not comply with WP:V. The citation simply does not support the text you want to add: this is what Angry bee means by "fake". If you think it does, please point out SPECIFICALLY where. It has nothing at all to do with personal beliefs. It has to do with what the cited material says. Not only does it NOT say what you seem to want it to, but as I mentioned above, it specifically labels Jimmu as "mythological", meaning there's no good reason to assume he existed at all. (The next 10 emperors are labeled "largely fictional", meaning there's better reason to presume they did not exist than that they did.)

I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

Edit: I wrote the above before looking at your most recent edit, having taken you at your word here that you had simply reverted. As far as I can tell, the paragraph as it now stands indeed conforms to WP:V. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

• Emperor Jimmu → Emperor Jinmu
• Emperor Temmu → Emperor Tenmu
• Emperor Kimmei → Emperor Kinmei
• Emperor Mommu → Emperor Monmu
• Empress Gemmei → Empress Genmei
• Emperor Kammu → Emperor Kanmu

– This has been discussed before, but apparently without concern for MOS specifically dismissing the current spelling. Wikipedia:Manual of style (Japan-related articles)#Syllabic "n" says we shouldn't romanize as "m" unless it's an "official name" like Asahi Shimbun. This obviously doesn't apply here. There are probably other articles that need to be included here that escape me at the moment. Done. At last. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - if that is what WP:JPMOS says then okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment the nomination template does not match the text used. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. Sorry. I'm a little rusty. Despite what my "obscene number of sockpuppets" might indicate, I've been almost completely inactive on Wikipedia since February, and even before then I think I've only correctly posted one multi-move in my whole wiki-career. Also I added one more I forgot. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you show some evidence that the common names are not the correct romanization? Both spellings are in wide use in English-language reliable sources, and none of these emperors have "common names" as defined under WP:COMMONNAME -- that guideline is clearly for super-famous people like Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek, and none of these emperors are popularly known among the English-speaking populace. For the record, blank Google and GBooks hit counts don't really work in this case, since you're likely to find a bunch of digitized versions of 100+ year old books like Chamberlain's translation of the Kojiki, when "mm" was the standard romanization, but most people who have actually read about these figures in books from the last 50 years (other than Wikipedia) are more likely to be familiar with the modern "nm" spelling. Also might be worth noting that no one in the previous discussions mentioned COMMONNAME. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of Google Books Ngram Viewer results for them. Overall, "mm" is still more commonly used than "nm", though the gap is closing and sometimes outnumbered. "Most people who have actually read about these figures in books from the last 50 years" seems to be more familiar to the "mm" spelling, except for Emperor Genmei.

• Jimmu vs Jinmu
• Temmu vs Tenmu
• Kimmei vs Kinmei
• Mommu vs Monmu
• Gemmei vs Genmei
• Kammu vs Kanmu

--Kusunose 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment -- a spelling note was added here. The wording is congruent with notes in the first paragraph of articles about Emperors Temmu, Kimmei, Mommu, Gemmei, and Kammu. Compare similar spelling note at Tamba Province. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)