# Talk:Government of Japan

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)

The introduction here is really short, and instead of introducing the topic, it gives a contrast to something else. I might fix it when I have time.Rhinocerous Ranger (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2008 (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 .
Thank you.

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 1.251.19.69 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 

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 141.48.179.241 (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 ...). 86.56.43.81 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Government of Japan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
@TheInfernoX: Sorry about the delay, let's get started.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead

No need to italicize "pre-war" or "post war". Done
The first usage of the word "post-war" is unecessary. Done
Everything in the lead should be in the body. That is not the case, however, and it needs a rewrite.
Body

No need to italicize "nominally" or "actual power" Done
Too many duplicate links that need to be fixed. Done
Disambiguation link to "State act" Done
Referencing

Up to half of this article is unreferenced. This needs to be fixed. Doing...
Three sources from YouTube. This source is generally considered unreliable. Done
Coverage

13 sources, seems quite small for such a large article.
Shouldn't there be some history on the government?
Neutrality

"actual power" seems unneutral. I suggest that you remove "actual" Done
Images

There are too many images in the article. Please remove some.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Hi. Sorry for the delay, I was quite busy for the past few days.

Is it okay for me to move the paragraphs in the lead to a new section like an overview with a little touch on it's history?
I'd heavily recommend to just move the history part to the body and leave the rest where it is. I think you should also add a little more on it' history (for example history before WWII).--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean, can I make a new heading in the body with a title "Overview and history" and write it's history there? I can simplify the lead as well by moving it there. I think it will be better than writing onto the existing body, as it's not the main focus of the article. TheInfernoX (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The lead is the part of the article that introduces the readers to the article's subject. Check this article for a general structure I'd recommend.
I have removed the words "actual" and some redundant images, and have replaced the YouTube sources with more reliable ones. TheInfernoX (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tomandjerry211 (alt): I believe I have made all the necessary corrections. Can you please check? Thanks! ~TheInfernoX (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A few more citations, please.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tomandjerry211 (alt): I have added the necessary citations. Can you please check again? ~TheInfernoX (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Marked two more that are necessary.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Done. Citations added. ~TheInfernoX (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Thank you! ~TheInfernoX (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Before The Meiji Restoration, Japan was ruled by the government of a successive military shōgun." It looks as if a bumbling editor has inserted the word "a" in this sentence, not understanding that "shōgun"   here is being used as a plural. If I interpret this correctly, the "a" ought to be removed. 71.245.188.249 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there are other problems with how shōgun is rendered in this article, but for the time being I've corrected this. Tsundokuboi (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Under "History," there's an odd paratactic construction:

"Taiseihokan"（大政奉還）The return of political power to the Emperor (to the Imperial Court) in 1868 meant the resignation of Shōgun Tokugawa Yoshinobu, agreeing to "be the instrument for carrying out" the Emperor's orders.
The capitalized "The" before "return" indicates the start of a sentence, so how does "Taiseihokan"（大政奉還) relate to the syntax of that following sentence? I don't know Japanese at all; Google Translate tells me that Taiseihokan means "system storage"? So could someone who understands the topic and the intention here be able to correct this? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The word shōgun is rendered as both shōgun and Shōgun (no italics). One rendering should be used consistently throughout the article. The article for shogun does not use italics, a macron above the o, or capitalisation because the word is pretty well known t English speaking audiences. I think this would be fine. But if the macron should be kept then every instance should be in italics because it's a romanisation. And there's no reason to capitalise it. Tsundokuboi (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it may be slightly confusing for people with some knowledge of Japanese but not much knowledge of the Japanese feudal system that there is no kanji given for this word. The most common word pronounced kazoku is 家族, but the word being used in this article is 華族 and they mean different things. I suggest that this be added for clarity. Tsundokuboi (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)