Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added South Korea

[edit]

I added South Korea as a country having an "anti-Japanese sentiment" and offers this article from South Korea as an evidence.

Koreans Reject Japanese Culture As 'Patriotic Wind' Sweeps Nation

Revth 19:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anti Japanese sentiment in China

[edit]

It should be noted that some of the anti Japanese sentiment in China exists because history is not taught impartially in China and there is a lot of re hashing of old atrocities, keeping old animosities alive that have been laid to rest in other countries.

China still holds officially sanctioned protests against Japanese atrocities.

Chinese textbooks also use language that is considered unacceptable in Western school books and are written to engender ill feeling rather than to provide an historic view from an open perspective.

Rape and murder brings out such animosity in some people! Nelson Ricardo July 2, 2005 23:43 (UTC)
as of now, the atrocities commited all over asia are remembered not because of some textbook, but many adults today listened to their grandparents 1st hand account, for all of them tend to give the same account of similiar incident whether they were in china or not. just ask Singapore's 1st prime minister, he was almost deadmeat but he manage to escape the round up. the japanese targetted chinese everywhere they can find, it was no different from holocaust (except there were more chinese than jew so we as a race wasn't in as bad a shape). (during WWII) they fear us, (actually it is more like) their troop hate us because "we" resisted them. in their commanders opinion, it didn't matter if we were really part of the resistance, a mistaken killing is better than a mistaken release. the american should know just how fanatic they were during WWII, didn't feel like invading japan like it did with germany. japan of today is very much different, and i hope they will continue their peaceful coexistant; i don't mind if they normalize their military, as long as they stop trying to claim land (it is unconditional surrender and promise to return all land before the conflict, japan somehow manage to claim island a few days before... lol!?), if only as a sign of goodwill for having taken so much and not having to pay compensation (which China have technically accepted, since it is the only way to get japan to recognised them; you would have to blame China if you want to pursuit this? :P) i talk too much, this is my opinion only; i leave u do your own research, understanding each other is the 1st step in fixing the world. Akinkhoo (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News of relations with other countries

[edit]

I will try to add more. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 04:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add more news stories if you find them. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 04:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs referencing. Bobo12345 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what lessons?

[edit]

While a citation is given, it's in Japanese and I'm not sure what is meant when it's suggested that Japan changed its policy due to 'lessons' from the Gulf War. What exactly are these 'lessons?' No further explanation is given.

"During the Cold War, Japanese foreign policy was not self-assertive, relatively focused on their economic growth. However the end of the Cold War and bitter lessons from the Gulf War changed the policy slowly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.217.63 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Grammer

[edit]

The grammer in this article is absolutely terrible. Ill try to clean it up, but the entire article needs to be re-done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.132.76 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're fairly sure this should be done by someone who can't spell grammar? Chris 03:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar as a word does not matter, im talking about basic skills, i did alot of it, you should be thanking me, not insulting me. -"Der Kaiser"

To continue, i cut down on most of the article, this is foreign relations, not countries that can attack Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.132.76 (talk • contribs)

Comments like that arent very helpful, Chris. Please do not bite the newcomers. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not biting, just pointing out that users shouldn't make grandiose statements like "absolutely terrible" and then have spelling errors in their rather vain postings. New users should be as responsible as anyone posting here. Chris 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did i fix the article? Yes. So shut it.-Der Kaiser

Harris/Hotta 1857

[edit]

I stumbled across this interesting link, but it's not quite developed enough for inclusion in the article -- not yet.

The web page identifies a reference source: "Foreign Relations of the U.S., Series 1902, 1879." The "Foreign Relations Series" comprises collections of official papers relating to United States foreign relations, including diplomatic correspondence both to and from foreign governments and their representatives and to and from U.S. representatives abroad. The series is more fully described here. In my view, this potentially illuminating excerpt needs to be placed in a better context. My guess would be that a little more needs to be done by checking this index:

  • Hasse, Adelaide R. Index to United States documents relating to foreign affairs, 1828-1861. Washington, DC: Carnegie Inst., 1914-21. 3v.

I suppose this further research could be incorporated into a number of other related articles, e.g., Townsend Harris, Treaty of Amity and Commerce (United States-Japan), Ii Naosuke, etc.? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Two Countries: South Korea and China?

[edit]

Was there any research actually done by the person who posted that these are the only two countries who didn't see the resurgence of Japan's influence as positive? I don't have to research to know that North Korea should be at the top of the list along with several other Asian countries that were invaded and raped by Japan in WWII. MPA 146.235.130.52 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed WikiProject - Bilateral relations

[edit]

There is now a upstart WikiProject to establish a concensus about WP's International bilateral relations articles, including "X-Y (country) relations" articles, at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Interested parties should add their names at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force if they wish to play a part in the discussions or have an Interest in this going forward. Thank you for your attention. CaribDigita (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-argument to irredentism

[edit]

As the subject of this sub-heading develops, perhaps a sub-article may be considered?

Perhaps part or all of the table would be a good addition to Senkaku Islands or Senkaku Islands dispute? At present, both are locked. --Tenmei (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not use this page as a substitute for additions you would like to make to Senkaku Islands dispute. This is a summary of foreign relations of Japan, not a place to list documents that support Japan's claims to one specific disputed set of islands (of , which Japan has several) and disputed territory is just one minor aspect of Japan's overall foreign relations. There's a reason why we have articles on different topics. Adding this information here is completely inappropriate. If you think it's a good addition to the SI articles, propose it there. Don't try and do an end run around the page locking by adding information to other places. Adding this info here is pretty strong evidence that you're trying to use Wikipedia not as an online encyclopedia, but to push a particular POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian -- NO, your words are acknowledged.

Characteristically, your opinion is bolstered by neither research nor citations.

In contrast, this table has both -- including the explicit links to the MOFA webpage which identifies an approach to foreign relations which you feign not to understand -- see "Image" column. Since you demonstrate that you are either unable or unwilling to ask questions about this, your judgement becomes dubious. You are welcome to express an opinion about what you believe is appropriate or relevant in this article or any article, but it is only that -- your opinion. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't think the table belongs here. Even if it does, it seems pretty POV. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the table is researched, and even verified, is only part of the picture. For example, I can verify, using the MOFA website itself, that Japan sent a team of disaster specialists to Christchurch to aid in earthquake assistance. Does that mean I can add it to this article? In terms of vertical space (measured by counting the number of pages that display), the table you just added takes up more than 5% of this article. Does that seem like an appropriate use of space here, given that there exists an article covering this exact same topic into which that table (maybe) could go? The table is POV in two different ways: 1) It implies, simply by its size and format, that the Senkaku Islands (plus the one line about Liancourt Rocks) are an extremely important part of Japanese foreign relations. 2) It presents only the Japanese arguments, without balancing arguments on the other side. In an article about Japanese foreign relations, it is appropriate to discuss the disputes; it's even appropriate to state Japan's side in those disputes. It's not appropriate to attempt to make a massive visual argument about who is "right". This page is not and cannot be an extension of MOFA to argue its points about any given topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added some proper templates to that section. Given the discussions we had in the Senkaku Islands dispute (where discussion of this table should've been at), I believe ALL the templates I added are proper and thus should remain there until the table is fixed (unlikely) or deleted. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I will correct myself. Some of the templates appear to be article-specific. The section-specific ones should still stay however. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just took out three; fancruft only applies to info about fictional works (trivial details not of encyclopedic interest). POV check and POV section are essentially the same thing, except that the former is a little softer by saying "There may be a POV problem with this section, but I'm not sure, so please check it," while the latter asserts it with certainty. Cleanup-rewrite is for sections/articles whose English is jumbled or confused, which I don't see any justification for here. I don't have any problem understanding the section's point, I just find that point to be at best mislocated and at worst POV. Qwyrxian (talk)
Fair enough. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging NINE tags added in one sub-section only. --Tenmei (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section listing and showing all the various documents as giving undue weight to the documents within the article. The documents should instead be referenced within the article. Also, Qwyrxian, I think you went quite a bit overboard with your excessive tagging of that section. Please show a little restraint next time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who added the tags. Even though it may seem excessive, they all apply. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misread the diff, then. I apologize, Qwyrxian. As for the tags, having nine of them on one section is beyond excessive. It would be better to simply use one or two more broadly-applicable tags and then add all of your concerns here on the talk page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, point taken. I will keep 3 as the magic number in the future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong flag

[edit]

There's a British flag and it says "United Kingdom" when it comes to "Japan-Argentina relations". The text is about Argentina, not the UK, so I assume the flag is wrong. Can somebody please change that?--190.48.83.125 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the description that's wrong, notice this is in the "Europe" section, I think there's a broken field or something which is damaging the table a bit. m w (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor[reply]

Yes, it is quite strange. I've noticed that the Argentinian Formal Relations Beginning date is in the UK slot, and it starts from there. This appears to have started due to this edit (compared to the previous revision). This also appears to hide the entire Africa section. I've been looking into the problem and I've found that a similar problem occurred even earlier on with Azerbaijan and Iran's description as well (compare how it should be to the current revision; not sure after which edit that this particular problem occurs). --NotYouHaha! (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Foreign relations of Japan

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foreign relations of Japan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mfat":

  • From Tuvalu: "New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)". Retrieved 1 September 2010.
  • From Foreign relations of Mongolia: "LIST OF STATES WITH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS". Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  • From Kiribati: "New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)". Retrieved 10 September 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose or tables?

[edit]

Currently there are some inconsistency on the format and style of this article, some are written in prose while some parts; such as Europe, South America, and West Asia are in tables. Recently a new unlogged unidentified user (from his/her IP identified was hail from China) tried to migrate the rest of the content to table format, although his/her efforts seems to be too clumsy and prone to mistakes. So which style shall we make for this article? Prose or tables? personally I prefer prose, since tables often over-simplify prose to just some collection of short points, and somebody might easily vandalize the column of the table, esp the date when the diplomatic relations established. So what do you think guys?Gunkarta (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Kennedy

[edit]

The statements Caroline Kennedy made to the Senate have absolutely no relevance to this article. First of all the statements were made while Kennedy had no official connection to Japan or its foreign relations--this is essentially the same as saying that we would not include comments by someone running for the office of US President in this article, as they would not actually have a direct effect on those relations. Second, the statements were purely speculative in nature--since Kennedy was not in the job at the time, she cannot state with certainty what actions she will take, especially since an ambassador does not have pure discretion in her/his actions.

Now, after Kennedy takes the job, if she says something that demonstrates a marked or important change in US-Japanese relations, then we could consider including them. To be honest, we still probably wouldn't--we shouldn't be just including any comment made by any random ambassador to or from Japan. We have to focus on major policies, major issues (positive or negative, connection or conflict), not the speeches given by diplomats. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your perspective, but it would help if you could clarify who "we" actually is. Who is this mysterious "we" that you write of? Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "we" in the sense of what all good Wikipedia editors should do. "We" Wikipedia editors should be careful to focus on major aspects of subjects, not small details. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and I will continue to monitor this situation in relation to the page. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Foreign relations 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:

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

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Foreign relations 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:

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) 21:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Foreign relations 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:

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) 11:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign relations 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:

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) 20:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_Japan&oldid=1206758214"