Talk:Anti-Japaneseism

WP:NPOV?

The wording in this article is extremely suspicious.

• Anti-Japaneseism radicalized this argument by claiming that even communist revolution could not redeem Japan because the Japanese themselves possess an inherent "aggressive nature".
• Proponents of this theory believe that the only way to redeem oneself from the "oppressor and criminal Japanese race" is to fight against all Japanese interests until the "Japanese" archipelago has been purged of anything Japanese.
• The so-called "final solution" of Anti-Japaneseism is to wipe the nation called "Japan" from the face of the earth and exterminate the Japanese race.
• A section titled: Strategy to extinguish Japanese ethnicity

There's a genuine possibility this could be neutral but I'm going to use my Occam's razor here and say that either:

• This is a hoax.
• This is an ideology that is so radically fringe, with so few members, that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards.
• It is, in some way, being inaccurately represented.

I have full confidence that, considering this article is only linked to by eleven actual articles that are, for the most part, obscure topics themselves, this article is not going to have enough traffic to be source-vetted by a native Japanese speaker. Despite this, it seems to have been linked to or cited on numerous online sources where some degree of political discussion, however immature, is bound to take place. For this reason, I'm going to copy-paste this message onto the NPOV noticeboard so someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look at the issue.

96.55.212.210 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This article was translated from the corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia. A machine-translated version can be found here. (Do note, however, that Google Translate seems to have done a poor job, badly mangling the article.) One thing to note is that the original Japanese Wikipedia page has a template saying that page numbers or section titles need to be added to the inline citations. Jancarcu (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I had the exact same instinct as you. I suspect there's some truth to the article (the Japanese left during that period especially had a lot of oddballs) but the wording seems to push over the line of avoidably POV on a number of occasions. seefooddiet (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note the Japanese Wikipedia is pretty hostile to the left and very often nationalist. Posts on 5ch frantically examine other users for any signs of being sympathetic to the left, meanwhile they don't apply the same scrutiny to right-wing users or attempt to undo their POV. seefooddiet (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the same can be said about English wikipedia being hostile to the right and how they don’t apply the same scrutiny to left-wing users. This article is fine. The New Left in Japan evidently espoused these things, there’s no denying in it. If it were to be changed simply because of *POV*, then almost every page about right-wing or fascist ideologies on here should also be questioned (i.e., they espoused what they believed). Teng18009912 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Your bringing up the English Wikipedia is a whataboutism, wrong in one place doesn't make wrong in another ok. Typical tactic to justify or downplay the wrongs of a preferred side.
2. You need to read my comment more carefully. I was willing to believe that those beliefs are grounded in truth, I'm more concerned with the tone of the article. I'm also concerned about the lack of sourcing on it, on such a controversial topic.

And yeah, every page about any controversial ideology should be questioned. That's not really a novel point, and reads again like another whataboutism.

I'm not really sure what your comment is attempting to argue. The two whataboutisms aren't a good sign; just reads defensive. seefooddiet (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also you sure seem to have a strong degree of certainty about the veracity of the article. I don't have that same degree of certainty; I'm hardly ever certain about anything because the world is complicated. Did you read the sources in question to verify that the writing strictly sticks to what the sources are saying?

Even with that in mind, much of the article is unsourced and the topic is so controversial that deleting the unsourced writing altogether is probably justified. seefooddiet (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, sure, if you can bring up "I'll also note the Japanese Wikipedia is pretty hostile to the left and very often nationalist" then I think it's fair to mention that English Wikipedia tends to be hostile to the right. Your point could potentially push the article further to the left rather than maintaining neutrality, especially if "tone" is the central concern here on English Wikipedia.

This isn’t whataboutism—it’s a valid counterpoint that questions the arbitrary application of standards. If articles are expected to maintain a neutral tone, shouldn’t that principle be applied consistently across the board? I’m not being defensive, just pointing out that English Wikipedia can be highly selective in how it enforces tone policies (which is beyond the point of this talk page anyway). Also, bringing up that Japanese Wikipedia is "hostile to the left and often nationalist" doesn’t really add much to the discussion—I’m not sure why you mentioned it to begin with.

As far as the source question is concerned, I think that "Destiny: The Secret Operations of the Yodogō Exiles" by Kōji Takazawa is one of the few English secondary sources that we currently have. Other than that, the original article on Japanese Wikipedia are mostly first-hand accounts and primary sources. This one for example, 東アジア反日武装戦線KF部隊 (準)『反日革命宣言 東アジア反日武装戦線の戦闘史』鹿砦社、1979年, states explicitly what the Japanese New Left believed in, which should be on footnotes rather than references, similar to the The Communist Manifesto article. Secondary sources on the original Japanese Wiki are 佐々木俊尚『「当事者」の時代』光文社、2012年 and 治安フォーラム別冊『過激派事件簿40年史』立花書房、2001年. I haven't had the time to cross-check and revise it yet. Hopefully, someone can look into it and help improve the article. Teng18009912 (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If I was on the jawiki talking about an article translated from the enwiki, I would have brought up the enwiki's left-wing tendencies if it was relevant in conversation.

And it was relevant here; the jawiki is often right-leaning, the translated content is somewhat unsourced, and it is writing about a left-wing movement using Japanese-language texts that are difficult for us to access. I'm struggling to understand why you can't see how that's relevant.

And despite your insistence, your arguments were still whataboutisms. I do not arbitrarily apply standards; I am consistent. I regularly tone down and harshly criticize both left- and right-leaning articles. I even regularly tone down articles about rapists, murderers, and war crimes. Are you going to assume it's because I selectively like those topics?

I don't think your whataboutisms added much to the conversation; with the exception of your source analysis you've been actively distracting. This is the last time I'll discuss your conduct; stop with the whataboutisms and broad insinuations about Wikipedia as a whole and focus on the content of the article like I was doing. The difference between my discussion of Wikipedia and yours is that I was bringing it up to contextualize translations from the jawiki, and you were trying to either 1. broadly accuse me of bias or 2. defend the jawiki and this version of the article, tone issues and all. I suspect your motivation was a bit of 1 and 2. seefooddiet (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my position at this point. The 反日革命宣言 explicitly outlines the claims made in this article, particularly in Chapter One, 反日思想の根拠, and Chapter Two, 各企業の侵略反革命史. If straightforwardly presenting the movement's beliefs and reflecting them word-by-word in the article is enough to prompt comments about how "the Japanese Wikipedia is pretty hostile to the left and often nationalist," then, as I also suspect, your concerns aren't solely about the article's tone. Oddly enough, instead, you could argue that Japanese-language texts are difficult to access in the first place. Alternatively, you could suggest what tone standards we should follow if sources weren't available. If it truly is about tone, then I apologize for misunderstanding. However, this doesn't change the fact that the 反日革命宣言 itself uses similar language to that in the article. Neither I have no interest in continuing this conversation further as all the points I've raised are simply dismissed as "whataboutisms." Teng18009912 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It was genuinely about tone and the fact that I can't read Japanese effectively to verify sources and tone. I was letting other people know that my experience with the jawiki gave me an overall feeling of caution, especially because of the controversial subject matter.

If you think the language and tone of the sourced parts are genuinely similar, and the source is reliable enough, then great. But I'm still not comfortable; all I have is your word and much of the article is still unsourced. Until someone tightly aligns each detail with sources, I'll remain wary of taking the article at face value. seefooddiet (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Old left

The intro has a mention of the old left, is there an article we can link that to? RJFJR (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Heavy copyedits needed

This article, which is a translation from Japanese, needs heavy copyediting for style and organization. Here are what I think are the most major problems:

1. The distinction made between Anti-Japaneseism and Anti-Japanism that the heading of section 1 alludes to is not elaborated on in section 1 itself. The a lack of English language sources that distinguish Anti-Japaneseism and Anti-Japanism as terms only adds to the confusion as to what this distinction is supposed to be. The original Japanese article does not help since it has no section whose heading corresponds to the heading of section 1. French Wikipedia appears to use its equivalent section to distinguish between Anti-Japaneseism (which is confusingly translated as Anti-Japonisme, the equivalent of Anti-Japanism, which is what EN section 1 is trying to distinguish Anti-Japaneseism from) and "nipponophobie" (anti-Japanese prejudice/sentiments), which might make more sense as a distinction, since "Anti-Japanism" is not a commonly-used word.

2. Referring to ideological views as "theories" is a bit awkward. 論 is used more liberally in kanji culture sphere languages than "theory" is in English.

If there are no objections, I might try to retranslate the article from Japanese Wikipedia while also consulting the other Wikipedias. The Chinese Wikipedia page is of no use because it doesn't have any sources. The French Wikipedia page was also translated from the Japanese Wikipedia page, but it looks as though it has been copyedited a bit to sound less awkward. --DaysonZhang (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: I'm deciding to be WP:BOLD. 論 will now be translated as words like "ideology" or "claim" depending on the context. --DaysonZhang (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please somebody add it to THE LIST i beg you. — Preceding unsigned.78.10.84.37 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)