Wikipedia

Talk:Kyoto Animation arson attack/Archive 1

< Talk:Kyoto Animation arson attack
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Vagabond nanoda in topic Criminal proceedings status
Archive 1

Article name needs to be changed

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We now know that the fire was a pre-meditated attack on the company by one person, and the death toll has risen to the point where it can easily be considered a massacre (it's one of the deadliest mass-murders in post-war Japan). It might be rushing it a bit considering the amount of information that is readily available but I think as the knowledge around the situation has changed so much I think the name could easily be changed to Kyoto Animation massacre. This was not just a typical arson/fire - knives were found, and there are several reports of the perpetrator deliberately pouring gasoline onto victims to set them on fire. Plus, "studio fire" gives the reader an impression of an accidental fire incident. This certainly is not the case. Kettleonwater (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago34 comments16 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Kyoto Animation massacre by an external party (not me) Kettleonwater (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Kyoto Animation studio fire → Kyoto Animation massacre – The incident was perpetrated by an individual who did not only commit arson but doused individuals with gasoline deliberately and had knives ready at the scene. It is now the worst mass murder committed by an individual in post-war Japan, with 33 people killed. This has no reason to be associated with an accidental fire like the name suggests anymore as the knowledge around the situation has changed. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support I support per rational above, this is definitely a massacre.--Vulphere 13:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The term 'fire' is too easily associated with accidental cause at the very least it should be renamed 'Kyoto Animation Arson' but considering the number of deaths and motive to kill this event is has it's place on 'List of massacres in Japan' (1.156.184.85 (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC))
  • Support I agree with the reasoning above. This is a case of deliberate act of murder attempted by an individual to a group of people, and with 33 people killed, this isn't just a normal case of a murder/arson, it has the potential to be a case of massacre due to the deliberate intent by the people that caused it. (RezaMaulana98 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC))
  • Support For all the reasons already given. Myfanwy (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the record with my rationale explained in the hastily done move. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The evidence so far seems to favor it being a massacre.
  • The article rename was already decided by an external moderator. Please don't bypass the controversial WP:RFPM process. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
There was no moderator, the article was moved out of process. It needs to be moved back so the discussion can run its course. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll do this now. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, it won't let me now. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an "arson", not a "massacre". --Masem (t) 13:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'll stress that I cannot find any leading news source calling it a "massacre". "Arson attack" is the most common language. --Masem (t) 14:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The intent of the attacker was, first and foremost, to murder people ("Die!"), not cause property damage. If the attacker wanted to merely "punish" the studio, he would have set it on fire during the night. Therefore, the proper way to describe this incident is "mass murder" or "massacre", not "arson". --46.242.12.90 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Again this amounts to original research, you are taking your feelings about the event and making a decision based on that rather than what sources say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No "feelings", just facts. A man pours gasoline on people, sets them on fire, and shouts "Die!". That is clearly a mass murder, otherwise known as "massacre". --46.242.12.90 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Massacre" is somewhat misleading since readers could interpret it as having been carried out with common weapons such as knives. Since the casualties in this incident were caused entirely by fire, it would be more accurate to describe it as "arson". --Kinos0634 (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There was premeditated intent to use knives in the massacre. We still don't know 100% if they were actually used or not, but knives have been found on the scene. The man also had a history with knives. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If sources were describing this as a "massacre" I would feel better about keeping the name. I am not saying that this wasn't a terrible loss of life, it bothers me though that editors are going by how they feel rather than what our usual guidelines say to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The article already says that the knives were unused. Either way, we know for sure that most if not all of the casualties were caused by the fire, and thus it should be called an arson. --Kinos0634 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It’s so obvious that this was caused on purpose. It’s a massacre, plain and simple. A terrible, terrible massacre. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion What about renaming the title into "Kyoto Animation arson attack"? This shows that the incident is a planned arson, clearer than the original "fire", yet better than the proposed (?) "massacre".廣九直通車 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with this idea as it uses "arson" as supported by what the sources are saying and not what Wikipedia editors are saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Arson would be better. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 14:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree 'Kyoto Animation Arson Attack' reflects the most reported and accurate name but the article should keep all categories/redirects in relation to it being a massacre as it meets the definition of one on Wikipedia.(1.156.184.85 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC))
  • It may be the most reported name, but it's certainly not the most accurate. Pouring gasoline on people and setting them on fire is not arson, it's murder. The word "arson" is used to describe setting a building, a vehicle/ship/plane, a crop field/forest on fire. People may or may not die as a consequence of an arson attack. But when people are directly set on fire, that's not arson. That's attempting to murder or murdering people by setting them on fire. --46.242.12.90 (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of renaming this to "arson attack". I believe this most accurately describes what happened. --Kinos0634 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering only sources after it was deemed arson and a suspect was established, "arson attack" seems to be the most common term by reliable news sources, by a mile. --Masem (t) 14:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of this too. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that "Kyoto Animation arson attack" is more consistent with what reliable sources are describing this incident as. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The english references I have been reviewing do not include "massacre" but do often include "arson attack". I would rather err on using language used by sources. Baltakatei (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I initially thought the incident was an accident, and even after was stated that it was arson, it caused me to think of the incident as a more minor crime. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many other arson articles on Wikipedia use the format "(Location) (Year) arson fire." For consistency's sake this article should be titled with the same conventions unless it becomes widely known by a different name. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oppose the use of "Massacre" in title

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The issue is that none of the cited sources use the term "Massacre" when describing this event. We shouldn't establish the practice of coining names just because you feel like it fits the description. This goes against WP:COMMONNAME and sets a bad example going forward for other articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I would agree with you if the criminal had not directly attacked victims. If the criminal had only targeted the building and ran away, this would be 100% only an arson. But he deliberately threw gasoline over people running from the building and lit them on fire, and we still don't know what he might have done with the knives. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Kettle.... WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." A majority of sources in the article use the word "arson", what we are doing is going by the word most used by editors on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You made your point. "Arson attack" describes this better. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree, support move to "Kyoto Animation arson attack". I've never heard of fires being described as massacres. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments16 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


Kyoto Animation massacre → Kyoto Animation arson attack – More commonly used by news outlets and reporting while still summing up the incident in a way that is clear that an attack was made against these people. I believe now this sums up the incident more accurately. The page was also moved by someone externally too, so the process was kind of ruined, and I can't move it back. This should decide whether or not the page name stays. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh, I guess that one worked when someone tried to move it straight to this new name. I don't really know. Kettleonwater (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This name follows what the sources say rather than what or how editors here feel per WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The Japanese version of this page refers to it as '京都アニメーション放火事件' roughly 'Kyoto animation arson case' (1.156.184.85 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC))
  • Support I think some variant of "arson attack" most accurately reflects what the news sources are saying. So far I haven't seen any source refer to this as a massacre. Ahiijny (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This title is more consistent with the titles of articles regarding other arson incidents on Wikipedia (e.g. UpStairs Lounge arson attack, 1993 Solingen arson attack) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The terms used most commonly and actively by reliable news sources are "arson attack", "suspected arson", and "fire". "Arson attack" seems to be the best option here. That being said, we can still keep the terms in the article like "mass murder" (but not "massacre" as it's not used in sources) in the infobox as well as in the categories. At least a couple of reliable sources like The Guardian have used "mass murder" in their news articles, and we have the said The Guardian's article cited here. However, I'm undecided on whether to have the term "studio" in the title for precision. It's either "Kyoto Animation arson attack" or "Kyoto Animation studio arson attack". LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's best to leave "studio" out of it. They have more than one, after all. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support St Valentine's Day was a massacre where people were gunned down, this is also a terrible event with many losses of life; but i think the main thing leading to it, the arson, best describes what we know at this time. shadzar-talk 15:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people.' 33 people have died to a premeditated attack, do not try to downplay this terrible incident. 192.145.126.174 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to use 'massacre' too, but this seems to make sense the most. Even in Japanese, people are addressing it like this. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Arson attack" is the term used by english references in the article while "massacre" is not. BBC, Japan Times, New York TimesBaltakatei (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support After reading the references, I support the new title.--Vulphere 15:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Our job as Wikipedians is to follow the general consensus of the media, rather than coming up with names of our own. SounderBruce 15:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

  • Support This title makes the most sense. — Hunter Kahn 16:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMON. --William915(discuss with me) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As the "massacre" naming can be misleading, also, the perpretator's motives aren't clear currently, outside of wanting revenge on these people for "plagiarism". -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 16:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved, as we can easily tell which way this discussion is headed and this is a current event and time-sensitive article. Leaving this discussion open in case better name suggestions come up, and to centralize discussion. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

COMICON (comic convention) co-incidence

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This tragedy unfolded while COMICON was happening.209.240.35.58 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no source backing up this statement and even then Wikipedia isn't a place for speculation. lullabying (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you could not understand; this tragic fire at Japanese comic-maker (manslaughter and/or murder-by-arson, Japan Penal Code violation, Causing death by arson) happened while a convention for comic industry was held (maybe in USA? 2019 Comic-Con International: San Diego Thursday, Jul 18, 2019 – Monday, Jul 22, 2019), ok, there is no source backing209.240.35.58 (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)?
This place isn't for discussing speculations (see WP:FORUM), sorry! You even mentioned that it is a coincidence, which means the two events are not connected, so this isn't worth mentioning in the article. Let's stay on topic. (Also, I noticed you tried to blank my comment -- please don't do that.) lullabying (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Victims

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hisafumi Nakahara, a freelance animator who initially broke the news that Tatsuya Ishihara and Taichi Ishidate were safe, has since stated that he has not personally confirmed whether this is true. (see tweet) No media outlets in Japan have reported about Yasuhiro Takemoto, not even about his disappearance. Let's wait until there is a confirmation from more reputable sources, as the current sources listing his safety are unreliable or are ambiguously cited. lullabying (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The people that have been 'confirmed' are purely speculative or have had their sources retract their statements. As much as people want to know whose safe reference to specific people should be removed until the official announcement. Also sadly I suspect those who had been speculated to have gotten out could be one of those in critical condition and could pass away overnight we do not want to spread false confirmation. We must also decide how or even if we shall format any list of victims as not all KyoAni staff have public names. (1.156.184.85 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC))

Move protected

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've move protected this page for 2 weeks as it's getting ridiculous how much this page has been moved in the first 24-ish hours of the article existing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, that's weaboos for you. HalfShadow 21:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@HalfShadow: Let's keep the name-calling off Wikipedia. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Worst confirmed mass murder?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article states that this arson is the worst confirmed mass murder since the end of World War II (using an article from The Guardian as the source for the statement). However, the Myojo 56 building fire was deadlier & that article says that it was also an arson (using an article from The Japan Times Online as the source for the statement). So is this actually the worst mass murder in post-World War II Japan? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the keyword here is "confirmed". The perpetrator of the Myojo 56 building fire was never confirmed. Regardless, the current wording does seem a bit sensationalist. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The perpetrator of the Myojo 56 building fire was never confirmed, but the fact that it was an arson was confirmed, so what'd be accurate (though awkward) is saying that this fire is the worst mass murder in post-World War II Japan w/a known perpetrator. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Japanese text

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a discussion for WP:MOS-JA, not here. It's already established consensus that having Japanese in articles about Japanese topics is acceptable, so any change to that will need to be made enwiki-wide, not here in this single article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed Japanese text from the article because this is the English Wikipedia and most readers can't read Japanese, so having it is pointless. All that's required is a translation. However this was reverted by an IP with the rationale "Witness spoke in Japanese not English, the connotations of the phase are important. There are already mistranslations in official news keeping the original quote is critical" [1]. This is illogical. Are we saying that our English translation of what the suspect said ("ripping off" or "plagiarising") is inaccurate? If so, why is it in the article? If not, why do we need the Japanese? Quotes for the entire incident will have occurred in Japanese - do we provide the original Japanese for everything? This isn't a Japanese website, and readers shouldn't have to follow links to other sites in order to find out what something means in English. We should give the English version and that's it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is a Japanese event, what was said is in Japanese, keeping original quotes and meaning is important, many outlets are reporting he said, “You die!” (not exactly "死ね!") with no mention it was in Japanese. People may think this means the man spoke English in the attack which is a very wrong assumption. Also note pretty much all Japanese articles on en.wikipedia will include the original Japanese for translated text example Kyoto Animation's name, there is no disadvantage to including it.(1.156.228.226 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC))
The nation in which an event occurred is not relevant to the point. This is the English Wikipedia for English-speaking readers. What you have said ("what was said is in Japanese") is an argument for writing the whole article in Japanese. Why should writing the article in English mean that readers assume the perpetrator (or anyone) spoke in English? The disadvantages to including it are:
1) The vast majority of readers can't read it
2) If readers follow the Wiktionary links, they are told the quote means "eat/steal/copy/nab fucking" - how does this help?
3) We already provide a translation - if our translation is incorrect, then correct it, if it is correct, then what's the point of the Japanese? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The quote isn't an official statement (in fact rather dubious), it’s a phrase a witness heard. Until there is an official statement announcing his motives it should remain with its original text. Like in English to be 'ripped off' can be both monetary or by intellectual property, the fact it’s slag doesn’t help, until this is clarified officially the translation cannot be improved (Although 'fucking thieves so far is my guess). (1.156.228.226 (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC))
We state what the reliable sources state, so if they state that a witness heard something, then that's what our article should state. However, we should do so in English, otherwise our readers can't read it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the problem, as it stands we do not have a reliable source to state in English but we have three for Japanese but they do not infer an actual meaning to the statement. (1.156.228.226 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC))
I don't understand this - are you saying that the Japanese text is untranslateable? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The speaker's meaning is unknown as the phrase is too ambiguous so the translation can only be speculative. Either we keep it until an official statement, remove any translation or find someone who knows it's connotations (1.156.228.226 (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC))
The Japanese text should be removed anyway because it is quite useless to the vast majority of readers, and if it cannot be translated in any meaningful way then the English translation/s should be removed too. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
There's ample Wikipedia precedent for quoting a word or phrase in the original tongue and then explaining its possible readings, whether it's "Herioldi, et ipsius regis" in the Royal Frankish Annals, "novavit" in the Ars amatoria, "Kimochi warui" in End of Evangelion, "koinônos" in the Gospel of Philip, or Hishamuddin bin Hussein's appeal to "ketuanan Melayu" at the 2005 UMNO AGM. Given that a witness's account of the killer's stated motivation is for the time being a highly salient part of this story, and the ambiguity of the statement in question, this would seem a shoo-in for such an approach. 172.83.171.244 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no clear cut trustworthy source of the motivation of the killer. Everything seems to have stemmed from him telling police “パクリ やがって” during his arrest (not transport?) which was heard by a bystander. The double meaning of this phrase is too muddy to draw any conclusions especially not ‘guy says KyoAni stole my novel idea’ as the article pretty much states, the citation says this is from ‘unconfirmed investigator reports’. (124.176.48.214 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC))
  • Maybe they meant パクる means also “to arrest”? 12However, This article in The Mainichi News says “he started the fire because the company stole his novel” NCRC543 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: "I removed Japanese text from the article because this is the English Wikipedia and most readers can't read Japanese, so having it is pointless." What kind of argument it this? You do realize that English Wikipedia articles about non-English subjects mention a lot of non-English words and phrases, right? The fact most people can't read text in other languages doesn't mean that they are banned as "useless". –Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Any Japanese text should be at the Japanese wikipedia rather than the English wikipedia. Even romanized Japanese is worse than Greek to me despite the fact that I know perhaps a hundred Japanese words (by sound) from listening to anime. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image in infobox

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User An1alias added a Wikimedia Commons image of Studio 1 burning that I suspect to be a copyrighted screenshot from a Japanese newsfeed that other news sources have copied. The previous image had a CC BY-SA 4.0 image of Studio 1 in 2015. Even though it is illustrative I believe the image violates Wikimedia Commons' copyright policy. Baltakatei (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

After thinking about it, a low-resolution copyrighted image from an NHK broadcast might be justifiably added to the article if it can meet Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria, according to my understanding of WP:NFCC WP:NFC. One of the criteria that has held me back from even considering uploading an NHK image was the possibility that a free image from a Wikimedia Commons contributor could have been uploaded soon after the attack. This argument holds less weight as time goes on but one of WP:NFCC's requirements for a non-free image is that "No free equivalent" exists (in other words, it is likely no Commons user lives near where the attack occured). However, I think a non-free image such as the one currently in the infobox would have to be uploaded to Wikipedia's own upload service and not Wikimedia Commons' upload service since I understand the purpose of Commons is to reject even fair use images in favor of images with a free/libre/public domain license (ex: Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0). I invite your ideas. Baltakatei (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it as being an issue as it is placed at the top of the article in the info-box, and is used for descriptive purposes only (minimum use). It does need a non free license though which can be fixed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything lost

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They've lost everything, also.

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2019-07-19/kyoto-animation-president-states-in-interview-that-all-materials-computers-were-destroyed-in-fire/.149142

This should really be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.21.155 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the "Incident" section: According to a press conference held on 19 July 2019, the arson attack has destroyed all of Kyoto Animation's materials and computers in Studio 1. lullabying (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Additionally, the number of moves this page has had in less than a week of existence is ridiculous. I recommend not requesting a move again for a very long time (give it at least 6 months). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Kyoto Animation arson attack → Kyoto Animation arson – Per arson and WP:CONCISE, "attack" is redundant and somewhat journalese in this context, as the definition of arson itself already assumes it. Brandmeistertalk 08:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC).

  • Oppose Does it really matter? People get the idea of the title. We literally just moved the page, it’s fine where it’s at. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's good the way it is.--2601:444:380:3A90:DDAE:46A8:61E0:9DF2 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The specific phrase "arson attack" was used by references long before the Wikipedia article had its name changed to include it (see 2019-07-18T10:36:25 snapshot refs: Times, BBC). Personally, when I think of "arson" I imagine someone lighting a building on fire and then scurrying off in order to remain anonymous. In the Kyoto Animation case the arsonist also poured flaming volatile fluids on people as they escaped, personally attacking other people than passively endangering with fire. Baltakatei (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Baltakatei pointed out, arson is typically associated with someone simply setting a fire. What happened here was a premeditated attack to kill people at Kyoto Animation. The suspect was also armed with knives and a hammer, although it seems like they weren't used. Johndavies837 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's fine, and arson sometimes doesn't intend to harm people, and to just damage a building. This was an attack on the people inside the building, with intent to harm. DerpieDerpie:D 15:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above. In an arson, the suspect has to remain anonymous. But in this attack on Kyoto Animation, the suspect not only burned the studio but also attacked the people inside it, making himself go public, so it's an arson attack. Hansen SebastianTalk 15:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fine how it is. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As this was a deliberate attack against the property and people who worked in the building, not simply a structure fire. --AlexS88 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Closed. I think we're done here, agreed? ConMoltoEspressivo (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional Statements?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A few statements have come out in the past day that might be worth adding to the list of people who've paid tribute

https://twitter.com/kurogane_s/status/1152546604542394369 - A statement from Hyouka's author Honobu Yonezawa, which was made into an anime from KyoAni, and

https://twitter.com/TL_Lewd/status/1151920045607534592?s=19 - A statement from Aki Toyosaki, VA of Yui Hirasawa, lead role from K-on!, a KyoAni anime. Ravien Coromana (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done both of them are already included in Reactions section.--Vulphere 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


What will he be sentenced to

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Can anybody tell me how Japan Justice works will Aobu receive the death sentence even if mentally unfit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.27.158.49 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Most likely yes, but of course we can't know for sure right now. ConMoltoEspressivo (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss this topic (see WP:FORUM). Sorry! lullabying (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, listing the criminal charges he potentially faces is certainly relevant in my opinion, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. 75.82.62.127 (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It is relevant and should be included once official reports are out, but we are not speculating what criminal charges he receives. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not about the article subject. lullabying (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
To answer your question, you can read Capital punishment in Japan and make your own conclusions. Right now it is still too early to include criminal charges as nothing has been released yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This source in the lead section confirms that "All Materials, Computers Were Destroyed in Fire". However, the article still has the old death count of 33, which makes the figure of 34 deaths unsourced. Should we add another citation for this?

And while we're at it, should we add citations for the other sentences in the lead? What is Wikipedia's policy for lead sections in articles like this one? —Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD would still apply here, regardless of subject. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 04:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Items

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

1. Recentism. Does this really deserve a separate article? I see an admin did a "speedy keep", but I suspect this should be reassessed after 6 months.

2. Transfer to Wikinews?

3. I have been looking for discussion in the media about the apparent lack of fire doors, fire escapes, and the bars on the ground floor windows. This building may not have needed sprinklers per the relevant building code, but in the US it would certainly require multiple means of egress (fire doors on the ground flood and either fire escapes on higher floors OR access to a protected stairwell. And there would be all kinds of lawsuits against the building owners. It really looks like a small scale version of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire (except that in that case, there were some fire exits, although they were blocked or locked to prevent workers from taking breaks.) Is there any report, discussion, or investigative committee underway, maybe in JP language media?

Thanks 128.172.48.4 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@128.172.48.4: Answering in order:
  1. Yes. You need only look at all the reliable references to understand this topic is worth an article. Recentism has nothing to do with it.
  2. No, completely different format.
  3. This isn't a discussion board, so discussion about building and fire codes in different countries is irrelevant here. The police and fire department have stated multiple times (it's mentioned in the article) that they are investigating the entire incident, but that building codes were met at this building. Again, that sort of discussion belongs on another site, not here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Events that kill 34 people in one go tend to have Wikipedia articles. Compare, say, West Fertilizer Company explosion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It's like, the first or second largest massacre in Japan since WWII (depending on if you count myojo 56) and the third largest massacre committed by a single person in japanese history (don't quote me, I just had a quick look around, point is it's big). Do you think the akihabara massacre doesn't deserve an article? What is your basis for this? It seems absurd to suggest ANY massacre that kills 34 people isn't notable enough to have an article. I mean do we remove the article on the Columbine High School Massacre? What is your angle here? Why is this even a discussion? 87.254.68.11 (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

4. Fresh arrest warrant -- The original arrest warrant issued on July 20 was for the deaths of five people, but a new warrant was issued on July 25 for the deaths of 33 people. <https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/26/national/crime-legal/police-search-home-kyoto-animation-arson-suspect-clues-motive-timeline/> . The death toll as of July 27 was 35 people <https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASM7W6FCPM7WPTIL01R.html>. About 10 policemen searched the suspect's apartment in Saitama for evidence 9:00-10:30 a.m. on July 26, and carried away large audio speakers with cracks in them [video shows that they were cylindrical Bose speakers] [relates to suspect's history of antagonizing neighbors by playing loud noises once or twice a week; cracks may be relevant if evidence of HOW loud; or maybe he just bought them used], at least one DVD of a Kyani feature [Japanese does not indicate plural, so this might be DVDs], and his smartphone(s), which the police hope will yield evidence of the suspect’s motive. <https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASM7W5J5JM7WPTIL011.html> I'm a new wikipedian, so I don't know how to add stuff to a locked article.

Yasuhiro Takemoto's death confirmed

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The source being here. I had this translated by a friend who can read/write at the native level. The translation says:

during the fire that occured at the kyouto animation studio, a director at kyouani, Yasuhiro Takemoto has been confirmed dead as of the 26th via news sent to relatives. There is also word that remains have already been transfered. His father commented to this newspaper that "He was a kind child, to the point of fault".

86.6.54.239 (talk)

  Done lullabying (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Futoshi Nishiya

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

According to this blog and this website, Futoshi Nishiya (西屋太志) seems to have passed away. Nishiya's notability stems from his many works as an animator and animation director, and most notably, as the character designer for works such as A Silent Voice and Free!. He had been affiliated with KyoAni since 2003 (according to the oldest known credits of him with the studio, as a key animator (原画) on the Munto OVA). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't accept random blogs as sources, unfortunately. lullabying (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Have included with confirmation from the police. robertsky (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Mostly Women"

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Is there any reason why this bit is even in the article? Why does it matter 2/3rds of the victims were women? People died and we're deciding to add gender to it... why?

Kranitoko (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it somewhat unnecessary. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Alas, the unfortunate Zeitgeist; that is all I will say. I agree this should not be mentioned at all, especially with these kinds of horrific deaths it is not like some victims are more special than others.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 14:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The implied fact that KyoAni employs so many women would be an appropriate fact for the main Kyoto Animation article. It's unfortunate that such information was revealed to to the world by this attack but it is still some interesting information. Baltakatei (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it would only be worth mentioning this fact if there was some suggestion that this was a deliberately misogynistic attack, targeting women in particular; but as far as we can tell, that doesn't seem to have been relevant to the attacker's motivation. Robofish (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine to mention that 2/3 of the victims were women as this is the only identifying info about them unless their names are officially released; however some rewording may be necessary to make it so that it doesn't sound like the attack was motivated by misogyny. I do think "Kyoto Animation employing mostly women" should be mentioned in their main article. lullabying (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason this article should not note the overrepresentation of female victims. This source notes in its headline "Japan Fire Killed Mostly Women, at a Studio Known for Hiring Them". I think it should be restored to the article that: "It was reported that two-thirds of the victims (at least 20) were women, as the studio was known for hiring female animators." Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
In poor taste and reeks of "some animals are more equal than others".--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 00:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: wrote "It was reported that two-thirds of the victims (at least 20) were women, as the studio was known for hiring female animators" and Nihonjoe provided this citation. What is the objection? Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop: That was me reverting an IP that removed the information without any reason given. Still the source is fine, and I see no reason why the information shouldn't remain. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
There was an article that showed the exact numbers of how many women and men died from the attack; I also think the information should remain and I fail to see how it emphasizes inequality. lullabying (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've re-added the naterial in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Identification of Victims

Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

While it is the policy of Kyoto Animation to refrain from stating the names of victims until the investigation is complete and has additionally requested the media not identify victims themselves until that time, in cases where the families of the victims have identified their family members by name, should the information be updated? This is a similar case for family members who have reported that their loved ones are among the missing. - LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Japan emphasizes privacy and if Kyoto Animation has requested the media to not identify the victims, then verification will be difficult, as it depends on where the sources are acquired from. Information can't be taken from Twitter where a lot of info can be faked. lullabying (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This would be a case of the parents of a victim going to the Japanese media and confirming the death. This is sourced and is not disputed but am unsure if it is appropriate to include. Previous additions to the article have cited interviews with family members for those who are missing, but not for those who the family has confirmed have died to the media. - LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
If families wish to release the information regarding their loved ones through reliable sources then we can include it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, here is the information. Naomi Ishida, who served as the studio's color designer, was confirmed by her parents via the Mainichi Shinbun newspaper. The article is linked as follows. Japanese-speaking contributors may verify for inclusion.
https://mainichi.jp/articles/20190724/k00/00m/040/353000c
The credits of Naomi Ishida are as follows for reference.
https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=38077
- LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I verified it. It can be included. lullabying (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done - Added! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel miserable, but I will continue to add sources as I find them. Yukie Tsuda, who was a digital paint artist (person who colored the animation) at the studio for 20 years, has been confirmed by her father via the Kobe Shinbun newspaper. The article is linked as follows. As before, Japanese-speaking contributors may verify.
https://www.kobe-np.co.jp/news/sougou/201907/0012546431.shtml
The credits for Yukie Tsuda are as follows for reference.
https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=9097
- LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should list the victims names here, unless they are already notable. The various articles on other attacks did not list their victims names. The articles would have become long and windy. At the very most, we can should consider updating the death/missing count. robertsky (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I added it before this notice came up. If anyone wants to remove it, let's discuss. lullabying (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL, Wikipedia:Victim_lists cover this. robertsky (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the names to adhere to the policy as listed. I don't think established policy is up for discussion. IMO, Wikinews is an alternate venue for such list. robertsky (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Robertsky: The issue is all the victims have worked on notable projects and have many animation credits to their name. We need to establish notability first before deciding if they should be removed. This is why we are having a discussion in the first place, and I would rather we wait for consensus on a subject like this before WP:BOLDly making decisions. lullabying (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
As you have mentioned, they have worked on notable projects, but they may not be notable themselves. Other than being leads in the project, what else, awards, industrial recognition, etc, do they have? What if they are not leads at all, but new entrants to the company? We don't know ourselves for sure. If you want to establish their notability (RE: WP:Notability, wouldn't creating wikipedia articles about them help instead of listing their names here? Or at least find their Japanese wiki articles and link them here using the inter wiki link template, and hope that someone else will pick the task up to translate. This isnt a controversial topic or article to discuss on. robertsky (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I am just stating that WP:VL is an essay and not a guideline nor policy. The last I checked there was no consensus on how to include victim lists in articles or if they fall under WP:MEMORIAL which has been brought up numerous times. Some examples that include victim lists where not everyone has an article include: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting, and Orlando nightclub shooting. While this may go into WP:OSE, I fail to see any difference in circumstances. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
We are not restricted to only mentioning notable victims. The names of victims in this article would be "content". WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article...The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it". Also, WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to our question. We are not creating new, freestanding articles on victims. Please see, among the many examples of articles including the names of victims, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Columbine High School massacre. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I am reluctantly convinced. robertsky (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have adjusted the Victims section to have a victim list consolidated from existing sources cited. robertsky (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted it due to WP:MEMORIAL concerns, the information is fine presented in WP:PROSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87—WP:MEMORIAL addresses the initiation of new articles. WP:MEMORIAL cautions us not to initiate articles on otherwise non-notable people as a means of memorialization. WP:MEMORIAL says nothing about names of victims in articles on subjects that meet notability requirements. Clearly the subject of this article—the "Kyoto Animation arson attack"—meets the notability requirements applicable to it. The names of deceased individuals are "content" within an article on a notable topic. Please see WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". As concerns prose versus list, we use whichever form is most appropriate. At Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting we find "Those killed were Stephen Romero, age 6; Keyla Salazar, age 13; and Trevor Deon Irby, age 25." To me that seems appropriate because there are only 3 names. But concerning 35 deaths a list would be more appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: no worries. There is already a discussion ongoing in the Talk page. I am satisfied with the reasonings given for having the victim list within the article. My initial line of thought is similar to yours. However, as more details of the victims being released, to me, it is more apparent that weaving the various names in being released in separate releases would make the paragraph unwieldy long. Right now, it is only 11 names being released, with 4 or 5 of them having their own wiki articles. Given that studio 1 is a concentration of kyoani's top talents, we may end up with 50% of them being mentioned in the article. Ultimately, when the case ends, I feel that the article should be condensed in where is possible, i.e. I don't think we would be so concerned with exactly when each family released the names of deceased ahead of the official release by authorities, and whose names were released first. Doing so, it feels more like a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. My 2c. FYI. The same comment here is copied from my user talk page. robertsky (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robertsky: @Knowledgekid87: The method seen at Oakland Ghost Ship fire for including the names and ages of decedents is one that I think Kyoto Animation arson attack could consider, when that information is known in its entirety. Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't mind including a victim list, but why mess up the prose that is already included in the article? If you want to add the names then why not expand on the prose and explain why each person is notable in regards to the event? I just don't see how a victim list fits in with this article, and could refer to WP:OSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify "safe as survivor"

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since burn injuries can often cause delayed death or disabling of the victim, I would like to know whether "safe as survivor" means that he was: (1) not present during the fire, (2) present but escaped without burns, (3) suffered only minor burns, or (4) may have major burns but is still alive (for the time being). Please clarify! JRSpriggs (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

removed. the original text should be sufficient. robertsky (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Potential vandalism redirects

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just wanted to bring it to your attention that the following article titles redirects to this article: 2019 KyoAni-Corus protests and riots, Kyoto Animation bombings, O Canada controversies in Osaka, 2019 Osaka uprising, WooHoo Union Revolutions, Celebration for Alexander Revolution, 2019 Kansai protests and riots. All redirects were made by Mr.Yansen. lullabying (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Reported user and has been blocked. I had also WP:CSD all these redirects. Admins have cleaned these up. Cheers! robertsky (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Key also donated ¥10 million to KyoAni

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Source: http://key.visualarts.gr.jp/company/. This info should included in the same section with the donation from YOSHIKI. --minhhuy (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy: self-reported though. any other reliable sources to back the claim? robertsky (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robertsky: It confirmed by the lawyer of KyoAni in Twitter: https://twitter.com/DaisukeP/status/1159366681912676353. In the case this is not enough, we can make the info as "Key claimed that" or something. --minhhuy (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robertsky: Now I think this enough: [2] and [3]. --minhhuy (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. updated. IMO, any more, it may end up turning into a news article. robertsky (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Investigation

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article could need a section about the investigation done by the police. --Goroth (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean like the one found on the Japanese version? If so, we may need to reconstitute the article as parts of the investigations are described in different sections. robertsky (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean like I did in the German languaged version. I am not good with reading Japanese, I only understand few words and easy sentences. But I guess, a investigation section would be helpful for the article. I am sure that readers would like to know about what may happen to the culprit as well. --212.7.178.196 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
well, you can just run it through Google Translate to get the gist. Heh. Anyway, looking at both German and Japanese versions, most of the investigative details have been weaved throughout the article here. So, like I had said, we will need to reconstitute the article to draw out these details from the current section. As for what may happen to the culprit, it is already included in the text as well. You got to find it for now. Hint: it is in the Suspect section. robertsky (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Numbers please

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"the Kyoto police said they had identified all 34 victims" This is presumably written and cited before the last victim died(based on the citation). It is known, however, all 35 are identified per citation 48(at time of writing, this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20190827171925/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20190827/k10012050701000.html). So it should read all 35.

"The arson killed at least 35 people, injured an additional 33" "It was initially reported that 36 people were injured; this figure was later dropped to 34" How many is injured? One place says 33 the other 34. I think it's safe to assume that the "33" also does not include the ones who died. I'm going to guess the 34 is the correct number as it's actually cited, whereas the 33 isn't.

2620:0:100E:304:20FC:5792:62E8:514C (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

33 and 34 injured are both correct depending on the context. The perpetrator got injured himself, but it wouldn't make sense to count him as a victim, so there's 33 injured victims and 34 injured total and that's where the difference probably comes from. As for the killed, the last one died in the hospital only after the police has identified the 34 dead and made that statement. The police statement was from the 25th of July while the news about the 35th death is from the 27th of July. Did some editing to keep the chronological order of events, that should hopefully avoid causing misunderstandings.
Kinda related to that, but not directly: It was initially reported that 36 people were injured; this figure was later dropped to 34, when two people later died at the hospital. The 3 sources cited for this part are all from July 18th. I've added sources for the 34th and 35th death, but someone with more knowledge should maybe remove 1 or 2 of the sources for the initial number of deaths as 3 sources for that and 5 in total seems a bit excessive for that one sentence.
2003:E5:1F20:D482:DC48:91CE:111C:2492 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A survivor returns to work

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see this story. Can we fit this into the article? It is a small positive note in all of the negativity. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have included this under a new section, Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack#Aftermath. 3 months ago, I felt that this was too soon to be included. robertsky (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed refs

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These were removed as part of the GA review process, usually because they duplicated reporting from other existing sources. I'm preserving them here in case they need to be used for something else.

  • "twitter_20190718_chinaembassy": Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Japan [@ChnEmbassy_jp] (July 18, 2019). 京都で発生した悲惨な事件で、お亡くなりになられた方のご冥福をお祈りし、負傷された皆様にお見舞いを申し上げます。 (Tweet) (in Japanese). Retrieved 2019-07-18 – via Twitter.
  • "twitter_20190718_makotoshinkai": Shinkai, Makoto [@shinkaimakoto] (July 18, 2019). 京都アニメーションの皆さま、どうかどうかご無事で (Tweet) (in Japanese). Retrieved 2019-07-18 – via Twitter.</ref>
  • "livedoor_20190829_donationamount": "京アニ １１月に追悼イベント開催の方針". Livedoor News (in Japanese). 2019-08-29. Archived from the original on 2019-08-29. Retrieved 2019-08-29.</ref>

I'll add more as I trim. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

GA (2020)

Latest comment: 4 years ago24 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kyoto Animation arson attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


Review

Will review. Please stay put for a future post here. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@MX: I look forward to the review. Thanks for taking the time to do this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead

  • After setting himself on fire while lighting the gasoline,[2] - The Incident section says there was an explosion caused by the gasoline mixing with the air, and then the perpetrator setting people on fire. No mention of him setting himself on fire. I would add this fact in the Incident section too.

Background

  • Studio 1, 2 and 5 - There are three studios total, correct? Any reason why there isn't any Studio 3 and 4? Just want to make sure we have it right before moving on.
  • There is no "4" because 4 is considered an unlucky number. "3" appears to be a product development division (what is called merchandise development in the next question), but not a studio where things are animated. Thus the numbers seem to be correct. Dekimasuよ! 04:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The building was mostly used by the animation production staff and was constructed in 2007 - The merchandise development division building or which one? At this point it's unclear which studio or building we are talking about (ideally we'd want to know which one was caught on fire since I'm confused on how many different locations there are).
  • Studio 1 is the one that was lit on fire. I have seen that construction was completed in February 2008, so that's probably the one referred to here. Dekimasuよ! 04:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Incident

Victims

  • There were at least 74 people inside the building at the time of the fire. A total of 36 people were killed, including three who later died at a hospital.[16][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] - This is an instance of WP:CITEKILL. Please consider trimming or merging.
  • On 2 August, the Kyoto Police released the names of ten victims - Question. Previously you linked the national police and then mentioned "police" for the following mentions. Now you mention the Kyoto Police (I assume this police force is different than the national police). Can you confirm that the national police was for all previous mentions up until here? Also, do you think the Kyoto Police could have its own article? If so, please add a redlink with an appropriate naming.
  • when two people later died at the hospital.[11][53][54][33][38] - Another citekill instance, considering trimming or merging.
  • but some remain in the ICU with severe - I would spell out the entire phrase and then add (ICU) for future mentions.

Suspect

  • apprehended by the Kyoto Prefectural Police - I assume it's the same as the Kyoto Police from the previous section? Consider keeping the same naming convention for consistency.
    • Not sure on this one. The prefectural police are on the same level as state police or state highway patrol departments in the States, but sometimes they also handle local police issues. I've never been to Kyoto, so someone else will have to answer this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The link says he was passed along to a "伏見署員". ja:伏見警察署 implies that this refers to a prefectural police station. I also noticed that the caps usage of "Kyoto Police" is a bit inconsistent in the article. Dekimasuよ! 02:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • accusing the studio of "ripping off" or "plagiarising" (Japanese: パクリやがって, Hepburn: pakuri yagatte) his novels.[19][31][69][70][71][72] - Another citekill instance, considering trimming or merging.
  • Aoba has been transferred to a university hospital in Osaka - has been → was
  • Aoba is reported on 18 September to have regained - is reported → was reported
  • by 8 October he has begun rehabilitation - has begun → began
  • In 14 November 2019 - in → on
  • another hospital in Kyoto City for final rehabilitation - Is "Kyoto" by itself fine? Or is there a difference from the previous usages of "Kyoto"?
  • He was reported to have mostly recovered. He acknowledged his responsibility for the attack and expressed feelings of remorse and gratitude towards the hospital staff, who he said treated him better than anyone had ever done in his life. - He know that it was reported that he had mostly recovered. It's in the source. I would trim that to "He recovered from most of his injuries and acknowledged responsibility for the attack. He expressed ..." or something like that.
  • Aoba was reported to have held a criminal history prior to the incident - "Aoba had a criminal history ..."

Impact on productions

Reactions

  • The Chinese, French, Philippine, and Belgian embassies in Japan provided their own words of condolence.[118][119][120][121][122] - Citekill, consider trimming or merging
  • and media company Kadokawa Corporation.[13][123][122][124][125][126][127] - Same here
  • Animation studios such as SHAFT, Sunrise, Bandai Namco Pictures, Toei Animation, Bones, Khara, Trigger, Walt Disney Japan, and Madhouse all offered their support as well.[128][129][130][122][131][132][133][134][135] - Same here.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Including arson attempts?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There's been some arson attempts lately in Japan against media companies like Square Enix IIRC. Should there be a quick mention? Ominae (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ominae: They should not be added unless there were confirmed reports that they were related. lullabying (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Even if they're inspired by the Kyo Ani arson? Ominae (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If they are inspired by this arson, they should be included in the "Aftermath" section. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Criminal proceedings status

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Criminal proceedings are continually being postponed, so I don't want to clutter the article with an incremental update, but having prepared a reference, I'll put it here so others can use this. It has the nature of a second-anniversary update. "京アニ放火殺人青葉容疑者の初公判見通し立たず、現在の容体は不明" [No Forecast for First Court Appearance of Kyoto Animation Arson Suspect Aoba, Present Condition Unknown]. Nikkan Sports (in Japanese). Tokyo. July 18, 2021. Retrieved July 20, 2021.. Basically the article reminds us that the suspect (now aged 43) has serious burns over 90% of body, is being held in Osaka Detention Center, which has medical facilities, but present condition is unclear (not being communicated by authorities). Depending on physical condition and defense attorney tactics, it may still be some time before the case comes to court. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1199049439"