| Revision as of 19:48, 17 March 2009 view sourceTangent747 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers1,463 editsm Reverted edits by Shapir to last revision by Tenmei (HG)← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:25, 21 March 2009 view source Enkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →SandboxesNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ______________ | ______________ | ||
Revision as of 15:25, 21 March 2009
Tenmei (天明) was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. year name) after An'ei and before Kansei. This period spanned the years from 1781 through 1789. The new era name of Tenmei (meaning "dawn") was created to mark the enthronement of Emperor Kōkaku-tennō (光格天皇). The previous era ended and the new one commenced in An'ei 11, on the 2nd day of the 4th month.
How best to make good use of this venue?
I've been reading an unlikely 17th-century Internet book:
- Titsingh, Isaac, ed. (1834). . Nipon o daï itsi ran; ou, Annales des empereurs du Japon, tr. par M. Isaac Titsingh avec l'aide de plusieurs interprètes attachés au comptoir hollandais de Nangasaki; ouvrage re., complété et cor. sur l'original japonais-chinois, accompagné de notes et précédé d'un Aperçu d'histoire mythologique du Japon, par M. J. Klaproth. Paris: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland.--Two digitized examples of this rare book have now been made available online: (1) from the library of the University of Michigan, digitized January 30, 2007; and (2) from the library of Stanford University, digitized June 23, 2006. Click here to read the original text in French.
My current plan is to continue posting some of what I learn from the Annales des empereurs du Japon -- primarily in nengō-related and in tennō-related Wiki-stubs in English and French, but sometimes in other areas as well. I anticipate that the initial phase of this project is likely to continue through mid-2010.
Sandboxes
______________
- Hokkaidō
- Honshū
- Kyūshū
- Shikoku
- Senkaku
- Takeshima
- Sado
- Tsushima
- User:Tenmei/Sandbox/x
- User:Tenmei/Sandbox/y
______________
_______________
_______________
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -- Marie Curie
|
WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award | |
- Yamada, Kuniaki. Power and Rule in the Kanto Region During the Muromachi Period : Hoko-shu in Attendence at Kamakura-Fu (鎌倉府の奉公衆). The Historical Society of Japan. Shigaku zasshi. 96:3, 310-341, 412-413. Abstract.
- 日本穣 = nuance?
Standards of behaviour
A. City of Stonington, Victoria: Toorak Bowling Club
B. Australian Parliament: Chpt. 14, Control and Conduct of Debate; Rules Governing Content of Speeches
- Reflections on the House and votes of the House:
- The standing orders provide that offensive words may not be used against the House of Representatives. It has been considered unbecoming to permit offensive expressions against the character and conduct of the House to be used by a Member without rebuke, as such expressions may serve to degrade the legislature in the eyes of the people. Thus, the use of offensive words against the institution by one of its Members should not be overlooked by the Chair.
- A Member must not reflect adversely on a vote of the House, except on a motion that it be rescinded. Under this rule a proposed motion of privilege, in relation to the suspension of two Members from the House in one motion, was ruled out of order as the vote could not be reflected upon except for the purpose of moving a rescission motion. A Member, speaking to the question that a bill be read a third time, has been ordered not to reflect on votes already taken during consideration of the bill, and a Member has been ordered not to canvass decisions of the House of the same session. This rule is not interpreted in such a way as to prevent a reasonable expression of views on matters of public concern.
- Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.
- The standing orders contain prohibitions against the use of words which are considered to be offensive (the two Houses of the Parliament, Members and Senators and members of the judiciary being specifically protected— see below ). The determination as to whether words used in the House are offensive or disorderly rests with the Chair, and the Chair’s judgment depends on the nature of the word and the context in which it is used.
- A Member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in somebody else’s mouth, or in the course of a quotation.
- It is the duty of the Chair to intervene when offensive or disorderly words are used either by the Member addressing the House or any Member present. When attention is drawn to a Member’s conduct (including his or her use of words), the Chair determines whether or not it is offensive or disorderly.
- Once the Chair determines that offensive or disorderly words have been used, the Chair asks that the words be withdrawn. It has been considered that a withdrawal implies an apology 6 and need not be followed by an apology unless specifically demanded by the Chair. The Chair may ask the Member concerned to explain the sense in which the words were used and upon such explanation the offensive nature of the words may be removed. If there is some uncertainty as to the words complained of, for the sake of clarity, the Chair may ask exactly what words are being questioned. This action avoids confusion and puts the matter clearly before the Chair and Members involved.
- The Chair has ruled that any request for the withdrawal of a remark or an allusion considered offensive must come from the Member reflected upon, if present and that any request for a withdrawal must be made at the time the remark was made. This latter practice was endorsed by the House in 1974 when it negatived a motion of dissent from a ruling that a request for the withdrawal of a remark should be made at the time the remark was made. However, the Speaker has later drawn attention to remarks made and called on a Member to apologise, or to apologise and withdraw. Having been asked to withdraw a remark a Member may not do so ‘in deference to the Chair’, must not leave the Chamber and must withdraw the remark immediately, in a respectful manner, unreservedly and without conditions or qualifications. Traditionally Members have been expected to rise in their places to withdraw a remark. If a Member refuses to withdraw or prevaricates, the Chair may name the Member for disregarding the authority of the Chair. The Speaker has also directed, in special circumstances, that offensive words be omitted from the Hansard record.
- In the Chamber and the Main Committee Members may not be referred to by name, but by the name of their electoral division, or by the title of their parliamentary or ministerial office. The purpose of this rule is to make debate less personal and avoid the direct confrontation of Members addressing one another as ‘you’. A degree of formality helps the House remain more dignified and tolerant when political views clash and passions may be inflamed. However, it is the practice of the House that, when appointments to committees or organisations are announced by the Speaker or a Minister, the name of a Member is used.
- Offensive words may not be used against any Member and all imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members are considered to be highly disorderly. The practice of the House, based on that of the House of Commons, is that Members can only direct a charge against other Members or reflect upon their character or conduct upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Although a charge or reflection upon the character or conduct of a Member may be made by substantive motion, in expressing that charge or reflection a Member may not use unparliamentary words. This practice does not necessarily preclude the House from discussing the activities of any of its Members. 8 It is not in order to use offensive words against, make imputations against, or reflect on another Member by means of a quotation or by putting words in someone else’s mouth.
- In judging offensive words the following explanation given by Senator Wood as Acting Deputy President of the Senate in 1955 is a useful guide:
- . . . in my interpretation of standing order 418 , offensive words must be offensive in the true meaning of that word. When a man is in political life it is not offensive that things are said about him politically. Offensive means offensive in some personal way. The same view applies to the meaning of ‘‘improper motives’’ and “personal reflections’’ as used in the standing order. Here again, when a man is in public life and a member of this Parliament, he takes upon himself the risk of being criticised in a political way.
- It has also been regarded as disorderly to refer to the lack of sobriety of a Member, to imitate the voice or manner of a Member and to make certain remarks in regard to a Member’s stature or physical attributes. Although former Members are not protected by the standing orders, the Chair has required a statement relating to a former Member to be withdrawn and on another occasion has regarded it as most unfair to import into debate certain actions of a Member then deceased.
- May classifies examples of expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference as:
- the imputation of false or unavowed motives;
- the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation;
- charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood; and
- abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.
- Australian Speakers have followed a similar approach. An accusation that a Member has lied or deliberately misled is clearly an imputation of an improper motive. Such words are ruled out of order and Members making them ordered to withdraw their remarks. The deliberate misleading of the House is a serious matter which could be dealt with as a contempt, and a charge that a Member has done so should only be made by way of a substantive motion.
- In accordance with House of Commons practice, for many years it was ruled that remarks which would be held to be offensive, and so required to be withdrawn, when applied to an identifiable Member, did not have to be withdrawn when applied to a group where individual Members could not be identified. This rule was upheld by distinct votes of the House. This did not mean, however, that there were no limits to remarks which could be made reflecting on unidentified Members. For example, a statement that it would be unwise to entrust certain unnamed Members with classified information was required to be withdrawn, and Speaker Aston stated that exception would be taken to certain charges, the more obvious of which were those of sedition, treason, corruption or deliberate dishonesty. Speaker Snedden supported this practice when he required the withdrawal of the term ‘a bunch of traitors’ and later extended it:
- The consequence is that I have ruled that even though such a remark may not be about any specified person the nature of the language is unparliamentary and should not be used at all.
- In the past there has been a ruling that it was not unparliamentary to make an accusation against a group as distinct from an individual. That is not a ruling which I will continue. I think that if an accusation is made against members of the House which, if made against any one of them, would be unparliamentary and offensive, it is in the interests of the comity of this House that it should not be made against all as it could not be made against one. Otherwise, it may become necessary for every member of the group against whom the words are alleged to stand up and personally withdraw himself or herself from the accusation . . . I ask all honourable members to cease using unparliamentary expressions against a group or all members which would be unparliamentary if used against an individual.
- This practice has been followed by succeeding Speakers.
- The use of offensive gestures has been deprecated by the Speaker. It would be open to the Speaker to direct a Member to leave the Chamber or to name a Member for such behaviour.
- "Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice" (abstract), The Journal of Business Communication. January 1, 2004.
- Misplaced Pages:Process is important
Yushima Seidō
:GA review (see here for criteria) -- copied from Talk:Charter Oath
- 1. It is well written
- 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable
- 3. It is broad in its coverage
- 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
- 5. It is stable
- 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic
- One trap is not modeling it correctly—not modeling it according to object-oriented principles.
- It is easy to model things incorrectly in XML. As an example, XML has no formal relation between a parent element and a child element.
- I can have “person” as a parent element, and a child element could be “hair color.” But I could just as easily have a child element be “works for.”
- “Works for” and “hair color” are very different things. “Hair color” is intrinsic to the person and cannot be separated from that person. But “works for” is not intrinsic to a person and can change from time to time.
- If you model these things on object-oriented principles, then intrinsic characteristics should be attributes instead of sub-elements. Why? An element cannot be separated from intrinsic attributes.
- Scenic panorama in Asakusa Park, Tokyo: image & advertisement (in Japanese)
Fg2:Undoing an edit about a posthumous name and a shrine. Can't find mention of it in Japanese Misplaced Pages. It would be a welcome addition with a reliable source.
Remembering
Those who tried to help
... and those who did not
- No: User:LordAmeth ≠ AGF, User:Nick Dowling ≠ V
- Blocked from talk page
- No: User:Caspian blue ≠ WP:C
- No: User:Caspian blue ≠ WP:AGF
- Category:Logical fallacies
Wikicode
- <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2025-01-06 |quote= |publisher= }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite court |litigants= |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court= |date= |url= |quote= |accessdate=2025-01-06 |}}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite journal |url= |title= | last = | first = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = |accessdate=2025-01-06 |quote= |work= }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |quote= | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |work=] |date= |accessdate=2025-01-06 }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |work=] |date= |accessdate=2025-01-06 }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |work=] |date= |accessdate=2025-01-06 }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |work=] |date= |accessdate=2025-01-06 }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last= |first= |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |encyclopedia= |title= |url= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |date= |year= |month= |publisher= |volume= |location= |id= |isbn= |doi= |pages= |quote= | accessdate=2025-01-06 }}</ref>
- <ref>{{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | date = | year = | month = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = | location = | issn = | pmid = | doi = | bibcode = | oclc = | id = | url = | language = | format = | accessdate = | laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</ref>
- Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, pp. 420-421.