Talk:Imperial Rule Assistance Association

message: I have added a 'not to be confused with' to Distinguish it from the IRA (Irish Republican Army), as when you type in IRAA it redirects here. 84.64.14.35 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to be confused with

message: I believe the current title is in violation of WP:COMMONNAME - I have never seen it referred to as anything other than the Imperial Rule Assistance Association in English. Slac speak up! 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. I'm not familiar with any important English-language source that uses the Japanese name. --Yaush (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: === Fascism? ===
Recent edits (e.g. ) have added the following: 1) Fascism to the Ideology list in the Infobox, 2) the Fascism Navbox, 3) Categories for Fascist parties & Fascism in Japan.However, "Fascism" is not mentioned in the article text, and I have, therefore, removed these additions. Do we have reliable sources which directly support article text which would, in turn, support the additions? - Ryk72 talk 06:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Source number 1 mentions how the party evolved into a "statist ruling political party", Shöwa statism was Fascist, and the party supported it. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But, unless that source (Wolferen, The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and Politics in a Stateless Nation), and other reliable sources, directly describe the IRAA as "fascist" (and I cannot see that it does), we cannot do so. Per policy (WP:V), article text must be directly supported by reliable sources, not indirectly so. In this case, to take a description of "statism" and combine it with an unsourced or elsewise sourced "statism is fascism" would be WP:SYNTHesis, which is explicitly prohibited. - Ryk72 talk 06:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it, how is a party that supported a Fascist ideology not Fascist? No offense, but the logic you and Havsjö are using to justify removing those categories is extremely weird and I never saw anything like this on Wikipedia before. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Addition of fascism as a separate ideology is acctually unnecessary since Shōwa Statism is often referred to as "Japanese Fascism", thus adding a separate fascism would be like stating the same thing twice! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case it would be more appropriate to remove "Fascism" from the ideology part in the infobox, rather than removing everything. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't because Shōwa Statism does not equate to Fascism (you wouldn't call Fascist Italy a Shōwa Statist nation). Yes there can be overlaps, but other ideologies in the inbox share overlaps too.
=== Far-right? ===
Ongoing tug of war in this page's edit history. While the "party" did include some socialists, I would argue that given its leadership and overall ideological orientation, the IRAA should be regarded as far-right in practice (in the same way that Italian Fascism is regarded as such despite its roots in socialism).
73.175.36.237 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Sources? - Ryk72 talk 06:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty obvious it was Far-right based on the ideologies of the party, it was also Anti-communist of course, reason already explained, no offense but you seem to be more interested in being disruptive than anything. -- 177.206.210.85 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

text: It's not necessary for the party to be repeatedly called Far-Right, just like is it not necessary for the NSDAP to be called Far-Right every time, also it was not apolitical, if it was actually apolitical, then why were Communists and others persecuted by the regime? The Japanese regime might have said that, but them saying this doesn't mean it actually was. Speaking of this, some of your sources actually mention the persecution of Communists, for example, in The Japanese Today: Change and Continuity, page 267 (one of the pages which appeared on your link) mentions how the Communist Party was banned just a few years after being founded, and that it was revived only after the War ended, when it's members were released or returned from exile, yet for some reason you keep persistently removing "Anti-communism" from the inbox. The fact that some right-wingers criticized the party doesn't mean it wasn't Far-Right, the NSDAP also had socialist members (such as Gregor Strasser) who were eventually purged by Hitler, it was still a Far-Right party. The source arguing that the IRAA was Fascist seems to be using surpeficial caracteristics, by this logic parties like the Ustase or the Nasjonal Samling would not be Fascist, since they didn't come to power through a revolution, or a coup d'etat, nor did they have popular support, they were put on power by Nazi Germany. Lastly, the book "Grassroots Fascism: The War Experience of the Japanese People" says, on page 93, that "In October 1940, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association was formed, and with the inauguration of the New Economic Order the following year, imperial fascism was established".  -- 179.183.239.112 (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Well, considering WP:DEFINING has , it seems that it is rather necessary. Everything above about the Japanese Communist Party is WP:OR; but it should be noted that the JCP was banned in 1925, fifteen years before the IRAA, likely because it was an extremist organisation that advocated violent revolution. - Ryk72 talk 21:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is that there is no need to mention that it was Far-Right every time, for example, not every source about the NSDAP will mention that it was a Far-Right party. The Japanese Communist Party was banned under the Peace Preservation Law, a law that not only remained in effect during the rule of the IRAA, but was amended and made even harsher, in other words, Communists were persecuted under the rule of the IRAA, and Japan was also a member of the Anti-Comintern Pact and the Axis powers, which were very anti-Communist, so how wasn't the IRAA an anti-Communist Party? During that time there were many right-wing extremist organizations that were active and weren't punished, so the claim that was banned only because it was an extremist organization is bogus, futhermore, how is it original research, when it is literally on the source you linked to? Frankly it seems to me that you have an habit of distorting or ignoring things for some reason, I notice that you ignored the source I linked to. It also seems that I have to revert your disruptive edits in order for you to respond here, generating edit warring, makes it difficult to start a discussion this way, to say the least. -- 186.213.46.11 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To categorise an article subject (IRAA) as having some property (far-right, fascist, anti-communist) requires that  that property. Based on a neutral canvassing of sources (see above), reliable sources do not seem to commonly and consistently define the IRAA as any of those. Taking the banning of the JCP in 1925 and using that as support for describing the IRAA as "anti-communist" is original research. Yoshimi Yoshiaki's Grassroots Fascism says many things about the IRAA; including . To cherrypick one sentence, which does not clearly describe the IRAA as any of "far-right, fascist, anti-communist", and interpret it as support for that categorisation is original research. Issues of editor behaviour should be taken up at the appropriate noticeboards; but were I not me, I would think carefully about that. - Ryk72 talk 23:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was very rude with you and I shouldn't have been so, I apologize for that. But once again, explain how it is original research, since Communists were persecuted under the rule of the IRAA, that pretty much makes it an anti-Communist party, as for the book, how the party functioned in practice is not relevant to this discussion, we are talking about the ideology of the party, not how it functioned, if that was the case, we could simply remove every ideology that is on the party inbox right now, anyway, the book on page 93 mentions: "In October 1940, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association was formed, and with the inauguration of the New Economic Order the following year, imperial fascism was established". -- 186.213.46.11 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define the subject as any of Fascist, far-right or anti-Communist; which is our requirement in policies & guidelines for categorisation. Communist parties may have been banned during the 5 years of the IRAA (as they were for about 20 years prior to the IRAA being formed), Communists may have been persecuted, but it takes an interpretation, or analysis, to conclude that the IRAA is therefore, definitionally, anti-Communist; without reliable sources making that interpretation, it is original research; without reliable sources making that interpretation commonly and consistently it is not appropriate for categorisation. - Ryk72 talk 14:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism and/or far-right? 

message: Ongoing tug of war in this page's edit history. While the "party" did include some socialists, I would argue that given its leadership and overall ideological orientation, the IRAA should be regarded as far-right in practice (in the same way that Italian Fascism is regarded as such despite its roots in socialism).
73.175.36.237 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? - Ryk72 talk 06:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty obvious it was Far-right based on the ideologies of the party, it was also Anti-communist of course, reason already explained, no offense but you seem to be more interested in being disruptive than anything. -- 177.206.210.85 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

text: It's not necessary for the party to be repeatedly called Far-Right, just like is it not necessary for the NSDAP to be called Far-Right every time, also it was not apolitical, if it was actually apolitical, then why were Communists and others persecuted by the regime? The Japanese regime might have said that, but them saying this doesn't mean it actually was. Speaking of this, some of your sources actually mention the persecution of Communists, for example, in The Japanese Today: Change and Continuity, page 267 (one of the pages which appeared on your link) mentions how the Communist Party was banned just a few years after being founded, and that it was revived only after the War ended, when it's members were released or returned from exile, yet for some reason you keep persistently removing "Anti-communism" from the inbox. The fact that some right-wingers criticized the party doesn't mean it wasn't Far-Right, the NSDAP also had socialist members (such as Gregor Strasser) who were eventually purged by Hitler, it was still a Far-Right party. The source arguing that the IRAA was Fascist seems to be using surpeficial caracteristics, by this logic parties like the Ustase or the Nasjonal Samling would not be Fascist, since they didn't come to power through a revolution, or a coup d'etat, nor did they have popular support, they were put on power by Nazi Germany. Lastly, the book "Grassroots Fascism: The War Experience of the Japanese People" says, on page 93, that "In October 1940, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association was formed, and with the inauguration of the New Economic Order the following year, imperial fascism was established".  -- 179.183.239.112 (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Well, considering WP:DEFINING has , it seems that it is rather necessary. Everything above about the Japanese Communist Party is WP:OR; but it should be noted that the JCP was banned in 1925, fifteen years before the IRAA, likely because it was an extremist organisation that advocated violent revolution. - Ryk72 talk 21:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is that there is no need to mention that it was Far-Right every time, for example, not every source about the NSDAP will mention that it was a Far-Right party. The Japanese Communist Party was banned under the Peace Preservation Law, a law that not only remained in effect during the rule of the IRAA, but was amended and made even harsher, in other words, Communists were persecuted under the rule of the IRAA, and Japan was also a member of the Anti-Comintern Pact and the Axis powers, which were very anti-Communist, so how wasn't the IRAA an anti-Communist Party? During that time there were many right-wing extremist organizations that were active and weren't punished, so the claim that was banned only because it was an extremist organization is bogus, futhermore, how is it original research, when it is literally on the source you linked to? Frankly it seems to me that you have an habit of distorting or ignoring things for some reason, I notice that you ignored the source I linked to. It also seems that I have to revert your disruptive edits in order for you to respond here, generating edit warring, makes it difficult to start a discussion this way, to say the least. -- 186.213.46.11 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To categorise an article subject (IRAA) as having some property (far-right, fascist, anti-communist) requires that  that property. Based on a neutral canvassing of sources (see above), reliable sources do not seem to commonly and consistently define the IRAA as any of those. Taking the banning of the JCP in 1925 and using that as support for describing the IRAA as "anti-communist" is original research. Yoshimi Yoshiaki's Grassroots Fascism says many things about the IRAA; including . To cherrypick one sentence, which does not clearly describe the IRAA as any of "far-right, fascist, anti-communist", and interpret it as support for that categorisation is original research. Issues of editor behaviour should be taken up at the appropriate noticeboards; but were I not me, I would think carefully about that. - Ryk72 talk 23:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was very rude with you and I shouldn't have been so, I apologize for that. But once again, explain how it is original research, since Communists were persecuted under the rule of the IRAA, that pretty much makes it an anti-Communist party, as for the book, how the party functioned in practice is not relevant to this discussion, we are talking about the ideology of the party, not how it functioned, if that was the case, we could simply remove every ideology that is on the party inbox right now, anyway, the book on page 93 mentions: "In October 1940, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association was formed, and with the inauguration of the New Economic Order the following year, imperial fascism was established". -- 186.213.46.11 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define the subject as any of Fascist, far-right or anti-Communist; which is our requirement in policies & guidelines for categorisation. Communist parties may have been banned during the 5 years of the IRAA (as they were for about 20 years prior to the IRAA being formed), Communists may have been persecuted, but it takes an interpretation, or analysis, to conclude that the IRAA is therefore, definitionally, anti-Communist; without reliable sources making that interpretation, it is original research; without reliable sources making that interpretation commonly and consistently it is not appropriate for categorisation. - Ryk72 talk 14:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far-right? 

message: Periodic unsourced additions of either fascism or far-right to either the Infobox or Categories have occurred over the last few years. These have been regularly reverted as unsourced, and contradicted by the article text.
Recently, a series of edits has added "Japanese Fascism" (piped to Fascism), and "Far-right" to the Info box; sourced to World Fascism - A Historical Encyclopedia (ed: Cyprian Blamires & Paul Jackson; pub: ABC-CLIO).
The source, editors & publisher are (presumably) reliable, but the source text does not appear to support the additions. The source goes to extensive lengths to describe the differences between Japanese politics of the period & (European) Fascism; and does not directly (nor indirectly) describe the IRAA as either "fascist" or "far right".  
Invite discussion. - Ryk72 talk 12:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits (July 2022) 

message: Category:Fascist Parties has again been added; with edit summary  This rationale aligns poorly with :WP:SYNTH.
Additionally, unlike German Nazism and Italian Fascism, statism within Showa era Japan is not a singularity. While there were a number of philosophers, politicians, militarists, etc who are identifiable as "statist", only some (e.g. :Kita Ikki) are also broadly considered "Fascist". There is no one "Showa Statism".
The addition also aligns poorly with our policies & guidelines on categorisation, particularly :WP:CATPOV & :WP:CATDEF, the latter of which suggests that articles should be categorised by their defining characteristics - those that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic.
Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently refer to this article subject as "Fascist". - Rotary Engine talk 03:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits (September 2023)