Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reactions section

Can we please avoid a Reactions section which consists of repetitive platitudes from various world leaders. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A former leader of a G7 nation was just shot, and world leaders are reacting. What's unencyclopedic about mentioning that? Nythar (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree the section is irrelevant. No doubt heart felt, but it's repetitive and there are potentially 100s, even 1000s. An article is not a list of commentary. --Merbabu (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against having a reactions section. But I'm not going to argue strongly in favor of one existing at this time, either, as most reactions are simply going to be statements condemning the attack, but if this changes then the section should be added back. However, if he's confirmed to have passed, then the official statements from government officials in Japan and around the world are of much more interest and such a section should be accessible to readers.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree pretty much entirely. If he dies, we should add it back. A reactions section exists in many articles about disasters and similar such events. Blippy1998 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, the existence of stuff elsewhere is never a justification in itself for stuff here.--Merbabu (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

In my own opinion, I'd like for the comforting reactions from other world leaders to remain/be added back because it helps keep the situation "calm," in my opinion. That others are praying for the former prime minister's safety. Lostfan333 (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even see this talk page before removed the unencyclopedic section. Editors pretty much uniformly hate the flags, the sourcing to Twitter and other primary sources, and the quotefarm nature of these things. Abductive (reasoning) 07:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I always thought it was strange that a handful of editors take issues with flagicons in reactions sections. I wouldn't say opposition to them is uniformal; they're still standard practice. I certainly don't have an issue with them.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

They're garbage. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

For what reason(s)? Protostrator Giovanni (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Enumerated above. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There were no reasons listed for opposing flagicons other than assuming everyone else hates them and calling them garbage. Flag icons just make it easier to navigate (at least for readers who have at least a baseline understanding of what the flags of the world are). They should be included.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Vanilla Wizard. No one knows what "Editors...uniformly hate" and I'd wager that Wikipedia editors don't uniformly hate anything in particular. The idea that editors hate "sourcing to...primary sources" does not agree with the fact that a fundamental Wikipedia practice is "citing reliable, authoritative sources." I can understand "quote farming" but a "quotefarm" lies outside the realm. To tax farm does not create a tax farm; in online games, to credit farm does not create a credit farm; to fish for compliments shall build no fisheries. —catsmoke ^talk 22:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Not all of them. Some random leftist Twitter users are celebrating his death. Didn't expect anything else once I saw, tbh. Feel free to ignore this, btw Jenkowelten (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

However, if you go on weibo, it's literally a cesspit of chinese nationalists celebrating his death like a victory and wanting to give donations to Tatsuya. It's really unnerving and digusting. Zekromu88 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the section on the opinions of ""some"" Chinese social media users relevant enough to justify being published, especially when people celebrating his death can be found somewhere on every country's social media? It reeks of the English wiki using this assassination as an opportunity to spread anti-Chinese sentiment. I'm not going to delete it myself but someone needs to bring up the flagrantly increasing pro-Western bias recently being shown. (I just checked again and someone else removed it - thanks! Neutrality is important.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• Please see the consensus to remove most reactions from this section in the thread, #World reactions to Abe's assassination Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

World reactions to Abe's assassination

What form should the inevitable reactions take? A simple list of condoling nations with refs? A standalone article with the usual flags and predictable banalities? (Anything to keep the flaggies off this page ... WWGB (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB I suggest not adding any boilerplate condolence, neither the flags. Any noteworthy condolence should establish on the talk page why it should be added and seek consensus on the talk page. It should be added only then. Venkat TL (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious about Bangladesh in the list as it is not a supranational entity. rektz (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB I suggest separating the reactions based on the continent where it originates, while separating a section of supranational entities. Currently, these are the states / organizations where their statements were added:

• Russia
• China
• the United Kingdom
• India
• France
• Bangladesh
• Malaysia
• Australia (former prime minister)
• the EU
• NATO

PenangLion (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Venkat TL. Predictable boilerplate condolences are not needed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Changes were made, including the removal of the remarks from the former Australian prime minister. I believe currently the entire section only consists of detailed descriptions of reactions from major countries. PenangLion (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

And it's getting bigger than the incident about the assassination itself. Maybe a standalone article? KRtau16 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, considering that the entire section occupies more than half the length of the article. ZandrLacx (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think such decisions can only be generally agreed when the main portion of the article, the details regarding the assassination itself must attain significant content. But for now, the reactions are the dominating chapter in the article. I suggest delaying this decision until the main part of the article gains enough content for a separate article to be made. PenangLion (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

And Ireland PM of Ireland 2A02:8084:20E4:5C00:C1E5:DFC2:379D:6274 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The section basically became a WP:QUOTEFARM, but without the flag clutter that usually appear in these kinds of article. Whole section basically could be summarized to "many countries expressed condolence"Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think many users editing the section have forgotten that we're only including responses by major countries. Cleanups will be made. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia considers a "major" country (that term seems very problematic), but the reactions section is indeed way too long. Funcrunch (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Hariboneagle927, way too many quotes. We should have a selected few countries, not every single country that sends condolences. We'd have to agree a list of countries, but every single country's quotes is way too much. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, the problem is defining what a "major" country is. Like the Southeast Asian countries' responses arguably could be more relevant than reactions of some Balkan states. Maybe just include country reactions that goes beyond expressing condolence. Even the US reaction so far is just the standard condolence as well.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. With so many messages remixing the same words (shocking, condemn, [terrible] murder, etc.) over and over, we can just summarize it to what Hariboneagle927 said. I would set the bar a bit lower for the Japanese reactions because they have more connection with him, which makes their voices stronger. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927 Neighbouring countries, members of the G7, notable members of the G20, the EU, NATO, these names would be enough to be included in the list. PenangLion (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Call for action As expected, the reaction section has become a "Guest book" of sorts filled with comments of "Deeply shocked" and "Deeply saddened". None of that is encyclopedic. All of those need to be purged from this page. Venkat TL (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Action taken, pruning done. Venkat TL (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

This section is getting a bit bloated and is starting to dominate the article. Some reactions, especially those of major world powers are perfectly reasonable. But we don't need the reaction of the Prime Minister of East Ruritania. I would encourage some pruning here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Pruning is preferable to splitting. Let's not have another "reactions of" content farm. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So by pruning you mean removing some? Great Mercian (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So which ones, actually probably a better question is which one's do we keep. if we eventually have to split this article we should probably have the pruned ones stored somewhere so they can be used again. Great Mercian (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Great Mercian All of them are stored in the page history. Copy its link to the talk page or anywhere you link and save it till eternity. All of them are routine boilerplate messages of shock and sadness. almost none encyclopedic. Venkat TL (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a short section listing countries that have sent condolences etc with a ref near the top under "International." That's where most of these belong. The only international reactions that would justify a brief quote are the major powers and extremely well known figures like the pope if he has reacted. We can either can or condense 90% of these lists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem although I strongly agree and have said the same in #World reactions to Abe's assassination in support of pruning, The pruning has to be indiscriminate with regards to major/minor powers. If PM of Ruritania had something worth notable for people 10 years down the line, that should be kept and if POTUS said something that is boilerplate, I would prefer we purge POTUS line and keep Ruritania. Venkat TL (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So far, I haven't read a reaction that isn't boilerplate. Can we just blank the section? Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. No one will be like, "huh why didn't this encyclopedia article about this assassination leave out the platitudes and condolences from world leaders? I want to read all 100+" EvergreenFir (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Following this talk page discussion, boilerplate messages of "deep shock" "deep sadness" and "fond memories" have been removed. I have only left 4-5 quotes that have some substance and action (such as national mourning) other than deep shock and sadness that is covered in the first line that says everyone sent condolence. If someone believes I have purged more than necessary or less than necessary, please start threads below. The version after my pruning is at 20:14, 8 July 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Other suggestions for World reactions section

@Venkat TL For me personally the only country worthy of mention among all ASEAN countries would probably be either Singapore or Indonesia. Neighbouring states should be included, i.e. China, Russia, Taiwan, South Korea and the United States. Important supranational organisations includes, i.e. the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations. European nations would probably be limited to France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, while we can put several middle eastern / west Asian countries (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India). The same idea goes for African and South American countries. The idea for a map as stated by @KRtau16 can be a good idea if implemented correctly. Reminded by the proxy though, we can't put Arden's comment about comparisons with her cat in a specific way as much as a vague overview of what the Chinese or Koreans said, right? PenangLion (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) A suggestion. How about a map depicting the countries that have issued statements about the assassination? Will that satisfy other editors who wants to put their countries' reaction? KRtau16 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Dont you think reactions from asean nations should also be added since they are much more closer geographically to japan? CrystallizedSyrup (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Only if they're given as part of a section on the aftermath, together with the conviction or acquittal of the individual who has been arrested and a discussion of any long-term effects of the assassination. Reactions from other world leaders are generally minor and shouldn't be mentioned unless they're seen as important by later writers. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@CrystallizedSyrup We can't add all of them. Even for ASEAN certain countries must take the priority than others, or else we'll have 13 similar statements resembling a religious spell of continuing madness. PenangLion (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB Your edit on Russia and Indonesia is bold, but maybe too much. Indonesia? Perhaps, with such repetitive statements. But removing Russia, a neighboring country who served many disputes with Japan politically is too far for me personally. Russia must get a mention, at least, with his labeling of Abe as a "patriot of Japanese interests" possibly serving some unique points for it to be included? PenangLion (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about domestic reactions, I was a bit surprised to learn that in the Chinese Wikipedia, there was a significant portion dedicated towards the Emperor's own response towards the event. However, the source is in Japanese. Do we have any editors who can maybe add a few lines regarding the Emperor's response to this incident? PenangLion (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I did not make a case here. But first of all, what is the notability requirements for this list? It makes no coherent sense why the IOC which isn't even a country, Ireland which isn't even related to Japan geographically or politically is included. If people want to remove reactions, then it should at least make sense, which begs the question why China and South Korea even need a debate before being added. Again, South Korea and China are countries closely tied and geographically near Japan so if reactions are to be removed they should be ones like Ireland and Bangledish.--Takipoint123 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That is fair, I don't know about Ireland but Bangladesh has little weight compared to other choices such as major superpowers and ASEAN countries which Japan has close ties to geopolitically. rektz (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That is why we are still discussing about this section. PenangLion (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Takipoint123. Toto11zi (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, we can have someone create a map about the reaction (because I don't know how) where all countries are included. For example:

International reaction to the assassination of Shinzo Abe

---

  Countries that have xxx

  Countries that have yyy

  Unknown

---

  Japan

We can maintain the "notable" countries that are already there under the International reaction and the rest are just thrown into the map. KRtau16 (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@KRtau16 This is a dangerous excercise. I believe it is a standard diplomatic manner to compulsorily send condolence to the nation. We here are making map based on what media reported, if Country X is left out, because media did not report it, or they did not tweet about it, even though they sent their condolences through their normal formal diplomatic channels, it would be a disservice and misinformation. I still believe the any reasonable reader will understand after reading the line "numerous countries" sent their condolence, without the need to zero in on particular country. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia, particularly the English one, belongs to everybody. While I agree with the premise that only "major" responses should be listed in order not to bloat the article, it might also be important for some readers to see the response from their own geography, as that response might differ from generic condolences. For example, Turkish president does not regularly label someone a valuable friend, and you don't get multiple Turkish agencies, expressing statements about the passing of leaders on the other side of the globe. So the Turkish response does not appear to be just a simple diplomatic gesture, it is more. I don't know how to balance the "major" responses and the "major"ness of the response for the people of particular geographies. Perhaps editors should not readily delete responses without reading the cited material and assess whether they are "locally notable". If so, perhaps the content can instead be moved to individual articles such as Japan–Turkey relations. Erkcan (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add World reactions based on importance / compromise between the two

This is my opinion on the discussions; if you are confused by the discussions in the previous few threads above, these are the general simplified conclusions editors I have garnered:

• The reactions page cannot be cluttered by repetitive responses, i.e. boilerplate responses from different foreign leaders. This means we cannot include responses from every single foreign country, hence we must sort out which country to add.
• From the discussions on 8th July, it is concluded that national flags will not be included in the section as it cluttered the layouts of the page. This is already generally agreed upon by almost every editor here.
• Discussions still remains on whether which country to prioritize for their statements regarding Abe's death, it is agreed upon however, that even that particular major country has issued a statement, if it's repetitive, then it will not be included. This has been reflected upon the removals of responses from Russia and Indonesia.

A. The problem stems from the third point: whether to prioritize the importance of the country, or the importance of the statement. In my view, we should focus first on building the statements within Japan, whether by the Emperor, members of Japanese political parties, and the government's response. With two paragraphs, the domestic response towards Abe's death is very mediocre.
1. International wise, we should focus on the responses from Japan's neighbors, including political ones. This includes:

• Territorial (including naval wise): China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Russia
• Political: The United States, and North Korea

Specific probings regarding these countries' response must be done so we can add in unique statements from the leaders of these countries. These countries, in my opinion, are the necessary inclusions.
2. Important countries, prominent powers of their individual regions that are tied to Japan (G7, G20, etc.). This includes:

• Asian countries: India, and Indonesia
• European countries: The United Kingdom, Germany, and France. We can possibly add Italy, but for me I don't think it's necessary.
• Oceanic countries: Australia, and New Zealand, particularly with Ardern's remarks on comparing her cat's death with Abe's death.
  

African and South American countries are up to debate for all, but for me if I were strict I would've ignored providing elaborations on the responses from these two continents, because they're not closely tied to Japan.
3. Important organizations:

• The European Union, the United Nations, NATO, etc.
  

4. Other inclusions:

• Interesting remarks or actions that could be un-repetitive from other countries. I saw Ireland's and Bangladesh's response being included in the section, and of course they have unique events. Bangladesh itself has decided to fly their flags at half-mast. That is unique, that is why editors included it.

This list is very open to changes and debate, of course we should focus on trying to prevent readers from reading repeats and eventually resembling a magical spell.
B. I'm still very ardent on dividing responses based on their geographical locations. I think it allows readers to read the sections clearly and easier, rather than reading a list of jumbled up nations in the same section. It could be done in this form:

TEST: Asia

• Rupan has issued a statement and made such an action.
• Lussia has issued...
• Zina has...

TEST: Oceania

• Loostralia has issued...
• Old Sealand has issued...

The reason being, that in the end, when we try to edit the section catered for domestic responses, we have to split it up based on political parties, the Royal family, Japanese organisations, and local government responses. That still needs to be split up; so we should do the same eventually when all the issues in the section gets resolved.
Please, do provide remarks and corrections. I still haven't seen a unified agreement how this section could be done completely.
Cheers, (PenangLion (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC))

Agree Seems like a clear standard. Again, I don't think neighboring countries even need a debate before being added. Takipoint123 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to make clear, I'm not saying there's no point of a debate, but neighboring countries were mentioned many times in the debate, so just making a comment off the Snowball clause Takipoint123 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with splitting the reactions in to geographical areas. That is what the Korean Wikipedia article was doing as well. Takipoint123 (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, this proposal by @PenangLion, if I have understood correctly, wants to select some countries based on their perceived importance (that will vary from person to person) and include their condolence regardless of what the content of that reaction is. In my opinion this is not a good criteria of pruning and will open floodgates of disputes. Currently all the countries who sent usual platitudes, are covered in the opening statement that says "numerous countries sent condolences", If the countries announced national mourning, that is included, if the condolence includes remarkable work, they have been included. Basically if the comment is remarkable for the reader, they have been included. If any user believes a country with a remarkable statement and action has been left out from this page, they are free to start a new discussion thread below with the content they want to add and make consensus to get that condolence added. As @Zaathras noted below, "200 lines of "Leader X of Country Y expresses condolences does not seem very encyclopedic", so we should avoid such situation. Venkat TL (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL I understand where your viewpoints goes.

Putting the subject based on the importance of the statement prevents readers from boredom whilst trying to read the section. But without considering the importance of the state at the same time (not just the state, but both), it will generate more disputes. There is no dispute on defining what is the neighboring country of Japan; you can't dispute who is a major power, and who isn't. We have lists already making such definitions. We are not putting 200 lines of "Leader X of Country Y expresses condolences", that is the result of inefficiency, the stale writing by editors who couldn't be bothered to find more materials for their writing. We are putting, somewhat within a range of 10-20 countries and organizations, closely tied to Japan, on how they reacted to the event, with every single country given a unique form of writing.

I have repeated the word, "unique" in my previous statements; "unique" being to prevent @Zaathras case of becoming a reality. We have to make more research on which statements from these countries are unique; If every single major country denotes the event with the stereotypical bureaucratic response that is considered "boilerplate" by most of the editors here, and let's say, in a rather exaggerative way, only Nauru, and the Maldives gave a very sentimental statement about Abe, does it mean the entire section only has the responses of: "many countries provided their condolences," but you only list these two countries in the special list below? That will trigger more disputes because users have a hard time differentiating which statement is more important than another.

Confusion had already arose why Ireland and Bangladesh shares the spot with the United States and Australia in the list rather than Russia or Indonesia. Notability of the country itself, rather than the statement, is another way (not the only way) readers would interpret the section. We must provide a compromise between the two, not either one, but all. Or else, there wouldn't be an end.

In the meantime, the section itself is already pretty much in a mess. Even while the statements within the list are "very much interesting" to read, it is still cluttered. Again, in section B, I have already addressed my way to solve the issue, please give a comment on that. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I share this viewpoint also. While it is encouraged for editors to make a well-written interesting prose, some leaders of notable powers just gave their condolences without anything "special", more so for countries with tight relations with Japan. There seems to be a lot of people that says neighboring countries should be added, so this seems like a reasonable compromise. Takipoint123 (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion, I am against wordsmithing a quote to make it more appealing. If the comment lacks substance, it lacks substance. If it lacks action, it lacks action. No amount of wordsmithing and editorializing is going to fix it. Your criteria of "countries and organizations, closely tied to Japan'" is controversial. Every country will try to argue having close ties to Japan. Neighbours is also not a good criteria, as it is common that neighbours dont have good relation. As of now, the substance of the quote is the most decent criteria in my opinion, If there are disputes, then those will be settled by normal WP:DR process. I have started a thread for Russia to get consensus. If someone wants Bangladesh or Ireland or NZ removed, they could go ahead and start a thread. This is my opinion. I am not the gatekeeper of this page, I am one of the 20+ editors of this page, let the others opine on your proposal. Good luck. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL, I agree with your decision to put the latter into effect. Personally, the content provided within Abe's assassination is in a state where detailed elaboration is too much to be part of the main article, but too less for an article of its own. If other editors would try to make more edits (I as well) regarding domestic reactions towards the event, then I would completely agree putting a general simplified conclusion in the main article itself.

...and no, I am not asking editors to wordsmith a quote. I am asking editors to find more quotes rather than sticking a single quote to conclude that a country's response was lackluster to be included in the article. For Russia's case, while searching for materials, there were responses made by the Embassy, Zhakarova from the FM, and Peskov, with other statements from other entities within Russia. We should find these quotes first, compile them, then conclude whether any one of them is fit to be included within the article. That is what I think can be done for each of the countries responded. PenangLion (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion Normally the head of state, represents the state hence their comments are given prevalence as compared to the foreign spokesperson or the foreign minister. In the absence of a direct quote from the head of state, the next top leader Foreign minister usually is considered. This is the hierarchy. It would be strange to the reader that the head of state's quote has been left out and spokesperson's comment has been included. That said, you are free to compile whatever you wish to compile and propose on the talk page for consideration by others. Get consensus for whatever content/proposal you wish to add. Good luck. Venkat TL (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. PenangLion (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Words from ministry of foreign affairs are more official, more important than comments from arbitrary people including head of state Toto11zi (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree for Japan, words from China and South Korea are far more important than India, words from India or Brazil should be removed if we want to keep only relevant countries. Importance can be measured by bilateral trade amount. Toto11zi (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The obvious in-Japan reactions, then regional powers, finally the intranational superpowers, that's it. Sorry, no Irelands, no Bangaldesh, no Jordan. Zaathras (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Why reaction of many world leaders are removed

Germany prime minister? https://www.fr.de/politik/shinzo-abe-attentat-japanischer-ex-regierungschef-lebensgefaehrlich-verletzt-japan-zr-91655209.html ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.59.77 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Some editors have removed the reactions of many world leaders in the reaction section of the page. Japan has never been specific to major powers when it comes to international relations. Leaders from all over the world have shown their concerns over the death of Mr. Shinzo Abe. So, in my opinion, there must be consensus on this, whether the reactions should be there on the same page or we have to create a separate page for reactions. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mehmood.Husain Please see the consensus to remove most reactions from this section in the thread, #World reactions to Abe's assassination. There is nothing encyclopedic in those statements lifted from Twitter. If someone wishes to read what their favourite leader has said, they should check his Social media and news site. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Venkat TL (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? There are no rules against having a long list of world leader's reactions. Your opinion is simply your personal preference. There has been no "consensus" reached to remove most of the reactions. Please don't revert war with people who want to add their country's reaction to the articles. There's nothing wrong with having a long article. I don't get the urge by some Wikipedia editors to revert so much text from articles. Leave people alone. 152.130.15.2 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with me, but in the section #World reactions to Abe's assassination I see at least 15 different users, voicing concern on the length of the reaction section and suggesting a pruning. You are free to propose below if you feel a non-boilerplate quote with substance has been left out. This page should not be turned into a facebook wall with 180+ comments of deep sadness and shock. Venkat TL (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sincere question: Is there a Wikipedia guideline on what constitutes a "major power" for this purpose? Or perhaps someone can link other related articles with reaction sections to compare? Funcrunch (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Partially answering my own question, WP:REACTIONS is an essay (not guideline) regarding standalone reaction articles, with a list of examples. Funcrunch (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this section is too long, I think South Korea should at least be added. @Venkat TL: Feel free to disagree with me, but adding South Korea, global economic power and a country right next to Japan seems reasonable. I will revert your decision unless consensus finds otherwise.--Takipoint123 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this section is too long, I think China should at least be added. Feel free to disagree with me, but adding China, global economic power and a country right next to Japan seems reasonable. I will revert your decision unless consensus finds otherwise. --Toto11zi (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Toto11zi: I appreciate the comment but try not to copy and paste another person's comment. Also China isn't right next to Japan. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Both China and South Korea are right next to Japan, all neighbors, all East Asians. Source: Google "China and Japan are too enormous and influential nations located in Eastern Asia. These two nations are almost always confused because of their similar culture and people, and they also happen to be right next to each other" -- Toto11zi (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Toto11zi: Geographically speaking, they are neighbors but China is not right next to Japan. And also, you didn't address my main concern of copy and pasting my comment. Takipoint123 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Same point. Source: "China is the mother of Japan's culture. It is the big neighbor country and big mainland mass right next to Japan." -- By United States. Congress. House. Foreign Affairs -- Toto11zi (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Takipoint123 @Toto11zi @PenangLion. Please read the discussion above on World reactions to Abe's assassination, If you wish to add any country or leader, start a new thread below and make a case why it should be added. If you can generate consensus, it will be added. Venkat TL (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

We're already in the discussion, read it. PenangLion (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion I know, I am asking you to Start a new thread with the content that you want to be included into the article, and make a case. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, no problems. PenangLion (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we make a "Reactions to the Assassination of Shinzo Abe" article?

please? Great Mercian (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

that sounds like Wikipedia cruft. 63.155.58.228 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

We do have articles like the suggestion: Reactions to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Reactions to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, and International reaction to the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. Granted, I don't necessarily believe that we need a reactions article for this. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

200 lines of "Leader X of Country Y expresses condolences does not seem very encyclopedic. Zaathras (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but it is very completist, isn't wikipedia about archiving stuff? making sure this information doesn't get lost? Great Mercian (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is explicitly not a place for every piece of information that exists. 63.155.58.228 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose creation of such an article due to reason by Zaathras. Great Mercian, see WP:OSE, "Other junk articles exist" is not a good arguement to make this junk too. Venkat TL (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support As a reader I'm interested in what other current and former leaders said or did in reaction to his assassination, but as an editor I recognize that there's still the issue of potentially hundreds of near-verbatim quotes. I think such an article could include the reactions of other current or former heads of state or government (so including a greater number of countries as opposed to a selection of especially noteworthy ones), on the condition that their reactions included in the article meet the threshold of being something other than just I am shocked and saddened [...] he was a friend of mine and of <country>. If such an article can exist without just being a wall of repetitive text, I'm for it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. We are talking about the assassination of a prime-minister of the third biggest economy in the world. His death will certainly have reverberations, and therefore the reactions to it seem to be relevant, whatever it is. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:20C2:2BD9:C02E:17B9 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard @Great Mercian even if I assume that such a reaction article can exist in future, the right way to do that will be to develop this future article as a section of this article titled "Assassination of Shinzo Abe". When the size limits are crossed (see WP:PAGESIZE) then it can be forked off. Till then we should focus on improving this article and the section. Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is normally how new articles are split from previous articles, this is true. In this case, I noticed that many editors seem to be interested in limiting the countries displayed to only major world powers or major organizations or other countries in the same geographic region. I personally think that this article should be open to including any reaction that passes the "more than just 'deeply saddened'" threshold, but if this article is to have a geographic threshold as well, then a separate article could serve as a place for reactions which only meet the latter threshold instead of a geographic threshold. That said, I'm not confident that there are enough non-repetitive condolences to justify a separate article at this time, so I'm only supporting the concept of the article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support under circumstances - Writing style must not be repetitive, the incident has garnered enough attention and response for it to be part of a separate article, but it must be tended to the styles of JFK's assassination (refer link above). That would perfectly work for this incident. Cheers,

PenangLion (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ibid above reasons, I also conditionally support. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Cannot understand why the vast majority of reactions have been removed from this page when the usual approach is to externalise it to a separate article as suggested here. —Legoless (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because they're virtually identical and it's not encyclopedic to list 100 variations of "thoughts and prayers". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Legoless: I don't believe it is the usual approach. Rather, those few article generally have something more to them. For JFK, the lede explains it in part with Confusion due to the Cold War, some people celebrating his death, and its lasting impact. For Soleimani, the UN condemn the actions by the US in addition to anti-war protests flaring up in the US and the passage of the Iran War Powers Resolution by Congress that was vetoed by the US President. For Khashoggi, the first section goes over the various actions of Saudi Arabia following the assassination, before continuing on to the responses and reactions from other countries. For Politkovskaya, there are a number of responses suggesting she was killed for her work, protests over her death, and a Russian statement dismissing her work.

  With all that said, the only reason I would want a separate article right now would be so that we didn't need to have so many debates here. Currently there are 23 sections or so that are about the reactions of various countries/citizens/notable individuals/organizations. (24 if you count a section regarding a typo.) But, there are no protests to my knowledge, limited praise for his death, no known legislative action, no known cover-up, and no statements dismissing Abe's work. The only things we have are an unclear impact (which might be limited to Japan than worldwide) and that Abe was targeted for his actions. Now that I have analyzed this, I believe it is more likely that this isn't really enough to support a separate article than would support one. I also do want to make clear that my earlier comment above was more on the lines that the suggestion was at least reasonable and understandable, though I think it was misunderstood by more than one user. (Personally, the best way for an article to be created would be to draft it, but that would not guarantee that it would pass the criteria.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal for Reactions

In response to the OVERWHELMING amount of talk page sections solely dedicated to reactions, I propose this: I agree that every boilerplate reaction should not be given its own independent entry unless we create a new article dedicated to reactions. My thinking is to briefly mention the name of the sovereign state or minister in question but not add their full quote. As an example, instead of "Country A President "Generic Man" condemned the assassination of Abe, saying that "My heart goes out to Japan", give a line for a continent or geographic region saying "Tributes were submitted by leaders and ministers from Country A, Country B, Country C, Country D, and Country E, as well as by Important Person A." This way, we can save more room for more substantive tributes but not flood the article with boilerplate quotes. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader by now it is safe to assume that every single one of the 200+ countries have sent some kind of condolence through their diplomatic channels, whether it was reported on Social media and news sites is another matter. In such situation it is inappropriate to name just a few of the 200 countries, and editors will keep adding their country in the list. such a list will be pointless anyway. The consensus is clear about not creating a separate page on reactions. The consensus is also to not include every country and leader in the list. As far as the talk page sections are concerned, it is much better to manage than the edit warring that was going on in the article, before this list was pruned. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: And as a result, many responses have been doomed to be lost to time. various other articles like this have all country responses why are you treating this one differently? Great Mercian (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That's why I was advocating for a separate article for them, that got overwhelming opposition, some people really need to just realise that this article can't be a special case. International reactions to the assassination of Shinzo Abe. Great Mercian (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Great Mercian see WP:OSE, "Other junk articles exist" is not a good arguement to make this junk too. Nothing is lost, you can always go to the page history before my edits and find the full list, whenever you wish to read them. But you will need consensus to add them and such a consensus to list all countries is unlikely to happen. Venkat TL (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but your edits are gonna get lost, and the link you provided will also get lost. and as for your little junk article stunt: Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani has nearly every country under the fucking sun, sure that one was cOnTrOvErSiAl but that's no excuse to make an exception for this article just because everyone's posting the same message. this is a global event not a small family funeral. Great Mercian (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No, as people will just keep adding Country F, G, H, I, J, K. Keep the list to some regional powers and international superpowers/leaders only, and it will work out fine. Also, a separate article will just encourage eve worse, non-0notable cruft. Zaathras (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No a separate article would be better. Great Mercian (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Great Mercian you have already attempted to propose a WP:CFORK and failed at Can we make a "Reactions to the Assassination of Shinzo Abe" article?. Please dont use every section to advocate for separate article. Make your comments in the existing section. Venkat TL (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not using this to advocate. Great Mercian (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be okay with leaving it to only the major powers, like Saudi Arabia, India, the EU, and Brazil. I can see where you're coming from with that. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is just becoming a mess of same users saying the same thing, so I'll make an RfC. Takipoint123 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Understood, but this doesn't necessarily resolve the issue of important figures leaving their own tributes. I am paying particular attention to non-officials or former officials, maybe a short list of other notable non-state reactions which doesn't necessarily have to elaborate on the condolences? Think Donald Trump, George Takei, anyone else who is notable enough that has left non-state condolences. Would you be opposed to such small section?InvadingInvader (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader you are welcome to propose any state or non state actors for inclusion on the talk page. But in order to get consensus, there must be something unique remarkable (i.e. encyclopedic) in the quote for the reader to spend time on. I dont know what Takei has said, but Trump's comment is not worth adding here. Just my personal opinion, others and you may disagree. Venkat TL (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I thinks its better to maintain the consensus, its reasonable to assume that the important countries would do more reasonable/concrete actions beyond boilerplate statements. (some of these countries might value their relations more with Japan, than Japan would value their relation with them). Exclude statements as well that could only be sourced directly from the country's foreign ministry (head of state office, etc) or the issuing organization's official website since these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. If a country/org statement is notable enough, reliable third-party media outlets will report on it.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on which International Reactions are to be added

Which countries should be added to the reactions, or if not by countries, which statements should be added?--Takipoint123 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Background

Users have complained of the "International Reactions" section for being too long. As a result, countless reactions were removed, and debates happened on what reactions are to be added. Here are the current proposals (hope I didn't miss any!) said by users.

1. An entry should be decided on the geographical proximity and/or political importance of the country making a statement
2. An entry should be decided on the uniqueness of the said statement
3. A mix of the above
4. Creating a separate article just for reactions

--Takipoint123 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree on 3; if it's a concrete, unprecedented, and/or unique response, or if it's coming from a country that is extremely dominant in political affairs, then yes. I don't think that a separate article solely on reactions would be good for Wikipedia, but I would be open to that happening on Wikiquote, Wikidata or Wikinews; it's a much better place for using primary sources given that Wikipedia is supposed to be dominated by secondary sources.

Per the above, I'd include all the countries that order their flags at half mast (USA, Brazil, India, Bangladesh, and Bhutan to my knowledge as of writing), as well as reactions from the EU overall, China, Russia, France, Germany, Australia, and the UK. I'm on the fence/neutral on including Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Iran, but I would personally object to most other countries (Ethiopia, Haiti, Sweden, and the UAE) due to them not being notable enough in their response or world power. I agree with Hariboneagle though; use secondary sources.InvadingInvader (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I am most okay with 4, but would be okay with whatever ends up being decided on. I will note that a few users have talked about general sentiments from citizens. Public opinion is something that has been covered before, including positive opinions about the incident. Despite being an uncomfortable topic, I do think that those statements should be up for debate as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also say no. 3. Here are my proposals:

1. Countries that have set national half-masts or mourning periods (as such by InvadingInvader)
2. Asian countries around Japan. For the purposes of not making a huge list, I believe it should be G20 countries in direct proximity: South Korea, China, and Russia. Maybe a few exceptions could be made like Taiwan and North Korea.
3. Major European powers (UK, Germany, France), the U.S., and Australia. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with no. 3 as well. I also feel that the "International" section should be retitled "Reactions by World Governments" or something along those lines, to more clearly distinguish it from the succeeding section ("Individuals and non-governmental organizations"). Also, I noticed the reaction by the IOC was located in the "International" section, which seemed somewhat out-of-place (isn't the IOC a non-governmental organization?). Ratata6789 (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 4 — reactions page for the full list.

Trim down this page with a population cutoff, maybe use half of Japan's population as the cutoff point. CraigP459 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 4 — I would cite International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as the analogue of this case. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, France's reaction is here (japanese) It's been quoted by RTL ([1]). Translation: "In name of the French people, I address my condolence to authorities and japanese people after Shinzo Abe assassination. Japan has lost a great Prime Minister, who dedicated his life to his country and worked towards world equilibrium". Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support only G7/G20 countries and Takipoint123's "Asian countries around Japan". Top EU official reactions should be added too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support number 3. I believe any reaction that fulfills one or both of the following criteria should be included: the reaction itself is unique or significant (e.g. the nation's leader took an action such as declaring that flags shall be at half-mast, etc), or that the country is a member of the G7 or in close proximity to Japan or otherwise especially significant to Japan. This means that I'm okay with including all G7 reactions even if their reactions were nothing too unique, but I'm also willing to include reactions from any country as long as they are sufficiently unique. The definition of "unique" I'm using is "more interesting than just saying they're sad or shocked, etc." For example, the Prime Minister of New Zealand reflecting on a memory of Shinzo Abe offering his condolences after her cat passed away is something that I'd say is sufficiently unique. It's more specific than a general platitude.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• 3 - Will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 is closest to what I support but not enough. Please see the consensus to remove most reactions from the reaction section in the talk page thread, #World reactions to Abe's assassination. Option 1 is bad because Political importance/relevance is subjective. If you judge names based on perceived importance (that will vary from person to person) and include their condolence regardless of what the content of that reaction is, that in my opinion this is not a good criteria of pruning and will open floodgates of disputes. Currently all the countries who sent usual platitudes, are covered in the opening statement that says "numerous countries sent condolences". Based on current consensus, if the countries announced national mourning, that is included, if the condolence includes remarkable work, they have been included. Basically if the comment is remarkable for the reader, they have been included. If any user believes a country with remarkable statement and action has been left out, they are free to start a new discussion thread below and make consensus to get that condolence added. As @Zaathras: noted above, "200 lines of "Leader X of Country Y expresses condolences does not seem very encyclopedic", so we should avoid such situation where non remarkable boilerplate messages are added just because the country is member of some clique.Venkat TL (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again, there are ways to mitigate subjectiveness by restricting countries to G20 or G7. In fact, it would be more subjective to find how "unique" a statement is. In theory, any quote is unique because politicians aren't copying each other word for word. To quote Penanglion above, some of the quotes selected may have "sensationalist preferences". Takipoint123 (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am against giving a free pass to add platitudes from members of G7 or G20, without discussing what the statement was. We need to consider what will be worthwhile for the reader 10 years later. Venkat TL (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur, I am hesitant to include statements for just being "unique". Do we really have to include NZ PM's remark on relating the loss to her cat's death just because its "unique"? I insist that we only include more concrete actions or more specific/explicit mentions of Abe's contributions (not just the generic he "improved relations").Hariboneagle927 (talk)

If "important" countries like Russia was unable to come up with a non-boilerplate reaction, and a secondary power or a even "minor" power (who considers Japan as its most or among the most important country in its foreign policy) does – so be it.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make a list of trivia. It is important to show an accurate and wide world view on events. The way you propose it, respectfully, doesn't sound like an encyclopedia. And also, you haven't provided any response on which quote is "unique" and what it would mean to make the decision less subjective. Takipoint123 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Unique" and remarkable (i.e. encyclopedic). I don't support unique, that is your idea. I believe we should only include statements that are remarkable, encyclopedic and add value to the reader. Venkat TL (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the wording does not matter. Under which policy is "remarkable"?. Clearly there must be some sort of guideline that you are basing your claims off of, correct? Takipoint123 (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE, WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS Venkat TL (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

1. As for WP:DUE, it should not give undue weight to minority views. Thus, the inclusion of geographically significant countries are relevant. In fact, it would be the contrary to include countries with no significant ties to Japan just because their quotes are "remarkable".
2. WP:LASTING still does not provide the rationale to only consider "remarkable" quotes. In fact, even if a quote was remarkable, it is very unlikely that it served as a catalyst for any large events.
3. Same with #1, remarkable sounds a lot like trivia at this point.

Well, here's my take on those policies. Therefore, I oppose only using Option 2 as a basis for considering reactions. I'd rather have the whole section removed than follow an option that does not have a significant guideline on what is "remarkable." Takipoint123 (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 5 "None of the above". It requires POV to say what's "near" and what's "important". 10 years from now, nobody will remember who Michael Martin or care that he offered condolences as An Taoiseach. "The assassination was condemned by many international leaders" suffices. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Laurel Lodged thank you, your position is similar to mine. Can you please also address what is your solution for the problem? is it, "Blanking the entire section" and leaving 1 line that you quoted? Venkat TL (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Even that one sentence is pushing it. There is really no need for any of this material, including the two you propose below. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
      • @Drmies I don't support either of those 2, but I was harangued about geographic bias by @Ear-phone for removing it. So I felt it is better that the community takes a look at it. Venkat TL (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Laurel Lodged - You could've implied the statement on every single reactions' article, and yet we have tons of them. PenangLion (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. They're all cruft. I would not shed a tear over the loss of any of them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• In fact, I think it would be better to just state numerous leaders expressed condolence and some countries declared national days mourning. What the president or foreign ministry of even China and the United States would be irrelevant in the next five years. The memorial statements fails WP:LASTING.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 as an upper limit, i.e. if people want to include reactions of G7 nations, fine, but if there's support for just say 3 of the 7, than that's even better. Brevity and concision are important here, not a laundry list of "he died, we're sad". Zaathras (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. It's fine to have a sentence or two saying that numerous countries issued some diplomatic pablum, but the bulk of text on reactions should focus on reactions that are truly noteworthy. Similar to what User:Hariboneagle927 said, we should consider what readers in WP:10YEARS will care about. Option 4 is unacceptable because such an article is almost sure to become a dumping ground: in 10 years, who is going to click all the way from "Shinzo Abe" to "Assassination of Shinzo Abe" to "International reactions to the assassination of Shinzo Abe"? Einsof (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: Although I support Option 3, and believe that especially remarkable comments should be left, I feel that no one addressed the main concern that I have said multiple times about Option 2. What classifies as remarkable? Wouldn't it be different for each person? I feel like there is much more ambiguity with Option 2 than Option 1.--Takipoint123 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: This is getting more and more ridiculous. Firstly, if we oversimplify every statement (as some editors would approach with the modern journalistic manners) into a sentence, then we just nullified the existence of every single article related to "Reactions of..." because no one will ever care for that part of history and could've just replaced by a sentence or two under the master article; Secondly, if we only add in extremely unique statements, then we could've just made the section a perfect material for Trivial Pursuit; Thirdly, if we include everything in it, then it'll be a horrifying ordeal to read it; My opinions? Remove the entire section, or prevent the oversimplification of the entire section, or create a new article instead. I'm slightly amused by the fact that this is the only article so far where its reactions' section was under scrutiny rather than other articles. PenangLion (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: There are many countries. Any set of criteria would probably still lead to disputes in the future. Expressing condolence is a routine practice and can be counted together, such as this many countries have expressed condolences. Special cases should be made individually. Senorangel (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3, but with the express permission of allowing statements of leaders of neighboring countries. It simply makes no sense to not add Xi Jinping statement on Shinzo Abe's death just because "it's boilerplate". Tetizeraz - (talk page) 10:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• In my view, the reactions from the allies of WWII should be there. Peter Ormond 💬 01:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• No reactions at all. Everybody condemned it and called it unforgivable. Nobody supported it. The whole section has no information in it, it's all expected reactions.Fulmard (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Transcription

A transcription of Abe's posthumous name 紫雲院殿政譽清浄晋寿大居士 (?) would be helpful. 189.94.67.75 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

British English?

If this is in Commonwealth/British English (I assume - metres rather than meters, 9 July rather than July 9, for example) then 'sawed-off shotgun' should be 'sawn-off shotgun', as that is its terminology in Commonwealth/British English. 81.154.185.45 (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The article looks to be tagged as "use American English"). But it should be done consistently, one way or the other. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article was already in British English in any case, not to mention the dmy format that's already in place. So it makes sense to make it consistent along those lines. TheScrubby (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's already British, keep it British.Fulmard (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Zōjō-ji

Is it really necessary to write “Zōjō-ji Temple”? I mean, “ji” means “temple” in Japanese, so “Zōjō Temple” seems to be enough. It’s like translating “Mount Fuji” as “Mount Fuji-san”. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:9436:D18B:B085:25C6 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Per NHK, "A vehicle carrying his casket arrived at Zojoji Temple Monday afternoon." Personally, if it is redundant, then it might need be removed. But, it is what our sources say. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There's too many sources using Zojoji or Zojo-ji in English and almost no one writing Zojo Temple.Fulmard (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is a matter of which term is being used more than the other, but rather which one is more strictly correct. If both are, let it be without changes. However, as I said, no one says Mount Fuji-san, so why to say Zojo-ji Temple? 200.20.112.86 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Because almost all sources in English use "Zojoji Temple" and almost none use "Zojo Temple". Almost no sources use "Mount Fuji-san", many sources use "Munt Fuji".Fulmard (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tetsuyayamagaminew.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

Grammar Error: "buy" instead of "by" Timeline - Assasination section Paragraph 3, Line 3 "Professor Dr Hidetada Fukushima said that Abe was hit buy two bullets" 186.226.115.31 (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we use fair use photo for this Assassination?

I think the current photo is meaningless. It could be better if someone can upload fair use photo for this article. So it can show the accident processes and more valuable for this article. But I worry some user will make delete request. Wpcpey (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

For now we can't be sure. We'll try. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say not, as it wouldn't significantly improve the quality of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Accident photo is more valuable then a quiet road, since it is related to the significant accident. The current photo is useless.--Wpcpey (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the relevant guidance would be WP:NFCI #8: Images with iconic status or historical importance (e.g. {{Non-free historic image}}). I think there is a chance we could add a photo that meets the guidelines, but I note they're rather strict. In particular, it says, Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. Mz7 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of the image from the citizen first. I think it can use.--Wpcpey (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we use the images provided by AP? There was a photograph, probably considered "iconic" on the day the assassination occurred, showing him laying down on the road. Can we use it? PenangLion (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that such a photograph would pass the "...not itself the subject of critical commentary..." portion that Mz7 quoted above, but I could be misunderstanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Can this photo OK ? It is from the eyewitness and not from the news agency. --Wpcpey (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You can refer the photographs shot after RFK was mortally wounded. The poses both incidents shown were very similar. PenangLion (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

But the bad news is that photograph shot is taken by REUTERS. I am afraid it cannot upload in here and it will delete very soon. :( --Wpcpey (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. I don't think for the moment there is a need for the photographs. But, it's best if we do obtain one right now. PenangLion (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspect “retired” from the JMSDF?

Extremely petty concern, but the article states the suspect “retired” from the JMSDF after 3 years of service? I know of no military (much less any job) that one could “retire” from after 3 years. Military medical retirements are possible early-on in one’s career. Anyone have any insight here? I’m working off my first-hand knowledge of the U.S. military and second-hand knowledge of various European militaries… perhaps things are different in Japan? Or perhaps this is just an issue with the translation? I am changing the term to “separated” (as when one retires, one also “separates,” but it also does not inherently imply retirement, either) to be a bit more general. Thoughts? MWFwiki (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

He is a "fixed-term employee"(任期制自衛官) of JMSDF, which is a three-year term, although I am not sure how this is officially translated into English. They usually serve one to two terms, after which they receive a bonus and retire. This is an article about fixed-term employee of the Japanese Ministry of Defense. --Sugarman (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

He was in the lowest class called 'Kaishi' (海士). It falls under OR-1 to OR-3 in the NATO ranks and is usually promoted from OR-1 to OR-3 in 3 years.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sugarman — so, it comes down to semantics, but is it truly retirement? Or do you serve your term and receive a one-time severance/bonus (aka ‘cashiered out’). Unless they’re receiving pay for the rest of their lives, I find it hard to justify calling it ‘retirement.’ But if the direct translation is truly “retired” I suppose I can’t argue with that. Although I would still make the argument that “separated” covers it, as can separate from the service as a retiree or as a non-retiree. MWFwiki (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I am a native Japanese speaker, and I read and write English with some help from machine translation. Therefore, I must say in advance that I may not be able to read the fine nuances. Then, I will only give a brief explanation of the JSDF system and leave it to you and other editors to decide which words are appropriate.

The ambiguity of Japanese compared to English may cause you some difficulty. Whether a private has served only one term (two or three years) or a colonel has served until retirement age, the same word is usually used to indicate that one has left the JSDF (e.g., "退官" or "退職". These are words that directly mean only "to quit job"). After completing their first term, fixed-term employee may choose to continue for a second term or leave the JSDF and receive assistance in finding a job or applying for college. It is believed that this suspect chose the latter after three years of service with no particular problems. Cashiering is not the right word for them, as there is no institutional or socially accepted dishonorable connotation to leaving JSDF after only one term.--Sugarman (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sugarman; Thank you for the explanation, very informative and well-written. I agree that “cashiering” wouldn’t be appropriate; I was more-so referring to how it used colloquially within the US military.

That being said, I think we may have the answer I was seeking.

So, as you stated, the *act* of separating from the Japanese SDF is referred to using terms that roughly approximate to, “to quit one’s job.” Which, yeah, retirement is a form of quitting, in a way, I suppose, although “quitting” is virtually never used in regards to someone retiring in the English language. Which is my point; “Retiring” has very specific connotations in English, particularly in the US in regards to the military. If one retires (or is retired; whether forcibly or due to medical issues) from the US military, one still maintains a connection with the branch they served in that goes beyond the basic benefits all honorably-discharged service members rate upon separation. In addition to these aforementioned benefits, retirees are:

-Given lifetime medical insurance coverage via the Veteran’s Affairs Administration (although many non-retiree veterans also rate this)

-Are given a “retiree” military ID

-As per the last point, this ID grants them access to 90% of military bases within CONUS and permits them access to and use of on-base facilities (the PX/BX, commissary, recreational facilities, etc)

-They receive a pension for the remainder of their lives

-They are subject to, in most cases, the Uniform Code of Military Justice as per Article 2(a)(4) of the UCMJ

-Retirees are, as per 10 U.S. Code § 688, subject to “…. be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time.” This is in contrast to honorably discharged veterans whom are only subject to recall for a limited and specific period of time post-separation, and even then, under fairly rigid conditions

-Minor point, but retirees are technically authorized to wear the uniform (they may wear it under the regulations prescribed at the time of their retirement or under current regulations) anywhere/anytime someone on active duty may wear it; Veterans may technically only wear the uniform at very specific times (although this isn’t enforced; how could it be)

While there are some differences, it sounds like upon serving a term of enlistment in the SDF, when one is honorably discharged, one receives very similar benefits to someone being discharged from the US/UK military. And we wouldn’t refer to these indivuals as “retiring” when they’re leaving or as “retirees.”

Point being, there are fairly significant connotations when using the term “retired.” At least for English-speakers in the US and UK (the UK has fairly similar ‘rules’ in this regard as the US).

So, would “separated” vice “retired” be appropriate? I already changed the article to read that way, but as I said earlier:

“Separate” covers all forms of leaving the military, not just retiring. MWFwiki (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Country flag for world leaders' reactions

Should we add flags before each country reactions? i.e= Japan:......... Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No. ~ HAL333 18:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

they did anyway Great Mercian (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed them. Thank god for Regex EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok but i think they are necessary? Great Mercian (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not? They are good for visual inference and should be re-added. We include them on other pages where there are country reactions so I see no reason why they shouldn't be, an example. Tweedle (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I also think we should add them. It helps to concentrate on the topic. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is generally against them (see MOS:FLAGS, specifically MOS:FLAGCRUFT). They do not add any value to the reader. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the consensus to remove most reactions from this section in the thread, #World reactions to Abe's assassination Venkat TL (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

They are valuable to me, they add much value! Great Mercian (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Flags feels very important. I started going one by one and then eventually had to do a ⌘ + F to find the reaction of a particular country's head. TheAnonymousWikiEditor (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Say no to flagcruft. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! No one wants to look at something which is visually bland and makes the list much more nicer to view when you are looking for a specific countries reaction. Tweedle (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose @Zeeshan Y Tariq I find the flags extremely distracting. Please dont add the flags unless you have clear consensus on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Support the usage of flags. I find them very helpful visually. They make reaction sections easier to navigate and don't hurt anything. I'm really not seeing a lot of reasons to hate them and one word comments like "No." aren't exactly persuasive.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Any call to include is pretty much negated by MOS:FLAGS. A style guide is not policy, of course, but a good rationale as to why it should be set aside just for this article would be needed. Zaathras (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Have to say hard disagree on the use of flags in reactions sections being a violation of MOS:FLAGCRUFT. The example FLAGCRUFT uses is placing an English flag next to a hypothetical musician from England to really emphasize how English they are, giving the false impression that it matters in any way what their nationality is. That's a situation where there's no reason to care what country they're from. We're talking about the literal governing representatives of countries on the world stage. If there was ever a situation where FLAGCRUFT obviously doesnt apply, this is it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

1978 report

Why is a 1978 "House Investigating subcommittee" report even being mentioned? It's nearly half a century old, and it's quite vague, not mentioning what subcommittee. If these allegations have been proven, the article ought to rely on a scholarly source in religious studies rather than a NYT report about a report from an unspecified group of foreign politicians. If the allegations have not been proven, this is a grossly non-neutral statement. Either way, it doesn't belong there in the current form. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on what I found, the subcommittee was the "Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations." It is 40+ years old because 1978 was the second year that the House had investigations into the Unification Church due to possible connections to the Korean Government. I don't understand why we need a religious studies source for this, given that the New York Times source is decent. (My only problem with it is that it is just an image of the newspaper from when it was reported, which is common for sources from 1970s. That doesn't disqualify it as a source in my opinion.) There are more recent sources that also report a connection, "The Korea bribery investigation in Congress in 1977 and 1978 unearthed a CIA memo that linked the formation of the Unification Church to Kim Jong Pil, first director of the Korean CIA and now an opposition party leader in Seoul. Kim denied any links to the church in a recent interview." There also appears to be an older source that could potentially be useful for the section. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Heart struck by bullet?

The current article contains this statement: "The pellet projectiles had struck Abe's heart." I believe this is not accurate. The diagrams that I have seen on Japanese television show that only the area around the collar bone was struck. A major artery was hit in that area, which caused him to bleed out. Note that none of the references say that a projectile struck his heart. The AP article says "Abe suffered major damage to his heart", but I believe this can be explained by two things: (1) The Nara doctor may be referring to damage to the heart caused by blood loss, not by pellet impact, and (2) This AP article is from the day of the assassination, when information was still unsettled. The later autopsy report only mentioned the damage to the collar bone area artery. If there is no objection, I will delete the inaccurate sentence. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Westwind273: I agree with you assessment that the sentence is inaccurate, but object to the remedy. Rather than deleting the sentence, we should accurately explain where Abe was struck. For now, I am going to have the sentence try to match what the AP said as a temporary solution and mark the Guardian article with Template:Failed verification since it appears to still contain useful information. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I went through a series of potential sources:

• The Times of India "Doctors tried in vain to revive Abe, who was wounded on the right side of his neck and left clavicle. An official said earlier that Abe appeared to be in a state of arrest when airlifted to hospital." (Publish date unknown; Updated July 8th at 14:15 UTC)
• The Times of India "A doctor at the hospital where Abe was being treated before before his death on Friday, said the former Prime Minister was bleeding profusely and that he "bled to death"." (Same article)
• The Times of India "The doctor said Abe has sustained bullet wounds around the neck and those were deep enough to reach his heart." (Same article)
• The Times of India "Footage then shows Abe collapsed on the street, with security guards running toward him. He holds his chest, his shirt smeared with blood." (Same article)
• CBS News "Local fire department official Makoto Morimoto said Abe was in cardiopulmonary arrest, or CPA, meaning he was not breathing and his heart had stopped, even as he was airlifted to the hospital." (Published date unknown; Updated July 8th at 23:05 UTC)
• CBS News "According to Japan's Kyodo news agency, Abe suffered gunshot wounds to his neck and chest, but doctors at the hospital where he was treated later said it was two wounds to the neck that claimed his life." (Same article)
• NBC News Dr. Hidetada Fukushima, a professor of emergency medicine at the hospital, said Abe had two gunshot wounds and no vital signs when he arrived less than an hour after the shooting. (Published July 7th; Updated July 9th at 06:19 UTC)
• Kyodo News "Abe, 67, died from blood loss, with an autopsy determining there were two gunshot wounds, one to his upper left arm and another to his neck." (Published July 10th at ~16:37 UTC)
• The Japan Times "This appears to be supported by Abe’s autopsy report, which indicates that at least two projectiles struck the former prime minister, even though the first shot seems to have missed the 67-year-old entirely." (Published July 10th?)
• Insider / Business Insider "Abe, who suffered wounds to his neck and chest, died in the hospital several hours later." (Published July 11th at 13:38 UTC)
• The Japan Times Abe died of blood loss, with an autopsy determining there were two gunshot wounds, one to his upper left arm and another to his neck." (Published July 11th?)

To be brief, the sources seem to all agree that there were two wounds and that the neck was one of the wounds. There seems to be a disagreement about the location of the second wound. It is possible that the "left clavicle" and upper left arm wounds are the same. It is also possible that the damage to the chest/heart is technically the same: "...bullet wounds around the neck and those were deep enough to reach his heart", "He holds his chest...", "wounds to his neck and chest". I think further discussion might help resolve this. (And maybe the autopsy report if it becomes public.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC) (Amended. Also,  Self-trout. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC))

@Super Goku V Since Times of India has been used 4 times, just wanted to let others know that it is not considered a reliable source, see WP:TOI. They ( Times News Network, TNN) mostly copy from here and there with poor fact checking. Venkat TL (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Times of India is not a reliable source; I have seem them publish multiple errors about the Abe assassination. The Japan Times and NHK are reliable sources located in Japan. NHK says "Abe Shinzo died from loss of blood after a bullet damaged an artery under his collarbone." https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220709_13/ --Westwind273 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

To both: Drats, forgot to check the perennial sources before researching. I will scratch off the ones that are no consensus or worse, which includes Insider / Business Insider.

@Venkat TL: Since you responded, what is you opinion on things? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Super Goku V@Westwind273 we should only use sources like Japan Times that are reporting from the autopsy report. Sources based on reports from the shootout should be discounted as they can cause conflicts with the more reliable sources. Also it is possible to have 2 gunshot wounds from a single second shot. Venkat TL (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Abe was shot on a Friday at 11:30am. Reports that came out on Friday were generally inaccurate as to cause of death. The police released their autopsy information on Saturday morning (Japan time), so we should give heavier weight to articles written on Saturday morning or later. --Westwind273 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Westwind273 and Venkat TL: It does make sense to use the autopsy report. (I didn't know that it was made public.) Though, it looks like the sentence has been completely removed from the article in the end, possibly for good reason given what both of you have said about the early reporting. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not recommending using the autopsy report, as that is a primary source. I was recommending using reliable source articles that were published after the autopsy report was issued. Westwind273 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I think I might be responding too early in the morning at times given how many mistakes I have made on this subject. But, I do see where both of you said to use sources that are getting their information from the autopsy. Sorry for miswording what both of you said.. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Police

The 15 July 2022: "Police still have not publicly identified the group cited by the suspect, presumably to avoid inciting violence." - Is that right? This statement can't possibly be a correct 87.170.192.233 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the police have reasons to not disclose the group's name. The article does not attribute the police with this information. Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasons?--91.54.11.224 (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You have to understand how Japan works. Police publicly announce very little. However, privately they provide much information to the journalists with which they have good relations. This causes journalists to endlessly kowtow to the police. In some ways, this mirrors the relationship between the Japanese press and politicians, which is the so-called "press club system." Read the Wikipedia article "Kisha club". (Kisha means journalist in Japanese.) --Westwind273 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Weird translated titles

Who is coming up with these translated reference titles? A translation like "Former Prime Minister Abe shoots two gunshot wounds on the neck" makes it sound like suicide. If you cannot do any better then machine translations, leave it to another editor who is bi-lingual. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

AFAIC the use of script/trans-title is voluntary. If you found any unnatural translated ref title, it may be better to just replace "script-title" with "title" and comment the "trans-title". Speaking of machine translation, Deepl generally offers better translation between English and Japanese than Google Translate, the only downside is that it doesn't show the romaji of the Japanese script. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Amateur-quality image, possible original research

Not really convinced that this is a quality addition to the article, and it also may be original research to boot. Per the image description, this mockup was done up in a video game, Second Life. What verification do we have that this is an accurate depiction of the events? If this kind of visual depiction is deemed useful, then we should wait for one from an actual reliable source. Not a Wikipedia Commons user. Zaathras (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras The shooting position is consistent with what the reliable source describes. I think the image is helpful. @Asanagi thanks for the image, can you please share the source that you had used to create the movement line? the source needs to be included both in the image description and the caption here for WP:V. Venkat TL (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is an over-simplification (where are the others?) and amateurish. removed until there is consensus to include. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB Others are deliberately not added in such images to avoid clutter. Such images/animations are used in other reliable sources too. Venkat TL (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the user did a good job given that there have been issues with obtaining a fair use image. We should likely wait for Asanagi to respond, but I don't see the problem with having a mockup in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with this image. "Amateurish" is not a good reason to remove an image unless you can prove that the image misrepresents what the reliable sources state. Before a better image (with inclusion of Abe's security depicted as translucently grey figures) is available, we should keep this in the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The image shows the shooter standing about 7-8 metres behind Abe. Where is that sourced? There were numerous people standing around Abe at the time of the shooting. Their absence from the image shows that the shooter had a clear shot, which is not correct. All that this simplistic image confirms is that Abe was shot from behind. We don't need a falsified image to tell us that. Wikipedia can do better. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

According to The Sankei News, the perpetrator was standing behind Abe about 5 metre away (男と安倍氏の距離は５メートルほど) while firing at Abe. I agree that the position of the perpetrator in the image can be placed closer to Abe by 1/3 of the current depiction. Still I believe the image does little to no harm even if the distance is not quite accurate. ---- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep the image. Indeed, I concur with the points made by @Sameboat, the image should be restored, it helps the reader in understanding the shooting scene. Venkat TL (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Overall consistent with how reliable sources describe the event. It can be improved in various ways, but it's a helpful and mostly accurate visualization that helps the readers understand what happened. Any simulation or visualization will inevitably be somewhat oversimplified, so the simplicity of it is not to me a particularly strong reason for opposing it. Of course, if we can get permission to use a "less amateurish" one in the future, then we can swap it out. For now, I'd say re-add it and offer suggestions to its creator for how it can be modified to more accurately depict the event.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Remove, as proposer. Even people above who are somewhat favorable to the image undercut their own argument by noting the inaccuracies and lack of accurate distance portrayal. If this had been uploaded by a person with actual graphic deign skills, sure, there could be consideration if the WP:OR issues were addressed. But again, this is a mock-up from Second Life, an ancient (by internet standards) MMO more famous for flying phallus griefers than as a 3D modeling platform. Zaathras (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep, although I’ve found an image on BBC Brasil that indicates another path he may have done. You can see the image here: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-62097428. The source may be a little outdated, and that’s why I vote to keep the 3D portrayal of the incident. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• You actually admit it is possibly inaccurate, yet still stick it back into the article? This is getting silly. Zaathras (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  I’m assuming the good faith of the uploader. He may have better sources than I do. He is a native speaker of Japanese, whilst I’m still struggling through JLPT N3. We should then wait for a while his arguments to keep the image or find some other source that contradicts it, proving it to be wrong. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That looks to be the same path from a different angle. Both appear to show the shooter walking from the sidewalk on the back-right side of the barrier that Abe was speaking at. The BBC one does appear to show the path that the suspect took in their brief attempt to flee while being detained. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Edited because the article mentions that the suspect did not attempt to flee. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the image, Zaathras has been unable to conclusively prove that the image is incorrect. Sources so far are in line with what the image shows. Others are in support of inclusion. I have included the caption to make this clear. caption says Positions of Abe (purple) and Yamagami (blue) at the time of the shooting. Abe's security men and other people are not shown. The image can be further improved is not enough reason to block this image from getting included. If and when a better image is available, it can be included. Wikipedia works on incremental improvements. - Venkat TL (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Remove per numerous above participants noting inaccuracies. That the uploader tried their best is not an affirmative reason to include the image. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  You can now confirm the suspect’s movement here: https://www.nikkei.com/telling/DGXZTS00001840U2A710C2000000/. No need to remove it. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:9DFC:9A00:119A:3CC1 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you I have now added it as reference. Venkat TL (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Change foto

Can we please change a foto:

• generic grey business building ==> File:Kirigaya Funeral Hall.JPG|thumbnail|Kirigaya Funeral Hall, where Abe was cremated

• Temple, where Abe's funeral was held ==> File:Zojo-ji_sanmon.jpg|thumbnail|The Sanjokumon gate of Zojoji Temple, where Abe's funeral was held. 87.170.207.228 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

UC is lying

Lawyers said UC is lying about not extorting donations from followers. Sources:

• https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20220713/p2a/00m/0na/008000c
• https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/07/13/national/lawyers-unification-church-donations-bankruptcy
• https://www.stopreikan.com/kogi_moshiire/shiryo_20210917.htm
• https://www.stopreikan.com/seimei_iken/2022.07_seimei_abe.htm 87.170.201.138 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, and?Fulmard (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)