Talk:Emperor Jimmu

Requested move (1)

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 move. There's no clear evidence that the proposed titles are more common in English-language sources, nor consensus that they're otherwise preferable. However, the Google Books results show that this may be changing, so the issue may need to be revisited in the future. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

– This has been discussed before, but apparently without concern for MOS specifically dismissing the current spelling. Wikipedia:Manual of style (Japan-related articles)#Syllabic "n" says we shouldn't romanize as "m" unless it's an "official name" like Asahi Shimbun. This obviously doesn't apply here. There are probably other articles that need to be included here that escape me at the moment. Done. At last. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the last ten years, those ngrams mostly indicate a very narrow advantage for "mm", if not an outright lead for "nm", and the minuscule percentages clearly demonstrate that it's not a COMMONNAME issue. I think WP:Romanization is a more relevant guideline here: Conventional spelling is preferred [but] If an entity has a widely accepted conventional English name, that name is to be used. For example, do not transliterate Москва as Moskva, but use "Moscow". None of these articles fall into the same category as "Moscow". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Kusunose, User:Necrothesp, does WP:JAPANMOS support the move? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea. But this is an historical/mythical figure long known in the West and long spelled "Jimmu", so it's not really relevant anyway. It may well be that "Jinmu" has been gaining currency in recent years, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that he's been known by the former spelling for a long time. I'm less bothered about the others, as they're not so well-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the Hepburn romanization system at the time those books were written worked one way, and now it works a different way. Wikipedia uses the modern system, since this is the one used in the vast majority of reliable literature now (B. H. Chamberlain's original 1890s readership's opinions don't count on Wikipedia). And seriously, where is your evidence that this figure is "well-known" in the West? And why, even if he was, would your argument apply to the other emperors as well? Can you be a bit more specific as to which moves you are opposed to and which you don't mind? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that the Romanisation system has changed. What's relevant, per WP:COMMONNAME, is how he's best-known in the English-speaking world. "Wikipedia uses the modern system": What basis do you have for this claim? What is the basis for a contradiction to WP:COMMONNAME, one of the cornerstones of our naming procedures? Where's your evidence that he isn't well-known? As to your last point, I thought I made myself clear. I think Jimmu should be kept at the original spelling; I'm not particularly bothered about the others, as they're not generally known outside Japan anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You abused the title guideline WP:COMMONNAME, which clearly only applies to figures much more well-known than Jinmu and even more more well-known than all the others. My evidence that Jinmu (and the others) are not well-known is the minuscule percentages in Kusunose's ngams above. If you need more I can try doing GBooks searches to compare Emperor Jinmu to all the specific examples listed at WP:COMMONNAME. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of "abusing" a guideline because you don't agree with him is skating on thin ice, my friend. I suggest you retract that particular statement and assume good faith. The first Emperor of Japan may not be well-known to the man in the street, but his name is certainly well-known to historians. And it's well-known as "Jimmu". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about faith, good or bad, was implied by my above comment. Abuse simply means "use incorrectly". You will notice I started a thread on the talk page of the relevant guideline, with pretty much everyone agreeing it shouldn't apply here, and not once did I say "malicious abuse" or "abuse in the pursuit of some fiendish agenda". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you come from, but in common English usage "abuse" certainly does not simply mean "use incorrectly". It has the implication of doing something maliciously and is not something to be used lightly. I suggest you revise your use of language to other Wikipedia editors before you get yourself into trouble. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Use (something) to bad effect ... misuse". I'm a native speaker of English and make my living translating Japanese texts to English . Anyone reading this exchange can easily see that if anyone is deliberately assuming bad faith and making what look almost like threats, it is you. I'm beginning to tire of random RM participants with no knowledge of the subject coming in and making bogus arguments based on misinterpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, without any concern for how people in the real world actually spell this name. Find me ONE shrine or historic site associated with Emperor Jinmu that has an English explanation plaque that spells his name "Jimmu". Seriously. Find one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, how I knew you didn't know anything about the subject, apart from your complete lack of any edit history in this area: you claim "historians" know Emperor Jinmu, and know him as "Jimmu". Emperor Jinmu (though not the others) falls in the realm of mythology/religion first, literature second, and history is a remote third. If English-speaking professional historians (not just Japanologists) were generally familiar with this figure, they would know that the overwhelming majority of modern historians who know what they're talking about consider him not to be historical, and they would also likely know the most prominent romanization of his name as used in books written by scholars. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the arrogance of the self-proclaimed "expert", mocking anyone he thinks is less knowledgeable than himself. I'm just going to let this stand now and see what the outcome is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Resorting to personal attacks. The air-quotes, the word "arrogance" and calling me "self-proclaimed" all imply that you think I am the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about. You have never edited in this area before, and your above comments clearly show that you know nothing about the area. Tell me, why do you think I am the one who doesn't understand this area? Do you really think that, even though I was editing Wikipedia articles on Japanese mythology 8 years ago, I haven't learned anything since then? I can't show you my college transcripts (I guess I could e-mail you, but...), but my Wikipedia edit history is evidence enough. How arrogant of you. Not only do you not know anything about this area, but you are deliberately abusing a titling guideline in order to justify your arrogantly insulting me. Closer, please read WP:TITLE#Can I suggest a proviso? before counting Necrothesp's goofy COMMONNAME argument into account. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Don't think I didn't notice that last one as well. I just didn't think it appropriate to include it in the same RM as these ones. But it's time is coming. ;) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed now, and have already contacted Enkyo2 about his above posting his personal opinions on Wikipedia style guidelines in the article space. Can we just close this now as "move" that the only semi-valid oppose !vote was cast under a clear misunderstanding of the guideline's relevance to this subject, as indicated by pretty much everyone on the relevant talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri wrongly disparages an inline-note which was added here. The gist of it mirrors WP:MOS-JA#Syllabic "n". A review of the history of the MOS-JA page shows that the sentences were initially drafted by Jpatokal in 2004 here and the section was created by Nihonjoe in 2008 here. The guideline suggests "Use Google to check popularity if in doubt, and create a redirect from the n version" -- compare the list of Google Books Ngram Viewer results posted by Kusunose here.

There are similar notes in the first paragraphs of articles about Temmu here, Kimmei here, Mommu here, Gemmei here and Kammu here -- see Talk:Emperor Temmu#Tenmu vs Temmu. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Try actually reading the reasoning I have presented you with 3 times already. Stop assuming bad faith and stop opposing this RM as "revenge" for me removing your problematic "note". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment see also Talk:Edogawa Rampo for a related rename discussion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not really that related, as virtually all the arguments that could be made in both hinge on whether the subject is pre- or post-Meiji, and Edogawa is on the other side. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MOS-JA#Syllabic "n" and the list of Google Books Ngram Viewer results posted by Kusunose here. --Enkyo2 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A review of the edit histories of this article and most others about the Japanese emperors reveals a cross-checking system of cited sources. This includes Delmer Brown's 1980 translation of Gukanshō and H. Paul Varley's 1979 translation of Jinnō Shōtōki -- compare List of Emperors of Japan#Notes. See JSTOR reviews of Brown's work here and Varley's work here. --Enkyo2 (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We get it. You originally considered opposing this move but withdrew until more people weighed in.[1] No one else weighed in, but then I removed your obviously problematic "note" from the article[2] and made a (failed) attempt to bring you to task for this and some other very bad edits.[3] And so you decided to oppose the move anyway, with the same justification as earlier, as "revenge" against me.[4] You also immediately followed me to five other articles.[5][6][7][8][9] You've made your point and been well-heard. We get that you have made valuable contributions in this area, and I have not challenged this, but you don't own the area, and I have actually been editing in the area longer than you anyway (my first edit to this article; your first edit period). Can you stop posting vaguely-related rants in this requested move now?? It's rhetoric like the above that has caused me and a number of other users to request you to please write comprehensible arguments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the reason this article currently spells it "Jimmu" is that this page was unilaterally moved by Jefu, a now-inactive user, in 2006[10] as part of a poorly-conducted and unilateral campaign of very messy moves in which he/she made no effort whatsoever to preserve the edit histories.[11][12][13][14] At this time the relevant MOS guideline was "Syllabic n ん is generally written n ... The original version of Hepburn used m when syllabic n ん is followed by b, m, or p. While generally deprecated, this is still allowed in titles for cases where the official romanization continues to use m (examples: Asahi Shimbun, Namba Station). Use Google to check popularity if in doubt, and create a redirect from n version".[15] No substantial change has been made to the guideline since. "m" is for "official names" only. Jpatokal clearly meant it that way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Imperial Household Agency uses Jimmu. See [16]. Oda Mari (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The translator of that particular document has his/her own style preferences, but the Agency itself doesn't promote it, since they spell it "Jinmu" in several more prominent places.[17][18][19] In fact they use "Jinmu" much more than they use "Jimmu".[20][21] Plus, if we carried your logic to the logical conclusion we'd have to rename all the articles on emperors with "Go-" in their names, to remove the hyphens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (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.

For the record (in case I do come back and open another RM without this one's baggage later) Oda Mari seemed to indicate that they would have withdrawn their oppose !vote in light of the IHA actually supporting the n spelling. (I'm not doing that for a while, if ever, and I'm almost certainly gonna forget about this point if I don't add this note here.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

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".[22][23] 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 14 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)