Talk:Uyoku dantai/Archive 1

So what are they saying?
I have only a vague understanding of what they say using those loudspeakers and I think this article would be much improved if we could provide some kind of translation of some of their philosophies. As I understand it, they include "return the Emperor to power" and "expel all the foreigners." Is that at all accurate? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 05:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Romanization of 「日本青年社」
I changed the romanization of 「日本青年社」from "Nihon Seinensya" to "Nihon Seinensha." Though on their website they refer to themselves as the former, the latter conforms with standard romanization and is the spelling used by other sources, including news agencies and Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.--Rem01 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreigners often note the ease with which the Uyoku operate as a sign of police collusion or sympathy
Maybe, maybe not. Why do foreigners think this? If the uyoku are not doing anything illegal, what do they want the police to do? Perhaps they are just expressing their freedom of speech, which those from the US cherish.
 * I removed that part, it's weird. Don't Japanese note it too? Mackan 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the barb about 'freedom of speech' assumes that the aforementioned 'foreigners' are all from the US.Starviking (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Maybe, maybe not. Why do foreigners think this? If the uyoku are not doing anything illegal, what do they want the police to do? Perhaps they are just expressing their freedom of speech, which those from the US cherish."

yeah right, are you aware that they send death threats any japanese veteran who admitted commiting a war crime, who were just exersicing their freedom of speech by admitting crimes, its obvious that there is police collusion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.244 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

倭
Regarding the photo, do these people know what 倭 means? Why don't they use 大和 instead? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * how about you come to Japan and tell them yourself? Brettr (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Four characters make a stronger impact. 絶体絶命, etc., etc.218.110.248.217 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

there's two more aspects to understand. first of all, four characters is the traditional form for proverbs and slogans of different kinds (if you ask me, extremely difficult to understand even when udnerstanding individual characters), secondly, using more difficult and older kanjis, it's again another way to show conservatism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.178.77 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-native English
This sentence: "It is because Yakuza groups include many Zainichi Korean, and insistences of Uyoku dantai that uplift nationalism become their source of money" doesn't even make sense; non-expert speakers of English shouldn't be editing articles in the English wikipedia! Does anybody know what the author was getting at? Noisms (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly just a native taking a potshot at Koreans/foreigners due to their perception of heavy Korean involvement in some yakuza groups (although neither citation really gives any worthwhile evidence of this, and one of the citations is dead, even). It's basically the Japanese-English way of writing "Koreans are heavily involved in yakuza groups1, which often give money to support right-wing groups in Japan" The accuracy of #1 is disputable; as far as I know, while there is indeed some Korean involvement in some Yakuza groups, their integration is far from whole, nor is it terribly widespread. To my knowledge there is exactly one (perhaps as many as a few) Yakuza group that is largely comprised of Koreans. As for the remaining yakuza groups, I imagine the involvement of Koreans is negligible, especially given the low number of zainichi Koreans here - it would probably require a significant portion of their total population's involvement in Yakuza for the claims made in this quote to make sense, and that would simply defy logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.238.4.49 (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Having read the remaining citation, I'm not convinced that this should even be part of the article. For one, the lecture was given by the former supervisor of the Public Security Intelligence Agency - there is no indication that the information he provided during the lecture is anything more than personal opinion. The only section of this (news) article that even references Koreans, states "やくざの６割を同和関係者、３割を在日韓国・朝鮮人が占めていると明らかにした. " It is immediately vague. My translation into English would be as follows: "It was stated that yakuza groups' membership is comprised of 60% people with connections to "harmony groups", and/or 30% zainichi Koreans or Koreans in general." Whether these two are mutually exclusive or not (I would imagine so) is unclear.

Given that the quote is not terribly clear as far as I am concerned, the section in qestion probably does not warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia article in my opinion, especially as it is specifically not stated that Korean-backed/comprised/etc yakuza groups support these Uyoku dantai. Membership in one does not imply support for the other, and financing is in no way mentioned whatsoever. Due to the fact that the quoted article is vague, nor does it support the statement in the Wikipedia article that is cited, it would seem appropriate that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.238.4.49 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Two lighthouses built by Nihon Seinensha?
The paragraph about Nihon Seinensha states, that two lighthouses were built by that group. However, in a book about "Island Disputes and Maritime Building in East Asia - Between a Rock and a Hard Place" by Min Gyo Koo in 2009 (Springer) it says, that the first lighthouse was built by an other group called Seirankai (Blue Storm Group) in August 1978 (p. 113) and repaired by Nihon Seinensha in 1988 and 1989 "to meet the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency's technical standards" (p. 116). Maybe it's worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.233.185 (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Imperial mob / narco / gang control hawaii state
Imperial themed criminal organization directly involved in major narcotic and organized crime completely control the hawaii state guard, (us) "national guard", and actively transport huge supplies of narcotics using military resources with purpose listed as to complete invasion and takeover of hawaii and other ww2 regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.201.210 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Uyoku dantai. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20050831220917/http://japanesestudies.org.uk:80/discussionpapers/McNeill.html to http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/discussionpapers/McNeill.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080313025140/http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/cgi-bin/fl20061022x5.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20061022x5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Uyoku dantai. 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/20141017220623/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201309230105 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201309230105
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017220722/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201312120046 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201312120046
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017220725/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201312130059 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201312130059
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823002958/http://world.time.com/2012/08/19/japan-activists-land-raise-flags-on-disputed-isle/ to http://world.time.com/2012/08/19/japan-activists-land-raise-flags-on-disputed-isle/

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) 06:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issue
"support the censorship of history textbooks or historical negationism.[4]" The language used here is not NPOV. The topical groups views are that the information in question is false or non-academic- removing it would not be censorship or negationism in that case- so, using that language is taking an ideological position on the topic which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This statement is also tacked onto a sentence that makes its meaning unclear, seeming to say that the groups do not support removing the aforementioned "self hate bias" when obviously they do.71.89.24.41 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Censorship and historical negationism
“They support the censorship of history textbooks or historical negationism”

I disagree with this wording, these groups believe they are correcting biased and incorrect history they do not believe they are censoring events that actually happened. More neutral wording would be “they support the removal of events such as the nanjiang massacre from history textbooks due to their beliefs that these events didn’t happen”. Some sentences could be added to show how mainstream academia views or disagrees with their opinions to make it clear their position is not a popular or well supported one XiAdonis (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't create artificial balance between real historians and fascist liars. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling these people liars is simply not true you might regard what they are saying as inaccurate but they are not lying about their beliefs. I dont see this as artificial balance but accurately stating someones position, artificial balance would be portraying their position as a well supported alternative to the mainstream one.XiAdonis (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If they deny or downplay the Nanjing massacre, they are lying about it because fascists don't care about truth, only power. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They dont describe themselves as fascist, its my understanding fascism as an ideology is not popular in Japan so on what grounds are you accusing them of being fascists? If you cant even acknowledge the views they have as actual views they hold then i dont think this conversation will go anywhere, they are not lying about what they believe i just want their motivations to be portrayed accurately, ive already tried explaining why in my view this doesnt count as artificial balance what do you think about that argument? XiAdonis (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What they believe about the Nanjing massacre is demonstrably untrue, and yet they advocate it anyway -- that's lying about the Nanjing massacre, even if they claim to sincerely believe it. If you can't see that their position is untrue, then you shouldn't be editing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * its not about whether their position is untrue or not it is a position that they hold and it should be represented accurately not twisted to mislead to reader, ive tried to explain already why this doesnt violate wikipedias artificial balance guideline i want you to address that argument -- their views are not being presented as a viable alternative to mainstream academia but as an unpopular and historically unsupported view held by these people, all im asking is for their views to be represented accurately, no reader would assume their position is on equal footing with mainstream historical interpretations -- making assumptions about their motivations is not what you should be doing. XiAdonis (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Their position is one of public disruption based on lies, so I don't know how you will be happy with an accurate portrayal of that. It's not just "unpopular" or "historically unsupported" but also false and wrong. They have no respect from historians. The difference is between holding a minor viewpoint and shouting a fringe theory. Binksternet (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Im not disputing that but not presenting their views accurately is a serious flaw of the article, there are some historians who agree with this view so you making a claim it has "no respect from historians" would indicate maybe you aren't knowledgeable enough about the topic, regardless of how you view it the current wording is misleading, simply making their position clear is not a violation of the artificial balance guidelines, no wording indicating their position is true is involved just that it is a view they hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)