`  === Ōkimi? === : Note: Discussion moved from Talk:Emperor Nintoku  Eirikr, you have not presented any reasons why okimi would be incorrect, and this is even contrary to your ``promise`` in the edit summary you yourself wrote. We all know that monarchs of that period did not know, nor use, the title tenno, they were known by other titles, of which okimi is one and recognized in scholarly works. Or did you not know?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by   •  .  : Hello 84.251.178.249  (You beat me to the punch in commenting here, お待たせしました。)  Sorry to butt heads, but where have you run across Nintoku Ōkimi?    : Googling for either ``Nintoku Ōkimi`` or ``Nintoku Okimi`` results in zero hits.  Googling for  ``仁徳大君`` yields exactly one hit, which in and of itself seems to be a Goofle, as it were  the ``cache`` link fails out, and simply viewing the link itself shows no instances of 仁徳大君, with only one 大君 on the page at all, but in an entirely different context, talking indirectly about the Meiji emperor (where we see 明治天皇 but not 明治大君).  Looking up the term 大君 in Shōgakukan's 1988 edition of the 国語大辞典 does list 「天皇の敬称」 as the first definition, and the 和英中辞典  第2版 of 1993 shows 大君 as His Majesty, both suggesting an indirect address rather than a title.  Googling for ``仁徳天皇``+``大君`` yields around 245 hits, but 大君 is again not used as a title  there are no instances of 仁徳大君 anywhere I can find.  I know that the web in Japan is not as developed as it is here, but if the appellation 仁徳大君 were common, I'd expect to find at least one hit.  : If you have some source showing this use, please clue me in here.  As it presently stands, I find no evidence for Nintoku Ōkimi, and have thus removed this from the article text.  Cheers,  | '   I am asking why okimi would be incorrect. It does not necessarily need to be in form ``Nintoku Okimi``, some other form showing that title which is more correct than tenno, is also acceptable. Are you contesting that Nintoku was truly called okimi? ``The ruler of Japan was variously known as ヤマト大王/大君 (yamato ōkimi, Great King of Yamato), 倭王/倭国王 (waō/wakokuō, King of Wa, used externally), 治天下大王 (amenoshita shiroshimesu ōkimi or sumera no mikoto, Great King who rules all under heaven, used internally) in Japanese and Chinese sources prior to the 7th century. The first documented use of the title ``tennō`` is in the diplomatic letter from Empress Suiko to Emperor Yang of Sui China in 607 CE...`` Btw, my computer does not display Japanese signs... thus, no need to write them, please use transliterations.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by   •  .  : Hm, I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from.  The problem for me arises in the way in which ōkimi was introduced in your edits, like this example from the Emperor Nintoku page:  :: Emperor Nintoku' (仁徳天皇 Nintoku Tennō), or rather Nintoku okimi ...  : So far as I can tell, ōkimi is not used directly after the name, making the usage in this edit apparently incorrect.  And regarding more correct, as you put it, it's important to specify in which context  I assume here you mean that tennō was not the term that was used in [choose your title] Nintoku's lifetime, which makes perfect sense to me.  However, what is more conventional in modern writings about the rulers of Japan seems to be the tennō'' appellation, which is why numerous editors have changed this addition back.  Perhaps you could word your addition differently?  The following note, for example, might express what you'