Talk:Emperor Kinmei

Title format
There is a standard format for the titles of articles on monarchs, and there is no reason for Emperor Kimmei to be exempt from this. Just as Emperor Go-Toba of Japan and Richard II of England are listed as such, so should this article be moved back to "Emperor Kimmei of Japan". LordAmeth 12:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Kinmu versus Kimmu
Re: explanatory spelling note in first paragraph, see discussion thread at Talk:Emperor Temmu. --Tenmei (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Epoch of Dates
Are the given dates CE or BCE or what? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gravesite?
Is the gravesite known, or not? The article originally said it was not, providing a source (in Japanese). But then an editor removed "not", without changing the reference. Presumably, the source says it is not. Would someone fluent in Japanese like to check? Aridd (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Jimmu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Kammu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor consistency-edit
I changed one instance of "Paekche" to "Baekje" to maintain internal consistency in terminology. I assume no one will object to this. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead image
MOS:LEADIMAGE states that: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic and Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. Given that many of the drawings of Japanese emperors were made centuries after they lived, and the pictures of the legendary emperors certainly don't depict them accurately, I think such images should be removed from the lead. These are essentially random drawings. Векочел (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Historically, the act of depicting the faces of emperors was considered impolite in Japan. For this reason, portraits of emperors, especially in ancient times, are scarce. However, in modern times, it is worthwhile to include such portraits in encyclopedias because they aid in a clear understanding of history.
 * Therefore, the removal of portraits of Japanese emperors without their consent should be stopped. 薔薇騎士団 (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Векочел @薔薇騎士団 I don't fully agree with either of your arguments.
 * Consider Jesus; we have no idea how Jesus actually looked, yet we use a later painting of him (almost certainly inaccurate) because that's the common image people have in their head for Jesus. That's ok per MOS:LEADIMAGE.
 * I don't like the current pic for Emperor Kinmei only because 1. there's no adequate image caption to explain the drawing and 2. I don't know if that depiction is popular or accepted by scholars.
 * Any drawing we use for Kinmei should have a caption explaining that it's a posthumous portrayal and why it's a somewhat reasonable representation of him. Who drew the image? When was it drawn? Did they base it on any historical information (if any) about his appearance? Without this information the drawing is useless, but if it had the information I think it's possibly fine. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The portrait of Emperor Kinmei was painted by Kotaro Miyake, and the original painting is featured in the online archive of Waseda University in Japan, which recognizes its certain academic value. As noted above, this portrait is one of the first to be painted under Western influence, as it was considered impolite to paint portraits of emperors in Japan until the late 19th century. 薔薇騎士団 (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think the image is acceptable with this description. It would be a nice bonus if there was context about what other possible images we could use, but that's more of a nice-to-have rather than a need. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)