This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 22:15, May 4, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I corrected some atrocious mistake in translation. It is difficult even for a Japanese to read this old style Japanese. Reference from a Western author should be treated carefully unless they make reference of their translation to Japanese source. Vapour
To be honest, the previous version is quite biased. For example, the direct translation of first oath is "Raise assemblies widely and decide everything with public principle". Nowhere does it acutally demand that Japan establish parliamental democracies. Vapour
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't mean I want to change my vote, but I've been thinking about why anyone would have named it Five Charter Oath, and I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that all of the articles are labeled #1. Dekimasu 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The article is neutral, balanced, very well-written and appropriately referenced. Though not well-documented, the only image used appears to be in order.
The article meets GA criteria. The comments on the 'to-do' list remain valid, in that the article could be more comprehensive and have a stronger lead. There is no question however that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and so is OK for GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)