Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi

Legacy

To avoid having the same discussion in several different sections.

I would have thought it very obvious why a violent neo-fascist organisation fawning over a violent ultranationalist is relevant, especially when he is fawned over by other violent far-right fellow travellers. If there is any issue with the description of the far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist Proud Boys, I suggest you head over to Talk:Proud Boys and seek consensus to change that article first. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it all. It's skewed towards American political discourse and is excessively detailed. It has no relevance to the rest of the article which is entirely Japanese-focused. The re-enactment was not a prominent event as the provided sources only briefly mention it. If it was prominent then better sources are required. Lightbloom (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Clearly relevant to his legacy that he's still idolised by fascists over 60 years later. FDW777 (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not relevant to mention in his legacy whenever someone idolises him, fascist or not. Again, you need to provide better sources if it was a prominent event relevant to his legacy. Corroborating two sources that briefly mention the event in passing, then superimposing a definition of the Proud Boys to make the point understandable to the reader makes this original research and completely irrelevant to the article. Lightbloom (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You could try the WSJ, The Week or the Japan Times too. FDW777 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

These sources add nothing more. If they did, they would have been used in the article. It's relevant to the legacy of the Proud Boys, not to this article. Lightbloom (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's entirely irrelevant to the legacy of the Proud Boys and 100% relevant to the legacy of Yamaguchi. Your argument is not cogent. JesseRafe (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've raised several points why it's not relevant. Can you address any? Lightbloom (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The basic premise you are arguing is faulty, e.g. not demonstrating an understanding of the meaning of the word "legacy" to be for historic callbacks and influences over time not contemporary happenings. Further your argument about the sources not discussing it is inane as, yes, the sources are more about the melee after it, but the reenactment of event is the sine qua non of the melee. It's basically but for causation and doesn't need to be deeply covered in the source to detail the original happening: it's just factual reporting that it was what was being reenacted at that time. It's part of the legacy here due to the indisputable influence on these later events there. Insisting it's the legacy of the Proud Boys is nonsensical. As a reminder, the way this works is you have to show consensus for your view to alter the article. Saying "you're not addressing my points" when they have been clearly addressed by two editors and then continuing to move the goalposts as you're responded to is not how consensus is built. JesseRafe (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's political discourse, not legacy. It's a skit done by a provocateur that caused controversy, which is the only reason it is documented. To include it here with such detail is clearly irrelevant. The sources contribute nothing to how Yamaguchi's legacy is perceived, only to how the Proud Boys are perceived. Lightbloom (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

JSDF

His father couldn't have been a member of the JDSF in the 40s because it wasnt formed until the mid fifties, post WW2. His father would have been in the Imperial Japanese Army. Please edit to correct this. 159.196.13.219 (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done I think the meaning of this was relatively clear already, but I have added a clarification. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

Remove parentheses before citation 16 stating that Proud Boys are a Neo-nazi group. Biased and unfounded subjective information. 2603:7080:4E3C:17FD:103D:3BB4:2E61:1688 (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Pretty well covered at Proud Boys Cannolis (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9/12/2022 (Removal of the proud boys paragraph/ANI)

I think the proud boys are absolute idiots, but this is a hit piece on them. This is loaded it with as many buzzwords as possible rather than simply as a passing fact that they reenacted it. If you wish to denounce them, do it in your blog, twitter or in a facebook post.

On 12 October 2018, Gavin McInnes, founder of the Proud Boys (a far-right political organization), reenacted the assassination as part of a skit to entertain members of the Metropolitan Republican Club and his organization in New York City. After the performance, McInnes left the club holding the plastic samurai sword used in the reenactment.

If you are aren't willing to do this, then add some drivel smearing Asanuma being a far-left communist socialist yada yada who regularly visited/returned from china cosplaying as Mao, because that's what this sounds like. For the record, I am against both these things being on the page for an assassination/assassin - rather than the articles on individual persons themselves.

Please be neutral. Please keep this about Yamaguchi and link to other aformentioned people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:7000:450C:7C11:CFB4:F554:9D30 (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The article is about Yamaguchi and the Proud Boys article is about them. There is a subsection about Yamaguchi about the legacy of the actions, and there is well-sourced neutral language describing one such event related to the assassination. It's amazing how many Proud Boys think that this one thing disparages them so much compared to anything else on Wikipedia and how much they believe they can pretend to be "unaffiliated observers" who just want it to be "fair" and think it'll work. JesseRafe (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Look - Accusing me of being affiliated with those idiots is libel, and I request you retract that.

"Chauvinist" is inheritably loaded.

I don't care if they fit the description - its a negative adjective and is in violation of NPOV. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Proud Boys say "I'm a proud Western chauvinist" as a part of their initiation ritual, so it appears to be a term they self-identify with. Endwise (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Christ alive.

Well, it still stands I guess.

If some random person with a wikipedia page describes themself a drooling idiot, I don't think it would be fair to describe them as such on wikipedia. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'll repeat what I said in my edit summary here: this is an article about a well-known historical figure in Japan. I don't think it should include minor, relatively unknown stunts that have happened in America. There are probably hundreds of incidents of people referencing the assassination of Asanuma in Japan which would be more noteworthy than this. To add: Wikipedia already has far too much focus on recent, and largely irrelevant crap that happens in the USA. Do you think that for instance, in 10 years time, the average editor of the Japanese Wikipedia would think this minor American stunt is a significant aspect of the topic of Otoya Yamaguchi, and add it to their article? Or for a comparison, if a Japanese prankster, relatively unknown to Western audiences outside of Japan, did a skit reenacting the assassination of Abraham Lincoln to a small audience last year, do you think we should add a whole paragraph about it to a section on the legacy of John Wilkes Booth? Endwise (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • (Here from ANI) I agree with Endwise's removal and rationale above. This content is WP:UNDUE for inclusion on this article (it might be DUE in other articles, such as the one about Proud Boys or its founder, but not this one). The way we know it's UNDUE is that the sources used to source the content are not about this article subject but about the Proud Boys. Sources about Yamaguchi do not mention this incident as part of Yamaguchi's legacy (AFAICT). Levivich (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Not appropriate content for this article, per Endwise and Levivich. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw the previous posts refusing to remove it altogether and I was willing to compromise on it being reworded to be neutral, but it's better off not being in there.

I don't know if me adding to this does any good or has any sway over the consensus, but I'll add my +1 towards removal of the paragraph. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here, this is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article. Reading back on how this has been defended, it appears as though some editors really want to link this guy to modern day ideologies. If it was to be referenced somewhere, it would be Assassination of Inejirō Asanuma, considering that's the act that was recreated. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with editors above that this doesn't seem to belong here at least in the form it was. That said, as noted below I noticed edits like [1] [2]. If Otoya Yamaguchi is significantly idealised by the modern far right in America, IMO it might be okay to include some brief mention of this but there will need to be sources which establish this is a thing beyond just that skit and it's not clear to me we need to mention the skit or any particular group. If the focus of the idolisation is on the assassination, we probably should just mention it at assassination of Inejirō Asanuma. Frankly, from the current version of the article, I'm not sure we actually need an article on Yamaguchi. There does not seem to be enough material that cannot be covered in the assassination article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that, merging the articles might be the best idea anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My 2 cents against merging is that there's a lot more to Yamaguchi than has been covered in the english version of the article. The japanese version has extensive coverage of his life events prior to the assassination that I don't think would be appropriate for that article.

I'd be willing to translate it if we can include japanese sources. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree and would be strongly opposed to merging. Yamaguchi is a hugely important figure in postwar and contemporary Japan. We have separate pages for other assassins, and we'd never suggest merging John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald. As the poster above mentions, there is a lot more that could be said about Yamaguchi's life and the ceremonies commemorating him that wouldn't be relevant to the assassination article. In fact, I think there is **already** a good amount of info in this article that wouldn't necessarily belong in the assassination article. Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet nearly all of the info here is already in the assassination article. It's possible there is more to add it's why I say "current version" since I know very little about the subject. All I know is that this article doesn't seem to have any significant information that isn't in the assassination article and so any small amount that isn't there can just be added without giving undue weight to minor matters. There are plenty of assassins who do not need their own articles, the important thing is whether there are enough sources which cover them as a subject rather than just sources that mention the assassination and describe details of the assassin. Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to work on translating some parts that aren't present. More information is better than less I believe. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of extended-protected status

Well, the problematic paragraph has been removed altogether with a clear consensus against it.

I think its now safe to open this page back up to the public. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Try WP:RFPP or maybe User talk:El C. Note that while edit warring edit warring from IPs and new editors over the removed section especially the description of Proud Boys was the biggest problem, it doesn't seem to have been the only one e.g. [3] [4] which be related, in that it's occurring for the same reasons there was material for the controversy section but perhaps not because of the section. So there's no guarantee an admin will see the situation has changed enough to reduce protection. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree those edits are definitely problematic.

It might be best to wait for the dust to settle and revisit this later.

Though fwiw, those seem more isolated than the edit wars over the now removed paragraph. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead with putting the request up. I don't think we'll have any more issues of this magnitude on here. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting the early life section

The yakuza are reprehensible but this is very poorly written.(Guess that makes me a proud yakuza now).

I'm going to try to be as close to the original as possible.

Comparing the japanese and english versions:

 1943年（昭和18年）、のちに陸上自衛官となる山口晋平と大衆作家村上浪六の三女夫妻の次男として、東京都台東区谷中で生まれた。

 ("Born in 1943 (showa era 18th year), descendent of Ground SDF official to be, Shinpei Yamaguchi, and the second son of the third daughter of popular writer Namiroku Murakami.　He was born in Tokyo prefecture, Taito-ward, Yanaka district.")

 "Yamaguchi was born on 22 February 1943 in Taitō ward, Tokyo. He was the second son of Yamaguchi Shinpei, who by 1960 would become a high-ranking officer in the Japan Self Defense Forces, and was the maternal grandson of the writer Namiroku Murakami, famous for his violent novels glorifying the chivalric code of yakuza gangsters. "

This second paragraph is a factual problem and has very poor wording.

 幼年時代から新聞やニュースを読み、国体護持の闘争に身を投じて政治家たちを激烈に批判し、早くから右翼思想を持った兄の影響を受けて右翼活動に参加することになった。
 
 (starting in early childhood he read newspapers and other news, and threw himself (lit.) into the conflict to protect the nation and violently (lit.) criticized politicians, holding right wing thoughts from early on his older brother's influence was received and joined right wing activities.)

 Yamaguchi grew up in relative privilege, but was radicalized as a teenager by his older brother. At age 16, he joined prominent right-wing ultranationalist Bin Akao's Greater Japan Patriotic Party (日本愛国党, Nihon Aikokutō).

Please note that he already took an interest in politics very early on.

new sources: http://aikokutou.net/?p=1551 『戦後文学の作家たち』千頭剛、関西書院, 1995, p90 My recommended change is as follows (Some verbiage should be changed. I don't know how to make this sound neutral in english) (please add link text where you feel is neccesary i don't know how to do that without making it look like this):

 Yamaguchi was born on 22 February 1943 in Yanaka, Taitō ward, Tōkyō. He is the second son of Shinpei Yamaguchi. His father would later become a high-ranking officer in the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. His mother was the third daughter of famous writer Namiroku Murakami. Starting in his early childhood, he began reading newspapers. He became interested in nationalist movements and became vehemently critical of politicians. Through his brother's influence, he began participating in right-wing activities and at age 16, he joined right-wing Japanese nationalist Bin Akao's Greater Japan Patriotic Party (日本愛国党, Nihon Aikokutō). The party holds a yearly service to show their respects to Yamaguchi.

23.241.30.108 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, the above isn't a final draft by any means and still needs some touching up. I'm trying to stay factual and to the point without judgement or attachment of loaded labels.

Who was what, who did what.

The last sentence may need to be rewritten. I can't think of a neutral way to say that they hold a yearly without implying that posthumous respect is deserved or undeserved.

If you think anything should be worded differently, please bring it up. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

Hello, There's a grammar mistake in the Imprisonment and Suicide section. The "2 November" should read, "the 2nd of November."

Thanks 211.19.16.88 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "2 November" is the correct rendering of the second day of November per the Manual of Style. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Some wording things

@Ash-Gaar I do still have a problem with the 2 uses of "newspapers" in a row, how do you think this should be changed? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink, the way you fixed it now seems fine to me! Thanks for all your good work! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

glamorization

I was a child when this happened and reading this article is first time I have heard of it. I find the amount of detail gives the impression to glamorize this person. I especially noticed the specific description of the weapon used. 207.11.71.197 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

People have said the same thing about the pages of other historical figures who did a lot of, to put lightly, "very not good things" because they didn't have a negative slant to them, which an effort is generally made to avoid due to WP:NPOV

If you think something should be written differently, make an edit request here.

Napoleon, despite committing several of what by today's standards are egregious war crimes, has an article with a neutral, bordering on positive tone.

Even Stalin or Gobbels reads neutrally, stating what they did without editorializing it.\

Murder is bad and so is genocide. I think that goes without saying. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried fixing it but now it seems overly redundant, is this more like what you had in mind? DarmaniLink (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see past edits because I'm using my phone to read. What stands out for me is the wiki link to the specific type of sword in the second sentence. The information is in the article itself so wouldn't be lost if taken out of the introduction. The linked article is mainly about the sword's traditional use in earlier times, which has nothing (or very little) to do with this article. 207.11.71.197 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

you can't really expect everyone to know what a wakizashi is, and if someone were to google it, they would likely come across the wikipedia article, so think of that like a shortcut.

You were right about the information appearing twice in a needless way though, but usually we link what comes first rather than what comes second.

Is this better? It kinda feels like if we were to just say "he stabbed him" the question might be "with what?"

It doesnt seem like a detail that can just be excluded DarmaniLink (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how the mere act of linking to another Wikipedia article for a term not everyone would know would be "glamorization." --Ash-Gaar (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

sorry about the previous double post, i dont know how that even happened DarmaniLink (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems better now, and also more accurate. 207.11.71.197 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the problem is/was, but, I'm glad any implied glamorization of a murderer that may have previously been there is gone. While attempting to expand and normalize the article, I tried to stay as neutral as possible, letting his actions speak for themselves, if there's any other issues you see, let us know. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. 69.181.154.23 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential gold mine to improve this article with content inappropriate for the assassination page

This book here

山口二矢供述調書: 社会党委員長浅沼稲次郎刺殺事件
ISBN-10
488656349X
ISBN-13
9784886563491

It's basically his entire case file, along with every bit of testimony have gave to police. Do you know where I might be able to find a public record of this? I kinda would rather not spend $10 on a kindle book DarmaniLink (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Photograph of yamaguchi

Do you think we should use a photograph of him, and move the current photo to the assassination section? @Ash-Gaar

Looking at John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, that seems to be the standard.

Asking for your opinion on what you think would look best, most of the photos (mostly on Aikokuto's website) I could find look a bit glamorizing. Do you know if there's a mugshot we could use? DarmaniLink (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I think the current photo is fine. Anything else would be glamorizing, I fear. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my only concern was that this article had a lot of overlap with the assassination article, and changing the photo from the one used in the assassination article seems like a good way to finish separating them. I'm trying to think of a way to do this without detracting from him being a terrorist. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Getting this to GA status without glamorization

I fully intend on getting this article all the way up to GA status, and took inspiration from some other GA articles, however, the current layout makes it look like he's someone who did something positive and is being quoted beyond the encyclopedic scope of just documenting what he said.
1. How do we fix this, or should we leave this as is? If you think anything should be worded differently, feel free to make changes. If it's going to require a structural change, leave a suggestion below.
2. What else should be done before submitting this for review, so we don't waste someone's time with a GA likely to be declined? DarmaniLink (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)