Talk:China–Japan relations/Archive 1

From Talk:Japan-People's Republic of China relations
This is from a redundant talk page. "Japan-People's Republic of China relations" redirected to "People's Republic of China – Japan relations", but the talk page didn't get redirected. Everything here is years old. -- Sven Manguard (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: there was a cut-and-paste move and both the old "Japan-People's Republic of China relations" article and talk page were later history-merged (the latter by me). Graham87 (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Japanese Chemical weapons in China
There are more than 700,000 piece Japanese chemical weapons left in China. Chinese civilians have suffered casualties to those weapons to this day. The process of cleaning up has been very slow moving due Japan's lack of funding. This issue should also be explored. Redcloud822 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Breadth of coverage
Japan and China may not have had official diplomatic relations prior to the 19th century, but that does not mean they had no relations at all. There needs to be mention here of the Ryukyus in the Edo period, which were formally but secretly controlled by Japan (Satsuma han), and which had direct tributary relations (and strong economic relations) with China. Trade at Nagasaki, though executed by individual merchants and not by the Chinese gov't, should probably be discussed as well. ... Nara/Heian contacts with T'ang China. Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. There's lots more to be added here. LordAmeth 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
A few pictures of Wen Jiabao and Shinzo Abe would help. How can we find something that qualifies as fair use? Colipon+(T) 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

War Reparations
Japan pays China a few hundred million each year as war reparations. Its false and misleading to say that Japan hasn't. So far more than 30 billion us dollars has been paid, in addition Japan still gives out finances and other benefits to China such as construction of recent airports and rail systems. http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-japanese-sentiment


 * NON,it is just the low-interest loans.So that's why the chinese always take an eye on the japanese.Cause,the chinese suffered from japanese for 60 years,and the chinese didn't get any recompense,even the slightest revenge didn't exist.The japanese army killed at least 20 millions chinese in 8 years,and after WWII,all the japanese in China returned to Japan safely.I dont want to say more.Even 50 years later,some japanese want to deny the war ,whitewash them and impute the war to chinese,lol.--Ksyrie 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan's war crime in China during WWII
This is an defining issue of Sino-Japan relationship, but it is entirely left out here. wonder why? 68.58.41.135 09:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Japan, they never committed any war crimes in China. The only thing worse than a ruthless warmonger is a ruthless warmonger without shame.Erdan 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese War Crimes in China of World War II
If I were to pick one event defining China-japan relations, the second sino-Japanese war would be it, eg the war crimes committed by the Japanese military in China and Asia during the 1930;s and 40s. Strangely, this was not included. This event is of extreme historical significance, if not the most and people should be performed about it.

The Japanese military committed some of the world's worst atrocities during the Second Sino Japanese War. At least 30 million people in China alone were killed, massacred, burnt, tortured and in the Nanking Rape, 20 thousand girls and women were raped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.63.130 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)
I am requesting moving this to the original name, per naming conventions of WikiProject International relations, so that it will be in line with all other bi-national relations article names. Chris 22:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hai jin and Sakoku
Wow, this article sure has come a long way since I last commented about it last year... Thank you very much for a job well done. I do have one further concern, however: the current text makes no mention of the Ming Dynasty's hai jin policy, and misrepresents the degree to which Japan was "closed" during the Edo period.

It was the Ming, not Japan, who originally severed relations, as part of their hai jin (海禁, maritime restrictions) policy, and in response to the failure of Japan (which was amidst complete chaos and civil war at the time, under no central authority) to curb the activities of the multi-ethnic, multi-national wokou. Once Japan emulated China and imposed its own maritime restrictions (kaikin, 海禁), Japan continued to have extensive relations with the Ryukyus and Korea, and indeed with Vietnam, Siam, and other polities as well. Sakoku, seclusion, closed-door, and isolationism are all terms which current scholarship generally reject in describing this period.

I apologize for not making edits myself; I am hoping that, with a little suggestion and prodding, editors with more expertise on Chinese history than myself - I really don't know much about the causes of the hai jin policy or the details of its implementation - will be able to figure out how to work it in better. If there are any questions about the Japanese side of things, I would be happy to try to answer them best as I can. Thank you. LordAmeth 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Title
So, the article is now located at "Japan - People's Republic of China relations", which is more accurate, more appropriate, more unwieldy, and far less commonly used than "Sino-Japanese relations." Plus, the article continues to discuss relations long before the Communist revolution. ... What's to be done? Are we going to revert the name back to the simple, commonly used, and not truly inaccurate version, or are we going to leave this alone and split off the pre-modern stuff to a new article? LordAmeth 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Split? The historical relations (pre-1949) can be split into China-Japan relations with links at the beginning of either toward the other. Barring that, the material could be moved to Imperial China-Japan relations, e.g. Foreign relations of China. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've split the pre-PRC content to Sino-Japanese relations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I'm not quite sure if I see what you did. I've gone ahead and undone the redirecting of Sino-Japanese relations to PRC-Japan relations, and split out the content appropriately. LordAmeth 13:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like User:El C reverted the article renaming of People's Republic of China-Japan relations, that's probably why when you looked at it, it didn't look like the article was split at all. At the time of my comment People's Republic of China-Japan relations redirects to Sino-Japanese relations, so I'm just going to revert your edits to the article that should have reflected an article split.  We should probably get User:El C in here to discuss the renaming before we go ahead to do much more.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion in Talk:Sino-Japanese relations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Suggestion of the renaming to Japan-People's Republic of China relations
I think this page should be named as Japan-People's Republic of China relations

I think the ordering of "People's Republic of China" and "Japan" is strange. with the following reasons. 1. the long word should not be the first. (at least I learned so, if I arrange some words without alphabetical ordering. though sometimes it may violate the NPOV of WIKIPEDIA.) 2. both names are written in fullname. in Official, Japan is Japan. 3. the alphabetical ordering is Japan and People's Republic of China. (I think this doesn't violate the NPOV in Wikipedia)

I gathered the practices of the common rule in the Internet. "Australia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Mexico, People's Republic of China, Russia and Urkaine" "brazil mexico people's republic of china and russia" "Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia, Mexico, People's Republic of China, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia" the name of "People's Republic of China" can be ordered in the 'P' section of the country lists.

and I searched further at University: the Indiana University. "Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, the People's Republic of China, Russia, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey" People's Republic of China is also in the P section. Does "People's Republic of China" show before Japan? no... I'd like to rename People's Republic of China-Japan relations into Japan-People's Republic of China relations?

And I suggest that France-People's Republic of China relations, Germany-People's Republic of China relations, ... should be accepted. (this topic was firstly talked at User talk:Koavf and User talk:Boldlyman with with User:Koavf and User:Boldlyman. Give some comments.--Boldlyman 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rationale The reason for writing the full name of the People's Republic of China (PRC) is that there are two Chinese states: this and the Republic of China (ROC). Alphabetical order is maintained if you assume that the PRC is alphabetized with "China" as its name. See, for instance: List of countries, among several others on Wikipedia. For that matter, see the examples of the Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo, whose names are under "C." The word that is longer or shorter is not preferred, only alphabetical order. The example you gave from IU is a common mistake of called the ROC "Taiwan" and not alphabetizing the PRC under its short-form name of China. Consequently, I am still in favor of the present name. I certainly see no justification for moving it to Japan-People's Republic of China relations. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The re-orderings make sense to me. John Smith&#39;s 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are two Chinese states. And we need to express them in different ways without ambiguousness. We already know PRC has no short name without ambiguousness('China' may include Taiwan), and ROC has the short name:TAIWAN without ambiguousness. (ROC has tried to join UN with the name, "TAIWAN". so, I say ROC prefers to be called as TAIWAN. so, IU didn't mistake.) The word 'China' has an ambiguousness. so it leads this issue. Totally, the disambiguous name of 'People's Republic of China' is 'People's Republic of China' only. There are practices that 'People's Republic of China' is arranged in 'P' Section, as I showed you. Justin(Koavf)'s university also introduces the People's republic of China in 'P' Section. If the 'list of disambiguous country name' exists in Wikipedia, the People's Republic of China will be in the 'P' section. What we have to talk is the ordering of the 'list of disambiguous country name'. If Justin(Koavf) has a favor to keep current name, I'd like to expect that Justin(Koavf) would provide the example that People's Republic of China is arranged in 'C' section of the list of disambiguous country name. And... Justin(Koavf) brought out the List of countries. Strictly to say, it is a 'list of countries by its short name', as you know. I think it won't correspond to this case. --Boldlyman 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, the title was reverted to Sino-Japanese relations. though, I should contintue this discussion. This 'sino' is ambiguous likewise 'China'. Sino may include Taiwan. and I think all people here know the both word of 'Sina'(Sino), 'China' came from one name 'Qing' of Qing dynasty. and this article is written about the relation between Japan and People's Republic of China. and this article doesn't include Japan-Taiwan relations. I repeat PRC has no disambiguous short name. I mean we should not use ambiguous word:Sina, Sino, China as the title name, to represent of People's Republic of China. I recommend this atricle should be renamed into Japan-People's Republic of China relations. --Boldlyman 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Boldlyman here, as per the rationale that the articles on France-PRC relations and Germany-PRC relations are phrased in that way. To put the longer name first just looks awkward. LordAmeth 12:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 10:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page discrepancy
Alright, between the article renaming, the article splitting, and the reverting of the article renaming, the Talk page for the article got split into two, so now here we are.

What happened?
 * The article was named Sino-Japanese relations.
 * User:Koavf renamed it to People's Republic of China-Japan relations.
 * I did an article split to move the pre-PRC content back into Sino-Japanese relations, leaving the post-PRC content in People's Republic of China-Japan relations.
 * User:El C reverted the article renaming so now it is back in Sino-Japanese relations.
 * Unfortunately I had already started a fresh Talk page for Sino-Japanese relations, thus the new Talk page you are reading right now.

So let's discuss before we do any more article renaming and further mess up the article state. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We should talk about two topics.
 * 1: Can we accept the spin-off of the article 'Japan-Pre-People's Republic of China relations' from this article?(the title is not fixed yet.)
 * 2: Renaming, A:'Sino-Japanese relations', B:'People's Republic of China-Japan relations', C:'Japan-People's Republic of China relations'. D: other. Which is the best title for this article on the naming convention?
 * my opinion:
 * To 1: Yes, I can accept it. We already have the article:Japan-Taiwan relations. Taiwan is an active 'de facto' nation. (Actually, Taiwan tried to join United Nation this year). if we keep current state, we don't have the proper title for this article. China, Sino may include Taiwan. the article should not confuse the wikipedian.
 * To 2: C, I've already told what I should tell on renaming(see here).
 * --Boldlyman 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Taiwan tries to join the UN every year. Any rate, I don't care if we moved this article to a title containing "People's Republic of China".  However, if we do this, I would prefer that pre-PRC content stays at "Sino-Japanese relations".  Not only is "Japan-Pre-People's Republic of China relations" unnecessarily wordy, "Sino-Japanese" is commonly used for, well, Sino-Japanese relations, even today.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * God, this is such a mess. I agree with HongQiGong. We should have three separate articles - Sino-Japanese relations, Japan-Taiwan relations, and Japan-People's Republic of China relations. LordAmeth 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is pretty idiotic (IMHO) and even more a mess. I suggest putting them all back to Sino-Japanese relations. Yes, Taiwan is a "de facto" nation, but its history is Chinese, its culture is Chinese, and its people are largely those who ran away from mainland China. I don't see why we shouldn't talk about both the PRC and the ROC in the same article. Aran|heru|nar 10:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as names are concerned, I think Sino-Japanese relations would work the best, this current title seems too long and awkward. Furthermore, as an outside reader going through the article not knowing too much on the history between Japan and China, there seemed be considerable bias in this article in China's favour. Perhaps an expert on the field could go through the article to determine whether this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indysahota (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Query: All of the references to the main article "Nanking Massacre" in this article are called "Rape of Nanking" or "Rape of Nanjing". It seems like the cross-reference links should match the main article title. Otherwise, it's confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyrader (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

improving relations
This article seems to be largely focused on past relations, can we have a section about the steps the PRC and Japan have taken over the last few years at improving relations? 154.20.102.240 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * agreed. there should be at least one section that focuses on the improvement of relations and future resolution of hard feelings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.15.113 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
Why not redirect this page to Sino-Japanese relations? That is the more formal way of referring to China when doing so in a manner like so (ie- foreign relations?) Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the idea. PRC-Japan relations exist since 1949 only, but the article covers almost 2000 years. Qing Empire-Japan, PRC-Japan and ROC-Japan relations could be main articles for some sections of this article.Fuseau (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support from here too. it's much similar to Sino-Indian relations. --LLTimes (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

China-Japan Economic interaction
Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SHINO YUASA, 29 June 2010, Chinese tourists flock to Japan, lift weak economy, Associated Press
 * Sachiko Sakamaki, May 18, 2010, Japan Seeks ‘Droves’ of Chinese Tourists to Give Economy Boost, Bloomberg


 * Something about reparations as well?
 * http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FB12Ad07.html
 * Japan has become a linchpin in China's economy. By of the end of 2002, the Japanese had pumped in US$36.34 billion in foreign direct investment, or 8.11 percent of China's total utilized FDI, making Japan China's largest foreign investor, according to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. And by investing in high-tech industries the Japanese also bring with them all the requirements to upgrade China's economy in value-added manufacturing and management. In 2002, Chinese products became Japan's largest imports for the first time, accounting for 18.3 percent of Japan's total imports, surpassing United States' products, which were 17.1 percent of total imports. And China became one of Japan's largest export markets, second only to the US. That was the same year two-way trade between the China and Japan first exceeded $100 billion, reaching $101.9 billion in 2002, and $120 billion in the first 11 months of 2003.

Restructuring
A major portion of this article was unsupported per WP:V. There were no inline citations nor by bibliographic reference source citations. IMO, the pre-PRC chronological narrative can be safely removed from this article.
 * 1 Pre-modern Times
 * 1.1 First evidences of Japan in Chinese historical records AD 1-300
 * 1.2 Introduction of Chinese political system and culture AD 600-900
 * 1.3 First China-Japanese battle
 * 1.4 The prosperities of marine trading 600-1600
 * 1.5 Japanese piracy on China's coasts and Mongol invasions from China and Korea 1200-1600
 * 1.6 Ming Dynasty's involvement to defeat Hideyoshi's Korean invasions of 1592-1598
 * 2.1 Meiji Restoration, wars and imperialism from 1868 to 1945 ?

Would it be reasonable for this article to begin with the establishment of the PRC? If not, why not? The pre-PRC material is problematic, but no text has been deleted. It is not visible, but any or all of it can be restored. Retaining this hidden text allows time for others to express opinions ...? The history of Sino-Japanese relations before the founding of the PRC does have a bearing on the subject, but does it justify restoring the hidden text? IMO, no it does not. Please note that the section headings have been simplified in a chronology of decades. This structure may not be the best, but it does provide an easy foundation from which a consensus may develop. --Tenmei (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WSJ resource
Japan to Challenge China on Security November 19, 2011 Wall Street Journal by Yoree Koh, excerpt ...

99.56.120.136 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China
The above article is a stub, and I'm proposing it be merged into this article--Robert Treat (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Actually the Treaty of Peace and Friendship [etc.] needs a separate and greatly expanded article of its own. I'm working to expand it from some Japanese sources.Prburley (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it merits a separate article. Good luck with the expansion. -- Klein zach  01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Dragon down the sun
http://chinascope.org/main/content/view/5902/104/

Is this sourcing any good WRT future war plans? Hcobb (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's merely sabre-rattling rhetoric that's nothing new of the military editorial section of the People's Daily. The same rhetoric has been repeated before, and there really isn't any need to pay heed to it. All parties are aware that war brings economic setbacks for both sides, meaning that military conflict is unlikely because of this, and these threats are being used in China for political reasons (blown out of proportion as a distraction from domestic problems). Commentaries like these are published by individuals with their own opinions, and are not representative of any official "government orders". It's silly to read People's Daily editorials as some kind of declaration for war preparation, like a bunch of Call of Duty 4 kids getting excited and geared up for the prospect of war. -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Restructure
The article is focused on more recent events. Need more emphasis on the ancient relations )(Buddhism's spread, etc). Aalso to note is the Senkaku Iislands and Yasukuni dispute.(Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)).

Links
>?> Africa: China and Japan's Next Battleground?(Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved by MJ Soquerata. Red Slash 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese relations → China-Japan relations – In the interests of consistency, all such relations page are with the alphabetical first country and then the secound country (there is no demonym or other such words) to identify the relations pages.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per consistency in Category:Bilateral relations of China and across the whole set of bilateral articles. The previous move was reverted citing an anomalous case but that should be changed as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The proposed title "China-Japan relations" does not meet WP:NDASH, which is inconsistent with the other bilateral relations articles that do. Support China–Japan relations. --Cold Season (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:Consistency. Timmyshin (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Red Slash 01:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:Consistency--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link to Islands
There has been discussion on the pages for both Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands Dispute regarding their renaming to Diaoyu, Pinnacle, or other. The result of all of these discussions has been in favor of "Senkaku." See: Talk:Senkaku_Islands, Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute. I would maintain that this article, especially where it links to these pages, should follow the nomenclature used there. As such I have changed the references accordingly. If there is ever consensus to change the Senkaku articles to Diaoyu, feel free to change the links here. Until then, don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.89.249 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on China–Japan relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050413001059/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050411/CHINA11/TPInternational/Asia to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050411/CHINA11/TPInternational/Asia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Country Comparison
A country comparison like in the "Japan-USA Relations"-Article would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.179.93 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on China–Japan 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323052355/http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/19/03/07022608.htm to http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/19/03/07022608.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305090742/http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/cgi-bin/nn20010716a3.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20010716a3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813162411/http://russia.org.cn/eng/?SID=20 to http://www.russia.org.cn/eng/?SID=20

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) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on China–Japan 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315085228/http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1388 to http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1388
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20010716a3.html

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) 05:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Revised References
In the 3rd paragraph and in some other places, we have references cited as (Xing, 2011), Iechika (2003), and (Fuhrmann, 2016), but I have no idea what these are originally referencing. Can we get the original sources included? Or if we can't find them, cite different sources or list some statements with [citation needed]?

-Takao8 (Talk) 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of "Sino-Nippon"?
I am skeptical of the degree to which "Sino-Nippon relations" is actually a thing. It seems rather archaic/obscure. A casual Google search reveals the term in a handful of books (not all of them about international relations), and a JSTOR search of "Sino-Nippon" gives nine results--only two in English. Going again by the JSTOR metric, "Sino-Japanese relations" brings over 2,300 instances, and "China-Japan relations" over 300. Is it accurate to say "Sino-Nippon" is really an alternative term used to refer to China-Japan relations? I feel like the phrase should be deleted (and probably replaced with Sino-Japanese), but would like to hear others' opinions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree--the term "Nippon" is rarely used since 1945 and will be a mystery to most Wiki users. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to go ahead and remove it and replace it with Sino-Japanese (which also makes more sense grammatically, since Nippon is a noun) WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)