Talk:Emperor Jimmu

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, hence not moved. Evidence of name usage in sources was inconclusive, with Jinmu certainly on the rise, yet not definitively more common. All commenters are reminded that any consensus-forming discussion is more likely to be resolved successfully in the absence of acrimony. It serves no good purpose to impugn the motives of those with whom one disagrees. All commenters are worthy of respect, and none is to be accorded special privilege for any reason. Discussions which devolve off topic -- away from policy-centric, content-centric debate -- rarely reach constructive conclusions. As this particular subject is likely to be again discussed in the future, such advice is especially relevant. Xoloz (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Emperor Jimmu → Emperor Jinmu – The last multimove suffered from poor formatting and User:Oda Mari accidentally !voting the opposite way than was clearly their intent not long before the close. The Imperial Household Agency spells his name "Jinmu".[1][2] Sightseeing guide maps of Kashihara City (where his mausoleum and principal shrine are located) also use "Jinmu". All the other articles on Japanese emperors follow the "nm" spelling convention. Modern books written by scholars also usually follow this convention, while its mostly older, unreliable, or irrelevant books (e.g., a 300-page book about WW2 that contains a single sentence about how the emperors of Japan claimed descent from "Emperor Jimmu") often follow the other convention. --Relisted. Xoloz (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese government, and Japanese universities, prefer "Emperor Jinmu" in documents they produce in English. UK universities also prefer "Jinmu", but the minuscule number of hits clearly disproves Necrothesp's argument last time that this subject is well known in the west.

.ac.jp results:

92 for "Jimmu" vs. 278 for "Jinmu"

.ac.uk results:

4 for "Jimmu" vs. 7 for "Jinmu"

.go.jp results:

53 for "Jimmu" vs. 102 for "Jinmu"

Hijiri88 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Nara Prefectural Government feels the same way.[3][4] Hijiri88 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Examination of GBooks hits for "Jimmu" spelling.

Once again an IP user who doesn't generally edit in this area has !voted based on what are (essentially) GBooks hit counts. Therefore, I've taken to analyze the various sources that show up for a search of "Emperor Jimmu" since January 2004. First page: the first is based on a few ridiculous conspiracy theories (the Japanese are descended from the Ten Tribes of Israel, Japan has been a Christian nation for 2,000 years, etc.) and is clearly not written by specialists; the second is a general reference work that appears to be aimed at undergrad students who study world history but not Japanese history, and in the same section contains obvious errors such as confusing the Heiji era for something that was in the thirteenth century, which would not occur in a source written by a specialist in this area; the third is a reprint of the second and contains similar errors; the fourth is, as predicted, a book about World War II that barely mentions this emperor; the fifth doesn't have a preview, but given the title and the fact that its author doesn't appear to be an expert in Japanese history I would doubt it meets our standards of a reliable source; the sixth appears to be yet another (earlier) edition of the second; the seventh is a copy of this Wikipedia article; the eighth doesn't appear to have any serious problems, although its various contributors seem to have their own romanization preferences, and no editorial will to standardize the text, and despite the books 2013 date, the three sources cited are all very old; the ninth is a good source, but GBooks' 2013 date is nonsense -- it was published in 1966 and reprinted in 1990; the tenth is another reprint of this Wikipedia article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Next ten: the eleventh is another Wikipedia clone; the twelfth as well; and the thirteenth; the fourteenth doesn't appear to have any obvious problems (it has no preview); the fifteenth is a discussion of a fictional work (a manga by Osamu Tezuka, who died in 1989); the sixteenth is another general reference book written by non-specialists and contains even more ridiculous errors in the same section; the seventeenth is a superb work written by probably my favourite scholar of all time who unfortunately prefers the old romanization system (the one he grew up with?) -- his preference for "Jimmu", as with "kambun" and so on is actually the most compelling single argument, in my opinion, against moving this page, but his personal preference is ultimately his own, and his former colleague at Columbia University is probably the current leader among Japanese literary scholars outside Japan and he has different preferences; the eighteenth is another reprint of a 2001 work and, more importantly, is on a completely unrelated subject and barely mentions this emperor's name; the nineteenth appears to be another fine work that just so happens to have its own style preferences that differ from ours in numerous ways; the twentieth is another general reference work that, because it is not written (edited?) by specialists, contains ridiculous errors like that Nobunaga moved against "foreign religions" to restore the status of the emperor (Nobunaga was a friend to the Christians). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Forget about my last vote. I don't mind if it's Jimmu or Jinmu. I'd vote for the major usage in en textbooks and history books.Oda Mari (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been rethinking this for a while and the conclusion is oppose. Because "mm" is more phonetically correct. See N (kana), [5] [6] and [7]. As for the romanization found in Japan, most cases are sloppy except Hepburn romanization used by JR. As I cited before, this official pdf file uses Jimmu. Even the Imperial Household Agency uses both ways. Oda Mari (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Oda Mari: "Because "mm" is more phonetically correct": that's arguable, to say the least—as you can see from the article you've linked to, 「ん」 tends to take on many different flavours depending on the sounds around it, but the only one of these Hepburn chose to depict graphically was [m]—a pointless inconsistency, and one corrected by preferring the phonemic representation to the phonetic one. Phonetic writing is simply impractical and best left to the scientists who require it.
    Taking this position is tantamount to a proposal to change MoS-JA. If that's not your intention, then how do you justify maintaining it for this particular article?—or are you prepared to propose changing "Tenmu" et al?
    The Imperial Household Agency does use both styles—24 instances of "nm" and a single one of "mm". Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I already pointed out on Oda Mari's talk page back in August that that single instance is not "the Imperial Household Agency" but more likely a single (outsourced? freelance?) translator with a rather idiosyncratic romanization style -- see how he/she writes Emperor Go-Daigo and so on. If it was someone in-house it almost certainly would have been edited to conform with the others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. I can't believe this wasn't moved ages ago. What an embarrassment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This is, of course, not an embarrassment. Google Ngram results for "Jimmu" vs. "Jinmu" show that the former was nearly universal in the past, and it appears to predominate slightly now. However, results for "Emperor Jimmu" vs. "Emperor Jinmu" show the latter as becoming slightly more common in recent books. The current trends might be a reason to move the page in the future, if "Jinmu" actually becomes the clear preferred spelling, but it's not a reason to move the page now, when usage is mixed and the current page name reflects the historically preferred spelling. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This type of response is exactly what I consider the embarrassment to be. If you have to hairsplit of the precise amount of lead that one spelling has over another in a Google Ngram, then that spelling clearly doesn't have anything like the overwhelming lead it would need to make room for an exeption. So if "Jinmu" gains a one-result lead for a week, then loses it again, and gains it again ... do we keep moving the page back week after week? Exceptions must be exceptional, and there is nothing exceptional about this case. This is a classic case of preferring the letter to the spirit of the guideline. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And how many of the "Jimmu" results are, even if they don't say so directly, the result of Wikipedia spelling it this way in violation of Wikipedia's own style guidelines? I'd be willing to bet that close to 100% of books, magazines and the like from the last 10 years that name-drop this emperor without giving him any significant coverage are only choosing their spelling based on the current Wikipedia spelling (such books obviously fail WP:RS for this matter). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment sorry can you please cite the relevant JP:MOS.. it's been so long I've forgotten what it says. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this what you mean? WP:MOS-JA: Syllabic "n": "The original version of Hepburn used m when syllabic n ん preceded b, m, or p. While generally deprecated, this is still allowed in titles for cases where the official anglicized name continues to use m (examples: Asahi Shimbun, Namba Station). In the modified Hepburn romanization system, unlike the standard system, the "n" is maintained even when followed by homorganic consonants (e.g., shinbun, not shimbun). Use Google to check popularity if in doubt, and create a redirect from the n version." —  AjaxSmack  18:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If this emperor's name has an "official" spelling it is "Jinmu". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks AjaxSmack. "While generally deprecated" where sources are mixed effectively means Support if the case is demonstrated, which it hasn't been. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Kashihara Shrine Sightseeing Map.jpg

This is how visitors to Emperor Jinmu's mausoleum and shrine learn to spell his name.

• Didn't I move a whole crop of MMs to NMs in the past as the result of another RM? Not these ones, I guess. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The one user who clearly opposed the last multi-move specified that he only actually opposed the move of this one page, but the RM was closed as "no move" on all pages anyway. My response was to place a bunch of separate RMs on the other pages, and they all passed as unopposed. And like I said "Tamba province"'s day in the sun is also coming. Honestly I wish I could make your job easier by just grouping them all together, but then someone with some attachment to one of the page's current spellings derails the entire RM based on a ... "unique" interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. My opinion hasn't changed from last time. See the previous discussion here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide me with some evidence that the "mm" spelling is the common name? You failed at this last time, relying on a slight majority on an ngram (an ngram that I can't see). I have now provided hard evidence that the most reliable, relevant sources on this subject spell the name with an "nm". Do you have any evidence that a large number of reliable sources provide in-depth discussion of this topic and use the current spelling? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(Mostly) off-topic dispute over user behavior

Note also that Necrothesp posted on seven other RMs in the 30 minutes preceding the above !vote, and his last post was but six minutes earlier. It therefore seems highly unlikely that he had read my gull analysis of the sources, clicked on all the links, or put any significant thought behind how real people (visitors to the subject's burial mound or shrine, for instance) might see this issue. He pulled a COMMONNAME argument out of his nose, and has not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC) First of all, let's not resort to personal comments on my editing to try to pooh-pooh my comments. This suggests you really don't like other editors disagreeing with you. What on earth does it matter how many RMs I've contributed to? I've already given my opinion on the previous RM (the result of which you clearly didn't like). Nothing has changed since then. Apparently, this includes your negative and patronising attitude towards those who disagree with you - last time you accused me of "abusing" guidelines because I dared to oppose you. I warned you about your use of language towards other editors then. Secondly, what on earth do the opinions of "visitors to the subject's burial mound or shrine" have to do with Wikipedia? This is about Jimmu's common name in the English-speaking world. Japan is not part of the English-speaking world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, I apologize for the nose comment. I meant that your COMMONNAME argument was not based on objective evidence. While I regret the nose metaphor I still stand by this assessment of your argument. User:Cckerberos and User:Curly Turkey appear to share my view. Neither here nor in the last RM have you presented any actual evidence that this subject's "common name" is "Emperor Jimmu". I didn't like the last result because the RM was supported by several users and opposed only by you. User:Oda Mari retracted her !vote a matter of minutes after the RM was closed, and Enkyo2 was only !voting as part of a hounding campaign against me (he has since been indefinitely blocked, at least partly for this reason). I have presented an extensive amount of evidence that the GBooks hits for "Jimmu" are predominantly reprints of very old books, or non-specialist works that don't provide significant coverage to this subject (read: books about WWII that include one mention of this subject's name). The Japanese government and Japanese academia are almost unanimous in favouring the "Jinmu" spelling in documents they publish in English. Local governments in areas associated with this subject are the same. This is what I mean when I talk about signposts and sightseeing maps, and "visitors to the subject's burial mound or shrine". There is no reason to believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry in New York, London, Sydney, Ottawa, Dublin or anywhere else has heard of this subject, and if they have it's still likely they heard of him from a source that originates in a country that is "not part of the English-speaking world". Let's use a hypothetical for comparison's sake: There are two common spellings of Shakespeare's name -- Shakespeare and Shakspere. Both are quite common in books written for the general public. Wikipedia's internal style guidelines say to use "Shakespeare" unless "Shakspere" is the "official spelling". The museum devoted to the subject at the subject's birthplace uses "Shakespeare" across the board. Books written by and for scholars in the field overwhelmingly use "Shakespeare". The government of the United Kingdom occasionally uses "Shakspere" but still clearly prefers "Shakespeare". Under these circumstances, "Shakspere" can perhaps be taken as the "common name" in that it's a name that's used by non-specialists as opposed to specialists, but is it really the common name? Which spelling should Wikipedia be using as the title of the article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Anyway, I have now apologized for bringing your nose into the discussion. Where's my apology for personally insulting me and my credentials (the arrogance of the self-proclaimed "expert"[8])? I have not insinuated anything about your real-world credentials either here or in the last RM, merely checking your edit history to see if you had in fact ever edited an article in this area, and finding that you had just randomly come across this RM along with a bunch of other RMs I pointed out that you probably have no more of an interest in this subject than the average person brought up in the English-speaking world. Said average person has never heard of Emperor Jinmu/Jimmu, so your argument was in violation of the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. This was a misuse (or "abuse") of COMMONNAME, and an increasing number of users agree with me on this. Why are you not hurling personal insults at any of them? And why do you continue to insist that I and only I have a "negative and patronising attitude towards those who disagree" with me? You are the one who called someone who disagreed with you and presented a prince's ransom of evidence to back up said disagreement an arrogant self-proclaimed "expert". What have I (or Curly Turkey or Cckerberos) said to you that was anywhere near as patronizing as "arrogant self-proclaimed expert"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is such a mess of irrelevant comments, including but not only a support vote with no rationale whatsoever, and name-calling, that it's hardly even worth sorting through. But I have and it seems clear that both names are well attested, and there seems no policy-based rationale for the proposed move. Andrewa (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(Mostly) off-topic dispute over user behavior

Andrewa: I gave a rationale following a rebuttal to my support—so obviously not "no rationale whatsoever". Further, it's clear that "Jimmu" is not COMMON as COMMONNAME defines it (peruse the examples if you doubt that statement), thus there is no credible rationale for making an exception to MOS-JA for this article (whose standard would have it at "Jinmu" unless "Jimmu" were simply overwhelmingly preferred in the literature, which it's obviously not). In other words, "there seems no policy-based rationale for" this page to remain a bizarre, anachronistic exception to the guidelines. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC) If you can be specific, and preferably cut out the rhetoric, I'll attempt an answer. Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Andrewa: There's nothing in either WP:COMMONNAME or MOS:JAPAN that's supports this spelling in any way. What exactly is supposed to be the rationale for keeping this page at a spelling that is recommended against in MOS:JAPAN except in the case of official names (e.g. Asahi Shimbun—the COMMONNAME for that paper because it's rigidly established as the official name of the paper—no other spelling is ever seriously considered: check out the NGram for "Asahi Shimbun" vs "Asahi Shinbun": we get "Ngrams not found: "Asahi Shinbun""). Meanwhile, as Hijiri88 as pointed out repeatedly, the standard MOS-JA-sanctioned spelling is one that is also used officially—and yet we're using a Google Ngram (which includes trivial, out-of-date, and in-passing references) to override the simpler, quite common, officially-used, and MoS-compliant version? This is what I mean by "embarrassing"—only petty, hairsplitting Wikilawyering has kept this article at this spelling. To repeat myself, exceptions need to be exceptional, and there has been nothing presented here to demonstrate the exceptionality of "Jimmu". Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC) No, there's no evidence of Wikilawyering. What we have here appears to be another attempt to browbeat good-faith contributors (such as myself) with emotive language, which unfortunately is mixed in with some valid points. I'm not assuming this abandoning of reason is confined to one side, I'm not even interested in it either way. What I'm interested in is rational, helpful discussion that assumes good faith. Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Andrewa: Definition of Wikilawyering, points 2—4: Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions Asserting the primacy of the unanalayzed results of an Ngram over official documents fits the bill to a "T", does it not? I've seen no argument opposed to the move that doesn't rely entirely on the unanalyzed results of that Google Ngram and its misapplication to WP:COMMONNAME. The spirit of COMMONNAME is obvious—it's to avoid the obviously undesirable naming of the Bono article as "Paul Hewson", or Caffeine "1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione". "Jimmu" vs "Jinmu" is not even of that type—is a difference of spelling standards, one of which is deprecated and has become increasingly rare in official and scholarly documents. As an aside, if you're "interested in ... rational, helpful discussion that assumes good faith", maybe you could consider the offensiveness of singling out other users as having "no rationale whatsoever" when that rationale is no more than a scroll up. Talk about assuming bad faith. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Again there are some valid points here, but I think they are all raised elsewhere in this discussion, and the behavioural issues you raise are beyond the scope of this talk page I think. Andrewa (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Look, can we just agree that Andrewa was wrong in asserting that CT had "no rationale whatsoever", I was wrong to summarize MOS-JA's stance on the issue and put said summary in quotation marks, and the only users who should not have their !votes counted are SPIs and no-history IPs? Every user here apparently has good faith, so there's no reason to worry about behavioral issues. IMO, the only "no rationale whatsoever" !vote that has been cast is Necrothesp's, where he just states "Jimmu is the COMMONNAME" without providing any evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I (deliberately) did not nominate CT as the vote that had no rationale whatsoever, but let me quote the entirety of their vote: I can't believe this wasn't moved ages ago. What an embarrassment. Exactly where is the rationale in that? I'm curious! This is being blown up out of all proportion. My criticism is harsh in places, but it is considered. The personal attacks which have been mounted in reply do not help the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Did you mean to post on a different RM? MOS-JA says "use Jinmu". 182.249.240.9 (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88) Thank you for being more specific... a wikilink to MOS:JA would be even better, but I guess that's the one you mean. Except that guideline doesn't appear to contain the text you quote. It doesn't even seem to have Jinmu anywhere. Have you got it exactly right? Otherwise, a search won't find it. Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I didn't mean for it to be read as a direct quote. The exact wording is: The original version of Hepburn used m when syllabic n んpreceded b, m, or p. While generally deprecated, this is still allowed in titles for cases where the official anglicized name continues to use m (examples: Asahi Shimbun, Namba Station). You must admit its quite a stretch to think of "Jimmu" as the subject's "official anglicized name", and if it's not an "official anglicized name" we are not "allowed" to use it in the title. In fact the Japanese government body assigned to regulate Imperial Household issues actually prefers the "Jinmu" spelling.[9][10] 182.249.240.6 (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Some good points here. Please desist from using the double-quote for indirect speech. It is just plain wrong, and you can't expect people to understand your arguments if they are so badly expressed. And I hope you will not now accuse me of petty, hairsplitting Wikilawyering. I am honestly trying to assess your case, and you made it very difficult with this non-standard punctuation. Apology noted. I think that this sort of mistake (I will not mince words here) is at least part of the problem, and so I would like this RM relisted so I can assess the valid arguments that are now appearing and may also be mixed in with earlier discussion. I doubt I will quickly reverse my "vote" nor do I think the two other highly experienced admins who have also decided to oppose will do so either, but I for one would like the chance. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Andrewa: I hope you're not suggesting an admin's !vote carries any more weight than anyone else's—even an IP's. Admin status is not a rank, it's a role, as any "highly experienced admin" should be very well aware. I'd also like to request that you cease singling myself out for contempt, as with the unwarrantedly ABF and grotesquely out-of-context "petty, hairsplitting Wikilawyering" comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC) You are of course quite right that admin status is a role not a rank, and our votes do not count any more than any others. They are all assessed on the same basis. On the other hand, our time is finite (all of us, admin or not), so it's wise to take the experience of contributors into account. If an IP with no other contributions makes a statement that looks ridiculous, I won't waste a lot of time on it, while the same statement from an experienced hand (admin or not) is worth investigating. That is just reality, and what life teaches. I am not singling (you) out for contempt. Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Life also teaches that repeated sniping, intimidation, accusations of "browbeating", and giving condescending "life lessons" rarely motivates people to AGF with you. There's plenty of empirical evidence to examine here, including from the two IPs. Perhaps if you have enough to spare of your "finite time" to lecture other editors on their comportment, you could more productively apply it to the examination and interpretation of the facts. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I believe my criticisms were valid and accurate, and intended them to be respectful and constructive. I will admit they were harsh, but I think this was warranted. And they were not perfect, certainly. Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I don't think they were warranted, valid, or accurate. I certainly haven't "browbeaten" anyone—before you showed up, I had made a grand total of one rebuttal to another editor, stating my rationale—strongly stated, but I'd argue far less strongly than your "respectful and constructive" comments. So, besides dishonestly claiming I'd given no rationale (which I had eight days before your arrival), you've also mischaracterized the tone and content of my comments in a particularly damning way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC) The claim now of dishonesty is just an unhelpful escalation. All I claimed was that one vote, which I did not name but yes it was yours, had given no rationale, as part of a criticism of the RM up until that point. This was and is accurate. If you'd said refer previous discussion or something like it that would have been a rationale, and I'd have phrased my criticism differently. But you didn't. It wasn't the most severe criticism or the most severe failure, and the reaction was and is completely out of proportion to the perceived offence, and just distracts from the issues. Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I didn't participate in the previous discussion. My rationale is almost directly below the comment you singled out, dated eight days before yours—scroll up, and there I am telling you exactly that in my first response to you. And I'd call accusations of "another attempt to browbeat good-faith contributors" utterly offensive, given there wasn't one case of it, let alone "another". Certainly not "warranted, valid, or accurate" by any stretch of the imagination. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I hate to break off an already-resolved dispute, but can we just collapse this whole side-discussion and leave it be? User:Curly Turkey, I agree with you on the substance of this RM, but this dispute over admin-privilege, who dismissed whose vote, etc. is beside the point and counter-productive. We've got the stronger case and the numerical advantage, but this side-dispute is going to lead to a no-consensus result if it isn't closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Agree. Andrewa (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Note the timestamps of the outdented comment above from CT. Disagree with some of it, but I don't see the point in continuing the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Andrewa's comments, and per Necrothesp's comments in previous RM. Can someone please link correctly Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive 1 at the head. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the Imperial Household Agency and the Japan Tourism Agency? Haruo Shirane Traditional Japanese Literature is the most recent well-known scholarly text covering this topic, and he spells it "Jinmu".[11] 182.249.240.36 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88)

• Support - MOS:JA says to go with n unless there's an "official" reason not to, and no such reason exists here. I don't think there's an argument to be made that WP:COMMONNAME supports "Jimmu", either. At worst there's no currently dominant popular English spelling. Meanwhile, "Jinmu" is by far more common in recent scholarly work. --Cckerberos (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I've noticed that a lot of either argument is based on search engine results. While how Japanese institutions spell it is a convincing argument, can anyone provide the European spelling of his name for the last 400 years before the internet? I'm pretty sure that the commonname was more-or-less "Jimmu" during that time period. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sturmgewehr88: European spellings over the last 400 years would be inappropriate because:
  • Hepburn romanization was only introduced in 1886
  • Modified Hepburn (the system recommended by Wikipedia's Manual of Style for Japan) was introduced in 1954
  • At the English Wikipedia we use only spellings common in Enlgish documents, unless the subject itself is not common in English documents
  • Wikipedia relies on current, not historical, spellings
    ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

While Curly Turkey is right in saying old spellings used over the last 400 years are inappropriate, I took a look at some older documents. The most prominent one immediately before Hepburn was probably Titsingh's spelling, and he spelled it "Zin Mou Ten O".[12][13] The Portuguese Jesuits before him used "Iimmu Tenvŏ".[14] Neither of these is remotely "common", and even if they were they would mean that there is no "common name" and we should default to our standard romanization system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support - well you got me there. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support the move to Emperor Jinmu given the information presented below and the signage where he is buried. I don't see any valid reason why the article should remain at Emperor Jimmu. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - It's important what the Japanese officials or its society call their own emperor and the Google Books hits are not relevant indeed. If the emperor is called like that in Japan by the Japanese people that it has my support that we move it to its original name. Jaqeli (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• So, to sum up survey results so far, 5 supports -- myself, User:Curly Turkey, User:Cckerberos, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Nihonjoe -- and 4 opposes -- a no-history IP, User:Necrothesp, User:Andrewa and User:In ictu oculi -- where all 5 of the supports are regular WPJAPAN contributors and 3 (Curly Turkey, Nihonjoe and myself) have edited this article before, while none of the opposes are either regular editors of Japan-related articles, and none have ever touched this article before. Of the four opposes, the IP voted based on a flawed reading of GBooks hit counts, Necrothesp made a flawed COMMONNAME argument without providing any evidence, while Andrewa and In ictu oculi provided no reasoning other than the messiness of the formatting used by myself and Curly Turkey. Further, User:Oda Mari has stated that she would support whichever spelling is more common in English-language textbooks and scholarly sources -- as Curly Turkey and I have demonstrated, this is almost certainly Jinmu. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, the famous, oft-trotted out, and completely against all policy, non-argument that the opinions of Wikiproject members (it's long been my belief that one of the main functions of such projects is to stoke the pomposity and self-importance of a certain type of member - not being a member certainly doesn't imply that one doesn't know what one is talking about) and editors who edit the page should be taken more seriously than the opinions of those who don't. Thanks for this perfect example of WP:OWNERSHIP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You've proven again and again that you don't understand the content of this article and are not interested in listening to those who do. You have not presented a coherent argument based on either policy or reliable sources. You have relied completely on Google hits, and have not given any valid reason not to move this page. Neither has User:Andrewa, who basically said that because this page is messy then the article shouldn't be moved until he manages to figure out what's going on. The IP too. User:In ictu oculi basically admitted on his talk page that he actually doesn't care which way this RM goes but wouldn't mind seeing another RM after MOS gets tweaked. The only one with a remotely coherent argument against the move is User:Oda Mari, who interestingly is the only oppose who has actually contributed anything to this article in the past. The WikiProject Japan members (User:Curly Turkey, User:Cckerberos, User:Nihonjoe and User:Sturmgewehr88) who have !voted in favour of this move not only have a better understanding of the issue but have by-and-large actually contributed something to this article. Your being the only one constantly arguing against this move, and also being the one with the weakest arguments, is evidence enough that if I had unilaterally moved this page back in August instead of posting the previous RM, the move would not have been challenged. It has instead been supported by virtually everyone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • No, I've never mentioned Google hits. Nor would I, given their notorious unreliability. You also falsely alleged above that I relied on an ngram in the last discussion. Do try to get your facts right when you're attempting to dismiss the opinions of others. Because at the moment it very much looks as though you're fond of making false allegations, or at the very least not checking your facts before you make claims based on what others have written. I'm fine with you not agreeing with me. I am not fine with you misrepresenting what I have said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
        • So, you're saying that not only have you not presented any evidence yourself, but you even reject the flimsy evidence other users have provided in your stead? I was assuming good faith and guessing you were following the quasi-evidence provided by other users, but you are now claiming that you don't even trust their evidence and have been !voting based purely on your gut. You have in these two RMs simply stated "Jimmu is the COMMONNAME" with not a shred of evidence, and otherwise done nothing but make personal attacks against me and the other users opposing you (I still want an apology for "self-proclaimed expert", BTW). Please give me something, ANYTHING that implies "Jimmu" is this subject's COMMONNAME in English-language reliable source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A summary of evidence provided for preferring "Jinmu" to "Jimmu"

• The WP:MOS-JA#Syllabic "n" makes it clear that "n" is the default for "ん" in all positions, and that "m" is used "for cases where the official anglicized name continues to use m (examples: Asahi Shimbun, Namba Station)".
• The Imperial Household Agency strongly prefers "Jinmu" (24 results) to "Jimmu" (1 result)
• A Google Ngram of "Emperor Jimmu" vs. "Emperor Jinmu" shows something of a lead for "Jimmu" in publications inGoogle's database
  • Analysis of the sources used, however, indicates that a significant number of the "Jimmu"-using documents are older, unreliable, irrelevant, or only mention "Jimmu" in passing—and more than one are simply reproductions of the Wikipedia article
  • "Jimmu"'s lead is not of the degree that would suggest it is a COMMONNAME as defined by WP:COMMONNAME, and the lead appears to be on the decline, especially in scholarly works and official documents
    • Haruo Shirane Traditional Japanese Literature is the most recent well-known scholarly text covering this topic, and he spells it "Jinmu".
    • Japanese government and universities documents prefer "Emperor Jinmu" in documents they produce in English, as do UK universities
      • .ac.jp results: :92 for "Jimmu" vs. 278 for "Jinmu"
      • .ac.uk results: 4 for "Jimmu" vs. 7 for "Jinmu"
      • .go.jp results: 53 for "Jimmu" vs. 102 for "Jinmu"

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You left out the English signposts at his tomb and principal shrine spelling it "Jinmu". Also, Shirane's book quotes an extract of Philippi's translation of the Kojiki, which I don't have access to because it's not in the public domain like Chamberlain's, but it's reasonable enough to assume Philippi uses "Jinmu" as well, and Chamberlain's "English translation" contains extensive sections in Latin, a consequence of being written at a time when his audience (anglophone scholars of the Asiatic Society) would have all been proficient in Latin. 182.249.54.65 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88)

• Add what you feel is important enough to. I'm not sure the signs should be presented as evidence, though, because in my own experience, anyways, little thought is given to romanization of signs in Japan (so you see "offical" spellings with "thu" instead of "tsu", say—or the surprisingly frequent "cyu"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As a resident of Morioka I would normally be inclined to agree with you, and that might apply to the signpost I photographed but after getting home saw the file was corrupted and so can't show you, but not to the map I uploaded, which has perfect English and consistent romanization across the board. Unfortunately I don't know who produced it, but my money would be on the Kanko-cho, a national government agency like Imperial Household Agency. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I can't see any consensus arising for this move as what had happened with the last proposal. The default is that the status quo remains, and the page isn't moved. Ji(m/n)mu has been mentioned in quite a bit of the academia and studies of historical literature however. MOS:JA and Wikipedia:Romanization both recommend "nm" based on the current Hepburn system, but given that this article has some history behind it already, and for COMMONNAME considerations the collocations of both forms are about equal, I'm inclined to believe this proposal still won't pass. I suggest waiting a few more years, say six or seven, and in that time the "nm" collocation would have surpassed the old one so that the move request will have become less controversial than it is now. Patience on Wikipedia is a virtue, I guess. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:TeleComNasSprVen: This article has been around for a while, but it was unilaterally moved to its current title by User:Jefu, a formerly-prolific editor in this area who has been inactive so long I'd say the only WPJAPAN editors who remember him/her are myself, User:Shii and User:Nihonjoe. Jefu came up with this title for "consistency in romanization", the same reason I opened the current RM. The "mm" spelling was challenged some time later, but not RMed. It was also questioned (if memory serves) by User:Enkyo2 (whose past username was Tenmei as opposed to "Temmei") and half-heartedly defended by Jefu and one other user who proclaimed that at that time MOS-JA did not favour either spelling. Six months ago I decided to finally do what no one else had gotten around to in the previous six years, and RM the page. The RM was supported by some other users, and "opposed" by three users: Necrothesp cited COMMONNAME but didn't give any evidence (NGrams were given in a neutral comment by another user who neither supported nor opposed the move); Enkyo2 went against his own obvious preference and opposed, but he also opposed me in a bunch of other places at the same time and was blocked not long after; Oda Mari accidentally opposed and the RM was closed before she could retract said opposition. I'm telling you all this to clarify that this title has never been established or held-up by consensus, and so past history should not be considered evidence for a "no move" or a "no consensus" result. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand how you "accidentally" type "oppose". Just throwing that out there. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Oppose. The Imperial Household Agency uses Jinmu." RM closes. "Nuts. I just found out that the Imperial Household Agency uses Jinmu in the other 96% of their English publications." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hijiri88. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think a cooling-off period is a good idea, but I'm not sure that we should wait for years. The previous move discussion at Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive 1#Requested move (1), in which I was not involved but most of the other participants were, quickly became equally acrimonious, and such no consensus decisions aren't ideal to say the least. CT's analysis above, and the reply to it, are both on the right track IMO. But the discussion elsewhere has descended to a level where I fear that even that (intended to be positive) comment may arouse a negative reaction. We will see I suppose. Andrewa (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Given that most of the discussion has occurred since yesterday, I'd call shutting this down a little premature. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• How old are these documents? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you've misunderstood what RECENTISM is about. Either way, the "Jinmu" usage has a decades-long history, and the Google Ngrams presented are from the period 1800 to 2000—in other words, the newest results are older than Wikipedia itself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(The stringing above is a little obscure) Given that most of the discussion has occurred since yesterday, I'd call shutting this down a little premature. (emphasis removed) As the RM was already overdue for closing when I first came here, I did suggest above relisting [15] and asked for comments. No direct replies to that suggestion so far, or have I missed them? Andrewa (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll accept a reboot, then. I'll just copy & paste the above list into the new RC. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a different option to relisting, and a new suggestion as far as I can see. We would want to notify all those who have already contributed IMO, and they might react negatively, that's the risk. Relisting is simpler and far more common. Andrewa (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • So a "relisting" is just an extension of the current RC? Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
      • The section of the Requested moves page to which I linked above reads in part If a discussion is ongoing and has not reached a reasonable conclusion, anyone may elect to re-list the discussion. This moves the request out of the backlog (or wherever it is in the queue) up to the current day, giving the discussion another seven days before it's likely to be reviewed for closure. Andrewa (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Hey User:Andrewa, the RM has been relisted, and it's been over a week. You previously implied that you might review the evidence supplied by CT and consider whether there is in fact policy-based reason for moving the page - have you done so? I'm waiting for this RM to get closed one way or the other, so that I can (as User:In ictu oculi suggested) tighten up MOS-JA to be clearer about what already says in slightly obscure wording ("Use -nm-, -nb- and -np- except in exceptional circumstances."). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• My articles on Kabuki don't count then? Anyway: Jinmu Jimmu In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought we'd already torn up the use of unanalyzed Google results? we're not seriously going to keep playing this game, are we? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @User:In ictu oculi: I can't of course analyze all of your thousands of edits. I know you have done great work on several articles I RMmed earlier (rekishi monogatari, Takasue's daughter, etc., etc.), and you know more about this stuff than most Wikipedians who exclusively edit in this area. But you aren't a member of WP:JAPAN, and you even once told me "I washed my hands of Japan in the 1980s [...] Your project, not mine".[16] (I did say on this page that I had a good memory.) I agree that you have made a great many quality edits in this area, but if they are recent and they make up a large portion of your edit history I have no reliable way of knowing except asking you. Additionally, your essentially advising me to wait for this RM to close as "no consensus" or "no move" and get WPJAPAN members to agree to make the wording of MOS more specific seems like flawed logic: if we change MOS so this page is even more explicitly in violation, we would effectively force ourselves to come back here and post a third RM -- and you implied that if MOS was tightened up in this way you would support this move then? That seems somewhat unnecessary. I'm going to go over to MOS after this RM closes regardless of which way this goes, so we might as well get this page moved now rather than post another RM in a month. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Forgive me for coming at this backwards, since I was watching the discussion at WT:MOS-JP and posting in response to you there before I looked at this page. But again in regards to your response to User:In ictu oculi here, I think you are overestimating the importance that being a member of a WikiProject lends to an editor's opinion on any given topic. In general, WP:PROJ: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." The manual of style is and should be independent from the WikiProject, and editors not on WikiProject Japan are just as worthy of having their voices heard here. Dekimasuよ! 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Commemorating Jimmu's reign"

About half the text of this article is irrelevant material that has nothing to do with Jimmu, gleaned from sources about World War II that either don't mention Jimmu at all, or briefly name-check him as the legendary founder of the Imperial dynasty. Most of this text is barely even relevant to discussion of the imperial cult in the early Showa period. This is entirely inappropriate, and is akin to filling the entire Joan of Arc article (2/4 images, most of the text) with material about Nazi Germany, because some sources briefly mention her being used as a symbol by the Free French.

User:CurtisNaito has reverted me twice in my attempts to remove this WP:OR that would ot have been allowed in other, better-patrolled articles. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD I am going to remove it again, and it is not to be re-added in any form before discussion has taken place.

182.249.240.38 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I checked both Britannica Kokusai and MyPedia. Both of them have substantial, independent articles on Emperor Jimmu. Neither article makes even one word of reference to World War II, Showa- (or Meiji-) era Japanese nationalism, or modern-day "commemoration" of "Jimmu's reign". I sincerely doubt that there exists a mainstream, general-reference, print encyclopedia that differs significantly on this point. User:CurtisNaito, can you locate such an encyclopedia article? And no, I will not accept and article on 神武天皇 that mentions 神武天皇祭, which mentions 大祭, which in turn mentions 皇室, which finally mentions 第二次世界大戦. It has to be an article on this subject that gives significant coverage to the material you want to add to this article. Let alone significant coverage, you won't be able to find one that even mentions that stuff. 182.249.240.10 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The name of Jimmu did not disappear from history in ancient Japan. I think the current sourcing is sufficient because all these sources mention Jimmu in reference to events that are clearly based off his life and the alleged date he ascended to the throne. Not discussing this briefly would be like talking about Buddha's life without mentioning that his teachings formed the basis for modern-day Buddhism.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't the other encyclopedias say so, then? The fact that sources discussing Showa-era Japanese nationalism and World War II briefly mention Emperor Jimmu doesn't mean anything for this article. If you want to go and create an article on those subjects and briefly mention Jimmu like your sources do, be my guest. But until you can locate an encyclopedia article on Emperor Jimmu that mentions World War II Japanese nationalism, you can't mention them in this article, and until you find an encyclopedia article on Emperor Jimmu that devotes half its text to World War II Japanese nationalism, you can't devote half of this article's text to the subject. When determining WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV we use WP:TERTIARY sources. End of story. 182.249.240.27 (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things: first, Wikipedia's articles tend to be much longer and more comprehensive than other encyclopaedias, so there's no point comparing to other paper encyclopaedias. Having said that, the material ChrisNaito wants to keep does need a serious trim—the releant bits really could be stated much more concisely, and would serve the reader much better if they were. And can we cut out this "you don't have consensus for/against your edit" stuff? Nobody needs "consensus" to edit an article until after it's been established that there's a controversy. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Curly Turkey. Wikipedia isn't limited by what other encyclopedias contain or don't contain. The section should be shortened, but there's nothing wrong with its inclusion. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we delete the bit on music (the sentence starting with "The 1940 celebrations also included a concert..."), but the rest should be kept though possibly rearranged a little. I feel that the information dealing with Kigensetsu, the modern-day National Foundation Day, and Hakko Ichiu are all highly relevant to this article. In the event that Jimmu himself never existed one could even say that his legend, which was highly venerated during prewar Japan and is still remembered today through National Foundation Day, is more significant than the man himself.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Those subjects all have their own articles, though. An extensive discussion of the National Foundation Day in this article is equivalent to including an extensive discussion of modern-day (or 1940s!) 4 July customs in our George Washington article. A one-sentence explanation of each, linking to said articles, should be sufficient. The photos need to stay out, though, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RELEVANT. 182.249.240.30 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A few paragraphs of discussion is not particularly extensive. For the record, I favor keeping the photos and more or less maintaining the number of paragraphs. In terms of relevance, Jimmu may himself be a legend and thus the impact that his legend has had in modern times is just as relevant, actually maybe more relevant, than the rest of the article. It's important that we give it sizable weight in this article, though I naturally expect articles like the one on National Foundation Day itself to include a whole lot more than the one or two paragraphs that we use in this article to discuss it.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We should at the very least keep the photograph of the Hakko Ichiu monument, though I suppose actually that all the photographs in this article are relevant to the modern era since that is when they were created. The IP user suggests that the pictures from the modern era represent undue weight but actually, ALL the pictures in this article were produced during the modern era which further indicates the importance of this period.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Artistic representations of the events in Jimmu's life as depicted in the very limited primary-sources are inherently relevant to the subject of this article. Photographs of tombs associated with and shrines dedicated to him are as well. In fact when I think of "modern commemoration" of "Jimmu's reign" I think of the Kashihara Shrine. Photos of obscure 1940s rituals that hardly anyone at the time (much less now) associated with Emperor Jimmu, are not. You have yet to provide any real justification for this material's inclusion in the article, instead merely expressing your (frankly quite irrelevant) opinion that the material is relevant. You have not provided a single source. And you have now admitted that you are unwilling to compromise with me or with either me or User:Curly Turkey with your insistence that we not even trim the "mere two paragraphs" in question. 182.249.240.37 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So why did you remove all that information when it was cited and was obviously about Jinmu, and the statement that National Foundation Day is still celebrated? I don't really care that the photo stays, but the article still mentions Hakko Ichiu and should be explained. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I find that the material in question is certainly relevant to Jimmu and the haphazard deletion of these portions of it doesn't make much sense. Incidentally, Peter Martin who wrote profiles of each of the emperors of Japan in his book "The Chrysanthemum Throne" devotes more than half of his biography of Jimmu to the veneration of him that occurred in the modern era. This period is prominently mentioned by so many historians in so many different sources that I can't imagine why we delete this material.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You asked to come to the talk page, but you continue to remove cited information. At the very least, can you explicitly explain why each sentence you removed doesn't belong in the article? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not about whether it's "cited". It's about whether it belongs in this article and not in National Foundation Day. No one has demonstrated that it does, other than appealing to the fact that it's in "reliable" (but not relevant) sources. 182.249.240.13 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Peter Martin who wrote profiles of each of the emperors of Japan in his book "The Chrysanthemum Throne" devotes more than half of his biography of Jimmu to the veneration of him that occurred in the modern era So what you're saying is, a book written by a Western historian, primarily focussing on the role the Imperial Family played in the politics of the Meiji-Showa periods, also focuses on modern politics when discussing the mythical first emperor? Shocker! You really got me there. I guess now that you have pointed this out, I should drop my request that you find a general encyclopedia with an independent article on Emperor Jimmu, that devotes half its content to this material. </sarcasm> 182.249.240.13 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN deals with information lacking sources, so that doesn't really apply. How is it not relevant when it's about him, and why can't the information be in both articles? That's like erasing half of Okinawa Prefecture#History because it basically repeats what's on History of Ryukyu Islands. Besides, National Foundation Day doesn't even mention Hakko Ichiu.

I'm pretty sure that most general encyclopedias with independent articles on Emperor Jinmu don't even have as much information as what's here without the debated information. If they're limited by space and editibility, then it's not a fair comparison. How about we just call for a WP:RFC? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If the Okinawa and Ryukyu history articles were on completely different, only peripherally related subjects, your analogy would hold weight. It's not about the length of the articles, but what's in them. If all of the other encyclopedia articles are 33% the size of our one with the disputed points, but our coverage of the same basic information takes up only 50% of our article, with the other 50% being made up entirely of peripheral material that the editorial teams of every single print encyclopedia decided didn't belong in their Emperor Jimmu articles, then we have a WP:WEIGHT problem. If this was Hijiripedia I would say excise the 50% peripheral undue material entirely. But since Wikipedia is collaborative I'm settling for the 60% (mostly blatant WP:SYNTH) I removed yesterday. We could keep arguing over the 60%, but I guarantee you you will lose that argument as soon as we take this to WP:ORN, WP:FTN or wherever else we can get unbiased community input. 182.249.240.13 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

None of what you deleted was synthesis. Are you certain you've read the sources in question because it appears to me that they report precisely what the article says. Peter Martin's book was a full history of the imperial family which included profiles of other ancient emperors, but only in Jimmu's case is the modern era especially relevant.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Taking a source that barely mentions Jimmu, written by an author who probably has no training in the relevant fields, and overrunning this article with a summary of what it says about a subject only peripherally related to this article is WP:SYNTH. You have already been called out for this. Also, Martin was one author, arguably on the fringe of this field, whose personal choices regarding how he wrighs his book are utterly irrelevant to how we should write this encyclopedia article. PERIOD. 182.249.240.16 (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's still not clear where the alleged synthesis is because all the sources are correctly cited and they all mention Jimmu prominently. Neither was there any clear evidence of synthesis in the other discussion you linked to. If this matter weren't significant then Jimmu's name wouldn't be mentioned so frequently in this regard in so many reliable secondary sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Break for convenience

Okay, so it seems in the disputed section we have 14 citations to 10 different sources by 9 authors. Below I examine these sources and how they are being (mis)used in this article.

detailed analysis of the 10 sources cited in this section, and how m ost of them are being misused

Martin 1997 is a book primarily discussing 19th- and 20th-century Japanese political history, with brief entries on most pre-1868 Emperors. In its 45-line (1.5-page) article on Jimmu, it begins with a 16-line paragraph about how in 1873 the Japanese government determined that Jimmu founded Japan on 11 February 660 BCE, and the dates were determined for political reasons related to international relations. It then goes into a fairly-detailed description of Jimmu's reign as described in the Nihon Shoki. It closes on a 3-line statement that from 1873 to 1945 an imperial envoy was sent to visit Jimmu's tomb in Kashihara. World War II is barely mentioned: "Accordingly, 11 February was designated National Foundation Day, a national holiday, and it was ritually celebrated as such until the end of the Second World War, when it was renamed National Foundation Memorial Day". The chronology here is overly simplified, as might be expected from a book that is not about this subject, and is contradicted by several of our other sources. Ruoff 2001 is a book that is explicitly written to discuss Japanese politics between 1945 and 1995. It contains some brief mentions of Emperor Jimmu when discussing National Foundation Day and Kashihara Shrine, but otherwise does not appear to give him any significant coverage. It is therefore inappropriate to be basing large chunks of our BIO article on Jimmu on a book primarily about his great, great, great ... great grandson. Ponsonby-Fane 1959 is a very old source that seems to at least be relevant, though it is only being used as a source for a non-controversial statement that I have never advocated removing. Since the statement is essentially "Kashihara Shrine was built in 1890", I would prefer a government- or shrine-linked source to the two peripheral sources (one very old, the other about Showa-Heisei politics) currently cited. These three sources are cited exclusively for non-controversial statements to which I am not opposed, with the only things that need verification being dates, and using two or three sources for dates is tricky because even if they do say the same thing, it looks like they are being SYNTHesized, especially when they do so in different contexts. For instance, when briefly analyzing Ruoff I got the impression that he didn't say "1890" for the foundation of Kashihara Shrine, until I noticed "two years later" followed several lines down from "1888". We could just use the official Kashihara website for this date, though. Bix 2001 is a massive (800-page) biography of a particular 20th-century emperor that appears to barely mention Jimmu at all. It is the only source given to a largely no-context half-paragraph about the "Hakko Ichiu" monument. The book was available from Google Play and at a discount, and Bix appears to be a respected scholar, so I bought the book (I'll read it on the bus to work in the coming months). The preview's claim that Jimmu's name is mentioned three times in the whole 800 pages is accurate. In particular, page 201, the page being cited, makes no reference to Emperor Jimmu. Citing a source on a completely-unrelated topic in order to include an extensive commentary on said topic in this article is definitely WP :SYNTH. What Curtis (and whoever added the material initially) has done is created an article that claims "The phrase Hakko Ichiu comes from the Nihon Shoki.<source=Nihon Shoki> The phrase Hakko Ichiu was also associated with early-Showa Japanese nationalism.<source=Bix 2001>" This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH, as the article now leads the reader to an entirely original conclusion that neither of the sources give by themselves. Worse still, though, is the fact that "Hakko Ichiu" itself does not appear to be mentioned on page 201! The article claims specifically that Emperor Jimmu and "Hakko Ichiu" had since 1928, [...] been espoused by the Imperial government as an expression of Japanese expansionism. But while page 201 does cover events in 1928 (NOT 1940, though), it is focused on military expansion in Shandong and suppression of communism and Sect Shinto. Curtis, where the devil is the discussion of "Hakko Ichiu" and Emperor Jimmu in Bix 2001!? Earhart 2007 appears to be an even more blatant example of a book about World War II that doesn't even mention Jimmu once, being SYNTHesized with other sources that may or may not mention the phrase "Hakko Ichiu" in relation to Emperor Jimmu. Unfortunately the book doesn't appear to mention "Hakko Ichiu" either. Curtis: World War II is not my primary area of interest, and I'm not that interested in going out of my way to acquire this book. This should not disqualify me from editing this article, of course, since Emperor Jimmu has hardly anything to do with World War II. Can you provide me with a relevant quotation from page 63? I'd prefer you don't give me your own paraphrase, since I know how prone you are to reading things into sources that aren't there. If you give me the quote, then we can talk about how relevant this book on World War II is to our article on Japan's first emperor. Of course, the statement that Hakko ichiu [read=Emperor Jimmu] envisioned the un ification of the world [...] under the Emperor's "sacred rule" definitely requires a top-class source that not only mentions Emperor Jimmu, but specifically makes this claim. Otherwise, we can't include the claim in the article. Dower 1993 is another book on World War II that (barely?) mentions Emperor Jimmu's name five times in 400+ pages. The statement to which it is attached is not really controversial, assuming that the Nihon Shoki actually does say Jimmu found five races in Japan and made them all "as brothers of one family". However, why would we need a book about World War II for a statement like this? No, the real problem is that this statement begins "... just as ...", creating an original, artificial connection between what Earhart 2007 and Dower 1993 say. (Asa less critical aside, quotations should generally be directly attributed to their source, even if not in the form of an inline citation. If the phrase "brothers of one family" originates with the Nihon Shoki or its translator, you have to mention that somewhere, not just falsely attribute the quotation to Dower.) Ruoff 2010 is (SURPRISINGLY!) actually a book about the 1940 celebration of Emperor Jimmu's supposed founding of the country 2,600 years earlier. Unfortunately, page 186 isn't actually about the "Emperor Jimmu Sacred Historical Sites" that "still exist today"; it mentions these as one (the lesser?) of two examples of monuments that the author apparently believes should probably be taken down or altered to reflect the historical/archaeological consensus that they are inauthentic. Brownlee 1999 appears to actually be about a topic relevant to this article (TWO IN A ROW!!), but why do we need two citations from this book, on top of Ruoff 2010, for this factual statement? Page 136 actually doesn't support the statement at all, as it discusses political pressure on professional historians (not archaeologists) to support the Founding Day celebrations in 1940, with no reference to sacred sites. Curtis, what exactly is on Brownlee 1999 pages 180-185 that backs up this statement? And why is it relevant to cite another page from Brownlee 1999 that doesn't? And why is Brownlee 1999 necessary at all when Ruoff 2010 is (almost) sufficient? JT 1998 is attached to a factual statement that is not wrong, but belongs in the article on National Foundation Day, not here, since it is discussing National Foundation Day, not Emperor Jimmu. Additionally, I would worry that while it might be adequate in describing modern-day (or 1990s? Japan has changed a lot since then...) political controversies surrounding the holiday, the (anonymous?) writer of the article is probably a staff writer at the Japan Times, not a professional historian, and so is likely just re-stating the claims of more reliable sources. This is another reason the statement (and the source) belong in an article on the modern holiday, not the mythical emperor. Tokutake 1995 is an apparently-reliable source being attached to a statement that may or may not belong in the version of this article I am aiming for. The problem is that I don't know a whole lot about school history textbooks in Japan and the problems they have, and I'd be willing to bet that while this statement may have been relevant in the 1970s or the 1990s, we are now at a stage where no Japanese under 50 would even remember this, and so the statement as worded (many Japanese history textbooks continued well into the 1970s to promote the story) is lending undue weight to something that isn't even a concern anymore. And while I don't know very well what Japanese politicians force Japanese schoolchildren to learn, I do know what Irish politicians forced me to learn, and blurring the lines between legends and facts seems to be something first- and second-level history syllabi do throughout the world, not just in Japan. If this is the case then we are essentially lending undue weight to one particular scholar's view of the Japanese education system. Perhaps, if someone would clarify what Tokutake actually says on pages 172 to 178, we could say something like "Pedagogical historian Toshio Tokutake has criticized Japanese history textbooks for continuing to claim the myth of Emperor Jimmu as fact several decades after World War II"?

So we can clearly see that of the 10 sources:

• 2 (Ruoff 2001 and Bix 2001) are specifically discussing a different emperor and give only passing reference to his legendary ancestor;
• 2 (Earhart 2007 and Dower 1993) are specifically discussing World War II and not Emperor Jimmu, and these are being WP:SYNTHesized together to make them seem relevant;
• 2 (Ruoff 2010 and Brownlee 1999) are clumsily attached to the same statement that one doesn't appear to support, and the other doesn't indicate is relevant;
• 1 (JT 1998) is specifically about a modern holiday that has its own article already, and not about Emperor Jimmu;
• 1 (Martin 1997) blatantly doesn't say what Curtis claims it does (World War II gets all of half a sentence);
• 1 (Ponsonby-Fane 1959) is extremely old and barely necessary, since it is attached to an uncontroversial statement;
• 1 (Tokutake 1995) appears to be taken out of context, as it only appears to be talking about how Japanese (primary school?) history textbooks (at one time?) blurred the line between legend and history -- without further international context that I don't think we can provide here, this statement as worded is problematic.

@User:CurtisNaito: Your refusal to even discuss this issue with me is beginning to get frustrating. I left your version of the page intact for six days[17][18] while I waited for you to respond to me on the talk page. After you didn't, I assumed you had given up, and so reverted[19][20] to a reasonable compromise version that cut out most of the problem material but left the section basically intact. You immediately reverted me claiming there is "no consensus to delete".[21] It is increasingly unclear whether you know what the word "consensus" means. It doesn't mean that I need your consent. It seems right now that there's a 3-1 consensus, against maintaining the section as is.

It's worth noting that of the two users other than Curtis and myself who have weighed in one stated unequivocally that Curtis's preferred version needed to be trimmed but that we shouldn't delete the whole section; the other (initially?) agreed. Therefore, my most recent edits to the article, that trim the problematic POV, UNDUE and SYNTH material but leave the section intact, is tentatively supported by all parties but Curtis, whereas the latter's insistence on not cutting a thing has not been supported by anyone.

@User:CurtisNaito & User:Sturmgewehr88: Even if WP:BURDEN focuses on material that lacks sources entirely, WP:LETTER says that that doesn't matter; the letter of BURDEN may say that, but the spirit of BURDEN is that the BURDEN is on the party wishing to include material to obtain consensus to do so, not on a party wishing to keep said material out. If consensus is not explicitly in favour of inclusion, then it stays out. I don't need "consensus" to remove contentious material if Curtis is the only one who wants to keep it; if Curtis wants to keep it in the article HE is the one who needs consensus to include it. At the moment we have one user (me) with a solid proposal to trim the section, one user (Curly Turkey) saying we should trim the section but not indicating how, and one user (Sturmgewehr88) who apparently supports a weaker form of trimming; no one here actually agrees with Curtis that all the material needs to stay as is. Therefore, the default position should be that the material is all cut and discussion should take place as to what is put back in. I have tried to compromise by only cutting the blatantly SYNTH, POV or WEIGHT material, but Curtis has continued to revert me nonetheless. I will continue to discuss here (and elsewhere if need be) before reverting again, however. If, like last week, Curtis drops out of the discussion only to come back after I edit the article, we may have a problem.

@User:Sturmgewehr88: When you stated that you agreed with Curly Turkey's proposal to trim but not remove the section, what did you mean, exactly? I cut several POV/UNDUE/SYNTH sentences, but you now seem to be saying that you are in favour of including these SYNTH/UNDUE/POV sentences.

Unlike Curly Turkey, I never said trim; I meant rewrite the section (i.e. Summarize) so it doesn't take up half the article, but keep the meaning of what the original section said. I was also neutral on removing the monument photo and in favor of removing the second image which was removed. With SYNTH, you could always rewrite it to fix it. I understand the WEIGHT issue is because of the length of the section compared to the rest of the article, but this can be fixed by summarizing the section or expanding the article. And lastly can you give an example of which sentences you consider POV? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"rewrite the section (i.e. Summarize)": is pretty much what I meant by "trim". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Curly Turkey: You stated that you were in favour of trimming the section, but not removing it entirely. What do you think of the edit I made earlier that trimmed the material I believe to be problematic? Also, you and I seem to be in basic agreement on the "consensus" issue: have you noticed how many times Curtis has been claiming I need "consensus" to make this edit?[22][23]

I thought the section was messy and took longer than it should to get to the point—I wasn't questioning the validity of the material or the sources, which I haven't looked at and probably won't. I don't think I'll have much more of any opinion on it until someone gets around to doing a proper job on this article. WP:SYNTH is a bad thing, but it's not necessarily SYNTH to use a variety of sources for different aspects.

You definitely don't need consensus to add the material, especially if it's sourced. If it's legitimately disputed (say, due to SYNTH or WP:DUE), the consensus may be to remove it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Nishidani You haven't been involved in this dispute, but CurtisNaito has been repeating a SYNTHy pattern you pointed out on Talk:Battle of Shigisan, so I'm interested in getting your opinion here. Curtis today claimed that there was no SYNTH on the "Battle of Shigisan" article, which seems like a refutation of your point from last year.

Lastly, I must apologize to all involved for an incredibly wordy post (it's even more if you check the WP:COMMENTs I left in the code). But after more than a week of tippytoeing around the issues that I thought were so numerous and obvious I thought I would receive no resistance, it seems several users still needed the SYNTH and WEIGHT problems laid out as plainly as possible.

182.249.240.4 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that all the sources in question mention aspects of Jimmu's legend in a prominent manner, and Jimmu wouldn't keep cropping up in reliable secondary sources like this if it weren't relevant. You say that Jimmu is mentioned too briefly in these sources, but that's true of the entire article. Look at the sources which this article cites relating to Jimmu's actual reign, which you say is relevant, such as Wakabayashi, Kelly, Kitagawa, Brinkley, Ooms, etc... Most of these sources actually mention Jimmu in LESS space than the sources cited in the "Commemorating Jimmu's reign" section. This is not really due to synthesis, but basically because no full-length scholarly discussion of Jimmu's entire life and legacy has been written in English and so with English sources we basically rely on those books which have written chapters or paragraphs on Jimmu rather than detailed treatises on his entire legacy. That's true of Jimmu's modern-day legend and even more true of his ancient reign. The first complaint you made against the article was insufficient sources but it was only after I fixed the sourcing issues that you mentioned the synthesis problem. The fact is that the section on the modern-day veneration of Jimmu has been a longstanding and uncontroversial part of the article which is well sourced, and given these facts it should not be subject to deletions without consensus. The parts you deleted seemed fairly arbitrary to me because it still isn't clear why Hakko Ichiu and treatment of Jimmu in post-World War II textbooks isn't relevant to Jimmu's legend. The 1940 Kigensetsu, for instance, which you had earlier implied was only peripherally relevant to Jimmu, was highly infused with Jimmu's life. The Hakko Tower was constructed on the site of Jimmu's former palace and was named after a direct quote of his. One of the sources noted that millions of pilgrims paid homage to Jimmu at Kashihara Shrine in the year 1940. The sources cited for this which mention Jimmu are actually more detailed than the ones dealing with his alleged actual reign. Originally you wanted to delete the entire section, but I don't think one other person has supported that. None of your other edits have achieved consensus yet, so for the time being we should leave the sourced information as it is until a consensus to change is reached.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

no full-length scholarly discussion of Jimmu's entire life and legacy has been written in English and so with English sources we basically rely on those books which have written chapters or paragraphs on Jimmu rather than detailed treatises on his entire legacy

That's an extraordinarily confident statement. There are numerous detailed studies on the Jimmu legend, on the reasons for its fabrication, and the uses it was put to. You can begin with the old article by Boleslaw Szczesniak,'The Sumu-Sanu Myth. Notes and Remarks on the Jimmu Tenno Myth,' in Monumenta Nipponica,Vol. 10, No. 1/2 (1954), pp. 107-126.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good source which should be added to the article, but still fairly short compared with Japanese scholarship. That article is quite narrowly focused and even describes itself as being "notes and remarks", so I stand by my previous statement. In Japanese, by contrast, Jimmu has been the subject of full length biographies such as the ones written by Teiji Kadowaki and Seiji Uemura in 1957. Since I'm working on other projects I don't currently have the time to read those books, but the point I want to make is that the section on "Commemorating Jimmu's reign" is still more reliably sourced than the rest of the article. Certainly, a long-term project can be embarked on to expand the entire article, but deleting reliably sourced material from the article won't help that goal.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There's scholarship, Japanese scholars now publish in English, as non-Japanese scholars of Japan publish in Japanese. They are a community beyond ethnic or linguistic divisions, and what is published in Japanese is read as rapidly abroad as in Japan. (2) There is no such thing as a biography of Jimmu, anymore than there are biographies of Yamato-takeru, Achilles or Gilgamesh. Non-existent people don't have biographies. What you have are studies of Jimmu traditions. The material you mention is too dated to be of use. There is an opportunity being missed here to write a scrupulouslo close article of Jimmu in ancient texts, later tradition, scholarship and commemoration, but editing the wreck we have here in bits and pieces is a waste of time, since no one will read it.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think deleting the entire article would be an extreme solution, and if no one will step up the plate to rewrite the entire article we might as well proceed step-by-step. I should note that the section on "Commemorating Jimmu's reign" was mostly written with modern sources, and while I agree that sources from before World War II are potentially tainted anything written after 1945 when free speech existed in Japan should be okay. You say that sources from 1957 are too old, but didn't you just recommend the use of a source from 1954?CurtisNaito (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You made a statement about the lack of sources in English. I cited one of the early studies as a starting point. I didn't say 'use it'. I said it's a useful starting point if you wish to explore English-language studies focused specifically on Jimmu.

Look, we write wikipedia in order to have articles that, for their topic, aspire to gain a reputation as the most reliable, up-to-date quick but comprehensive introductions to everything. It's painful to see that a country with such an extraordinarily rich culture and an equally profound culture of scholarship so poorly treated. I looked at this article today, and shook my head. Most of the elementary things are ignored, there's no coordination of templates for sourcing, errors abounded, like the example of Jimmu's Japanese name, googled stuff, random sourcing, abounds, and what is the discussion engaging? The use of Jimmu's legend in modern times.

There is a logical order in articles.

• Intro summing up the article

  Jimmu's various names, and perhaps etymologies.

  His ancestry according to myth.

  The earliest legendary accounts of his deeds and utterances

  The way modern scholarship handles the issue of when and to what purpose this legend was tailored (710-720.

  Further early mentions, and the development of the legend in medieval, and Tokugawa times

  The way the Jimmu legend was redeployed from Meiji onwards.

  Commemorative rituals

  His appearances in general culture, films, books, television etc.

Of all of these, only the commemorative and political aspects in modernity is being focused on, which is a case of putting the 乗り物 or 牛車 before the 馬.

If one did this by methodical editing, in chronological order, one would have a GA template to do all the other articles on Japan's legendary emperors.

Everyone begs off saying they are busy. Busy enough to drop in dribs and drabs for a patchwork of 'stuff' that no right-minded reader would care for. Editing in this manner is quite pointless, and is usually indexed by the quantity of discussions that accompany incompetent pages. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that does look like a good template. I'm curious to know though whether you yourself have a plan to implement it in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

He does have a point, and that's basically the template that most encyclopedic articles follow. But that is the issue of completely rewriting this: who will do it? I honestly wouldn't be interested in doing it, especially not single-handedly. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In the name section, it would take anyone just 2 minutes to copy the variants from the Japanese sister page, transliterate them, adopt the format for this that we have, and plunk them down here. Just to start the first section. It's obvious, no sweat, and no one does it. If I see signs of a willingness to work, I always help. That's why I don't work many of these pages.Nishidani (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There are over four million articles on Wikipedia, most of them as badly in need of work as this one. Some of us are busy working on some of them. If it's "obvious, no sweat", and important to you, then get to work on it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing we translate the Japanese Wikipedia article on Jimmu into English? Although that would be easy to do, the problem is that the Japanese Wikipedia article is not well cited. It's actually even more poorly cited than this one. One thing I wonder if you could do, which would be easy and useful, would be to append a list of recent English-language articles or books dealing primarily with Emperor Jimmu to the "References" list. You said that you were familiar with a lot of more recent English-language scholarship on Jimmu but probably a lot of other people aren't and the next person who wants to take up this job could use the new sources listed in the reference section in order to help them expand the article. It's not much, but it might lay the seeds for a better article some day later.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I keep having to explain clear remarks. I never advised translating the Jimmu article into English. Please dfon't read between the lines when the surface grammar is unambiguous. I gave one short pointer on how easy it is to fix one glaring problem, i.e., on Jimmu's name. Watching the clock, I excerpted in 17 seconds and plunked here

『古事記』では神倭伊波礼琵古命（かむやまといわれひこのみこと）と称され、『日本書紀』では神日本磐余彦尊（かむやまといわれひこのみこと）、始馭天下之天皇（はつくにしらすすめらみこと）、若御毛沼命（わかみけぬのみこと）、狹野尊（さののみこと）、彦火火出見（ひこほほでみ）と称される。神武天皇という呼称は、奈良時代後期の文人である淡海三船が歴代天皇の漢風諡号を一括撰進したときに付されたとされる。

You can neglect the etymological speculations for the moment. Oumi no Mifune's role in creating the names is found with a 5 second search in Jacques H. Kamstra Encounter Or Syncretism: The Initial Growth of Japanese Buddhism, Brill 1967 pp.65-67 which also explains how ōkimi titles after the Taika reforms were reworked as tennō, and that all putative 'Emperors' before Ōjin were probably conferred with this monicker by Omi no Mifune. There I've done the work you all suggest is arduous, tough, for someone else, another day, in, . . .165 seconds, less time that it took for any of the comments above to be written.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is

that those editing this article have read and looked past the trashy sourcing, repetitive comments, material irrelevant strictly to Jimmu, earlier on. The article needs drastic redrafting, and must be anchored in recent academic works on early Japan, and then its historiography. There is no room here for hangover sources preceding 1960 to be conservative. All such articles should restrict themselves to the abundant scholarship on these figures and early Japan readily available in libraries or at google books. The name section below the lead should deal, in an orderly manner with his several names, and the various hypotheses concerning them. Then you deal with the legendary story of his descent from Ninigi et al, showing its possible refraction of legends and customs, within the context of what the original compilers of the early chronicles wanted to do, in shaping the legends in the way they did. In regard to the commemoration of Jimmu, this goes back to (a) medieval times, (b)has a Tokugawa history as well, and then (c) was reelaborated in Meiji through to early Showa times. There is no reason this might not be covered. But since the extremely basic part of the article dealing with Jimmu in the early legendary annals is so lamentably poverty-stricken, it is rather odd that no attention has been given to the essence of the article, while edit-warring wastes much time over modern trivia.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Hakko Ichiu" etymology

@User:CurtisNaito: You've claimed numerous times in the article text that Hakko Ichiu is an "ancient phrase ... attributed to Emperor Jimmu".[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] I would like you to to tell me exactly which of your (専門外) sources makes this claim, and exactly how "ancient" they consider the phrase to be. My source (the Britannica Kokusai Dai-Hyakkajiten article "hakkou ichiu") says the word was coined in 1903 by Tanaka Chigaku and borrowed in 1940 by Fumimaro Konoe. What gives? 182.249.240.33 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it pointless to ask CN's opinion, since it is just patently wrong. It is well known that it was coined from the line: 然後、兼六合以開都、掩八紘而為宇、不亦可乎 in the 日本書紀 巻第三 (Sakamoto Tarō, Ienaga Saburō, Inoue Mitsusada, Ōno Susumu (eds.) Nihon Shoki, Iwanami Koten Bungaku Taikei 67 1967 p.213 column 6 midpage), by Tanaka Chigaku in 1904, or in 1912-13 from the above passage. Wiki articles usually cite Walter Edwards,'Forging Tradition for a Holy War:The Hakko Ichiu Tower in Miyazaki and Japanese Wartime Ideology,'in Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol 29, No 2 (Summer 2003) p.304 (which is the English version of his paper in Miyazaki-hi shozai 'Hakkō ichiu' no tō' in Tenri University Journal (1998) 187:pp.143-155).Taeko Teshima's doctoral dissertation, Myths of Hakkō Ichiu: Nationalism, Liminality, and Gender in Official Ceremonies of Modern Japan, University of Arizona 2006 p.85 n.154 says Tanaka first used the term in 1912-13(contradicting the main text which pins it down to 1904). I see now that this is already clear from the wiki article Hakkō ichiu, which means CN is violating repeatedly the available wiki-based and extra-wiki sourced evidence, behaviour that, if persisted in, should be drawn to administrators' attention. Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I already pointed out "loosely based" on a quote attributed to Emperor Jimmu in an email to User:Sturmgewehr88. And since no one since ... Motoori Norinaga(?) has taken the Chinese-influenced quotations from Emperor Jimmu seriously as literal history, it seems pretty pointless to include that information in our article on Emperor Jimmu. As I've stated numerous times already, while some (very few) books and articles on subjects 1940s Japanese nationalism, the Pacific War, and the phrase itself might briefly mention this emperor, almost no books or articles on this emperor even mention any of those things, and even when they do they never say the kind of things CN's preferred version of this article says.

Also, CN's most recent string of reverts have cited Edwards for the "ancient phrase" wording (actually naming the source "jimmu", implying he has no interest in actually consulting sources that are about Emperor Jimmu). I haven't taken the time to read Edwards yet but does he actually specify that this is a modern coinage? Because if he actually says the opposite of what CN claims then we might have a problem.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (182...)

All the sources cited in that section directly link Emperor Jimmu with Hakko Ichiu. If you have a disagreement with these sources then it's the noticeboard on reliable sources that we should consult because the claim of original research is not true. Here is what the sources say.

Edward="Atop a tableland in the city of Miyazaki stands a stone tower, nearly 37 meters tall, its front face bearing the cryptic motto "hakko ichiu" in large characters (Figure 1). On its back, another bold inscription gives its date of construction as "kigen 2,600 nen," or year 2,600 of the current era. Both in scriptions link the tower to the realm of Japanese myth and, moreover, to the account contained therein of Jimmu, the legendary first emperor credited with founding the Japanese nation... The four-character formula hakko ichiu derives from a statement attributed to Jimmu just prior to his ascension... The text from which hakko ichiu thus derives is the Nihon shoki, compiled in a.D. 720 as the official history of the ancient Japanese state, whose ruling dynasty laid claim to Jimmu as its founding ancestor, and through him to divine descent from the Sun Goddess herself."

Dower="When Emperor Jimmu founded the Japanese state 2,600 years earlier, the Japan Times and Mail explained, the land was inhabited by at least five different races. Jimmu declared that they should unite under 'one roof'... it was the same account of Jimmu extending his sway over the diverse peoples of ancient Japan, based on a passage in the earliest written chronicles of Japan, dating from the eighth century, which inspired Japan's World War Two slogan about the country's divine mission to bring all races and nations of the world under 'one roof'."

Earheart="After all, it was Emperor Jinmu, the founder of the nation, who was said to have used the phrase, 'Hakko Ichiu' ('the eight corners [of the world] under one roof') to describe his unification of the known world under his sacred rule."

This information is well sourced and clearly relevant to Jimmu. Since we have three scholarly sources stating that Hakko Ichiu was directly linked with Emperor Jimmu, we can't delete it unless we find a number of reliable sources explicitly stating that Hakko Ichiu was not attributed to Emperor Jimmu.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dearie, weary me. I must assume you are sincere but as at Shigisen, your inability to understand what informed scholars are saying causes editors endless grief . .

All the above shows you are utterly incapable of reading your sources, lack an intuitive or acquired feel for the niceties of scholarly prose, and the evidence suggests you are either googling bits you want to read, or ignoring anything else in those texts which clarifies precisely what Hijiri and myself are saying.

• The statement from Edward 'The four-character formula hakko ichiu derives from a statement attributed to Jimmu just prior to his ascension,'is on p.290.
• On page 304 'the four-character slogan hakko ichiu derived from Jimmu's proclamation. Its invention is attributed to Tanaka Chigaku. Here 'derived from' is glossed' by '(invented by) Tanaka Chigaku'.
• The statement from John Dower p.221 reads:based on a passage in the earliest written chronicles of Japan, dating from the eighth century, which inspired Japan's World War Two slogan . Dower is reporting WW2 hypernationalist rhetoric in the Japan Times, not what scholars know. Dower everywhere in that book refers to it as a 'popular slogan' (pp.246,284)

This confirms that both Dower and Edward are fully aware that hakkō ichiu is not an ancient phrase, but a phrase 'invented' by a modern figure or one based on words in Japan's early chronicles. To call it an ancient phrase is to completely misunderstand the very sources you cite. It is not an ancient phrase because, as the direct quote from the Nihonshoki I cited shows, only 3 of the four characters are in that source, and two are separated from the third. That is why in the form used by fascists which is endlessly repeated, is derived from the Nihonshoki, but does not appear in the Nihon shoki. It is a precise, important and simple distinction, and one you have utterly failed to grasp.

For the record, Tanaka coined the phrase in a four-hour lecture given in November 1903, Kōso no Kenkoku to Honge no Taikyō.(皇宗の建国と本化の大教) The lecture was published in April 1904 as Sekai Tōitsu no Tengyō (世界統一の天業). In the written version (1903) he used 天地一宇. In his 1912-1913 lectures he reverts to 八紘一宇, ‘his succinct version of the Nihongi wording (whose Chinese text gave him trouble in interpreting). ‘This is the origin, it seems, of the slogan adopted by the ultra-nationalists of the 1930s and 1940s'. Edwin B. Lee, ‘Nichiren and Nationalism: The Religious Patriotism of Tanaka Chigaku,’. in Monumenta Nipponica 1975, 30:1 (1975).pp.19-35 pp.28-29.

Got it, then? Please stop waffling and wasting people's time.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

However, all the sources mention Jimmu in association with Hakko Ichiu. One could certainly argue that Jimmu's alleged intentions were being misused, but the fact is that during the 1930's and 1940's everyone in Japan attributed the phrase to Jimmu and that is notable. In consideration of your concerns, however, I'll add "derived" into the text. There is still no reason to delete it.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that the article on Jimmu can have a section on the uses to which his legend was put in modern times. But please, please, try to understand what fellow editors say, the nuances of scholarship. To avoid WP:Synth you just need to get documents and books which address specifically the modern uses of the Jimmu legend. I gave you two (Lee now), but there are many, in Japanese and other languages.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the edits you made are fine. Frankly, I would have provided these additional details myself but I was being urged by another user to cut rather than expand the text so my originally goal was to keep it short and leave the details for other articles. Having said that, I like the current version better and I hope that the information in this article which is reliably sourced will not be subject to further deletions.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, fine, but not understanding the points being made has forced other editors to do a lot of work and spend time here more profitably spent on other things. Your last edit left in the very phrasing I had shown to be dubious, suggesting to me that, even while accepting my points, you were reluctant to actually edit to the facts. There's a large amount of crap in the article. The Eastward campaign is pure WP:OR for the simple reason that the Kojiki and Nihon shoki accounts conflict on several points. There is no one 'eastward movement'. There are legends that tells of this in different ways, and serious editing means that one must use secondary sources aware of the clash in the versions in order to rewrite the crappy synthetic version we have. Actually, it's far far more interesting than the dull story we tell here. But I'm fucked if I have more time to waste on fixing these articles. The faults are obvious.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, stop edit-warring

@User:CurtisNaito: The material you are still arguing to include has been challenged. Some of it has been thoroughly disproven with reference to reliable sources. Other bits are not supported by the sources you are citing. Please discuss here before reverting again. You are the only one arguing for the material's inclusion, while other editors (User:Curly Turkey, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Nishidani) have all agreed with me to varying degrees that at least some of this material needs to be cut, and you have been roundly called out for WP:SYNTH by more than one user on more than one occasion.

The default state is that material that is disputed is not included in the article unless there is consensus to include it. One user can never be considered a consensus. If you re-add the material again I will revert you. You need to come to the talk page and actually discuss the issues we raise. Don't just wave us off by claiming "The sources use Jimmu's name. End of story." The fact is that even if the sources use Jimmu's name, most/all of them do not say what you want them to. For example, I challenged you to quote Earhart in a way that demonstrates the claim made in the article. You quoted Earhart as saying something completely unrelated (and actually getting the facts wrong). Please stop this. Discuss the issues at hand, and do not make fallacious, straw man arguments.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Okay, per Curtis' latest revert, the issues under discussion are:

1. The statement Hakkō ichiu was thus employed in a way that envisioned the unification of the world (the "eight corners of the world") under the Japanese Emperor's "sacred rule".
2. The use of two sources (Ruoff and Brownlee) for the sentence The same year, the Japanese government erected numerous stone monuments relating to key events ascribed to Jimmu in his legendary life, at "Emperor Jimmu Sacred Historical Sites", which still exist today.
3. The assertion that Kenkoku Kinen no hi is "a patriotic holiday".
4. The inclusion of an inline translation of the name of this holiday.
5. The division of paragraphs between the sentence about monuments, the sentence about modern Kenkoku Kinen no hi, and the sentence about history books.

My arguments are as follows:

• (1) This claim is not supported by Earhart. When I challenged Curtis to produce the relevant quote from Earhart p63, he quoted a passage that did not make this claim. The claim it did make (that the phrase "hakko ichiu" itself was attributed to Jimmu) was WRONG, which brings Earhart's reliability as a source of information on this subject into question. Additionally, the sarcastic-looking scare-quotes around "sacred rule" are definitely inappropriate, even if they are meant to mark a quotation from Earhart.
• (2) I don't see why this statement needs two sources. Given CurtisNaito's history of misrepresenting and/or misquoting sources, I am innately sceptical of a source he cites that I can't see, and the statement itself is suitably supported by the source I can see.
• (3) I forgot to undo this in my initial revert, so I laid out my problem with this claim in my edit summary here. Basically this is a POV statement, attributed to one anonymous journalist, and directly smears the overwhelmingly majority of the population of Japan, who celebrate this holiday whether or not they are "patriotic" (read: right-wing nationalists).
• (4) This may or may not simply be a misunderstanding, but I don't see why this is relevant. We can use the English name in the text, or the Japanese name, but why do we need both when the subject already has a Wikipedia article and MOS:JAPAN says we shouldn't?
• (5) I'm interested to hear Curtis' reasoning behind this. The last sentence has nothing to do with the holidays. The sentence about modern Kenkoku Kinen no hi is a direct continuation of the previous paragraph. This problem has nothing to do with sourcing.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliably sourced information should not be deleted without consensus and none of your deletions were accepted by anyone in discussions. "Japanese Historians and the National Myths, 1600–1945" spends one chapter discussing various issues involved in the designation of the sacred historical sites. I urge you to read the book yourself so you can see that it does in fact deal with this issue. Earhart was also correctly cited as quoted above. Saying that Emperor Jimmu "was said to have used the phrase" Hakko Ichiu, as Earhart does, is not a mistake. Earhart is only accurately reporting on what Japanese people believed at the time. Earhart mentions Jimmu in a number of places in the book.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Per my above summary, I made five edits to the article that you revert. Of these five, only one was to remove "sourced information". I explained why I do not believe this to be "sourced" information, since you yourself quoted Earhart as not supporting this claim. And no, I do not need "consensus" to removed badly-sourced, POV information. I'm reverting again, and if you continue to EDITWAR we will take this to WP:ANEW and let the administrators deal with you. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(1.)The claim is supported by Earhart. Though the quotes around sacred rule were part of the original we could delete them if you want. Earhart, however, was not wrong to say that Hakko Ichiu was attributed to Emperor Jimmu. The book could have also said that the phrase was "derived from Jimmu's own words" but those might be just two different ways of saying the same thing and there is no evidence any error was made. (2.) There is no reason to delete the second source because it provides details on the designation of the historical sites which would be of interest to people wanting to read further into this. For what it's worth, that is the only source in the whole article which mentions Jimmu's name in the title of the book itself. (3.) We can take out the word patriotic. I didn't revert that one. I'm aware that it's the same as any holiday which may or may not have religious or political connotations depending on the person. (4.) I didn't revert that part either. We can use either the Japanese or English name for the holiday. (5.) I don't think that the paragraphing matters that much, though for the record I was just thinking about chronological order when I wrote it. The first paragraph was pre-war, the second was wartime, and the third was post-war.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey noted earlier "You definitely don't need consensus to add the material, especially if it's sourced."CurtisNaito (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If Earhart claims the phrase itself was attributed to Jimmu, without also noting that it was neologism coined in 1903 by Tanaka Chigaku, then Earhart is WRONG. If he does correctly point out that it was a neologism coined in 1903 by Tanaka Chigaku, then you are quoting him out of context. 182.249.240.32 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Earhart mentions Jimmu numerous times the book, including this sentence which is correctly cited. "After all, it was Emperor Jinmu, the founder of the nation, who was said to have used the phrase, 'Hakko Ichiu' ('the eight corners [of the world] under one roof') to describe his unification of the known world under his sacred rule. The ancient phrase was an imperative to all Japanese subjects to bring the world together under imperial rule, a goal requiring the undivided energy and devotion of all members of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Maybe you believe that Earhart's choice of words was different from the ones you would have chosen, but that is not the same thing as a mistake. Also, why would you complain about sources which do not deal specifically with Jimmu but then keep on deleting the only major reference which Jimmu is actually mentioned in the title of.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

We've both breeched WP:3RR, so I've taken this to WP:ANEW. Your talk page comments are becoming almost incoherent. Please actually address the issues being discussed. 182.249.240.23 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the good news is that I think there are only two issues left. (1.) Inclusion of the Brownlee source: I advocate that we include this because it is a supporting reference to the preceding statement, and what's more's it's a book specifically about Jimmu, which you already stated was the kind of source you particularly wanted. (2.) There is a statement in the article "Hakkō ichiu was thus employed in a way that envisioned the unification of the world (the 'eight corners of the world') under the Japanese Emperor's 'sacred rule'" which is cited to Earhart. What part of this sentence do you think is not in accordance with what Earhart said? I'm sure we can just change the sentence rather than deleting it but I can't do that until I can figure what discrepancy you think exists between the text of the book and the text of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with calling National Foundation Day "patriotic" when it celebrates the founding of Japan? I thought all national days were considered "patriotic" whether it's celebrated by everyone or only by "right-wing nationalists". ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It is technically patriotic, as is noted in the National Foundation Day article, but then again Christmas is technically religious. I'm okay with it either way. I can see how each person naturally interprets holidays in their own way.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that is technically patriotic. But I think we should remove the phrase anyway because it somewhat problematically assigns political motivation on the part of all Japanese whoo don't actively boycott it. (Like, as Curtis points out, calling Christmas a religious holiday in a work aimed at non-specialists from non-Western countries who have never heard of Christmas.) As to Earhart, I still don't see the quotation that backs up the statement in question. Until such a quotation is provided, I won't take Curtis' word that it's in there somewhere. Additionally, if Earhart does in fact say that "hakko ichiu" is a quotation from Jimmu, and never qualifies this with the actual etymology of the term, then we must reject Earhart as a reliable source for this article. He clearly is writing about World War II, not the subject of this article, so our default position should not simply be to take his word for it unless he agrees with actual experts in the field. And if the sentence stays, then "sacred rule" (scare quotes implying a theological rejection of the emperor's rule being "sacred") must be replaced with the neutrally-worded rule (no quotes, the word "sacred" excised entirely). 182.249.240.17 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I already gave you the relevant quote from both the article and the book, so I still can't figure out where the discrepancy lies. Still, we can solve this by changing it into a complete, direct quote as in, "Hakkō ichiu was understood as 'an imperative to all Japanese subjects to bring the world [(the "eight corners of the world")] together under imperial rule'". As noted above, Earhart does not say that hakko ichiu is a direct quote of Emperor Jimmu's, he says that it was attributed to Jimmu, which is true. Also, there is no need for mistrust here. No proof has ever been found that I ever misrepresented any sources. Even if we interpret the sources in different ways, all we have to do is change the wording to reflect a broader interpretation. In no case were the facts presented in the article different from the facts presented in the sources. When Nishidani was editing this section, all that was necessary was adding some minor changes to the wording which I myself would have added if I didn't feel constricted by space. None of the sources nor any significant information was deleted from the article precisely because I didn't put any incorrect information into the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Earhart-sourced sentence

Per the above section, particularly Curtis' and my last two comments, the current problem is not edit-warring but disagreement over this one sentence, and so I'm opening a new section. Curtis has suggested removing the sentence (originally added by an anti-Japanese POV-pusher who doesn't read Japanese) and replacing it with a direct quotation from Earhart. This would be COMPLETELY inappropriate as Earhart's book is not about our present subject, nor does it give significant coverage to the subject. It is a book about World War II, a subject peripherally related to Emperor Jimmu. Books and articles about Emperor Jimmu (that have his name in their titles) don't generally discuss World War II either. 182.249.240.29 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

When asked for the relevant quote on Monday Curtis ignored the request. When challenged on the indisputable facts about the neologism hakko ichiu's etymology, he quoted Earhart as saying

After all, it was Emperor Jinmu, the founder of the nation, who was said to have used the phrase, 'Hakko Ichiu' ('the eight corners [of the world] under one roof') to describe his unification of the known world under his sacred rule.

I asked him if this is actually Earhart's claim. He responded by dodging the question. He was called out by both Nishidani and myself for either (a) misreading the source or (b) abusing a source that happens to contain a mistake. I'd like to see how the other two users who have been involved here think of this? 182.249.240.1 (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what Earhart says, but there's nothing incorrect about it. Jimmu was indeed said to have used the phrase in that manner, a fact still noted in the article. The older version of the article said the same thing as the current version, but with less specifics and clarifications. The current version is more detailed and more specific, but neither was factually wrong.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) No. "Jimmu used this phrase" is incorrect. The Nihon Shoki attributes a quotation whose Chinese composition shares several letters with the phrase to Jimmu. The traditional Japanese reading (漢文訓読 kanbun-kundoku) of the quotation is also different. The phrase is neologism (造語 zougo) coined in 1903. (Britannica Kokusai) If you have a source that says "the phrase was supposedly used by Emperor Jimmu" and neglects these facts, then you need to throw that source out, not quote it when the article contains no other quotations! 182.249.240.34 (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Earhart naturally focuses primarily on uses of Jimmu's name around World War II. By that period the leaders and citizenry of Japan who constantly bandied about Jimmu's slogan of hakko ichiu obviously cared a lot more about the year 660 BC than the year 1903. Earhart just points out that Jimmu "was said to have used the phrase" and that is true.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Missed this: Earhart naturally focuses primarily on uses of Jimmu's name around World War II. No. No he doesn't. Earhart doesn't "focus" on Jimmu at all. I do not own his book, and while his PhD thesis may have been in a field I am interested in, this book is not. The Google Books preview shows my his chapter titles, not a single one of which implies its accompanying chapter focuses on Emperor Jimmu. The bibliography is also not in the preview, but I would like you to tell me (assuming you have access to it) whether it contains any primary or secondary sources relating to our subject. Or whether such sources are cited in the one chapter (one page?) that apparently use Emperor Jimmu's name. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Find me a Japanese source from the 1940s that claims "Jimmu used the phrase hakkou ichiu". If Earhart claims what you say he does, he must cite a source. 182.249.240.18 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're really splitting hairs in trying to discredit Earhart. Just because he didn't delve into all the pre-World War II details of hakko ichiu doesn't mean he made a mistake. Kodansha's article on Hakko Ichiu says "The phrase was adapted from a quotation in the 8th century chronicle Nihon shoki, where it was attributed to the legendary first emperor, Jimmu." Like Earhart, it only says that that the phrase was attributed to Jimmu, not that he specifically said it.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm not trying to "discredit" anyone. Earhart is a fine source for our articles on "propaganda" and "World War II". But he does not appear to be a specialist on ancient Japanese history, Japanese classical literature, Japanese mythology, Shinto or archaeology. You appear to have access to his book. Check his bibliography. Did he read the Kojiki or Nihon-Shoki? If yes, did he read them in English or Japanese/kanbun? If no, where did he get his information on Emperor Jimmu? Did any of his sources read the Kojiki or Nihon-Shoki? Or were they themselves tertiary sources? I'm pretty sure the last of those wikilinks is a redlink, because no sensible good-faith Wikipedia editor considers quaternary sources to be valid sources of information. The reason I'm worried about using sources from completely unrelated fields that barely mention Jimmu, is that even the most thorough scholar can't be relied on to check primary or even secondary sources for every little tidbit in their books. This means these tidbits likely came from sources that were themselves reliant on other sources. If a claim appears in either a tertiary or quaternary source, and is contradicted by a careful reading of the secondary source they themselves used, then we throw out the tertiary or quaternary source as containing inaccurate data. We don't say "Source X says this but Source Y disagrees".

But all this nitpicking over Earhart is pointless. Because the statement in the article to which his name is attached is not supported by the quotation you provided. I asked you for a quotation that matched the claim in the article on Monday. You ignored me. You finally provided Nishidani with a quote yesterday in relation to the etymology of the phrase hakkou ichiu. This quote dealt (misleadingly, at best) with the etymology of the phrase, but has almost no connection to the relevant article text. Please give me a quotation that actually says "Hakkō ichiu was thus employed in a way that envisioned the unification of the world (the "eight corners of the world") under the Japanese Emperor's "sacred rule"". (Now, the word "thus" here is problematic as well because the previous sentence is cited to a different source. If both the "cause" and "result" are given in the same source, then they should both be attributed to that source. If the "result" source doesn't actually give a "cause", or gives a different "cause", then the article is violating WP:SYNTH by attributing one source's "result" to another source's "cause".)

126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see why we should delete Earhart. None of the sources cited in this whole article are exclusively about Jimmu (though he is a major subject of "Japanese Historians and the National Myths, 1600–1945"). Furthermore, it's not anti-Japanese to associate Jimmu with World War II, it's just a part of history. Many Japanese leaders in the 1930's and 1940's went out of their way to associate Jimmu with all Japanese nationalist discourse. Hakko Ichiu and the Kigensetsu of 1940 were just the tip of the iceberg. Earhart's book on World War II mentions Jimmu on twelve different pages in relation not only to Hakko Ichiu and Kigensetsu but also for other ways that Jimmu's name was evoked during the war. Hopefully we'll have another article one day to go deeper into those parts. You say that, "Books and articles about Emperor Jimmu (that have his name in their titles) don't generally discuss World War II either" but that's not the case. Of the two sources we have that mention Jimmu's name in the title, one of them deals very substantially with events occurring during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II (the book "Japanese Historians and the National Myths"). The other one is just a short article on a very specific topic relating to the author's own theory on from which sources the Jimmu myth originated. From the beginning you obviously had a strong objection to discussing the modern veneration of Jimmu in this article, but I don't think that anyone concurred with that position because the uses of Jimmu's name directly before and during the war were aspects of his legend that are consistently deemed noteworthy by scholars of Japanese history.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Flying tiger (talk · contribs) is an anti-Japanese POV-pusher. Virtually all of his/her edits have been to this effect. As to Earhart, see my above remarks. And don't put words in my mouth. I'm the one who added the image of Kashihara Shrine, an actual contemporary Shinto shrine where our subject is literally worshiped as a deity, to this article. I'm all for covering modern veneration of Jimmu. What I'm "opposed" to is inaccurate, misleading and/or FALSE material being included in the article. 182.249.240.33 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, can I get confirmation that we are now down only to "disagreement over this one sentence". If this is the very last issue that needs to be discussed then we are making progress.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Experience has taught me that on Wikipedia if I say "compromise with me on this and we're done" and then propose a compromise, the opposing party will "accept" my compromise but "interpret" it "differently", creating new problems down the line and making me look like the belligerent one. So I'm not going to respond to this request until either (a) you give in or (b) you (miraculously) convince a third party with your arguments. 182.249.240.27 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am willing to give in on this one issue provided that you don't delete any more sourced material. What concerns me is that what you seem to want as criteria for this article is that the source be largely or entirely about Jimmu to qualify. But if we use that criteria, we would actually have to delete every single source in the whole article except for "The Sumu-Sanu Myth" and "Japanese Historians and the National Myths", the latter of which you tried to delete anyway. However, if you agree to only delete this source and not try to delete all the others on the same grounds then I suppose the article can make do without this one sentence.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what are you willing to give in on? I want the entire sentence to be deleted because it is WP:SYNTH that, even if it is objectively WP:TRUE it still belongs in another article, not here.

As to your concern about my sourcing standards: nonsense. I think we should use our brains when determining which sources to use in which context. Your standards (Emperor Jimmu's "keeps cropping up" in books about World War II) are much more concerning: we are obliged to indiscriminately include information about the World War II because a very small number (I'd estimate less than 0.01%[32][33]) of books on World War II happen to use Jimmu's name, and those only mention the name once or twice, and are invariably written by World War II specialists who have never read the Kojiki, Nihon-Shoki, or even a reliable secondary source. If a book is written by an author who has never read either a primary or secondary source on this topic, then that book is probably not a reliable source. And if the book barely mentions this topic, then it's a good bet the author didn't see it as necessary to consult a primary or secondary source. You can use the book's bibliography to play this game. I played the game last autumn and found out that Louis Frederic probably did not speak Japanese. Per WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL, you are of course free to use sources that I don't have direct access to without paying. However, given your history, I'm entitled to be skeptical, and when I ask you directly for quotations and you constantly dodge the question, that can only be interpreted as a misrepresentation of sources. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden to cite sources and gain consenseus is always on the party wishing to add information. Even if the material "has been here for a long time". I provided clear evidence that the reason the material had been here for a long time was that on one occasion an aggressively anti-Japanese POV-pusher and no one had bothered to remove it since.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm more in favor of rewording it. So from what I've read so far, we've agreed to remove quotation marks and the word "sacred":

• Hakkō ichiu was thus employed in a way that envisioned the unification of the world (the "eight corners of the world") under the Japanese Emperor's rule.

What else do we change to remove any POV, SYNTH, UNDUE, OR, or anything else that could be wrong with it? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That wording sounds good to me. Unless a new concern is raised we should go with that.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither Curtis nor anyone else has addressed my concerns about granting UNDUE weight to Tokutake's (out-of-context?) claims in the final sentence yet. I don't find the claim personally offensive (it's probably "true" and it's at least peripherally related to this article's subject), but if Tokutake doesn't specifically talk about the JIMMU narrative (as opposed to, say, "the mythical narrative found in the Kojiki") then the sentence belongs in another article. I wanted to remove it pending verification that it isn't SYNTH like everything else that was in the section until this week. Since I can't prove it to be SYNTH without paying money for the source, and since it isn't offensive, I didn't remove it in my last few edits, and so Curtis didn't re-add it when he reverted me. Now that consensus has been established that just about everything else was SYNTH, we need to take the last sentence with a grain of salt: just because its source is in Japanese (and therefore wasn't SYNTHesized by User:Flying tiger, who doesn't appear to speak Japanese), it doesn't mean it gets off the hook. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing was ever demonstrated to be synthesis and there was no consensus of that, so these accusations are unwarranted. It's troubling that with both Tokutake and Brownlee you wanted to remove sources from the article which you yourself have admitted that you haven't actually read. As for Tokutake, he does note that the legendary aspects of Jimmu's reign continued to reappear in textbooks well after the end of the war, as well as discussing the treatment of the Nihon Shoki in general. If you run a search on the Hathitrust version of the book you can at least see that Jimmu's name is mentioned in, among other places, the pages which are cited.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not troubling at all. You have misrepresented sources almost every time I have interacted with you. In fact, every single source I challenged in this article was being misrepresented. Nishidani agreed. Sturmgewehr just above here admitted that there were problems. You have not even countered my arguments about misrepresenting sources. I asked for quotes what seems like dozens of times and you ignored me. Therefore, there's a high probability that the sources I can't see also don't say what you claim they do. I have followed your Hathitrust suggestion and found that this source at least mentions our subject extensively. Congratulations. But that was never my concern with this sentence. It does not address my earlier concern that "unbroken imperial line" is actually the historical consensus. The closest thing to a historical document that implies a non-kōzoku was able to usurp the throne and "break" the imperial line is the fictional Tale of Genji, and even in that work the commoner in question was born an imperial prince and made a commoner artificially by his father. I want the quote from Tokutake that backs up "promote the story of Japan's divine origins and Jimmu's founding of an unbroken imperial line". And, again, if it's just one pedagogy scholar complaining about the Japanese history curricula blurring the lines between myth and history in the recent past, then per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT we would need to add a similar claim to our George Washington article.[34] If he says the problem was endemic and mentions other scholars who agree with him that's another matter, though. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User Sturmgewehr just said that he wanted to include the Earhart source, and so do I. None of the changes you made to the article in the past were specifically supported by anyone. When you asked Curly Turkey if he supported your deletions he did not say yes, he explicitly said that sourced material can be added without consensus, and he also modified his earlier statement about trimming the article. By contrast, it appears that both Sturmgewehr and I have said that the Earhart source can stay. I already provided you with a direct quote of the relevant portion. As for Tokutake, I can't provide a direct quote since I don't have the source on me right now. I read it a few years ago and took notes. I do recall that the mention of Jimmu was brief, but it was in the context of how Japanese textbooks continued for a long time to take seriously the entire narrative of the Nihon Shoki. For instance, Ienaga Saburo's textbook was met with strong reservations from the Education Ministry precisely because it didn't include information on the first emperor Jimmu.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the changes you made to the article in the past were specifically supported by anyone. Do not speak to me like that. I have been editing this article since before you registered an account.[35][36] You suddenly appeared here for the first time to revert me. When you say "none of the changes you made to the article in the past" you are in fact referring to edits I made in the recent past that you disputed. No one has "specifically" agreed with any of your proposed versions of this article. My initial removal of the controversial material received the tacit support of every user who was watching this page during the open and very lively RM. You waited until two weeks after the RM closed to revert me. You have been thoroughly and repeatedly called out for misreading and misrepresenting sources by both me and Nishidani. If you were to drill Nishidani on which of my edits he approves of and which he disapproves of, he would probably agree with at least 80%. And one of the ones he disagrees with is this, which has nothing whatsoever with this dispute. When you asked Curly Turkey if he supported your deletions he did not say yes, he explicitly said that sourced material can be added without consensus, and he also modified his earlier statement about trimming the article. You are misrepresenting User:Curly Turkey's words. He was talking about properly sourced material. Material whose source does not support it is WP:UNREFERENCED for all intents and purposes. Every single edit you made regarding the phrase hakkou ichiu before last night when Nishidani and I told you where the phrase actually came from was OR. I already provided you with a direct quote of the relevant portion. The only quote I can see is "After all, it was Emperor Jinmu, the founder of the nation, who was said to have used the phrase, 'Hakko Ichiu' ('the eight corners [of the world] under one roof') to describe his unification of the known world under his sacred rule."[37] This does not match the claim in the article about World War II use of the phrase. Show me a quote that backs up The Japan Times in 1940 asserted that Emperor Jimmu, finding five races in Japan, had made them all as "brothers of one family." Hakkō ichiu was thus [emphasis added] employed in a way that envisioned the unification of the world (the "eight corners of the world") under the Japanese Emperor's "sacred rule". Why is the "thus" there? Does Earhart say "thus"? If he does, what does he say in the previous sentence? Why does our previous sentence cite a separate source? As for Tokutake, I can't provide a direct quote since I don't have the source on me right now. I read it a few years ago and took notes. That doesn't really matter, given the concerns I expressed in my previous comment. Unless a second source can be found that says the same thing, the statement doesn't belong in our article. For instance, Ienaga Saburo's textbook was met with strong reservations from the Education Ministry precisely because it didn't include information on the first emperor Jimmu. THANK YOU! That's at least a solid factual statement we can test. And a cursory Googling indicates that you are correct.[38] However, I would still prefer my proposed wording from earlier in the week.[39] Are you averse to "Pedagogical historian Toshio Tokutake has criticized Japanese history textbooks for continuing to promulgate the Nihon Shoki narrative of Emperor Jimmu several decades after World War II"? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, are Earhart and Tokutake the only two sources we are still discussing? It's hard to keep this conversation focused. We are down to two issues, right?CurtisNaito (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But bear in mind that I intend to continue editing this page in the future, as I have done over the past decade in a manner you callously dismissed a little above. You may not agree with said edits. The current discussion is limited to these two. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't put the word "thus" in there, Nishidani did. I'm sure it was nothing sinister. Nishidani probably just put it there to make the sentences flow smoothly. For Earhart, I already provided you with the relevant quote, but here it is once again "After all, it was Emperor Jinmu, the founder of the nation, who was said to have used the phrase, 'Hakko Ichiu' ('the eight corners [of the world] under one roof') to describe his unification of the known world under his sacred rule. The ancient phrase was an imperative to all Japanese subjects to bring the world together under imperial rule, a goal requiring the undivided energy and devotion of all members of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Before "After all" is "National unity was a common theme of these celebrations." This is referring to Kigensetsu. I already provided you with most of the Dower quote, but here is more of it, "When Emperor Jimmu founded the Japanese state 2,600 years earlier, the Japan Times and Mail explained, the land was inhabited by at least five different races. Jimmu declared that they should unite under 'one roof', and in obedience to that command the races became 'as brothers of one family'. Although the newspaper did not press the point, it was the same account of Jimmu extending his sway over the diverse peoples of ancient Japan, based on a passage in the earliest written chronicles of Japan, dating from the eighth century, which inspired Japan's World War Two slogan about the country's divine mission to bring all races and nations of the world under 'one roof'."CurtisNaito (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm fine with writing into the article, "The historian Toshio Tokutake has criticized Japanese history textbooks for continuing to promulgate the Nihon Shoki narrative of Emperor Jimmu several decades after World War II."CurtisNaito (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why does this have to be in this article, again? The basic gist of your above comment is that both Dower and Earhart, and all the material cited to them, are only peripherally related to Emperor Jimmu, by way of National Foundation Day and hakkō ichiu. Why can't you add this material to one or both of those articles and leave sentences linking to them here? And if both Dower and Earhart say basically the same thing, why do we even need both of them in any article? Why not pick one and roll with it? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that there needs to be coverage of hakko ichiu in the article. Both sources contain information on Hakko Ichiu which specifically mentions Jimmu and the ways his memory was used. They both provide complementary information explaining how the term was used. I don't see any reason to delete either of them.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that there needs to be coverage of hakko ichiu in the article. Define "coverage". For me, a one-sentence description of the topic's (peripheral) link this article, with a link to the relevant article, is enough. I like the etymological note Nishidani added (otherwise I wouldn't have expanded it), but I still think it would be more at home there than here. How about "Before and during World War II, expansionist propaganda made frequent use of the phrase hakkō ichiu, a neologism coined by Tanaka Chigaku based on a passage in Nihon Shoki attributed to Emperor Jimmu."? I would also be open to "Some media incorrectly attributed the exact phrase to Emperor Jimmu." on top of that. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Also, when you asked me why I was calling this material anti-Japanese (or at least anti-Imperial family), I pointed out to you who it was that originally added the material, and why they did. You just kind of left that hanging. The fact is that most, if not all, of this material was originally meant as a POV WP:COATRACK to attack Japan and/or the Japanese imperial family, by a user with a history of such.[40][41] You also haven't qualified your recurring claims that "Emperor Jimmu's name keeps cropping up" in books about World War II. I provided evidence that this is in fact not the case, and you again just ignored me. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There are only four sentences here explaining Hakko Ichiu. I don't think that it's particularly excessive. One would almost certainly not be enough. I didn't leave the other issue hanging, what I said was that it's wrong to assume that the linking of Jimmu with World War II is anti-Japanese. It's just a part of history mentioned by Dower, Earhart, Brownlee, Ruoff, and many others who aren't noted for being anti-Japanese. Saying that User:Flying Tiger was trying to push an agenda is just assuming bad faith. Frankly, you need to be careful about that because accusing me of misrepresenting sources due to what was in fact a very minor difference in our choice of words was also assuming bad faith.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

it's wrong to assume that the linking of Jimmu with World War II is anti-Japanese That's why I didn't. My use of the word "anti-Japanese" was with reference to the Wikipedia activity of a particular user. Scholars are free to say whatever they want about Emperor Jimmu, and associate him with World War II as much as they want. I'm not accusing them or their work of being "anti-Japanese". But on Wikipedia we summarize the scholarly consensus, and we don't go off on tangents about peripherally-related topics. In this case we have violated this policy. The reason we did this is because one Wikipedia user is (was, really -- he/she is barely active now) openly biased against Japan and Japanese sources of information. Dower, Earhart, Brownlee, Ruoff, and many others Again, less, than 0.01% of all books on World War II, and also a minority of works on Emperor Jimmu...[42][43][44] Saying that User:Flying Tiger was trying to push an agenda is just assuming bad faith. "Japanese sources are inherently biased and unreliable. We should not use Japanese sources when discussing the Emperor of Japan." ... accusing me of misrepresenting sources due to what was in fact a very minor difference in our choice of words was also assuming bad faith ""Emperor Jimmu's name keeps cropping up in so many books about World War II" ... "hakkō ichiu, an ancient phrase attributed to Jimmu" ... "Sansom and the other sources did not consult the Nihon Shoki, and we should totally SYNTHesize a bunch of peripheral material to this article to expand it". I have only interacted with you three times. I don't want to go back to the Taminato incident in detail for personal reasons, but you were promoting SYNTH in that case too. That's 100% of the articles you and I have conflicted on. I don't know if it's 100% of all the articles you have ever worked on, and frankly I don't care. "Frankly", to use your wording, this means that if you are being called out for misrepresentation of sources, you are the one who "needs to be careful", because the one accusing you is probably right. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Could we please keep the discussion more focused. Saying that Hakko Ichiu was attributed to Jimmu is no longer in the article, but it is not wrong. Ruoff also says that Hakko Ichiu "was a saying attributed to Emperor Jimmu that by 1940 was pervasively invoked in support of Japan's expansionism." Therefore, you can stop making this unfounded accusation against me. If you just search google books for hakko ichiu+jimmu you will see that the number of works cited in this article are only a small fraction of those that mention Jimmu in relation to wartime Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Another break

Hijiri, you and Curtis have been discussing your past behavior more than finding a solution to this. I understand that you're frustrated, but this would go faster without it. Curtis asked me on my talk page what I would like to add, change, or remove from the section, but this is a question for you Hijiri, as you're the one challenging it. So to make this go more smoothly, I want you to take any sentence in the section that you don't agree with, reword it to your liking, and post it here. Then we'll discuss the wording. After we find consensus, we'll insert the agreed upon sentences when the page protection expires. Is this agreeable? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Flying tiger's past behaviour is not only acceptable, but required. The material in question is Flying tiger's past behaviour. The reason no paper encyclopedia article on Emperor Jimmu contains this information, is that completely ignorant anti-Japanese POV-pushers didn't have editorial power over those. It all goes back to my original request. No books or articles about Emperor Jimmu go into detail about Japanese conspiracies to conquer the world in the 1940s. The relationship between Emperor Jimmu (as opposed to the Nihon Shoki itself) and the phrase hakkō ichiu is extremely weak, but I am willing to compromise and allow a sentence or two to explain the phrase's extremely tenuous link to our subject and link to the relevant article. 1 in 20 books discussing hakkō ichiu mention Emperor Jimmu.[45][46] 1 in 15 books discussing Emperor Jimmu mention hakkō ichiu.[47][48] Curtis is arguing to maintain a portion of this article accounting for roughly 1/4 of the article's word count devoted exclusively discussing this 1903 neologism that is hardly ever discussed in relation to our subject. I have spent over two weeks trying convince Curtis to drop it and to just accept it when other users call him out on his WP:SYNTH rather than continuing to argue. But I am beginning to get tired of it. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

However, you could use the same argument to delete almost everything in the article because many encyclopedias include a description of Jimmu so short it doesn't even cover things like the origins of his name and title and the issue of his historicity. In regards to the consensus of Wikipedia editors, and I'm not referring to Flying Tiger, when Nishidani proposed that in the long run we discuss all aspects of Jimmu's memory from start to finish, including medieval and Tokugawa times, historiography, and popular culture, most users who commented agreed with that even though it's safe to say that no encyclopedias cover these last three things. It's certain that people in Japan made a clear link between Hakko Ichiu and Jimmu and if you had done a less restrictive book search, you would still have found no fewer than 430 English language sources noting this connection, including the reliable sources this article cites like Edwards, Dower, Earhart, Ruoff, and Brownlee. For instance, Emperor Hirohito evidently referred to Jimmu when he said "It has been the great instruction bequeathed by Our Imperial Foundress (the Sun Goddess) and other Imperial Ancestors that our grand moral obligation should be extended to all directions and the world be unified under one roof." As historian James McClain notes "As every Japanese schoolchild who had read Kokutai no Hongi knew by heart, hakko ichiu meant 'eight cords, one roof' and first appeared in the eighth-century chronicle Nihon Shoki." The association between Jimmu and Hakko Ichiu was extensively cultivated in wartime Japan, most scholars are aware of that, and it is highly relevant for Wikipedia purposes. Concerning our four sentences on Hakko Ichiu (which is not one quarter of the article), for now I'd say we can shorten it to three if necessary, possibly deleting the sentence cited to Bix, but otherwise I see no reason or consensus to trim it back further than that. Frankly, as the article gradually expands there is even more that can be eventually noted here such as perhaps uchiteshi yamamu, the other wartime phrase attributed to Jimmu, or possibly Okawa Shumei's establishment of the Jimmu Society. The resurrection of the Jimmu propaganda machine in modern times does not need to be downplayed for fear of "completely ignorant anti-Japanese POV-pushers". Actually, I think we should try to contact Flying Tiger and let him speak here if we're going to keep on talking about him in those kind of terms.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Nope. You could not use this argument for anything other than the hakkō ichiu portion, because (1) almost everything else is covered in at least the more detailed encyclopedia articles and books on Jimmu, and (2) no other single point (unless you include the entire summary of the legends recorded in the Kiki) accounts by itself for 25% of this article's text. As for contacting Flying tiger, I've already pinged him several times. But he is an inactive user (4 edits in 2014, and 23 edits since 2011), and even when active he never contributed anything substantial to this article or any other article in this area. Therefore, if you attempt to contact him to support your point of view on this article you would be violating WP:CANVAS, especially considering that given his inactivity the only effective way would be by e-mail. As for 大川周明 and his 神武会: sure, add a sentence or two on that. But if you try to overload this article with material that implies Emperor Jimmu was some sort of proto-fascist, or that any professional scholars believes such, because a fascist once used his name, you will be reported on ANI. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of these accusation are vague and are not related to the text of the article. No where does the current article say that Jimmu was a proto-fascist and previous versions didn't say that either. No one has successfully discredited Ruoff, Dower, or Earhart who are well versed in Japanese history and whose writings are correctly cited in the current version of the article. Another thing you have been continuously saying is that Hakko Ichiu takes up one quarter of the text. This is not the case. Hakko Ichiu is only four sentences in a section that deals with many aspects of the modern-day veneration of Jimmu. If Hakko Ichiu is the only part you disagree with, then it is just these four sentences we are dealing with and not the rest.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

LISTEN TO ME! I'm not trying to "discredit" anyone here. The fact is those authors were not writing about Jimmu, and if you check their bibliographies I'm sure they don't cite either (a) any primary sources on Emperor Jimmu or (b) any secondary sources that discuss Jimmu or the Kiki in any detail. The fact is that the material cited to them does not belong in this article because it creates the (false and utterly ridiculous) impression that that the figure of Emperor Jimmu is in some way associated with early-Showa Japanese fascism. Jumping all over the place in order to list describe in detail all the material random Wikipedia junkies decided one afternoon was loosely related to the topic at hand is the kind of stuff people make fun of Wikipedia for. And in this case we know exactly why the lone POV-pusher who added the material saw fit to do so, and it wasn't just because he came across the name "Emperor Jimmu" one day in a peripherally related book, and decided to add that book's contents to the Emperor Jimmu article; it's because he went out of his way to attack Japan's mythical first emperor in the same way he has gone out of his way to attack anything Japanese that can be remotely related to World War II. By playing dumb and pretending that Flying tiger was a good-faith Wikipedian who just wanted to add this material to the relevant article to be "balanced", and attacking me for "not assuming good faith", you are aiding and abetting the writer of aggressively anti-Japanese, POV, OR. STOP IT NOW, OR I'LL BE FORCED TO TAKE THIS SOMEWHERE NONE OF US WANT IT TO GO. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And regarding the length of your hakkō ichiu discussion: If we count the words in the whole article, not including "See also", bibliography, templates, and inline citations, but including the two footnotes that contain substantial English, prose, the article is roughly 1,435 words long. If we take only the paragraph beginning A grandiose kigensetsu..., including the attached footnote about the etymology of hakkō ichiu, it comes out to 362 words. That's almost exactly 25%. You might say that the footnote accounts for roughly half of that, and that it was Nishidani and myself who were pushing for the footnote's inclusion, but the reality is that a detailed explanation of the etymology is only necessary because without it, your paragraph (which you have been bitterly defending for over two weeks) does in fact give the impression that Jimmu was in some way a proto-fascist. We must always remember that Wikipedia articles are not written for specialists. Most of our readers have either never heard of Emperor Jimmu, or read his name somewhere and know nothing about him. This Wikipedia article is not meant to be an essay presenting a proposed connection between Emperor Jimmu and Japanese fascism; it is supposed to be a general introduction outlining the scholarly consensus on Emperor Jimmu himself, not on peripherally related topics in relation to which some (less than 1%) published works choose to mention Emperor Jimmu. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That paragraph in question, not including footnotes which are not relevant to body of the article, also informs the reader of Kigensetsu, sacred historical sites, and National Foundation Day. Recently you've mainly been talking about your opposition to the Hakko Ichiu part, but that paragraph includes a number of issues. Even if we were to cut two sentences on Hakko Ichiu the bulk of the paragraph would remain. The paragraph, however, does not include the word "fascism". If someone reads it and immediately thinks of fascism it's surely only in their own minds. Emperor Jimmu's alleged mission of Hakko Ichiu was evoked by many different individuals, like Emperor Hirohito, who were not really fascists.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The "explanation of Kigensetsu" to which you are referring is explicitly not an explanation of the yearly Kigensetsu, but a description of the origin of the so-called "Hakko Tower" in February 1940. You have stopped arguing that roughly 1/3 of the image space in this article should be devoted to said tower, but given that you still haven't admitted you were wrong I'm terrified that if I leave this article for you to run roughshod you will come back and reinsert it. The last two sentences are a direct continuation of the hakkō ichiu description and would need to be shortened if the preceding sentences were removed, but if we give you the benefit of the doubt they account for 38 words. If we take them out of the above 362-word estimate, we're left with 334 words. So now the section is "only" 23% of the article as opposed to 25%. Woop-de-doo. Talk about nitpicking. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As for "fascism", say what you want, but the fact is that when the average reader of English Wikipedia thinks of Japan, they think of video games, cars, and World War II. If such a reader stumbles upon a Japan-related article that has nothing to do with any of these three, but refers constantly to World War II and how the subject of the article is indisputably linked with Japanese fascists, what is going to be their conclusion? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As every Japanese schoolchild who had read Kokutai no Hongi knew by heart, hakko ichiu meant 'eight cords, one roof' and first appeared in the eighth-century chronicle Nihon Shoki."

(a) Japanese schoolchildren didn't read the 国体の本義, it was expounded to them. Had they read it they would have struggled with the pronunciation of much of the text (b) 八紘一宇 does not occur in the Kokutai no hongi. James McClain dropped a clanging blooper, and you, not knowing the facts, fish it up as if it were significant. All it, like many other otherwise good sources that are faulty, attests to, is McClain is out of his depth on this particular point.

What you get in the Kokutai no hongi' is the Nihon Shoki context: 然して後に六合を兼ねて以て都を開き、八紘を掩ひて字と為むこと、亦可からずや, where 八紘 is glossed ame no shita and 字 is read ie. Note in particular that that same text cites the pre-modern Yamaga Sokō's use of 八紘 (中国の水土は万邦に卓爾し、人物は八紘に清秀なり) with no allusion to the phrasing introduced in 1903 by Tanaka Chigaku (text reproduced in Hijikata Kazuo, Nihon bunkaron to tennōsei ideorogii, Shin Nihon Shuppansha 1983 pp.185,203,212). This stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge what both the actual scholarly world knows, and what editors familiar with its details repeatedly tell you, is a sign of problematical behaviour, if it is not sheer unfamiliarity with the subject. Please desist, because you evidently do not know how to evaluate the quality of sources. Googling can get you anything, as at Shigisen. You have to know with a fair degree of knowledge the state of the research to evaluate whether to use something in a source or not, something you consistently do not do. Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this comment have anything to do with the text of the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, most of your comments have nothing to do with the subject of the article, and it's logically impossible to respond to off-topic remarks with on-topic remarks. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And on a closer reading of Nishidani's comment, I see that the answer to your question is actually "Yes". 126.0.96.220 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Curtis, don't waste time asking for ABC answers. It has to do with the text of the article, because you edit the article, and we are commenting on the article here, and here you adduced a dumb quote in support of your position.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like no one read past the first sentence of my last post, as again you're just arguing instead of offering a solution. So what if a POV-pusher added the information? That's the point of rewording it. The section doesn't and shouldn't say anything about Japanese "Fascism", as the Japanese Empire was an absolute monarchy and not a Fascist state. Hijiri, please stop making WP:ANI threats; Curtis never "attacked" you for calling out Flying tiger's POV-pushing, Curtis isn't "aiding and abetting" Flying tiger's anti-Japanese view, and he said "we" should contact him because you've mentioned him so many times. And who were you talking about when you said "because a fascist once used his name"? Again, please offer a solution in the form of revised sentences, posting them here so that they can be refined. And please don't respond with a lengthy argument without the above defined solution included, as you did after my last post. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)