Talk:Chrysanthemum Throne

Off topic
This article had exactly one sentence about the stated topic, the rest being about the monarchy that sits on the throne, not the throne itself. I have removed the off-topic material. If anyone has any information about the actual throne, please add it. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're wrong about that. It's not about a physical chair, it's about the position. (atleast in English, it's about the position. Like the "Throne of England" is not a chair, it's the position of Monarch of England.) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, and this article is not to be about the actual object itself, then it should be redirected to the article we already have on the subject: Emperor of Japan. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

more?
This article should be covering the Imperial Court of Japan... 70.51.8.75 (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Restore article
I strongly protest the unilateral evisceration and redirection of this article. It's fallacious at best to argue that the article can only be about a literal chair.

With no effort, I was able to find several articles in different mainstream periodicals, and a host of other cites, which refer to the Chrysanthemum Throne as a symbol for the Japanese monarchy.

Not the Emperor as the redirect would indicate, the monarchy itself. arimareiji (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My argument in support of the proposition that this article is an ineluctable necessity arises from concepts of classical rhetoric -- the throne as a rhetorical trope. --Tenmei (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei - this is just my opinion, but your recent addition to the page seems to belong better on the talk page.


 * Even on the talk page, it's almost overkill for disproving the contention that the word only refers to a chair. Like using a Grand Slam to kill a mouse.
 * On the main page itself, it's complete overkill, and could be construed as WP:POINT.
 * All that aside, I'm glad to see your energy and enthusiasm - they'll be needed to restore the article to non-stubbiness. arimareiji (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Arimareiji -- Yes, of course, I understand your reasoning; however, I'm persuaded that I need to demur -- not because you're wrong nor because I don't agree with your good judgment, but rather because of the telling edit history created by those editors who construed this subject too narrowly. In the course of editing, I have myself used the term "Chrysanthemum Throne" in each of the specific ways which are described; and frankly, I took it for granted that readers would understand the allusion in many of the nearly 200 articles which link to this one.  It is now clear that this modest presumption was unjustified; and therefore, it is probably helpful to be quite specific, even overly specific in explaining the concepts involved.


 * By all means, feel free to edit the text as you see fit; but as you try to improve and re-think the explanatory text and the illustrative examples, please bear in mind those readers who are likely to click on an internal link to this article because, for them, this very kind of rhetorical usage seemed strained or unclear. --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note the timestamp on my above comment? It was a little while after you first added the section, and I was worried that the wording in its rough form could give cause to claim that it was WP:POINT. Also, please note that I didn't just bring back the older, uneviscerated version - I boned up the cites in general, and added multiply-redundant cites showing that the "it's only a chair" line of reasoning is sharply contradicted by fact. We're both trying for the same goal, just from different perspectives.


 * My perspective was simply to avoid allowing any "wiggle room" for removing the article again. But as I noted in my later comment to your talk page, your later edits to the "Rhetorical usage" section made it definitely worth keeping for its encyclopedic value. To my mind the only question left is whether and how much it should be condensed; removing it wouldn't make any sense. Finally, just in case I'm not around and this crops up, I added a link on your talkpage discussing reification fallacy for possible future use in undercutting the "it's only a chair" argument. Best regards, arimareiji (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1823 image of Japanese throne
An Italian artist's impression of the Japanese throne was published in 1823. As far as I know, the image is inaccurate in several crucial details; but it does evidence an interest in the throne which stretches back to a period before photographic records could be made. I don't know how to parse the implied questions about whether or not this illustration is an enhancement or not? --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * NYPL Digital Galery: Trono del imperator del Giapone. by Andrea Bernieri (artist). Source: Ferrario, Giulio (1823). Il costume antico e moderno, o, storia del governo, della milizia, della religione, delle arti, scienze ed usanze di tutti i popoli antichi e moderni. Firenze : Batelli.

Off-topic again

 * See Talk:Chrysanthemum Throne and Talk:Chrysanthemum Throne above.

The article has run off-topic again, as User:Beeblbrox pointed out earlier on this talk page. I removed the chunk of the article about the monarchy that sits on the throne (that stuff properly belongs in the "Emperor of Japan" article, not here) rather than the throne itself. —Lowellian (reply) 03:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lowellian -- Yes, you did note the discussion and the range of views which differ from yours; and you did quite properly post an explanation on this page. Your approach to this issue was nearly impeccable; but the "off-topic" label is not sufficiently persuasive.


 * I remain unconvinced that your view is dispositive ... without more. I suspect that I am not alone in this point-of-view, as evidenced by earlier discussion threads on this page. I wonder if there is a way to marry our disparate points-of-view in some kind of composite or compromise text?


 * As I understand it, Lowellian, you and others construe this article in disjunctive terms -- either one thing or another, but not both. In my somewhat broader view, the Chrysanthemum Throne is more accurately addressed in conjunctive terms -- as an ineluctable object, as an institution and as a rhetorical trope.  In that context, I wonder if the modest history section might be preceived as an appropriate component of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to mitigate a recurring, intermittent dispute, I've cross-posted this thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty. Perhaps this can be a step towards configuring this subject into a non-controversial article? --Tenmei (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition
The definition states that the term is used to identify "the throne of the Emperor of Japan", or a specific throne. This is not correct. The normal usage of the term is to refer to the Japanese monarchy, not a mere seat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Uninformative in the Extreme
This article related very little useful information to me. I wanted to know why it's called the Chrysanthemum Throne. I can only assume it has something to do with the Chrysanthemum being part of the Japanese royal family's iconography, including the []. However, neither that article nor this one mention when the Chrysanthemum became the icon of the royal family, or why. 87.114.31.58 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not really known how or exactly when did the Chrysanthemum even became the symbol for the imperial family. However, there are some sources that explained how the Chrysanthemum became the symbol for the family, though the validity is not known. Generally, it is said that the Chrysanthemum was valued and cherished for its "longevity" after it was imported from China in the Heian Period, and the imperial family came to love the flower and decided to adopt it as their symbol. 115.66.169.98 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, the fact that the chrysanthemum is a symbol of Japanese royalty is not even mentioned in the article's lead. Furthermore, there is no mention of how or why this particular term was coined. Was it a reference to the presence of the chrysanthemum seal on thrones (as is mentioned in the "Other Thrones of the Emperor" section), or is it more of a figurative connection? Secondus2 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Is it just me or does the phrase: kenjō no shōji (Can you no Showy) Sound like a bad racist joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.223.251 (talk)

Etymology of Chrysanthemum Throne

 * This is an answer to the discussion above but I added the headline in order for it to be visible in the index.


 * Surely, the Japanese name kōi, which is translated here as "imperial seat", is too short to have anything to do with the flower chrysanthemum. I wonder if the throne is also occasionally referred to as the "Chrysanthemum Throne" in Japanese or if this is an innovation in Western languages? It would be great if Japanese users could add information about this. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)