Talk:Government of Japan
Government of Japan is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.
Reviewers: To start the review process,to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try this talk page.)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Government of Japan article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Beautifully structured, but a bit short on content. Sure, most of the content can be found in separate articles on the Prime Minister, Diet, etc etc, but I think we really ought to have a bit more here nevertheless. Summary paragraphs. LordAmeth 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. In particular, I have never understood why it begins with "Japan no longer officially has the traditional federal system," I mean, does Japan have traditional federal system unofficially? Very strange first sentence. -- Taku (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The government section of the "Outline of Japan" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .
Why did Wikiepeida list insulting information of Japan?
The Government of Japan article earlier had written in Korean "독도만세일본 시발놈들아 이 원숭이새끼들아" at the start of the article. Please explain why this was listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Position of the emperor
There seems to be some confusion regarding the position of the emperor. He is clearly 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. The opening section regarding the emperor is also not only poorly written but also not properly referenced and does not cite any scientific sources, leading me to the conclusion that the editor is just stating his personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, it makes sense. However, regarding the last paragraph, I think there is some confusion on what a Constitution is. A Constitution defines the principles on how the state is being governed. A Constitution constitutes(defines) on how the state is being run, and not simply describe roughly how it runs. In this case, the Constitution drafted by the previous government defined the new role of the Emperor, and not simply describe how he should be. The Constitution requires the Emperor to act in such a manner, and he must do so. If he does not, it would be a violation of the Constitution. If the Constitution just simply describes the Emperor on how he should be, then isn't he able to just ignore it and say that it describes him wrongly. Agree? --TheInfernoX (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Poor choice of words, english is not my first language. The last paragraph looks completely different now; earlier versions were very convoluted and stated that the emperor is not the head of state (the reference was some japantimes.com article ...). 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
URLs of former government ministries
If you want to look up URLs of former government ministries on the wayback machine, they are listed here: http://web.archive.org/web/19980125145714/http://www.jinjapan.org/jd/org/002001002.html#002001002026 - http://www.webcitation.org/6WiHjhitQ WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)