Talk:Constitutional monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Emperor of Japan[edit]

First of all, I kindly ask Mediatech492 not to revert all of my edits when she or he disagrees with only one. Reverting orthography fixes is ridiculous and disruptive. Secondly, if there is a problem with referring to the monarchs of Japan as emperors, take it to Talk:Emperor of Japan. Insisting here that the monarch of Japan is not an emperor, while he is called an emperor in dozens of more relevant articles, is quite silly. Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You may want to cease your own aggressive WP:OR pushing on such an easily disproven fact. The Japanese sovereign is called "Tennu", and the word "Emperor" does not exist in the Japanese language. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mediatech492: That doesn’t matter, to give you an example, various Indian monarchs were not literally titled ‘emperor’, but, are retrospectively referred to as ‘emperors’ in English-language sources.
Please also see WP:COMMONNAMES]; the Japanese monarch is titled the Emperor of Japan by a majority—if not all—of reliable sources, so there really is any reason for you to remove the statement regarding Japan being the only remaining country to have an emperor. If you still have any issues, please first direct them to the talk page for the Japanese emperor/monarch and acquire a consensus there before doing anything here.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course the word "emperor" does not exist in Japanese language. It does not exist in any language other than English. You may be surprised to learn that the word "Japan" does not exist in Japanese either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
So your fallacious reasoning is, that since people use the wrong word a lot then that make the wrong word correct. Very well, since you insist on being an idiot I won't bother you any further. 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talkcontribs)
@Mediatech492: I think you meant to reply to me, so here goes nothing:

So your fallacious reasoning is, that since people use the wrong word a lot then that make the wrong word correct.

Nope, my reasoning is that reliable sources translate the word, ‘tenno’, as ‘emperor’, so, we are bound to use that translation. It’s not wrong, it’s English, the language doesn’t have a direct translation for ‘tenno’ in much the same way as Japanese doesn’t have a direct translation for ‘emperor’. Wikipedia is bound to call a thing by the name with which reliable sources call it (WP:COMMONNAME). What you’re proposing is—quite ironically—original synthesis.

Very well, since you insist on being an idiot I won't bother you any further.

I don’t think that I am being the idiot here, I would again request you to first take all this to Talk:Emperor of Japan before protesting the Japanese monarch’s status here.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC); edited 23:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC) and 14:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

Start of the UK section[edit]

The current UK section starts with the Glorious Revolution. However, since 1325 both houses of Parliament have had to be called to pass new taxes. This shows that restraints have been placed on the English Monarch since the 14th century. Would it therefore be worth adding to this section constraints on the monarchy in England from before any form of Union between England and Scotland given that it is an example of constitutional constrains on the monarchs in the territory that would become a part of the UK and was a practice carried on into the UK's constitution?

Given the large scale nature of the change to this article that I am proposing, I will wait for comments from the community and will only move to change this situation if there is support for this change. Nerdfighter Reed (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Finding Citations to discuss different types of constitutional monarchy[edit]

There are no academic sources in this article on what the threshold between a constitutional monarchy where the monarch possesses actual executive power and actively participates in governance from an absolute monarchy, or what separates such a constitutional monarchy from a purely ceremonial one.

Neither the older term in this article, Executive Constitutional Monarchy, nor Semi-Constitutional Monarchy, have been backed up by citations yet. Rather than deleting the section on executive constitutional monarchy again, I think it would be prudent to search for those sources, make edits backed up by new citations, and rewrite that section. If this rewrite is too lengthy, it could be summarized and linked to a new page on the topic. There must be some political science literature on this subject. If an existing term has precedent in a political science journal article, it should be used over other terms. If no such term exists, literature on the subject would still exist, and if Wikipedia ultimately must give this concept a name because it is yet unnamed in academic sources, executive constitutional monarchy seems more sensible than "semi-constitutional" - ByronicPhoenix (talkcontribs) 08:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)