Misplaced Pages

Talk:Emperor Jimmu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:48, 23 March 2014 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits add oldmoves← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:09, 3 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive 3) (bot 
(224 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{On this day|date1=2009-02-11|oldid1=269490913|date2=2010-02-11|oldid2=343303428|date3=2011-02-11|oldid3=413275195|date4=2014-02-11|oldid4=594903564|date5=2016-02-11|oldid5=704413809|date6=2017-02-11|oldid6=764957388}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Jimmu|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-priority=Mid|royalty-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=top|biography=y|history=y|royalty=y}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K |maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 1 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography
|living=no
|class=Start
|royalty-priority=Mid
|royalty-work-group=yes
|listas=Jimmu
}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=c|importance=top|b1=n|biography=y|history=y|royalty=y}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=Start|importance=Top}}
}}
]


{{Old move
{{OnThisDay|date1=2009-02-11|oldid1=269490913|date2=2010-02-11|oldid2=343303428|date3=2011-02-11|oldid3=413275195|date4=2014-02-11|oldid4=594903564}}
|from1=Emperor Jimmu |destination1=Emperor Jinmu|result1=not moved|date1=11 August 2013|link1=Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive 1#Requested move (1)
{{oldmoves
|from2=Emperor Jimmu |destination2=Emperor Jinmu|result2=no consensus|date2=14 February 2014|link2=Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive 1#Requested move (2)
|list=
* RM, Emperor Jimmu → Emperor Jinmu, '''not moved''', 11 August 2013, ]
* RM, Emperor Jimmu → Emperor Jinmu, '''no consensus''', 14 February 2014, ]
}} }}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}


==Historic Mysteries source==
==Requested move (2)==
{{ping|CycoMa1}} I was mid-responding to your {{diff3|1222843915|RSN post}}.
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. 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 ] 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. ] (]) 16:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

----


] → {{no redirect|Emperor Jinmu}} – The last multimove suffered from poor formatting and ] accidentally !voting the opposite way than was not long before the close. The ] spells his name "Jinmu". Sightseeing guide maps of ] (where his mausoleum and principal shrine are located) also use "Jinmu". ] 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. <small>--'''Relisted.''' ] (]) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)</small> ] (<small>]]</small>) 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:
: vs.
:.ac.uk results:
: vs.
:.go.jp results:
: vs.
:] (]) 13:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
::The Nara Prefectural Government feels the same way. ] (]) 14:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|title=Examination of GBooks hits for "Jimmu" spelling.}}
] 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: 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; 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 such as confusing the ] era for something that was in the thirteenth century, which would not occur in a source written by a specialist in this area; is a reprint of the second and contains ; is, as predicted, a book about World War II that barely mentions this emperor; doesn't have a preview, but given the title and the fact that doesn't appear to be an expert in Japanese history I would doubt it meets our standards of a reliable source; appears to be yet another (earlier) edition of the second; is a copy of ]; 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; is a good source, but GBooks' 2013 date is nonsense -- it was published in 1966 and reprinted in 1990; is another reprint of this Misplaced Pages article. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
:Next ten: is another Misplaced Pages clone; as well; and ; doesn't appear to have any obvious problems (it has no preview); is a discussion of a fictional work (a manga by ], who died in 1989); is another general reference book written by non-specialists and contains in the same section; is a superb work written by ] who unfortunately prefers the old romanization system (the one he grew up with?) -- his preference for "Jimmu", as with "]" 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 ; is another reprint of a 2001 work and, more importantly, is on a completely unrelated subject and barely mentions this emperor's name; appears to be another fine work that just so happens to have its own style preferences that differ from ours in numerous ways; is another general reference work that, because it is not written (edited?) by specialists, contains ridiculous errors like that (Nobunaga was a friend to the Christians). ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
*<s>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.</s>] <small>(])</small> 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 ], and . As for the romanization found in Japan, most cases are sloppy except Hepburn romanization used by JR. As I cited before, this uses Jimmu. Even the Imperial Household Agency uses both ways. ] <small>(])</small> 08:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
**{{ping|Oda Mari}} "Because "mm" is more phonetically correct": that's arguable, to say the least—as you can see from the article you've linked to, 「ん」 tends to take on many different flavours depending on the sounds around it, but the only one of these Hepburn chose to depict graphically was —a pointless inconsistency, and one corrected by preferring the '']'' representation to the ''phonetic'' one. Phonetic writing is simply impractical and best left to the scientists who require it.<br />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?<br />The Imperial Household Agency does use both styles—24 instances of "nm" and a single one of "mm". ]&nbsp;(]) 08:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
**I already pointed out on Oda Mari's talk page back in August that that single instance is not "the Imperial Household Agency" but more likely a single (outsourced? freelance?) translator with a rather idiosyncratic romanization style -- see how he/she writes ] and so on. If it was someone in-house it almost certainly would have been edited to conform with the others. ] (<small>]]</small>) 07:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

*'''Strong support'''. I can't believe this wasn't moved ages ago. What an embarrassment. ]&nbsp;(]) 10:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

*'''Weak oppose'''. This is, of course, not an embarrassment. Google Ngram results for show that the former was nearly universal in the past, and it appears to predominate slightly now. However, results for 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. ] (]) 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&nbsp;... 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 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 Misplaced Pages spelling it this way ''in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages spelling (such books obviously fail ] for this matter). ] (<small>]]</small>) 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. ] (]) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
**Is this what you mean? ]: ''"The original version of Hepburn used ''m'' when syllabic ''n'' {{nihongo2|ん}} preceded ''b'', ''m'', or ''p''. While generally deprecated, this is still allowed in titles for cases where the official ] name continues to use ''m'' (examples: ], ]). In the modified Hepburn romanization system, unlike the standard system, the "''n''" is maintained even when followed by ] (e.g., ''shinbun'', not ''shimbun''). Use Google to check popularity if in doubt, and create a redirect from the ''n'' version."'' <small> — ] 18:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::If this emperor's name has an "official" spelling it is "Jinmu". ] (<small>]]</small>) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 "]"'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 ]. ] (<small>]]</small>) 15:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. My opinion hasn't changed from last time. See the ]. -- ] (]) 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? ] (<small>]]</small>) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|(Mostly) off-topic dispute over user behavior}}

::Note also that Necrothesp posted on seven other RMs in the 30 minutes preceding the above !vote, and his last post was but six minutes earlier. It therefore seems highly unlikely that he had read my gull analysis of the sources, clicked on all the links, or put any significant thought behind how real people (visitors to the subject's burial mound or shrine, for instance) might see this issue. He pulled a COMMONNAME argument out of his nose, and has not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate otherwise. ] (<small>]]</small>) 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 Misplaced Pages? This is about Jimmu's common name in the English-speaking world. Japan is not part of the English-speaking world. -- ] (]) 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. ] and ] 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. ] 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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages be using as the title of the article?'' ] (<small>]]</small>) 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 ]. 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"? ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Collapse bottom}}

*'''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. ] (]) 07:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|(Mostly) off-topic dispute over user behavior}}
**]: 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 09:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
***If you can be specific, and preferably cut out the ], I'll attempt an answer. ] (]) 10:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
****]: There's nothing in either ] or ] 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. ]—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 : 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 ] 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". ]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] (]) 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
******]: 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 ]. The spirit of COMMONNAME is obvious—it's to avoid the obviously undesirable naming of the ] article as "Paul Hewson", or ] "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.<br />As an aside, if you're "interested in&nbsp;... 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 21:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
*******Again there are some valid points here, but I think they are all raised elsewhere in this discussion, and the behavioural issues you raise are beyond the scope of this talk page I think. ] (]) 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 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. ] (]) 10:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::Did you mean to post on a different RM? MOS-JA says "use ''Jinmu''". ] (]) 08:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88)
:::Thank you for being more specific... a wikilink to ] 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. ] (]) 10:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry, I didn't mean for it to be read as a direct quote. The ] 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. ] (]) 11:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::Some good points here. Please desist from using the double-quote for ]. 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? ] (]) 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::]: 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 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''. ] (]) 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] (]) 12:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
* 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 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? ], 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Agree. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}

* '''Oppose''' - per Andrewa's comments, and per Necrothesp's comments in previous RM. Can someone please link correctly ] at the head. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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. --] (]) 13:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' - I've noticed that a lot of either argument is based on search engine results. While how Japanese institutions spell it is a convincing argument, can anyone provide the European spelling of his name for the last 400 years before the internet? I'm pretty sure that the commonname was more-or-less "Jimmu" during that time period. ''']'''</span> (]) 17:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
* ]: European spellings over the last 400 years would be inappropriate because:
**] was only introduced in 1886
**Modified Hepburn (the system recommended by ]) was introduced in 1954
**At the English Misplaced Pages we use only spellings common in Enlgish documents, unless the subject itself is not common in English documents
**Misplaced Pages relies on current, not historical, spellings<br />———]&nbsp;(]) 21:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
:::While Curly Turkey is right in saying old spellings used over the last 400 years are inappropriate, I took a look at some older documents. The most prominent one ''immediately before'' Hepburn was probably Titsingh's spelling, and he spelled it "Zin Mou Ten O". 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 04:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
* '''Weak support''' - well you got me there. ''']'''</span> (]) 21:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the move to ] 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 ]. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 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. ] (]) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

*So, to sum up survey results so far, 5 supports -- myself, ], ], ] and ] -- and 4 opposes -- a no-history IP, ], ] and ] -- 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, ] 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''. ] (<small>]]</small>) 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 ]. -- ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] 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 ], who interestingly is the only oppose who has actually contributed anything to this article in the past. The WikiProject Japan members (], ], ] and ]) 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 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. -- ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

* The ] 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 (24 results) to (1 result)
* 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 Misplaced Pages article
** "Jimmu"'s lead is not of the degree that would suggest it is a COMMONNAME as defined by ], and the lead appears to be on the decline, especially in scholarly works and official documents
*** Haruo Shirane '''' 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: : vs.
****.ac.uk results: vs.
****.go.jp results: vs.

———]&nbsp;(]) 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 '']'', 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 ], a consequence of being written at a time when his audience (anglophone scholars of the Asiatic Society) would have all been proficient in Latin. ] (]) 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"). ]&nbsp;(]) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::As a resident of ] 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages is a virtue, I guess. ] (] &bull; ]) 10:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

:::@]: This article has been around for a while, but it was unilaterally moved to its current title by ], 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, ] and ]. Jefu came up with this title for "consistency in romanization", the same reason I opened the current RM. The "mm" spelling was ] some time later, but not RMed. It was also questioned (if memory serves) by ] (whose past username was ] 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 ] and opposed, but he also opposed me in ] 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::::I still don't understand how you "accidentally" type "oppose". Just throwing that out there. ''']'''</span> (]) 15:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
::::: ] (<small>]]</small>) 16:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks Hijiri88. ''']'''</span> (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::*]? ] (] &bull; ]) 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 Misplaced Pages itself. ]&nbsp;(]) 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? ] (]) 12:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Here is the since the link is dead. The website itself cites these 3 sources:
*I'll accept a reboot, then. I'll just copy & paste the above list into the new RC. ]&nbsp;(]) 12:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
* from a Japanese language school
**That's a different option to ], 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. ] (]) 13:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
* on ] (effectively a blog)
***So a "relisting" is just an extension of the current RC? ]&nbsp;(]) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
* on
****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.'' ] (]) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Not reliable. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*****Hey ], 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 ] 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."). ] (<small>]]</small>) 07:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
*My articles on Kabuki don't count then? Anyway: ] (]) 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? ]&nbsp;(]) 08:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
**@]: 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 (], ], etc., etc.), and you ''know'' more about this stuff than most Wikipedians who exclusively edit in this area. But you aren't a ] 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 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. ] (<small>]]</small>) 15:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
***Forgive me for coming at this backwards, since I was watching the discussion at ] and posting in response to you there before I looked at this page. But again in regards to your response to ] 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, ]: "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. ]<small>]</small> 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

Latest revision as of 13:09, 3 June 2024

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 11, 2009, February 11, 2010, February 11, 2011, February 11, 2014, February 11, 2016, and February 11, 2017.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconJapan: Biography / History / Royalty & nobility Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:15, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Biography task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the History task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:


Archives

1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Historic Mysteries source

@CycoMa1: I was mid-responding to your RSN post.

Here is the archived version since the link is dead. The website itself cites these 3 sources:

Not reliable. — MarkH21 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: