Talk:Seventeen-article constitution

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Japan / History (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:10, December 8, 2022 (JST, Reiwa 4) (Refresh)
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the History task force.
 
WikiProject Japan to do list:
Nuvola apps korganizer.svg
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: BTS
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject Politics (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Page nameEdit

Should this not be at "Seventeen-Article Constitution" or "Jūshichijō kenpō"? As it stands, it sounds too generic, and would not be interpreted as the title of a document, merely a descriptor that could apply to any constitution in all of history that happened to have had seventeen articles. LordAmeth 03:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC dispute at ConstitutionEdit

There is a NPOV dispute going on at Talk:Constitution, there is one editor who has declared himself to be an "expert" and has declared that there are "Principles of Successful Constitutions" without stating explicitly what the principles are, he is trying to write that they must come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason or else they "don't count" as successful Constitutions. I responded that this was highly POV and gave a number of counter examples including this one, but by Circular logic, he argues that my examples don't count as "successful" because they didn;t come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason, therefore they cannot possibly be regarded as "successful". Please share your comments. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As Socrates said, none can be forced to understand. --TokyoJapan (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorial?Edit

What is the "dictatorial" component referenced in the last sentence?

201.242.100.181 (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist document?Edit

Wasn't it more of a document with a Confucian framework that emphasised Buddhist values in addition to Confucian ones? Because, if Japan was undergoing centralisation, who'd have the best model to draw on? Hint: To the west.
- Imperator Talk 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The document is strongly influenced by both Buddhism and Confucianism. The emphasis on Buddhism is obvious from the second article. The Confucian elements are the emphasis on the selection of officials based on merit, obedience to authority, and the power of the central government.Cbcolbeck (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Validity Dispute?Edit

I edited the "Validity" section to reflect the ways in which the document does and does not conform to the idea of the idea of a "constitution." I left in previous material. Why were my edits deleted?Cbcolbeck (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits were deleted because you see, whenever we mention any commentary or analysis about an article topic, we always like to know WHOSE analysis or commentary it is, so we can properly attribute the opinion to whomever came up with it. This is called "citing sources". If it turns out not to be analysis or commentary from any published source, but rather the analysis or commentary of a wikipedia editor, then our policy is not to include it anyway and attribute it to "such and such a wikipedia editor's opinion", but rather to delete it. This is cornerstone policy but a full explanation may be read at No Original Research.
In addition, your changes seem to contradict the previous version somewhat. Whenever this happens, and you don't bring any sources to back up what you are saying in your new version, then you are most likely going to get reverted. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have added a citation to back up my statements about the nature of the "constitution". I have also added a "citation needed" annotation for the unsupported claim that Kase Hideaki holds such and such an opinion. I did some research and couldn't find any such statement by him.
I have also corrected a mistake of historical fact: the constitution was indeed superseded (dozens of times, actually) between 604 and 1890. I assume that because the Ritsuryo code has its own page, there is no need to go into detail on it. Cbcolbeck (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seventeen-article constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)