Talk:Light Yagami/Archive 1

Archive 1

Character

Quote: James Brusuelas of Animation World Magazine uses "altruistically" as an adjective to describe Light's quest to rid humanity of its criminals.

Comment: Exactly since when is the word "altruistically"an adjective? It is an adverb. This is a mistake on either Mr. Bruselas' part or the writer of the article's part. At any rate, something should be done about it.

Question: "but seems haunted, with a face that can easily become twisted" - can anyone confirm this reference? All my online searching throws up nothing and it's not a thought that comes to my mind when I picture Light - that, along with the fact that the reference itself refers to an obscure 'Journal of Religious Studies' and is almost certainly not a canonic quote or interpretation worthy of Wiki-standards of objectivity, suggests that we should reconsider this bit of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.91.118 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Light doesn't kill his own father. Soichiro was fatally injured by one of Mellos gang members. The reception section seems somewhat unecessary seeing as neither L nor Misa have one (in L's case an expanded one). Alexstarrr (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Year of death = 2010? Or 2013?

2010, says so in Death Note: How to Read —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.180.150 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's both. In the manga he dies in 2010, but in the anime he dies in 2013. -- Rue Ryuzaki  jam  19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanji

夜 and 神 do NOT mean 'star' and 'light'. Whoever wrote that clearly has no knowledge of kanji. I'm changing it to 'night' and 'god', which incidentally, is accurately glossed in the lower section of the article under "Character".--Darthanakin (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i translated his kanji btw and it said "it is not yet published"

any coincidence?

--Tsukasahminaki (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Okay. I know I'm probably going to get a backlash from a lot of you, but here goes: I suggest merging this article into List of Death Note characters. Why? Because it's basically just a fictional character biography, with little real-world information. And that isn't really allowed here per WP:FICT, which notes that we have to have as much real-world content as possible, and there's none of that here. Apparently a lot of anime articles are like that, but I don't see why Death Note has to be like that too.HadesDragon 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• It may be best to devote character list pages to more minor characters and split major characters into their own articles. Also, Light Yagami, Misa, and L have their own articles on JA, so what may be best is to restrict individual articles to those three. WhisperToMe 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really agree. Fictional importance isn't what matters. Like I said: those articles don't have ANY real world content, no things like "Reception/Concept/Creation", which is what they're SUPPOSED to be focusing on, and they're relatively short too. If you'll take time to take a look at the Characters of Kingdom Hearts article, all the major characters excluding Organization XIII are all in that article. The reason for Organization XIII being separate, however, is because it has at least a little bit of real world content (the Concept and Creation of those characters), and less importantly because it would make the already long CoKH article way too big. I still think the L Lawliet and Light should be condensed and merged, Wikipedia isn't a place for plot dumps, which is essentialy what those articles are.HadesDragon 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• It may be a good idea to make this a policy discussion; the practice of making separate articles for fictional characters is extremely common, so it may help to discuss this with other editors on the Village Pump or some other medium WhisperToMe 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I'll be bringing that up.HadesDragon 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hold on, look at the Naruto character biographies! The main characters all have their own pages, and it's not like nobody's heard of Death Note. there should be a separate page for Light Yagami, L Lawliet and Near. Death Note's easily important enough to merit atleast that much attention to its characters. Using Kingdom Hearts as an example is irrelevant, as it is a game, and more emphasis should be put on the gameplay information and the storyline summary (along with the reception). Death Note ran for 108 chapters and 37 anime episodes, and is a character-driven fictional work, so it should have detailed character descriptions. If you want to put information like the charcter design and recepetion, put it in, but don't change it back to lists of characters, I find those unutterably dull and disrespectful as well as unspecific..--86.136.57.47 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? Both are works of fiction, and both are character-driven. The same rule applies here as well. See, what I don't think you understand is that plot summaries aren't supposed to be the focus of these kind of articles. And you're treating it as such. The L and Light articles, are, in enssence, plot dumps. And short plot dumps at that. They don't have real world content, and therefore aren't allowed. From WP:NOT:

"Plot summaries: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic".

See? These articles are exactly what ISN'T allowed on Wikipedia. There is no reason as to why Death Note should be an exception.

Don't you think I know about the Naruto character biographies? Bleach, and a lot of anime is the same way. Noticed how a lot of character articles have tags requesting that they be taken out of universe, with shorter plot summaries, and more real world content? I'm going to bet very few of them are above B class.

Unless Light and L have enough real world content on them to warrant their own articles, they don't deserve them, because they don't satisfy the notability guidelines for WP:FICT.HadesDragon 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also look at the Japanese article and see if it has any info about real world content. WhisperToMe 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you can go ahead and do that if you want, but if it doesn't, it doesn't really matter, because it SHOULD have it, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Though, a question: I DO plan on taking this to the Village Pump, but I'm a little new here, so I don't know exactly where. Some assistance would be greatly appreciated.HadesDragon 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please start a new section here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) :) WhisperToMe 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've took it up there. Now we wait until a consensus is reached.HadesDragon 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have another idea. I do not know when Death Note: How to Read will be released in the United States, but I suspect the creator will discuss his characters and the development. Maybe this will help the articles. WhisperToMe 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. That's exactly the kind of info we need. Though, I think it's best that, with the info we currently have, that they be merged. Once it's released, and that information becomes available, it might be enough to warrant a separate article for L and Light.HadesDragon 15:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that will end all of this: just look up out-of-universe information. Go to the Naruto characte pages (best go with ones at GA-Class), go to external links on their references (like IGN or Anime News Network), look up Death Note there, and see what you can find on the characters. While I can see Light and L having a lot of reception, Misa and Ryuk are questionable. Also, add an Other Media section, where you can add their appearances, roles, etc. in video games, card games, etc. You'd probably help improve the Death Note main article as well. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I found reception for Misa - A bit for Ryuk but not as much as I found with Misa. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am new at writing on the discuss page but I am not new in using the resources of Wikipedia. Given that, I would have to agree with --86.136.57.47. However I would like to go even further in saying that even though Wiki’s definition for a plot summary states that there should not be a singular attention to a “detailed summary” this definition does in fact justify the role of a plot summary in articles, specifically in the L and Light character descriptions. The fact is that although there has been considerable concentration to both of these characters and their role in the plot of Death Note, it should be said that in the case of these particular characters, a condensed, yet detailed plot summary is warranted for their profiles.(As to say that it is not always necessary to split ethical hairs in Wiki policy) I say this because of basic 2 reasons, for which I believe can make it necessary to give these characters their own articles as well as a plot summary for each. First, the plan wording of Wiki’s policy itself states the allowance of a detailed plot summary in an article, as long as the article does not focus solely on that summary. That is, the article must include other aspects such as character "Reception/Concept/Creation", by which this article does. I believe if given enough time and editing that the right balance between character plot and character "Reception/Concept/Creation" can be achieved and this article will fall with in the qualifications of Wikipedia’s model for a character profile/plot summary.

The second reason is, simply put it is in the focus on the "Reception/Concept/Creation" of these characters that, in my opinion even more warrants a detailed plot summary for each. That is, in order to do justice to the relevance of the characters L and Light in both Death Note itself and to the reality of the concept of Death Note, there must be a detailed plot summary for at least L and Light due to their integral roles in both the 108 chapter manga and 37, 38 episode anime. The "Reception/Concept/Creation" aspects of these two characters are the foundations for the fiction work “Death Note” as well as a basis for the plotline itself. If it wasn't for the concepts, motivations, and in fact their creation in the world of Death Note, it would be possible for the story itself to become such an iconic phenomenon as well as realistically relevant enough for Wikipedia to acknowledge it for a topic for discussion. Moreover, it is in both L's and Light's character devlopement that leads to the plot forming in the way it did. By giving a detailed summary, you in essence show all the viewers of the article how the elements of L's and Light's character comes into play in the evolution of the series; thus, allowing for a better reception for the concept and creation of L and Light in their articles, Death Note and topic of Death Note on Wikipedia. Just as long as their isn't just a SOLE LONG NARRATIVE ATTENTION TO PLOT in the character profile.

This is true because of both what Wikipedia is and how I believe we all think it should function. Wikipedia is at heart, an Encyclopedia. For this reason it is necessary to be able to gather information to create articles on various topics such as fictional works like Death Note, and verify both their relevance to a major or sub topics and to validate the authenticity of the information gathered to real world relevance and discussion “real-world context and sourced analysis”. To that end with fictional works, it has been often need to not only give profiles for the main characters but to also give their roles in the plot as well as their conceptual beginning. --AKIRA70 (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also I would like to give all those who contributed to this discussion much thanks and appreciation to its validity on Wikipedia. You people are the exception to way too many users and guest who do not appreciate the value or importance of discussion with Wiki policy and how it might impact both the topic in question and all those on the web who view it.Thank you all for a great discussion and I hope to have more with you who are some of the very few great viewers and users of Wikipedia.* :~)--AKIRA70 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be fine if someone could add some warning tempate to this article, so that everyone knows that it contains part of the plot (like the drawer speaking about Light losing his memory in part 35) Thanks Flukas (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ending of Death note

I am very dissapointed in the ending (Wharehouse!

Light is the better character, his plan was laid out and he would not have put himself in the possition to fail-Near could not get 'near' him - thats it.I dont know who else agrees but I say that Ligth should have won..... 168.210.132.228 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No i was happy light got what he had coming to him the thing he had been giving out: death i my hate near but L FTW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.111.212 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now if this convo has no relevelent content to the article here, it should not be discussed.

Check: WP:NOT Xuchilbara (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think this isn't the place for reviews of Death Note, but I think there still should some place in wikipedia to express your views of the show. Maybe an article entitled "Viewer Reviews and Opinions of Death Note" as a part of it s reception topic of the main article.Or a least a Link to a website that does it.--AKIRA70 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

two things 1, this is not a place for reviews of the death note series, but i cant help saying that that wasn't the original intended ending, its been i while and i don't remember where i read this, but maybe it would be something to put in the article (I'm not sure, fairly new to this stuff) that originally the plot was to end when L died, but there were to many complaints about the 'bad guy' having won so the manga was continued past there. 156.34.181.176 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)kat

I'm pretty sure it was always intended to last a certain number of chapters (some Buddhist thing). JuJube (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper killing definition

Someone (probably many people) seem to continue adding Light to fictional serial killers. I'd like to note that 'serial killer' by definition means "someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval". This wiki defines it as "A person who murders three or more people with a "cooling off" period between each murder". In other words, seperate events. The term 'mass murderer' is described as "the act of murdering a large number of people, typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time"; a single event. For this reason, I'm taking him off the fictional serial killer category. By killing many people at once, he could be described as 'ugraded' from serial killer. WickedKnightAlbel (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What does your dictionary or whatever it is say about people who kill many people over a large period of time. he kills thousands of criminals at a ridiculously fast pace and continues off and on for years. what does that make light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.46.108 (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that just splitting hairs?

And really, if not kill them within a set perio of time voids his being a serial killer, then the same could be said of Hanniabl Lecter couldn't it? 76.0.69.220 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, he killed a bunch of FBI agents at one time. JuJube (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And also, He continued to use others to trigger their own deaths as well as a series of death thereafter. In that case he should be called both a Mass Murder as well as Serial Killer(mostly on the meticulous methods and ways he killed his victims, the reasons why, as well as the methods he use to cover-up his killings)BTJM --AKIRA70 (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Near calls him a serial killer, mmm?StardustDragon 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed...

Is it intentional that Yagami backwards is Imagay, Im - a - Gay. :/ I love Death note but had to point that out.NekoKiyo (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:NOT - Wikipedia is not a forum. Plus Wikipedia:Original research would forbid that too. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yagami is a japanese word that preceeds their contact with foreign countries. The "iamgay" stuff is just a coincidence... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.58.19 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, taking Japanese spelling into account, Yagami backwards would actually be "Migaya". So much for your stupid schoolboy jokes. JuJube (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shinigamieyes.jpg

The image Image:Shinigamieyes.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

villain

It can be said that even though he is the protagonist of the series, he is in a way the main villain as well. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.137.70 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Being a protagonist simply means he is the main/most important character of the story, doesn't imply whether he is one of the goodies or the baddies. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

But he is a villain right? Seeing as he kills people while,L, Mello, and Near save people making them heroes. Scratch out the part about Mello being a hero he's a anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.228.173 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A protagonist, by definition, is the main character of any story, whether it be a book, movie, tv show, anime, etc. While they are typically a hero character being named a protagonist does not make them a 'good' guy. Light would typically be considered an anti-hero if you remove yourself from the story, but you can honestly see him either as a hero if you agree with him or a villain if you do not. It's one of the key things that makes Death Note great, the fact that the protagonist is not really a hero or a villain.Voltair3 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends how you look at it. Do you agree with Light's views? KnightOfRen (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Height

In the article it states that light was 5'10" according to the manga with a stated source... but the main picture which is ALSO from the manga has Light only just above 5'6"... Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.140.228 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The 5'10 is from the VIZ version of How to Read, but 5'6 seems to be correct as this is reflected in the Japanese version of How to Read. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Redirection

I was redirected to this when searching for "Raito"; however, I was looking for the composer/musician who composed the majority of the tracks off of the Melty Blood Act Cadenza Ver B. Original Soundtrack, rather than this character, so just how appropriate is it to have "Raito" redirect to this article? HaikenEdge (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Antagonist

I have removed the mention of Light Yagami as an antagonist. I believe people are confusing an antagonist with a villain. A villain is a negative or evil character, while an antagonist is simply the character that opposes the main character (who in this case is Light Yagami). One cannot be both a protagonist and antagonist unless the perspective switches within the story, which it doesn't with Death Note. Light Yagami is always the main character, thus always and only ever the protagonist.

I have replaced the mention of antagonist with anti-hero and villain, because I think these highlight Light's characteristics as an evil/bad/un-good protagonist.

Also, I forget how to do the name and date thing, so just so you know, this is Chicken Twinky and the time is 3:37 am June 30, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicken Twinky (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Light Yagami is the definite protagonist of Death Note. Even if he is an evil bastard and an anti-hero, he is the protagonist. Anyone who changes it is committing vandalism, so don't do it. -- Rue Ryuzaki  jam  19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 07:19, 18 May 2008 WhisperToMe protected Light Yagami ‎ (We've been getting a bit of vandalism, and I think this will help conserve time [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary, as it's been over a year. As well as welcoming opinions from regular editors I have contacted WhisperToMe, the protecting admin. --TS 14:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am in favor of dropping the semiprotection and seeing what happens next. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Raskolnikov

Could Light be based on Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment? Admittedly Light is definitely the more ruthless of the two but their characterisation is very similar. --217.42.255.87 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reliable source that compares Light to Raskolnikov? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not but hey, who cares about sources? --217.43.187.217 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR do. —Farix (t | c) 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR are not people, though their worshippers might disagree with me. --217.43.187.217 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Point is, if it has no sources, it can't be added. If those rules didn't exist then you would be able to add pretty much anything regardless of its factuality.--Megaman en m (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Character Page?

Through the search function on the site, I came across two pages for the character, one for Light Yagami (this one) and the second under Raito Yagami. The content is largely the same but several sections are different. They should probably be merged but I wouldn't even know where to start. kmarple1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

Done; the other page looks like an old fork. Vashti (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the opposite should have been done: its _real_ name is Raito, not Light. This page should have even been named Yagami Raito, given that Yagami is the character's family name, and in Japanese people write the family name before the surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.21.3.121 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Byronic hero?

On TV Tropes and anime forums Light has often been described as a byronic hero. Would that be a good category for him? 98.195.126.206 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable source describes the character as a byronic hero, it would be a good category to add. Forums and TV Trops are not reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Adjectives

Can we get some input on "extremely intelligent" vs "unusually intelligent" or alternatives, please? As far as I'm concerned "extremely" is a meaningless superlative which needs removing or replacing with a word that gives context - which "unusually" does. Vashti (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Both are meaningless superlatives unless a reliable source uses the term.Edward321 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not necessarily so. WP:BLUE - there are adequate examples in the story to the effect that Light's intelligence is unusual. A work of fiction is adequate as a primary source for a plot summary. Vashti (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:When to cite - " If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information." Vashti (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That part is very true. Batman194 (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd suggest chapter 1 (Light places first in the nationwide Japanese mock exams) and chapter 19 (Light allegedly scores 100% on his university entrance exam) as relevant chapters. Pretty much every chapter of the 108 emphasises how ~sooper speshul~ he is. But we really don't need to cite a plot summary (especially in the opening), any more than we need to cite that the sky is blue. As for "extremely" vs "unusually", my reasoning is that "extremely" gives us no additional information. It's like "very" - it doesn't really add anything. "Unusually" gives us the additional detail that he is very intelligent, yes, but he is more so than most. We could also go with "genius" - which, unsurprisingly, he is described as in canon. Chapter 19 again. Vashti (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You know there are other possible words that all of us can think of to describe Light's intelligence. I can think of "exceptionally intelligent" or "extraordinary intelligent". Do you think any of them sounds good to the both of you? Batman194 (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, no. I would resist any terms that could be substituted with "very", as they aren't good writing. There has to be some comparative element. I'm edging towards "genius", as it's short and instantly clarifies what we're talking about. Vashti (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way Vashti. "Very" is the type of adjective that is yet such debatable for my taste of literature. Batman194 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The term turns out to be Intensifier. They are typically avoided in concise writing. However, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say; could you clarify? Vashti (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is there were many other synonyms that can be used for genius, like "brilliant" for example. Do you understand what I mean? Batman194 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Brilliant young man" or "young genius" would both be good. I personally prefer the latter as being more concise. Vashti (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest "Brilliant young man" for your best consideration Vashti. Batman194 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? I mean, what are your grounds for preferring that? Vashti (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You said you're edging towards genius right? The reason I suggest it is because "brilliant" may possibly be the best adjective to describe Light as of being well-educated and is a young man of age (i.e. transiting from high school to young adulthood). Batman194 (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But there is *no need whatsoever* to have "man" in the description. We refer to Light with "he" throughout! Vashti (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Batman194 (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have consensus, then? Vashti (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean "an agreement". Well then I will accept it. Batman194 (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are we editing "young man" in as a descriptor again, when it's obvious from the text that Light is male (we use a male pronoun) and young (he's described as in high school)? I thought we discussed this. Vashti (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously agree with Vashti on that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

I don't want to get into an edit war, but what was wrong with the content before? And what's with this new focus on "misanthropy" and the seven deadly sins? Sro23 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted on the bases that this is original research. —Farix (t | c) 09:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this revert. The shorter lead is better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Light Yagami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218215636/http://star-ecentral.com/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F10%2F29%2Fmovies%2F15836968&sec=movies to http://star-ecentral.com/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F10%2F29%2Fmovies%2F15836968&sec=movies
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016122504/http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone to http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=3585
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510123142/http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/07/26/death_note/print.html to http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/07/26/death_note/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080713101653/http://media.www.anchorweb.org/media/storage/paper1224/news/2008/04/15/ArtsEntertainment/Otaku.Weekly.Review-3326445.shtml to http://media.www.anchorweb.org/media/storage/paper1224/news/2008/04/15/ArtsEntertainment/Otaku.Weekly.Review-3326445.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802220209/http://www.star-ecentral.com/news/story.asp?file=%2F2007%2F1%2F14%2Fmovies%2F16541015&sec=movies to http://www.star-ecentral.com/news/story.asp?file=%2F2007%2F1%2F14%2Fmovies%2F16541015&sec=movies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing the category psychopathy

Thought Light has demonstrated horrendous acts in the series, he does not demonstrate traits of psychopathy (a common term for antisocial personality disorder) which is a medical diagnosis under the DSM-V.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) has very specific criteria that are listed in DSM-5 published by the American Psychiatric Association.

These criteria are:

A. Disregard for and violation of others rights since age 15, as indicated by one of the seven sub features:

Failure to obey laws and norms by engaging in behavior which results in criminal arrest, or would warrant criminal arrest Lying, deception, and manipulation, for profit or self-amusement, Impulsive behavior Irritability and aggression, manifested as frequently assaults others, or engages in fighting Blatantly disregards safety of self and others, A pattern of irresponsibility and Lack of remorse for actions (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) The other diagnostic Criterion are:

B. The person is at least age 18,

C. Conduct disorder was present by history before age 15

D. and the antisocial behavior does not occur in the context of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

Light may exhibit traits supposedly indicative criterion A and B as Kira, but keep in mind he is supposed to exhibit these traits inherently without any external factors before the age of 15. In the anime and manga canon, he only exhibit these traits after he obtains the notebook at the age of 17.

Furthermore, in order to have a personality disorder, you need to have evidence of functional or psychosocial impairment that is a direct consequence of maladaptive and pervasive patterns of behavior beginning in childhood. There is no evidence in either the anime or manga that supports the idea Light had any traits indicative of an ASPD diagnosis. He is considered to be a model citizen of Japan, does extremely well in school and is adored by peers and family members. He is high functioning and does not demonstrate any evidence of psychosocial impairment prior to finding the notebook.

While I understand that Travis Fickett of IGN has called Light a sociopath, he is ultimately not diagnosing using the DSM-V, a widely accepted manual used by mental health professionals. It is no different from individuals freely throwing around the term "OCD" to label individuals who are really particular without properly diagnosing said individual using the DSM-V. 198.72.246.124 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, the DSM-5 is not the only source we go by for defining psychopathy. And psychopathy and sociopathy are considered the same thing by some sources. Sociopathy is not distinguished enough to yet have its own Wikipedia article. And most importantly, Wikipedia does not always use categories in the strict way you are trying to use it in this case. If there is substantial material in the article discussing whether Light is a psychopath (or sociopath) or not, a case can be made for including the category. But right now, there is not much in the article about the psychopathy/sociopathy aspect, although Light is also described as a serial killer in the article and serial killers are usually described as psychopaths or sociopaths. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel like that reasoning is flawed. Just because a bunch of people (without credentials or any sort of background in mental health mind you) come around and say Light is a psychopath or sociopath doesn't make it so because that essentially means ANYONE regardless of their medical background or lack thereof can diagnose conditions.

This very flawed logic is what perpetuates misinformation on mental health conditions, further stigmatizes those struggling with actual personality disorders and perpetuates harmful stereotypes such as said individuals being a greater threat or danger to society than those without.

To that point, the assumption that just because many serial killers are psychopaths or sociopaths must mean every serial killer are psychopaths or sociopaths is yet another flawed train of logic because there have been plenty of mass murderers out there in our real world who have killed many but do not fit the criteria for a personality disorder. We want to think only those with a mental condition like a personality disorder are capable of murder but the reality is, if you look at the numbers, more murders are committed by those WITHOUT a personality disorder than those with a diagnosis.

Shouldn't we at Wikipedia strive for accurate information and do our best to dissuade categories that perpetuate mistruths, misinformation or in this case negative stereotypes?

Hence, all labelling Light as a psychopath, sociopath or someone with a personality disorder does is perpetuate the stigma and stereotype that those with mental illness are dangerous and a threat to society at large. This is in my opinion a deeply flawed and possibly harmful way of approaching this article, especially for those formally diagnosed with a personality disorder. I feel strongly that the categories indicative of Light's alleged "mental illnesses" be removed 76.91.144.137 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)