Talk:Constitution of Japan

'De facto' head of state?

The Emperor is the de facto head of state? Shouldn't that be de jure? --213.8.105.60 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. No law says he is the head of state so he is not "de jure" (i.e., based on law) at least. -- Taku 00:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
The position of Emperor is enshrined in Articles 1-8 of the Constitution of Japan. This is "de jure". Like the constitutions of many other nations (e.g. France, Belgium, USA, Australia, Canada), the Constitution of Japan does not need to explicitly use the term "head of state" to define one. - Ryk72 talk 14:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tennou is not considered an official head of state by most experts in Japan. Mnd5trm (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this document not prove that Japan is a US puppet state?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Denied. Consensus determined that Japan is not a puppet state of the United States. This claim is a fringe theory.--Mr. Guye (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the article? It is clearly a political client/puppet regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.244.143 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, the constitution could have been changed at anytime if the people didn`t agree with it. Most of the constitution guarantees the Japanese people fundamental human rights, something the LDP have said they want to take away, who exactly would that help aside from the governing elite?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution doesn't give the US any extraordinary powers over Japan, and indeed the Japanese could amend or replace the constitution if they wanted to. They merely choose not to because it's worked pretty well.65.7.0.129 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the book I'm reading, a lot of the Japanese constitution actually derives from a former Japanese effort. Apparently, it's not quite the American diktat it's often thought to be. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Japanese?

Why is there a section of this article (apparently) in Japanese? (This being, of course, the English-language Wikipedia.) If it is necessary, it should be appropriately placed in context for non-Japanese readers, e.g. "The following text X, Y and Z." As it is, being an English-language computer user with no Japanese language support installed on his computer, all I see is an irregular series of ? characters. --Dhartung | Talk 03:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this section from the article and reproduced it below. If anyone wants to translate it or provide context for it, please add it back in. It was submitted by an anonymous user whose IP has no other edits, and I don't know Japanese well enough to translate it myself. The section title translates as "preamble", so I'm assuming this is the preamble to the constitution. Colin M. 02:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is the preamble. As such it is a fairly good summary of the spirit of the document but it is not worth mentioning or translating any more than any other part of the constitution. I think it odd that it should be pasted in the article. Smoove K 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

前文

　日本国民は，正当に選挙された国会における代表者を通じて行動し，われらとわれらの子孫のために，諸国民との協和による成果と，わが国全土にわたつて自由のもたらす恵沢を確保し，政府の行為によつて再び戦争の惨禍が起ることのないやうにすることを決意し，ここに主権が国民に存することを宣言し，この憲法を確定する。そもそも国政は，国民の厳粛な信託によるものであつて，その権威は国民に由来し，その権力は国民の代表者がこれを行使し，その福利は国民がこれを享受する。これは人類普遍の原理であり，この憲法は，かかる原理に基くものである。われらは，これに反する一切の憲法，法令及び詔勅を排除する。

　日本国民は，恒久の平和を念願し，人間相互の関係を支配する崇高な理想を深く自覚するのであつて，平和を愛する諸国民の公正と信義に信頼して，われらの安全と生存を保持しようと決意した。われらは，平和を維持し，専制と隷従，圧迫と偏狭を地上から永遠に除去しようと努めてゐる国際社会において，名誉ある地位を占めたいと思ふ。われらは，全世界の国民が，ひとしく恐怖と欠乏から免かれ，平和のうちに生存する権利を有することを確認する。

　われらは，いづれの国家も，自国のことのみに専念して他国を無視してはならないのであつて，政治道徳の法則は，普遍的なものであり，この法則に従ふことは，自国の主権を維持し，他国と対等関係に立たうとする各国の責務であると信ずる。

　日本国民は，国家の名誉にかけ，全力をあげてこの崇高な理想と目的を達成することを誓ふ。

Merge in of Article 9 Lemma

Don't. Article 9 is a complex topic all in it self and Wikipedia does well to have a separated article for it. -- Mkill 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article 14 does apply to foreign nationals

Both Supreme court and lower courts have ruled that discrimination against foreign nationals is an article 14 (equality under the law) issue.

Public bathing facility ruling of Sapporo District Court (2002.11.11) National election rights(Supreme Court H5.2.26) Local election rights(Supreme Court 2000.6.27)

All ruling applies article 14 (indirectly with the Bathing facility case) to foreign nationals. Furthermore, the 1994.2.28 ruling states, that legislation, granting permanent foreign residents local election rights, would not violate article 15, although article 15 does not guarantee it as a constitutional right.

The Public bathing facility ruling, through the interpretation of Civil code article 709 'illegal acts'、state that refusing a foreigner to enter a public bathing facility is against Article 14 and international human rights B treaty article 26, and constitute an 'illegal act'. The point being, yes, there is no legislation specifically making discrimination against foreigners an offence, but, no, discrimination against foreigners are illegal, and will result in civil compensation.(in this case US$29,000)

As far as I know, the majority interpretation and the supreme court, does grant the right of equality to foreigners. Social benefits however, are a different matter. Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court has now set precedent with the recent ruling on foreigners receiving welfare that the law states that only citizens may receive benefits. The text of the Public Assistance act uses the word 'kokumin', which is the basis of their ruling. This means that 'kokumin' is once again confirmed to mean 'citizen' and thus article 14's provisions against discrimination, which also use the word 'kokumin', refer only to citizens. It cannot be interpreted in any other way legally speaking - if the government wishes to selectively apply or enforce the law, that does not make that selective application the de jure status, but rather the de facto status. Any protections against discrimination which foreigners enjoy thus cannot be said to derive from article 14, as it has now been unquestionably asserted by the Supreme Court that foreigners are not included in the scope of the wording used.

What court ruled that Japan can raise an army?

As of this date, the only court ruling that has ruled on the constitutionality of the Self-Defence Force is a district court ruling (Naganuma case, Sapporo District court 1974.9.7). It ruled that the SDF is a force prohibited by article 9 paragraph 2, and is unconstitutional.

The Supreme court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the SDF.

So, what court ruling states that Japan can raise an army (a force with greater ability than SDF), which is a clear violation of article 9 paragraph 2? There is a ruling that suggests that Japan has the right to defend it's country, a prerequisite to possessing any kind of force (Sunagawa Supreme Court 1960.12.16), but that's it.

I strongly recommend deleting the portion that suggests an existence of a court ruling, unless the writer can name the case and date of the ruling. Supreme Court of Japan Home Page with Selected Judgments in English

Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article 38 Confession

Article 38 bans conviction solely based on confessions. Article 319 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure law states "A defendant cannot be found guilty, if the only evidence against him is a confession before the court or otherwise". With corroborating evidence for the confession, however, a conviction would not violate article 38-3 of the constitution.(Check Nerima Case 1959.5.28) --Fortifiedchicken 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment update

In response to my update tag, it was requested that I post a clarification here. No, I hadn't heard anything specific, but the section on the 2005 proposal left me wanting to hear the rest of the story. Did this fizzle or is it moving forward? It seems like this was added in reaction to events in the news, but it needs to be put in better historical perspective. -- Beland 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture overlaps text in Adoption section

This part of the Adoption section

Under Article 73 the new

has been overlayed by the Imperial Signature and Seal picture. I don't know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.118.60.172 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see this overlay. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Mac OS X 10.3.9. What browser are you using? Do you see the same problem as you make your browser window larger or smaller? Also, I changed the section heading above from "Adoption" to "Picture overlaps text in Adoption section" --Jdlh | Talk 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


june 2007 updates to amendments and revision section

This section has been in desparate need of updating for almost a year, and apparently no-one interested in tending to it, so I just went ahead and did it, relying on the reischauer institute [1], the BBC and the Japan Times. It still needs a lot of work, and you're all welcome to it, but think I got the main points in and arranged the section according to a timeline. This is a hot issue in Japanese politics and could use constant updating, more contextualization, and details (e.g. on the main players in the debate). Also, there are structural issues- the 'early debates' section needs to be somehow connected to this section. But I'm probably not the right person for that. Bine maya 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Human rights guarantees in practice", unverifiable statements

There have been some edits to the "Human rights guarantees in practice" section. This section started of as a lot of assertions claiming — without Wikipedia:Verifiability — how actual Japanese practice is bad human rights and goes against what the Constitution says. Over time some edits have reversed the meaning of the claims. Parts of the article now say — again, without Wikipedia:Verifiability — that Japanese practice does follow the Constitution. For instance, at 19:48, April 9, 2005, User:Iota added one sentence which read "defendants are routinely convicted solely on the basis of a signed confession" (with no citation). Then at 00:54, May 25, 2006, User:Fortifiedchicken changed it to read "defendants are routinely convicted on the basis of a signed confession with corroborating evidence" (still with no citation). Then at 15:54, March 31, 2008 User:Vapour correctly pointed the logical error in Fortifiedchicken's wording, but changed the meaning of the sentence yet again (still with no citation). This is silly. The phrase has been in Wikipedia for years, violating the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy the whole time, so I'm deleting it. It would be great to add it back in, but only if there are Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back it up. --Jdlh | Talk 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section appear to be created by a Whinging westerner (a variation of whinning pom) who wanted to bent his frustration at wikipedia. Specific criticism of Japanese judicial practice (often from Amnesty) do exist, like in any other countries. Instead, the whole over tone of the article was based on typical Japanese exceptionalism. "Unlike western countries, Japan keep suspect detained for 3/4 days" part was just ridiculous considering that some western countries keep suspect much longer (in u.k. <20 days, for example and in some case, indefinitely). Plus coerced confession is a problem in the West not just in Japan. Plus, most criticism seems to centre around judicial practice. There is a separate article for that not to mention the fact that these issue has never been a constitutional issue. If whoever originally wrote this section bother to (or could) read Japanese newspapers and magazine, s/he would have known that specific constitutional issue involves Peace article, Position of Emperor as the "Symbol", Constitutional Amendment, Freedom of expression (textbook, pornography), Freedom of Publication (as opposed to freedom of press), Enforcing national anthem singing in school etc. The whole article should be wiped and rewrote as "Constitutional Controversies" Vapour (talk) 01:49, April 3, 2008

That's all very well, but the important policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the statements can be verified in a Wikipedia:Reliable source they stay. If not, they (eventually) go. If whinging Westerners can get their whinging published in a reliable source, an editor is justified in adding them to Wikipedia. --Jdlh | Talk 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America's influence on the Constitution of Japan

I noticed that the way the Occupation was set up gave Americans an opportunity to make Japan's political system more like their own, perhaps in the belief that it would help people (or maybe that's because that's what Americans considered to be a good political system). So church and state were separated, more people given the vote, Japan became less monarchial (the monarch became more of a mascot for the country), and various other Americanizations were implemented... I suppose that if Japan had been partitioned as originally intended, the political differences would have been very interesting. For starters, there'd be at least a North Japan and a South Japan when all was said and done, and perhaps three or four "Japans" (depending on whether the Republic of China and/or the People's Republic were willing to play along). Furthermore, the PRC/ROC tensions would result in some Cold War drama, in addition to the Soviet/Western tensions. There might have even been a Japanese War along the lines of the Korean one. Can you imagine a Stalinist skyline gracing Sapporo? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other provisions / International Law

It is probably a problem of interpretation and then translation.(not purely translation.)

The original (Japanese) text of the Article 98 (2) doesn't say ratified international treaties be immediately domestic law or be treated as such, more accurately it cannot be read that way. It is more of a very very strong recommendation but not a mandate. The expression of the text doesn't make it mandatory. Having said that, I am not a constitutional scholar, just having the native command of the language.

What I believe is this is one of the interpretation (not the verbal translation, not to be confused) of the expression (nuance). I have come across, so many times, misinterpretations or mistranslations even by very much experienced translators(none-native in Japanese though), which is where the text can be interpreted in two or more ways and some of which the natives never, ever dream of.

If anyone reading the original text, I would like your comments.

While at it, in that cute diagram, it says 'appointment' of the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it is more like 'assent' just a rubber stamp. It's not like the President appoints the Supreme Court Justice and the Senate confirms it. In fact, the Emperor has not power to choose or alter the "appointment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.236.159 (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese language is much more subtle than English when it comes to the difference of meanings in expressions but it's there, and I even have to write this way to better articulate it, hahaha.

Plagiarism

Hi, I'm doing research on the Japanese Constitution for a college course and I found that sections of this article are almost entirely plagiarized from the book Theory of the World Constitution by Dreek Oberoi. Specifically the section "Drafting Process" which plagiarizes the phrasing "the initial post-surrender measures taken by Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), suggest that neither he nor his superiors in Washington intended to impose a new political system on Japan unilaterally. Instead, they wished to encourage Japan's new leaders to initiate democratic reforms on their own. But by early 1946, MacArthur's staff and Japanese officials were at odds over the most fundamental issue, the writing of a new constitution" comes from page 253 of that book. I don't know how to edit it out properly without leaving a huge hole in the article, if I get time when I finish my research I will change it myself if needed. The book is available on ebrary to anyone with database access. Thanks. Ninja337 (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong number of weeks for MacArthurs Draft

This site http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/outline/03outline.html clearly states that MaxArthur's men (and women) had started their own draft BEFORE they got the one from the Japanese goverment, so they did it in two weeks, not one. 134.93.77.131 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130704235529/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/index.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/index.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121002140949/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/ngos.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/ngos.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130705003630/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/political_parties.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/political_parties.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121002141112/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/labor.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/labor.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121002141117/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/index.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked All archived versions were redirects to Harvard University's home page, therefore I've replace all 5 with correct archived pages. Thank you, {{u|Cyberbot II]]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060207081544/http://www.jimin.jp:80/jimin/shin_kenpou/shiryou/pdf/051122_a.pdf to http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/shin_kenpou/shiryou/pdf/051122_a.pdf
  • Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060110024242/http://www.jimin.jp:80/jimin/shin_kenpou/ to http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/shin_kenpou/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Confirmed as correct x 2. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Japan. 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:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070417a2.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622033307/http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/index.html to http://www.ndl.go.jp/Constitution/e/index.html

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is not formally a monarchy, and this article should inform the reader properly about that fact

Japan is not officially or constitutionally a monarchy since 1945/1952, because unlike actual monarchies, the 1947 japanese constitution doesn't in any way define the "state of Japan"　(日本国) as being a monarchy, or having a monarch, sovereign, or indeed any head of state, while also explicitly defining the people as sovereign and the prime minister as the chief executive. This is especially important because the previous constitution explicitly defined the country as a monarchy as the tennou as a sovereign and supreme authority. The tennou after 1945 is best understood as a hereditary religious figure, a chief priest if you will, rather than a monarch.

Furthermore, in Japan, there is generally an agreement that the definition of the tennou as only a "symbol" (象徴) also defines them as NOT a monarch　(君主) or head of state/sovereign　(元首). Many japanese constitutional experts consider Japan to not have a formal head of state. Countries don't need a formal head of state, for that matter.

Let's look at *actual* constitutional monarchies:

Kingdom of Denmark

"The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. The Royal Power shall be inherited by men and women in accordance with the provisions of the Succession to the Throne Act, 27th March, 1953."

"The legislative power shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. The executive power shall be vested in the King. The judicial power shall be vested in the courts of justice."

"Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitution Act the King shall have the supreme authority in all the affairs of the Realm, and he shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers."

"The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute."

Kingdom of Norway

"The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy."

"The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the Executive Power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the Law of the Land are possessed by the King."

"The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council."

Kingdom of Sweden

"The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State.

"The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State."

Kingdom of the Netherlands

"The King shall be President of the Council of State. The heir presumptive shall be legally entitled to have a seat on the Council on attaining the age of eighteen. Other members of the Royal House may be granted a seat on the Council by or in accordance with an Act of Parliament."

"The members of the Council shall be appointed for life by Royal Decree."

"A Bill shall become an Act of Parliament once it has been passed by the States General and ratified by the King."

"The Government shall comprise the King and the Ministers."

"The Ministers, and not the King, shall be responsible for acts of government."

"State Secretaries may be appointed and dismissed by Royal Decree."

Kingdom of Belgium

"The federal legislative power is exercised jointly by the King, the House of Representatives and the Senate."

"The federal executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs to the King."

"The King has the right to convene the Houses to an extraordinary meeting."

"The King can adjourn the Houses. However, the adjournment cannot be for longer than one month, nor can it be repeated in the same session without the consent of the Houses."

Kingdom of Spain

"The political form of the Spanish State is the Parliamentary Monarchy."

"The King is the Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence. He arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community, and exercises the functions expressly conferred on him by the Constitutionand the laws."

"The person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2)."

"The King freely appoints and dismisses civil and military members of his Household"

62.248.181.187 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is a constitutional monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At most de facto, not formally. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the emperor is not a monarch? GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you have bothered to read what I wrote. Indeed they are not a 君主 or 元首 by the constitution but only a 象徴 ("symbol") under the people's sovereignty and without even nominal executive, legislative, or judicial indepedent authority. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Made this discussion into an Rfc, so to attract more input from others. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now do the UK! Hint: Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not contained in a single code. - Ryk72 talk 13:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The existing legal and constitutional documents, the state's official name, and various other things make it quite clear that the United Kingdom is, in fact, a Kingdom, and that there is a de jure monarch as its head of state. The fact that there is no "fully written constitution" does not mean the UK monarchy is somehow unofficial. Mnd5trm (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main points of concern have been addressed and I have no current proposals for specific changes to this article. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I question your solutions. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 62.248.181.187 is a sock of someone. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the last few comments, and the fact that the opening statement is neither neutral nor brief (see WP:RFCBRIEF) (it is far too long for Legobot to handle, meaning that it does not show correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law), I have deactivated this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes - Infobox et al

Fellow Editors,

Recent changes to the Infobox have been made based on a single NYT analysis/opinion source: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/weekinreview/the-world-japan-s-state-symbols-now-you-see-them.html

While the NYT is a reliable source for news reporting, I do not believe that this particular piece is sufficiently reliable, not sufficiently representative of the consensus of academic research for us to use it as the basis for the contents of the Infobox.

Use of this source alone is contrary to WP:DUE. For such a mainstream topic as the subject of this article is, I would be looking for tertiary sources as the basis for summary information.

Nor am I certain that the source directly supports some top the recent inclusions, as required by WP:V

Thoughts? - Ryk72 talk 13:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source is entirely sufficient. It quotes japanese government officials directly saying there is no head of state and makes entirely clear the country is not de jure a monarchy as far as the constitution goes. There is also no source supporting the opposing idea that the constitution somehow defines an official head of state or a monarchical form of government. Rejecting a reliable source for no source at all is not good and certainly violates WP:V.
"not sufficiently representative of the consensus of academic research"
If there is any "serious academic research" claiming that the japanese constitution defines an official head of state, I'd like to see it.
With all due respect, do you think the japanese government officials are wrong on this and that you know better? Mnd5trm (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kristof's NYT piece[2] is currently used in two places in the Infobox:
a) System - Unitary parliamentary de facto[1] constitutional monarchy
Given that the source does not include the text "de facto" or "monarchy" (or "de jure"), which text from the source directly supports this statement?
The CIA World Factbook, generally considered authoritative for such matters, lists the "Chief of State" as "Emperor NARUHITO", and the "Government Type" as simply "parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Given this, what sources describe the government of Japan as "de facto constitutional monarchy"?
b) Head of state - Not defined in constitution. The Emperor is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people", but can carry out many functions of a head of state.[1]
Given that the source does not include "defined" or "function" or "unity" or "of the people", and only includes "Constitution" in the sentence The Emperor was demoted at the end of the war from a "living god" to a mere "symbol of the state" under the Constitution approved by the occupiers, and the Government is afraid that it would seem provocative now to declare him the head of state., which text from the source directly supports this statement?
The term "head of state" was coined roughly around about the middle of the 20th century, and consequently does not explicitly appear in constitutions which pre-date that time. For examples, it is also not explicitly defined in the constitutions of France, USA, Belgium, Australia & Canada, and many others. The constitutions define a head of state by defining the position of a President or of a Monarch, as does the Constitution of Japan. The heads of these states are not in doubt, and our articles reflect that.
Given this, on what basis is the text "Not defined in constitution" relevant here?
- Ryk72 talk 14:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CIA World Factbook is a quick reference resource and is understandably not going to cover exactly what each country's constitution really says. It categorically lists a "chief of state" and a "government type" for all countries, very much based on de facto considerations. It lists the tennou as part of the "executive branch", even though the tennou has no executive authority whatsoever under the constitution or otherwise. I might also return the question "what sources describe the government of Japan as de jure constitutional monarchy"? This article is very much about the de jure; everything claimed in the infobox is implied by default to be de jure. If the infobox simply said "constitutional monarchy", it would falsely imply the constitution unambiguously defines a de jure monarchical form of government.
Regarding the "exact words not found" point; as you should know, wikipedia rules and guidelines do not require the sources to be repeated verbatim 1:1. The source directly states "Japan does not have an official head of state" and quotes Japanese government officials saying "we don't really have a head of state", and "he's head of state when we need a host for a state visit. But he's not really head of state". Many dictionaries, including Wiktionary, Oxford dictionary etc. agree that a monarch is a "ruler", "sovereign", or at least a "head of state". So, unless we are to reject most dictionaries as reliable references for the english language, the tennou is not a "monarch" in the proper sense (or 君主/元首) under the 1947 constitution, because they are not an official head of state.
Although not all countries' constitutions explicitly use the term "head of state", there are other considerations. For example, an official head of state virtually universally has at least nominal executive or legislative authority. In constitutional monarchies, the king etc. is typically defined as more than just a "symbol", the form of government is often defined as a monarchy, and the country is officially referred to as a "kingdom" etc. There is indeed no doubt in the case of those states, but there is in this case, and this article ought to reflect that fact. As far as I understand there is basically a consensus in Japan that the tennou is not a head of state (国家元首), at least not officially or under the constitution.
"On what basis is the text "Not defined in constitution" relevant here?"
This is the article "Constitution of Japan". The constitution of Japan does not define a head of state and explicitly defines the people as sovereign and the tennou as only a "symbol"　(象徴) without sovereignty or any kind of authority. If the infobox simply said "Head of State: The Emperor as such and such", it would falsely imply the constitution unambiguously defines them as a de jure head of state. Mnd5trm (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Infobox is also a quick reference guide.
The Constitution of Japan, in Articles 1-8, defines a de jure constitutional monarchy. The executive powers of the Emperor, such as they are, are defined in Article 7.
This Many dictionaries, including Wiktionary, Oxford dictionary etc. agree that a monarch is a "ruler", "sovereign", or at least a "head of state". So, unless we are to reject most dictionaries as reliable references for the english language, the tennou is not a "monarch" in the proper sense (or 君主/元首) under the 1947 constitution, because they are not an official head of state. and In constitutional monarchies, the king etc. is typically defined as more than just a "symbol", the form of government is often defined as a monarchy, and the country is officially referred to as a "kingdom" etc. is original research. And the same reasoning would reject Elizabeth II as head of state of many of her Commonwealth Realms, the King of Belgium as head of state of Belgium, President Trump as head of state of the USA. None of those are "officially" (i.e. explicitly) defined as "head of state" in their respective constitutions. (It's also circular reasoning).
This For example, an official head of state virtually universally has at least nominal executive or legislative authority. In constitutional monarchies, the king etc. is typically defined as more than just a "symbol" is original research. And the same reasoning would reject the King of Sweden, whose role is purely symbolic, as head of state of Sweden. Notwithstanding that, the Emperor of Japan does have executive powers; defined in Article 7.
Unnamed "government officials", expressing their personal opinions, in an unofficial capacity, are not reliable sources for factual information (other than the fact that those opinions were expressed).
Again, which text from the source directly supports the statement "de facto constitutional monarchy"? WP:V is clear here - "de facto" needs to be directly supported.
There is basically a consensus in Japan that the tennou is not a head of state (国家元首), at least not officially or under the constitution. Source?
I fear GoodDay was correct; we should move to an RFC. - Ryk72 talk 18:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tennou, being a national "symbol" under the people's sovereignty, can only carry out the specific actions as defined by the constitution under the direction of the people's elected representatives and government; they don't have any independent executive or legislative power such as the ability to veto legislation, refuse to appoint the prime minister designated by the people's representatives, dissolve or prorogue the house of representatives at will etc., and are not a chief of the armed forces etc.
The King of Sweden is explicitly defined as a "head of state" in the swedish constitution: "The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State." The term "King or Queen who is Head of State" is used numerous times in the constitution.
Belgium is officially a "Kingdom" and the constitution defines the King as having executive and legislative power, as chief of the armed forces etc. The constitutions of commonwealth realms define the monarch as having chief executive power and in general clearly in terms of being a head of state. For example, "Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". The US constitution vests the president with the executive power. Of course, a republic doesn't need a head of state to be a republic. There seem to be many good reasons why there is no doubt in the case of those countries; evidently there is doubt in the case of Japan however, and this article should inform the reader appropriately.
If there is no official head of state, there can't be a de jure monarchy, because a monarchy by definition has a specific kind of head of state (or the constitution defines the country explicitly as a monarchy, "kingdom" etc.) Mnd5trm (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An Rfc is required. Will need a proper 'question' for it. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a first thought, I'm inclined towards:
What should the Infobox contain?:
A. version prior to recent changes
B. current version
GoodDay Thoughts? Is there anything else that we would want to add? - Ryk72 talk 23:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The two versions would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the contents of the Infobox

What should the Infobox contain for the fields "System" and "Head of State"?: Ryk72 talk 01:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A.
system = Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy[1]
head of state = The Emperor[1][2]; defined as "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People"[3]

References

  1. ^ a b "East Asia/Southeast Asia : Japan – The World Factbook". www.cia.gov. Retrieved November 23, 2018.
  2. ^ "List of Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Ministers for Foreign Affairs" (PDF). protocol.un.org. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
  3. ^ "The Constitution of Japan". japan.kantei.go.jp. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
B.
system = Unitary parliamentary de facto[1] constitutional monarchy
head of state = Not defined in constitution.[2] The Emperor is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people",[3] but can carry out many functions of a head of state.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Kristof, Nicholas D. (12 November 1995). "THE WORLD;Japan's State Symbols: Now You See Them . . ". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
  2. ^ Kakinohana, Hōjun (23 September 2013). "個人の尊厳は憲法の基 ― 天皇の元首化は時代に逆行 ―". Japan Institute of Constitutional Law (in Japanese). Retrieved 2019-10-25.
  3. ^ "The Constitution of Japan". japan.kantei.go.jp. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
C.
system =
head of state =
Remove one or both fields.

See previous discussions above. Ryk72 talk 01:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Option A - system: No sources directly support describing Japan as a "de facto constitutional monarchy"; a construct which appears only on Wikipedia, and is an original interpretation of opinion pieces. Additionally, the position of the monarch, The Emperor, is defined in the Constitution, and Japan is, therefore, a de jure constitutional monarchy, not merely a de facto one. head of state: The position of the Emperor, the "head of state" (as that term is understood in English), is defined in Articles 1-8 of the Constitution; it strictly false to assert that this is not so. but can carry out many functions of a head of state is also not directly supported by the referenced source. - Ryk72 talk 02:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution of the State of Japan 『日本国憲法』 in Japan reads "The Emperor" 天皇 as The Symbol of sowhatever 象徴, not the Head of State 元首. In its earliest draft written by the occupied Japan government, the Emperor was defined as HoS but the General Head Quarter of UN Allies was not pleased, and hence suggests the current wording. According its text in Japanese and its drafting history, it is hardly agreeable the Emperor of Japan is de juri Head of State. --Aphaia (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution of Japan does not include the characters "元首", and so does not define the Emperor as "not the Head of State"[3]. It is entirely possible for the Emperor to be defined explicitly as a symbol and also implicitly as the head of state. The Queen of Australia and the President of the USA are not explicitly defined in their respective constitutions as "head of state", and yet that they are. See also below, English "head of state" and Japanese "元首" are not congruent. - Ryk72 talk 10:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the position of the monarch, The Emperor, is defined in the Constitution, and Japan is, therefore, a de jure constitutional monarchy The tennou is not considered an official head of state (or 国家元首) by most experts in Japan, and they are not unambiguously a "monarch" in the proper sense as understood by most english language dictionaries, including Wiktionary, Oxford dictionary etc.
The position of the Emperor, the "head of state" (as that term is understood in English), is defined in Articles 1-8 of the Constitution; it strictly false to assert that this is not so. That their position as an explicitly non-sovereign national "symbol" (象徴) is defined in the constitution is clear, but not that they are a "head of state". Mnd5trm (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading the surrounding discussions on this page and the sources currently used in the article (B). Experts on japanese law and constitution generally do not consider the tennou an official head of state under the constitution, and the constitution does not define any kind of monarchical form of government, while the preamble declares that the constitution establishes a government by the sovereign people for the sovereign people. A "monarchy" by definition has a specific kind of head of state; if there is no official head of state, there can't be an official "monarchy" as the form of government. I also advise everyone to take a look at the Japanese version of this article, which reflects the scholarly and popular consensus in Japan and directly says "the present constitution does not have provisions relating to a head of state of Japan" (現行憲法には日本の元首に関する規定はない). I support B and object to A. Mnd5trm (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Poorly formed RFC. This is a confusing RFC. I suggest it be thrown out and a regular discussion be held to determine what reliable, third-party sources have to say about the matter first. Not every decision needs to be made using an RFC. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though I drafted the RfC, I am not wedded to it; and am happy for us to take the approach suggested by Nihonjoe. I do note, however, that discussion was held in the sections above, "Japan is not formally a monarchy, and this article should inform the reader properly about that fact" and "Recent changes - Infobox et al", that this was unable to reach a definitive consensus, and that there was a reasonable apprehension that edit warring on the article itself would continue. - Ryk72 talk 00:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that the "Responses" section and "Discussion" section overlap each other a bit. It would be easier to follow (probably) if there was a "voting" (or whatever you want to call it) section where people could express a succinct opinion for one of the options, then have the discussion section where people can hash out details and debate the validity or acceptability of various sources being put forth. Right now, everyting is all mixed in together, making it very difficult to sort things out. Participants are generally not even following generally-accepted comment nesting rules, so it's hard to tell what's happening. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This section was intended for "!voting". The section below for discussion. But, unfortunately, that's not how things turned out. I thought about moving some of the obvious !votes up from the section below; but a) wasn't sure what to do with replies to those !votes, and b) did not want to be seen as attempting to influence the result. - Ryk72 talk 01:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A is more succinct and generally more accurate as well, since this is the way that the constitution is interpreted. At least when it comes to the inbox, which is just a short summary, I more or less agree with the points made by Ryk72. IvoryTower123 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading the article 日本の元首. Version A is a specific POV that represents a minority opinion in Japan and does not accurately describe the situation or even hint at the other interpretations. The only appropriate alternative to the current version is to link to a section in the article body explaining the matter in detail and mentioning the various views. Mnd5trm (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would favour some combination of A and B.
system = Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy[1]
head of state = Not defined in constitution.[2] The Emperor is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people",[3] but can carry out many functions of a head of state.[4]
seems optimal, given that it is controversial in Japan to define the emperor as the "head of state", and the whole point of that (portion of that) proposed constitutional amendment is to make the constitution use those words.[4] In another article I could see simply referring to the emperor as a "head of state" as being acceptable (like saying "visiting heads of state such as the President of France, ... the Emperor of Japan, ... attended [such-and-such event]"), but in our article on the Constitution of Japan explicitly defining Japan's head of state as the emperor seems questionable. I sympathize with Nihonjoe's "no sources" point regarding the use of the words "de facto constitutional monarchy", but in reality we have to take into account the biases of the sources cited for what we can say: both of them are lacking in nuance, and the UN list appears not to include a single instance of "No head of state" (there is space for "No prime minister" or "Same as head of state", but not vice versa for whatever reason), and yes, the emperor does act as a de facto head of state from the point of view of the UN and other such international organizations. The CIA Factbook, similarly, is by no means a reliable source for the bizarre claim that the emperor is a part of the executive branch of government; it is working from a template, and so lacks the relevant nuance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that japanese constitutional experts such as professor emeritus of the constitution Koichi Yokota (consulted by the research commission on the constitution) are of the opinion that Japan is better described as a republic than a monarchy. This is also referred to in the report of the House of Representatives commission. There are actually many different views regarding the topic of a "head of state" of Japan beyond just tennou or none, many of them expressed by the research commissions and the consulted experts: the view that the prime minister is the head of state (内閣総理大臣元首説), the view that the cabinet collegially shares the role of a head of state (内閣元首説), the view that the tennou and the cabinet share the role of a head of state (天皇・内閣元首説), and the view that the speaker of the House of Representatives is the head of state (衆議院議長元首説), among others. In my opinion the de facto is entirely appropriate, since the country is not formally a monarchy and has no clear head of state. Mnd5trm (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I see that the constitution is included as a "source" for the option A, but that's clearly misleading; the constitution does not say the form of government is a "monarchy" or that there is any head of state, which is specifically what the option B intends to inform the reader about. Also, both CIA World Factbook and the "UN protocol list" are quick reference guides and conveniently include a "head of state" for all countries based also on de facto considerations without regard for the specifics of each country's constitution. This is the article "Constitution of Japan", and should not use such quick reference lists to falsely suggest the constitution unambiguously defines the form of government as a "monarchy" or the tennou as a "head of state" (or 国家元首). Mnd5trm (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In A, the Constitution is included as a source for defined as "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People"; not for The Emperor, which is referenced by the other two sources. As previously, the Infobox is also intended to be a "quick reference guide", similar to the CIA & UN sources. The Constitution does define the Emperor, and their role in the government of Japan, in Articles 1-8; it would, therefore, be false & misleading for us to suggest that the position and role of the Emperor is not defined by the Constitution. - Ryk72 talk 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "position and role" of the tennou as defined in the constitution is that of a national symbol under the people's explicit sovereignty, not that of a sovereign monarch or a "head of state". In Japan, there is a general agreement that by being defined solely as a 象徴 without sovereignty or authority, the tennou is not a "君主" or "元首", as the source should make clear.
Even if the infobox is a kind of quick reference guide, that's not an acceptable excuse to completely exclude any mention the important fact that there is 1) little or no scholarship to support the idea that the constitution defines an official "head of state" or a "monarchy", and 2) widespread doubt on the same even among Japanese government officials. This is the article "Constitution of Japan", and should offer the reader accurate information about the topic, even if it takes a few more words. Why are you insisting that important and not too long-winded information be completely removed? How does it improve the article? Mnd5trm (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? - Ryk72 talk 05:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you can read japanese or not, but for an example, here's an article from the "Japan Institute of Constitutional Law" where one expert directly states that the constitution doesn't define a 元首. It's the mainstream view among legal and constitutional scholars in Japan (among others), and is echoed in the statements of the government officials in the source. Here's another expert opinion. Here's a third. How many do you want? Remember that according to WP:V "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter" I also advise you to take a look at the Japanese version of this article, which explains some of the background in detail and directly says "the present constitution does not have provisions relating to a head of state of Japan" (現行憲法には日本の元首に関する規定はない)。 It should be clear that there is plenty enough doubt about the idea of the constitution defining an official "head of state" that the infobox and article should inform the reader appropriately about the fact and certainly not completely exclude it as option A would. Mnd5trm (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think much of these sources, to be honest. The "Japan Institute of Constitutional Law" is a private, not government, organisation; and the piece itself, notwithstanding that it is by a University Professor, is an opinion piece; requiring attribution. (The constitution doesn't define a 元首 is also not the only, nor perhaps the best, translation of "天皇を元首と定める条項はない". "定める条項" is closer to "defining clause" or "prescribing clause"; the meaning then being that there is not an explicit statement in the Constitution, which is not in dispute). The Kisaragi Law Office and Hanamizuki Law Office are personal blogs by lawyers at private legal firms, I see no reason why they should be considered experts on the Constitution. The Hanamizuki Law Office blog, being primarily concerned with advocating for a rationalisation of the two date systems (Emperor & CE), also only provides a passing mention; and fails WP:RSCONTEXT. All three pieces are also clearly advocacy pieces, urging for or against change of some type; and have the same issues as David Smith's commentary on the Australian Constitution; they argue a point of view as basis for a desired outcome.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there are key issues with translation from Japanese language sources. "Head of state" as broadly understood in English and "元首" as broadly understood in Japanese are, while common translated to each other, not congruent. "元首" has an aspect of real executive power which is not present in the English "head of state". - Ryk72 talk 02:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For contrast, here's Akira Ikegami, journalist & university professor, in a partial excerpt from his book "天皇とは何ですか? (What is the Emperor?)", clearly stating that the Emperor is "元首", despite the Constitution not explicitly stating such [5][6]. This directly contradicts the sources by Kristof, Kakinohana et al. But they are all (Ikegami, Kristof, etc) WP:RSOPINION tier; usable for attributed statements of opinion only. I would not suggest that we use any of these as sources for factual statements. - Ryk72 talk 03:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And here's Ichirō Ozawa, the "Shadow Shōgun", stating (in translation): Some want it to be clearly stated that the emperor is the head of state, but the emperor is already the head of state according to the current constitution[7]. If an unknown Shizuoka lawyer's blog is an expert source, then why not Ozawa? - Ryk72 talk 04:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ikegami, both of the linked articles simply include mentions of different "ways of thinking" without an opinion from the author; he is not stating anywhere in the linked articles that the tennou is a 元首 or that he thinks so, but merely that there exists such a line of thought ("という考え方もあります" etc). Perhaps your understanding of the language is imperfect. Furthermore, Ikegami is a professor of *economics*; he is not an authoritative subject matter expert at all, and it's absurd to disregard people with actual law degrees in favor of someone without one.
The expert source specifically states in the following two sentences that although the tennou acts as a national representative towards foreign countries and thus has certain "aspects" (側面) of a head of state, they are not a head of state as far as the organs of state are concerned ("国家機関としての元首ではない"), and the title ("元首化") and the rest of the article ("象徴から国家元首に変える" etc) makes it entirely clear that the expert is saying the tennou is not a head of state or 元首 under the constitution. Regarding the linguistic point, it's worth noting the expert actually translates 元首 as "head of state" in the article. Considering he has a doctorate in law from Stanford, he probably has a reasonably good understanding of the english language and related terminology in both languages. Mnd5trm (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mnd5trm, I think everybody here knows what option you prefer. There's no need to repeat it with text, after text, after text. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input, GoodDay. The previous comment in the chain was especially important, because a potential source was presented to support an argument, but upon examination the linked articles did not contain what was claimed. Had I not replied, editors reading the chain might have been misled to thinking that the articles "directly contradict" the currently used sources, which is not the case at all.
Although I mean no disrespect, considering that the main proponent of A tends to frequently start new sections and subsections and even replied to a discussion from 2005 near the top of the page, perhaps I'm not the only one who should be criticized for "bludgeoning". Mnd5trm (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while to realise that "expert source" here refers to Kakinohana's opinion piece on JICL. The description of this as an expert source is disputed. Kakinohana's background, academic research and teaching is in Criminal Law, not Constitutional Law.[8]. Kakinohana's JICL piece is clearly advocating against constitutional change & against the LDP's 2012 draft constitution - both from the 2013 publication date and in that it specifically mentions the proposed changes to Arts. 9, 13, 96, etc; quoting some verbatim. Kakinohana, a survivor of the Battle of Okinawa, is himself clearly an opponent of change to Article 9; he's listed as a notable supporter of Takara Tetsumi (HoC member, Art. 9 advocate & Henoko base opponent)[9]; and he was heavily involved in the creation of the "命どぅ宝" (Life Treasure??) monument at the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum.[10][11] Kakinohana's JICL piece is a work designed to persuade, not a work of independent scholarly research. The JICL itself is an advocacy organisation which opposes revision of Article 9, popular election of the Prime Minister, structural revision of the Prefectural Governments, and the process of constitutional revision[12][13]. Kakinohana did participate in an open session, in 2002 at Naha, for the House of Representatives Commission on the Constitution[14]. But an open session is an open session, where anyone can participate. I don't see why we should favour his opinion over any of the other participants in the 5 year process, and there are definitely divergent opinions.
The questions which were asked here[15] (and later removed)[16] are important. Relevant policies & guidelines include WP:BIASED, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:RS; and caution us to consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering and to attribute biased sources. An officially published government source (not vague statements attributed to unknown "officials") might be considered authoritative; at least for an official position. An advocacy piece, written by an advocate (there's a lawyer pun there) and published by an advocacy organisation is an attribute-able source, and is not good enough for an authoritative statement of fact, such as the Infobox should contain. There must be better sources; either authoritative enough to be dispositive of any argument, or clearly describing it.
Regarding Ikegami, I missed that clause. But, as I wrote above, none of these sources (Ikegami, Ozawa or any of the 3 suburban lawyers) are usable as authoritative references for statements of fact. They all fall under WP:RSOPINION. - Ryk72 talk 06:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 'clause' is repeated multiple times in both articles. Google Translate and the like indeed seem to misleadingly drop it. Kakinohana does have published works relating to the topic of the constitution, at least "個の尊厳について―憲法の理念と大学改革". Regarding the research commission on the constitution, here is another meeting where a professor (Koichi Yokota, Professor, Faculty of Law, Ryutsu Keizai University, and Professor Emeritus of the Constitution at Kyushu University) is specifically consulted on the topic. Here's some more specifically on this topic. Most participants either state or clearly imply that they think the tennou is not currently a head of state. Of the 16 participants, only 1 states and 3 partly imply that they think the tennou is currently a head of state.
The main point remains that most japanese legal and constitutional experts do not think that the constitution defines a "head of state", and the article should inform the reader properly about that fact. Mnd5trm (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should restore Option A, as the emperor is a constitutional monarch. GoodDay (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What's your opinion on this? Do you believe you are qualified to dispute what he says? Can you read japanese? Mnd5trm (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Ryk72 talk 11:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that an additional source has since been added to the current version of the article (B). Mnd5trm (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it to the RfC question, above. - Ryk72 talk 11:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option A seem less encyclopedic on the verge of unencyclopedic given the actual status and wording found in the constitution. I fully accept, that Japan is a monarchy, but the question is about the emperors exact role in this constitutional system. If he were actually by the 1947 law defined as the "head of state" it gives little or no meaning at all that the LDP proposal from 2012 had as one of it purposes to explicit define the Emperor as the "head of state". We can read about this proposal in the article itself:
»On 27 April 2012, the LDP drafted a new version of amendment with an explanatory booklet for general readers. The booklet states that the spirit of the amendment is to "make the Constitution more suitable for Japan" by "drastically revising the translationese wording and the provisions based on the theory of natural human rights currently adopted in the Constitution". The proposed changes includes:
  • Preamble: In the LDP draft, the Preamble declares that Japan is reigned by the Emperor and adopts the popular sovereignty and trias politica principles. The current Preamble refers to the government as a trust of the people (implying the "natural rights codified into the constitution by the social contract" model) and ensures people "the right to live in peace, free from fear and want", but both mentions are deleted in the LDP draft.
  • Emperor: Overall, the LDP draft adopts a wording that sounds as though the Emperor has greater power than under the current Constitution. For example, the paragraph (4) of Article 6 of the LDP draft requires that the Emperor should obtain the shingen ("advice", especially one given from a subordinate to his superior) from the Cabinet, as opposed to the jogen to shōnin ("advice and approval") as stipulated in the current Constitution, for his all acts in matters of the State. The booklet explains that the reason for this change is because the phrase jogen to shōnin sounds "offensive to the Emperor" (Nihon-koku Kenpou Kaisei Souan Q & A, p. 8). The draft defines him as "the head of the State" (Article 1). The LDP explains that the reason of this change is because the Emperor was formerly defined as "the head of the Empire" in the Article 4 of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Nihon-koku Kenpou Kaisei Souan Q & A, p. 7). Compared to the current Constitution, he is exempted from "the obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution" (Article 102). The draft defines Nisshōki as the national flag and Kimigayo the national anthem (Article 3).«
If we compare with the text of the Meiji Constitution from 1889 we see the dramatic difference between the two constitutions. Since another source have been added to Option B so there is now two independent sources on the matter, I'm pretty confident, that we more or less have come up with the correct wording with option B. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you clearly support Option B then. I agree. Mnd5trm (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option A It's clearly a constitutional monarchy, however it's officially described, and there's no reason to qualify it as "de facto." Being explicitly called a constitutional monarchy isn't needed for it to be one; the British monarchy is one of the archetypal examples, and they don't even have a written constitution (technically if Elizabeth II went mad, she has all sorts of powers she could use as a quasi-absolute monarch; it's just understood that if she did, they'd immediately be taken away from her by parliament). If there is concern about the technicalities of the head of state role, you could replace the "Head of State" line with a "see the section on the emperor link," and expand that section somewhat (with better sourcing than a Nick Kristoff "did you know" blurb). See, e.g. the "Results" section of the Battle of the Coral Sea info box; the results of that battle were too complicated to describe in the normal "X victory" style for that entry, so it just says "See Significance" and links there. Just a Rube (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Just a Rube: To be fair, I could probably agree with a "See the section on the Emperor" or similar; provided we can find some good quality sources to support. - Ryk72 talk 00:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
however it's officially described? Well, that's clearly "de facto" then, isn't it?. This is the article "Constitution of Japan", and the question is whether the *constitution* officially establishes a monarchical form of government or not; omitting the "de facto" would be misleading if it doesn't. According to most expert opinions, including the one currently used in the article (in addition to the newspaper article quoting government officials), the tennou is not a head of state. A monarchy by definition has a specific kind of head of state. According to experts, the constitution of the State of Japan defines the tennou as a strictly non-sovereign national "symbol" rather than a head of state, and the preamble of the constitution explicitly declares that the constitution establishes a government by the sovereign people for the sovereign people without even hinting at a "monarchy" of any kind. The United Kingdom on the other hand is officially a Kingdom, and the existing constitutional and legal documents make clear there is a de jure monarch as the head of state of the Kingdom; there are probably no experts who doubt that fact. It's not a very good comparison. Mnd5trm (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that deleting accurate information supported by expert sources in favor of a simplistic version based on convenient quick reference guides such as "UN protocol list" is a quite drastic act. Before supporting such an act, please familiarize yourself with the currently used sources (including the japanese one), and explain in detail why both of them should be completely ignored and removed in favor of said quick reference guides, and how doing so would improve the article and present the reader with more accurate information about the Constitution of Japan. It should also be remembered that editors favoring the current version (B) are much less likely to come here to comment even if they are the majority. Mnd5trm (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used the UK to indicate that de facto is kind of a weird term to use in describing constitutional monarchies; many constitutional monarchies (especially ones using older or unwritten constitutions) could technically be argued to only be de facto ones. Note also that constitutions explicitly declaring the people to be sovereign are not exclusive of monarchies either; most 19th century and later constitutional monarchies include some variant of that statement (usually echoing the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen's language of saying that sovereignty derives from the "Nation," but some, like Spain, explicitly use "people"). Meanwhile, the office of tennou is explicitly defined in the Constitution of Japan, given explicit governmental powers, and with the method of determining succession also defined. It is absolutely true that the current constitution reduces the status and authority of the tennou compared to the Meiji constitution, but that doesn't make it not a "constitutional monarchy" in the sense in which that term is used in English (which is the relevant criteria for the English Wikipedia). It would be helpful to include more discussion of the complexities of the tennou's status in the Constitution, the reasons for the deliberate change from the Meiji framework, and the resultant controversies, but that belongs in the body. I'd be sympathetic to removing the Head of State line, but I fear people would just add it again without qualification. Honestly, "de facto" might have a place on that line, so long as the bit about "defined as 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people'" remains, though I'd still like a link to the section in the body, suitably expanded. I'll go ahead and leave a note on Wikiproject Japan to get more participation, but I'd contest that supporters of B are more likely to participate than supporters of A Just a Rube (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification at WikiProject Japan. I've also left a message at WikiProject Politics. - Ryk72 talk 04:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the B and object the A. I wasn't major in jurisprudence, but Constitution of Japan lecture was a must. In japanophone jurisprudence, the current state is called "Tennosei" (Tenno System) just because they think the current Constitution offers no basis for think the Emperor as the monarch. hence the status of the state as constitutional monarchy. It might be treated as such de facto specially by other countries and organizations, since constitutionally defined roles of the Emperor quite resemble as such of other constitutional monarchs, but when we argue on precise wording and definition, Japanese legal system don't offer any basis. "The Emperor is the HoS of Japan" is just custom and interpretation, no legal definition. --Aphaia (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Reports on Constitution

  • In the interests of moving forward with the best sources, and given that both houses of the Diet undertook extensive (5 year plus) research into the nature of the Constitution (2000-), could we review & consider the reports coming out of that research? English versions are available - House of Representatives[17], House of Councillors (summary)[18]. - Ryk72 talk 07:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reports mostly concluded that that "opinion was divided". Looking at the sessions, it seems that the majority did not view the tennou as currently being a head of state. For example, in this meeting, most of the 16 participants either state or imply that they do not think the tennou is currently a head of state, while only 1 stated and 3 partly implied the opposite. Here is a meeting where an expert (Professor Emeritus of the Constitution) was consulted on the specific topic. The reports emphasize ambiguity and a division of opinion, and do not support the idea that the constitution defines a head of state or the form of government as a monarchy, and can therefore be considered to be in clearly greater agreement with B than with A. In any case, version/option A with its implication of unambiguity does not appropriately describe the situation. Mnd5trm (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading the article 日本の元首 ("Head of state of Japan") which covers the topic in detail. The research commissions on the constitution are prominently featured, and the various opinions and theories presented. Mnd5trm (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Amendments and revisions to new article

I propose splitting the Amendments and revisions section of this page to a new page titled Constitutional reform in Japan, this has been requested multiple times in Wikiproject Japan and with the controversies surrounding it, I believe it deserves its own page. If you think otherwise, please reply and we can have a conversation to sort it out. Anime King 🎌 (💬) 12:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "East Asia/Southeast Asia : Japan – The World Factbook". www.cia.gov. Retrieved November 23, 2018.
  2. ^ Kakinohana, Hōjun (23 September 2013). "個人の尊厳は憲法の基 ― 天皇の元首化は時代に逆行 ―". Japan Institute of Constitutional Law (in Japanese). Retrieved 2019-10-25.
  3. ^ "The Constitution of Japan". japan.kantei.go.jp. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kristof was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_Japan&oldid=1206779313"