Talk:Seventeen-article constitution

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Japan: History Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Politics Mid‑importance This 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

There is a NPOV dispute going on at

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 "

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216163441/http://www.sarudama.com/japanese_history/jushichijokenpo.shtml to http://www.sarudama.com/japanese_history/jushichijokenpo.shtml

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.

• 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)[reply]