Talk:Nippon Kaigi

What is urutora-primitivism?

A few weeks ago, someone added in the sentence, "This group consists of various religious cults of urutora-primitivism." The meaning of that statement is not at all clear and a cursory googling only seemed to lead back here. Could someone with a background in this topic please explain (in the article) what is meant by this? 152.216.7.5 (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I Replied kinda too late, but when i googled it, it seems of some kinda south Pacific Islander Primitive idealism. Here i found a PDF on Regard of that Urutora Primitivism 海之 02:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (it is beieng considered the largest nationalitic organisation in Japan. Giving the article one or two days to expand it would be helpful) --Catflap08 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (No indication of importance - bit absurd is it not? Since material on the org is hard to find does not make it unimportant) --Catflap08 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Expand text

There seems to be enough information in the RS given. If you could add some sentences about their political wing that is represented in the diet, their 30 000 membership, the name of their leader (in 2006) and quote his views about the taboo of discussing a Japanese atomic bomb (cited in the the NYT), the article should be a stub. I think the organization is notable and the information is sufficiently referenced with ready available RS. JimRenge (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"constitutional and historical revisions"

This edit was reverted as "an apparent attempt to hide the history revisionist tendencies". [1] May I ask for a closer review? I'd suggest that it is not about hiding or presenting the tendencies of the organization; what matters is how sources write about the organization. I must say that the previous version of the article used sources in a sloppy manner. To start with, it does not clearly distinguish two different ideas when it says "constitutional and historical revisions". I'd regard constitutional revision and historical revisionism to be categorically different. Matthew Penny's article, one of the sources cited within the said portion, does not present the organization as historical revisionists, although it mentions "constitutional revision" as one of the ideas the organization is dedicated to. The same goes for Onishi's article, another source cited in the previous version. In my edit I attempted to clarify this distinction as well as what sources have to say about other points. I won't claim every change in my edit to be perfect, but please try improving on it rather than unilaterally reverting. Thanks. --203.189.105.81 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

See also

It might be worth a discussion whether the “see also”-notes towards Neo-Nazism and Asian Holocaust denial should be kept or not. Especially the latter one does seem to hold some truth so rather than deleting them one should discuss the issue first. Please note that the Neo Nazism issue may be considered a valuable lead. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Neo-nazism has literally nothing to do with Nippon Kaigi. Asian Holocaust denial, not only isn't it not an article, but Nippon Kaigi does no such thing, and nothing in the article would warrant the inclusion of a reference to Holocaust denial (of which, the Nanking incident is completely unrelated). Solntsa90 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I believe this to be in some ways your private opinion. LDP membership and holding revisionist views may not necessarily be considered a contradiction. Especially outside Japan views may be quite different and those views should be considered – a process like the Vergangenheitsbewältigung has never taken place in Japan. Please note, that the see also note refers to articles that mention Nippon Kaigi in their context. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting either the removal or relocation of the Jake Adelstein article

The article by Jake Adelstein is listed in the external links section as if it's a big key link. The problem with this is that while I know that Nippon Kaigi is a problemetic organization, Jake Adelsteins news articles are known to sugarcoat the problems Japan has for the sake of getting people riled up. As far as replacing Jake's article I found an interesting US Congressional Transcript that has taken notice of Nippon Kaigi's influence. Perhaps that would be a more useful link to replace Jake's article. http://mansfieldfdn.org/mfdn2011/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/USJ.Feb14.RL33436.pdf

No objections? Alright. I'm going to replace the article by Jake Adelstein with the congressional transcript. I consider that to be amore trustworthy source as it provides better and more balanced information.-Graylandertagger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Redundant?

The Nippon Kaigi (日本会議, "Japan Conference") is Japan’s largest far-right ultra-conservative ultranationalist and reactionarynon-governmental organization and lobby.

Perhaps just leave it at "largest far-right ultranationalist and reactionary"? Ultraconservative and reactionary is a bit redundant. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue of slander against the Nippon Kaigi by left-wing activists.

This article consist of far-left activist propaganda and lies. Wikipedia is often used for political maneuvering. This article with many fakes needs to be fact checked. 101.142.138.124 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what those "far-left activist propaganda and lies" in this article are? 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Is historical revisionism a political ideology?

This article currently lists "historical revisionism" as one of Nippon Kaigi's political ideologies in its infobox, but at least two of the sources cited (Yamaguchi (2018) and Larsson (3 December 2014)) do not refer to historical revisionism as a political ideology. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)