Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Japan–United States relations

Recent history

June 17, 2006: Considering an expansion of the New Millenium subsection. The preceding section does not do justice to the heightened unity between these two nations resulting from what each nation's citizens feel is a vital alliance. Specifically, they believe that an increasing threat from China (PRC) and North Korea economically (in the case of the PRC) and militarily (primarily in the case of North Korea) makes the US-Japan alliance vital. In addition, these two nations have a great deal of cultural ties that have grown in the last decade with US citizens increasingly absorbing Japanese pop culture and Japanese citizens doing the same with American pop culture. Seeking an opinion before starting. -User:SZero


There is a massive problem in the last paragraph. Someone edited it and put a bunch of BS about bananas and apes and stuff, can someone please fix this!!! rollback or whatever.

rename

why not rename this article into "Japanese-American relations"? march 06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.141.5 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]Natalia Martinez was here on 11/06/16

Well, if you want to use adjectives, then it should be "Japano-American relations" or "Nippono-American relations". --Yejianfei (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ~~~~§

Rise of the falcons?

Why does this article have a section titled "Rise of the falcons"? What do falcons have to do with Japanese-American relations? Although falcons are mentioned in the section title, they are not mentioned anywhere in the body text. --JHP 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US gov material

It would seem that the majority of the article is taken from http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/ and has remained basicly unaltered. The fighting falcons is there from the first version of this page as far as I can tell, even though I couldn't find any mention of it. What it might be is a reference to the F-2, the variant of the F-16 fighting falcon, even though I've only heard of the Fighting Falcon refering the the F-16 and the nickname Viper more commonly used for both. I suggest a title change for that section as it doesn't make a lot of sense.71.214.3.41 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1860-1940's?

there's a large gap between 1860 until World War 2. Can someone perhaps add to this section?

I was going to say the same thing. Shidehara Diplomacy, emigration issues, these all need to be covered. I know a little bit, but not enough to contribute singly. matt91486 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Uncertain Friendship: Theodore Roosevelt and Japan, 1906-1909 by Charles E. Neu is a great resource for the immigration issues and some Far East Hegemony/Sphere of Influence issues if someone wants to add; I would do it myself but it is almost finals season >_< Konamaiki (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 is a inter-wiki source for info... Konamaiki (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information

This article mentions that the Japanese constitution forbids the deployment of Japanese military personnel overseas, however it also mentions that Japan sent troops to aid the U.S. in Iraq. Perhaps a knowledgeable person could insert information regarding whether or not their constitution had changed, and if not, how did Japan get around it to send the troops. Guldenat 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll insert some language when I have a chance. The Japanese Constitution is actually interpreted as allowing the dispatch of Self Defense Force assets abroad provided there is a legislative mandate and that the operation is authorized or organized by the UN. Japanese troops are not deployed into combat situations, but provide logistical support. Every deployment needs separate legislative approval-- a separate law has to be passed and, when it expires, it has to be extended again by the legislature. The Japanese Government interpreted the early UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq as providing sufficient constitutional cover to pass a law to allow the JSDF to deploy in support of the Coalition. There are still some Japanese air assets in Kuwait flying support missions (non-combat) for the Coalition. Japan also has a small naval force in the Indian Ocean providing fuel to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the Afghanistan operation. The GOJ has plans to pass a permanent dispatch law in the future to allow the government to deploy military forces on its own initiative (w/out consent of the Diet), as long as it doesn't break the constitutional prohibition; but it may be difficult to push it through the Diet's Upper House. A few years ago, when Koizumi was PM, it looked like Japan was seriously moving to amend the constitution and do away with the Article 9 restrictions-- but that didn't happen, and the past 2 Japanese Governments have been much too weak to tackle such a major project. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.198.50 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Copyright Infringement appears to be erroneous, as the linked article was produced by the US Government, and documents as such typically carry no copyright. After looking at the link, I didn't see any copyright in the document either.--Batura (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I've withdraw the copyvio.--Cahk (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other points

"great cultural proliferation" ? Seriously? I suggest that this is changed, both due to percived gramattical issues and more to the point the fact that quite frankly it dosn't make any great amount of sense. The concept of "cultural proliferation" is only relevant in social philosophy or, to be blunt, idealogical warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Where are all the monkeys??? (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone?

April 06, 2009: I read this lengthy article and don't remember any section having the wrong tone. The tone seems encyclopedic, even though some of the content is either not top notch or is (here and there) phrased from a US perspective. At the top of the article it warns that it's not written in an encyclopedic tone, but this warning should be moved to one particular section, if anyone can identify one. -User:Ejoty —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Early 1900s Tensions and Yellow Peril?

Is there really no mention of the 1924 exclusionary immigration act? Immigration Act of 1924 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodomontade (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Perry's warships fire on Japan

There are many mentions of Perry bombarding the Japanese in books and on the web. Here are just a few.

  • Perry had meticulously studied the Japanese culture before setting sail and had some understanding of the procedures that he must follow. The negotiations were unproductive and tedious, and not at all civil. Early in the process, Perry fired on and destroyed several buildings lining the harbor. The Japanese did not possess and had never seen steam technology and they were terrified. They finally came to terms with the fact that they could not defend themselves and they could not sustain their isolation policy. On March 31, 1854, the United States and Japan signed the historic treaty which opened up Japan to the West. It was known as The Convention of Kanagawa. ( From the Landreth Seed Company: www.landrethseeds.com/newsletters/Volume%205/Issue%206%20-%20Part%20VI%20The%20Period:%201850-1860/Garlic.html )
  • The real Japan emerged fro obscurity after the visit of Conodore Perry, when its thirty millions of people were awakened from their long slumber by the sound of cannon balls fired from the American flag-ship in the bay of Uraga. ( From the book: Some historical phases of modern Japan by Shosuke Sato, Japan Society 1916 www.archive.org/stream/somehistoricalph00satorich#page/viii/mode/2up )
  • In 1853, superior military technology forced the opening of Japan when a small fleet of U.S. warships, led by Commodore Perry fired on the harbor at Edo (modern Tokyo). ( From: www.samuseum.org/files/AsianTeacherResourceGuide.pdf ) 99.40.190.97 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

A Vandal had placed the term "Ball Sack" in this article.I removed it. 67.76.160.105 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Ally:[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.65.27 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol... XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.244.182 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has inserted a bunch of pro-Japan propaganda, I'm trying to get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.105.19 (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove

With all due respect to the author of this article, so much of it has been written without the inclusion of inline citations. I understand that the subject is not a simple one, so I am calling on experts who can possibly contribute or assist in any way. Thanks for your time,--Soulparadox (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Japan–United States relations. 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 09:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversed

This edit I stumbled on but it, from spot checks, seemed to be completely opinion and completely unfounded on new citations and certainly not -- again for the three+- I checked -- drawn on the existing, next-in-the-text citations. I'm sorry I can't do a thorough exam of the large, ranging set of additions encompassed in the one edit but I think reversal was warranted. The details of what I did do are sketched in the Edit summary. I'm open to opinion, alternate or otherwise. Swliv (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to the editor in question here. Swliv (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Editor responded at my Talk page. Swliv (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japan–United States relations. 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) 12:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japan–United States relations. 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) 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself

Why are y’all removing so much stuff from this article?CycoMa (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am shortening a long citation to one book that is repeated over and over, and used multipler times in short paragraphs. Rjensen (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting all in-line citations and only having one big citation at the end of an entire paragraph is not a good practice, though. It means that if people come along later and add new material to that paragraph, it will become unclear which source the information comes from. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we really should be using citation templates instead of hand-made citations, especially in an article this long. In this case, if you want to shorten the citations, the sfn template is probably best. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Hawai'i Philipines paragraph

hello, I am from Hawai'i and I noticed a few problems with the Hawai'i, Philippines paragraph. first note is that King kalakaua, and Ka'iulani has no link to their pages. secondly, it is missing vital information when it is talking about the overthrow and Hawai'is relation to Japan. thankyou 808Poiboy (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section - dictatorship?

In the third paragraph of the lead section, bolded text in the following quote has been added repeatedly: Japan surrendered, and was subjected to seven years of military occupation by the United States, during which the Americans under General Douglas MacArthur eliminated militarism and rebuilt the country's economic and political systems to transform Japan from a dictatorship into a democracy.

This text is unsourced, and the content is not mentioned in the body of the article. The description of Japan as a "dictatorship" also does not align with mainstream scholarship. As an indicative example, Ben Ami Shillony's Collected Writings, Chapter 12, expressly deals with the question of whether wartime Japan was a military dictatorship; deciding that, while the power of political parties & the Diet declined and the power of the military increased, ultimately it was not.

Discuss. Rotary Engine talk 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire of Japan was not a democracy either. During World War II, Japanese people weren't really free and were forced to do what their government wanted such as being forced to not surrender to American troops. If the Empire of Japan was not a military dictatorship, then it is a military junta. 95.147.145.134 (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During World War II, people weren't really free and were forced to do what their government wanted such as being forced to not surrender would apply equally to many of the Allied nations - which implemented conscription and criminalised acts seen as contrary to the war effort. In a time of total war, the internal workings of most nations were organised in pursuit of that war.
But, in determining encyclopedia content, what's important is not "What do the editors say?", but "What do the sources say?". Content needs to be verified by reference to reliable sources and needs to reflect the proportion of viewpoints in the broad corpus of reliable sources. Re-adding unsourced content is disruptive.
Outside outdated WWII propaganda and a minority of, mostly Marxian, scholars, sources don't describe the Empire of Japan as a "dictatorship", and they don't describe it as "fascist". Rotary Engine talk 23:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"would apply equally to many of the Allied nations" Yeah you are totally right. The Soviet Union was one of the Allies of World War II and that country was a dictatorship. 95.147.145.134 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info about African Americans

The article currently doesn't seem to cover the early 20th century Japan-African American connection. I won't add the info as it's outside my current scope but encourage others to—it's interesting (and complicated and sad). A large number of African American intellectuals ended up defending Japanese colonialism as they saw it as counterbalancing Western colonialism.

There's a decent chunk of writing on it. Here's some stuff that isn't behind paywalls: [2][3]

Here's some scholarly work: [4][5][6]. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japan%E2%80%93United_States_relations