Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive 1

Sentence removed
The following sentence was moved from the article:
 * In 2000, the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform (Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho o Tsukurukai) treated Jimmu's foundation of the kingdom as historical fact in its proposed "New History Textbook" (Tsukuru-kai) for junior high schools.

It is a typical trait of critics of Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho that they don't examine the textbook by themselves. Here I quote from the textbook (p.36):
 * 神武天皇の東征伝承
 * 一つの政治的まとまりが，大きな力を備えた統一政権になるには，通常，長い時間を必要とする. 大和朝廷がいつ，どこで始まったかを記す同時代の記録は，中国にも日本にもない. しかし『古事記』や『日本書紀』には，次のような伝承が残っている

This is followed by a summary of the legend.

I compared history textbooks.
 * The New History Textbook introduces the foundation myth as a legend.
 * The other Japanese textbooks completely ignore the foundation myth.
 * The South Korean national history textbook explains a medieval myth as a historical fact.

BTW you may wonder why the other Japanese textbooks ignore the foundation myth. It is because they are complied by communists or communist sympathizers. That's why Japanese conservatives feel a sense of crisis about education. --Nanshu 00:16, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * BTW, you may wonder why the other Japanese text books ignore the foundation myth. It is because it is a "history" textbook.  It is as ridiculous as teaching the account of Genesis in bible as history.  That is why Japanese "conservative" (read right wing nationalist) are considered as nutter.
 * Well, it is a nationalist myth. But I don't suppose they teach Greek mythology in their schools either. Ashibaka (tock) 16:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They teach Greek mythology in Greek schools, and most Western schools for that matter, and it is taught as mythology, not as actual events.  Emperor Jimmu's myth/legend may have a factual basis, but still needs to be regarded as legendary.  Rlquall 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As of Korean sailor theory, given that Jimu Emperor himself is a part of foundation myth, how one can claim that he was actually a Korean sailor is totally beyone me. I will delete it until someone can attribute it to archival source.  Given that Kojiki and Nihonshoki are the only one at the moment, I doubt anyone can. --(FWBOarticle 5 Aug 2004)

Picture error?
Just a quick question, is the picture correct? The Empress Jito page has the same photo, or were multiple people buried in same tomb? Hellfire83 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In-line citations?
User:JaGa -- You were quite right to notice mistakes in the in-line citations in Emperor Jimmu; and your corrections did make each one better. However, I disagreed with some elements of your "clean-up" edits.

The most important disagreement has to do with the citation in that initial paragraph: The intent of this deliberately-crafted citation is to suggest that Gukanshō, Jinnō Shōtōki, and Nipon o daï itsi ran are redundant confirmations of each other. Listing these books serially in one citation is intended to convey this implied cross-checking. In my view, breaking the references into three separate citations would be less strong, less clear. Perhaps you can help me re-think this?
 * [1] <:ref>Brown, Delmer et al. (1979). Gukanshō, p. 249; Varley, Paul. (1980). Jinnō Shōtōki, pp. 84-88; Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du Japon, pp. 1-3.

The second citation references the Brown-Ishida translation of Gukanshō: This text is a bit dense, and the citation refers to footnote 10 on page 249. Can you suggest an alternative format which might have been better?
 * [2] <:ref>Brown, p. 249 n10.

The third and fourth citations introduce a style question which is especially relevant in Wikipedia -- in-line citations which incorporate an external link to the exact page specifically being cited. This is perhaps, in my view, the one thing which most distinguishes Wikipedia as a valuable, innovative, 21st century research tool. In this instance, the reader can assess the Wikipedia text by clicking on a digitized page from a book which supports and amplifies what has been posted in this article about a legendary Japanese emperor. Do you have any suggestions for improving these linked citations?
 * [3] <:ref>Brownlee, John. Japanese Historians and the National Myths, 1600-1945: The Age of the Gods, pp. 136, 180-185.
 * [4] <:ref>Aston, William. (1896). Nihongi, pp. 109-137.

In the academic and non-academic worlds, there are a variety of acceptable, "standard" citation formats. Wikipedia is flexible enough to incorporate them all -- but it important that the citations serve their intended purpose, which is to give the reader some sense of the extent to which the information in any article can be taken as verifiable from a published source. There is a similar pattern of citation in the following; and if there are correctable problems, why not begin to address some or all of them now? If the referenced sources in the current iteration of this Jimmu article are not sufficiently accessible, then maybe we can work together to find a better way ...? -- Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare, e.g. -- Sakai clan, Ogasawara clan ...?


 * I'd say we should get a third person to look at it. Otherwise, each of us is likely to favor our own edits, and get nowhere. Do you know any citation gurus? I pretty much follow the system for El Greco for citation formatting decisions. --JaGa (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An elegant choice for a citations model. The final result is crisp, clear, clean. There are no gurus for this subject, but your choices and your implied rationale are unimpeachable.  At first blush, I'm finding myself hard-pressed to defend an alternative citation format which, in comparison, seems cluttered, clumsy.  I'm so glad I took the time to pose this question because your response is thought-provoking, helpful, constructive.  For now, I'll just have to let it rest ... but I'll get back to this perhaps tomorrow or the day after.  Thanks for the prompt feedback. --Tenmei (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Succession box
The succession box needs to be updated. OneWeirdDude (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Life dates
Although life dates are conventionally found in the first paragraph of the articles about h1storical figures, this conventional pattern has been modified somewhat for the articles about the legendary emperors of Japan. Consistent with WP:V, this is because Emperor Kimmei's reign is the first for which contemporary historiography are able to assign verifiable dates.<:ref>Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du Japon, pp. 34-36; Brown, Delmer et al. (1979). Gukanshō, pp. 261-262; Varley, H. Paul. (1980). Jinnō Shōtōki. pp. 123-124.

The specific dates which were contrived from the Kojiki during the Shōwa era are included in the second paragraph of the introduction. Also, the legendary age of the emperor is mentioned near the bottom of the page when he is said to have died. By folding the legendary data into the body of the article helps establish its context.

It seems elegant to me that the infobox identifies the dates of Jimmu's reign as "traditional," and the dates of his life are identified as "legendary." This pairing helps clarify the very slight differences between the traditional list of emperors and the legendary historical figure who is said to have been Japan's first emperor. --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jinmu versus Jimmu
Re: explanatory spelling note in first paragraph, see discussion thread at Talk:Emperor Temmu. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All romaji text
Please excuse the profane, but wouldn't it be better to drop the -hime and give it the real meaning, which is I think, princess? That would give for instance princess Konohana-Sakuya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.60.246 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).


 * No, I really do not think that is necessary. The Japanese honourific suffixes are fine and the English meaning may not portray the same meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.235.74 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure, taken in context, the English word will portray the exact same meaning nor am I convinced by a mere proclamation that Japanese honourific suffixes are fine. Let's write in English. J IM ptalk·cont 09:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hakko Ichiu


Text and image not adequately supported by reference sources explaining why inclusion in this specific article is appropriate or plausibly relevant. --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1940, the Shōwa regime also constructed on the legendary site of Emperor Jimmu's palace, near Miyazaki, the Hakkō Tower, symbolizing the divine right of the Empire of Japan to "unify the eight corners of the world". The ancient phrase of Hakkō ichi'u, used according to tradition by the Emperor to describe the unification of the world under his sacred rule, was an imperative to all Japan subjects.

I gave the source which is Certain Victory page 63 by David C. Earhart... This is very relevant as those words to "unify the eight corners of the world" were attributed to Emperor Jimmu by the Shōwa propaganda as the basis of the Holy war (seisen) and the Greater East Asia War. So the character of Jimmu is intimately related to Shōwa miltarism. --Flying tiger (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That seemed likely, but since I wasn't sure, I thought this might be a way to resolve that modest question. So -- the in-line citation does belong with the text?  I see.  I would have thought the citation is probably better removed from the caption now that it is clearly associated with the related text of the main body?  Adding Bix was a help. The additional citation makes it very clear.  --Tenmei (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevance and meaning of the following passage is unclear, hence I move it here:
 * "The naval limitations treaties of 1921, and especially 1930, were a tragic mistake in their unanticipated effect on internal political struggles in Japan; and the treaties provided an external motivating catalyst which provoked reactionary, militarist elements to desperate actions which eventually overwhelmed civilian and liberal elements in society. Morrison, Samuel Eliot. (1948).  History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: The Battle of the Atlantic, September 1939 - May 1943, p. 3-10.  The evolution of Hakkō ichiu serves as a changing litmus test of these factional relationships during the decades of the 1930s and 1940s. GlobalSecurity.org: "Kodo (Way of the Emperor)"

Str1977 (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Jimmu an Ainu?
This is a serious question, Jimmu who lived on Japan in 660 B.C., is it more realistic that he would be Ainu descent or Yamato/Han descent? 216.160.137.99 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more realistic to say Jimmu was a complete fabrication. And if not a fabrication, he did not live in 660 B.C. Angry bee (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Form and implication
A good proportion of articles on the early legendary emperors of Japan contain a sentence like this about their posthumous names:
 * It is undisputed that this identification is Chinese in form and Buddhist in implication, which suggests that the name must have been regularized centuries after...

There are at least two problems with this.


 * Not once is it cited. Usually there's a citation at the end of the paragraph, but it seems to have nothing to do with this sentence. If it's an undisputed fact, it ought to be easy to find at least ONE cite for it.
 * Could whoever inserts it EXPLAIN WHAT THE FUCK IT MEANS? What about its form makes it Chinese, cause it sure as shit doesn't sound Chinese to me. And please explain for the benefit of those few billion of us who are not Buddhist just what about it implies Buddhism? Otherwise, this is a totally meaningless phrase that can be excised from every article in which it appears, and nothing of value will have been lost. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei stop reverting
You constantly revert my changes and you give NO justification. You want to talk? Talk! Angry bee (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is actually tempting me to log on for the first time in almost 4 years. (In case my IP address is different, I'm also the one who added the "Form and implication" section above.)


 * The citation has, frankly, nothing to do with the statement to which its attached. Tenmei needs to show us EXACTLY where the supporting material is. Where does it say these legendary emperors might have existed? If it doesn't say so clearly, then Angry bee's removal should stand.


 * Edit: In fact, the cite in question says EXPLICITLY that Jimmu is mythological. See the table near the end of the page. Based on that you absolutely should not employ weasel words to make it sound as if there's a good chance this was a real person. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war
A slow-motion edit war has unfolded during the past six months. I don't know what to do, nor do I have good guesses about how to resolve a dispute when I don't really know what it is about.


 * A. These following few sentences were added in August 2010 here.
 * Jimmu is regarded by historians as a "Legendary Emperor" because of the paucity of information about him, which does not necessarily imply that no such person ever existed. There is insufficient material available for further verification and study.


 * B. Angry bee removed the paragraph several times, and each deletion was explained by an edit summary with provocative adjectives. The words "bogus" and "fake" caused uncertainty about how to respond appropriately. I construed WP:Burden to require an explanation for blanking the text + inline citation. In the absence of words other than the edit summary, I guessed that blanking parts of Emperor Jimmu was something like a hobby horse.  I guessed that no words from me were actually wanted or anticipated.
 * diff 01:13, 28 October 2010 Angry bee (13,723 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Bogus references. Especially when cited references say Kojiki is mostly political fabrications.)
 * diff 19:26, 25 January 2011 Angry bee (13,940 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Fake citation; useless words removed.)
 * diff 19:53, 6 February 2011 Angry bee m (14,535 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: fake citations)
 * diff 05:48, 11 February 2011 Angry bee m (14,557 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Fake citation removed)
 * diff 04:49, 16 February 2011 Angry bee m (14,704 bytes) (→Legendary narrative: Want to talk? Go to the Talk page instead of telling me to talk and you remain silent.)


 * C. The words of the most recent diff make clear that something else is needed, but what?  The disputed citation is neither "bogus" nor "fake"; therefore, according to WP:V, there is no problem.  As you kinow, the opening paragraph of the policy page explains:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
 * I complied scrupulously with WP:V, and I don't know what else to say?


 * As nearly as I can tell, the underlying complaint is about what Angry bee believes is true. If so, let me make it simple: I have no personal opinions or interest in the early Japanese monarchs.  However, having provided a cite with an embedded hyperlink showing a correspondence between the sentences in our article and statements in the source, my job as a Wikipedia contributor is completed satisfactorily.


 * In sum, this explains my revert of Angry bee's newest deletion. --Tenmei (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, sir. You did not comply with WP:V. The citation simply does not support the text you want to add: this is what Angry bee means by "fake". If you think it does, please point out SPECIFICALLY where. It has nothing at all to do with personal beliefs. It has to do with what the cited material says. Not only does it NOT say what you seem to want it to, but as I mentioned above, it specifically labels Jimmu as "mythological", meaning there's no good reason to assume he existed at all. (The next 10 emperors are labeled "largely fictional", meaning there's better reason to presume they did not exist than that they did.)


 * I hope this clarifies the issue for you.


 * Edit: I wrote the above before looking at your most recent edit, having taken you at your word here that you had simply reverted. As far as I can tell, the paragraph as it now stands indeed conforms to WP:V. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Citing a legend
Of course, many will argue that Emperor Jimmu and all of the early emperors are at most legendary. Does the tagging editor (with regard to his purported birth dates) want something that cites these legendary dates and describes them as legendary? The article states that these dates are legendary, so it would seem to suffice that stating such means that nothing can be cited which will make them live up to the standards of WP:V. Stating the fact that a legend exists is not the same things as asserting that a legend is a fact. Rlquall 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlike an urban legend, a legend in the proper sense is a real history that has merely been exaggerated over the centuries. The trouble is how to separate the exaggerations from how it really happened. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a strange definition. So I guess the legend of the Fountain of Youth is based on reality but exaggerated? Perhaps it only extends your life by 50 years and not eternity? Angry bee (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Fountain of Youth is not a legend except in poor colloquial use of the word. It's more properly called a myth, nice try, but there is a difference.
 * An example of a legend as opposed to a myth (although not a Japanese example; still illustrates my point) would be the bastard son of a prostitute raised by his actual mother, and from these humble beginnings he grows up to found a city; and because prostitute and female wolf are the same word in the language he would have spoken he was later fictionally raised by a wolf.
 * That is what I mean by exaggeration of real history as the true definition of legend.
 * Please understand why legend and myth are 2 different words. The Fountain of Youth is not properly a legend no matter how hard you bold the word in that sentence. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point that Troy was considered a leyend, or a myth, according to mainstream historians before Schliemman. So historians should be cautious when disregarding the so called leyends. CalaClii (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Image of Imperial symbol
The Imperial mon (emblem) was added in the Notes section in 2010. In 2012, the image was removed from some other articles about Japanese emperors -- compare here. Zenwort's edit summary is clear and reasonable --img of Imperial seal removed, this was not used before the Muromachi era

The use of this symbol is justified because this article is an important part of a grouping of articles about the emperors of Japan -- see Imperial Household Agency (Kunaichō): 神武天皇 (01). Does this rationale provide a good enough reason for it to be used? --Enkyo2 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point, but I don't think adding the image to every single article on an emperor in the "Notes" sections adds anything to these articles, especially since all of these articles already have Template:Emperors of Japan embedded, and that template has the mon anyway. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

– This has been discussed before, but apparently without concern for MOS specifically dismissing the current spelling. Manual of style (Japan-related articles) 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)
 * Emperor Jimmu → Emperor Jinmu
 * Emperor Temmu → Emperor Tenmu
 * Emperor Kimmei → Emperor Kinmei
 * Emperor Mommu → Emperor Monmu
 * Empress Gemmei → Empress Genmei
 * Emperor Kammu → Emperor Kanmu
 * 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 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. --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 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.  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. No one else weighed in, but then I removed your obviously problematic "note" from the article and made a (failed) attempt to bring you to task for this and some other very bad edits. And so you decided to oppose the move anyway, with the same justification as earlier, as "revenge" against me. You also immediately followed me to five other articles. 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 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. 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". 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 . 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. In fact they use "Jinmu" much more than they use "Jimmu". 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)

 * 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". 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. Hijiri88 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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),  and . 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)
 * "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.
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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")? 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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 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. 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". 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)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:20, 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
 * 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". The Portuguese Jesuits before him used "Iimmu Tenvŏ". 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 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 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 &bull; 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, 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 &bull; 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 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". (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.

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)