Talk:2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:50, October 27, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the History task force.
 
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Korea (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Education (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.


External links[edit]


An Excellent Source[edit]

One excellent source for the imformation that is missing here is the Japanese language Wikipedia on the same topic. Wikipedia Japan

Fixed it up a bit[edit]

I fixed the article up a bit. I'm going to redo it later on. --Kross 15:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Textbooks[edit]

Someone should write up a brief explaination about what in the textbook reforms that the Chinese oppose. --Tydaj 19:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok. The thing is that the Chinese government is not specifically clear with its people about these text books in the first place. As usual they leave out the fact that there are numerous forms of these textbooks and each school has the choice of which one it would like to work with, unlike all Chinese textbooks that are mandated by the Chinese government. There are some texts that describe Nanjing as "an incident" and state that "many" people died during that time. However, schools are NOT require to use this textbook. This text was created by rightist historians, but once again the schools do NOT have to use it.--User:Bozu 16:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61708-2005Apr17.html
The fact that the book is approved is in itself an official statement. If the victims don't speak up now then it will be taken as their silent approval, and there is a very real possibility that the book's twisted version of history will be accepted by more and more Japanese youths as the truth and complete truth. The fact that it received official sanction is unacceptable. An analogy would be if some extremist group writes a textbook denoucing the Nazi's sustained campaign of terror in their concentration camps as a mere "incident" and it manages to get approval from education department in Germany, shouldn't the Jews be angered? CW 00:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is natural that historical evaluations for historical evidences or figures differs between standpoints. For example, George Washington is a hero in the history of the United States, but he might be a traitor in the history of the United Kingdom. So, evaluation for WWII naturally differs between Chinese and Japanese people. The problem is that many Chinese or Korean marchers might criticize the textbook without reading it.Joshua
I wouldn't compare George Washington with what the Imperial Japanese Army has done - it's an insult to him making such a comparison to these mass murderers and war criminals - and it's an insult to the victims to define them as anything else. The offending parts of the text have been widely reproduced on the media and I was shocked at what I saw, not to mention this half-hour long, up close and personal interview with this cheeky mayor of Tokyo who really thinks Japan commited all these attrocities to "liberate" Asia and that THEY were the victims! This is very very worrying indeed if you ask me. CW 14:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just adding a few non-POV facts.

There are 8 publishers of history textbooks in Japan ranging from very leftist to very rightist. The government has approved each one without more or less endorcement for any particular one. The teachers are free to choose which textbook they want to use.

The Fusosha textbook in question was the most heavily edited by the government among the eight, mostly against the wishes of the rightist editors. The English, Chinese and Korean translations of the controversial textbook is now available. Excerpts of chapters 4 and 5, which pertain to modern history, are available free of charge in PDF format from the following website. Fusosha

In case you have trouble finding it, here is the direct link to the English PDF. English PDF

Only one school in Japan adopted the first Fusosha history textbook, which was the school for the mentally retarded. The later versions did not fare much better. China Radio International reports as much. CRI article

Oscar 24 Oct. 2005

Title issue[edit]

Shouldn't the title be something like Spring 2005 anti Japanese government demonstrations in China or Chinese criticisms of Japanese textbook revisionism 2005 or Spring 2005 Japanese textbook revisionism demonstrations in China? "changes" can be used instead of "revisionism". I mean, the protestors in China aren't protesting against the Japanese *people* are they? The title of any wikipedia article should somehow convey the very specific nature of the issue in my opinion. What do people think? zen master T 01:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has created redirects for my rough proposed titles. To avoid the appearance of POV shouldn't the main article be the most neutral title? zen master T 05:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like the title but shouldn't it be singular: Japanese textbook controversy and protests? zen master T 01:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No reason for it to be singular, considering that multiple textbooks are involved. Also, it should be noted that the controversy over Japanese history textbooks is not just limited to China; it also involves Korea. I have moved the article to Japanese history textbooks controversy. —Lowellian (talk) 02:32, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Did you read what i wrote on your talk page? The controversy is over the content of the texbooks, which is abstract, which is singular. Perhaps we need to find an english major or copy editor to clarify. Why did you take out "and protests"? zen master T 02:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's over the content. So for example, if we called this article Japanese history textbooks content controversy, then the word "content" would be singular. Textbooks would still not be singular when viewed as a noun. If viewed primarily as an adjective modifying "content" or "controversy", it could be either "textbook" or "textbooks". Since "textbook" really only works as an adjective, and "textbooks" works as both a noun and an adjective, I think "textbooks" should be preferred. —Lowellian (talk) 02:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I took out protests because it makes the article title very long and is unnecessary. Many controversies involve protests by the sides involved in the controversy. We can talk about protests in the article without having to have it in the title. —Lowellian (talk) 02:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
For example, global warming controversy, Santorum controversy, and Karmapa controversy can all talk about demonstrations and protests and meetings and papers and everything else involved in the respective controversies without having all those other things be in the title. —Lowellian (talk) 02:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, what about textbook instead of textbooks though? (I admit it's a minor point but I strive for pristine clarity) zen master T 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Read above. I already explained that...twice. —Lowellian (talk) 04:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
The subject of the controversy is singular (content) but yes the current version is orders of magnitude better than where we were a day ago, thx. zen master T 06:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like the move. -SV|t|add 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think they are related but separate topics. The Japanese history textbooks controversy involves multiple years, multiple countries (mainly China and Korea), and multiple textbooks as well as multiple administrations. On the other hand, the 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations aren't simply protesting over one textbook - the demonstrators are protesting over several issues such as Koizumi's visits to Yasukuni shrine, territorial conflicts, Japan's bid for a permanennt seat in the UN Security Council, position on Taiwan etc. A protester's banner says "Be Vicious Towards Japanese Devils"[1] They're clearly angry at more than just the government, since they're attacking Japanese restaurants and boycotting Japanese goods as well. --Tokek 08:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Anti Japanese Militarism? MaskedEditor 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the title be 2005 Japanese textbook controversy, so as to address Tokek's acknowledgment of this being something particular to 2005. Even though they are protesting more than the textbooks, I think that 2005 Sino-Japanese controversy might be too broad, as we have yet to finish the year, also the textbook issue seems to give it a nice "point". Besides that they might be attacking Japanese persons and places, but this is only symbolic of their anti-Japanesse sentiments not to the people they are attacking becuase they are Japanese. If you want you could make 2005 Japanese UN Security Council controversy. It seems to me there is no need to put history in the title unless we need to differentiate this article from other Japanese textbook controversies of which I am not aware. In addition, the plural textbooks is silly because obviously there would not be a controversy over one textbook, and it fits with the format of Video game controversy, which addresses video games (plural). The adjectival from does not need pluralization. The title as it stands makes it sound like the textbooks is possesive of the controversy - something that could be unneccessarily avoided were it singular. -moogle 23:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These may be legitimate distinctions, but by normal wiki process doesnt make sense until theres enough material to diverge. In otherwords there needs to be a lot more on the background, and a lot more on the protests themselves before splitting. -SV|t|add 04:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tokek is correct. Spring 2005 anti-Japan demonstrations is a much better title. Most of the content should be moved under this title rather than Japanese history textbooks controversy which is a larger and different issue on its own. Hermeneus 05:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia is a news archive, and the current article name lacks the encyclopaedic 'feel', as does most of the suggested changes. I say we make a all-encompassing 'Japanese Textbook Controversy' page, which includes all the prior protests against Japanese textbook revisions. -Hmib 01:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Textbook Controversies would be the best since there have been several controversies over history textbook. The protest of this year in China could be included as a subsection, or should be moved to a space of its own under a different, more appropriate title like the ones suggested above. Saintjust 10:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Increasing lack of context[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Might be a good idea to babelfish the Chinese and Japanese versions of this article. That might give some context. I tried it a while back, but babelfish hick-upped when it tried to translate the website. I'll have to try again later with cut-and-paste. crazyeddie 05:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Translation link[edit]

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)
Actually "more than 130 revisions had been made to the text."[2] 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)


The Link to the translations.

The English, Chinese and Korean translations of the controversial textbook is now available. Excerpts of chapters 4 and 5, which pertain to modern history, are available free of charge in PDF format from the following website. Fusosha

In case you have trouble finding it, here is the direct link to the English PDF. English PDF

Only one school in Japan adopted the Fusosha history textbook, which was the school for the mentally retarded. It accounted for approximately 0.3% of the elegible student population.

Oscar 24 Oct. 2005

Official or not?[edit]

Our intro paragraph states:

The Japanese history textbooks controversy is a long-running controversy regarding the presentation of historical events in official Japanese textbooks with respect to Japanese actions in World War II and the Sino-Japanese War. (My emphasis).

Given the current political tension associated with this matter, I think as a matter of urgency we need to double check this point. I had certainly been given the impression that these were official books in widespread use, but was today shocked to discover that that appears not to be the case at all; articles in "the Australian" newspaper, "the Korean Times" newspaper and BBC News all suggest that the offending books are in fact produced privately by a right-wing organisation and used by only a tiny minority of schools. Securiger 08:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be no article about Japanese government's "checking textbook system" on en:Wikipedia. I explain this simply. Ministry of Education[3] establishes what students (elementary,juniour,and high school) must study at least. Several textbook publishers edit under this baseline. Ministry of Education checks these editions whether they include what they should include. If not, Ministry of Education requests publishers to modify. It is not impossible to use a textbook as a "textbook in school" that does not pass the check. Textbooks that passed the check will be selected by city's board of education. This is the "checking textbook system". It's free to sell textbooks that did not pass in the bookshops,though they are not used in schools.
About history textbook, Ministry of Education establishes what publishers must write at least. But it's free to write about additional events and how event happened. Historical view is regarded as "freedom of expression", so if additionals are facts, it's OK.
For exapmle, Japan ocupied Korea and did bad things(many things) and good things(developed the area). "Checking textbook system" demands only bad things. So,
  • Textbook with only bad things
  • Textbook with both good and bad things
Both textbooks will pass the check. "Textbook with only good things" will not pass the check, because it does not have enough description.
So I answer the Securiger's question "Official" or not. The answer is "Textbooks officialy checked".--Mochi 15:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the controversy about just the "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform" textbooks, or Japanese history textbooks in general? It seems clear that March 2005 PRC protests are over these particular textbooks, but is the controversy in general limited to these particular textbooks? crazyeddie 05:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is operating at two levels. Most people, including most of the protesters (and myself until yesterday) are opposed to the JSHTR books but suffer the false impression that they are widely used or widely accepted in Japan. At a slightly more sophisticated level, other objectors realise that these books are produced by a fringe group and scarcely used, but are still concerned because there appears to be a faction within the LDP, and more particularly within the Ministry of Education, which sympathises with the JSHTR and has worked to relax the approval standards so the books weren't banned outright. Securiger 09:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several news sources (eg CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/14/japan.textbook.ap/) are saying 18 high schools use the textbook, out of 11,000, also that it has been "denounced" by the Japanese Teachers Union. 18 out of 11,000 is around two tenths of a percent, not quite 1 in five hundred. --Shannonr 11:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

need references in the Political Play section[edit]

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)

Cleanup[edit]

In particular what needs cleaning is the redundancy regarding the April 17 meeting. Also, the structure of some of the sentences are not consistent with standard English. -moogle 23:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, the description on the 2005 anti-Japanese patriotic movemnets in China must be separated from this article.Trek011 03:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The use of the term anti-Japanese is inappropriate: as with most anti-ethnic terms, there is an non-neutral and illogical meshing between objections to government policy and bigotry towards a culture or people. The policy is being objected to, and more specifically the textbooks (the content of) that are the issue. To call the protests anti-Japanese may appeal to Japanese who seek to villify the protesters as irrational and bigoted; hardly reasonable considering the merits of the issue. -SV|t|add 07:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree fairly strongly with both Stevertigo and Trek011. This is a complex issue and anti-Japanese and/or nationalist sentiment is certainly involved and should not be brushed under the carpet. Long term, the apparent willingness of the Chinese administration to court those sentiments is probably the most important (and worrying) aspect of the whole issue. See, for example, the remarks of Mr. Hu Jia, described as a "leading anti-Japanese activist", but who is concerned about official manipulation of public opinion. Also, if the protesters are concerned only about government policy and are not anti-Japanese, why are they chanting racist slogans? Why is most of the violence directed against Japanese private citizens and their property (or even Chinese property with Japanese names)? Certainly these textbooks are highly offensive and it is very disturbing that there may be a faction in Japan's ruling party who approves of them, but to be NPOV we need to cover both sides of the issue and let readers make up their own minds; while to be encyclopaedic we need to canvas the undercurrents shaping these events. Securiger 09:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Were not here to repeat the mistakes in terminologies by Australian or other newspapers. This is NPOv, wheras newspapers everywhere cater to some degree to the POV of their respective audiences. There is a huge difference there. Yes, the term needs mentioning, but its more important to mention the fact that the term is extremely misleading and may mean different things depending on who uses it. If its to be used here, its only to be used for referring to deep-seated cultural bigotry, which is not the material issue. -SV|t|add 17:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Chinese demonstrators clearly critisize Japan, protest against the Japanese government, attack Japanese diplomatic and commercial faicilies in China and even beat Japanese students in China. Any other country is not targeted by them. In my opinion, aniti-Japanese can be used to describe the nature of their activities even in the title of an encyclopaedic article. Do you like to say that the implicit target of the Chinese demonstarators is their own oppressive government? Trek011 10:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you are so keen to use the term anti-Japanese, would you not also characterise Japan's alleged desire to whitewash the historical record as "anti-Chinese"? This goes both ways does it not? The best that any anti-ethnic term can do is to mistate the nature of more complex debates in the most simplistic possible way. The protests are anti-censorship first, and anti-Japanese sentiment (too often used misnomer for a perception of sentiment) is at best secondary, IMHO. In anycase, its fair to assume that if the history is explained, any relevant sentiments will be understood much better than by mere use of the anti-ethnic term.

SV|t|add 17:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese military atrocities during the WWII were not only conducted towards Chinese, but also towards Allied POWs and even Okinawans. It seems that your historical view is too China-centered.Trek011 04:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree to seperate the textbook controversy and the protests at 2005. In fact, their Chinese counterpart were different(Japanese history textbooks controversy and2005 Chinese Anti-Japan Protest.Skyfiler 22:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Separation of article was already attained not only in the Chinese edition but also in the French and Japanese editions. Why not in the English version?

Trek011 04:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue of Wikipedia:Interwiki coordination has been of interest for a long time - I agree that its a good thing and there needs to be more of it (especially translation), but the notion of keeping a 1:1 relationship across all wikis just doesnt work - even in theory. So thats not really a reason to do as you suggest - Im sure you honestly think of these as separate, and thats why you want to give them separate emphasis. There are many reasons to fork an artie; a good one would be to make room for lots of new material; a bad one would be to split an article along POV lines. So please translate and incorporate any material from other wikis - and if there is enough material to justify one, make a new article. -SV|t|add 21:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

US & Australia[edit]

The US and Australia have had periodic Japanese history textbook controversies, someone needs to do the research and include these controversies into the article.

Perspective Edits[edit]

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)

Gary's rant[edit]

Note: Below is the link to an opinionated rant by a wikipedian, (perhaps plagiarized, perhaps not). While Wikipedia neither endorses nor condemns any point of view, it's place on this talk page was temporary, due to several factors: its pov nature, its non-sequiterish irrelevance to the immediate issue of writing the article, and its essay style. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor are its talk pages the place for editorial commentary, particularly those that do not respond to the material in the article, or the course of discussion on the talk page. Any useful material points or issues can be salvaged if each can be attributed to sources as fact or quoted opinion. -Nuf-sEd.
Further information: /Gary's rant

Requested move (May 16, 2005)[edit]

The current content of the article is almost exclusively on the recent anti-Japan protests in China (April 2005) and is way too lengthy to be included in an article on "Japanese history textbooks controversy" as it is because Japanese history textbooks controversy is a much larger issue on its own that spans more than 40 years (see Examining the Japanese History Textbook Controversies). Thus hereby request the move of the current content to a more proper title. Hermeneus 17:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Place the article under Spring 2005 anti-Japan demonstrations[edit]

  • Support 1. The demonstrations were not just against Fusosha's New History Textbook as you can see in the subsection Specific issues that includes every "anti-Japan" issues, most notably Japan's membership in the UN Security Council and Senkaku Islands. 2. Protests also occurred in South Korea and it was primarily aroused by Shimane prefecture's announcement of Takeshima Day, not so much by the controversial new history textbook that was published and first became an issue of controversy several years ago. 3. Anti-Japan demonstrations/protest is the term that is widely used in English news media. Hermeneus 07:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the suggested title seems a little POV and I'm sure a better one can be found. violet/riga (t) 21:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 21:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The article is about the entire controversy, not just the 2005 demonstrations. —Lowellian (talk) July 2, 2005 05:44 (UTC)
    • Note that this oppose vote came a month after the original request. —Lowellian (talk) July 2, 2005 05:46 (UTC)

I am writing a more comprehensive article on the series of controversies over the various issues of Japanese history textbook since 1945. When it's done, it will replace the existing content and the 2005 anti-Japan demonstrations will be put in a smaller subsection. If you want to have an independent article for the 2005 demonstrations, then you will have to find a new namespace as "Japanese history textbook controversy" is utterly inappropriate a title for the current content that only describes the 2005 demonstrations and repeats the same old complaints over Japanese war crimes.

Read Examining the Japanese History Textbook Controversies to get a glimpse of what the real "controversies" are. Hermeneus (talk) July 5, 2005 01:25 (UTC)


  • Oppose This article is too broad in scope to be contained under history textbook controversies. Nor should it be placed under the topic of 2005 demonstrations. The closest seems to be anti-Japanese sentiment, but that is already taken and too broad, anyway. Is there a larger context that could comfortably accommodate the current content of the article? I agree that this page (and others like it) are too prone to degenerate into rather one-sided complaints over Japan's past with a decided Chinese bias.

I have already edited a section on the Nanjing Massacre, which had huge POV problems:

(1) The actions of Japanese soldiers during the occupation of the city of Nanjing 'still breed anger in many Chinese today'.

Anger is understandable, but one needs to ask to what extent this anger has been bubbling away all along, and to what extent it is being whipped up now, 60-years later, for reasons of politics, nationalism, or whatever.

(2) 'In the 1937 Japanese takeover of Nanjing, most evidence points to an estimated 300,000 people killed.'

Pardon me, but this figure has come under question from researchers. It may turn out to be true that 300,000 were killed (it may turn out not to be true, too). This is the Chinese-government supported figure but should not be stated as though it is fact. Trying to pass it off as fact is a deliberate distortion.

(3) 'The Japanese textbook in question ... refer to the Nanjing Massacre as an "incident"'.

Another case of 'anger' overriding other considerations. The term 'incident' is used by Japanese historians for various events during the war. Many Chinese feel that anything but the use of 'massacre' is provocative, but at least one Western historian has spoken out in favour of using 'incident' as the most neutral term.

There is a need to discuss this friction between the two nations from a larger perspective, without so much bias and emotionalism, but without making it into a pale study of diplomatic history. Any suggestions?

Bathrobe 10 August 2005

(1) No doubt there are political reasons that the Chinese government has been more tolerant to demonstrations than usual, but it is undeniable that this anger is real. There are still many survivors out there and any members of the older generation would have been deeply scarred emotionally by the war. My grandmother for one has many stories to tell and is still very emotional about it. Stories such as close relatives around them getting tortured, raped or simply murdered in front of them; and having nothing to eat but tree bark and dead bodies. For us in the post-war generations it is hard to dismiss these as just some other stories.
If one looks at how much effort the Germans are putting into reconciliation and compare that to what the Japanese are doing it is much easier to understand why the anger in the Chinese and Korean people is still lingering on. The impression that the Japanese are projecting is they are simply trying to forget the past and that's not what their victims like to see.
(2) It does say it is an estimated number and that's quite a widely reported one as well both inside and outside China as far as I know. A reference would help I'm sure.
(3) That's up for arguement I suppose. I've seen that part of the text and the use of this term in the context stands out like a sore thumb.
CW 14:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What on earth[edit]

...is the focal point of this article. It says very little about the textbooks themselves and everything about Chinese protests and demonstration. Mandel 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually, the allegedly rightwing textbook actually says, at least, something about the "Nankin Incident": "この東京裁判では、日本軍が1937(昭和12)年、日中戦争で南京を占領したとき、多数の中国人民衆を殺害したと認定した(南京事件)。なお、この事件の実態については資料の上でも疑問点も出され、さまざまな見解があり、今日でも論争が続いている。(P.295)"

Senkaku Islands[edit]

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)

Background[edit]

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)


Taiwan[edit]

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)

comfort men[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)