Of course they can call themselves whatever they want, but as a genre enthusiast site I think it's not a good idea to exclude (not sure about the percentage) 50% of the market in that genre.
You're defining the genre differently than they do. They're not interested in being more 'inclusive', because at the very heart of it, many of the 'modern innovations' in RPGs killed off (2014 excluded) most of the defining elements of the genre they actually love.
It really has little to do with 'computer' vs. 'console', or 'western' vs. 'Japanese' in and of themselves, it's just that those factors often very much defined genre boundaries, and it's more about the core components that make up the game. Many mechanics are nearly lost to time (for example, grid paper mapping until Legend of Grimrock), or now come super simplified (true choice and consequences - hard decisions with hard results). For example, the original Fallouts had towns that lived or died based on your morally questionable decisions. Then, other obscure concerns come into play - such as:
Can you complete quests in more than one way?
Can you beat the game as a pacifist (ie, roleplay your way through it in ways that are very unusual)?
Can you kill key NPCs (say, the King you're supposed to help) and still progress in the game?
Can you decide to ignore the main quest altogether?
Obviously, few games check off all of these (and more questions I haven't even mentioned) but back in the day there was a lot of games pushing the envelope. Fallout, for example, Planescape, ToEE, and on and on.
And as the years moved on, rather than seeing these complex systems evolve and get even more fleshed out, stuff like Fallout 3 happened. Mass Effect's morality/dialog system happened. Etc, etc... basically, things shifted in a way that didn't just 'fork' rpgs, but actually killed off old beloved strains. There are obviously exceptions, but when you consider their genre 'died' [now resurrected?] it's not hard to see why they're not particularly inclusive of the murdering regime.
'RPG' features, like number crunching, stats, character progression, perks, etc, became streamlined and started getting added to everything from FPSs to puzzle games, further muddying the way. Inviting any game anyone might call an 'rpg' to the party invites the very same watering down of the genre we've seen over the past two decades. All of a sudden it's all about Borderlands or Fallout or Mass Effect or whatever. Heck, people will call anything an RPG if you let them (I'm roleplaying as kratos!).
As for JRPGs (in the classic sense of the acronym, not the 'made in Japan' one), the issue is often that the 'blank slate' character(s) taking on the world any way they want that's commonplace in wRPGs is replaced by a set of predefined characters following a predefined story - you're watching the story unfold in, say, FF, not so much creating your own story. Both have merits, but old school crpg'ers are generally firmly in the 'blank slate' camp.
I'm not sure if that clears anything up or not, but basically my point is that you're asking a bunch of people who watched their genre get muddled, fuddled, watered down and kicked to death to embrace the games that they'd most blame for the loss of their genre (i'm more talking about modern wrpgs than jrpgs here..., and not including 2014).
2014 is obviously a glorious year for older cRPG fans, because the genre is in full resurgence.
