Talk:Neoconservatism in Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Untitled[edit]

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neoconservatism (Japan)


Is "Neoconservatism" a concept widely used among Korean scholars and have a concrete defition? Or is it just a term that a Korean newspaper editorial used to refer to a group of conservative politicians in Japan just because they are conservatives and somewhat similar to the famous neo-conservatives of the U.S.? If the former were the case, then cite more credible sources to show that this concept is indeed a genuine, widely recognized one at least in the South Korean academina. If the latter were the case, then it doesn't merit a namespace on Wikipedia. For Wikipedia is not a place where you publicize your opinion, criticism, or the result of your original research. Saintjust 18:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it's quite evident that the article isn't some sort of neologism or publicism of my opinion. As you can plainly see, the references for this article's text are linked to at the bottom--you can read them for yourself. Those two newspapers are major mainstream Korean newspapers, the equal in stature to the NYTimes and the Washington Post in America. In fact, I think the Choson Ilbo has the widest readership of any newspaper in South Korea. The article text is quite NPOV and doesn't take a position one way or the other on whether it is right to label these Japanese politicians as 'neoconservatives.' But the fact is, that in the Korean media, it appears that in multiple prominent newspapers, these particular politicians are referred to as neoconservatives. And I think that's a notable phenomenon. If you are disputing the factual accuracy or notability that's one thing, but the article text is NPOV. I'm removing the tag. thames 06:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
It is just one newspaper editorial of Choson Ilbo that simply calls some young Japanese conservatives "neocon." That is hardly sufficient an evidence to show that the term is a widely recognized one among the Korean news media or academia. The editorial itself is very much the personal opinion of the author alone and so is not NPOV. It doesn't make it NPOV just because it's on some newspaper. Provide more objective sources, preferably scholastic books or pepers on Japanese politics, than a newspaper editorial. Korean language dictionary or the like would suffice as well. Also the article should have a Hangul rendering of the term if it's really a widely used term in South Korea. Please note that what I am contesting here is the general recognition of the term in South Korea, not the content of the article which is dubious on its own right. Saintjust 10:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
According to NPOV policy, an article is supposed to accurately describe all points of view without asserting any particular one. I don't know what other points of view there are. I assume that you have sources for the other points of view. But instead of constructively contributing to the article, you've slapped an NPOV tag on it, without giving specific, actionable criticisms. The entire article comes paraphrased straight from two Korean newspaper sources. As I am not able to read Korean, I cannot check to see if the Korean version of the Choson Ilbo newspaper has a Hangul rendering of 'neoconservative'. However, neither is labeled as an op-ed, as you assert they are—both are displayed as normal news/politics stories. As normal newspieces, they do not represent the personal opinion of only one person, but represent the news, or at the very least, the editorial line of the two largest newspapers in Korea. If you have specific issues with the text, by all means, be bold and fix it. But don't put an unactionable dispute tag on a sourced/cited/referenced article without providing some sort of evidence or constructive criticism. thames 03:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Like I said, the "view" at dispute here is the general recognition of the term "neoconservatism," not the view expressed in its definition by the Choson Ilbo article. If you just want to write about a group of young conservative politicians in Japan, go to Politics of Japan or Japanese politicians or some other generic namespace related to Japanese politics. It doesn't become an established term just because one newspaper article calls something that name. Saintjust 04:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
If you feel that it does not warrant a separate namespace, please list it on VFD and state your case there. NPOV is about the article text's neutrality. For questions about whether the article itself should exist, go to VFD. I'm removing the NPOV tag. I'll expect you to create a subpage on VFD for this article. thames 13:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that the article is written with good NPOV and the POV tag is inappropriate. However, it looks like the "Neoconservative" label may only be being used in the Korean media. What is this subject or loose political movement called in Japan or in the west? Is there a label with greater widespread use or that is more accurate to describe this subject? Cla68 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, of the sources for the article, two are Korean (Choson, Dong-a), two are based in Hong Kong (Ta Kung Pao, Time ASIA), one in Japan, one in the UK (the FT), and one international wire service. It's pretty broadly based a term in a regional/geographical sense.—thames 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
After googling a bit, it appears that the korean rendering of neoconservative and neocon are, respectively: 新보수주의자 or 신보수주의자 or ‘신(新)보수주의 (all of which appear relatively similar, to me, a non-Korean speaker/reader) and 혹은 or 네오콘. thames 18:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recommend deletion[edit]

This page was recommended for deletion in 2005, but kept. Apparently, the article was based on an article where a journalist compared politicians in Japan to American neo-conservatives. However, there is no group in Japan know as or called "neo-conservatives". Therefore the article should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Shitaro Ishihara's argument is not new.--240D:1A:517:E300:94C0:3226:49AF:2B3C (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)