Talk:Government of Japan

message: 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)
thread_title: Project Assessment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why did Wikiepeida list insulting information of Japan? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Position of the emperor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  URLs of former government ministries 

message: Hello 97.101.163.62 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "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)
thread_title:  A rogue article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could someone with knowledge correct this?