Talk:Capital of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Capital of Japan is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Oishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Pre-Modern Japanese Studies Mailing List Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

[edit] Capital "Debate"

Is this really a debated item? I've never heard anyone argue that Kyoto is the capital of Japan while Tokyo is not. If this is a "debate" it would be interesting to have links to sites that argue this point. CES 06:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is a debate about whether Kyoto is a capital of Japan. However, it is far less serious, and has no more consequence, than the debate about whether Elvis Presley is still alive.

While acknowledging the existence of a debate, I should also point out that Kyoto is not a capital of Japan. There is no room for any debate that is even a tenth as serious as the Elvis debate.

The main argument advanced in this article is that when Tokyo was declared a capital, Kyoto was not declared no longer to be the capital. This "debate" is about as meaningful as the debate about whether a person could have been born if there is no record of the birth.

Elvis is dead. And Kyoto is not a capital of Japan.

Any Wikipedia article that asserts that Japan has, or even might have, multiple capitals should immediately be corrected. Japan has only one capital. Tokyo is the capital of Japan.

I got this information from Japanese Wikipedia and from the web sites cited. Taku says that he's heard of this stuff, too. If you're taking issue with the term "debate," you're free to choose a more appropriate word. Sekicho 12:57, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

222.12.147.202's un-signed complaint is invalid. First of all, his summary of the article isn't correct; the argument is that Tokyo never was officially declared the capital, the government just sort of moved there. This is a good article about a real historical issue. - Plutor 14:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I too am disturbed by the advancement of the idea that there is any sort of active debate on this issue. The belief that Kyoto is the "legitimate" capital represents a truly marginal viewpoint. The consensus of my (knowledgable) Japanese friends is that this false controversy represents, rather, an unhealed trauma over the removal of government and prestige to the Kanto region on the part of a few misguided "scholars" - a simple case of sour historical grapes.

I think this could be a very interesting topic. What we need to understand, I think, is the concept of to (which usually translates to a capital), and its transition, sento. Though I am not an expert at all, to implies the place in which an emperor resides. To me, a capital sounds more like a place where functions of the central government are located. The very interesting is that there has been a debate in Japan and move those functions of the government away from Tokyo. But notice it is not referred as sento. Intricating, I think.

So why don't we rename this to "Capital of Japan" then let it discuss this very concept of to, sento and, of course, history, legal status and so on. As you say, I agree that it is a kind of strange to mention this as debate.

-- Taku 02:02, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I found this page from (of all places) a link on an article about countries with multiple capitals that stated: "Some people also argue that Tokyo and Kyoto are both capitals of Japan at present. See capital of Japan debate." I guess I was just surprised more than anything else ... I'm not Japanese but I've studied the culture and language for a while in addition to living in Japan for a few years, and I had never heard anything about this topic. I guess what I fear is that some people will think that there really is an open debate about whether Tokyo or Kyoto is the capital of Japan. I'm not sure what a better title would be, but I think the word "debate" in "Capital of Japan debate" implies far greater room for argument than there is. Taku suggested "Capital of Japan" ... sounds good to me at least. Interesting article, I just think the title's a bit misleading. CES 06:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought this article was 'debate' was going to make a part about the physical location of the capital AS Tokyo or WITHIN Tokyo (e.g. Chiyoda-ku). Many people insist that because Tokyo isn't technically a city, it can't be a capital and thus the chief ward stands as the capital of Japan. I think this might be a technicality worth pointing out, but the argument about capital never being clearly defined really isn't. Capital isn't a Japanese word and the 'new' word 首都 that is used to tranliterate capital obviously isn't of great legal concequence to the Japanese. If a law states that the Capital Area of Japan is Tokyo, then it should be assumed legally and informally that Tokyo (or part of Tokyo) is the capital of Japan. I'm sure the law/status/legality is very clearly defined in Japanese, but it's people that can't get a good handle on the legal translations that cause trouble criticising the clarity of the English versions.  freshgavin TALK   02:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never quite figured out (1) why a government should feel it must name a capital, (2) why a capital must be a city. The capital is the location of the monarch and/or government, and since Tokyo has both, it's hard to see any reason to believe anything else is the capital. Sure, Tokyo's not a city, but as long as we avoid the expression "capital city" it seems best to call Tokyo the capital. Chiyoda is a city, even if its name is Chiyoda-ku, but I don't feel compelled to call Chiyoda the capital city (or capital anything else) of Japan. Because the special wards are small, close, and interconnected (having once been part of a single city), it seems silly to single it out as the capital.

Do you want to debate how Wikipedia should word its report of where the capital(s) is (are)?

The capital of Tokyo, now, that's something worthy of a debate... Is Shinjuku it, or should we even bother saying what the capital of Tokyo is?

Fg2 02:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We seem to agree that there is no debate about the capital of Japan, unless we want more articles like shape of the earth debate. If there are no objections within 5 days, I'll move this article to Capital of Japan. --- Mkill 11:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this response. Long time ago, don't really know why/what I was argueing... don't see the point in it now. Seems pretty clear what the assumption is.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  15:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naniwa in the 4th century?

According to the list of successive capitals, Naniwa was the capital in the 4th century for a time. However, according to my sources (in particular, G.B. Sansom's "History of Japan to 1334") the Yamato people, in their movement and expansion across the islands, did not first come across the site until 663. While I'm willing to allow for some major discrepancies between the chronicles (Nihonshoki, etc) and actual historical chronology, I am wondering where this information came from. Anyone have thoughts, ideas, sources? Thank you. LordAmeth 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)