Talk:Taft–Katsura agreement

message: The opening description within a few lines says that this was "not an agreement" an inordinate number of times when one would suffice. I will reduce it to ONE mention which is all it takes. Apologetics too much? It will remain saying it was not a formal agreement, but it is absolutely unnecessary to repeat it in every sentence (which also sounds suspicious) --201.176.156.204 (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A not agreement which is not an agreement and not an agreement 

message: "The Taft-Katsura Agreement was a secret agreement signed between William Howard Taft, United States Secretary of War, and Katsura Taro, Prime Minister of Japan in July 1905." This sentence is slightly confusing. In my opinion, it should read, "The Taft-Katsura Agreement was a secret agreement signed between William Howard Taft (United States Secretary of War), and Katsure Taro (Prime Minister of Japan) in July, 1905." If anyone else agrees, please let me know or change it yourself. Thanks!--ViolinGirl 21:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ;well there was no agreement at all. Just a conversation about currrent issues in which both men repeated the public poisition of their governments.  Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it was undoubtedly "just a conversation about currrent issues in which both men repeated the public poisition of their governments". And that is exactly why it was kept secret until 1924 not only before general public but before the U.S. Congress and even before the State Department. I would add to that that it was done with very good reason because Teddy Roosevelt's shameless support of Japanese grab and rape of Korea in exchange for unmolested control of Philippines and other Pacific provinces of rising American Empire was something unlikely welcomed enthusiastically by then still solidly "Jeffersonian" majority of Americans. Anyway, whether Taft-Katsura memorandum was a formal executive "agreement" or not, it hardly matters (though Japanese officials apparently saw and interpreted it in this way and were giving to it the significance comparable to their alliance treaty with Great Britain) as the real U.S. and Japanese policy and relations in following years were shaped pretty much in accordance with this memorandum. 88.101.177.121 (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: If this is not an agreement, how come the Fraser Committee's Report on Korean-American Relations says on page 13, paragraph 3 that "In that year [1905], Korea became a prectorate of Japan, and the U.S. Legation was reduced to the status of a consulate. The change was based upon an agreement by which Japan recognized American interests in the Phillipines and the United States recognized Japanese interests in Korea." So the U.S. Congress/House of Representatives DOES seem to think there was an agreement, despite your saying so. --Exec. Tassadar  (comments, contribs) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Congressional politicians are not scholars or historians.  They rely a lot on their interns (who very rarely are trained historians) and on what lobbyists tell them. The result is they believe lots of myths that scholars have debunked long ago, as is the case here. Rjensen (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening description

message: I marked the details section for nuetrality as I feel an anti-Korean tilt in the writing. Please do not remove the message until this is corrected.
Jacsam2 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically? Fat&Happy (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: no specifics or RS have been provided. Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in "Details" section

message: My prior understanding was that the conversation was in response to Japanese victory over Russia. But the Wikipedia article for Russo-Japanese War gives end date 5 September 1905. The conversation being in July 1905 puts it before Japan's victory. Our article here states "Katsura observed that Japanese colonization of Korea was a matter of absolute importance, as he considered Korea to have been a direct cause of the just-concluded Russo-Japanese War." There seems to be a number of areas of controversy in the historical literature, but this point should be clarified. I will do some reading and see if the matter can be clarified. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion date of Japan Russia War, before or after agreement? 

message: *1. "the Taft–Katsura Agreement is all but an obscure footnote in history" is an opinion, not a fact. It is likely not obscure to editors of the article. This part of the sentence should be removed. 
*2. "the Agreement is attacked by some left-leaning Korean activists as an example of how the United States cannot be trusted with regards to Korean security and sovereignty issues" seems to violate WP:NPOV. Although the sentence may be materally true, since the agreement is also attacked by non-left leaning perspectives, it expresses a POV by ommission. This should be reworded so as not to appear to express a relationship between criticism of the agreement, and being on the left. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the Taft–Katsura Agreement is all but an obscure footnote in history" 

message: Context of agreement
The Japanese were at war with Russia. The Japanese had just sent the Russia Baltic naval fleet to in their war over Korea in 1905, so victory by Japan was clearly imminent.[1] President Theodore Roosevelt was trying to bring both Russia and Japan to peace negotiatoins.[1] The United States had obtained control of the Philippines from its war with Spain in 1998. Roosevelt's War Secretary William Howard Taft stopped by in Japan on his way to the Philippines.[1]FurnaldHall (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire paragraph/section was just added a few days ago. Other than the obvious need to change 1998 to 1898, I have no idea what it's trying to say, though. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is something wrong or missing in the wording of first line of the following section? 

message: I see there's been some question recently as to the nature of the agreement. Here are two sources for sorting that out:
* By Dennis Halpin at an non-profit associated with Johns Hopkins
* From History News Network
YoPienso (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement, memo, or what?