From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Kimigayo has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Kimigayo is part of the Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem (Japan) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
October 17, 2010 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
  1. November 2004 — June 2006


The beginning phrase-"Kimi Ga Yo"-was originally written "Wa Ga Kimi"(我が君, or "Our Lord"). As time passed, the form using "Kimi Ga Yo" spread. At this point in time "Kimi" meant "Monarch" or "Emperor". However, in a time without mass communication, to the common people the Emperor seemed to be an untouchable, unimaginable god, floating above the clouds and a thing of long ago legend or fairy tales. So, it is also possible that the lyrics praying for the long life of "My Lord" were separated from any sort of loyalty and used instead as a prayer for the continuation of peace. For this reason, when the peacefully Heian Period changed to the bloody Edo Period, the song once again became used as a simple celebration song among common people. To go along with this, the meaning of "Kimi" also underwent a transformation. For example, when the song was sung in celebration of a wedding, "Kimi" came to mean the groom and the song was used to wish for the groom's long life and his family's health. The version of the song published in the 1881 "Elementary Student's Song Book (First Edition)" by the Japanese Ministry of Education ) was longer than the current version and surprisingly, there was also a second version. It was derived from an English Hymn.

Can anyone provide evidence/sources? Exploding Boy 04:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


I doubt that the parody of Kimigayo deserve an article of wikipedia. It is not really prevailing in Japan except for some political groups. Should we delete the article about parody?--Questionfromjapan 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? The story has been widely covered by newspapers all over the world. This has been discussed already. See the Filk section above. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. This is a POV problem. At least in Japan, the parody is not prevailling. It is known as Politiacl Problem by some radical political groups. Does the parody deserve an article in wikipedia? I suppose we should not treat that problem. In fact, Japanese Wikipedia does not treat the parody lyrics.--[[User:Questionfromjapan|.to national anthem anymore. And that article's volume is too much. Those are more than anthem's main commentary. What do you think about my opinion? Are those necessary?DqN 08:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mr/s.DqN's opinion. The current article about political parody is too long.--Questionfromjapan 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't start deleting content just because it doesn't conform to your own point of view. Other people have decided that this story is worth mentioning, as have several news organizations in various countries. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Please calm down. And I feel your reply is a bit rude. Please observe proprieties. Anyway, although you assert "Other people have decided that this story is worth mentioning", I do NOT think so. If you insist on it, should we take a vote on it? And, did you read your citation[1]? Some of them are negative opinions for the parody.--Questionfromjapan 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
several news organizations in various countries? Did the parody become the cover of the newspaper article? Is the parody published in a general encyclopedia? Even in Akahata, this article is not a cover either. -- 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No opinion on the lyrics; but, the parody has been covered rather widely. Neier 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

TO Sakurambo, do you understand this parody is POV problem? Even according to your citation, there is a large political dispute about the existence of the parody itselef. I beleive the parody should not be treated in the article "Kimi Ga Yo". If you want to describe about this, you should create anather article, for example "Attack on Japanese Anthem".--Questionfromjapan 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read WP:NPOV, so I'll try to summarize some relevant points for you here:
  • The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
  • NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. {...} Types of bias include {...} Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.
  • A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
I'm not suggesting that the parody lyrics express a majority point of view, but they do seem to be representative of a significant minority. If you think the parody lyrics don't exist, then please explain how they came to be published in news articles all over the world. --- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 08:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To Sakurambo. I have already said, "I feel your reply is a bit rude. Please observe proprieties." And this time, I'd like to say that your reply is very rude. You got completely confused what I' like to say. The point of the parody is completely another problem with Kimi-Ga-Yo itself. What is the relationship between the musical sensuness (or its history) and the intention of political group? They are no relevant. You should move this article(Political parody) to Japanese militarism or relevant article. Your intention is to create the abrupt article.--Questionfromjapan 10:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand you. What is "sensuness"? The parody lyrics are quite clearly related to the topic of Kimi Ga Yo because they were written specifically for this song. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No. The lyrics were written as Anti-government movement. There is no need to use Kimi-Ga-Yo melody. Any melody, any lyrics and any method is OK for the political movement. We shoud not support the propaganda campaign.--Questionfromjapan 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So you think anything that criticizes the Japanese government should be deleted from Wikipedia? I have asked you on several occasions to read WP:NPOV. Please do so. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The criticism is not point. I did not say the parody should be deleted itself. I only say it should be deleted from the article "Kimi Ga Yo". The important thing is there is a big difference between music and political intention.--Questionfromjapan 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So in other words you're proposing a POV fork. Which part of WP:NPOV don't you understand? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No. There is a big difference in the contents between music and intentional political movement.--Questionfromjapan 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Other articles about national anthems mention controversies (see The Star-Spangled Banner, for example). So what is your problem? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No. This problem is not translation problem. Is American anthem translated by anti-government political groups, not by specialist?--Questionfromjapan 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
So what? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil(see Wikipedia:Civility). And learn to use etiquette Wikipedia:Etiquette. Anyway. For example, suppose there exists an article about music which is used in TV-game. And the music is originated in Mozart symphony. Would you like to add the game-music-article into the Mozart page? I don't think so.--Questionfromjapan 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

oh.., I didn't say the contents of "controversy" and "political parody" articles are good or not. And it's not really a matter on whether lyrics is good or not. (Personally I think those are ridiculous and not neutral.) I think most of us agree that those are political news. It's mere news. Is political news national anthem? Someone who want to read political news should read newspaper. If someone want to write those articles, a short sentence like a "please read newspaper, because there is such a story." is enough for it. But I really think it is unnecessary. Bcause "political news" is not "national anthem".
I say once again, I think "controversy" and "political parody" articles are not important information. Because those contents are not always related to national anthem anymore. And that article's volume is too much. Those are more than anthem's main commentary. What do you think about my opinion? I suggest to delete or renew more short.DqN 12:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On the view point of the article volume and the importance, I agree with you. The contexts are really imappropriate for this article.--Questionfromjapan 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
To Sakurambo, did you finally understand "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"?--Questionfromjapan 07:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You're obviously trolling, so I'm not going to respond to your specious remarks any more. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I just warned you for personal-attack on your talk page. Please Be Civil. And please answer my question.--Questionfromjapan 10:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
be cool. I think your wikipedian life might be longer than me. .you would not reflect whenever they recognize.when it is,only write WHO ARE YOU.I might stay on for a little while because I have a debt for you.There is no word of the meaning "On" in English.I have worried how to write every time to explain it.--Forestfarmer 16:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Forestfarmer. I would like to hold "Cool Head, but Warm Mind".--Questionfromjapan 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way "Political Parody" section is terrible Japanese corruption.Please write in more cool English when you treat such a sensitive content.It is overall too indistinct.Clarify the subject if you doesn't want to be deleted it.I delate it by political correctness if it leaves just as it is.--Forestfarmer 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted "Political Parody".if anyone want to rewrite it, discuss it before you rewrite it.--Forestfarmer 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There is violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV--Junmai 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to have a paragraph or section in this article discussing a parody (whether political or not) of the song. And to answer Questionfromjapan's question at the very top of this section: there's never been an article about the parody here on Wikipedia. It's only ever been a section on this article. As I stated above, it's perfectly acceptable to mention and discuss a parody of something in the article about that something. In fact, unless there is enough material to warrant a completely separate article about the parody, the article about the subject being parodied is the best place for it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

from your insistence,Wkipedia don't allow to write parody.and please protect this article. already the revert abttale started.--Forestfarmer 05:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean, we can insert almost all of parody-articles into the articles which are about classical misics and classical drawing in those. Could you insert the article about space battleship YAMATO into the article of sympony? We should not do so. I beleive we should classify those.--Questionfromjapan 06:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote: It's perfectly acceptable to mention and discuss a parody of something in the article about that something. In fact, unless there is enough material to warrant a completely separate article about the parody, the article about the subject being parodied is the best place for it. So, unless there is enough material to warrant a completely separate article, yes, that's what I'm saying. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the meaning of your "material"? "Kimi ga Yo" is an article about japanese national anthem. its contents must be involved to "music", "melody", and " its origin and history". I have showed the parody is written by a radical political group with clearly intent of political agitation. The agitation does not need the melody of "Kimi ga Yo". Is this enough material to warrant a completely separate article??--Questionfromjapan 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nihonjoe. The absence of an opposing view represents the worst kind of POV. To maintain NPOV, a well-documented parody should remain in the article. Being reported in papers such as the Guardian, and Reuters (listed above) make this an important topic, whether we agree with it or not. Neier 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is such a political parody sentence on another wikipedia article .I admit it.--Forestfarmer 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The parody, as discussed above, is perfectly acceptable as part of this article. Your constant reverting of the inclusion of this section (with the complicity of Questionfromjapan, and without discussing anything FIRST) is bordering on vandalism. The section does not attack Japan in any way. In fact, I'd say that it shows that democracy is alive and well in Japan (which goes against the commonly-held belief by the uninformed that everyone in Japan is very submissive and doesn't like to stand out (the whole "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down" thing)). Why do the two of you keep reverting this?
The two of you are well known for pushing a pro-Japan POV, and reverting anything you perceive as going against that. It's about time you learned that that way of acting is not acceptable on the English Wikipedia. If you don't like the fact that we are at least attempting to maintain neutrality here on the English Wikipedia, then you can leave. POV-pushers are not welcome here.
If, on the other hand, you want to change your ways and start actually working with those of us trying to make the Japan-related articles on Wikiepdia better, you're welcome to stay. Otherwise, you're likely going to disrupt your way to being banned. We really would rather that you decide to work with us rather than constantly throwing gasoline on things. It's very frustrating to be trying to work through making the articles comprehensive and neutral, only to have very opiniontated editors come in and, rather than discuss the ideas, they simply try to force their POV on everyone else. This is how you (and several others who work like you) are perceived by the majority of editors here. Will you work with us, or are you intent on POV-pushing? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, please note that by including this information, we are abiding by the Neutral Point of View policy, the included links make sure we are abiding by the Verifiability policy and Citing sources guideline. Note that all three of these are either official policies or guidelines. As Neier pointed out, if we do not include them, we are in violation of the Neutral Point of View policy. This may cause the whole article to be placed up for deletion due to not presenting all sides fairly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't attack personal.and Cannot you find the another article ? I want to know is only it.--Forestfarmer 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the only line that could be seen as a personal attack. As for finding "the another article," I have no idea what you mean. What other article? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression seems to agree that the material belongs in the article, specifically, this sentence: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Neier 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

At first, see the version "13:56, 16 July 2006" which is written by me. And , please see this note and please read "The parody is written by a radical political group with clearly intent of political agitation. The agitation does not need the melody of "Kimi ga Yo". Is this enough material to warrant a completely separate article??" Please comment to this. Thank you. P.S. Please do discuss before revert.--Questionfromjapan 01:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who wrote it. It doesn't matter why it was written. The fact is that it was written. Because of this fact, and the news covereage it has garnered, it should be mentioned in this article. The way it is presented is very neutral and makes no judgement about the parody. All that's happening is that the parody is being mentioned in the controversy section since it is a well-known, well-covered-in-the-news controversial version of the song. There is not likely enough material to warrant a separate article, so it is mentioned here.
As for discussing before you revert, please follow your own advice. You have yet to offer any valid reason the parody should not be mentioned here, while multiple valid reasons have been offered as to why the parody SHOULD be mentioned. Unless you can offer valid reasons for it to not be included, any further reverting will be considered vandalism.
You have absolutely nothing to stand on here.
You are very unlikely to come up with any valid reasons.
There is nothing to back up anything you are saying here with regard to validly removing the mention of the parody.
Please stop wasting your time and our time trying to push you POV on this article. Instead, perhaps you should find some articles discussing why the parody is "bad" or "unacceptable", and then provide those links. I'm sure all of the reasonable editors trying to make this article better will be happy to include those links as well. I look forward to you participating in a positive manner in the future. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. In the interest of fairness, I have copied QFJ's version below.
  • "Kimi Ga Yo" is sometimes referred as a symbol of Japanese imperialism for some radical anti-war groups and anarchists. Therefore, they have strongly opposed to sing "Kimi Ga Yo" in ceremonies for a long time since they regard the song as an inappropriate song. (see these,[2][3]) In 1999, the new Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem oblige the attendants of graduation ceremony to sing "Kimi Ga YO" as nationl anthem.
This is not related to the parody, but, to the controversy as a whole. It is already mentioned in the controversy section above anyway.
  • However, some of anti-war groups propose to sing parody lyrics instead of "Kimi Ga Yo". The lyricist of this parody is Kaori Suzuki[4], who is a member of the radical[5] anti-war group whose name is "VAWW-NET, Japan". (see this[6]. In japan, it is generally presumed that this group has relationship[7] with North Korea.)
Most of this section is inflammatory, with a dash of WP:WEASEL. Saying the VAWW-Net is allied with North Korea simply because one of the organizing members of a caucus was a North Korean group is presumptuous. If there is more proof, that would be fine; but I also would like to see an authoritative source that says Suzuki wrote the lyrics. I know that most people believe it, but as far as I know, it is not verifiable, so his name may not be needed in this section.
Also, Suzuki's? parody is simply one of the more famous versions. I have read that multiple parodies exist, some of them nonsensical syllables, some of them with political overtones. The parodies exist because of the law and Monbusho's requirement of singing the song. That is why I moved it into the controversy section, because the parodies are just a result of the controversy, and necessary to the article to show how deep the controversy runs.
The controversy section does dominate the article; but, there is a lot more information on the Japanese wikipedia article which can be translated. Neier 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If a parody of Kimi ga Yo is prevailing in Japan, I think that it must be written in Japanese. A parody of Kimi ga Yo in English language couldn't be understood by the most part of Japanese. As a matter of reality, I never heard a parody of Kimi ga Yo in Japanese and also in English. I think that the truth must be written in Wikipedia.Mythologia 15:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that it "prevails" in Japan. All the current paragraph (which keeps getting deleted by the Japanese POV-pushers) is saying is that the parody EXISTS. That is the truth, yet people like you, Questionfromjapan and Forestfarmer won't allow the truth to be written in Wikipedia because you keep deleting the truth. You need to quit talking the talk if you aren't going to walk the walk. You can't have only the truth that's convenient for Japan. Occasionally, there will be truth that is inconvenient for Japan, but that needs to be allowed to exist on Wikipedia as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You are right. There actually exists the parody. However, it is advocated to sing tghe parody by some anti-war groups. It is an only advocacy as propaganda. There does not exist the relationship between the Kimigyo and the propaganda. If you can show me the fact that the pupils actually sang the parody in any celemony, I would not say anything anymore. Please show me the fact that the parody is really spread in Japan.--Questionfromjapan 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's been written about in English-language papers in Japan--that should count for something. Regardless, it's actually up to you to prove why it shouldn't be in the article. There's already enough supporting references showing why it should be in the article, so that's not even at question here. Until you can show that it shouldn't be in the article, it should remain. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No. There's no information which implies tha fact that the pupils or children sing the parody. Any articles imply there exits the advocacy only.--Questionfromjapan 04:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
>日本穣 I didn't delete it because I am disagree it, but because it was not the truth.
"Various English-language parody versions have recently spread across Japan".
This is not the truth because students of schools aren't compeled to sing the song as constitutional right, so they don't sing if they want to sing the song. So they don't have a need for any parody. Who are compeled to sing the song are only teachers who are public servants.
And I agree to write the truth, but I am anxious that the description will be discrimination of Japanese because I think the parodies have spread only in English speaking people if it have really spread. I can't judge it is discrimination or not, because I don't know any of parody of the song. If you want to write the content, please be anxious about the points that I referred to above.
  1. To write that the parodies have principally spread in English speaking people.
  2. Be anxious about the discrimination against Japanese in expression as it is a national anthem.
Mythologia 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I discover the original article of the content [[8]]. I correct the points that I referred to above.
  1. To write that the parodies have principally spread in teachers who are compeled to sing the song.
  2. Be anxious about the discrimination against Japanese in expression as it is a national anthem.
Mythologia 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think the parodies will be temporary phenomenon, because the teachers have obligation to teach the song and students have right not to sing the song. So I think it would be fixed down soon. In that case I think this contents should be deleted. Mythologia 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's no longer used doesn't mean it should be deleted from the site. The Imperial Japanese navy no longer exists, but there's an article covering that. Are you saying any article (or mention in an article) about something no longer in existence should be deleted? If so, you are completely incorrect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


"Ga" is a particle, and therefore shouldn't be capitalized. I think this article needs to be moved to Kimi ga Yo. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult problem for me. "Ga" is a particle as you pointed out. However, almost all of Japanese do NOT recognize it as a particle since we call it on one syllable. For Japanese, the accent in the "Kimi Ga Yo" does not exist on syllable since it is one word, not "life and world"+"of"+"you". I would really like to hear other opinions,too.--Questionfromjapan 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't make any sense. All Japanese particles (that I can think of off the top of my head) are one syllable. Regardless, the length has no bearing on whether or not it's consdered a particle. The title literally means "You Are the World". It is very clearly three words (or two words separated by one particle, if you don't consider particles to be words). And if you want to go the "one word" route, then it should be "Kimigayo", not "Kimi Ga Yo" or "Kimi ga Yo". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. According to my thought, Kimigayo is better.--Questionfromjapan 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You (Nihonjoe) are mistaken. The が in 君が代 is not a subject marker; it is part of an older structure in which it's similar to the possessive の (as in 我が父, "My father", and 我が国, "My/Our Country"). Also, 君 in this case does not mean "you"; it means Emperor (there's even 我が君, "My Lord"). So, to wrap it up, it's not 君が代 as in "あなたは世界" but rather "天皇の代". lampi 01:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting, and ought to be included in the article. Can you provide any references? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think "Kimi ga Yo" is better. Particles are normally written as separate words in romaji (e.g., Otoko wa Tsurai yo), and song titles are no exception (plenty of examples here). Proper nouns like Takadanobaba and Inoue are a different matter, of course. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand and agree. 'Kimi ga Yo' is better. However, should you apologize me before re-participate to this page?--Questionfromjapan 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think usual Japanese don't understand why the title was changed. Japanese don't understand "particle" usually. Japanese may think that someone capitalized a head of word about "Kimi Ga Yo".and Japanese may think that Someone Romanized "君が代" about "Kimigayo".but Japanese may think why this title is "Kimi ga Yo"

when Japanese see "Kimi ga Yo",Japanese may think why nobody change to "Kimi Ga Yo" or "Kimigayo".because Japanese don't understand "particle" usually. I think that he who change this title have more knowledge than usual Japanese about Japanese roman words. usual Japanese may think The title is unsuitable, but I think that the title may be right. I think "Kimigayo" is less right than "Kimi ga Yo".but less controversial for Japanese. It is hard choice. but I recommend "Kimigayo" for the long. I think that it is a political correctness.--Forestfarmer 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the English Wikipedia is not for the Japanese, but for the English-speaking world. This is a well-known and common grammar rule in the English-speaking world, and therefore appropriate for application here. It has nothing to do with political correctness.···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"political correctness" being writed by me do not mean to avoid discriminatory mean that you should avoid colliding if it is not right-on.
Either is privately good.and when you have such strong devices.I can not to do anything.--Forestfarmer 23:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't hold anything back. Wikipedia is for the Korean, right? Gegesongs 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the English translation official?[edit]

It seems like the English translation has taken a lot of poetic license with the original Japanese. Is this translation official? -- 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the existence of any "official" translation, but the translation we have here looks good enough to me. A strictly literal translation would be almost unintelligible, so it has to be translated within the context of a national anthem. That involves the addition of words like "reign" which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Japanese. There are a few alternative translations at (including one by Basil Hall Chamberlain that seems to be fairly well known). -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Law's name in English[edit]

I corrected "enacted" to "enforced" (used 2 times). --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to a guideline....[edit]

While no official English translation exists for this Act on national flag and anthem, a translation guideline says an enforced law of Japan is to be translated by "act" and, the name for this Act can be "Act on National Flag and National Anthem" if translated in compliance with this guideline: Standard Bilingual Dictionary (March 2008 edition)

A name "Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem" is a word-to-word translation, with a grammatical error: "the" before "Anthem" is missing. This is not necessarily a common translation, as far as I searched Internet.

So, I replaced this long name by a shorter expression using "act" or "bill." --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill, Law or Act?[edit]

When a bill is passed, that can be called "law" or "act." Expressions "a law is enforced" and "an act goes into effect" are almost equivalent.

A verb "pass" takes either of the three as an object, but to be accurate, "bill" is the word for the one to be passed. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted reference to 'I Vow to Thee, My Country'[edit]

I have taken the great liberty of deleting the reference to the non-controversy concerning the constitutionality of singing 'I Vow to Thee, My Country'. Here is why: 1. 'I Vow to Thee, My Country" is not the UK national anthem. 2. No one in the Wikipedia article on this hymn has claimed that it is 'unconstitutional'. The Bishop of Hulme objected to it as being 'heretical', that is, against orthodox Christian teaching. This is not at all the same as being 'unconstitutional'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writtenright (talkcontribs) on 22:46, 26 December 2006

Meaning of "Kimi"[edit]

I thought that the older meaning of "kimi" meant "my lord" or "my lady," and the newer one meant "you"/"my sweetheart," not the other way around. Cf. "Yodo-gimi" of the 16th century-- it means Lady Yodo, not "Yodo, my sweetheart." Or see Hikaru Genji: Genji was given the appellation Hikaru no Kimi (光の君, the Shining Prince) in his youth. -Tadakuni 14:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a good source, you're welcome to make the change. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed "Yodo-gimi" example from the article. Why she was called so is dubious. Maybe that's only a calling in fiction with contempt at heart, while apparently honorific. Someone points out that she was never called so during her lifetime, but in fiction afterwards. (Encyclopedia 『世界大百科事典』, the 2nd edition, published by Heibonsha Limited, Publishers) --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From editor's comment by Elvenscout742: I don't think it's appropriate to call him a "Prince"

Dear Elvenscout742:
In response to your comment, I deleted English phrases for "Hikaru no Kimi" and "Hikaru-gimi." However, whether you like or not, Genji is described in the story as the second prince of Emperor Kiritsubo. If you say 'inappropriate as wikipedia' to call him "prince," please provide here a clear ground, while "Shining Lord" isn't the best because "lord" has various meanings. Thnaks. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"Kimi" does have an older meaning of "Lord", but I believe it's archaic now. But doesn't it mean "Lord's Era" or "Lord's Reign"? Moocowsrule (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

GA nom on hold[edit]

  • Access date in refs 1, 3 need to be wlinked
  • "and is also one of the world's shortest national anthems in current use. [1]" - Don't need a space between the full stop and ref
  • "Kimi ga Yo was considered to be a symbol of the imperialism and the militarism in wartime. [1]" - And again....
  • The "Lyrics" section should use a table which includes (as headers) the language that you're writing in
  • "The change of the lyrics occurred during the Kamakura period. [3]" - Ref placement
  • "In 1869, around the start of the Meiji Era," - 1989 doesn't need to be wlinked here
  • "Not only this is where Fenton was based as a military band leader, the Myoukoji Shrine serves as a memorial to Fenton." - Perhaps reword to "As this is where Fenton was based as a military band leader, the Myoukoji Shrine serves as a memorial to him."
  • "In 1880, the Imperial Household Agency" - Don't wlink 1880
  • "there has been criticism of the anthem for its association with militarism and the virtual worship of the emperor as a deity" - Need a source for this criticism
  • "and fined 200,000 yen (about 2,000 dollars)," - wlink the respective currencies here
  • "English lyrics as they can allude to comfort women.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" - 6 refs...can't these be spread throughout the paragraph or something?
  • "towards Kimi ga yo when it is being" - Shouldn't it be Kimi ga Yo? (also at "are required to sing Kimi ga yo while facing the Hinomaru", "Kimi ga yo, however, is commonly played")
  • How about placing the recordings inline throughout the article?
  • "(modified to resemble the Kimi ga Yo)" - name should be in italics right?

Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 02:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Passed Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kana script[edit]

The fifth line of the lyrics should run as いはほとなりて in the time-honoured traditional script which could be transcribed as "i`a`oto narite". Here the grave accent stands for medial 'h'. Both the medial 'h' and the letter 'w' are separators which are realized as a bilabial semi-vowel only when immediately followed by the 'a' sound. Particles used not to be separated from the preceding word. "いわおとなりて" is a result of prepocessing applied to the original script to make it conform to the romanization system synchronically conceived in the Meiji period. Talk:Romanization of Japanese#An Extended-Hepburn System is a panchronic system and does not need preprocessing. It is a transliteration system of the full set of Kana syllabary including ヂジ and ヅズ. Hepburn did not think it necessary to differentiat this affricate/fricative pair and provided only for affricates. So instead of ジ and ズ, ヂ and ヅ should have been given priority in Present-Day Kana Usage. You can see other examples of this system at [懐かしい唄の数々]--Kmns tsw (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Emperor never sings Kimi-ga-Yo in public[edit]

Zscout370 told me that the source should be showed. [9]

Because of the nature of this song, it is so natural that this is not the matter that is often mentioned. Every summer, on 15th August (JST), you can watch it on TV. Everybody who attends the end-of-the-war-memorial ceremony sings at him, and the Emperor, with his mouth shut, listens to the song.

I found an article about this[10]. Is this enough? --Griffin in a Door (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally got the encoding to work so I can see the text. Keep in mind that I am in the US, so I do not see the ceremonies on television like normal Japanese could. Anyways, I think with this source, we can make a one sentence statement saying "By tradition, the emperor doesn't sign the lyrics of Kimi ga Yo during public functions" and cite the URL. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That page uses Shift_JIS-coded character set. If your web browser has Shift_JIS encoder, you can try to correct Mojibake by selecting Shift_JIS. The key shortcut for the menu is....
Windows Internet Explorer 6 / 7: [Alt ][V][D]
Firefox 1.5 / 2.0: [Alt ][V][C]
Griffin, you had better at least say "written in Japanese" when you set a link to a Japanese page on an English page. Even IE 7 for Japanese installed to Windows XP (on my PC) failed to encode that page, resulting in Mojibake. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Back to the subject, well, I think we cannot expect the present Emperor to sing Kimi ga Yo especially at official peace memorial ceremonies in August, because this anthem has history of being used by militarists with propaganda to inspire people to 'war for the Emperor' in early Shōwa period. Don't you know that the present Emperor, for example, had memorial foreign visits to former battlefields including one called "Banzai Cliff"? And, I remember the late Emperor Shōwa acted faithfully both to the pacific constitution (平和憲法) and the Imperial House Law (皇室典範). Besides, Emperor of Japan customarily doesn't use in public honorific words, like traditional "kimi" in Kimi ga Yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpty-Humpty (talkcontribs) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have failed to mention that Wayback Machine of Internet Archive has an unfavorable feature. The machine always incorrectly tells your browser that the char-set of the document is utf-8, no matter what it really is. So you need to set the char-set manually every time you get a non-alphabetical document.
Now Back to the subject. The point I think to be mentioned in wikipedia about Kimi ga yo is that "Kimi ga yo is the anthem that the head of the state never sings." or "Kimi ga yo is the anthem not to be sung by the head of the state." I think this fact implies much and is very important. --Griffin in a Door (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, now that I think about it, it is not important to add. So what if a head of state doesn't sing their national hymn. It happens a lot, so I don't think it is worthy to add. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


This article seems a bit NPOV. Granted, I feel criticism should be included, but it seems like it was written with the sole purpose to weasel-word in piles of criticism. It's like writing five sections on the imperialism of "God save the Queen," or the Star Spangled Banner, which has had controversy over baseball fans being arrested for going to the bathroom during the song. Each of those much larger articles has no controversy section, so the large and pretty irrelevant criticism sections seem disproportionate. Nvgton (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


The Japanese page gives the translation as:
A thousand years of happy life be thine!
Live on,my Lord, till what are pebbles now,
By age united,to great rocks shall grow,
Whose venerable sides the moss doth line.
But this page gives it as:
May your reign
Continue for a thousand, eight thousand generations,
Until the pebbles
Grow into boulders
Lush with moss
And the Japanese page gives it [in Kanji and Kana] as:
While this page gives it as (which appears to be correct per the government page):
Could someone give a more accurate translation to either the Japanese page or this one? moocowsruletalk to moo 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether this is more accurate is debatable, but it's more literal:
May your reign last
1000 years; for eternity
Until the pebbles
Become boulders
Covered with moss
Exploding Boy (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
May your reign continue for a thousand, eight thousand generations,

Can this sentence be translated as "for infinite generations", "forever" or "for all eternity" (like the one above)? According to the Kami page, in Japanese the number "eight million" (八百万) is often used to imply infinity. And a thousand of eight thousand is exactly eight millions. -- DTRY (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the article's title[edit]

I suggest we change the title to "Kimigayo" as it is spelled in Japan, An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Kodansha Ltd., 1993, p. 780 or in most Japanese English-language newspapers, f. ex. [11] or [12]. --Mycomp (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain why this title was used, unless it had something to deal with the kanji used in the title. I'm not particular bent on what title is used; I just want to be sure we get it right. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's at this title because it's three words, not one. "Kimi" is a pronoun, "ga" is a particle, and "Yo" is a noun. Kimigayo already redirects here, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. Then, keep it at this title please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the "kimi" in Kimigayo is not a pronoun, it is a 名詞 (noun), meaning "ruler", "sovereign". And why do you think the sources I mentioned above write it in one word? Because Kimigayo is simply the romanization of 君が代 not of 君 が 代. In Japanese, unlike in English, words are not separated, and Kimigayo is not English it is just the romanized version of the Japanese title. Japan, An Illustrated Encyclopedia uses "Kimigayo", The Japan Times does, Donald Keene does, Reischauer does, The Daily Yomiuri does, The Japan Times does, does, etc. Google (I know, it is not always the best source) has 65.800 for "Kimigayo", and 23.500 for "Kimi ga yo". Which authoritative sources, if I may ask, do you have for "Kimi ga Yo" being the correct romanized spelling? (Why capital Y, by the way?)--Mycomp (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
My bad, that's what I meant. Noun. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of places that use all sorts of romanizations which we don't here (such as "syo" instead of "sho"). We have a manual of Style on purpose, to cover instances such as this. It specifically says to romanize a word using capitalization rules used in English. "Yo" is a noun, and therefore it is capitalized in the title. If you have an issue with how romanization is done on Wikipedia, then you need to take the discussion to WT:MOS-JA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I give/gave you several reliable sources where the spelling is "Kimigayo", like the 12.000-article Japan, An Illustrated Encyclopedia (with advisors such as Donald Keene, Edwin Reischauer, Eleanor Jorden etc.), the Japanese Foreign Ministry [13], The Japan Times [14], the BBC [15], The Daily Yomiuri [16], [17] The Japan Policy Research Institute [18] etc. What are your reliable sources for the "Kimi ga Yo" spelling, except for the Manual of style? Why is it then not "Hi no Maru" but Hinomaru? --Mycomp (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Still waiting for an answer to why it is Hinomaru but Kimi ga Yo. And BTW, I couldn't find where in the manual of Style it says that Kimi ga Yo would be the correct way to write 君が代. --Mycomp (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Since nothing happened, I just moved the page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


I made some changes to this p[age a month or so ago and I note that they have now been removed. I have a photo copy of the original notation for Kimigayo as it was written by Akimori Hayashi. It is part of a large collection of songs written by the court musicians (Gagaku) and predates Fenton's et als version. I included a copy of the original notation but I see now that this has been removed. I don't understand why. I spent several years in Japan studying Gagaku and this where I first learned of this history. I would like to know on what basis my entry was removed. (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Robert Garfias

The edit and link was removed at, which was the next edit. As for why, I have no clue. I am looking at the link and see what I can pull from that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Is it a coincidence that there are no Sino-Japanese words in the anthem, or was that the intention for the country's anthem? All the words are 和語 instead of 漢語, which seems atypical for Japanese: was that a hallmark of writing during the Heian period, even though "Chinese influences were at their height"?
Ulmanor (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue (and I agree with your edit). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In 古今和歌集, it's common. Kimigayo is not an exception. (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Adopted in 1888?[edit]

The Richard Boyd/Tak-Wing Ngo footnote says that the anthem was adopted in 1888, but the text often says that the anthem was adopted for the first time in 1999. I'm wondering where the discrepancy lies, was it adopted in 1888 and formally abolished after WWII, only to be readopted in 1999? Was it only adopted as an imperial anthem (the anthem of the emperor) in 1888? Or did nothing at all happen in 1888 to the status of the anthem and Boyd/Ngo are mistaken? What exactly transpired in 1888?--Canuckguy (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just going to the Japanese version of the page says "対外正式公布" next to 1888 in the Japanese info box, but I don't know enough Japanese to get a good handle on what that means. (Google translate says "promulgated official foreign", but that doesn't really tell me what that means as to what the status of the anthem was at the time.) --Canuckguy (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me some time and I will get you what I know and what I wrote. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The song was adopted for use as the national anthem when it comes to diplomatic ceremonies in 1888, so that is where one of the official adoption dates go. In the 1890's, the song was used in school ceremonies as the anthem but there was no official anthem until the passage of the 1999 law. There were times that other songs that were treated as anthems, but were not the anthems of a state until later. This was the case for the Star Spangled Banner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of parody section[edit]

Good day,

would it be possible if the parody section could be removed?

The Wikipedia page is about a national anthem, and with a national anthem you also link a bit of respect. When you have in an international encyclopedia the description of the national anthem of Japan that includes an unimportant parody section, then it takes a bit the integrity and seriosity of the meaning away.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


The reference to the key supposedly being C major said no such thing, and the sheet music doesn't indicate this in any way either. The melody is on the Dorian mode, but without a (minor or major) third. If anyone has a more accurate edit to make, feel free to make the necessary corrections. (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I just had to add a Controversy Section. It’s just too related to the Kimigayo.[edit]

The Japanese national anthem “Kimigayo” (君が代) is well-known that it caused controversy not only among Chinese and Koreans but also inside Japan. If you would like to talk about this, please head to my talk page and let’s discuss about it.HanSangYoon (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kimigayo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kimigayo. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)