Talk:2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations

message: Why does an anon account keep removing the brief description of comfort women?  What is the relevant context of the Japanese prime minister visiting that particular shrine? zen master   T 20:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These things are missing. Ive got no time, but heres the basics: The comfort women issue relates to rape and sex slavery; though not quite as "important" as genocide itself, shows the nature of the occupation. With note that these things were not uncommon in military occupations througout history, and the photograph makes the 20th century crimes move visible in history. The shrine is in honor of Japanese warriors of all eras, not limited to or excluding of WW II. The visit to the shrine is standard protocol symbolic propaganda for the head of state, just like any laying of the wreath, etc. The real issue is that Japan has failed to issue an official apology - this should link to the List of war apology statements issued by Japan - which though interesting and authoritative, fails the bar of "official apology" which is the central issue. Something might also be mentioned about the aging of Nanjing victims and Japan Army soldiers, and Iris Chang as a symbol for the victims cause. Im not sure about the merits of mentioning these. "Increasing lack of context" is typical with all controvesial topics which attract deliberate or misinformed obfuscation and confusion. Im not sure - certainly first-hand Chinese and Japanese perspectives would be welcome - but they dont seem to be evident. -SV|t|add 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the shrine is, it enshrines lists of names of the dead soldiers and these include some prominent class A war criminals, such as some of the masterminds behind the mass murdering in Nanjing. It is certainly NOT "just like any laying of the wreath" to the victims - imagine the Germany Chancellor honouring Adolf Hitler. CW 09:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing lack of context 

message: The translation link that is given mostly gives textbook translations for textbooks from the nineties. I don't see the segment of the new textbook that the controversy is over. Is this link misplaced or irrelevant? user:offkilter
: I'd say remove it, please. There are lots of crappy edits being made that needs removal.
: Hi.  I added that link because that's the textbooks in question.  The problem isn't new text books as such, it's because the same textbooks were approved again.  So basically it's not 'the new textbook' it's the old textbooks being reaffirmed without changes.  Unfortunetly the news sources aren't exactly being clear about this, but after a bit of reading this is the way I see it.  I will try to study this a bit more and give some better links.  Okay? Johnflux 07:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually "more than 130 revisions had been made to the text." Also, you should wait a few more days. According to a non-English news site, the group that authored the controversial textbook said they will upload within a week translations of the entire textbook in question.--Tokek 08:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation link

message: Political Play section, can someone provide references? i.e. who, or from where, is the assertion that "some observers ...". And, at the end is a fact piece about Japanese schools using the textbook in question. We need a source info. Xah Lee 18:35, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
I've put in a news commentary piece that hopefully is good enough to count as a reference.  About the source info for the textbooks themselves, isn't the CNN article good enough as a reference?--Hypo 21:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  need references in the Political Play section 

message: I believe some of the perceptions about the Chinese government's motivations have a place here, but were edited out ostensibly because the source was American.  Also edited out was a factual news report about the historical omissions in Chinese textbooks about its own history.  This was edited out, again, ostensibly because the news source referenced was American.  Neutral POV is grand, but it's also needed when it comes to editing-out information; deleting something because the source is American isn't very even-handed.  Does anyone have any feelings about the previously submitted and deleted information about the speculation as to the motivation for the Chinese side? (see history)  My concern is not that any specific group's opinion be heard, but rather that it not be targeted, and that speculation (as well as the facts about omissions from Chinese textbooks) should have a place in the article to provide balance in the controversy.  JH  20 April 2005
:It may be relevant, but perhaps was out of place in the article, considering a balance with the other view. Speculation is bottom material in any case, while official allegations and their language can be moved upward as a basis for examination, not for deferential treatment as fact. Its natural that both governments and their media will cater to the views of their public. In practice governments of any kind tend to seek diplomatic solutions, and if any politician senses that the tide of public opinion has shifted, they will shift accordingly. It's fair to say that the official positions are reflections of the cultural views and these cultural views may be exposed and compared. But only in a balanced way. So its hard to know all the cultural subtlety from an outside point of view, its also perhaps easier to be objective, and dismissive of irrelevant cultural claims and biases. The facts speak quite well on their own. -SV|t|add 19:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective Edits 

message: The following statements are removed:
"Historically, these islands belonged to Taiwan. In 1944, the Tokyo court also ruled that the islands are part of Taihoku Prefecture (Taipei Prefecture), following a dispute between Okinawa Prefecture and Taihoku Prefecture."
They are NPOV, and the primary source of the removed statements, which was solely based on a claim made by the president of the fishermen's association of [Keelung]] city in August, 4, 1971, can be found in the journal "Modern China Studies"(in Simplified Chinese).
http://www.chinayj.net/StubArticle.asp?issue=970111&total=56
::Actually, this one is mostly true. A Japanese court ruled that the islands belonged to Taiwan rather than Okinawa. However, at the time Taiwan was Japanese territory so in order for China to use this ruling as part of a claim on the islands it would have to officially recognize that Japan had legal jurisdiction in the first place. This would mean that China would have to admit that Japan's claim on Taiwan was legal, which would mean that it would have to give up its own claim on Taiwan. which simply isn't going to happen. - perfectblue (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Senkaku Islands

message: I've removed the following, as they are merely personal opinions: "..which, as its name implies, aims to revise Japanese history to suit its rightist ends" and rephrased a few more sentences. --TokyoJapan 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: I have removed the following: "but Japan and the United States had issued a joint declaration earlier in the year stating Japan would defend Taiwan by US request if a war were to break out over Taiwan." since it is unattributed and, generally speaking, unimaginable. The Japanese are not allowed to "defend" any foreign land and such statement would have easily caused a constitutional crisis. The statement was merely demanding a peaceful settlement of the matters concerned. --TokyoJapan 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taiwan

message: what about comfort men? we only hear about women, but i heard it was quite acceptable for japanese to be gay because of the absence of religion. did they take men and force them to have sex?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BUKET.TKO (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  comfort men 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-china18apr18,0,5470527.story
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-05-25 08:08:05, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-06-12 03:28:47, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/news/20050506i116.htm
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-05-25 08:08:05, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-06-12 03:28:51, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://afr.com/articles/2005/04/07/1112815671969.html
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-05-25 08:08:11, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-06-12 03:29:05, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.asahi.com/edu/news/TKY200509020241.html
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-05-25 08:08:05, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-06-12 03:29:26, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation/TextbookAuthorizationSystem.htm
** In Japanese history textbook controversies on 2011-05-03 06:03:28, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-05-25 08:08:06, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations on 2011-06-12 03:29:26, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: Substituted at 05:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Looking through this article, there is no single evidence or mention of how the 2005 anti-Japanese protests has any relevance with the Iraq war. Can the author (who had chosen to include the Iraq War opposition template and category) explain how these protests any way reflect on the Iraq war when the protests were largely against the Japanese and their actions in World War 2?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.30.156 (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance to the Iraq War opposition? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906080746/http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf to http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906080746/http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf to http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050220025012/http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation/TextbookAuthorizationSystem.htm to http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation/TextbookAuthorizationSystem.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under Demonstations, the People's Republic of China, there is this stand-alone sentence: "On April 15, 2005, the beating of a Chinese student at Peking by Japanese Foreign Exchange Students sparked mass demonstrations." 
There are no citations for this. I am conducting research on this period in Sino-Japanese relations and I have never heard of it. The incident sounds quite unlikely overall, given what was going on at the time. It's just hard to believe that foreign exchange students would join together to beat up a local. It also seems rather inflammatory. 
I cannot find a single source on this be searching news media for this time period. If a reliable source cannot be provided, then may I suggest that the sentence be removed? Pstrike (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did this happen? "On April 15, 2005, the beating of a Chinese student at Peking by Japanese Foreign Exchange Students sparked mass demonstrations."