Talk:Mon (emblem)

Improvement drive

Heraldry has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article there if you want to contribute. --Fenice 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Category family

For DannyWilde "removed apparently bogus category "Japanese family"; please let me know if this category is necessary" , [1]

"Mon" are not a Japanese family, obviously, but they are linked to a family. I assume that the inclusion or non-inclusion of this category depends on how you understand the category. Rama 09:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response. "Mon" is in Category:Japanese heraldry which is part of Category:Japanese nobility. Isn't that enough? Does it have much to do with the "Japanese family" as such? --DannyWilde 12:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that your idea makes sense, and I doubt that anyone will challenge it. If someone has more to say, we will know soon enough :) Rama 15:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree: Mon (or perhaps even Japanese heraldry) does not belong under Category:Japanese nobility because they are (were) not the exclusive domain of nobles, or even of the bushi/samurai class: even members of the merchant class used them. Whether "family" is appropriate is a hard question to answer because so much depends on which definition of family is being applied. In many cases, "house" (e.g., House of Sumitomo, House of Mitsui), "clan" (Tokugawa Clan, Mouri Clan), or even "institution(al))" (for the crests of, e.g., arms of government such as the Ministry of Justice or Office of the Prime Minister) could arguably be more accurate. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 06:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Crest?

Why are mon called 'crests' when crests in European heraldry serve a completely different function? Surely we can find a better word - 'badge' seems to me a lot closer. 130.132.143.49 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have always heard the term 'family crest' used pretty much interchangably for 'coat of arms', and a mon is essentially that. Also, 'crest' is the most common translation (or description) I've seen in any of my texts. I realize that for those who know the proper terminology of Western heraldry, 'crest' doesn't necessarily hold that meaning, but in common usage it does... I don't think that "badge" has the right sort of heraldic ring to it, do you? LordAmeth 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that "badge" sounds better than "crest" (without prejudice to any heraldic meaning). And anyway the mon serves the some of the functions of a badge in western heraldry. WRT the word "crest" in regular speech, I note that Crest (heraldry) indicates that the common usage is erroneous, and even though other pages are not concrete precedent, in this case I think we should use some other word. Greentubing 11:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the source of the bald statement that a mon is a crest? I think that by definition it is not a crest. It seems to be a symbol of some kind. Kittybrewster 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that not only current usage (kamon are called family crests in most extant works on Japan, including the Kondansha Illustrated Encyclopedia of Japan), but also the definition given by Merriam-Webster's Unabridged* justify the use of crest for kamon; on the other hand, personally I find badge, especially in its common usage, to be somewhat strange, but that could be attributable to my personal linguistic background (N-E US).
Further, I have doubts about applying the terms of art of European heraldry to Japanese kamon. I therefore believe that badge, even if technically correct from the perspective of European heraldic tradition, could be misleading as well as confusing to readers. I feel that the article's title, at least, should be reverted to "Mon (crest)."

* (7) : an emblem, badge, device, or other object regularly used as a symbol (as of a family, tribe, or nation) -- usually used only of emblems employed among peoples who do not practice the European system of heraldry <the Indians ... mark off the hunting ground selected by them by blazing the trees with their crests -- American Anthrop. Association Memoir> [emphasis mine]

Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Call the page by whatever name but there definitely should be a note along the lines of "The mon in Japanese culture shares many of the same functions as a badge in Western heraldry." Greentubing 08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your idea of a note identifying the similarities between Japanese and European heraldry. I'm interested to see what others say, especially given the Merriam-Webster's definition of crest. Jim_Lockhart 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Having read "Heraldic badge," I now find it even more difficult to justify calling Japanese mon badges—if the "Heraldic badge" article is accurate, there are more differences than similarities between mon and heraldic badges; their only shared characteristic seems to be that of identification of a specific clan. Jim_Lockhart 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am leaning more away from "badge" due to the above arguments. But fwiw, it is perhaps an acceptable translation since its not a crest either. On a tie or cufflinks for example, it is correct for an employee to use the company's badge but not the crest (even if in practice, 99% of the time, this rule is ignored.) The heraldic badge article is short and doesn;t explain a lot about badges. Of course a mon is a sui generis term with no exact equivalent in Western culture so the naming really is a matter of judgement. The mon isn't really a "crest" in heraldic usage either. The only dispute I see is the use of "crest" which has a specific meaning in heraldry and the colloquial (and heraldically incorrect) usage.

Of course, we can side-step this issue by making "Mon (whatever)" redirects to a more unassuming name like "Mon (heraldry)". And also if it is referred to as a "crest" in general usage (meaning incl. outside of the internet) the rules on "most common name" trump. Greentubing 05:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea about the title: How about "Mon (Japanese heraldry)"?
Meanwhile, having read several of the articles related to European heraldry, I get the impression that Japanese mon are most similar to emblems or even shield/lozenge (with the exception that mon are a full coat of arms in themselves rather than a portion of one) rather than heraldic badges (though close to badge as defined here), although—and as I have illustrated above with the definition from Merriam-Webster's Unabridged—they are most commonly known as crests. In addition to this, Kondansha's encyclopedias of Japan as well as Encyclopaedia Britannica Online refer to them as such. I believe that in the article, badge should be changed to crest and a side reference be made to the similarity of mon to badges and emblems in European heraldry.
Probably needless to say, but I object to the unilateral removal of the comment about mon being commonly known as crests so long as they are characterized in the article as badges: This comment is not factually inaccurate, so there is no reason to remove it. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling the article "Mon (Japanese heraldry)" seems like the most sensible option. Then the article can go on to say that mons are unique to Japan and have no direct Western eqivalent, and say that many words like "crest" "badge" etc are used to describe it; the article could describe mons as "symbols" (probably the most general term unlikely to cuase controversy). The rest of the article can use the word mon (as it is now). 202.89.157.142 10:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think "Mon (heraldry)" or "Mon (Japanese heraldry)" are our best bets. I honestly was quite surprised when I read the article on crests to find out that they're not what I thought they were. Stephen Turnbull refers to them as "family crests," while Frederic's Japan Encyclopedia calls them "insignias". Should we perhaps consider "Mon (insignia)" as an alternative? LordAmeth 10:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A crest is something on the head of a rooster or on the head of a knight, and calling mon "crests" would be wildly inaccurate. --Palnatoke 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the correct western heraldic defininition of a crest. 202.89.158.3 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

With this, the discussion has come full circle: Have you (Palnatoke) read any of this discussion besides the comment preceding yours? We have already seen—from dictionary definitions, other articles, and other reference works—that the definition you present of crest is incomplete at best. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

... Proving that "Mon (heraldry)" or "Mon (Japanese heraldry)" are probably the only two neutral non-controversial (with the added bonus of both being correct) names for the article. 202.89.158.3 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (I am the same anon as 202.89.157.142, just different dynamic IP)

My consternation at the notion that referring to mon as crests is “wildly inaccurate” aside (I think I've already made the point that it is both accurate and an already established tradition; see my comments of 19 and 20 February 2006, above), I agree that "'Mon (heraldry)' or 'Mon (Japanese heraldry)' are probably the only two neutral non-controversial (with the added bonus of both being correct) names for the article." Jim_Lockhart 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's get the page moved then, shall we? :D :D 202.89.158.3 09:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited "badge" to "symbol", though if "insignia" sound better, I'd have no problem with it. 202.89.139.117 01:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (same anonymous IP user as above)

Star of the Order of the Chrysanthemum

Isn't the first pic a bit misleading? It never identifies where the chrysanthemums are in the image. Readers who know nothing about Japan could either take the entire badge to be the mon or take the central sun. I could be bold and edit, but I have no idea how I'd succinctly say that there are four depictions of the actual mon on the green wreath. Greentubing 11:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing, for the reason you cite. I think it should be removed from this article. The Chrysanthemum Crest (as it is widely known; note the use of "crest") can be depicted more directly. Perhaps the Wikicommons already contains a graphic of it. Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol for the specific case of the Emperor's mon, it is treated as a crest in Western heraldry. The Emperor's stall for the Order of the Garter shows the mon fixed on top of a knight's helmet [2] linked from [3]. So "Crest" is correct in Western terms at least for the Emperor. Greentubing 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many bushi also wore their mon as an adornment on their helmets when going into battle, though the adornment was not always their mon. Jim_Lockhart 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 19 February

I've made three edits today—apologies, though, for doing them in three sessions instead of one. Personally, I prefer crest to badge, as I've explained above; but I didn't change the terminology because I think a consensus has to be reached first. I did add a comment to the effect that kamon are generally known as crests because I think we ignore this usage at our peril even if the ultimate consensus goes for badge. I rewrote the captions, especially the one under the graphic showing the Order of the Chrysanthemum, mostly because they were quite clumsily written.

Finally, I wonder whether the statements "Virtually all modern Japanese families have a mon, though modern usage is rare. Individuals, instead, use an inkan for official purposes and business transactions" are factually accurate. Without a definition of "modern family", the first is too much of a generalization; and I don't get the correlation implied by the second between family crests and inkan, since to my knowledge the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another, nor were they ever used interchangeably. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 06:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement about the the families isn't entirely false, but a bit inaccurate: In fact, most Japanese family names can be linked with an existing mon, but since these family crests do not play an official role in contemporary japanese bureaucracy anymore, people tend not to use these crests anymore and forget about them. It probably wouldn't be false to proclaim that most modern Japanese families have a mon, but many of these families simply don't know them and don't use them anymore.

About the correlation between the family crests and the inkan: Sometimes, the symbols shown in these mon directly refer to the signs of the family name. This, however, does only apply to few crests and linking the mon to the inkan with the family crest in between would be quite daring without any literature to back up one's claims. -- Denkbert 22:05, 01 July 2008 (GMT)

Emperor's mon

Here is an image of the Emperor's mon if anyone wants to include it. Greentubing 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Clan associations?

Much thanks to the editor who posted images and names of a great many mon. However, there is no indication given of which mon belong to which clan... Adding that in would make this article far more useful. Thanks. LordAmeth 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Um.. I've just noticed that the Japanese is still intact in the comments. I'll edit in the clan names given, but I still think it would be wonderful if we can continue to make this as full and complete as possible. Some crests were used by multiple clans, especially also by chonin and kabuki actor lineages in addition to samurai. LordAmeth 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I've translated all the ones I can. Next step is to perhaps turn it into a table, translate the descriptions of the mon themselves (the images), and to continue to fill in the assoc. families. LordAmeth 13:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move and merger

I see this has been debated before but with no clear concensus. I've requested a rename to Mon (crest) for the following arguments:
1. "Crest" is simply the correct term for the Japanese mon. It is used universally in dictionaries, encyclopaedias and academic publications.
2. ...and the reason crest is prefered is that, firstly, mon originated from helmet decorations, thus similar to the meaning of crest in western heraldry;
3. ...and secondly, mon are generally held by clans rather than individuals, which again is similar to how crests in western heraldry are often shared by armigers of the same family.
Of course, Japanese mon and western heraldry are completely different things with non-interchangeable terminology. As such we should not call mon badges just for their superficial resemblance.
I have also proposed a merger from Japanese heraldry to this page. To put it simply, there is no such thing as "Japanese heraldry" above and beyond the mon; mon is Japanese heraldry, and that page has no reason of existing. o 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely about the use of the word "crest". Regardless of whether it's accurate or appropriate to the meaning in Western context, it is definitely the term most frequently used in Japan-related texts. LordAmeth 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the above reasons as well. Move to Mon (crest) ASAP. John Smith's 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Oda Mari 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. (Note: There's a totally unrelated Japanese mon article, which may or may not benefit from having a "currency" designation in parentheses.)--Endroit 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I somehow never made the connection. Of course, mon and mon should need disambiguation... LordAmeth 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there are actually 3 variations: mon (門), mon (紋}, and mon (文). I went ahead and created a disambig page Japanese mon (disambiguation) for all these.--Endroit 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article. I will be moving the other one, too, because it just makes sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The other move at Japanese mon has been reverted by someone, and discussion still continues at Talk:Japanese mon.--Endroit 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of representative kamon, what?

At the end of the article there's this big list of "representative kamon". First of all, how are these mon representative? I doubt altogether the usefulness of having this list. To anyone who doesn't already know how mon are named (even to a Japanese speaker), these names are almost meaningless. If we can make a gallery, great, but if not this list just clutter up the page. I hesitate to remove them because I know it's somebody's work. But I just don't see the point. That said, I think it could be nice to expand on the naming of mon. o (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of all kamon

I came here hoping for a full list of the kamon I saw while in a shop in the japanese countryside about a year ago. The "List of representative kamon" does not even contain half of the kamon they had. I even bought a wooden amulet there, containing the "kaminari" (thunder) kamon. It would seem logic to either list all of them or just the interesting ones, in which case we should explain why each of the ones we chose was of special interest.

The article also leaves me wondering, is there even a complete list? Does anyone know? JoaCHIP (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue with crest, rename Mon (emblem)

A crest is the device placed on the helm. Crest means "head" or "highest, peak", and thus the crest is borne on the head. A mon is not displayed on one's head, and thus not a crest, but is a simply an emblem.

I see it was already discussed, but I have issue calling this a crest. It is not. I know many books refer to it as a crest, but that is because there is no word in Western culture that translates mon correctly. Crest was well understood when Western culture began writing on the subject, and the term was used merely to give Western readers a simple and known equivalent. It is not a badge either, which is another European heraldic device. It is an emblem, which is any pictorial device, so I am changing it to that out of correctness. Many sources mistakenly refer to seals, badges, coats of arms and other emblems as crests, but I see no reason to propagate these errors. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So crest and (heraldic) badge are both wrong and misleading translations?

And what about traslating mon into coat of arms? --62.19.55.77 (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Kamon vs. mondokoro

The opening paragraph states that "[w]hile mon is an encompassing term that may refer to any such device, kamon and mondokoro refer specifically to emblems used to identify a family", but is there any detail on semantic difference between the two terms? 所 in 紋所 (mondokoro) means "place", so I would take it that mondokoro refers more to an area than kamon, which is for a family? Can anyone elaborate on the meaning, or point me in the right direction? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just been wondering differences among the four names mon, monshō , mondokoro and kamon; I've just added an {{Elucidate}}. --62.19.55.77 (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mon (emblem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050921052258/http://www.asgy.co.jp/ to http://www.asgy.co.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mon (emblem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051020113958/http://www.asgy.co.jp/anglais/ to http://www.asgy.co.jp/anglais/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)