Wikipedia

Talk:Daijō-kan

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Archaic French translit

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your contributions to this and many other pages... I wonder, however, how relevant these women are to the Department of State? Perhaps this information should be moved instead to an article on the Court? One way or the other, I also think it would be great if they could be converted to modern modified Hepburn romanized forms. Thanks. LordAmeth 08:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The woman's hierarchy is easily removed. Your point is well taken. Perhaps it might seem worth re-visiting at some point in the future. Ooperhoofd 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. It's certainly very interesting information, I'm just not sure if it belongs in this article. LordAmeth 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Query

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't understand the line, "though it is not clear when the system was formally dismantled." I wasn't aware that the system ever was dismantled until Meiji times, just marginalised as the Imperial court grew increasingly distant from governance? Furius 07:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have a point, of course. My first-blush response was much like yours when I encountered this curious verb-choice. If you quickly scan the history logs for this page (and for Sadaijin and Udaijin as well), you'll find that LordAmeth used this precise verb -- "dismantle" -- in the initial 2005 text of each linked article. Like you, I did wonder if a different verb would be better; however, when I consulted an online dictionary, the etymology convinced me that this specific word was elegant in its precision.
You can see for yourself that each of these 2005 articles reference Sir George Sansom. Now that you bring this up, I recall that I had planned to look into this a bit further, just to see whether credit for an extraordinarily well-chosen verb should be attributed to LordAmeth or to Sir George. Other matters distracted my attention, and then I forgot about it. These things happen. Your terse query refreshed my memory of that delight in discovering how one simple word could lead towards a more subtle understanding of the pre-Meiji court and its corollaries. --Ooperhoofd 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
dis·man·tle (dĭs-măn'tl) pronunciation [tr.v., -tled, -tling, -tles]....link to alternate definitions
  • 1. (1) To take apart; disassemble; tear down.
    • (2) To put an end to in a gradual systematic way: dismantling the cumbersome regulations for interstate trucking.
  • 2. To strip of furnishings or equipment: dismantled the house before knocking it down.
  • 3. To strip of covering or clothing.
[Obsolete French desmanteler, to raze fortifications round a town, from Old French : des-, dis- + (em)manteler, to cover with a coat, shelter (ultimately from mantel, cloak; see mantle).]
I don't know if this is precisely what I was referencing earlier, but here's a quote from Sansom: "... the Court ranks, which were set forth in detail in the earliest codes of law and remained without substantial change until the reforms of 1868, when some parts of the system were abolished or fell into disuse." (p170) ... "As the power of the Fujiwara Regents increased, the functions of the ministries diminished in importance ... the posts of departmental ministers and higher civil servants took on more and more a formal character, and many appointments became empty honours, conferring rank and title but not executive authority." (pp172-3) . There ought to be other bits in here somewhere more explicitly stating the fate of the Court system as the Kamakura or Ashikaga shogunate took over, but I don't see those here just now. I'll have to look into it further. All told, I get the impression that the system was nominally kept intact, though powers and responsibilities were gradually lost/taken away, and that many posts were likely likewise gradually removed. LordAmeth 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bold font?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 Kugyō. If the fonts are not appropriate there, then I'd guess they should be modified in this context as well?

Any thoughts? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Simplification

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

This article's list style is extremely unwieldy, and not very useful, IMO.

It could be simplified greatly by simply stating that each ministry, etc. has kami (長官), suke (次官), jou (判官) and sakan (主典). Another section could be given at the bottom to explain that different kanji may be used. I.e., in the case of "kami":

  • 太政官 =「大臣」
  • 神祇官=「伯」
  • 省=「卿」
  • 弾正台=「尹」
  • 坊・職=「大夫」
  • 寮=「頭」
  • 司=「正」
  • 近衛府=「大将」
  • 兵衛府・衛門府など=「督」
  • 国=「守」

Bueller 007 (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm just not sure about this. While Bueller 007 proposed simplification has attractive merit, but I'm not convinced that a Deming-style approach to improving the efficient utility of this specific article (and other similar articles) wouldn't be missing the point a little (see Talk:Kugyō#The list).
Could it be that the very factors which Bueller 007 would eviscerate as exemplars of unwieldy redundancy are, in fact, amongst the greatest undervalued strengths of this small contribution to an evolving and improving Wikipedia as a 21st century phenomenon?
I propose that we leave these matters until after the first of the year -- noting clearly Bueller 007's continuing objection to what is admittedly a very dry list at this point. To be quite frank, I'd prefer to exempt this article from such reductionist tactics until January '09, thus giving other editors a broad window of opportunity to work with the intrinsic value of the material presented in article ... and perhaps the allure in Bueller 007's simplification strategy will be seen to ripen -- or not.
Personally, I think not. I think that what I understand of this approach is exactly the wrong way to go. For instance, the thrust of recent bakuhan historiography has not become a narrative catalog of movements from complexity to simplicity; and I'm persuaded that Yata No Kagami is not the only mirror of great value in Japanese history.
Whether attributed to LordAmeth or to Sir George Sansom, the verb "dismantle" will have a place of prominence in any discussions which may ensue here. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Plagiarism

edit

Aha, Bueller 007 -- this did catch my attention. That was the point, right?
Did you want to amplify this crisp commentary, or do I simply consider it to have been part of an odd series of what I gather are characteristically intemperate outbursts?

  • (cur) (last) 08:33, 21 December 2007 Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) m (35,947 bytes) (→Council of State - if you're basically just going to plagiarize this french reference word for word and point for point, at least try to get the kanji & transliterations right) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 10:10, 21 December 2007 Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (35,637 bytes) (→II. Ministry of Civil Services - readding #47 & #48 as a reminder to clean up this silly plagiarized numbering system) (undo)

What am I supposed to make of this?

One thing is certain: I'll no longer give you the benefit of doubt in anything to do with English usage. Nah, that's over. Whatever you may have intended, the result was sloppy. A mistake, yes -- but primarily sloppy, bad form from someone who presumably knows better.

If you don't know what the word "plagiarism" means, I'd urge you to consult the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary which will help you understand connotative and denotative meanings in an etymological context. But frankly, I don't expect that will happen. No, probably not.

You're not pushing the right buttons if your goal is to win friends and influence people.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Bueller 007 has over-reached here and elsewhere:
I'm no longer inclined to extend any benefit of a doubt. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Getting back to the point

edit

Hm. I thank Ooperhoofd for giving me the heads-up on this, and for thinking of me, for thinking that I might have something worthwhile to contribute. Unfortunately, I am finding it quite difficult to figure out what exactly the question is, the issue being obscured by Ooperhoofd's excessively formal and academic language.

If the question is simply whether or not this giant unwieldy list of positions within the Ministries should be kept or deleted, I think that the best thing to do is to keep these lists on the individual separate pages for the individual ministries. That way the information is kept where it is most relevant, and this massive list can thus be split up and made to no longer dominate this here Daijō-kan article, which looks quite unbalanced with such a giant list following the comparatively short main section.

But then that's just my own opinion. If we can put aside the name calling and make an effort to be more patient when it comes to assuming good faith, etc, I think we might be able to discuss this issue (that is, the issue itself, and not character judgments of your fellow editors) like educated and mature adults. LordAmeth (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow, LordAmeth said what I was going to say here. (i) We probably want to have in wikipedia lists of posts in the imperial court, just like courts in other countries or modern governments. (ii) The presentation can be improved; reducing the unwieldiness of the lists, for instance. Having stand-alone articles on each ministry seems no-brainer, and is probably overdue. I'm hoping some experts come along and do that (my speciality is math :)), but that usually doesn't happen in wikipedia. Anyway, what's an issue here? -- Taku (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Although the reasoning for breaking up this article is undeniably sound, the fact-of-the matter is that the genesis of this too-obvious suggestion is grounded in a 21st century notion of what a good Wikipedia article should be. Conventionally, that would present no problem at all. However, there is an implicit post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in the tempting argument for simplifying the unwieldy parts of this subject. I'm concerned about moving along too quickly.
I would favor leaving the clumsy awkwardness of this subject (and the article) substantially intact for a few months or so -- till June 2008 perhaps, when we can re-visit the important question of dismantling the list [see here -- above]. In the meantime, the process of creating and expanding stand-alone articles on each ministry, as suggested above, can and should proceed with all deliberate speed [see here and here, but not Ministry of Finance (Japan), for example]. The work on these articles -- and whatever may happen in decision-making about other possible articles about some of the offices within these ministries -- may well take six months or more. A quick glance at the edit history reveals something of the hard-slogging work which built from the foundation User:LordAmeth created for us in 2005.
In Spring '08, any further discussion about how to re-format this article (and about how not to do the job) will be better informed.
My concern here is something a bit beyond worrying about throwing the baby out with the bath water. I suspect that what LordAmeth correctly describes as "unwieldy" may need to be illustrated by example, because the gravamen of the article is too far removed from our contemporary, fast-paced, Internet-savvy weltanschauung. This awkward yardstick may be a necessary Wikipedia tool, not only for better appreciating ebb and flow of Imperial influence and power. I wonder if this backdrop does in fact serve a plausible purpose for Wikipedia users who might be trying to come to terms with the evolution of bakufuan bureaucratic hierarchies. The transition from a Kamakura-devised schema to the only-slightly modified iterations under the Ashikaga shogunate, for instance, were very much informed by the Imperial model. Taking a different example, I wonder if maybe this unbalanced construct needs to persist, if only as an immediately accessible context for Wikipedia users who might want to know more about the Edo period evolution of the Kyoto Shoshidai or other bugyō.
I don't mean to sound like a neo-Luddite, and I fear that my approach to this dull subject may not seem compelling enough; but there you have it. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
It seems a much simpler matter than you make it out to be. I really like the new template. It looks great, connects these articles thematically (well, in terms of the appearance/format of the articles), and helps greatly to facilitate travel (i.e. linking) between these articles. The next step is to create articles for each of the Ministries, and to include the relevant lists within those separate articles. I agree completely that showing the evolution of the system through the various great changes in Japanese history is important, and very interesting, but I don't think that the list as it stands really serves that purpose. In writing articles about the various Ministries, I trust that that evolution will be discussed and become more apparent. Thank you very much for your understanding, and as always for your tireless efforts and hard work. LordAmeth (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Whatever good which might have attended a discussion here is best held in abeyance pending whatever develops from inquiries at WP:WQA. In this context, I take some comfort in learning from HelloAnnyong that, at the higher levels of dispute resolution, both users come under scrutiny. I'm quite confident that my entire editing history can withstand close scrutiny. I can't see how User:Bueller 007 can feel similarly at ease with the prospect of a too-revealing examination. --Tenmei (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Daijō-kan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daijō-kan&oldid=1201324683"