Talk:Kugyō

Bold font?

In this list of court positions, I just wonder if the bold font is helpful?

Or perhaps the 'bold font may be perceived as distracting?

Compare the format template of this article with that of Daijō-kan. If the fonts are not appropriate there, then I'd guess they should be modified in this context as well?

Any thoughts? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The list

The list supplied is a list of positions in the Daijo-kan. These people were not necessarily included in the kugyo. A quick check with Japanese Wikipedia or a Japanese dictionary will confirm this. Irrelevant positions should please be removed from the list.

くぎょう［―ぎやう］ 1 【▽公▼卿】

［1］ 〔補説〕 中国の三公九卿から

「公」と「卿(けい)」の総称。公は太政大臣、左・右大臣、卿は大・中納言、三位以上の朝官および参議。上達部(かんだちめ)。月卿。卿相。くげ。こうけい。

〔補説〕 「大臣公卿」という場合は、「卿」に同じ

［2］ （「供饗」「公饗」とも書く）公卿に供する膳(ぜん)。漆塗りでなく、白木であった。木具(きぐ)。Bueller 007 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha, Bueller 007 -- the abrupt tone of your edits is distinctive and becoming familiar. In your prose, the word "clearly" seems uncharitable and maybe even a little abrasive.

Yes, of course, you are correct -- yours is an indisputably appropriate observation; but I've reverted your deletion of the Eight Ministries. Your observation that ministry list is duplicated in Daijō-kan is accurate enough. (In fact, the genesis of the Daijō-kan catalog of court positions was here in the context of this article -- copied from here to there, and not the other way around.) User:Jefu and User:LordAmeth offered critical commentary which helped better focus the work at the early stages in May '07; and I would hope their points-of-view will have evolved since then (as mine have). I can't know for sure, but I'd guess that neither would be unsympathetic to what I imagine to be the broader scope of your editorial reasoning:

• (cur) (last) 05:48, 21 December 2007 Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (6,240 bytes) (the eight ministries are unrelated, and as listed are quite clearly a direct copy and paste of the daijo-kan page, which is where the info about them actually belongs) (undo)

Although the initial ritsuryō templates were an imposed organizational overlay in the Asuka and Nara periods, a peculiar form of Japanese alchemy caused the metamorphosis of court's administrative hierarchy into a tool manipulated by the kuge in the Heian period and marginalized by others in subsequent periods. In fact, the "revealing framework" which you are now questioning is replicated in other articles as well:

• in Daijō-daijin (太政大臣)-- see Talk:Daijō Daijin#Proposed deletion of Eight Ministries
• in Sadaijin (左大臣)-- see Talk:Sadaijin#Proposed deletion of Eight Ministries
• in Udaijin (右大臣)-- see Talk:Udaijin#Proposed deletion of Eight Ministries
• in Naidaijin (中大臣) -- see Talk:Naidaijin#Proposed deletion of Eight Ministries
• in Dainagon (大納言) -- see Talk:Dainagon#Proposed deletion of Eight Ministries
• in Chūnagon (中納言)-- see Talk:Chūnagon#Proposed deletion of Eight Ministries

And yet, the factual accuracy of each line item is supported by in-line citations. This means that your use of a tag which disputes the accuracy of all data is not quite on the mark. Your claim, as I understand it, isn't so much that the information presented in this article is "wrong" per se, but that it is redundant because the data is available elsewhere.

As I construe your objection, any questions are likely to devolve into matters of judgment rather than issues of accuracy. Indeed the citation which you offer in support of your argument makes that point explicit in both its style and substance.

I propose that we leave these matters until after the first of the year -- noting clearly your continuing objection to the inclusion of that dry list of Eight Ministries in this article and in the others you simply hadn't noticed yet. As a gesture of cooperation, I will post a note on each of these other articles with a link to this talk page.

As noted elsewhere (see Talk:Daijō-kan#Query), whether attributed to LordAmeth or to Sir George Sansom, the verb "dismantle" will have a place of prominence in any discussions which may ensue.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

CAVEAT Bueller 007 -- Your blythe contribution here required mere minutes; but mine cost hours which perhaps were better spent. This imbalance causes me to grow thoughtful, and perhaps you might want to do the same.

• Construction takes time.
• Re-construction takes longer.
• Demolition is often relegated to unskilled labor. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bueller has over-reached here and elsewhere:

• See Talk:Daijō-kan#Plagiarism
• See Talk:Kōryū-ji#Wrongful deletion
• See User Talk:Nihonjoe#Mediation/ONE
• See User Talk:Nihonjoe#Mediation/TWO

I'm no longer inclined to extend the benefit of a doubt. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Removed Military History Tag as article is out of scope. --dashiellx (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)