![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote from the article.
How could DOA "was perceived as a way of making amends to China for past military aggression", which means DOA should be considered a debt Japan owed to China for its aggression and paid in the form of a loan, and at the same time "Japan is, in fact, China's largest financial donor." Could debt be paid as donation? How can Japan be both a debtor and a donor at the same time. Indeed Japan is a debtor not a donor. Redcloud822 04:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, and this is just a POV, I think the Japanese government started ODA partly because of the perceived direct economic benefits Japan can enjoy from developing China. Therefore, ODA should not be treated solely for the purpose of renumerating wartime transgressions. 350 billion vs. 30 billion. Where did you get the 350 billion estimate? How does the number compare to USSR, France etc. received individually from Germany?
And another issue that's hard to compare is the obvious slant for European countries (due to developed status then) with Asian countries in dealing with a fair leverage table for renumeration with Japan. Many Asian countries were still colonies and lacked the developed governmental infrastructure, representation to deal with Japan. The USA and partly, China (KMT) had more say on these issues. However, it seems that JiangJieshi did not demand renumeration.
Basically, imho, for the purposes of PR China, the issue currently is self-development and developing cultural, political and economic ties with other Asian countries and also Europe to have a better leverage against Japan in dealing with WW2 issues. We have already seen KMT and CCP have made progressive moves (visiting China), so a united Chinese front (at least in terms of accepting and promoting a shared heritage) would aid this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.80.108 ( talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The article provides a detailed account of Japanese ODA to China, but failed to account for the amount of reparation China forgave Japan. Even though accurate estimation of Japanese damage to China has been given, one can look into comparable cases.
1) Germany has paid $61.8 billion by 1998 for approximately 6 million Jews murdured and property damage with no end in sight. [1]
2) The US government paid $20,000 for decedents of every Japanese American being sent to internment. [2]
Chinese casualty during Japanese invasion is estimated at 35 million. All major Chinese cities were heavily bombarded and razed to the ground, Shanghai, Nanjing, Chengdu, Chongqi, Wuhan, Hongzhou, etc... So a rough estimate of Japanese reparation, by German standard the sum should be around $350 billion, by American standard the sum should be $700 billion.
Total Japanese ODA to China is around $30 billion, of which 90% is low interest loans China has to repay; only less than $3 billion is actual aid. Japanese ODA to China has been widely reported by Japanese media. There were complains about China not showing graditude to Japan. In 1998, Chinese PM, while on a visit to Japan, publicly thanked Japanese for ODA. ODA is also used by Japanese government to pressure China's policy directions. When was the last time Isaerel's foreign policy choice became a condition for Germany reparation? When was the last time a Japanese PM expressed graditude for China's forgiveness of reparation, which is more than 10 times of Japanese loan (ODA), or ever? Redcloud822 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Redcloud, your comments are totally POV. If you want these issues incorporated into the article, you should add a paragraph concerning questions that have been raised about the 'generosity' of the Japanese and the fact that Japan is putting a possiibly unjustified spin on its ODA. Your comments suggest that you yourself are totally anti-Japanese and want to rewrite the article to justify anti-Japanese feelings. The article should not be trying to show how bad the Japanese are, it should be trying to enlighten people about the issue of anti-Japanese sentiment.
Bathrobe 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
China has received about 15,918,423,400 dollars (not including ODAs), mostly based on San Francisco Peace Treaty 14.a.2.:
See ja:日本の戦争賠償と戦後補償 for more info if you can read Japanese. Hermeneus ( user/ talk) 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with a generally neutral approach to an article. Simply put, you can create new articles or subsections called "Chinese opinions of justifications on Anti-Japanese sentiment in China" and something about the Japanese side. You definitely should give the full image, not labels of this dense issue in an article. You should not censor Redcloud completely with your opinion of a perfect neutral article. Comparisons in terms of renumerations should definitely be added as well as background information (which I think is why you removed Redcloud's revisions).
This brings another interesting topic. It may be esoteric for the common layman, but comparing Germany and Japan's approaches to their former victims (countries and ethnicities) during the Post-war to modern periods would be an interesting article.
And further, even if you consider some people's revisions to have a pro-China slant, you should rather work with the new information provided and remove it if and only if it is completely trivial, non-factual or blatantly biased.
This article is about Anti-Japanese sentiment in China, and if we talk about sentiment, it is not clearly defined.
"while scenes of the Nanking Massacre were censored from the Japanese theatrical release of The Last Emperor."
Please confirm above. I saw "The Last Emperor" in Japan and the scenes of the Nanking Massacre was included.
Tsumugi 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Anti-anything sentiment, like this, exist for one and only one reason, and that is government propaganda. Also everything in this article is hearsay, conjecture and personal opinion. It should be deleted from Wikipedia as it is not note-worthy. Why does Wikipedia allow all these passionate personal opinions to exist in what is an online encyclopedia? leveni 2 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.78.20 ( talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This suggested merger has been up since July 2007, but no arguments were put forward on the talk page. This article was originally spun off from the article on Anti-Japanese sentiment, presumably due to the increasing length of the main article. How many editors are in favour of a merger? If there aren't any, can we take down the disfiguring box at the start of the article? Bathrobe ( talk) 10:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Poster Japan flag stabbed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Should allude to how in ancient Chinese history, the Japanese were often referred to as 倭 "dwarf", but Japanese replaced it with 和 "harmony" -- see article Wa (Japan)... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"Some believe[who?] that anti-Japanese sentiment in China is partially the result of political manipulation by the Communist Party of China."
Going by the works cited, "some believe" can be replaced by "Susan Shirk believes." There's something of an incongruence between the notability of this POV and the bracingly broad heading of "Politics." -- Quadalpha ( talk) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anti-Japanese sentiment in China. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anti-Japanese sentiment in China. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Anti-Japanese sentiment in China. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12273{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cqga.gov.cn/jfzx%5Cjfdt/3108.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=spo_30&k=2008022001092When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
"China refused war reparations from Japan in the 1972 Joint Communiqué. Japan gave official development assistance (ODA), amounting to 3 trillion yen (US$30 billion). According to estimates, Japan accounts for more than 60 percent of China's ODA received. About 25 percent of the funding for all of China's infrastructure projects between 1994 and 1998 — including roads, railways, telecom systems and harbours — came from Japan."
By placing reparations at the start of the paragraph, it gives the impression ODA is a form of reparations. The 3 trillion yen claim I believe comes from https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000128001.pdf and is actually a loan and not a grant. ODA grants to China are miniscule in comparison. IMO ODA does not have a place in this article or should at least be moved to a completely different section from reparations. 96.67.5.125 ( talk) 21:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote from the article.
How could DOA "was perceived as a way of making amends to China for past military aggression", which means DOA should be considered a debt Japan owed to China for its aggression and paid in the form of a loan, and at the same time "Japan is, in fact, China's largest financial donor." Could debt be paid as donation? How can Japan be both a debtor and a donor at the same time. Indeed Japan is a debtor not a donor. Redcloud822 04:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, and this is just a POV, I think the Japanese government started ODA partly because of the perceived direct economic benefits Japan can enjoy from developing China. Therefore, ODA should not be treated solely for the purpose of renumerating wartime transgressions. 350 billion vs. 30 billion. Where did you get the 350 billion estimate? How does the number compare to USSR, France etc. received individually from Germany?
And another issue that's hard to compare is the obvious slant for European countries (due to developed status then) with Asian countries in dealing with a fair leverage table for renumeration with Japan. Many Asian countries were still colonies and lacked the developed governmental infrastructure, representation to deal with Japan. The USA and partly, China (KMT) had more say on these issues. However, it seems that JiangJieshi did not demand renumeration.
Basically, imho, for the purposes of PR China, the issue currently is self-development and developing cultural, political and economic ties with other Asian countries and also Europe to have a better leverage against Japan in dealing with WW2 issues. We have already seen KMT and CCP have made progressive moves (visiting China), so a united Chinese front (at least in terms of accepting and promoting a shared heritage) would aid this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.80.108 ( talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The article provides a detailed account of Japanese ODA to China, but failed to account for the amount of reparation China forgave Japan. Even though accurate estimation of Japanese damage to China has been given, one can look into comparable cases.
1) Germany has paid $61.8 billion by 1998 for approximately 6 million Jews murdured and property damage with no end in sight. [1]
2) The US government paid $20,000 for decedents of every Japanese American being sent to internment. [2]
Chinese casualty during Japanese invasion is estimated at 35 million. All major Chinese cities were heavily bombarded and razed to the ground, Shanghai, Nanjing, Chengdu, Chongqi, Wuhan, Hongzhou, etc... So a rough estimate of Japanese reparation, by German standard the sum should be around $350 billion, by American standard the sum should be $700 billion.
Total Japanese ODA to China is around $30 billion, of which 90% is low interest loans China has to repay; only less than $3 billion is actual aid. Japanese ODA to China has been widely reported by Japanese media. There were complains about China not showing graditude to Japan. In 1998, Chinese PM, while on a visit to Japan, publicly thanked Japanese for ODA. ODA is also used by Japanese government to pressure China's policy directions. When was the last time Isaerel's foreign policy choice became a condition for Germany reparation? When was the last time a Japanese PM expressed graditude for China's forgiveness of reparation, which is more than 10 times of Japanese loan (ODA), or ever? Redcloud822 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Redcloud, your comments are totally POV. If you want these issues incorporated into the article, you should add a paragraph concerning questions that have been raised about the 'generosity' of the Japanese and the fact that Japan is putting a possiibly unjustified spin on its ODA. Your comments suggest that you yourself are totally anti-Japanese and want to rewrite the article to justify anti-Japanese feelings. The article should not be trying to show how bad the Japanese are, it should be trying to enlighten people about the issue of anti-Japanese sentiment.
Bathrobe 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
China has received about 15,918,423,400 dollars (not including ODAs), mostly based on San Francisco Peace Treaty 14.a.2.:
See ja:日本の戦争賠償と戦後補償 for more info if you can read Japanese. Hermeneus ( user/ talk) 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with a generally neutral approach to an article. Simply put, you can create new articles or subsections called "Chinese opinions of justifications on Anti-Japanese sentiment in China" and something about the Japanese side. You definitely should give the full image, not labels of this dense issue in an article. You should not censor Redcloud completely with your opinion of a perfect neutral article. Comparisons in terms of renumerations should definitely be added as well as background information (which I think is why you removed Redcloud's revisions).
This brings another interesting topic. It may be esoteric for the common layman, but comparing Germany and Japan's approaches to their former victims (countries and ethnicities) during the Post-war to modern periods would be an interesting article.
And further, even if you consider some people's revisions to have a pro-China slant, you should rather work with the new information provided and remove it if and only if it is completely trivial, non-factual or blatantly biased.
This article is about Anti-Japanese sentiment in China, and if we talk about sentiment, it is not clearly defined.
"while scenes of the Nanking Massacre were censored from the Japanese theatrical release of The Last Emperor."
Please confirm above. I saw "The Last Emperor" in Japan and the scenes of the Nanking Massacre was included.
Tsumugi 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Anti-anything sentiment, like this, exist for one and only one reason, and that is government propaganda. Also everything in this article is hearsay, conjecture and personal opinion. It should be deleted from Wikipedia as it is not note-worthy. Why does Wikipedia allow all these passionate personal opinions to exist in what is an online encyclopedia? leveni 2 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.78.20 ( talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This suggested merger has been up since July 2007, but no arguments were put forward on the talk page. This article was originally spun off from the article on Anti-Japanese sentiment, presumably due to the increasing length of the main article. How many editors are in favour of a merger? If there aren't any, can we take down the disfiguring box at the start of the article? Bathrobe ( talk) 10:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Poster Japan flag stabbed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Should allude to how in ancient Chinese history, the Japanese were often referred to as 倭 "dwarf", but Japanese replaced it with 和 "harmony" -- see article Wa (Japan)... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"Some believe[who?] that anti-Japanese sentiment in China is partially the result of political manipulation by the Communist Party of China."
Going by the works cited, "some believe" can be replaced by "Susan Shirk believes." There's something of an incongruence between the notability of this POV and the bracingly broad heading of "Politics." -- Quadalpha ( talk) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anti-Japanese sentiment in China. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anti-Japanese sentiment in China. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Anti-Japanese sentiment in China. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12273{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cqga.gov.cn/jfzx%5Cjfdt/3108.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=spo_30&k=2008022001092When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
"China refused war reparations from Japan in the 1972 Joint Communiqué. Japan gave official development assistance (ODA), amounting to 3 trillion yen (US$30 billion). According to estimates, Japan accounts for more than 60 percent of China's ODA received. About 25 percent of the funding for all of China's infrastructure projects between 1994 and 1998 — including roads, railways, telecom systems and harbours — came from Japan."
By placing reparations at the start of the paragraph, it gives the impression ODA is a form of reparations. The 3 trillion yen claim I believe comes from https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000128001.pdf and is actually a loan and not a grant. ODA grants to China are miniscule in comparison. IMO ODA does not have a place in this article or should at least be moved to a completely different section from reparations. 96.67.5.125 ( talk) 21:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)