Talk:Netto-uyoku

Reecent contentious edits and vandalism

Storm598 Per Jisho [[1]] the change you made to the definition of ネット右翼 is incorrect. You also introduce multiple unsourced sentences like the claims "Many also exhibit praises of Japan during the historical eras such as the Muromachi and Tokugawa period" and that they show "some anti-American and anti-Western tendencies" among others. Along with the removal of valid See also entries like Gukppong (South Korea), Fenqing (China), and Little Pink (China). XiAdonis (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggested reliable sources, especially 'book' as the source. These books clearly describe "Netto-uyoku" as the same or similar to "alt-right" in the West. It's you, not me, who does vandalism.--Storm598 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem with the sources I have suggested, and it is 'vandalism' that you continue to erase the contents in large quantities. --Storm598 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

What "book" are you referring to? I provided a dictionary definition, here is another, this time from Kotobank [2]. Uyoku simply means right wing, netto comes from net. Unless you clarify what "book" your referring to, and why you think it is more authoritative than a dictionary, your argument doesn't hold much weight. XiAdonis (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous pun. "Uyoku dantai"'s original meaning is "Right-wing group". According to your argument, "Alt-right" is also "Alternative right-wing" simply by interpreting its meaning, so a disgusting far-right nonsense that it is not white nationalism is established. The dictionary has no more authority than a trusted book that can be trusted. "Uyoku" in "Netto-uyoku" means "Right-wing", but that can't be the basis for Netto-uyoku not being a far-right force. (In particular, Japanese politics has a significant nationalism and historical revisionist atmosphere overall, so no matter how much Kotobank runs by the center-left liberal journalist Asahi Shimbun, it cannot be as neutral as external views other than Japanese or Korean.) --Storm598 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble trying to understand what you're saying exactly but what I can see clearly is that you have not clarified what "book" you are referring to. I've provided multiple dictionary definitions both an English one (Jisho) [3] and a Japanese one (Kotobank) [4]

Both are valid and authoritative but it seems you think Kotobank is not neutral? If you scroll down you'll notice Kotobank is an amalgam of dictionaries, many give the official english translation of "right wing" for 右翼 along with the Japanese definition, the rest define the word as right wing without an english translation. You'll have quite the herculean task ahead of you if you're going to try to prove that all 6 of the dictionaries that the entries on Kotobank are pulled from are not neutral.

If I'm understanding your reply correctly it seems to be Original Research. See WP:NOR if your not familiar with this policy. XiAdonis (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I just described "Netto-uyoku" as being evaluated as similar to "Alt-right." I gave a clear basis, and this is never an OR. (Rather, it was you who did the OR in this article. [5])--Storm598 (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll explain it to you in an easy-to-understand way. "alt-right" is a far-right force, and they are just an abbreviation for "alternative right-wing." "Netto-uyoku" is a far-right force, and they are just an abbreviation for "Internet right-wing." Netto-uyuku is an obvious far-right, and this is the view of the mainstream academia. --Storm598 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Netto-uyoku presents a source based on a book called Far Right. --Storm598 (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And the fact that "Netto-uyoku" is Far-right or Ultranationalist was originally written in the article, and strictly speaking, it was not something I edited and added. You deleted the phrase Far-right or Ultranationalist while doing vandalism, and I just canceled your malicious editing. --Storm598 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

What you are doing is WP:SYNTH and it 100% falls under the purview of WP:NOR. By making this argument you're ignoring the Jisho definition [6] which gives a definiton of the compound word "netto uyoku" and not just the component word "uyoku" as Kotobank does, this makes your WP:SYNTH argument even more uncredible.

Passing mentions made to the definition in books and articles are not as authoritative as dictionaries. I can provide articles as well which define netto uyoku as simply "net right wingers" as done here "The case offers insight into contemporary Japan’s so-called netto-uyo (net right-wingers . . . uyoku) phenomenon" [7] ironically I think this is actually an article you added to the page, here is another one "Japan’s “Internet right-wingers” (netto uyoku or netto hoshu)" [8]. I'll add one more just to fully illustrate this point from "The Political Orientation of Japanese Online Right-wingers", "Since the early 2000s, Japan has witnessed the growing salience of so-called netto uyoku (online right-wingers)"[9], this one even had it in the title.

As we both can provide likely endless sources defining the word with any number of nuances luckily there exists this tool called the dictionary which is supposed to remedy these types of disagreements with an authoritative definition of what the word actually means. XiAdonis (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You didn't understand what I was saying at all. Netto-uyoku is an abbreviation for 'Internet right-wing', and at the same time they are far-right forces. Although Netto-uyoku is a clear far-right group, it is against Wikipedia regulations to deny that they are far-right. In Wikipedia, minority views should not be written down as majority views. It is also wrong to deny what is recognized as a majority view and what is written based on reliable sources. It is widely recognized by major academia that Japan's Internet right-wing are part of Japan's far-right forces.--Storm598 (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You have not been able to support those claim, repeating them over and over again and refusing to face the argument at hand is not going to change that. Why do you think dictionaries aren't reliable sources for definitions of words? XiAdonis (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's frustrating. Netto-uyoku is Internet Right-wing. When did I deny that? The problem is that they are also recognized by major academia for their far-right tendencies. (In Kotobank, there is no content that Netto-uyoku is not far-right.) --Storm598 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not a proper argument for defining them as far right. You're only argument for this are passing mentions in some academic articles and I have above provided multiple academic articles defining them differently, I'll do so again right now, since you seem to still not be getting this "particularly among otaku and Internet right-wingers (netto uyoku) in Japan" [10].

I'll leave here my above argument "As we both can provide likely endless sources defining the word with any number of nuances luckily there exists this tool called the dictionary which is supposed to remedy these types of disagreements with an authoritative definition of what the word actually means."

Defining netto uyoku as exclusively far right as your edit does is incorrect, for likely the thousandth time netto uyoku simply means people who post right wing views online this includes moderate and far right views (or literally anything that falls under the umbrella of right wing). This is not a difficult concept to understand.

It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. XiAdonis (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Netto-uyoku" is a description written in an existing article, and you are the one who removed it. Is there any reason to say that "Netto-uyoku" is moderate or not far-right? I'll tell you again. "Netto-uyoku" means "Internet right-wing", and they are politically far-right. The evidence that they are 'not' far-right is a minority opinion. --Storm598 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The source you suggested does not prove at all that they are not far-right. (WP:V) --Storm598 (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I also think Netto-uyoku is a kind of Otaku culture. But that can't be the basis for not being their far-right tendency. (WP:SYN) --Storm598 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I included the page number for the above link, I thought it would go to the page directly when opened but looks like that wasn't the case.

Again the arguments you are making are WP:NOR. You're just repeating them ad nauseum and ignoring the arguments against them. "they are politically far-right" no, the word refers to anyone who posts right wing comments online including non far right comments. "The evidence that they are 'not' far-right is a minority opinion" no it is not and you have literally 0 basis for this claim. "The source you suggested does not prove at all that they are not far-right." that is not what I intended to prove with that source. You're sole argument is that some articles define netto uyoku as far right and because of this you ignore all dictionaries which define the word as simply right wing, what I was illustrating is that there also a large number of articles which define the word as simply right wing making your argument void. The sole recourse then is to delegate this issue to a dictionary, which for some reason you're vehemently opposed to. Again it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. XiAdonis (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I went in on the link, but nothing came up.--Storm598 (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there will be an end to this Talk even if we argue amongst ourselves. It would be nice to listen to the opinions of other wiki users. (I want to see if Netto-uyoku has reliable data with "Not far-right" written on it.)--Storm598 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No source exists which claims that the word netto uyoku does not include people who post far right messages online, this line of thought has nothing to do with our argument. A request for a third opinion is a good idea. XiAdonis (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References