Talk:Akihito/Archive 1

Archive 1

Renaming

First; please adhere to the Talk page guidelines so everyone is able to read this page and follow the conversation. Lafeber (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

<!-- {{move|Akihito, Emperor of Japan}} -->

or

<!-- {{move|Emperor Akihito of Japan}} -->

Wikipedia has rules on naming monarchs, here is the link [[1]]

Taku, not content with making a mess of names all over the place, you are now moving things without moving talk pages. STOP IT. Move everything or move nothing. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:06 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to move the talkpage. I mean I didn't hit the check box to move the talkpage. -- Taku 02:15 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't the title of this article be Akihito of Japan? -- Zoe

Yes (according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)). Most of the other emperors of Japan have Emperor as part of the article title too. --Mrwojo 23:06 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

No, according to that same page. It explains clearly that this applies to Medieval Europe (and it applies to modern Europe too). There is no ambiguity with the page title "Akihito" as it can only be in Japan. Lafeber (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The term 明仁天皇 violates one of Japanese taboos surrounding the Emperor. Although Chinese and Korean media frequently use this, the Emperor is never to be referred to by name in Japanese during his reign. Instead 天皇陛下 (His Majesty the Emperor) is in general use. -- Nanshu 06:25 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. However, for the page title this should be ok; it is a hyperlink, not a sentence, and it is the most commonly found way that media refer to him. Moreover, people will be looking up exactly this name to find an answer to the question who this is. They will not look up "Konjou" as this is a term not used outside of Japan. Even on his Japanese Wiki page his given name is used. I think everywhere else, so in all sentences, it would be respectful to write His Majesty the Emperor (天皇陛下).Lafeber (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Please rename this to Akihito. There is no 'other' Akihito in Japan 'to' my knowledge. -- Taku 03:55 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

If it serves the cause... but I disagree with Nanshu's assertion that somehow Japanese "taboo" be considered, or that there be a "proper" way to refer to an Emperor. Akihito is fine, considering the post WWII era of 'humble emperors' (non-divine) and this may be simpler, as well as agreeable. -&#35918&30505

I think he is probably right. But no matter he is right or not, no one calls the current emperor of Japan, "Emperor Akihito" or something in the first place. -- Taku 06:16 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

If I understand correctly, we have all agreed to use the formula "Emperor X of Japan" for all but the reign name emperors. Please tell me if I am wrong, and I will stop immediately. --Uncle Ed 00:32 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure what do you mean by reign name since to my knowledge none of Emperor of Japan has reign name, and instead, they are named by a given name, posthumous name or era name. Thus, the article should be named Akihito or Heisei emperor. Either one should be preferable. -- Taku 01:37 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Some websites called Meiji Emperor a "reign name". So I thought five or ten emperors would have articles like Meiji Emperor -- while all the rest would have articles like Emperor Akihito of Japan. I will do it the way you want, because you know (and care!) the most about the subject. --Uncle Ed 01:40 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think you were right if you mean the current emperor. But apparently we do this only after his passing. So we can update the page by that time. From my Japanese friends and family, I hear never to use the given name but refer to him by his era instead.　Lafeber (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

i think eventually one day Heisei emperor will be the name used, just like Meiji and Taisho.

Renaming should be considered

(It is somewhat interesting to know that at33 is a sockpuppet of Antares 911)

I think the article should be renamed Akihito of Japan or Akihito, Emperor of Japan, and Akihito should redirect to it. Some conventions discussed and practiced here seemed weird. at33

• totally agree on that... i mean "Akihito", what is that supposed to be? a gardner? no one refers to him like that, not in Japan, not even abroad, and it actually violated Wikipedia rules of naming. Antares911 14:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • a reader should not need to know in advance that the thing (name) he is seeking for, is an emperor (or a gardener...); just because of that, there does not need to be titles and such in the heading. Arrigo 09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. May I ask why? Akihito of Japan sounds like Geroge W. Bush of the United States. -- Taku June 29, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

• Oppose the Oppose what? who is Geroge W. Bush of the United States? is he a monarch? Antares911 29 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Well, Akihito is not a monarch. Officially, he is a symbol but not the head of state. -- Taku June 30, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Hmm? Who is the Head of State, then? The idea that he is not the monarch of Japan is at least semi-absurd, whatever the technical definition. john k 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• That said, there is only one Akihito of any note, and no particular reason to disambiguate. In general, I think naming policy should be changed to make clear that non-western monarchs don't need pre-emptive disambiguation by country ruled. john k 22:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, "currently" naming policy for monarch does not apply to Japanese emperors. -- Taku 23:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Btw, why the heck is there a duplicate of this article at Emperor Akihito of Japan? This is really getting ridiculous. 青い(Aoi) 08:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It is quite clear that that duplicate is one example of the work of User:Antares911 who obviously has been littering copy-and-paste moves all around Wikipedia for some time. 217.140.193.123 13:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support for Akihito, Emperor of Japan. It's clear and informative, and in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• I would also Support Akihito, Emperor of Japan for the current emperor. -Jefu 11:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is best now under Akihito. No necessity of disambiguation. Titles an territoral designations are harmful burden in headings, anyway. Arrigo 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly support, this should go along with the naming convention, just like all other monarchs. Is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom titled "Queen Elizabeth"? Is Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor titled "Frederick Barbarossa" even though those are the more common "terms" for them? No! They go with the naming convention, and why should Akihito be any different? He is the Emperor of Japan after all, not just some random dude. It should be Akihito of Japan.-Alex, 12.220.157.93 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Renaming

Those in favor of renaming the article are on the right track, but it should be renamed Emperor Akihito of Japan. Reasons:

1. Emperor Akihito is how he is widely referred to in the Western press. Go to NY Times or Japan Times or Washinton Post and do a search for Akihito. You'll see he is referred to as Emperor Akihito. This is what people are familiar with.
2. As both a native speaker of English and a fluent speaker of Japanese who has studied Japanese for over 17 years (and lived in Japan for 10), referring to him as simply Akihito is disrespectful. He is an emperor with a title and should be referred to as such.
3. All 121 Japanese emperors in Wikipedia that precede Emperor Meiji are referred to as "Emperor X of Japan". There is no reason why the current emperor should be an exception. The only thing that is different about him is that, because he is still alive, he obviously hasn't been renamed his posthumous name yet, which will be "Emperor Heisei."

-Jefu 13:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is not to prefix article names with titles (see, for example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). It's the other articles that need renaming, I think (as happened with the Korean articles). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason for that tradition for encylopedias was so that you don't end up with a long list of articles that start "Emperor X" or "Queen X", etc. in the index, similar to putting ", The" at the end of a title that begins with "The." That logic doesn't apply to a purely online Encylopedia. The articles on Japanese emperors were written and named by people who are familiar with Japan, the Japanese language, Japanese naming customs and how people typically refer to Japanese emperors in English. And the same convention is used for the Chinese emperors listed in Wikipedia. The only difference is there isn't one currently on the throne.

-Jefu 14:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand; I didn't say that the convention for print encyclopædias was not to use titles, but that the Wikipedia convention is not to do so. There are various reasons for this, one being that it avoids possible conflict over the validity of claims, and charges of PoV in using such titles. Another is that we don't use titles for anyone else (whether "Professor", "Dr", "Mrs", "Sir", "Dame", "President", etc.), so why should royalty be any different? C. E. M. Joad was always known as "Professor Joad", but that's not the title of the Wikipedia article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand, I'm saying the convention was probably borrowed from paper encyclopedias. It's just no longer relevant. And conflict over claims? Is there any conflict that the current emperor of Japan is the current emperor of Japan? I'm not aware of any. There was a brief period in Japanese history when there were rival courts, each with its own emperor, but even though there are arguments on both sides as to which was legitimate, all of the emperors are still named posthumously with the Tennō suffix. I have to admit that the argument about nobody else using titles is a compelling one. However, I think it only applies to the current emperor at most. The rest are posthumous names, not merely titles. Meiji never ever appears by itself in the Japanese language. Whether dictionaries, encyplopedias, ordinary text, etc. it always appears with Tennō appended to it. So I would say the consistency argument with respect to Japanese and Chinese emperors alike, as well as the fact that he is widely referred to as Emperor Akihito are good enough reasons to change it. -Jefu 16:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we move the discussions related to the names of the latest four emperors to Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). I believe it is necessary for us to come up with some uniform policy on this issue rather than debating in each article. -- 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Link to Japanese language in names

I noticed that the link to Japanese language got removed and re-added. I have asked a question on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Let's discuss it there, and wait for the outcome of that discussion, before changing this page's link to Japanese language again, and we can try to reach a general decision about whether to link to the page or not. --DannyWilde 09:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Foo language:" is used in every other non-English biogtaphical article; do you have some reason for thinking that Japanese should be an exception? (Just to take, as an example, the next relevant entry on my Watchlist: Kwa Geok Choo.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. It wasn't me who removed the language link, it was my good friend Exploding Boy. If you have a quibble with him, please address it to him via his talk page. What I was wondering was what the convention was. Is there a style manual which says it's necessary to link to the language? I've been doing it as a matter of course, and I see variations like [[Japanese language|Ja]] or Jp etc., but I wanted to clarify what we should do. --DannyWilde 14:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention to names. I don't know if it's prescribed, but even if it isn't, removing it would need a more positive reason I'd have thought. I don't like the (non-standard) abbreviated forms, though; that is deprecated in the MoS, which says that abbreviations should generally be avoided. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

See my reply here. Exploding Boy 18:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Cancer?

I thought I read that the Emperor was battling some form of cancer? It was a few years ago, perhaps it went into remission? If that's true I think it's worth noting. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Very old but since nobody answered, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and a succesful surgery was performed on January 18, 2003. As the prostate cancer is unlikely to become dangerous to health, he should be alright. --Revth 07:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Reigning Emperor?

Gentlemen, would not the King of Nepal really be an Emperor, since his title is (I believe) Maharajadhiraja("Great King of Kings")?--Anglius 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Akihito isn't really an emperor at all. The word "emperor" is a mistranslation of "tennou". He certainly doesn't have an empire. I suggest this line is removed. --Auximines 10:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I disagree, for I think that tennō can rougly be translated as Emperor, and an emperor does not neede to reign over a large area (e.g. Napoleon I upon Elba).--Anglius 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see how he can be an emperor without an empire. --Auximines 10:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The emperor of Japan is really a king, but he is called an emperor. Historically, there was only one emperor in Asia, that of China. All other Asian rulers were kings or princes (except for maybe in India, the Middle East, etc) that paid tribute to the Chinese emperor, or resisted (and failed becoming a part of his empire). The Japanese, however, decided to one day call their king an "emperor", even though he did not have an empire. (You could argue though that the Japanese indeed have an empire since they conquered the Ainu and the Okinawans. They also briefly ruled the Koreans and Taiwanese.) This was considered an insult and provocation to the Chinese emperor. Japan is really the only country in history, as far as I know, with an "emperor" without an empire.--Sir Edgar 06:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a polite fiction to call Akihito, the Emperor of Japan, it's a bit like Leonard Casley calling himself 'His Royal Highness Prince Leonard of Hutt' and his wife "Her Serene Highness Princess Shirley". An emperor is a king of kings, or by the O.E.D. "a sovereign of higher rank than a king", Queen Elizabeth could be called an Emperess as she reigns over Scotland and Wales (although the fact her son is the prince of Wales is a bit of a cheat), nevertheless the head of the Commonwealth is not referred to as Empress. Now if there was some evidence for the existence of lesser sovereigns in Japan then the title would certainly be correct. Strictly speaking he is King of Japan, but since the title of the ruler is up to the people of Japan to decide (i.e. "Her Serene Highness Princess Shirley"),and not us editors of wiki, then yes Akihito is the Emperor of Japan. lars 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of the emperor of Japan is set out in the Japanese constitution. In any event, Japan claims sovereignty over Okinawa, which was a kingdom, so the Japanese emperor, if the claim be admitted, is a king of at least one king.

But each territory had it's own lords, and he presided over them. 24.14.120.92 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the correct answer. Japan used to be divided into many smaller semi-autonomous (the degree of autonomy being dependent on the time period) territories that were ruled by their own local rulers. The first accounts of Japan in Chinese historical texts refer to the land of Wa being divided into a hundred different countries. Japan wasn't unified until Hideyoshi/Tokugawa, and even then the local territories (the han) technically remained in the hands of local rulers until the land was formally passed to the emperor and the han system was abolished in favor of the prefectural system as part of the Meiji restoration. In any event, the word tennou has always been translated (by foreigners) into emperor in English. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Japanese aggrandizement of the role of the emperor, as I'm sure some suspect.-Jefu 11:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Logical description, but inaccurate assessment. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "The term ('tenno') was first used at the beginning of the Nara period (710–784) as a translation of the Chinese t'ien-huang, or 'heavenly emperor', and replaced the older title of mikado, or 'imperial gate'." http://secure.britannica.com/eb/article-9071703 The Japanese were fully aware of Chinese customs and institutions by the 7th century. Instead of taking the title of "wang" (king), they adopted "tien huang" (heavenly emperor).

And here is the entry from Emperors of Japan: The first documented use of the title "tenno" is in a diplomatic letter from Empress Suiko to Emperor Yang of Sui China in 607 CE, bearing the sentence "tennō of the east hails kōtei of the west" - the same sentence was translated into Chinese as "tianzi of the land of sunrise hails tianzi of the land of sunset". Tianzi, son of heaven, was a title used by Chinese emperors. The introduction of this term comes amidst the movement of Japanese sinicization, and is considered an attempt of the Japanese rulers to assert themselves on equal footing with the Chinese emperors.

This insulted the Chinese emperor and his indignation is believed to be contained in the response. However, the Japanese envoy Imono Imoko (deliberately) lost the response, and avoided offending Empress Suiko upon his return to Japan. The empress's nephew, Prince Shotoku, really only wanted to express that Japan is an independent country and not a tributary country of China. But he ended up offending the Chinese. Nevertheless, Sui China desired friendly relations with Wa Japan prior to invading Goguryeo Korea. And so it was.--Sir Edgar 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are going on about. What does the introduction of the word tennō into the Japanese language have to do with how it is translated into English. Are you confusing the arguments here?

But since you mention it, let me point out some of the inaccuracies in what you wrote above. First, the Encyclopedia Britannica article was probably written 50 years ago and never updated, and in any event is highly simplistic. The implication that there was a single prior term "Mikado" that was thrown out in favor of "Tennō" is simply incorrect. There were several terms that were used when refering to the line of rulers who eventually became the imperial line. In particular, Ōkimi was used, as well as Sumeramikoto, both of which appear in the Nihonshoki and the Kojiki. Second, the article regarding the letter to the Chinese emperor is flat out wrong (and thank you for pointing out the innacuracy so that I may fix it). The term used in the letter (which is recorded in Chinese texts) was Tenshi (天子, so you got the Chinese correct) not Tennō (天皇). The oldest documented use of the word Tennō is from an inscription on a wooden slat (Mokkan) that was unearthed in Asuka (near Nara) in 1998. The slat has been dated back to the reigns of Emperor Tenji and Empress Jitō which were somewhat later than Ono no Imoko and his trip to China in 607. There are those who believe that the term was first introduced during the reign of Empress Suiko, but the favored view currently is that it wasn't introduced until the reign of Tenji/Jitō. (Kumagai Kimio, Ōkimi kara Tennō e, Kōdansha 2001).-Jefu 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "tenno" means "heavenly emperor" or "heavenly ruler". It is a title above king. The Japanese were fully aware that the use of such a title would be equivalent to declaring Japan an independent country from China. The justification of the use of such a term is weak at best though. Wa was not hundreds of countries, but tribes, and they were not even unified when the use of the term tenno began. Furthermore, Japan did not annex the Ryukyu Kingdom until 1879 and the Ainu in Hokkaido were not conquered until the late 19th century. So, where was the empire?

You may say that "emperor" was a term given by Westerners, but the Japanese accepted it. If it was wrong, they themselves would use another term in English.--Sir Edgar 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also the possibility that they accepted it as translation to keep up with Europe's own title inflation. As we reach the Meiji era, Europe had five empires (Ottoman, German, Austrian, French and Russian), Asia had at least three (India (to Britain), China, Persia), Africa had at least one (Ethiopia) and even America had one (Brazil). Japan is not, after all, much bigger than say, the British Isles, and population was rather equivalent. Whether or not an emperor rules over sovereign rulers, kings or anything else of the sort is probably irrelevant (the Byzantine Empire avoided feudalism as much as it could). As for heavenly ruler part, European kings were considered to be inviolable rulers with a divine mandate to reign. But keeping the translation as Emperor is certainly better as it is what is accepted; otherwise, this would be like insisting (for example in the case of a Hohenzollern restauration in Germany, a Bonapartist restauration in France or restauration in Ethiopia) that they should not be addressed as emperor but as kings because "they don't rule an empire". Or we might as well insist the the Grand Duke of Luxemburg is actually Count.

The Tenno still presided over the various sovereign rulers whether they were completely united or not. 24.14.120.92 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Since this article had unknown importance, I have given it High importance. The subject is the current head of state of Japan and of international significance. Top importance could also be considered. Grgcox 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Should show his coat of arms. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements of remorse

The section on "Marriage and Children" contained a paragraph about his statements of remorse concerning WWII. This of course has nothing to do with his Marriage or Children - I have therefore moved the paragraph to the "Life" section. Patiwat 09:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of succession

The statement added is technically incorrect, because speculation as to which emperor was the first to have actually lived is not only based on some definitive historical record. The historical record in Japan goes all the way back to the mythological emperors, there is some overlap with Chinese historical records, but no certainly about who overlaps with whom, and the archaeological record factors in here as well. In any event, there certainly isn't a sufficient level of certainly on this issue to make a definitive statement like this.-Jefu 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tughra

File:Imperor Japan tughra.jpg

The tughra image certainly looks spiffy-keen, but does it actually have any relevance? Tughras were the seals of Ottoman sultans, not Japanese Emperors, written in calligraphic Arabic and not Japanese, and as far as I can see the symbol here has not been used or endorsed in any way by the Imperial Household. Jpatokal (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how Japanese were calling their Emperors' signatures, but Tughra (Tuğra) is Ottoman Sultan's individual symbols, which makes it different from State emblems. Each Sultan had his own Tuğra. As long as it differs for Japanese Emperors, and they use it as signature and seal; I think it may be called that way too.--hnnvansier (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hostage situation??

Wasnt he the one who was celebrating his birthday in Peru in 1996, in which the party was ambushed by a local guerilla group, and the guests were taken hostage? If so, I think it should be added to his wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeannine615 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography

The section in Biography

"In 2001, Enperor Akihito acknowledged mother sides of Emperor Kammu, one of his ancestors were originated from Baekje of Three Kingdoms of Korea, bringing huge surprise not only in Japan and Korea but in whole world. He cited Japanese history book(屬日本紀) clarifying blood ties with Korean ethnic groups.[4] " doesn't make sense to me. What is this trying to say? Can we clean it up a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkessler (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How to Address the Emperor

How do I say the emperor's name in Japanese when I'm talking TO him?--98.199.76.184 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Emperor's name isn't used during his lifetime. So you would simply address him as "heika" (your majesty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.112.132 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Try "Aki-chan." I'd love to see what happens. 220.52.16.9 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

State visits

Hi, I need help: I'm interesting in all the State visits that H.I.M. the Emperor Akihito has made since 1989. I need to know date and country and cities he visited. In the official Emperor House website [2] I found an interesting table ([3]), but it's only in Japanese (I don't speek Japanese). Maybe somebody is interested in make a new article with this information (or to translate it for me). I made the article of the spanish King, Juan Carlos I, in the spanish wikipedia (es:Visitas oficiales al exterior del rey Juan Carlos I).

I'll be waiting for answers at my discussion page in the spanish wikipedia es:Usuario Discusión:Leonprimer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.29.91 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A younger emperor

Does not this old man have a younger photo of him that is fair-to-use on Wikipedia?--hnnvansier (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has many under his section. Shawnc (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

New pictures

Does anyone like to see one of these pictures in the main article?

• 
• 
• 

These were taken recently. Shawnc (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't he have an offical portrait like his predecessors Meiji, Taisho, Shōwa as well as other head of states? Helpspoke (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Akihito is alive, and his official photo is under copyright (since 1989), it will not qualify for fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Emperor among the people:

Emperor seen among the people: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LYDfSjW0pf0/Srr3b1xcevI/AAAAAAAAAYc/W5VWk6Cy6PU/s1600-h/DSC00661.jpg

BTW, it appears the japanes heika consider themselves emperors, not because of ruling over a large empire, but rather claiming to be directly descended from the Sun Godess, therefore above ordinary kings, who are only installed in the name of some deity. 91.82.34.26 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Last name

Stupid naive question: Does he have a last name? Follow-up: If no, is there a reason the article doesn't state/clarify that he's a mononymous person? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He most likely doesn't have a surname, being "semi-divine". But neither does the Queen of the United Kingdom and the article about her doesn't state that she's a mononymous person either. I am not sure it's even notable. Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Queen's last name is Windsor. yonnie (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories

I don't think this article has enough red-linked categories. Lugnuts (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Awards

The international awards end in one from Zaire, which doesn't exist anymore/ is re-renamed Congo. I don't know if the policy is to change this everywhere or not.77.99.246.115 (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tohoku Earthquake

This was not the second time the emperors voice was recorded. It has been recorded many times since WWII. The erroneous statement is the result of a misreading of the referenced article. I have removed the comment in paretheses. --Westwind273 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Phone Number?

Exactly what would the +81 be on the first line of the article? Emperor hot-line? It doesn't make any sense at all. 70.51.171.158 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is probably vandalism. The same number was also added to Barack Obama and another article in Japanese Wikipedia. The number is now removed. Thank you for the note. --Kusunose 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Any reason to think he is Shinto aside from the mere fact that he is the Emperor? The Japanese version of the article does not see fit to mention religion or shinto. 210.225.125.66 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

something's wrong - very long japanese text here?!

long japanese writings at the beginning at the article? seems accident or worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.162.22 (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This page has been semi-protected for a period of one month. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has over nine edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them here (using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention) or at Wikipedia:Request for edit. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. Please contact me directly on my talk page for any assistance. Wifione ^Message 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The first step of the pilgrim became the start of a 10 thousand mile journey.

The current article is way too slim on Akihito emperor's travels, even though he had a significant presence in Europe in the 1990s and early 2000's, for example. After all he is only the second Emperor of Japan to have ever left the island. 82.131.224.238 (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)