text:
Expert witness

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

History
The forensic expert practice is an ancient profession. For example, in ancient Babylonia, midwives were used as experts in determining pregnancy, virginity and female fertility. Similarly, the Roman Empire recognized midwives, handwriting experts and land surveyors as legal experts. The codified use of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their testimony and scientific evidence has developed significantly in the Western court system over the last 250 years. The concept of allowing an expert witness to testify in a court setting and provide opinionated evidence on the facts of other witnesses was first introduced by Lord Mansfield in the case of Folkes v. Chadd in 1782. In this particular case, the court was hearing litigation regarding the silting of Wells Harbor in Norfolk and allowed leading civil engineer, John Smeaton, to provide scientific rationale behind the proposed legislation. The decision by the English Court to allow for an expert to provide contextual background and detail on a case is often cited as the root of modern rules on expert testimony.

Role
Expert witnesses are called upon in the court system to serve as an objective party to the lawsuit and never function as an advocate for one side or the other. Expert witnesses are present in litigation to explain complicated scientific issues, not to influence the jury or judge with fervor. The main responsibilities of expert witnesses are to evaluate potential problems, defects, deficiencies, or errors only when able to fully appreciate a process or system. Expert witnesses are obligated to study the processes prior to making a survey or postpone the assignment prior to potentially missing the target due to lack of specific condition understanding. They are called to testify under the assumption that all the preparation required for a competent evaluation of the process has been made.

Typically, experts are relied on for opinions on severity of injury, degree of sanity, cause of failure in a machine or other device, loss of earnings and associated benefits, care costs, and the like. In an intellectual property case an expert may be shown two music scores, book texts, or circuit boards and asked to ascertain their degree of similarity. In the majority of cases, the expert's personal relation to the defendant is considered and usually adjudged to be irrelevant.

The tribunal itself, or the judge, can in some systems call upon experts to technically evaluate a certain fact or action, in order to provide the court with a complete knowledge on the fact/action it is judging. The expertise has the legal value of an acquisition of data. The results of these experts are then compared to those by the experts of the parties.

The expert has a great responsibility, and especially in penal trials, and perjury by an expert is a severely punished crime in most countries. The use of expert witnesses is sometimes criticized in the United States because in civil trials, they are often used by both sides to advocate differing positions, and it is left up to a jury to decide which expert witness to believe. Although experts are legally prohibited from expressing their opinion of submitted evidence until after they are hired, sometimes a party can surmise beforehand, because of reputation or prior cases, that the testimony will be favorable regardless of any basis in the submitted data; such experts are commonly disparaged as "hired guns."

Qualifications
An expert witness at the time of trial is qualified by the court and must be re-qualified each time that person comes to trial for the offering of opinions. The qualification is given by each trial judge and takes place regardless of prior appearances by a particular expert witness. Expert witnesses are those whom the court has deemed qualified to speak on a topic to provide background to anyone on a lay jury.

Duties in United States courts
In high stakes cases multiple experts, in multiple topics, are often retained by each party. Although it is still relatively rare, the court itself may also retain its own independent expert. In all cases, fees paid to an expert may not be contingent on the outcome of the case.

Expert evidence is often the most important component of many civil and criminal cases today. Fingerprint examination, blood analysis, DNA fingerprinting, and forensic firearm examination are common kinds of expert evidence heard in serious criminal cases. In civil cases, the work of accident analysis, forensic engineers, and forensic accountants is usually important, the latter to assess damages and costs in long and complex cases. Intellectual property and medical negligence cases are typical examples.

Electronic evidence has also entered the courtroom as critical forensic evidence. Audio and video evidence must be authenticated by both parties in any litigation by a forensic expert who is also an expert witness who assists the court in understanding details about that electronic evidence.

Voice-mail recordings and closed-circuit television systems produce electronic evidence often used in litigation, more so today than in the past. Video recordings of bank robberies and audio recordings of life threats are presented in court rooms by electronic expert witnesses.

Hearsay rule
One important rule that applies to the expert witness but not the percipient witness is the exception to the hearsay rule. A percipient witness tells only what he/she actually knows about a case and nothing more. Percipient witnesses cannot give opinions nor conjecture regarding a hypothetical set of conditions. Conversely, the court does allow an expert to testify about issues that may not be personally known by them. This allows the expert to rely upon scientific articles, discussions with colleagues on the subject, testimony read in preparation for testimony in the case and similar pieces of information not personally known to the expert.

Chain of custody
It is important that expert witnesses who handle evidence maintain a proper chain of custody such that they are able to authenticate the evidence, prove that it is what they represent it to be, when testifying at trial. Most notably in the context of a criminal prosecution, an expert witness who evaluates or examines an item pertinent to an investigation or case evaluation may add an entry to a "chain of custody" document, a form that contains the item's description, the time and date of release for all prior custodians of the item, and the time and date of release to the witness.

Weight of testimony
In the case of an expert witness, the weight of his/her evidence depends heavily on the foundation support established prior to an opinion being given. Examples include educational background, review of scholarly works, field studies and trainings which all lead up to developing a foundation of knowledge for credibility of a testimony. Before trial, all experts must prepare a report summarizing their analysis and conclusions and share the report with all other parties. This allows other parties to effectively cross-examine the expert.

Testifying experts
If the witness needs to testify in court, the privilege is no longer protected. The expert witness's identity and nearly all documents used to prepare the testimony will become discoverable. Usually an experienced lawyer will advise the expert not to take notes on documents because all of the notes will be available to the other party.

An expert testifying in a United States federal court must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Generally, under Rule 702, an expert is a person with "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" who can "assist the trier of fact," which is typically a jury. A witness who is being offered as an expert must first establish his or her competency in the relevant field through an examination of his or her credentials. The opposing attorney is permitted to conduct a voir dire of the witness in order to challenge that witness' qualifications. If qualified by the court, then the expert may testify "in the form of an opinion or otherwise" so long as: "(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."

Although experts can testify in any case in which their expertise is relevant, criminal cases are more likely to use forensic scientists or forensic psychologists, whereas civil cases, such as personal injury, may use forensic engineers, forensic accountants, employment consultants or care experts. Senior physicians – UK, Ireland, and Commonwealth consultants, U.S. attending physicians – are frequently used in both the civil and criminal courts.

The Federal Court of Australia has issued guidelines for experts appearing in Australian courts. This covers the format of the expert's written testimony as well as their behaviour in court. Similar procedures apply in non-court forums, such as the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Educating witness
The educating witness teaches the fact-finder (jury or, in a bench trial, judge) about the underlying scientific theory and instrument implementing theory. This witness is an expert witness, called to elicit opinions that a theory is valid and the instruments involved are reliable. The witness must be qualified as an expert witness, which may require academic qualifications or specific training.

Reporting witness
Called after teaching witness leaves stand. Usually the laboratory technician who personally conducted the test. Witness will describe both the test and the results. When describing test, will venture opinions that proper test procedures were used and that equipment was in good working order.

Non-testifying experts
In the U.S., a party may hire experts to help them evaluate a given case. For example, a car maker may hire an experienced mechanic to decide if its cars were built to specification. This kind of expert opinion will be protected from discovery by the opposing party. In other words, if the expert finds evidence against their client, the opposite party will not automatically gain access to it. This privilege is similar to the work-product doctrine (not to be confused with attorney–client privilege).

The non-testifying expert can be present at the trial or hearing to aid the attorney in asking questions of other expert witnesses. Unlike a testifying expert, a non-testifying expert can be easily withdrawn from a case. It is also possible to change a non-testifying expert to a testifying expert before the expert disclosure date.

United States
In the United States, under the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (FRE), an expert witness must be qualified on the topic of testimony. In determining the qualifications of the expert, the FRE requires the expert have had specialized education, training, or practical experience in the subject matter relating to the case. The expert's testimony must be based on facts in evidence, and should offer opinion about the causation or correlation to the evidence in drawing a conclusion.

Experts in the U.S. typically are paid on an hourly basis for their services in investigating the facts, preparing a report, and if necessary, testifying during pre-trial discovery, or at trial. Hourly fees range from approximately $200 to $750 or more per hour, varying primarily by the expert's field of expertise, and the individual expert's qualifications and reputation. In several fields, such as handwriting analysis, where the expert compares signatures to determine the likelihood of a forgery, and medical case reviews by a physician or nurse, in which the expert goes over hospital and medical records to assess the possibility of malpractice, experts often initially charge a flat fixed fee for their initial report. As with the hourly fees discussed previously, the amount of that flat fee varies considerably based on the reviewing expert's field, experience and reputation.

In 2017 Kootenai County, Idaho paid nearly $600,000 during the trial over the killing of a Coeur d'Alene police officer, with the public defenders paying approximately $311,000 for seven experts and the prosecutors paying $270,000 for three experts. A 2021 survey conducted by SEAK, Inc., a company that helps professionals serve as expert witnesses, revealed a median hourly rate of $500, $400, and $475 for testifying in court, case preparation, and deposition respectively. As for the highest amount ever billed for a single case, the median was $24,000 and the mean was just over $62,000.

The expert's professional fee, plus his or her related expenses, is generally paid by the party retaining the expert. In some circumstance the party who prevails in the litigation may be entitled to recover the amounts paid to its expert from the losing party.

Scientific evidence
In law, scientific evidence is evidence derived from scientific knowledge or techniques. Most forensic evidence, including genetic evidence, is scientific evidence.

Frye test
The Frye test, coming from the case Frye v. United States (1923), said that admissible scientific evidence must be a result of a theory that had "general acceptance" in the scientific community. This test results in uniform decisions regarding admissibility. In particular, the judges in Frye ruled that:

 * Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

In 1923, the case of Frye v. United States instituted significant change to both criminal and civil law by addressing the use of expert witness testimony in conjunction with scientific testimony. In Frye v. United States, the defense team attempted to introduce both the results of a polygraph test administered to Frye to determine Frye's innocence as well as the testimony of an expert witness to verify and explain the results.

However, the court rejected the expert's testimony, ruling that: "While courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."

Through this ruling, the judge's opinion in Frye v. United States set precedent and the standard by which expert witnesses would be utilized in the court system for decades. In the federal courts, between 1948 and 1975, Frye was cited 55 times; however, the use and application was not consistent. One of the major struggles that came out of this precedent was the application to both civil and criminal cases. Many of the courts and judges had trouble interpreting the "general acceptance" notion of a particular field in a concise and non-arbitrary manner. In 2012, courts in nine states still used the Frye standard when analyzing state expert witness rules.

The Federal Rules of Evidence

In 1975, the United States Congress issued the Federal Rules of Evidence. FRE 702 was issued to provide a standard for expert witness testimony to be upheld by the United States court system. The rule specified that the application of expert witnesses had to be attributed to a person with "scientific or technical knowledge," in conjunction with a list of qualifications that would quality one to be an expert in terms of "knowledge, skill, experience, training or education". This rule thus clarified the acceptable use of expert witnesses in both criminal and civil cases.

However, FRE 702 still left some courts in confusion. The courts who would use this new rule were confused as to whether FRE 702 served to bolster the "general acceptance" ruling in Frye or if FRE 702 was the replacement of this rule. For instance, in U.S. v. Williams (1978), the Second Circuit responded that "the applicable considerations [for expert witness testimony] are 'probativeness, materiality, and reliability of the evidence on the one side, and any tendency to mislead, prejudice or confuse the jury on the other.'" The court appeared to reject the previous precedent set by Frye. The rationale in the Williams case was later adopted by other federal courts, including the Third Circuit which adopted a "reliability" test in 1984. Meanwhile, other federal courts stuck to the Frye precedent, causing a circuit split which would not be solved until the Supreme Court set a new expert standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993).

Daubert standard
The Daubert standard arose out of the U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. It provides four factors that courts ought to consider when determining whether expert testimony is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence:

 * 1) "Whether the expert's theory or technique can be (and has been) tested"
 * 2) "Whether the theory or technique has an acceptable known or potential rate of error"
 * 3) "The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation"
 * 4) "Whether the theory or technique has attained 'general acceptance'"

In 2012, twenty-two states used the Daubert test when analyzing their own expert witness rules.

England and Wales
In England and Wales, under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), an expert witness is required to be independent and address his or her expert report to the court. A witness may be jointly instructed by both sides if the parties agree to this, especially in cases where the liability is relatively small.

Under the CPR, expert witnesses may be instructed to produce a joint statement detailing points of agreement and disagreement to assist the court or tribunal. The meeting is held quite independently of instructing lawyers, and often assists in resolution of a case, especially if the experts review and modify their opinions. When this happens, substantial trial costs can be saved when the parties to a dispute agree to a settlement. In most systems, the trial (or the procedure) can be suspended in order to allow the experts to study the case and produce their results. More frequently, meetings of experts occur before trial. Experts charge a professional fee which is paid by the party commissioning the report (both parties for joint instructions) although the report is addressed to the court. The fee must not be contingent on the outcome of the case. Expert witnesses may be subpoenaed (issued with a witness summons), although this is normally a formality to avoid court date clashes.

Scotland
In Scots Law, Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh (1953) provides authority that where a witness has particular knowledge or skills in an area being examined by the court, and has been called to court in order to elaborate on that area for the benefit of the court, that witness may give evidence of his/her opinion on that area.

Purpose

 * United Kingdom: Expert evidence is to furnish the Judge or jury with necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions
 * United States: Expert evidence is admissible on the basis that the knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue

Qualification

 * United Kingdom: Expert witness is qualified to give evidence, where the court itself cannot form an opinion and special study, skill or experience is required for the purpose
 * United States: An expert witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience or education

Admissibility of Evidence

 * United Kingdom: Expert evidence must be provided in as much detail as possible in-order to convince the judge that the expert's opinions are well founded
 * United States: Expert testimony to be based on sufficient facts, data or products of a credible source of test and tried principles and methods

Conduct

 * United Kingdom: Expert's "duties to the Court override any obligation to the person from whom they have received instructions or have been paid by"
 * United States: Expert's duty is not formally defined under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure /Evidence

Depositions

 * United Kingdom: Expert evidence is examined before the Judge (or Arbitrator)
 * United States: Expert evidence can be compelled to deposition

Ultimate Issues

 * United Kingdom: Expert opinion on ultimate issue is not admissible
 * United States: Expert opinion on ultimate issue is admissible

Turkey
During a Erdoğan-Gollum comparison trial, a panel of expert witnesses had to decide on the character of Gollum.

title: Expert witness


text:
Endocytosis

Endocytosis is a cellular process in which substances are brought into the cell. The material to be internalized is surrounded by an area of cell membrane, which then buds off inside the cell to form a vesicle containing the ingested materials. Endocytosis includes pinocytosis (cell drinking) and phagocytosis (cell eating). It is a form of active transport.

History
The term was proposed by De Duve in 1963. Phagocytosis was discovered by Élie Metchnikoff in 1882.

Pathways

Endocytosis pathways can be subdivided into four categories: namely, receptor-mediated endocytosis (also known as clathrin-mediated endocytosis), caveolae, pinocytosis, and phagocytosis.
 * Clathrin-mediated endocytosis is mediated by the production of small (approx. 100 nm in diameter) vesicles that have a morphologically characteristic coat made up of the cytosolic protein clathrin. Clathrin-coated vesicles (CCVs) are found in virtually all cells and form domains of the plasma membrane termed clathrin-coated pits. Coated pits can concentrate large extracellular molecules that have different receptors responsible for the receptor-mediated endocytosis of ligands, e.g. low density lipoprotein, transferrin, growth factors, antibodies and many others.
 * Study in mammalian cells confirm a reduction in clathrin coat size in an increased tension environment. In addition, it suggests that the two apparently distinct clathrin assembly modes, namely coated pits and coated plaques, observed in experimental investigations might be a consequence of varied tensions in the plasma membrane.

 * Caveolae are the most commonly reported non-clathrin-coated plasma membrane buds, which exist on the surface of many, but not all cell types. They consist of the cholesterol-binding protein caveolin (Vip21) with a bilayer enriched in cholesterol and glycolipids. Caveolae are small (approx. 50 nm in diameter) flask-shape pits in the membrane that resemble the shape of a cave (hence the name caveolae). They can constitute up to a third of the plasma membrane area of the cells of some tissues, being especially abundant in smooth muscle, type I pneumocytes, fibroblasts, adipocytes, and endothelial cells. Uptake of extracellular molecules is also believed to be specifically mediated via receptors in caveolae.A depiction of various types of Endocytosis.jpg
 * Potocytosis is a form of receptor-mediated endocytosis that uses caveolae vesicles to bring molecules of various sizes into the cell. Unlike most endocytosis that uses caveolae to deliver contents of vesicles to lysosomes or other organelles, material endocytosed via potocytosis is released into the cytosol.
 * Pinocytosis, which usually occurs from highly ruffled regions of the plasma membrane, is the invagination of the cell membrane to form a pocket, which then pinches off into the cell to form a vesicle (0.5–5 μm in diameter) filled with a large volume of extracellular fluid and molecules within it (equivalent to ~100 CCVs). The filling of the pocket occurs in a non-specific manner. The vesicle then travels into the cytosol and fuses with other vesicles such as endosomes and lysosomes.
 * Phagocytosis is the process by which cells bind and internalize particulate matter larger than around 0.75 μm in diameter, such as small-sized dust particles, cell debris, microorganisms and apoptotic cells. These processes involve the uptake of larger membrane areas than clathrin-mediated endocytosis and caveolae pathway.

More recent experiments have suggested that these morphological descriptions of endocytic events may be inadequate, and a more appropriate method of classification may be based upon whether particular pathways are dependent on clathrin and dynamin.

Dynamin-dependent clathrin-independent pathways include FEME, UFE, ADBE, EGFR-NCE and IL2Rβ uptake.

Dynamin-independent clathrin-independent pathways include the CLIC/GEEC pathway (regulated by Graf1), as well as MEND and macropinocytosis.

Clathrin-mediated endocytosis is the only pathway dependent on both clathrin and dynamin.

Principal components
The endocytic pathway of mammalian cells consists of distinct membrane compartments, which internalize molecules from the plasma membrane and recycle them back to the surface (as in early endosomes and recycling endosomes), or sort them to degradation (as in late endosomes and lysosomes). The principal components of the endocytic pathway are:
 * Early endosomes are the first compartment of the endocytic pathway. Early endosomes are often located in the periphery of the cell, and receive most types of vesicles coming from the cell surface. They have a characteristic tubulo-vesicular structure (vesicles up to 1 μm in diameter with connected tubules of approx. 50 nm diameter) and a mildly acidic pH. They are principally sorting organelles where many endocytosed ligands dissociate from their receptors in the acid pH of the compartment, and from which many of the receptors recycle to the cell surface (via tubules). It is also the site of sorting into transcytotic pathway to later compartments (like late endosomes or lysosomes) via transvesicular compartments (like multivesicular bodies (MVB) or endosomal carrier vesicles (ECVs)).
 * Late endosomes receive endocytosed material en route to lysosomes, usually from early endosomes in the endocytic pathway, from trans-Golgi network (TGN) in the biosynthetic pathway, and from phagosomes in the phagocytic pathway. Late endosomes often contain proteins characteristic of nucleosomes, mitochondria and mRNAs including lysosomal membrane glycoproteins and acid hydrolases. They are acidic (approx. pH 5.5), and are part of the trafficking pathway of mannose-6-phosphate receptors. Late endosomes are thought to mediate a final set of sorting events prior the delivery of material to lysosomes.
 * Lysosomes are the last compartment of the endocytic pathway. Their chief function is to break down cellular waste products, fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and other macromolecules into simple compounds.  These are then returned to the cytoplasm as new cell-building materials. To accomplish this, lysosomes use some 40 different types of hydrolytic enzymes, all of which are manufactured in the endoplasmic reticulum, modified in the Golgi apparatus and function in an acidic environment. The approximate pH of a lysosome is 4.8 and by electron microscopy (EM) usually appear as large vacuoles (1-2 μm in diameter) containing electron dense material. They have a high content of lysosomal membrane proteins and active lysosomal hydrolases, but no mannose-6-phosphate receptor. They are generally regarded as the principal hydrolytic compartment of the cell.

It was recently found that an eisosome serves as a portal of endocytosis in yeast.

Clathrin-mediated
The major route for endocytosis in most cells, and the best-understood, is that mediated by the molecule clathrin. This large protein assists in the formation of a coated pit on the inner surface of the plasma membrane of the cell. This pit then buds into the cell to form a coated vesicle in the cytoplasm of the cell. In so doing, it brings into the cell not only a small area of the surface of the cell but also a small volume of fluid from outside the cell.

Coats function to deform the donor membrane to produce a vesicle, and they also function in the selection of the vesicle cargo. Coat complexes that have been well characterized so far include coat protein-I (COP-I), COP-II, and clathrin. Clathrin coats are involved in two crucial transport steps: (i) receptor-mediated and fluid-phase endocytosis from the plasma membrane to early endosome and (ii) transport from the TGN to endosomes. In endocytosis, the clathrin coat is assembled on the cytoplasmic face of the plasma membrane, forming pits that invaginate to pinch off (scission) and become free CCVs. In cultured cells, the assembly of a CCV takes ~ 1min, and several hundred to a thousand or more can form every minute. The main scaffold component of clathrin coat is the 190-kD protein called clathrin heavy chain (CHC), which is associated with a 25- kD protein called clathrin light chain (CLC), forming three-legged trimers called triskelions.

Vesicles selectively concentrate and exclude certain proteins during formation and are not representative of the membrane as a whole. AP2 adaptors are multisubunit complexes that perform this function at the plasma membrane. The best-understood receptors that are found concentrated in coated vesicles of mammalian cells are the LDL receptor (which removes LDL from circulating blood), the transferrin receptor (which brings ferric ions bound by transferrin into the cell) and certain hormone receptors (such as that for EGF).

At any one moment, about 25% of the plasma membrane of a fibroblast is made up of coated pits. As a coated pit has a life of about a minute before it buds into the cell, a fibroblast takes up its surface by this route about once every 50 minutes. Coated vesicles formed from the plasma membrane have a diameter of about 100 nm and a lifetime measured in a few seconds. Once the coat has been shed, the remaining vesicle fuses with endosomes and proceeds down the endocytic pathway. The actual budding-in process, whereby a pit is converted to a vesicle, is carried out by clathrin; Assisted by a set of cytoplasmic proteins, which includes dynamin and adaptors such as adaptin.

Coated pits and vesicles were first seen in thin sections of tissue in the electron microscope by Thomas F Roth and Keith R. Porter. The importance of them for the clearance of LDL from blood was discovered by Richard G. Anderson, Michael S. Brown and Joseph L. Goldstein in 1977. Coated vesicles were first purified by Barbara Pearse, who discovered the clathrin coat molecule in 1976.

Processes and components
Caveolin proteins like caveolin-1 (CAV1), caveolin-2 (CAV2), and caveolin-3 (CAV3), play significant roles in the caveolar formation process. More specifically, CAV1 and CAV2 are responsible for caveolae formation in non-muscle cells while CAV3 functions in muscle cells. The process starts with CAV1 being synthesized in the ER where it forms detergent-resistant oligomers. Then, these oligomers travel through the Golgi complex before arriving at the cell surface to aid in caveolar formation. Caveolae formation is also reversible through disassembly under certain conditions such as increased plasma membrane tension. These certain conditions then depend on the type of tissues that are expressing the caveolar function. For example, not all tissues that have caveolar proteins have a caveolar structure ie. the blood-brain barrier. Though there are many morphological features conserved among caveolae, the functions of each CAV protein are diverse. One common feature among caveolins is their hydrophobic stretches of potential hairpin structures that are made of α-helices. The insertion of these hairpin-like α-helices forms a caveolae coat which leads to membrane curvature. In addition to insertion, caveolins are also capable of oligomerization which further plays a role in membrane curvature. Recent studies have also discovered that polymerase I, transcript release factor, and serum deprivation protein response also play a role in the assembly of caveolae. Besides caveolae assembly, researchers have also discovered that CAV1 proteins can also influence other endocytic pathways. When CAV1 binds to Cdc42, CAV1 inactivates it and regulates Cdc42 activity during membrane trafficking events.

Mechanisms
The process of cell uptake depends on the tilt and chirality of constituent molecules to induce membrane budding. Since such chiral and tilted lipid molecules are likely to be in a "raft" form, researchers suggest that caveolae formation also follows this mechanism since caveolae are also enriched in raft constituents. When caveolin proteins bind to the inner leaflet via cholesterol, the membrane starts to bend, leading to spontaneous curvature. This effect is due to the force distribution generated when the caveolin oligomer binds to the membrane. The force distribution then alters the tension of the membrane which leads to budding and eventually vesicle formation.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Endocytosis


text:
Talk:Emperor of Japan

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CynthiaaaM.

Error: Today is December 31, 2023. The first emperor of Japan starting February 11, 660 BC, the correct is 1366 not 1365 because the year 0 does note exist. The current now is 2682 years ago not 2683 years ago.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

real reason for the refusal
『古墳（仁徳天皇陵など）を調査しない理由は、そこにＸＸＸことを隠したがっているからだ. 』この陰謀論において、ＸＸＸに当てはまる言葉は複数あります.

①古代の天皇の存在が否定される

古田武彦などが提唱している説. 仁徳天皇陵などに葬られているのは、天皇家が大和地方を征服する前の支配者である. このことが証明されると、仁徳天皇たちの存在が否定されてしまうため、宮内庁は調査を禁止している.

②天皇家が朝鮮から来た 井沢元彦『逆説の日本史１』に紹介された噂 あえて噂のまま記してみよう. それは「天皇陵を発掘すると天皇家と朝鮮半島の関係が明らかになるから、反対しているのだ」という見方である. もっと具体的に言えば、「天皇家の祖先が朝鮮半島から渡来したことの証拠が出てくる恐れがあるからだ」ということだ.

③天皇家が中国から来た この説を主張している人は、私の知っている限りではいません. ④天皇家がユダヤから来た 佐伯好郎などが提唱した説. いわゆる日ユ同祖論に基づいた説です.

上記の理由から、私は以下の設定を行いました.

『天皇家の起源が中国系である証拠が天皇陵には隠されている. 』このような主張をしている歴史研究家は存在しません. そのため、Chinaを削除しました.

『天皇家の起源は･･･である証拠が天皇陵には隠されている』にあたる部分は、中国・ヤマト先住民(邪馬台国)・ユダヤなどの説があります. そのため、私は elsewhere を使用しました. （私個人としては、これらの陰謀論を全て等しく価値がないと考えています. これらの陰謀論は、その主張を証明する証拠を持っていないためです. ）

そもそも、この陰謀論に関しては読売新聞の１月１日記事によって、全削除できると思いますがいかがでしょう？

宮内庁が陵墓立ち入り調査容認、古代史研究前進に期待

宮内庁は、これまで原則的に立ち入りを禁止してきた天皇陵などの陵墓について、広く学術団体の「見学」を認めることを決めた. 1日から施行する. 立ち入りには多くの制約があるが、日本の古代国家の成立過程を解明する上で重要な鍵を握る陵墓の調査が本格的に進むことが期待される. 陵墓公開をめぐっては、日本考古学協会など15の歴史関係学会が2005年7月、大阪府堺市の仁徳天皇陵（大山古墳）など11か所について、立ち入り調査を認めるよう宮内庁書陵部に要望していた. これに対し同庁は、歴史関係に限らず、動植物学などの学術団体にも門戸を開くことを決定. 見学は当面、各学会1人とし、立ち入りは墳丘の1段目の平たん面までとする――などの条件付きで、要望があった陵墓の見学を認めることを先月下旬、同協会に伝えた. 宮内庁はこれまで「皇霊の静謐（せいひつ）と安寧」を守るためという理由で、陵墓立ち入りを原則として拒絶してきたため、そのほとんどが陵墓に指定されている巨大前方後円墳の調査ができず、古代史研究の大きな障害となっていた. 古代の天皇陵の多くが指定が間違っているとされているが、築造年代などを明らかにする手がかりが得られれば、被葬者の真偽を論議する契機になると期待が高まっている.

ご意見をお待ちしております. --ShinjukuXYZ 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC

Okay, his argument, in a nushell, is that the only theories that have really been put forth about why the Imperial Household has refused to open the graves are: 1) some of the old tombs (like that of Emperor Nintoku) may not be the tombs of emperors at all, 2) evidence of Korean origin might be discovered, 3) origins of a Jewish origin might be discovered. He also points out that nobody, to his knowledge, has suggested that the emperors may have a Chinese origin. In any event, he personally disagrees with all of these theories (which isn't particularly relevant, I disagree with them too, except to the extent that virtually all Japanese have some Korean blood from Yayoi era immigrants, if you go back far enough). He also suggests that the whole paragraph should simply be deleted because the Imperial Household has agreed to open the tombs to researchers (with certain conditions) and quotes a whole paragraph from the Yomiuri Shimbun regarding the decision.

My response: the fact that the tombs have been opened is clearly stated in the article and is not a basis for deleting the paragraph. The fact that he (or I or anyone else) disagrees with these conspiracy theories is not relevant. The fact is that they are out there and at least deserve mention. I agree that we should edit this to at least remove specific references to Chinese origins. Korean origins is the main alternative theory that people cite, so I think Korea should at least be mentioned. My suggestion is to make a general statement about the Imperial Household having been afraid of what researches might find, and throw in a "such as Korean origins". Anyway, I'll make an edit and we'll see how it flies.

SHinjukuXYZ, in the future, PLEASE get help from someone before you edit English articles. Introducing ungrammatical nonsense changes like "elsewhere origins" does nothing to clarify the article or further any of the points you want to make.
 * A Jewish origin? Are you kidding? Last I look, ancient Judaism was on the OTHER side of Asia. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't stop numerous Japanese conspiracy theorists, cult leaders, and other "minority opinion" types from asserting their theories about it. Check out just about any book with "Jews and Japanese" in the title, and you'll see what we're talking about. The theory itself may be absurd, but that there are plenty who assert it and write about it is a true, encyclopedia-worthy, fact. LordAmeth (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my god!! お前狂ったの? --Softall (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There would not necessarily be much Korean ancestry going back to the Yayoi period. For starters, the rice brought over is definitively from the Yellow River Valley. Given technology level at the time, this rice was practically unusable in Korea. Secondly, at least the Historians in Cambridge's 6-volume exhaustive account of Japanese history believe it likely that disturbances in the Yellow River Valley instigated a (forced) migration first to the Shandong Peninsula and then the Korean Peninsula. Whereupon, the non-Han migrants would discover their rice doesn't grow and perhaps in desperation, some of them find their way to Kyushu - where the Ocean currents create a climate very suitable for rice.

The issue of Korean blood in the imperial line isn't much of a worry either. Though it's almost certain they would find Manchurian or Chinese blood. I'm not sure if that'd be better or worse for the few but loud Ultranationalists. Nonetheless, it's pretty much accepted fact that the imperial lines of Paekche and Japan intermingled to some degree. But the nobility of Paekche were foreign rulers. They weren't Koreans, that much is universally agreed upon. What's uncertain is if they were military allies of China rewarded land in Korea, or remnants of the Han Dynasty nobility. Then again, Korea attempts to claim the entire history of Manchuria as their own... even on Wikipedia you see such absurdities as Buyeo being called a "Korean kingdom" when the only links are legendary accounts of the monarchs of Paekche and Goguryeo coming from Buyeo - though this would suggest that, rather, Paekche and Goguryeo pages should be relabeled as "Manchurian Kingdoms" rather than the opposite and current situation. And indeed the linguistics would suggest Buyeo is either unrelated or barely related to Korean. Which also jives with the fact that Silla was the only one of the 3 "Korean" Kingdoms to actually be ruled by the local population (ie: Koreans).174.16.214.45 (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

ORDER OF THE AUSPICIOUS CLOUDS
Does anyone know what this order is ? Dowew 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"In world politics, he is the only reigning emperor"?
There is a whole section earlier in the talk page about why the word Emperor is just an English translation of the Japanese word Tenno, and that the name was decided on for particular reasons. Is it really meaningful to say that the Japanese Emperor is the world's only reigning emperor? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is the world's last remaining monarch to be styled 'emperor' in English. Because that's what it really means!

Bathrobe 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
The following whatever-it-is was to be found in Emperor of Japan at the bottom of the page. I removed it and used cut-and-paste to bring it here. Wondering what it is -- vandalism of a curiously subtle sort ...? --Ooperhoofd 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Style
Does anyone know what the style of the Emperor is in English? For instance Queen Elizabeth II is Her/Your Majesty. What would the Emperor be called in English if he was being introduced in a formal situation? Brettr (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the following URL. http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/prtcl/address4-eng.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.91.83 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Arms
The picture is not of the arms but the mon of the Emperor. There is a picture of his coat-of-arms at http://www.numericana.com/arms/akihito.htm. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But it was his coat of arms as a member of the Order of Garter. Tomás de H y B-P (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

rename into "Monarchs of Japan"?
Since tenno is gender-neutral, and there were ruling empresses, wouldn't it make more sense to rename this article into "Monarchs of Japan"? See List of Portuguese monarchs for reference sake. Gryffindor 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Of course it would. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism
72.134.16.158 replaced the entire article with: "toasty is the emporer of jampan." With a second edit adding: "oh sorry i mean she is the japanese princes."

I simply copied the previous revision edited by "THEN WHO WAS PHONE?" on August 25th. I think I did this right. Please let me know if I did not.

Kmrivers (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No Inline Sources
This article has almost no inline sources, citations, or references. It has a short "Further Reading" list and a few footnotes, but nothing like the detailed and comprehensive list of references in Japanese and English needed to document the assertions in the article. The article is thus a compendium of unsourced and therefore dubious assertions. So I tagged it with. Please add references and sources -- the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is not enough. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chrysanthemum Throne
Chrysanthemum Throne was merged/redirected here. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Jimmu as First Monarch?
Seeing the discussion by Zoweee and Jefu on the inclusion of Jimmu as a factual first emperor I have to agree: it startled me when I looked at the page (and also there hes been no change since December 2007). My suggested solution is rounding off the edges by (e.g.) adding a "legendary" or "according to tradition" tag to the two entries, and also a brief explanation in the "Origins" section. I will not do it without saying so, but would rather leave it to the groups taking care of the page. Yarner (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Japan really a monarchy?
"Unlike most constitutional monarchies, the Emperor is neither sovereign nor even the nominal chief executive. Rather, the Constitution of Japan explicitly vests executive power in the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. He has no reserve powers related to government." That makes me suspect Japan today is essentially a republic which happens to have a monarch on the side as some kind of mascot. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isnt that essentially the meaning of a constitutional monarchy? In Europe there are several constitutional monarchies. The monarchs in these countries are essentially "mascots". These countries are de facto republics, while a country like North-Korea, that is de jure a republic, is de facto an absolutist monarchy. --Oddeivind (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. A "consitutional monarchy" is merely a monarchy with a consitution binding the ruler. Almost all monarchies for the last two centuries have been constitutional.
 * The UK for instance is a parliamentary monarchy, which means that parliament determines (in one way or another) the prime minister. Japan goes a step further in that it both states that the Emperor has no involvement in government but still expects him to appoint the PM (with no right to refuse). That's worse than Elizabeth. A sorry state for a monarch but still a monarchy.
 * Of course, one could also start an argument about the emptiness of juxtaposing republics and monarchies.
 * PS. Please avoid derogatory terms like "mascot". Str1977 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the real problem is our definition of the Japanese word Tenno. We went with "emperor" for reasons which elude me but probably made sense at the time; for most of attested Japanese history, the Tenno has really been more of a cultural mascot, as you said, then a governmental leader. I always thoguht of him as a kind of secular pope. Zoweee (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tenno is also no "secular pope" - the Pope is not a figurehead (though some would prefer him that way). Str1977 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"-hito"
Does anybody know the significance of the suffix "-hito." It seems like the personal names of nearly every emperor since the 11th century and a few before that all end in "-hito." Is it some sort of special surname or another Japanese word for emperor or what? Do regular Japanese people also have "-hito" names or is it a custom reserved for the emperor (and his heirs)?--Lairor (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The character 仁 means benevolence. I don't think it has a special empirical meaning, and, the suffix is common (Tadahito Iguchi being one example that comes to mind right away). Neier (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of OR and/or Unverified claims tag
Stubbed thread, don't see anything above, if nothing added to this thread to specify the problem then tag should be removed. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Treaties and International Relations
When Japan signs treaties with foreign countries and does things for international organizations and it signs those documents is it represented as for the Japanese state or for the Emperor himself. The reason I ask is because in most constitutional monarchies, for example the United Kingdom, treaties are always signed in the name of the prince himself, not the state, since the prince is nominally the sovereign of the state even when he has no political power, for example after the American Revolution in 1783 Great Britain's peace treaty was signed as one between "the most serene and most potent prince George the Third" and the United States, and the British-American non-aggression pact Jay's Treaty was called a treaty between "His Britannic Majesty and the United States" rather than between Britain and the US, as was the peace treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States at the end of the War of 1812, and in the League of Nations for the UK mandate in Palestine it was "His Britannic Majesty" who was designated mandatory for Palestine, because the British King (or Queen) is still nominally sovereign of the United Kingdom and still nominally controls the government, even though de facto sovereignty belongs to Parliament. But in Japan the monarch is not even nominally sovereign, it explicitly says in the Japanese constitution that the Emperor has "no power related to government", so in treaties is the Emperor mentioned since he is still on the throne or not since he isn't even nominally head of state in Japan. --67.52.196.179 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I'd be curious to know the answer -- as a further example, British Passports state, "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary." Is there a similar usage in Japan?118.71.11.22 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of the emperor
Do the emperors ever have "real names", as in a first name and a last, family name? I know the japanese consider it rude to refer any noble person by his given, or real name, but do they still have a real name? How does the naming of emperors work? --80.223.127.229 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, you will see that Emperors do have first names. Family names are rather modern invention and do not apply to monarchs. Str1977 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

title of the tenno
the meaning of the title which belongs to Japanese monarch, shown in this publication is incorrect, there is no literal translation of the word emperor of origin in the Latin language, Japanese language,

the correct meaning of tenno is heavenly ruler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

exactly meaning of the title tennō
ok an a aproximation, this 天 means, heaven or heavenly or celestial, and this 皇 NOT means "Emperor" or "king", this 王 means "king"...., this 皇 means some type of "sovereign" rather than king {王}, 天子 this means son of heaven, from 天 {Heaven} and 子 son or prince, that is why 天皇 {tennō} means "heavenly sovereign". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213  (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 * If you have a source, please edit accordingly. If not, please refrain from changing the name one after another. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You changed the name from "Heavenly emperor" to "Heavenly ruler" and now to "Heavenly Sovereign". Your changes are un-sourced and solely WP:OR. So I took a more scientific approach.
 * The literal translation of the word 天 of tennō (天皇) is unarguably "Heaven". As for the word 皇, a kanji dictionary says kunshi (君子) whose English translations are "sovereign", "king" and "ruler".
 * Google Book search results are as follows;
 * "heavenly sovereign" tenno OR tennō 544
 * "heavenly king" tenno OR tennō 299
 * "heavenly emperor" tenno OR tennō 184
 * "heavenly ruler" tenno OR tennō 65
 * So, as a result, the literal translation of tennō may be "heavenly sovereign" as you indicated above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

this is why
ok, thanks for your scientific approach, the truth I do not think my research is not an original research on the failure to provide any verifiable source,

simply, my research,are based in some articles from Wikipedia, and to consider each and every one of the 125 articles of the japanese emperor,from tenno jinmmu to meiji, also on articles of Japanese history since the Asuka period to Edo period.

including some articles in Japan's diplomatic relations with China and Korea as well as other publications such as the sinocentric concept, which I clarified many answers, I, to read all these articles published in the same wikipedia, i reach the conclusions about the most approximate meaning title of the japanese monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It's good for you to use Wikipedia for your primary source of your knowledge. However Wikipedia is quite unreliable, so it should not be used as the source for Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You should probably stick to editting the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly.--Anthonzi (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * CLARIFICATION (specifically aimed at User:Oda_Mari: The above statement is made after assessing the user's comprehensibility in the original post. Please avoid censoring valid criticism.--Anthonzi (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * This is really not called for. The IP's edits to the article have been entirely reasonable as far as grammar goes.  Their content might have been questioned here, but it wasn't on those grounds, and he provided a fair answer when questioned.  I've seen worse English here from native speakers.  I'd suggest you refactor your criticism in some way that sounds less like "You're not welcome here." Shimeru (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly is the Japanese tenno an "Emperor" in English?
Emperor derives from Latin "imperator" signifying a military leader. But in old Japan this title would've better fit the shogun, not the tenno, even though the tenno's blessing upon the shogun was a necessity. Tenno is more like "the king at the heart of it all" or "the divine king" or the "heavenly king". In today's Japan the Diet, or Parliament, is essentially the shogun, and the Tenno is, basically, a mascot. Perhaps "king" would've been a better title? 68.36.120.7 (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Good point. Just as there is no common free-standing word for "sushi", to be linguistically and politically accurate, it would be best simply to adopt "tenno" without translation.  For support and citation, the influential Japanese constitutional law Professor Yasuhiro Okudaira posits there is a misnomer in the use of the word "Emperor" to describe the nation's living state symbol. In Okudaira's view, the word "Emperor" ceased to be applicable when Japan ceased to be an empire under the 1947 Constitution. "Thus, for example, Imperial University of Tokyo became merely University of Tokyo" after World War II. Yasuhiro Okudaira, "Forty Years of the Constitution and its Various Influences: Japanese, American, and European" in Luney and Takahashi, Japanese Constitutional Law (Univ. Tokyo Press, 1993), pp. 1-38, at 4. AprilInParis (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Disagree. If you want to be correct, post WWII the emperor isn't even the head of state of Japan anymore but according to the Constitution merely the "symbol of the nation". But "emperor" is still the internationally accepted term for the tenno. Just call a spade a spade and leave it as it is. -- fdewaele, 26 March 2011, 17:38 CET.

 * Yes we should call a spade a spade, but the above comment argues to call a diamond a spade. In other words, the writer will presumably recognize that Japan's tenno is no longer an emperor, but believes that the person should still be denominated as an emperor since (politically-generated) usage has normed it wrong for the past 60 years.

 * Still fdewaele's comment is helpful and not unreasonable. Admittedly, custom in usage is important and this is a a nearly-universally adopted misnomial.  For some of us though, 60 years is a short time frame in Japan's history and maybe it's time to start getting things right again.  In any case, knowledgeable students of Japan will do well to at least remember that Japan's "Emperor" has no empire, and that that the people of Japan don't linguistically express there being an "emperor" in native phrasing.  AprilInParis (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The term Emperor took on many different meanings during Rome's long history but after Augustus it was usually restricted for the Emperor. It is suitable the Japanese ruler has this title because like the Roman Emperor he held the supreme head of state and religious offices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.153.197 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions that, in English, the "tenno" was once called the Mikado and is no longer called that. I'd like to know when and why this changed. Presumably due to Japan actually taking on an empire in the early 20th century? Why has the usage persisted post-World War II?Barubiito (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * It's an historical artifact. Unless someone can find reliable sources that are discussing this issue, it's really irrelevant to this article. Whether we like it or not, that's how 天皇 has been translated into English for over 100 years (at least). Discussing why is irrelevant to this article unless multiple reliable sources have discussed it. Even then, it's likely worth only a sentence or two in the article. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor Edit
I made an small edit in the first paragraph. I change it from "This is similar to the British monarch being both the Head of State and the Head of the Anglican Church, in that the the Japanese Emperor is both the Head of the Shinto religion and the Head of the United Kingdom." To "This is similar to the British monarch being both the Head of State and the Head of the Anglican Church, in that the the Japanese Emperor is both the Head of the Shinto religion and the Head of the State of Japan."

If anyone thinks that Hirohito really is the head of the United Kingdom, I am going to need some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaz2wsx3 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Attitudes of the Japanese people toward the emperor?
Very little is said in the article is said about how the Japanese people regard their emperor. I understand they don't like to discuss it, but could that at least be stated, possibly with reasons why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.51.229 (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 * It probably has to do with the fact that "emperor" is a misnomer to begin with. There has never been an "emperor" in Japan. Thus it's difficult to have a discussion on the topic to begin with. First it has to be clarified what role these so-called "emperors" have actually fulfilled in a historical sense.174.16.214.45 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In English, his role/powers relative to Western political figures matches up with "emperor," so to avoid confusion that's how he is referred to in English in all reliable political and historical works. That argument is D.O.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.100 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Factional Control
During most of the Kamakura period, the family that controlled the emperor was in actuality the Hojo family, not the Minamoto family. It might be thus better to say that seven families have controlled the emperor. In actuality, it was only during the reign of Minamoto Yoritomo himself that the Minamoto family controlled the emperor. So the period of control by the Minamoto was, like the Taira, brief. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"church and state in Japan"
It might be misleading, since the Emperor has a religious role in the religion of the majority of the population, unlike (say) the USA or other western countries that use this phrase. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Position of the emperor
There seems to be some confusion regarding the position of the emperor. He clearly is the head of state. Emperors, Kaisers, Kings, Czars, Presidents, etc. are all by definition heads of states - if the respective person abdicates, loses his position or the political system changes that person is no longer called emperor or a kaiser, president, king (because those titles denote a political position at the top of a state structure) but is instead called "royal highness" (like the abdicated king Edward), just "Mister/Herr" Otto Habsburg (in the case of the son of the abdicated Emperor of Austria) or "former president". A lot of constitutions do not explicitly name a head of state; the German constitution for example does not explicitly state that the federal president is the head of state, does that mean that Germany does not have a head of state? Of course not, the title "Federal President" in the context of the constitution clearly means "head of state" and denotes a political position, just like the title "Emperor". The constitution of Denmark also does not explicitly call the King "head of state", nonetheless it is clear that a "King", by definition, is a head of state. The usage of the symbol-metaphor is also not that uncommon as both the King of Spain and the King of Cambodia are described as symbols of the state or the nation in their respective constitutions. If the emperor really is just the "Symbol" and nothing else, then what is Japan? A symbolocracy? Of course not, it's a constitutional monarchy and the emperor is the ceremonial (i.e. non-executive) head of state. As I do not want to start an edit-war I will refrain from changing the article but it is very misleading and also inconsistent to state that the emperor is not the head of state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.179.241 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refain from unnecessary editing. Thank you.118.174.178.39 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Christina of Sweden, Isabella II, William I of the Netherlands, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Juan Carlos I, among others, were all hereditary heads of state who abdicated yet retained the title each held while reigning. That is the norm. The Dutch tradition of adopting a lower title ("Princess") and style ("Royal Highness"), begun in the 20th century by Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, remains the exception. FactStraight (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Juan Carlos I retains the title of King (i.e. he is a titular king), but he no longer fulfills the political position/office of King of Spain. Are you suggesting that the Tenno is just a "titular" Tenno, that the Allied Powers let him retain the title as a courtesy (comparable to Napoleon on Elba), but that the office no longer exist in reality and has been replaced by the "Symbol-Ship"? Interesting. But to be honest, i find the whole discussion a bit too technical. MacArthur clearly intended for Hirohito to remain the Head of State, written Notes by the SCAP confirm as much. 95.168.132.235 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Imperial Majesty for the Emperor of Japan.
A citation from the British Royal Household does not overrule Japan's Imperial Household when it comes to the use of styles by Japan's Imperial household.

http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/eindex.html

http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/genealogy/koseizu.html

The Emperor is "His Majesty", the rest of the household is "Imperial Highness Prince/Princess". There is literally no higher source for style use than the sovereign's own household.
 * My view is that the title of "His Imperial Majesty" is the actual former title viewed and known to many sovereign states, and is officially and commonly called as such. "His Majesty", on the other hand, may possibly be a domestic title used by the IHA(Imperial Household Agency) to call the Emperor.

 * Title called by the British Monarch to the Emperor formally:
 * http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheGarter/MembersoftheOrderoftheGarter.aspx

 * To put it simply, Imperial Majesty is used by many nation sovereign heads and common people to address the Emperor formally. While the IHA themselves calls the Emperor simply as Majesty. What do you think? 42.61.183.27 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 * The referenced work in English (a letter from President Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan, as well as two from Commodore Perry to the same) do not indicate that the Tokugawa Shogun is the intended recipient. Due to very little interaction, it's very likely the President was misinformed as to the political structure of Japan. I do not currently agree with these additions which indicate that the Shogun was called "Emperor of Japan". I think we need a lot more discussion about this before any such change is made. I have reverted it for now so discussion can take place here. ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a robot! Don't treat unfairly!
My article has been removed twice. Even though I had edited attaching highly trusted reference below. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emperor_of_Japan&diff=730746238&oldid=730739595

Please tell me how to revive my article.ナルドの香油 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 * First of all, please calm down. No one has accused you of being a robot here, and you are not being treated unfairly. Second, this article doesn't belong to you. It is not your article. The edits were removed because it is debatable that Tokugawa Ieyoshi was the first to be called "Emperor of Japan" in 1852. The reference you provided (http://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/modules/d3ndlcrdentry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000088344) doesn't mention Tokugawa by name, and doesn't contain the word Emperor (or 天皇). None of the linked pages on that page contain those words, either.

 * The other parts of the edits seem to be intent on making sure people know the Japanese system of naming emperors was based on the Han system. You repeat that over and over and over in what you added. If anything, it should be mentioned once. There's no need to repeat it. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 * · Talk to Nihonjoe Thanks for your advice. I'll try to edit again with some proofs that "我将軍へ" in The reference means Tokugawa Ieyoshi. ナルドの香油 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox, "Formation"
It is absurd to baldly state in the infobox that the imperial house of Japan was formed in 660 BC. Just about the only certain thing about the earliest legendary emperors of Japan is that, if they existed at all, it was at a different time than legend has it and they most certainly didn't even attempt to lay claim to rule over all of Japan. Even in the early Kofun period and independently attested Japanese rulers from Chinese sources, the connection of the imperial house to any known figure of the time is extremely shaky. As far as I know the imperial house can only be confidently dated to the Kofun period, or late Yayoi, with the formation of the Yamato polity, whenever that actually happened. 192.35.35.36 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I came here to complain about the same thing. Almost 3 years on and no one has fixed it. Maybe I'll do something about it, but no idea who to put for the founder. Ojin, maybe? 192.31.106.35 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Title and first line of the article
made an couple edits changing the first line of this article. I disagreed with him and changed it back. He has since reverted it again back to his preferred version without any discussion (outside of a "this is the way it is" post on my talk page). Obviously there is some disagreement here. Please chime in on what should be the proper introductory line(s) in the article.

Please note the similar discussion taking place over on Talk:Imperial House of Japan. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing the title back to the "Emperor of Japan". This (first line) usage of the whole title seems to be the standard and convention for most pages, including the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the King of Spain and the Prime Minister of India.119.74.14.132 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 119.74.14.132, you seem to not have read the comments left on the talk page of User:Nihonjoe. You can see these as an example Prime Minister of Spain, Prince Harry, President of the United States, President of Russia, Prime Minister of Russia, etc. where the name of the article does not reflect the intro statement. The intro statement has to be as precise as possible and not reflect inaccuracies. Additionally, it could be discussed if the name of the article should be "Japanese Emperor" to make it even more correct, or "Japanese Monarch" since there were also ruling empresses. Gryffindor (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , your examples are based on WP:BEGIN, While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead. Then what guideline are your edits based upon? While your preferred guideline WP:Other stuff exists, there are many examples contradicting your insistence; British Emperor, "British Emperor", German Emperor, "The German Emperor", Emperor of China, "The Emperor of China", Emperor of India, "The title Emperor/Empress of India", Emperor of Mexico, "The Emperor of Mexico", Emperor of All Russia, "Emperor of All Russia, Empress of All Russia". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How do your examples apply to this specific case? I have given the examples where the intro does not reflect the name of the article. Fact remains that the correct name in Japanese does not translate into "Emperor of Japan", and although commonly used in English, is strictly speaking an incorrect usage. The introduction needs to accurately reflect facts, and we can also discuss and explore whether to keep the current name of the article or correct it to something more accurate. Gryffindor (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I do not concur that we need to have a direct translation of the Japanese term, Tennō (天皇), as either the article title or the subject of the first sentence, or that it is more correct to include such. I suggest that we should include the English WP:COMMONNAME, which would be "Emperor of Japan". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity (to Gryffindor above), what do you think 天皇 "translates" as? What is this "translate", exactly?　天 refers to "the heavens", but 皇 basically means a "ruler". So "Ruler of the heavens"? "Astroprince"? ... But anyway, while I think the current title is the most appropriate (titles should as far as possible be English terms in their normal usage), of course I think it is also appropriate to give the Japanese term, and any appropriate explanation of what it means. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Tennno listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tennno. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 22:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Literal translation of tennō in lead seciton.
'In Japanese, the Emperor is called Tennō (天皇, pronounced [tennoꜜː]), literally "The God certified sovereign".' This is just plain wrong. Literally, it means "Heaven Sovereign" or "Heavenly Emperor". I propose to change it or to completely remove the last part ', literally "The God certified sovereign"' --2003:F6:2716:8500:10EA:1D2E:FFB1:698E (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just saw that it was recently changed from "heavenly sovereign" to "God certified sovereign." (edit from 07:11, 3 June 2020). There is no summary or section in the talk page by the editor which explains the change. I'm undoing it. --2003:F6:2716:8500:10EA:1D2E:FFB1:698E (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Well done. This is a persistent bit of arguing for something-or-other; I can't imagine quite what, but plainly 天 has a meaning of "the heavens" or similar, in a "prime mover" sort of sense, but not obviously in a monotheistic context (which is where "God" is likely to lead). The two religions involved have either zero or many "divinities". So perhaps it must be either anti-monotheism or anti-anti-monotheism; either way it should be ignored. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

huge portions completely unreferenced
This is an important subject, especially in the eyes of the victims of Imperial Japan of the Thirties and Forties, or their descendants, and should be intensively referenced properly! 50.111.11.25 (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No real improvements for over a year ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Computer
Name of any Japanese Emperor 43.255.151.21 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

First historical emperor
There is a long debate over who the first historical emperor is, and we oppose having only Emperor Kinmei. There are many theories such as Emperor Sujin, Emperor Ojin, Emperor Yuryaku, and Emperor Keitai. --たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 * agree there is no consensus PenginFlysheets (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Emperor of Japan
"Emperor of Japan" should be capitalized everywhere it occurs like The Emperor of Japan. Not The emperor of Japan, just like "King of Something" = "Emperor of Japan". 202.9.46.199 (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I would agree with you, but title forms are stipulated by MOS:JOBTITLES. I was never comfortable with the uncapitalized form of a title following the article “the,” as it would make more sense for a title to be a proper noun, but I don’t make the rules. AKTC3 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Myth tags
There are several myth tags on this page without any real sources - shouldn't several other pages have these then as well, such as popular religions in many other countries to avoid bias? Here religion isn't highlighted as much as in some articles that don't have the same tag but are fully focused on religious beliefs, such as Christianity, that doesn't have verifiable proof for anything. Wouldn't it be best to get rid of this bias in a site that claims to be fact based and unbiased? 2001:14BA:A302:5C84:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Emperor of Japan


text:
Ezra Abbot

Ezra Abbot (April 28, 1819, Jackson, Maine – March 21, 1884, Cambridge, Massachusetts) was an American biblical scholar.

Life and writings
Abbot was born at Jackson, Maine, April 28, 1819; son of Ezra and Phebe Abbot. He was educated at Phillips Exeter Academy and graduated from Bowdoin College in 1840. In 1847, at the request of Andrews Norton, he went to Cambridge, Massachusetts where he was principal of a public school until 1856. He was assistant librarian of Harvard University from 1856 to 1872, and planned and perfected an alphabetical card catalog, combining many of the advantages of the ordinary dictionary catalogs with the grouping of the minor topics under more general heads, which is characteristic of a systematic catalogue. From 1872 until his death he was Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation in the Harvard Divinity School.

Abbot's studies were chiefly in Southwest Asian languages and textual criticism of the New Testament, though his work as a bibliographer showed such results as the exhaustive list of writings (5300 in all) on the doctrine of the future life, appended to W. R. Alger's History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, as it has prevailed in all Nations and Ages (1862), and published separately in 1864.

Abbot's publications, though always of the most thorough and scholarly character, were to a large extent dispersed in the pages of reviews, dictionaries, concordances, texts edited by others, Unitarian controversial treatises, etc. However, he took a more conspicuous and personal part in the preparation (with Baptist scholar Horatio Balch Hackett) of the enlarged American edition of Dr. (afterwards Sir) William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (1867–1870), to which he contributed more than 400 articles, as well as greatly improving the bibliographical completeness of the work. He was an efficient member of the American revision committee for the Revised Version (1881–1885) of the King James Bible, and helped prepare Caspar René Gregory's Prolegomena to the revised Greek New Testament of Constantin von Tischendorf.

He was one of the 32 founding members of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1880.

His principal single work, representing his scholarly method and conservative conclusions, was The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: External Evidences (1880; 2nd ed. by J. H. Thayer, with other essays, 1889), originally a lecture. In spite of the compression due to its form, this work was up to that time probably the ablest defense, based on external evidence, of the Johannine authorship, and certainly the most complete treatment of the relation of Justin Martyr to this gospel.

Honors
Abbot was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1861. Though a layman, he received the degree of S.T.D. from Harvard in 1872, and that of D.D. from Edinburgh in 1884.

Books

 * - revised by Ezra Abbot
 * ——— (1872). Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses: I John V. 7

title: Ezra Abbot


text:
Edwin Abbott Abbott

Edwin Abbott Abbott (20 December 1838 – 12 October 1926) was an English schoolmaster, theologian, and Anglican priest, best known as the author of the novella Flatland (1884).

Biography
Edwin Abbott Abbott was the eldest son of Edwin Abbott (1808–1882), headmaster of the Philological School, Marylebone, and his wife, Jane Abbott (1806–1882). His parents were first cousins.

He was born in London and educated at the City of London School and at St John's College, Cambridge, where he took the highest honours of his class in classics, mathematics and theology, and became a fellow of his college. In particular, he was 1st Smith's prizeman in 1861. In 1862 he took orders. After holding masterships at King Edward's School, Birmingham, he succeeded G. F. Mortimer as headmaster of the City of London School in 1865, at the early age of 26. There, he oversaw the education of future Prime Minister H. H. Asquith. Abbott was Hulsean lecturer in 1876.

He retired in 1889, and devoted himself to literary and theological pursuits. Abbott's open-minded inclinations in theology were prominent both in his educational views and in his books. His Shakespearian Grammar (1870) is a permanent contribution to English philology. In 1885, he published a life of Francis Bacon. His theological writings include three anonymously published religious romances – Philochristus (1878), where he tried to raise interest in Gospels reading, Onesimus (1882), and Silanus the Christian (1908).

More weighty contributions are the anonymous theological discussion The Kernel and the Husk (1886), Philomythus (1891), his book The Anglican Career of Cardinal Newman (1892), and his article "The Gospels" in the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, embodying a critical view which caused considerable stir in the English theological world. He also wrote St Thomas of Canterbury, His Death and Miracles (1898), Johannine Vocabulary (1905), and Johannine Grammar (1906).

Abbott also wrote educational textbooks, one being Via Latina: A First Latin Book which was published in 1880 and distributed around the world within the education system.

Flatland

Abbott's best-known work is his 1884 novella Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions which describes a two-dimensional world and explores the nature of dimensions. It has often been categorized as science fiction although it could more precisely be called "mathematical fiction".

With the advent of modern science fiction from the 1950s to the present day, Flatland has seen a revival in popularity, especially among science fiction and cyberpunk fans. Many works have been inspired by the novella, including novel sequels and short films.

title: Edwin Abbott Abbott


text:
Emma Abbott

Emma Abbott (December 9, 1850 – January 5, 1891) was an American operatic soprano and impresario known for her pure, clear voice of great flexibility and volume.

Early life
Emma Abbott was born in 1850 in Chicago, Illinois, the daughter of the struggling Chicago musician Seth Abbott and his wife, Almira (née Palmer). As a child, she and her brother George studied singing, piano, guitar and violin with their father.

The family moved to Peoria, Illinois, Emma was eight years of age when, she made her first appearance on the stage, singing at a concert given in her father's office in Peoria. In 1854, Professor Abbott was unable to find a sufficient number of music students to make ends meet and the family suffered from financial problems. To help out, she and George began performing professionally when Emma was nine years old. She made her debut as a guitar player and singer in Peoria, Illinois in 1859, with George on the violin, and was teaching guitar by age thirteen.

Career
In 1866, she joined an itinerant concert troupe and toured the country. While performing on the road she met and was befriended by Clara Louise Kellogg. Upon hearing Abbott in a concert in Toledo, Kellogg made it a point to meet her and encourage her to pursue an opera career and gave her a letter of introduction. Consequently, Abbott studied in New York City under Achille Errani, and made her concert début there in December 1871.

In 1872, Abbott went abroad to study with Antonio Sangiovanni in Milan. This was followed by further studies with Mathilde Marchesi, Pierre François Wartel and Enrico Delle Sedie in Paris. She appeared in several productions in Paris, earning rave reviews for her fine soprano voice. She was awarded a contract with the Royal Opera in London and made her début at Covent Garden as Marie in La Fille du régiment in 1876. However, her contract was cancelled shortly thereafter when she refused to sing Violetta from Verdi's La Traviata on moral grounds. That same year she secretly married Eugene Wetherell (d. 1889) and they returned to the United States, where she remained for the rest of her life.

Abbott English Opera Company
On February 23, 1877, Abbott made her American operatic début in New York, once again portraying Marie. In 1878 she and her husband Eugene Wetherell, organized an opera company known by her name (the Emma Abbott Grand English Opera Company ), which toured extensively throughout the United States. It was the first opera company formed by a woman in the United States. Her husband ran the business end of the company and she managed the artistic side, often starring in the productions.

The company garnered a reputation among the public for quality productions and was quite successful. Among the notable roles that Abbott sang with the company are Juliette in Gounod's Roméo et Juliette, Virginia in Paul et Virginie, Josephine in H.M.S. Pinafore, the title role in Flotow's Martha, Amina in Bellini's La Sonnambula, and Violetta in La Traviata, a role to which she apparently no longer objected, however, instead of singing Addio del passato, she made Violetta expire with Nearer, my God, to Thee.

Throughout her career, she retained artistic control over her troupe, which sometimes numbered 60. Although the company's repertoire included works from the French, Italian and English operatic literatures, they always performed in English. Many of the works were abridged and interpolated songs were commonplace. For this reason the company and Abbott were not popular with many music critics who were unhappy with the changes to the standard repertoire. However, the company was incredibly popular with the public and was consistently financially successful. Abbott herself became known among Americans as 'the people's prima donna'.

Death
Abbott continued performing up until her sudden death from pneumonia in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1891, aged 40. She is buried at Oak Grove Cemetery in Gloucester, Massachusetts along with her husband.

title: Emma Abbott


text:
Epimetheus (disambiguation)

Epimetheus was a Titan in Greek mythology.

Epimetheus may also refer to:

 * Epimetheus (moon), a moon of Saturn
 * 1810 Epimetheus, an asteroid

title: Epimetheus (disambiguation)


text:
Emperor Shōmu

Emperor Shōmu (聖武天皇) was the 45th emperor of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession. Shōmu's reign spanned the years 724 through 749, during the Nara period.

Traditional narrative
Before his ascension to the Chrysanthemum Throne, his personal name (imina) is not clearly known, but he was known as Oshi-hiraki Toyosakura-hiko-no-mikoto.

Shōmu was the son of Emperor Monmu and Fujiwara no Miyako, a daughter of Fujiwara no Fuhito.

Shōmu had five consorts and six Imperial sons and daughters.

Events of Shōmu's reign
Shōmu was still a child at the time of his father's death; thus, his grandmother, Empress Gemmei, and aunt, Empress Gensho, occupied the throne before he acceded.

 * 724 (Yōrō 8, 1st month): In the 9th year of Genshō-tennō's reign (元正天皇九年), the empress abdicated; and her nephew received the succession (‘‘senso’’). Shortly thereafter, Emperor Shōmu is said to have acceded to the throne (‘‘sokui’’).
 * January 31, 724 (Jinki 1): The era name is changed to mark the accession of Emperor Shōmu.
 * 735–737: A major smallpox epidemic raged throughout Japan, incurring adult mortality rates of about 25% to 35%.

Shōmu continued to reside in the Hezei Palace.

Shōmu is known as the first emperor whose consort was not born into the imperial household. His consort Kōmyō was a non-royal Fujiwara commoner. A ritsuryō office was created for the queen-consort, the Kogogushiki; and this bureaucratic innovation continued into the Heian period.

Emperor Shōmu's tour to the eastern provinces
While battle maneuvers of the Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion were still underway, in Tenpyō 12 10th month (November, 740) Emperor Shōmu left the capital at Heijō-kyō (Nara) and traveled eastward via Horikoshi (堀越頓宮; today Tsuge; 10th month, 29th day: November 22), Nabari (10th month, 30th day: November 23), Ao (安保頓宮; today Aoyama ; 11th month 1st day: November 24) to Kawaguchi in Ichishi District, Ise Province (today part of Tsu, formerly part of Hakusan) where he retreated together with his court to a temporary palace. One of his generals was left in command of the capital. Presumably Shōmu feared Fujiwara supporters in Nara and was hoping to quell potential uprisings in other parts of the country with his presence. After four days travelling through heavy rain and thick mud, the party reached Kawaguchi on Tenpyō 12 11th month, 2nd day (25 November, 740) A couple of days later, they learn of Hirotsugu's execution and that the rebellion had been quelled.

Despite the good news, Shōmu did not return to Heijō-kyō immediately, but stayed in Kawaguchi until Tenpyō 12 11th month, 11th day (4 December, 740). He continued his journey east, then north via Mino Province and back west along the shores of Lake Biwa to Kuni in Yamashiro Province (today in Kizugawa) which he reached on Tenpyō 12 12th month, 15th day (6 January, 741). Places passed along the way included Akasaka (赤坂頓宮; today Suzuka; 11th m. 14th d.: Dec 7）, Asake district (朝明郡; today Yokkaichi; 11th m. 20th d.: Dec 13）, Ishiura (石占頓宮; today Tado; 11th m. 25th d.: Dec 18）, Tagi district (当伎郡; today Yōrō; 11th m. 26th d.: Dec 19）, Fuwa (不破頓宮; today Tarui; 12th m. 1st d.: Dec 23）, Yokokawa (横川頓宮; today Santō or Maihara; 12th m. 6th d.: Dec 28), Inukami (犬上頓宮; today Hikone; 12th m. 7th d.: Dec 29）, Gamō district (蒲生郡; today near Yōkaichi; 12th m. 9th d.: Dec 31）, Yasu (野洲頓宮; today Yasu or Moriyama; 12th m. 10th d.: Jan 1）, Awazu (禾津頓宮; today Ōtsu; 12th m. 11th d.： Jan 2）, Tamanoi (玉井頓宮; today Yamashina-ku, Kyoto; 12th m. 14th d.）. Situated among the hills and near a river north of Nara, Kuni was easily defensible. In addition, the area was linked with the Minister of the Right, Tachibana no Moroe, while Nara was a center of the Fujiwara clan. On Tenpyō 12 12th month, 15 day (6 January, 741) Shōmu proclaimed a new capital at Kuni-kyō.

Timeline

 * 724 (Jinki 1): Emperor Shōmu rises to throne.
 * 740 (Tenpyō 12, 8th month): In the Imperial court in Nara, Kibi no Makibi and Genbō conspire to discredit Fujiwara no Hirotsugu, who is Dazai shoni in Kyushu.
 * 740 (Tenpyō 12, 9th month): Hirotsugu rebels in reaction to the growing influence of Genbō and others.
 * 740 (Tenpyō 12, 9th month): Under the command of Ōno no Azumabito, an Imperial army of 17,000 is sent to Kyushu to stop the potential disturbance.
 * 740 (Tenpyō 12, 10th month): Hirotsugu is decisively beaten in battle; and he is beheaded in Hizen Province.
 * 740 (Tenpyō 12): The capital is moved to Kuni-kyō
 * 741 (Tenpyō 13): The Emperor calls for nationwide establishment of provincial temples. Provincial temples ("kokubunji") and provincial nunneries ("kokubunniji") were established throughout the country. The more formal name for these "kokubunji" was "konkomyo-shitenno-gokoku no tera" (meaning "temples for the protection of the country by the four guardian deities of the golden light").  The more formal name for these "bokubunniji" was "hokke-metuzai no tera" (meaning "nunneries for eliminating sin by means of the Lotus Sutra").
 * 743 (Tenpyō 15): The Emperor issues a rescript to build the Daibutsu (Great Buddha), later to be completed and placed in Tōdai-ji, Nara.
 * 743 (Tenpyō 15): The law of Perpetual Ownership of Cultivated Lands (墾田永代私財法) issued
 * 744 (Tenpyō 16): In the spring, the court was moved to Naniwa-kyō which then became the new capital.
 * 745 (Tenpyō 17): The Emperor declares by himself Shigaraki-kyō the capital
 * 745 (Tenpyō 17): The capital returns to Heijō-kyō, construction of the Great Buddha resumes.
 * 749 (Tenpyō 21, 4th month): Shōmu, accompanied by the empress, their children, and all the great men and women of the court, went in procession to Todai-ji. The emperor stood before the statue of the Buddha and proclaimed himself to be a disciple of the three jewels, which are the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.
 * 749 (Tenpyō 21, 7th month): After a 25-year reign, Emperor Shōmu abdicates in favor of his daughter, Princess Takano, who would become Empress Kōken. After abdication, Shōmu took the tonsure, thus becoming the first retired emperor to become a Buddhist priest.  Empress Komyo, following her husband's example, also took holy vows in becoming a Buddhist nun.
 * 752 (Tenpyō-shōhō 4, 4th month): The Eye-Opening Ceremony, presided over by Rōben and celebrating the completion of the Great Buddha, is held at Tōdai-ji.

Legacy
Shōmu, a devout Buddhist, is best remembered for commissioning, in 743, the sixteen-meter high statue of the Vairocana Buddha (the Daibutsu) in Tōdai-ji of Nara. At the time, this was such a massive undertaking that later chroniclers accuse him of having completely exhausted the country's reserves of bronze and precious metals. In 752, the Shōmu held the Eye-opening Ceremony of the Great Buddha.

Earlier in 741, he established the system of provincial temples, making this the closest anyone ever came to declaring Japan a Buddhist nation. In addition he commissioned the observance of the ohigan holiday for both spring and autumnal equinox.

Emperor Shōmu died at age 56.

The actual site of Shōmu's grave is known. This emperor is traditionally venerated at a memorial Shinto shrine (misasagi) at Nara.

The Imperial Household Agency designates this location as Shōmu's mausoleum. It is formally named Sahoyama no minami no misasagi. The tomb site can be visited today in Horenji-cho, Tenri City near Nara City. The Imperial tomb of Shōmu's consort, Empress Kōmyō, is located nearby.

Shōsōin
The Shōsō-in (正倉院) is the treasure house of Tōdai-ji Temple in Nara, Japan. It houses about 9.000 artifacts connected to Emperor Shōmu (701–756) and Empress Kōmyō (701–760), as well as arts and crafts of the Tempyō era of Japanese history. Its general importance derives from the fact, that it may be called an ark of Tang dynasty period cultural relics from Japan as well as from the continent: furniture, games, music instruments, clothing/accessories, weaponry, buddhist objects and pieces of writing. See main entry.

Kugyō
Kugyō (公卿) is a collective term for the very few most powerful men attached to the court of the Emperor of Japan in pre-Meiji eras.

In general, this elite group included only three to four men at a time. These were hereditary courtiers whose experience and background would have brought them to the pinnacle of a life's career. During Shōmu's reign, this apex of the Daijō-kan included:
 * Daijō-daijin (720–735), Toneri-shinnō (舎人親王) (9th son of Emperor Tenmu).
 * Daijō-daijin (737–745), Suzuka-ō (鈴鹿王) (son of Prince Takechi).
 * Sadaijin (724–729), Nagaya-ō (長屋王) (son of Prince Takechi).
 * Sadaijin (743–756), Tachibana no Moroe (橘諸兄) (formerly Katsuragi-ō, Prince Katsuragi) (half brother of Empress Kōmyō).
 * Udaijin (734–737), Fujiwara no Muchimaro (藤原武智麻呂) (son of Fujiwara no Fuhito).
 * Naidaijin, Fujiwara no Toyonari (藤原豊成) (son of Fujiwara no Muchimaro).
 * Dainagon, Fujiwara no Fusasaki (藤原房前) (son of Fujiwara no Fuhito).

Eras of Shōmu's life
The years of Shōmu's reign are more specifically identified by more than one era name or nengō.
 * Jinki (724–729)
 * Tenpyō           (729–749)
 * Tenpyō-kanpō     (749)
 * Tenpyō-shōhō     (749–757)
 * Tenpyō-shōhō     (749–757)

Consorts and children

 * Empress (Kōgō): Fujiwara Asukabehime (藤原 安宿媛), Fujiwara no Fuhito’s daughter
 * Second Daughter: Imperial Princess Abe (阿倍内親王) later Empress Kōken
 * First Son: Prince Motoi (基王, 727–728)
 * Bunin: Agatainukai no Hirotoji (県犬養広刀自, d.762), Agatainukai no Morokoshi's daughter
 * First Daughter: Imperial Princess Inoe (井上内親王), married to Emperor Kōnin
 * Third Daughter: Imperial Princess Fuwa (不破内親王, 723-795), married to Prince Shioyaki
 * Second Son: Imperial Prince Asaka (安積親王, 728–744)
 * Bunin: Nan-dono (南殿, d.748), Fujiwara no Muchimaro’s daughter
 * Bunin: Hoku-dono (北殿, d.760), Fujiwara no Fusasaki’s daughter
 * Bunin: Tachibana-no-Hirooka no Konakachi (橘広岡古那可智, d.759), Tachibana no Sai's daughter

title: Emperor Shōmu