Talk:Kimigayo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Readability Concern

Some of the sentences towards the end of the article do not conform to the conventions of English. A revised version correcting grammar and flow/readability is needed.

The Emperor's Attitude?

I don't see anything in this article about some of His Majesty's recent remarks about the use of the Kimi Ga Yo and Hinomaru in school ceremonies. Should that not be mentioned? I think it caused some controversy, that the Emperor himself was opposed to the forcing of a song in praise of him to be sung... elvenscout742 17:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Natural?

"If you compare Kimi Ga Yo democratic countries' (for example England's God Save The Queen) National Anthems, this sort of praise of a ruler is very natural."

There is debate within the UK as to whether references to God are appropriate in a multi-faith country, and (as with Japan) whether references to hereditary monarchy are appropriate in a representative democracy.

Should the article reflect this in the 'response' the the arguments against Kimi Ga Yo? The response here appears slightly fallacious, or at leastr should be restated so as not to suggest that leader worship is 'natural' (which is a POV, not a fact). User:Phil webster

In taking a look at List_of_national_anthems, there really seems to be very few National Anthems that praise a ruler: Brunei, Jordan, Nepal, Netherlands (?), Oman, Saudi Arabia, Spain (?), and the United Kingdom. There are also a few countries that have separate Civil and Royal Anthems: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Thailand. Finally, there are a few more that mention God but not the ruler: Fiji, Ghana, Hungary, Kenya, Latvia, Libya, New Zealand, Republika Srpska (Serbia), Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, and Tanzania. This data says that "National" Anthems praising a ruler are very rare, even for Kingdoms and Constitutional Monarchies. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]]

In taking a look at national flags, there seem to be very few with big red maple leafs... Since when did we compare national elements to each other? How does this equate with NPOV? The anti-anthem arguments, while spurious, are accurate for what I read in the news (when it comes up 1-2 times every year). The arguments for the anthem are equally spurious, but again-- the whole issue is a tempest in a teapot (IMHO). Basically, it becomes a political football for the nationalists on one side an the commies on the other to jump up and down a bit (and get membership dues from the riled). Perhaps, if anything, the article should scale back these arguments with such a description of the proper relevance of the issue.Davejenk1ns 11:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the comment "this sort of praise of a ruler is very natural" is very POV. Since the arguments do come up regularly, I guess that they should probably be kept in the article (I was thinking of suggesting just deleting them). Still, I do think that the arguments do need to be trimmed back. Are there any particular events (holidays, etc.) that seem to trigger the arguments? [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 12:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of NPOV status, the section was badly written (I didn't look at other sections, so not sure about them), and also the original author has little knowledge in this issue. I rewrote it in such a way that it sounds more familiar and removed a number of irrelevant facts like if the song is about nature or not. Finally, I tried ot make it more clear why the government has got such a backlash. I hope this will help. (Don't forget to copyedit so it reads better.) -- Taku 16:31, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

World National Anthem Contest?

Someone please confirm that "World National Anthem Contest in Germany, 1903" bit. All I've found about it on Google is this same page; is there any factual evidence?

---

I was the anonymous who posted the above on April 15, 2005. As of now, no one provided the factual evidence to keep that part of the article, so I'm removing it. Lampiaio 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I think that the origin of "Kimi Ga Yo" is in the "Otogi Sōshi".

Shortest Anthem

Certainly Kimi Ga Yo is a contender, but not the clear winner. "Shortest anthem" is of course subjective, you can have five different orchestras play any given anthem and get five different lengths (I know myself from my extremely vast anthem collection I can't pin down a definitive time to any anthem.)

The fairest way to judge this (the NPOV way? ;) ) is to count the number of bars in the anthems sheet music (again, not the best way, but probalby makes it more even.) I found Japan's has 11 bars, but Jordan's has 10 and Uganda has 9, so they are very good contenders too.

Whoever posted the "shortest anthem" fact, please provide proof,a nd keep in mind how hard it is to subjectively prove. --Canuckguy 03:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Unreliable information

Prime Minister Koizumi, however, has officially endorsed Hironobu Kageyama's Cha La Head Cha La for the coveted spot. After Koizumi's endorsement, so many protesters gathered in Tokyo to voice distaste for such a song to become the official anthem that traffic had to be blocked for multiple hours. According to one protester, "Although Kageyama-san's composition is valued in Japanese culture, it hardly represents what we are about as a people. In fact, if instituted as the Japanese anthem it will only appease a small minority." When asked about his choice for an anthem, the protester responded, "Cruel Angel's Thesis is a far more appropriate choice when it is considered that a national anthem is supposed to symbolize the ideals and values of an entire people through song." Although Cruel Angel's Thesis has strong support, Cha La Head Cha La is considered the front runner at the time of this writing.

This information seem very unreliable, and sounds just like a joke (CHA-LA HEAD-CHA-LA and Cruel Angel's Thesis are two Anime music). I wasn't able to confirm this so I'm leaving it there, as I don't know if it's true or not. Please, if anyone can verify this info... Zumbertinho 07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Updated score now available

Image:Kimigayo.score.png

I've just uploaded a better copy of the score. Please check it for typos and wrong notes, and consider replacing the current image if you think it's a good idea - Sakurambo 17:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Filk

I think the lyric of the filk is unnecessary. There are huge number of filks in the world. Wikipedia should not cover such lyrics.--Mochi 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me that added the "Kiss Me" lyrics, but I think they should be in there because this is a recent news story that has been widely covered both in Japan and other countries.

You also seem to be dissatisfied with the story about the schoolteacher being fined ¥200,000. The story is discussed in a news article from the Guardian newspaper which I recommend you take a look at (particularly with regard to the statement about the threatened 8-month prison sentence which you have removed twice without any explanation).

Sorry, but I'm going to revert your edits again. If you think this is wrong, please explain why. -- Sakurambo 02:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the news story widely reported, and the sentence "Recently a new English Language parody... " explains about this. I think this is enough and lyrics are excess because the lyrics are very far from the topic of Kimigayo itself.--Mochi 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no logic in that. The lyrics are strongly connected to the topic of Kimigayo. How can you not understand that? -- Sakurambo 11:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Several sources says the parody lyrics intend to appeal "comfort women", but that have no relation to Kimigayo. Somebody says it is a propaganda, I agree. Adding the lyrics help the supporters of the parody, that is not neutral.--Mochi 01:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The parody lyrics are related to Kimi Ga Yo because they were designed to be sung to Kimi Ga Yo. Either you don't understand the meaning of the word "related", or you know nothing about the parody lyrics. I have provided you with links to web pages (both English and Japanese) describing the controversy. Please take the time to inform yourself about the situation instead of persisting with these absurd assertions. -- Sakurambo 09:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda site. So explaining the fact that one or some groups like to sing the parody lyrics to insist something is OK, as I said before, but adding the lyrics is excess. The lyrics is a kind of propaganda, and mentiong too much makes the article unbalanced.

You are making personal attacks on me, that is not good.--Mochi 04:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what are you complaining about then? YOU removed the lyrics from the article [1], but you're still complaining to me because you think the lyrics shouldn't be in the article. What did I do to deserve this? Blimey, some people... -- Sakurambo 08:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you or somebody add the lyrics again. If you don't, I say nothing about this topic.--Mochi 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Judgement

The retired teacher's story is another problem. Prosecution has no effect, so I delete. Why did Sakurambo delete the fact on the adjudication that the retired teacher jammed the ceremony?--Mochi 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Which encyclopedia publishes this ear duster? <<< Unsigned comment by 12:30, 16 June 2006 220.212.101.126

Mochi, once again you're just pushing your own POV. Please stop. It's rude and inconsiderate. -- Sakurambo 12:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you will add prosecutions all the time, won't you? I want to know why do you want to add.--Mochi 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mochi, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You're obviously more fluent in Japanese than you are in English. Why don't you put your efforts into working on ja:wikipedia instead of making specious remarks in here? Sakurambo 22:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm also contributing to the ja.wikipedia, so what ?

Prosecution has no effect. Why would you like to write such a thing?--Mochi 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're still complaining about the reference to the threatened 8-month jail sentence. Did you read the Guardian newspaper article I referred you to? Here's a quote from it:

...consider the case of Katsuhisa Fujita, a 65-year-old retired teacher who this week was fined 200,000 yen (£950) for committing the heinous crime of reminding parents of their constitutional right to remain seated during the national anthem at a graduation ceremony at a high school in Tokyo in 2004. In one sense Fujita was lucky: prosecutors had demanded that he be jailed for eight months.

Why do you suppose the Guardian newspaper decided that the threatened 8-month jail sentence was worth reporting? Don't you think it provides a useful illustration of the tensions surrounding the subject in Japan right now? I think this is particularly of interest to people in countries like the UK, for example, where (to the best of my knowledge) the national anthem is never sung in schools.

Why are you continuing to insist that this is of no importance? -- Sakurambo 09:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Prosecution tends to demand a long period, and often the adjudication decides a shorter one. You and British newspaper may be interested in, but such things often happen.--Mochi 04:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mochi, I've tried as hard as I can in this discussion to present a neutral point of view based on verifiable references. If a news story appears in several newspapers around the world, then I'd say it's worthy of being included in Wikipedia. If you make a statement of your own personal opinion without providing any references, then I'm going to ignore it. As I've said to you already, this is not the place for you to push your own personal POV. Please try to be objective. -- Sakurambo 08:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Japanese Google News search results[2]. You cited " Fujita was lucky: prosecutors had demanded that he be jailed for eight months.", but you can find many people lucky. Prosecution tends to demand a long period.--Mochi 14:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, then. Why don't we just say that he was "threatened with imprisonment"? I'm also considering deleting your note about him holding up the ceremony for 2 minutes, because (a) you haven't provided any references to back up this statement, and (b) as far as I can tell, this is a trivial and inconsequential detail. -- Sakurambo 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Asahi shimbun,

判決によると、藤田元教諭は０４年３月１１日午前９時４２分ごろから午前９時４５分ごろまでの間、板橋高校体育館で、午前１０時開式予定の卒業式のために着席中の保護者に向かい、「今日は異常な卒業式」と訴え「国歌斉唱のときは、できたらご着席をお願いします」などと大声で呼びかけ、教頭が制止すると「触るんじゃないよ」などと怒号をあげた。校長が退場を求めても従わず、式典会場を喧噪（けんそう）に陥れ、開式を約２分遅らせるなどした。

The retired teacher asked people to keep sitting. Consequently, the ceremony delayed for two minutes. His crime was "威力業務妨害罪"(charge of forcible obstruction of business). 威力業務妨害罪 is a crime that somebody jams others' business. So, if the ceremony did not delay, his behavior was not considered as a crime. So we should write "The ceremony was delayed because of the retired teacher's act". I agree that the length of delay is not so important.

I think it would be more meaningful to say that he was charged with "forcible obstruction of business" in that case. -- Sakurambo 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"threatened with imprisonment" seems on the retired teacher's side and not neutral. Do you have some better idea?

I took a look at the Google reference you provided, and it seems that most of the hits either discuss death sentences commuted to life imprisonment or slight reductions of prison sentences (e.g., 16 years reduced to 13, or 4 years reduced to 3). In most cases there isn't a huge difference between the sentence requested by the prosecution and the judge's eventual decision, and frankly I don't think your assertion that sentences are liable to be reduced much more in Japan than in other countries really stands up to scrutiny. I think it's perfectly reasonable to mention that the teacher had been threatened with imprisonment, since it is quite possible that he would have been imprisoned (if not for 8 months then perhaps for a shorter period such as 6 months). You seem to be suggesting that it would be POV to mention this fact. Why? -- Sakurambo 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, we should mind that the judgement is not over, will continue in the higher court(Asahi says "即日 控訴", or quick appeal to the higher court). The sentences on the Wikipedia are temporal.--Mochi 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the teacher is appealing against the verdict? We could mention that too if you like. But is it really worth it? -- Sakurambo 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is. I'm not sure it is worth writing in the article of Kimigayo, though. --Mochi 09:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this dispute is not related to Kimi Ga Yo itself. I don't know where is most suitable to those incidents, but may be Anti-Japanese sentiment or Activity of the Japanese left-winger is better. But there are too poor information to understand those problem, we difficult to write certain things about it.--TOMATOBOMB 16:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed

The beginning phrase-"Kimi Ga Yo"-was originally written "Wa Ga Kimi"(我が君, or "Our Lord"). As time passed, the form using "Kimi Ga Yo" spread. At this point in time "Kimi" meant "Monarch" or "Emperor". However, in a time without mass communication, to the common people the Emperor seemed to be an untouchable, unimaginable god, floating above the clouds and a thing of long ago legend or fairy tales. So, it is also possible that the lyrics praying for the long life of "My Lord" were separated from any sort of loyalty and used instead as a prayer for the continuation of peace. For this reason, when the peacefully Heian Period changed to the bloody Edo Period, the song once again became used as a simple celebration song among common people. To go along with this, the meaning of "Kimi" also underwent a transformation. For example, when the song was sung in celebration of a wedding, "Kimi" came to mean the groom and the song was used to wish for the groom's long life and his family's health. The version of the song published in the 1881 "Elementary Student's Song Book (First Edition)" by the Japanese Ministry of Education ) was longer than the current version and surprisingly, there was also a second version. It was derived from an English Hymn.

Can anyone provide evidence/sources? Exploding Boy 04:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Parody

I doubt that the parody of Kimigayo deserve an article of wikipedia. It is not really prevailing in Japan except for some political groups. Should we delete the article about parody?--Questionfromjapan 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? The story has been widely covered by newspapers all over the world. This has been discussed already. See the Filk section above. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is a POV problem. At least in Japan, the parody is not prevailling. It is known as Politiacl Problem by some radical political groups. Does the parody deserve an article in wikipedia? I suppose we should not treat that problem. In fact, Japanese Wikipedia does not treat the parody lyrics.--[[User:Questionfromjapan|.to national anthem anymore. And that article's volume is too much. Those are more than anthem's main commentary. What do you think about my opinion? Are those necessary?DqN 08:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mr/s.DqN's opinion. The current article about political parody is too long.--Questionfromjapan 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start deleting content just because it doesn't conform to your own point of view. Other people have decided that this story is worth mentioning, as have several news organizations in various countries. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. And I feel your reply is a bit rude. Please observe proprieties. Anyway, although you assert "Other people have decided that this story is worth mentioning", I do NOT think so. If you insist on it, should we take a vote on it? And, did you read your citation[3]? Some of them are negative opinions for the parody.--Questionfromjapan 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

several news organizations in various countries? Did the parody become the cover of the newspaper article?　Is the parody published in a general encyclopedia?　Even in Akahata, this article is not a cover either. --218.218.135.225 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• United Kingdom: http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,,1785687,00.html
• South Korea: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200605/kt2006053017324111970.htm
• South Africa: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=29&art_id=iol1148912121748P630&set_id=1
• Reuters (copied, Yahoo's source is removed): http://www.chefelf.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t5304.html

No opinion on the lyrics; but, the parody has been covered rather widely. Neier 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

TO Sakurambo, do you understand this parody is POV problem? Even according to your citation, there is a large political dispute about the existence of the parody itselef. I beleive the parody should not be treated in the article "Kimi Ga Yo". If you want to describe about this, you should create anather article, for example "Attack on Japanese Anthem".--Questionfromjapan 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read WP:NPOV, so I'll try to summarize some relevant points for you here:

• The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
• NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. {...} Types of bias include {...} Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.
• A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

I'm not suggesting that the parody lyrics express a majority point of view, but they do seem to be representative of a significant minority. If you think the parody lyrics don't exist, then please explain how they came to be published in news articles all over the world. --- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 08:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To Sakurambo. I have already said, "I feel your reply is a bit rude. Please observe proprieties." And this time, I'd like to say that your reply is very rude. You got completely confused what I' like to say. The point of the parody is completely another problem with Kimi-Ga-Yo itself. What is the relationship between the musical sensuness (or its history) and the intention of political group? They are no relevant. You should move this article(Political parody) to Japanese militarism or relevant article. Your intention is to create the abrupt article.--Questionfromjapan 10:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand you. What is "sensuness"? The parody lyrics are quite clearly related to the topic of Kimi Ga Yo because they were written specifically for this song. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The lyrics were written as Anti-government movement. There is no need to use Kimi-Ga-Yo melody. Any melody, any lyrics and any method is OK for the political movement. We shoud not support the propaganda campaign.--Questionfromjapan 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So you think anything that criticizes the Japanese government should be deleted from Wikipedia? I have asked you on several occasions to read WP:NPOV. Please do so. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism is not point. I did not say the parody should be deleted itself. I only say it should be deleted from the article "Kimi Ga Yo". The important thing is there is a big difference between music and political intention.--Questionfromjapan 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So in other words you're proposing a POV fork. Which part of WP:NPOV don't you understand? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. There is a big difference in the contents between music and intentional political movement.--Questionfromjapan 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Other articles about national anthems mention controversies (see The Star-Spangled Banner, for example). So what is your problem? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No. This problem is not translation problem. Is American anthem translated by anti-government political groups, not by specialist?--Questionfromjapan 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil(see Wikipedia:Civility). And learn to use etiquette Wikipedia:Etiquette. Anyway. For example, suppose there exists an article about music which is used in TV-game. And the music is originated in Mozart symphony. Would you like to add the game-music-article into the Mozart page? I don't think so.--Questionfromjapan 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

oh.., I didn't say the contents of "controversy" and "political parody" articles are good or not. And it's not really a matter on whether lyrics is good or not. (Personally I think those are ridiculous and not neutral.) I think most of us agree that those are political news. It's mere news. Is political news national anthem? Someone who want to read political news should read newspaper. If someone want to write those articles, a short sentence like a "please read newspaper, because there is such a story." is enough for it. But I really think it is unnecessary. Bcause "political news" is not "national anthem".
I say once again, I think "controversy" and "political parody" articles are not important information. Because those contents are not always related to national anthem anymore. And that article's volume is too much. Those are more than anthem's main commentary. What do you think about my opinion? I suggest to delete or renew more short.DqN 12:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On the view point of the article volume and the importance, I agree with you. The contexts are really imappropriate for this article.--Questionfromjapan 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To Sakurambo, did you finally understand "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"?--Questionfromjapan 07:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously trolling, so I'm not going to respond to your specious remarks any more. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just warned you for personal-attack on your talk page. Please Be Civil. And please answer my question.--Questionfromjapan 10:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

be cool. I think your wikipedian life might be longer than me. .you would not reflect whenever they recognize.when it is,only write WHO ARE YOU.I might stay on for a little while because I have a debt for you.There is no word of the meaning "On" in English.I have worried how to write every time to explain it.--Forestfarmer 16:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Forestfarmer. I would like to hold "Cool Head, but Warm Mind".--Questionfromjapan 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way "Political Parody" section is terrible Japanese corruption.Please write in more cool English when you treat such a sensitive content.It is overall too indistinct.Clarify the subject if you doesn't want to be deleted it.I delate it by political correctness if it leaves just as it is.--Forestfarmer 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted "Political Parody".if anyone want to rewrite it, discuss it before you rewrite it.--Forestfarmer 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There is violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV--Junmai 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to have a paragraph or section in this article discussing a parody (whether political or not) of the song. And to answer Questionfromjapan's question at the very top of this section: there's never been an article about the parody here on Wikipedia. It's only ever been a section on this article. As I stated above, it's perfectly acceptable to mention and discuss a parody of something in the article about that something. In fact, unless there is enough material to warrant a completely separate article about the parody, the article about the subject being parodied is the best place for it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

from your insistence,Wkipedia don't allow to write parody.and please protect this article. already the revert abttale started.--Forestfarmer 05:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean, we can insert almost all of parody-articles into the articles which are about classical misics and classical drawing in those. Could you insert the article about space battleship YAMATO into the article of sympony? We should not do so. I beleive we should classify those.--Questionfromjapan 06:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote: It's perfectly acceptable to mention and discuss a parody of something in the article about that something. In fact, unless there is enough material to warrant a completely separate article about the parody, the article about the subject being parodied is the best place for it. So, unless there is enough material to warrant a completely separate article, yes, that's what I'm saying. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the meaning of your "material"? "Kimi ga Yo" is an article about japanese national anthem. its contents must be involved to "music", "melody", and " its origin and history". I have showed the parody is written by a radical political group with clearly intent of political agitation. The agitation does not need the melody of "Kimi ga Yo". Is this enough material to warrant a completely separate article??--Questionfromjapan 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nihonjoe. The absence of an opposing view represents the worst kind of POV. To maintain NPOV, a well-documented parody should remain in the article. Being reported in papers such as the Guardian, and Reuters (listed above) make this an important topic, whether we agree with it or not. Neier 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is such a political parody sentence on another wikipedia article .I admit it.--Forestfarmer 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The parody, as discussed above, is perfectly acceptable as part of this article. Your constant reverting of the inclusion of this section (with the complicity of Questionfromjapan, and without discussing anything FIRST) is bordering on vandalism. The section does not attack Japan in any way. In fact, I'd say that it shows that democracy is alive and well in Japan (which goes against the commonly-held belief by the uninformed that everyone in Japan is very submissive and doesn't like to stand out (the whole "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down" thing)). Why do the two of you keep reverting this?

The two of you are well known for pushing a pro-Japan POV, and reverting anything you perceive as going against that. It's about time you learned that that way of acting is not acceptable on the English Wikipedia. If you don't like the fact that we are at least attempting to maintain neutrality here on the English Wikipedia, then you can leave. POV-pushers are not welcome here.

If, on the other hand, you want to change your ways and start actually working with those of us trying to make the Japan-related articles on Wikiepdia better, you're welcome to stay. Otherwise, you're likely going to disrupt your way to being banned. We really would rather that you decide to work with us rather than constantly throwing gasoline on things. It's very frustrating to be trying to work through making the articles comprehensive and neutral, only to have very opiniontated editors come in and, rather than discuss the ideas, they simply try to force their POV on everyone else. This is how you (and several others who work like you) are perceived by the majority of editors here. Will you work with us, or are you intent on POV-pushing? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, please note that by including this information, we are abiding by the Neutral Point of View policy, the included links make sure we are abiding by the Verifiability policy and Citing sources guideline. Note that all three of these are either official policies or guidelines. As Neier pointed out, if we do not include them, we are in violation of the Neutral Point of View policy. This may cause the whole article to be placed up for deletion due to not presenting all sides fairly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't attack personal.and Cannot you find the another article ? I want to know is only it.--Forestfarmer 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the only line that could be seen as a personal attack. As for finding "the another article," I have no idea what you mean. What other article? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression seems to agree that the material belongs in the article, specifically, this sentence: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Neier 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

At first, see the version "13:56, 16 July 2006" which is written by me. And , please see this note and please read "The parody is written by a radical political group with clearly intent of political agitation. The agitation does not need the melody of "Kimi ga Yo". Is this enough material to warrant a completely separate article??" Please comment to this. Thank you. P.S. Please do discuss before revert.--Questionfromjapan 01:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who wrote it. It doesn't matter why it was written. The fact is that it was written. Because of this fact, and the news covereage it has garnered, it should be mentioned in this article. The way it is presented is very neutral and makes no judgement about the parody. All that's happening is that the parody is being mentioned in the controversy section since it is a well-known, well-covered-in-the-news controversial version of the song. There is not likely enough material to warrant a separate article, so it is mentioned here.

As for discussing before you revert, please follow your own advice. You have yet to offer any valid reason the parody should not be mentioned here, while multiple valid reasons have been offered as to why the parody SHOULD be mentioned. Unless you can offer valid reasons for it to not be included, any further reverting will be considered vandalism.

You have absolutely nothing to stand on here.

You are very unlikely to come up with any valid reasons.

There is nothing to back up anything you are saying here with regard to validly removing the mention of the parody.

Please stop wasting your time and our time trying to push you POV on this article. Instead, perhaps you should find some articles discussing why the parody is "bad" or "unacceptable", and then provide those links. I'm sure all of the reasonable editors trying to make this article better will be happy to include those links as well. I look forward to you participating in a positive manner in the future. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. In the interest of fairness, I have copied QFJ's version below.

• "Kimi Ga Yo" is sometimes referred as a symbol of Japanese imperialism for some radical anti-war groups and anarchists. Therefore, they have strongly opposed to sing "Kimi Ga Yo" in ceremonies for a long time since they regard the song as an inappropriate song. (see these,[4][5]) In 1999, the new Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem oblige the attendants of graduation ceremony to sing "Kimi Ga YO" as nationl anthem.

This is not related to the parody, but, to the controversy as a whole. It is already mentioned in the controversy section above anyway.

• However, some of anti-war groups propose to sing parody lyrics instead of "Kimi Ga Yo". The lyricist of this parody is Kaori Suzuki[6], who is a member of the radical[7] anti-war group whose name is "VAWW-NET, Japan". (see this[8]. In japan, it is generally presumed that this group has relationship[9] with North Korea.)

Most of this section is inflammatory, with a dash of WP:WEASEL. Saying the VAWW-Net is allied with North Korea simply because one of the organizing members of a caucus was a North Korean group is presumptuous. If there is more proof, that would be fine; but I also would like to see an authoritative source that says Suzuki wrote the lyrics. I know that most people believe it, but as far as I know, it is not verifiable, so his name may not be needed in this section.

Also, Suzuki's? parody is simply one of the more famous versions. I have read that multiple parodies exist, some of them nonsensical syllables, some of them with political overtones. The parodies exist because of the law and Monbusho's requirement of singing the song. That is why I moved it into the controversy section, because the parodies are just a result of the controversy, and necessary to the article to show how deep the controversy runs.

The controversy section does dominate the article; but, there is a lot more information on the Japanese wikipedia article which can be translated. Neier 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If a parody of Kimi ga Yo is prevailing in Japan, I think that it must be written in Japanese. A parody of Kimi ga Yo in English language couldn't be understood by the most part of Japanese. As a matter of reality, I never heard a parody of Kimi ga Yo in Japanese and also in English. I think that the truth must be written in Wikipedia.Mythologia 15:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that it "prevails" in Japan. All the current paragraph (which keeps getting deleted by the Japanese POV-pushers) is saying is that the parody EXISTS. That is the truth, yet people like you, Questionfromjapan and Forestfarmer won't allow the truth to be written in Wikipedia because you keep deleting the truth. You need to quit talking the talk if you aren't going to walk the walk. You can't have only the truth that's convenient for Japan. Occasionally, there will be truth that is inconvenient for Japan, but that needs to be allowed to exist on Wikipedia as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. There actually exists the parody. However, it is advocated to sing tghe parody by some anti-war groups. It is an only advocacy as propaganda. There does not exist the relationship between the Kimigyo and the propaganda. If you can show me the fact that the pupils actually sang the parody in any celemony, I would not say anything anymore. Please show me the fact that the parody is really spread in Japan.--Questionfromjapan 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been written about in English-language papers in Japan--that should count for something. Regardless, it's actually up to you to prove why it shouldn't be in the article. There's already enough supporting references showing why it should be in the article, so that's not even at question here. Until you can show that it shouldn't be in the article, it should remain. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No. There's no information which implies tha fact that the pupils or children sing the parody. Any articles imply there exits the advocacy only.--Questionfromjapan 04:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

>日本穣 I didn't delete it because I am disagree it, but because it was not the truth.

"Various English-language parody versions have recently spread across Japan".

This is not the truth because students of schools aren't compeled to sing the song as constitutional right, so they don't sing if they want to sing the song. So they don't have a need for any parody. Who are compeled to sing the song are only teachers who are public servants.

And I agree to write the truth, but I am anxious that the description will be discrimination of Japanese because I think the parodies have spread only in English speaking people if it have really spread. I can't judge it is discrimination or not, because I don't know any of parody of the song. If you want to write the content, please be anxious about the points that I referred to above.

1. To write that the parodies have principally spread in English speaking people.
2. Be anxious about the discrimination against Japanese in expression as it is a national anthem.

Mythologia 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I discover the original article of the content [[10]]. I correct the points that I referred to above.

1. To write that the parodies have principally spread in teachers who are compeled to sing the song.
2. Be anxious about the discrimination against Japanese in expression as it is a national anthem.

Mythologia 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think the parodies will be temporary phenomenon, because the teachers have obligation to teach the song and students have right not to sing the song. So I think it would be fixed down soon. In that case I think this contents should be deleted. Mythologia 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's no longer used doesn't mean it should be deleted from the site. The Imperial Japanese navy no longer exists, but there's an article covering that. Are you saying any article (or mention in an article) about something no longer in existence should be deleted? If so, you are completely incorrect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

"Ga" is a particle, and therefore shouldn't be capitalized. I think this article needs to be moved to Kimi ga Yo. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult problem for me. "Ga" is a particle as you pointed out. However, almost all of Japanese do NOT recognize it as a particle since we call it on one syllable. For Japanese, the accent in the "Kimi Ga Yo" does not exist on syllable since it is one word, not "life and world"+"of"+"you". I would really like to hear other opinions,too.--Questionfromjapan 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make any sense. All Japanese particles (that I can think of off the top of my head) are one syllable. Regardless, the length has no bearing on whether or not it's consdered a particle. The title literally means "You Are the World". It is very clearly three words (or two words separated by one particle, if you don't consider particles to be words). And if you want to go the "one word" route, then it should be "Kimigayo", not "Kimi Ga Yo" or "Kimi ga Yo". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. According to my thought, Kimigayo is better.--Questionfromjapan 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You (Nihonjoe) are mistaken. The が in 君が代 is not a subject marker; it is part of an older structure in which it's similar to the possessive の (as in 我が父, "My father", and 我が国, "My/Our Country"). Also, 君 in this case does not mean "you"; it means Emperor (there's even 我が君, "My Lord"). So, to wrap it up, it's not 君が代 as in "あなたは世界" but rather "天皇の代". lampi 01:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting, and ought to be included in the article. Can you provide any references? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "Kimi ga Yo" is better. Particles are normally written as separate words in romaji (e.g., Otoko wa Tsurai yo), and song titles are no exception (plenty of examples here). Proper nouns like Takadanobaba and Inoue are a different matter, of course. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand and agree. 'Kimi ga Yo' is better. However, should you apologize me before re-participate to this page?--Questionfromjapan 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think usual Japanese don't understand why the title was changed. Japanese don't understand "particle" usually. Japanese may think that someone capitalized a head of word about "Kimi Ga Yo".and Japanese may think that Someone Romanized "君が代" about "Kimigayo".but Japanese may think why this title is "Kimi ga Yo"

when Japanese see "Kimi ga Yo",Japanese may think why nobody change to "Kimi Ga Yo" or "Kimigayo".because Japanese don't understand "particle" usually. I think that he who change this title have more knowledge than usual Japanese about Japanese roman words. usual Japanese may think The title is unsuitable, but I think that the title may be right. I think "Kimigayo" is less right than "Kimi ga Yo".but less controversial for Japanese. It is hard choice. but I recommend "Kimigayo" for the long. I think that it is a political correctness.--Forestfarmer 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the English Wikipedia is not for the Japanese, but for the English-speaking world. This is a well-known and common grammar rule in the English-speaking world, and therefore appropriate for application here. It has nothing to do with political correctness.···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"political correctness" being writed by me do not mean to avoid discriminatory words.it mean that you should avoid colliding if it is not right-on.

Either is privately good.and when you have such strong devices.I can not to do anything.--Forestfarmer 23:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't hold anything back. Wikipedia is for the Korean, right? Gegesongs 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the English translation official?

It seems like the English translation has taken a lot of poetic license with the original Japanese. Is this translation official? --75.31.241.60 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the existence of any "official" translation, but the translation we have here looks good enough to me. A strictly literal translation would be almost unintelligible, so it has to be translated within the context of a national anthem. That involves the addition of words like "reign" which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Japanese. There are a few alternative translations at http://www.hfc-south.com/4shunbun/198.html (including one by Basil Hall Chamberlain that seems to be fairly well known). -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Law's name in English

I corrected "enacted" to "enforced" (used 2 times). --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to a guideline....

While no official English translation exists for this Act on national flag and anthem, a translation guideline says an enforced law of Japan is to be translated by "act" and, the name for this Act can be "Act on National Flag and National Anthem" if translated in compliance with this guideline: Standard Bilingual Dictionary (March 2008 edition)

A name "Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem" is a word-to-word translation, with a grammatical error: "the" before "Anthem" is missing. This is not necessarily a common translation, as far as I searched Internet.

So, I replaced this long name by a shorter expression using "act" or "bill." --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill, Law or Act?

When a bill is passed, that can be called "law" or "act." Expressions "a law is enforced" and "an act goes into effect" are almost equivalent.

A verb "pass" takes either of the three as an object, but to be accurate, "bill" is the word for the one to be passed. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted reference to 'I Vow to Thee, My Country'

I have taken the great liberty of deleting the reference to the non-controversy concerning the constitutionality of singing 'I Vow to Thee, My Country'. Here is why: 1. 'I Vow to Thee, My Country" is not the UK national anthem. 2. No one in the Wikipedia article on this hymn has claimed that it is 'unconstitutional'. The Bishop of Hulme objected to it as being 'heretical', that is, against orthodox Christian teaching. This is not at all the same as being 'unconstitutional'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writtenright (talk • contribs) on 22:46, 26 December 2006

Meaning of "Kimi"

I thought that the older meaning of "kimi" meant "my lord" or "my lady," and the newer one meant "you"/"my sweetheart," not the other way around. Cf. "Yodo-gimi" of the 16th century-- it means Lady Yodo, not "Yodo, my sweetheart." Or see Hikaru Genji: Genji was given the appellation Hikaru no Kimi (光の君, the Shining Prince) in his youth. -Tadakuni 14:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a good source, you're welcome to make the change. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Yodo-gimi" example from the article. Why she was called so is dubious. Maybe that's only a calling in fiction with contempt at heart, while apparently honorific. Someone points out that she was never called so during her lifetime, but in fiction afterwards. (Encyclopedia 『世界大百科事典』, the 2nd edition, published by Heibonsha Limited, Publishers) --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From editor's comment by Elvenscout742: I don't think it's appropriate to call him a "Prince"

Dear Elvenscout742:

In response to your comment, I deleted English phrases for "Hikaru no Kimi" and "Hikaru-gimi." However, whether you like or not, Genji is described in the story as the second prince of Emperor Kiritsubo. If you say 'inappropriate as wikipedia' to call him "prince," please provide here a clear ground, while "Shining Lord" isn't the best because "lord" has various meanings. Thnaks. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kimi" does have an older meaning of "Lord", but I believe it's archaic now. But doesn't it mean "Lord's Era" or "Lord's Reign"? Moocowsrule (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule