Talk:Sphere of influence

recommendation for update

Most maps that survey spheres of influences include stripped colors to demarcate colonies from spheres of influences. Lamenating entire strokes of China under a single solid strip indicates direct colonial presence, whereas stripped indicators would signify areas within the influence of foreign powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Map

Spheres of influence in China prior to the Open Door Policy.

This map does not give essential information, e.g. what year etc. The borders of China must be made more clear. Does anyone can improve this map? Thanks, --Scriberius (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. For those who understand German, see de:WP:KW#Karte_booty der_politischen_Einflussbereiche for a discussion about this map.

Japan seems to be red, why is the stupid korean peninsula red too? I would recomend that for powers where the country is visible on the map they have the same colour,

The Empire of Japan included all the red areas. See Taiwan under Japanese rule and Korea under Japanese rule.Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what you need to know. These were mostly briefly proposed "spheres of influence". Literally all Chinese provinces except Manchuria remain similar to that of the Ottoman Empire, Japan, and Siam. Crediblesourcesplease (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify a bit. What I meant precisely was Qing provinces. Crediblesourcesplease (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to add the fact that all treaty ports of China remained opened equally to all countries concerned even Manchuria eventhough the Russians tried hard to oppose it. So essentialy the Open Door Policy were always respected by almost everyone including Germany even before Secretary John Hay's Open Door Policy diplomatic notes. Crediblesourcesplease (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Plus all provinces of China except for Manchuria remained completely barred from international commerce until the Republican revolutions of the 1912. So from the beginning to end of the Qing Dynasty only treaty ports enganged in international commerce Crediblesourcesplease (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ambigution?

This topic seems to have a couple aspects to it. Maybe they should get separated out. The traditional imperial definition probably should be on a separate page from its meanings in modern shopping and management.

I agree - and as touched on by Jack Upland above, the term sphere of influence is more accurate when used describing sphere of influence (astrodynamics), so why should a search for sphere of influence point to a completely unrelated topic? We can include them all in a disambiguation page. Feyrauth (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian vs. Western spheres of influence???

Armenia article speaks of Russian vs. Western spheres of influence existing today. I see a little note of that in cold war mayhaps, but none in current times. Can it be said that Armenia falls in both Russian and Western spheres of influence? More importantly, does any source speak about those spheres in modern times?--Kiyarrlls-talk 02:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

yes but what did it mean legally?

I'm disappointed. When European diplomats negotiated formal spheres of influence in China or the Near East, one imagines that they had something specific in mind, but I can't tell from the article what that would be. Did the European powers merely agree to keep out of each other's slices of China, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Congress of Vienna article mentions sphere of influence as well. It might not be a legal term but it could be just a philosophical thought that helped diplomats organize and think about the world. (Which begs the question: does international law have clear definitions of terms? Afterall "international law" is very different from "law", the latter which is decided by and enforced by governments. There is no government that has created international law.) --Bruce Hall (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

India - Founder of non-aligned movment =

Despite perceptions in the US, India considered itself nonaligned except for strategic treaties with USSR. India was one of the founder members of the non-aligned movement. I think the map should reflect that. 129.118.38.198 (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This could be a good example. Many of the countries who were formally in the non-aligned movement where actually within the sphere of influence of either the US or the USSR. Of course, one should also distinguish between a country being within the sphere of influence of another and a country just receiving support from or buying arms from another. India and Pakistan is an interesting example. Pakistan was supported by the US and India by the USSR, if one was to speak roughly. Does that mean that either country was in the sphere of influence of the US and the USSR? Or were those countries just seeking support from wherever they can find it for their own conflict? Perhaps India, being an ex-colony, was (and is) in the sphere of influence of the UK. Could be a good example to discuss the issue. --Bruce Hall (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

by I am an idiat

No Imagination?

Does the conceiver of the idea of the 'Sphere of Influence' have any imagination beyond the military conception of conflict and partnership? Doesn't the military mind have a conception of the Human Organism? Maybe, in a more grandiose flowering... Where is the physics of it all? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Illogical map of China

This wiki page doesn't make any sense. I request legitimate historians to review it and edit any false contents. In my opinion the vast majority of China except for Manchuria remains completely under Chinese rule and sovereignity with zero attempts by the powers to outline the so called "spheres of influence Crediblesourcesplease (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I've checked the sources, they are all published history books with clear references to the treaties signed by the European powers and the Qing dynasty regarding resources and infrastructure in all of those provinces. Colonialism and spheres of influence are not the same thing and your source on colonialism does not necessarily contradict the article. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Contemporary United States (1991–present)"

If this section is going to consist solely of "See also: Foreign relations of the United States", there's no reason for it to exist. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Then delete it, instead of complaining of how inadequate it is. Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)