Talk:Akihito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
Akihito 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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Korean ancestry?

There's a handy book that I came across some time back, "What Every American Should Know About the Rest of the World." At one point it states that Akihito suprised a good deal of people by admitting to have Korean ancestors (Koreans often being regarded as "inferior" in Japanese society). Can someone confirm this and add if possible? It would make an interesting piece.

[edit] Renaming

or


Wikipedia has rules on naming monarchs, here is the link [[1]]

An event in this article is a April 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Taku, not content with making a mess of names all over the place, you are now moving things without moving talk pages. STOP IT. Move everything or move nothing. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:06 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to move the talkpage. I mean I didn't hit the check box to move the talkpage. -- Taku 02:15 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of this article be Akihito of Japan? -- Zoe

Yes (according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)). Most of the other emperors of Japan have Emperor as part of the article title too. --Mrwojo 23:06 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

The term 明仁天皇 violates one of Japanese taboos surrounding the Emperor. Although Chinese and Korean media frequently use this, the Emperor is never to be referred to by name in Japanese during his reign. Instead 天皇陛下 (His Majesty the Emperor) is in general use. -- Nanshu 06:25 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Please rename this to Akihito. There is no 'other' Akihito in Japan 'to' my knowledge. -- Taku 03:55 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

If it serves the cause... but I disagree with Nanshu's assertion that somehow Japanese "taboo" be considered, or that there be a "proper" way to refer to an Emperor. Akihito is fine, considering the post WWII era of 'humble emperors' (non-divine) and this may be simpler, as well as agreeable. -&#35918&30505

I think he is probably right. But no matter he is right or not, no one calls the current emperor of Japan, "Emperor Akihito" or something in the first place. -- Taku 06:16 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, we have all agreed to use the formula "Emperor X of Japan" for all but the reign name emperors. Please tell me if I am wrong, and I will stop immediately. --Uncle Ed 00:32 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure what do you mean by reign name since to my knowledge none of Emperor of Japan has reign name, and instead, they are named by a given name, posthumous name or era name. Thus, the article should be named Akihito or Heisei emperor. Either one should be preferable. -- Taku 01:37 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Some websites called Meiji Emperor a "reign name". So I thought five or ten emperors would have articles like Meiji Emperor -- while all the rest would have articles like Emperor Akihito of Japan. I will do it the way you want, because you know (and care!) the most about the subject. --Uncle Ed 01:40 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

i think eventually one day Heisei emperor will be the name used, just like Meiji and Taisho.

[edit] Renaming should be considered

(It is somewhat interesting to know that at33 is a sockpuppet of Antares 911)

I think the article should be renamed Akihito of Japan or Akihito, Emperor of Japan, and Akihito should redirect to it. Some conventions discussed and practiced here seemed weird. at33

  • totally agree on that... i mean "Akihito", what is that supposed to be? a gardner? no one refers to him like that, not in Japan, not even abroad, and it actually violated Wikipedia rules of naming. Antares911 14:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • a reader should not need to know in advance that the thing (name) he is seeking for, is an emperor (or a gardener...); just because of that, there does not need to be titles and such in the heading. Arrigo 09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. May I ask why? Akihito of Japan sounds like Geroge W. Bush of the United States. -- Taku June 29, 2005 13:57 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Oppose what? who is Geroge W. Bush of the United States? is he a monarch? Antares911 29 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)
Well, Akihito is not a monarch. Officially, he is a symbol but not the head of state. -- Taku June 30, 2005 01:03 (UTC)
Hmm? Who is the Head of State, then? The idea that he is not the monarch of Japan is at least semi-absurd, whatever the technical definition. john k 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That said, there is only one Akihito of any note, and no particular reason to disambiguate. In general, I think naming policy should be changed to make clear that non-western monarchs don't need pre-emptive disambiguation by country ruled. john k 22:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, "currently" naming policy for monarch does not apply to Japanese emperors. -- Taku 23:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
It is quite clear that that duplicate is one example of the work of User:Antares911 who obviously has been littering copy-and-paste moves all around Wikipedia for some time. 217.140.193.123 13:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for Akihito, Emperor of Japan. It's clear and informative, and in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I would also Support Akihito, Emperor of Japan for the current emperor. -Jefu 11:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is best now under Akihito. No necessity of disambiguation. Titles an territoral designations are harmful burden in headings, anyway. Arrigo 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly support, this should go along with the naming convention, just like all other monarchs. Is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom titled "Queen Elizabeth"? Is Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor titled "Frederick Barbarossa" even though those are the more common "terms" for them? No! They go with the naming convention, and why should Akihito be any different? He is the Emperor of Japan after all, not just some random dude. It should be Akihito of Japan.-Alex, 12.220.157.93 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Renaming

Those in favor of renaming the article are on the right track, but it should be renamed Emperor Akihito of Japan. Reasons:

  1. Emperor Akihito is how he is widely referred to in the Western press. Go to NY Times or Japan Times or Washinton Post and do a search for Akihito. You'll see he is referred to as Emperor Akihito. This is what people are familiar with.
  2. As both a native speaker of English and a fluent speaker of Japanese who has studied Japanese for over 17 years (and lived in Japan for 10), referring to him as simply Akihito is disrespectful. He is an emperor with a title and should be referred to as such.
  3. All 121 Japanese emperors in Wikipedia that precede Emperor Meiji are referred to as "Emperor X of Japan". There is no reason why the current emperor should be an exception. The only thing that is different about him is that, because he is still alive, he obviously hasn't been renamed his posthumous name yet, which will be "Emperor Heisei."

-Jefu 13:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is not to prefix article names with titles (see, for example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). It's the other articles that need renaming, I think (as happened with the Korean articles). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the reason for that tradition for encylopedias was so that you don't end up with a long list of articles that start "Emperor X" or "Queen X", etc. in the index, similar to putting ", The" at the end of a title that begins with "The." That logic doesn't apply to a purely online Encylopedia. The articles on Japanese emperors were written and named by people who are familiar with Japan, the Japanese language, Japanese naming customs and how people typically refer to Japanese emperors in English. And the same convention is used for the Chinese emperors listed in Wikipedia. The only difference is there isn't one currently on the throne.

-Jefu 14:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand; I didn't say that the convention for print encyclopædias was not to use titles, but that the Wikipedia convention is not to do so. There are various reasons for this, one being that it avoids possible conflict over the validity of claims, and charges of PoV in using such titles. Another is that we don't use titles for anyone else (whether "Professor", "Dr", "Mrs", "Sir", "Dame", "President", etc.), so why should royalty be any different? C. E. M. Joad was always known as "Professor Joad", but that's not the title of the Wikipedia article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand, I'm saying the convention was probably borrowed from paper encyclopedias. It's just no longer relevant. And conflict over claims? Is there any conflict that the current emperor of Japan is the current emperor of Japan? I'm not aware of any. There was a brief period in Japanese history when there were rival courts, each with its own emperor, but even though there are arguments on both sides as to which was legitimate, all of the emperors are still named posthumously with the Tennō suffix. I have to admit that the argument about nobody else using titles is a compelling one. However, I think it only applies to the current emperor at most. The rest are posthumous names, not merely titles. Meiji never ever appears by itself in the Japanese language. Whether dictionaries, encyplopedias, ordinary text, etc. it always appears with Tennō appended to it. So I would say the consistency argument with respect to Japanese and Chinese emperors alike, as well as the fact that he is widely referred to as Emperor Akihito are good enough reasons to change it. -Jefu 16:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we move the discussions related to the names of the latest four emperors to Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). I believe it is necessary for us to come up with some uniform policy on this issue rather than debating in each article. -- 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Japanese language in names

I noticed that the link to Japanese language got removed and re-added. I have asked a question on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Let's discuss it there, and wait for the outcome of that discussion, before changing this page's link to Japanese language again, and we can try to reach a general decision about whether to link to the page or not. --DannyWilde 09:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Foo language:" is used in every other non-English biogtaphical article; do you have some reason for thinking that Japanese should be an exception? (Just to take, as an example, the next relevant entry on my Watchlist: Kwa Geok Choo.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding. It wasn't me who removed the language link, it was my good friend Exploding Boy. If you have a quibble with him, please address it to him via his talk page. What I was wondering was what the convention was. Is there a style manual which says it's necessary to link to the language? I've been doing it as a matter of course, and I see variations like [[Japanese language|Ja]] or Jp etc., but I wanted to clarify what we should do. --DannyWilde 14:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention to names. I don't know if it's prescribed, but even if it isn't, removing it would need a more positive reason I'd have thought. I don't like the (non-standard) abbreviated forms, though; that is deprecated in the MoS, which says that abbreviations should generally be avoided. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

See my reply here. Exploding Boy 18:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer?

I thought I read that the Emperor was battling some form of cancer? It was a few years ago, perhaps it went into remission? If that's true I think it's worth noting. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only Reigning Emperor?

Gentlemen, would not the King of Nepal really be an Emperor, since his title is (I believe) Maharajadhiraja("Great King of Kings")?--Anglius 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Akihito isn't really an emperor at all. The word "emperor" is a mistranslation of "tennou". He certainly doesn't have an empire. I suggest this line is removed. --Auximines 10:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Sir, I disagree, for I think that tennō can rougly be translated as Emperor, and an emperor does not neede to reign over a large area (e.g. Napoleon I upon Elba).--Anglius 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I still can't see how he can be an emperor without an empire. --Auximines 10:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The emperor of Japan is really a king, but he is called an emperor. Historically, there was only one emperor in Asia, that of China. All other Asian rulers were kings or princes (except for maybe in India, the Middle East, etc) that paid tribute to the Chinese emperor, or resisted (and failed becoming a part of his empire). The Japanese, however, decided to one day call their king an "emperor", even though he did not have an empire. (You could argue though that the Japanese indeed have an empire since they conquered the Ainu and the Okinawans. They also briefly ruled the Koreans and Taiwanese.) This was considered an insult and provocation to the Chinese emperor. Japan is really the only country in history, as far as I know, with an "emperor" without an empire.--Sir Edgar 06:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a polite fiction to call Akihito, the Emperor of Japan, it's a bit like Leonard Casley calling himself 'His Royal Highness Prince Leonard of Hutt' and his wife "Her Serene Highness Princess Shirley". An emperor is a king of kings, or by the O.E.D. "a sovereign of higher rank than a king", Queen Elizabeth could be called an Emperess as she reigns over Scotland and Wales (although the fact her son is the prince of Wales is a bit of a cheat), nevertheless the head of the Commonwealth is not referred to as Empress. Now if there was some evidence for the existence of lesser sovereigns in Japan then the title would certainly be correct. Strictly speaking he is King of Japan, but since the title of the ruler is up to the people of Japan to decide (i.e. "Her Serene Highness Princess Shirley"),and not us editors of wiki, then yes Akihito is the Emperor of Japan. lars 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of the emperor of Japan is set out in the Japanese constitution. In any event, Japan claims sovereignty over Okinawa, which was a kingdom, so the Japanese emperor, if the claim be admitted, is a king of at least one king.

But each territory had it's own lords, and he presided over them. 24.14.120.92 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the correct answer. Japan used to be divided into many smaller semi-autonomous (the degree of autonomy being dependent on the time period) territories that were ruled by their own local rulers. The first accounts of Japan in Chinese historical texts refer to the land of Wa being divided into a hundred different countries. Japan wasn't unified until Hideyoshi/Tokugawa, and even then the local territories (the han) technically remained in the hands of local rulers until the land was formally passed to the emperor and the han system was abolished in favor of the prefectural system as part of the Meiji restoration. In any event, the word tennou has always been translated (by foreigners) into emperor in English. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Japanese aggrandizement of the role of the emperor, as I'm sure some suspect.-Jefu 11:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Logical description, but inaccurate assessment. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "The term ('tenno') was first used at the beginning of the Nara period (710–784) as a translation of the Chinese t'ien-huang, or 'heavenly emperor', and replaced the older title of mikado, or 'imperial gate'." http://secure.britannica.com/eb/article-9071703 The Japanese were fully aware of Chinese customs and institutions by the 7th century. Instead of taking the title of "wang" (king), they adopted "tien huang" (heavenly emperor).
And here is the entry from Emperors of Japan: The first documented use of the title "tenno" is in a diplomatic letter from Empress Suiko to Emperor Yang of Sui China in 607 CE, bearing the sentence "tennō of the east hails kōtei of the west" - the same sentence was translated into Chinese as "tianzi of the land of sunrise hails tianzi of the land of sunset". Tianzi, son of heaven, was a title used by Chinese emperors. The introduction of this term comes amidst the movement of Japanese sinicization, and is considered an attempt of the Japanese rulers to assert themselves on equal footing with the Chinese emperors.
This insulted the Chinese emperor and his indignation is believed to be contained in the response. However, the Japanese envoy Imono Imoko (deliberately) lost the response, and avoided offending Empress Suiko upon his return to Japan. The empress's nephew, Prince Shotoku, really only wanted to express that Japan is an independent country and not a tributary country of China. But he ended up offending the Chinese. Nevertheless, Sui China desired friendly relations with Wa Japan prior to invading Goguryeo Korea. And so it was.--Sir Edgar 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you are going on about. What does the introduction of the word tennō into the Japanese language have to do with how it is translated into English. Are you confusing the arguments here?
But since you mention it, let me point out some of the inaccuracies in what you wrote above. First, the Encyclopedia Britannica article was probably written 50 years ago and never updated, and in any event is highly simplistic. The implication that there was a single prior term "Mikado" that was thrown out in favor of "Tennō" is simply incorrect. There were several terms that were used when refering to the line of rulers who eventually became the imperial line. In particular, Ōkimi was used, as well as Sumeramikoto, both of which appear in the Nihonshoki and the Kojiki. Second, the article regarding the letter to the Chinese emperor is flat out wrong (and thank you for pointing out the innacuracy so that I may fix it). The term used in the letter (which is recorded in Chinese texts) was Tenshi (天子, so you got the Chinese correct) not Tennō (天皇). The oldest documented use of the word Tennō is from an inscription on a wooden slat (Mokkan) that was unearthed in Asuka (near Nara) in 1998. The slat has been dated back to the reigns of Emperor Tenji and Empress Jitō which were somewhat later than Ono no Imoko and his trip to China in 607. There are those who believe that the term was first introduced during the reign of Empress Suiko, but the favored view currently is that it wasn't introduced until the reign of Tenji/Jitō. (Kumagai Kimio, Ōkimi kara Tennō e, Kōdansha 2001).-Jefu 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "tenno" means "heavenly emperor" or "heavenly ruler". It is a title above king. The Japanese were fully aware that the use of such a title would be equivalent to declaring Japan an independent country from China. The justification of the use of such a term is weak at best though. Wa was not hundreds of countries, but tribes, and they were not even unified when the use of the term tenno began. Furthermore, Japan did not annex the Ryukyu Kingdom until 1879 and the Ainu in Hokkaido were not conquered until the late 19th century. So, where was the empire?

You may say that "emperor" was a term given by Westerners, but the Japanese accepted it. If it was wrong, they themselves would use another term in English.--Sir Edgar 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also the possibility that they accepted it as translation to keep up with Europe's own title inflation. As we reach the Meiji era, Europe had five empires (Ottoman, German, Austrian, French and Russian), Asia had at least three (India (to Britain), China, Persia), Africa had at least one (Ethiopia) and even America had one (Brazil). Japan is not, after all, much bigger than say, the British Isles, and population was rather equivalent. Whether or not an emperor rules over sovereign rulers, kings or anything else of the sort is probably irrelevant (the Byzantine Empire avoided feudalism as much as it could). As for heavenly ruler part, European kings were considered to be inviolable rulers with a divine mandate to reign. But keeping the translation as Emperor is certainly better as it is what is accepted; otherwise, this would be like insisting (for example in the case of a Hohenzollern restauration in Germany, a Bonapartist restauration in France or restauration in Ethiopia) that they should not be addressed as emperor but as kings because "they don't rule an empire". Or we might as well insist the the Grand Duke of Luxemburg is actually Count.

The Tenno still presided over the various sovereign rulers whether they were completely united or not. 24.14.120.92 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Since this article had unknown importance, I have given it High importance. The subject is the current head of state of Japan and of international significance. Top importance could also be considered. Grgcox 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

Should show his coat of arms. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements of remorse

The section on "Marriage and Children" contained a paragraph about his statements of remorse concerning WWII. This of course has nothing to do with his Marriage or Children - I have therefore moved the paragraph to the "Life" section. Patiwat 09:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/k/i/Talk%7EAkihito_cc69.html"