Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe

Serious problem of the Unification Church in Japanese society

Yamagami's motive for assassinating Abe was hatred of the Unification Church, which bankrupted his mother and destroyed his family. Therefore, the text needs to briefly explain the serious social problems caused by the Unification Church in Japan. The Unification Church gained a large number of followers in Japan and bankrupted many families by making them donate large amounts of money. In 1987, about 300 Japanese lawyers set up an association called the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (Japan) to help those followers.[1] According to the association's lawyers, there were 34537 cases in Japan between 1987 and 2021 in which the Unification Church brainwashed its followers into defrauding them of money, totaling about 123.7 billion yen.[2] In 2021, the association's lawyers sent a letter of protest to Abe asking him to stop sending messages to Unification Church events. They feared that Abe's message would be used to empower the Unification Church and recruit its followers, forcing more victims to make expensive donations to the church.[3]--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

While I personally agree the UC is very relevant in this assassination, much of the financial woes and other controversies (particularly the questionable political influences and alleged lack of media coverage) related to UC deserve a separate article. We can include the most relevant UC issues reported in this FT article, but careful selection is required to avoid undue weight. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

UC is very relevant here. Abe’s family have been involved with the Unification Church (UC) for a long time. His grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, first allied with them more than 60 years ago, to 'fight Communism'. Kishi was publicly known as a friend of Sun Myung Moon. His father, former Foreign Minister Shintaro Abe participated in their parties and pushed other LDP representatives to go to the UC' "seminars". LDP/UC cooperation has carried on until the present day. The Kishi-Sasakawa ("I am the world's richest fascist.") link to Moon was broadened through the Kishi and allied factions. A research paper published in 2001 by Richard J. Samuels, stated that the UC “built its Japan headquarters on land in Tokyo once owned by Kishi." :

Richard J. Samuels: Machiavelli's Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan. Cornell University Press, 2019, S. 245. ==> google books: "By the early 1970s, a number of LDP politicians were using Unification Church members as campaign workers. While the politicians were required to pledge to visit the Church’s headquarters in Korea and receive Reverend Moon’s lectures on theology, it did not matter whether they were members of the Church. Actual Church members– so-called “Moonies”– were sent by the Federation to serve without compensation as industrious and highly valued campaign workers. In return, for many years the Church enjoyed protection from prosecution by Japanese authorities for their often fraudulent and aggressive sales and conversion tactics. Not incidentally, by the 1980s, Japan reportedly provided some four-fifths of Unification Church revenues worldwide.”

To understand the motive, you need to understand the structure of this predatory organization, and how it is a financially exploitative machine. The UC is a constellation of front groups, all working in harmony to funnel money, power, and influence to the Moon family. These activities are all funded by the exploitation of UC-members, including Yamagami's mother. I don't condone violence, but I do understand the rage of Yamagami, and Abe was not innocent in all of this.

As noted by Samuels over two decades ago, “for many years the Church enjoyed protection from prosecution by Japanese authorities for their often fraudulent and aggressive sales and conversion tactics.” It was precisely this issue that sparked the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales to protest against Abe’s support for the UC.

Nobusuke Kishi, Shintaro Abe, and Shinzo Abe supported a predatory US-South Korean cult preying on Japanese citizens on home ground. That's politician's cynicism of the highest level. Why the Japanese media refused to identify the “religious group” that formed the motive for the killing is speculation at this juncture, though it reflects very poorly on Japan’s status as a democratic nation. Pennsylvania-based Sean Moon (militant offshoot of UC Rod of Iron Ministries in WACO with its own arms manufacturer, Kahr Arms) is right now on a trip in Japan from the USA, trying to rally support to take over the mainline UC. Sean Moon was in Nara the week earlier. --91.54.6.40 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I can agree that it appears that UC is indirectly involved thru its actions unintentionally influencing the shooter's actions. The problem is that we need sources that make the connection to add it here and more of this is better suited for the Unification Church article. We might need to wait for a *potential* trial to be able to get enough sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The next thing we can add to this article is UC's practice of brainwashing their members into donation. Tanaka during the July 11 press conference unsurprisingly claimed that donation is entirely voluntary, which is contrary from what I have learned from lesser reliable sources. Again we need better sources to cover the donation-led bankruptcy allegation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Support! Steven Hassan, just wrote: "My first two books were translated and published in Japanese. The term “min control” entered the lexicon after my book Combatting Cult Mind Control came out in Japanese and a famous ex member, an Olympic gymnast held press conferences praising the book because it helped her...(source) Mixing fascism and Christianity is religious quackery of a very serious kind. Its name is Christofascism. According to the decision of the German Federal Court of Justice 1983, "it is permissible to claim about the Moon sect in the Federal Republic of Germany":

*the Unification Church is a criminal organisation,

*it proclaims a fascist system,

*several young people have been driven to suicide by the Unification Church, and

*the Unification Church subjects people to psychological terror.

In the Germany, there was an entry ban on Moon and his wife by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior from 1995 to 2006. --91.54.6.40 (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear anon, I'd really appreciate if you refrain from bombarding the talk page with infos not directly related to the Tetsuya Yamagami's testimony. We know the church is full of controversies, but your actions could be seen as an abuse of Wikipedia talk page and potential violation of our WP:NOTFORUM guideline/policy. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't understand the problems of the Unification Church in Japan, you won't understand this assassination at all. This page should therefore contain a brief description of it. Japanese lawyers were protesting Abe not to send video messages to the Unification Church.[4] And the reason that Yamagami decided to assassinate Abe was because he found on the website that Abe had sent a video message to the Unification Church.[5] And I think it is appropriate to write more details about the problems of the Unification Church in Japan on the Unification Church page. Of course, the Unification Church page should focus on the Unification Church, not on Abe.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, then please move on to talk:Unification Church. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Can the following sources contribute to editing?

• According to the source, lawyers responded to a press conference by the Unification Church by saying, "There are many members who have been bankrupted by the Unification Church," and "How painful is the suffering of children caused by the donations of their parents.".
• The source states that "the founder of the Unification Church defrauded money by exploiting Japanese youths' sense of redemption about Japan's colonial rule of Korea".
• The source states that "Since the 1980s, the Unification Church has been selling expensive pots and other things to its followers after stoking their fears.".
• The source states, "The Unification Church takes advantage of its members' worries to force them to buy unreasonably expensive pots and seals.".--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The ones by Asahi and Nippon Television are reliable to me, not so sure about the one from bengo4.com. I also just noticed that All-Nippon News Network also picked up the press conference by 全国霊感商法対策弁護士連絡会 (7/12) so we should have plenty to choose from for the donation controversy section. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There are serious problems with the UC in Japan because of Abe’s politics/family - Japan has been ruled by the same right-wing LDP party since 1955, excluding only 5 years. From the article, “Cabinet reshuffle raises a slew of new questions” originally posted by The Japan Times September 11, 2019 behind the paywal, reposted on the Cult Education Institute:

"Nikkan Gendai went even further, calling the new Cabinet a “cult.” Twelve high-ranking members of the government are executives of the conservative lobbying group Japan Conference (Nippon Kaigi) and 12 — there is overlap — are associated with the anti-leftist Unification Church, including six of the 13 rookie ministers. Some of these members have worked on behalf of the International Association of Parliamentarians for Peace, a project one of whose aims is to make the Unification Church a state religion in various countries, including Japan. [6]

Was Nikkan Gendai the first news outlet not applying the law of the omerta, and to mention the name of "the group"? --87.170.201.207 (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest using these two articles as sources (NY Times and Washington Post) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/business/japan-suspect-unification-church.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/12/unification-church-japan-shinzo-abe/ I also found this ABC News (AP) article to be insightful. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/explainer-unification-churchs-ties-japans-politics-86858744 --Westwind273 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Westwind273 it's interesting, in this sentence "Analysts say it could lead people to examine more closely how powerfully the ruling party's" from abcnews, who's the analyst she refer to? Limbukspike (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Limbukspike, this talk page is for the purpose of improving the article, not debating the topic. Wikipedia has standard policies regarding reliable sources. If you have a problem with that, go debate it on the policy page. Westwind273 (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Prior to the assassination, Yamagami sent a letter to an anti-Moonie activist in Japan explaining his motive. Kyodo is now reporting on the contents of the letter. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/07/858c994f8c07-shooter-signaled-abe-killing-in-letter-to-unification-church-critic.html --Westwind273 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

His letter was once published in full, but the news was later removed. Kazuhiro Yonemoto previously wrote a reportage on the issue of Nisei in the UC. — https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20220717/k10013723011000.html --87.170.206.64 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This is beginning to affect Japanese politics. The media in Japan is starting to focus on the broader story of corruption that led to the Abe assassination. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/07/2c3444c1f71a-focus-unification-church-ties-to-lawmakers-emerges-as-major-political-issue.html --Westwind273 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the media's lack of reporting on the UC is partly to blame for the current situation. A real taboo. --87.170.202.133 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Tetsuya Yamagami has at least brought this evil cult and those who use it for their own ends into the public eye. Hopefully such cults and their abuse will be regulated in the future. Tetsuya Yamagami will be regarded as a hero in the future by many. Public opinion and sympathy has already changed since the incident.

• https://www.yahoo.com/news/shinzo-abe-assassin-succeeds-twisted-030000180.html

• The Kyodo poll also finds that an overwhelming majority of the Japanese public (81%) believes that the true nature of the connection between the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church needs to be revealed.

• https://gendai.media/articles/-/97816 - "Voices of support" for suspect Tetsuya Yamagami and the danger of "copycat criminals"

• Looking up Unification churches via Google Maps street view, you may notice a trend: Most of them either have LDP candidate posters up, or are located right next to LDP offices. The trending hashtag #ストリートビューに見る旧統一教会と自民党の癒着 translates to "Witnessing the close ties between LDP and Unification church through Street View" and has people posting their own examples. → #ストリートビューに見る旧統一教会と自民党の癒着

• https://www.nikkan-gendai.com/articles/view/life/309515 - 《Collaboration between the former Unification Church and the Liberal Democratic Party seen in #Street View》…“One relationship” is exposed one after another on SNS --87.170.197.60 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the sources for WP:OR WP:WTW/LABEL, WP:NPOV

By checking sources, I reached an unresolvable problem. There was some content (and many more) added by user SLIMHANNYA here . Slimhannya wrote .." passed bills to restrict the activities of dangerous cults such as the UC and provide relief to victims" to the source Nikkei Inc., "Former Unification Church Victim Relief New Law Enacted Penalties for Unfair Solicitation of Donations" (旧統一教会の被害者救済新法成立　不当な寄付勧誘に罰則), December 10, 2022 at 18:15.

I want to emphasize that this could be Own research WP:OR and even worse MOS:WTW specifically MOS:LABEL by user Slimhannya. We should still discover if it breaks WP:NPOV as well. The word "cult" is specifically listed to be avoided by WP rules. Moreover, the problem is that the source does not mention anything about cults or dangerous cults. The source names it neutrally as "Religious organizations and other corporations." therefore, the rest is the point of view of user Slimhannya. It is a misuse of the source, as only a few people speak Japanese to recognize it. It has happened before in this article and is not the only appearance, so I'm bringing it to the talk page. What do others think about it? Should we somehow systematically prevent it? --Dee (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Another thing is if we do need it in more than one place, why is there still a fight about Shinzo Abe's photo and its comment ... but the new paragraph content should be checked according to the source (nikkei101222). Please see the diff .--Dee (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Further development: user User:SLIMHANNYA continues in extending the paragraph, does not remove "dangerous", and "cult" from the article introduction as the source does not contain any of those, ignoring the MOS:LABEL and other rules nor replying the discussion here. I do not like doing it, but this is an POV and, therefore, there is a template...--Dee (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I changed "cult" to "religious organizations"--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, watch your edit style, write what is in source and prevent POV, I will look briefly the rest of your edits for similarities. --Dee (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

While not a major point, I do want to point out that both the AP and the Guardian say that a single bill has passed, not multiple bills. @SLIMHANNYA:: Clarification on this would be appreciated as I am unsure if there is a misunderstanding regarding this. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Two bills were passed. Many Japanese media refer to the two laws as the Kaisei shōhisha keiyaku hō, 改正消費者契約法 and the Higaisha kyūsai hō, 被害者救済法. The names of these laws are in Japanese and can be translated various ways, but roughly translated they are the "Revised Consumer Contract Act" and the "Victims Relief Act".[7][8]--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh, a bit surprised that AP and Guardian would fail to mentioned that there were two bill. Thank you for both clearing this up and for the sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the sources continues

I briefly checked some of the other edits of the user SLIMHANNYA, and I have to say that misuse of Japanese sources continues.

• For example, on this edit, there is added information that "Taro Kono, Minister of State for Consumer Affairs and Food Safety, who will have jurisdiction over the law, stated that he recognizes the Unification Church as an "anti-social cult"" which catches my eye as a strong expression for the minister.. and surely he would have legal issues by saying that. This is simply an UNTRUE and FALSE statement.
• The reality is that the very short article in Japanese says that Mr. Kono stated, "My personal impression was that it was a cult." Another guy Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stated the former Unification Church was "an organization with social problems".

Let's make a list of issues with that:

• user SLIMHANNYA mixed the statements of two different people into his Point of View, breaking WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL. This information is still in the article.
• Wikipedia now says that Mr. Kono said what he, according to the source, never said. Quotation marks were used. Simple FALSE information. This is vandalism or disruptive editing WP:DE, WP:OR or it falls directly under WP:V/HOAX and WP:FAKE.
• Mr. Kono said it is his PERSONAL opinion, so mentioning his position and involvement in the mentioned legislation is a use of false authority, one of the most common fallacies (Argument_from_authority#False_authority). Do we have some rules on that on EN-WP?
• Mr. Kishida said the UC was "an organization with social problems"; this is not the same as "anti-social". WP:OR

Summary: I see SLIMHANNYA edits as problematic, SLIMHANNYA is using anti-cult movements language and follows this point of view and systematically do not distinguish between reality and POV. It looks like we have to check each edit with each source (and we would need to do it), as there could be an issue. And based on this POV and disrespect to the rules and recommendations (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, MOS:LABEL, WP:DE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:HOAX, WP:FAKE), it looks like the more I review, the more evidence I'll find. This could be a problem as the article/articles can grow into shameful nonsense.--Dee (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I understood the argument. Indeed, in the source, "anti social" was the Jiji press's description of a cult.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I changed "anti social cult" to "cult".--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Kono says it is his personal view, but he is the minister in charge of consumer affairs with jurisdiction over the law. So Jiji Press also reported in its title that he referred to the Unification Church as a cult. I don't see any problem with writing what he said on Wikipedia.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't do any editing on Abe's image. It was the IP user who changed the image.[9]--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The two sources I provided show that the opposition parties, CDP and JCP, refer to the Unification Church as a cult.[10][11] However, those sources were replaced at the end of another sentence by another user, so they are now incorrectly cited. So I would change "cult" to "religious organization" to conform to the current text.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I do appreciate you fixing one occurrence, but still, it is on the border of MOS:LABEL, as personal opinions are WP:UNDUE. I can see you put the same thing in the article about Unification Church... looks like it will be necessary to look into it and possibly to some of your historical edits here as it can contain the same pattern. It would be great if you would do it proactively, as you know your edits the best. Text which stays there does not mention the "personal" opinion, so it states as a false authority. rest in the discussion there. --Dee (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the sources, part 3

I have found a text, "The JCP had proposed another bill to restrict "cults" and therefore opposed the bills", which is probably true. Still, the source which follows (ref name="tokyo091222") is not talking about the Japanese Communist Party at all but speaks about the group of lawyers who working on bill to restrict "cults". Again, the source is in Japanse in tokyo-np.co.jp, so not many people can verify it. It would make sense if the lawyers were communist party members and the editor who put it to Wikipedia does not distinguish between those two groups. Or the editor has internal information but does not have any source.. so then it is WP:OR. Still searching for who put it in or how this happens. But one thing is clear; we should double-check all JP sources as they could be a source of confusion.
Anyway, I would like to warn about the Communist party of Japan JCP or the Network of lawyers as the source for this article, as they are strongly involved in the process. Those lawyers have been suing the Unification church for years, so it is the source of their income when they succeed (mostly, they don't). And Communist party has been fighting with the Unification church for years for its anti-communist measures. So both should not be taken as reliable sources.--Dee (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have already changed that from "cult" to "religious organization." And the Tokyo Shimbun clearly refers to the remarks of the Communist Party's Kokuta. That's not what the lawyer said.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That is true, Kokuta is mentioned, but the source does not mention any "cult" information in connection with it, so this was clearly POV.--Dee (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the sources, part 4 WP:OR and WP:NPOV

This time by User:Sameboat at least by edit here. He is adding to the previously existing text and source (youtube video) the text "to explain the church's exploitation". This is a bit weird, so I did suspect nothing like this is in the Japanese source. And it shows it is NOT. I passed the video, which is the news conversation with Masaki Kito and other guests. I want to emphasize that only the moderator's statements are a reliable source here, as he should have some review of his statements and questions. Other statements could be opinions, often unconfirmed. Especially in the case of Masaki Kito, it is good to pretend that his opinion is very much the POV of the long-time opponent of the Unification movement, as his business is built on top of suing UC.
Back to the issue: The video has no words about exploitation, misuse, or manipulation. So it looks like the added sentence (above) is just user Sameboat's POV. So I'm deleting the added text as not in the source. From the user Sameboat, it is a possible break of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Curious about what I will find in his other edits. --Dee (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Although the video is about an hour long, it is no excuse to not check the source thoroughly before accusing me and deleting my edits before confirming in the talk page (Sayuri Ogawa's account of the church's exploitations begin at 15:21 in the video). I would tell you that I am not pleased by your attitude, and I hope you would assume good faith towards other editors who may not share your value in religion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. I observed the second video (in Japanese) mentioned in the same edit. Of course, I could not find it. On the other hand, it would be nice of you to include time in the source or timestamp in the video, especially if it is more than one hour long if you use it as the "proof" of something. And as I wrote to your talk page, "I hope it is just a misunderstanding."

If I see it now in the new light, I should say you cannot write "... she and her husband held a press conference to explain the church's exploitation" in Wikipedia voice. It is her (Mrs. Ogawa) opinion stated in her press conference. She is not a trusted source. This is by the way use of primary source, which is not recommended by WP rules - and you surely know WP:PRIMARY as part of WP:NOR. So the reason is different, but the WP:NPOV is still valid. Please rewrite the sentence to WP:NPOV, as the media had to cover the issue elsewhere. --Dee (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sayuri Ogawa's account is cited in many reliable journals. What Wikipedia actually prohibits is self-published source, that's why I'd not cite her comments published by her own social media account(s). As Sayuri Ogawa is getting more and more media coverage and is even able to speak with high ranking government official, particularly for her similar background (shukyo nisei) with the suspect of this assassination, it is reasonable to cite sources about her, as long as those come from reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

So then there is no sense in putting a primary source (video from the press conference). Just put there a secondary source instead. Otherwise, it is just an opinion... cannot be used as proof, so you cannot write it as a fact in the Wikipedia voice. And even then is valid WP:EXCEPTIONAL. So you can only write it if, ideally, scientific proof is given (sociology, religionist) that something like this happens. --Dee (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you have mixed up something. Wikipedia doesn't report "facts", it just reports what reliable sources says. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That is partially true, as Wikipedia reports both: facts and what the source says, but even this, it should comply with WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't happen in this case. Let's stop that discussion here. I will rewrite the sentence to neutral, as you are unwilling or unable to do it due to your POV. Unfortunately, each of your edits should be checked then by other editors. --Dee (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Again you accusations of primary source against my edits are very problematic and not in line with what is stated in the guidelines quoted by you. You haven't even cited any reliable source to back your claim that Ogawa and Yamaguchi as unreliable, all but your personal opinion. But I will see how your edits pan out. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the sources, part 5 WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:OR, and WP:SOURCES +WP:FAKE

Not sure who put the text and sourcing in (Edit later - user Sameboat), but currently, in the paragraph "Legislation to restrict donations to religious organizations and provide relief to their victims" (the too-long name by the way) at the end, there is a text "Lawyer Hiroshi Yamaguchi who represents Zenkoku Benren wished that there would have been more time to make a solid bill. He worried that under the new laws it would still be difficult to prove that the claimant's free will was being suppressed when accepting the transaction, also the definition of what allows the victim's child or spouse to demand restitution on behalf of their relative was too narrow to be practical." sourced by the well know sources already from the previous cases. Several issues here:

• 1) Nobody on Wikipedia should care what a lawyer doing business on suing UC and other religious groups thinks about this legislation as he is in a conflict of interest. This is WP:NPOV
• 2) Wikipedia articles especially should not contain personal feelings of people in conflict of interest about the impact of the future legislation, for example, that some lower "worries about". This is WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, presumption:WP:CRYSTALBALL
• and 3) The most important: The sources do not contain such information. There is no mention of anything about Hiroshi Yamaguchi or his personal feelings. WP:OR and WP:SOURCES

I recognize this work with sources as creative but not fulfilling the minimal Wikipedia requirement. Therefore I'm removing the whole text because it simply should not be here. —Dee (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

And the one who won it is again the User:Sameboat; he added the first occurrence of the text, including fake sources here. WP:FAKE Leaving notice on his talk page.--Dee (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dee: The Tokyo Shimbun article which User:Sameboat cited does contain mention of Hiroshi Yamaguchi's views about the new law. --Pacifio (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have already reverted Dee's deletion. Japanese news articles tend to spilt into multiple pages, and Hiroshi Yamaguchi's comment is on the second page. I sincerely ask Dee to actually look harder before making gross accusations against other editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Ups. I did not realize there was a second page in the internet article when the link was on the first page. So my apology to Sameboat, it is not WP:FAKE and WP:OR, but the rest (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:CRYSTALBALL) is still valid, so the text should not be here or should be simplified to express the position of the lawyers, but not their worries/feelings. Wikipedia is not a mass-scaring tool. --Dee (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

First we have dedicated a whole section for Unification Church's defense. Secondly, although Lawyers associated with Zenkoku Benren may constitute some level of conflict of interest in someone's POV (I'd argue that advocating for preventing all religious frauds would make them actually earn less), it is not up to Wikipedia editor to judge if their role in the subject matter would result in COI and be discredited for Wikipedia article. Many of them were interviewed and cited by mainstream media, Masaki Kito is even in Taro Kono's special review panel, their comments should be considered notable enough and more importantly verifiable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Diagree, 1) Talking about section of UC defense has no value here, we are not talking about it.(1) 2) You should comply with WP:NPOV, this is not personal page of the Lawyers' company to put here whatever they say. This is not about Masaki Kito (2), not about Taro Kono (3), not about the review panel(4), this is about Hiroshi Yamaguchi and his "worries". Do you need help to rewrite it to neutral voice? --Dee (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not playing this game with you. If you are still not satisfied, you can report me to wp:administrator's noticeboard. My English grammar may not be perfect, I honor wp:reliable sources faithfully. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

by the way.. the numbers in brackets () are false arguments. I do not feel good to be manipulated this way. --Dee (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about the brackets and the "manipulation". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Also you misquoted wp:crystal ball. It only prohibits Wikipedia editor to make personal assumptions in the article. It doesn't rule out "assumptions" found in reliable sources. A tangible example is scientific forecast of global climate changes, we don't call it "crystal ball". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As Hiroshi Yamaguchi is not a reliable source.. WP:NPOV --Dee (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wrote what the reliable source says without adding my personal input, so there is no problem of NPOV. As the section is about the new laws which regulate fraudulent fundraising, it is only natural that we cite a lawyer's opinion who is specialized in the relevant field. If you want a more balanced weight, there was interview with another religious organization who worried about being wrongly prosecuted by the new laws. You may add those if you want. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If the lawyer is independent, then yes.. But apparently they are not. Additionally, Wikipedia is not the "copy" of secondary sources and should not pretend the future. So if you still resist to understand, I will try to rewrite that part, but it would be much better if you will understand and do it.--Dee (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you consider Zenkoku Benren credible or not, climate scientists are often accused by many as alarmists and corporate propagandists, that doesn't prohibit Wikipedia to cite them in the relevant articles. So Zenkoku Benren not being "independent/trustworthy" is not a good reason to not cite them. If you just want to shift the tone a bit, fine; but a wholesale removal is unacceptable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that we do not speak about climate scientists (5). With this manipulation, we can end the discussion as it looks like you are moving the theme the other way all the time. --Dee (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to remind you that wp:COI is only a behavioral guideline for Wikipedia editors, COI is never a valid reason to block a particular source from Wikipedia article. As the sources about Sayuri Ogawa and Zenkoku Benren I cited are not self-published by the said individuals but secondary sources, your arguments of primary sources are invalid. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Read definition first: Press_release or WP:PRSOURCE. Dee (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Which edit constitutes PR? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

A press release or a press conference is the same primary content, just different form. So it should be represented in Wikipedia A says B about C, what you failed to do and therefore it is a POV.--Dee (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see my reply in the next section. TL:DR When I say "source" I mean the news agency, not any individual or organization who give their opinion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

News agency just resend the WP:PR type video... so it is not an interpretation, it is a primary source and you are doing OWN Research. Just opinions of the moderators are possible to use from such kind of sources. --Dee (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pattern

I see a certain pattern in the article: Some Japanese speakers add a Japanese source but add text which is not contained in the source. Therefore, I recommend keeping the NPOV template until all Japanese sources are confirmed or fixed, as it looks article was edited this way for some time.. probably from the assassination. --Dee (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have a pattern to not check the source thoroughly before accusing other editors, one source that you overlooked even have English interpretation. Then there are misquotes of Wikipedia policies/guidelines like crystal ball and primary sources (please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources properly). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Few final remarks:

• I already told you I did not even notice the English one by mistake. I said sorry, so why did you pick it up again?
• We are here not to solve my patterns, as you completely missed, that the previous cases of bad sourcing were rightful.
• We are here to solve patterns in the article, not my patterns.
• I'm free to inspect and check sources as I want, as WP rules guide me to do so.
• And I do so.
• Not clear why you want to solve my patterns instead. And I do not want to know.
  • but if you do so about alleged "misquoting," just read the definition of Press_release or WP:PRSOURCE.
• This is about the pattern of sourcing from the Japanese language and keeping NPOW template until it is all reviewed. So back to the article, if you have something to say about NPOV template and review of bad sourcing.. please refrain from commenting on my patterns.

I hope this is the last time I have to solve ad hominem with you. --Dee (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I am here to counter your accusations against my edits, and your arguments have lot of flaws. My sources about Ogawa and Zenkoku Benren are not primary, not even PR. By your standard, we should not even quote UC's defense at all because many cited journals are merely reporting their press releases and press conferences. There is practically no "independent" source that could satisfy you when the UC is already under government investigation while filing defamation lawsuits against those who speak against them. What the Wikipedia policies/guidelines allow us is to present verifiable sources duely, so it would be undue to not quote any opposing voices against the UC which are reported in reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

False. You are here to edit the article in compliance with the rules. It is not about the citation of press releases and press conferences, but it is about how you did present it: in Wikipedia voice, as the fact, which is not. --09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Dee (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You have absolutely demonstrated your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia merely presents what the reliable sources say, "fact" is never the primary concern. You claimed that Ogawa and Yamaguchi both "unliable sources", this doesn't matter to Wikipedia. What actually matters is the news agencies which report on their claims. This is the "wp:reliable source" I have been talking about. I have never treated Ogawa and Zenkoku Benren as the "souces" within the framework of Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Likewise... if the PR message or an opinion would become "reliable" by republishing video by another source, it could then be interesting here. --Dee (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sayuri's claims weren't published by Sayuri herself but an independent news agency so it's not primary source. Please provide a reliable source which actually says Sayuri (as well as Zenkoku Benren) wasn't reliable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Reading through this whole thing, this looks like WP:SEALIONing on Dee's part.

The RS say its a cult, and the burden of proof to provide a reliable source that contradicts the UC being a cult is on you DarmaniLink (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Split idea

Considering the section on Yamagami Tetsuya is as long as it is right now, I think maybe a split of this section should be considered. This is an idea I've had for a while now. Great Mercian (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather wait slightly longer when the first trial has begun which will definitely inflate the suspect section quite a lot. It will happen probably in mid-2023, I just don't think it's that necessary for now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As the indictment formally begins, I finally copied the suspect section to Tetsuya Yamagami and added few more information. It's also a good time to trim down the suspect section. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It got redirected Great Mercian (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 reverted my edit per WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. Also he insisted that we must edit the Draft:Tetsuya Yamagami and get the approval from reviewer before requesting the split. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

that's odd, do people even use drafts anymore? Great Mercian (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I don't know, but IMHO the draft is incredibly counter-productive. If I understand correctly, it is an attempt to preserve page revision history, even for a redirect page, which is again incredibly stupid and not worth the trouble at all. Personally I really hesitate and have no energy to maintain the draft because the suspect's story is still ongoing and I have absolutely no idea how long the review would take. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Am surprised Yamagami doesn't have a separate article both the Chinese and Japanese wikis already have pretty detailed ones Caspian Delta (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

JFYI, the Japanese WP hasn't yet split the suspect section of Abe's assassination into a separate article. Moreover, they still hide the suspect's name even though it's all over Japanese media reports for more than half a year. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

How come? Great Mercian (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing the real names of people who have not voluntarily made their real names public. The reason for this is that in Japan there is a Supreme Court ruling that gives former prisoners the right not to have the fact that they were in prison made public. This section describes the policy for writing real names in the Japanese version.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Support per precedent in

Otoya Yamaguchi

Lee Harvey Oswald

John Wilkes Booth DarmaniLink (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Support as per above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support There seems to be enough to cover a separate article on him.★Trekker (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• There is a lot of information, but some of it is not relevant. For example, background on his relatives, unrelated job changes, outdated proceedings following his arrest. The suspect does not appear to be notable for anything else. We should focus on the assassination, his traumatic life, motive, and reactions from society. Senorangel (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it fits into this article just fine, and doesn't warrant an article of its own. StrawWord298944 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. To say this falls under WP:BIO1E or WP:PERP when all presidential assassins in the US (such as John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald) and even presidential candidates (such as Sirhan Sirhan) and failed assassination attempts (such as John Hinckley Jr.) all have pages, runs into serious WP:BIAS problems. Wikipedia is for the world, not just the United States. Would we even be having this conversation if someone had assassinated (or was on trial for assassinating) a US president? Relinus (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the reply one post above me. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

@Doug Weller: @Sameboat: Hi - I'm curious if Dee is a member of the UC [12] I have been trying to assume good faith, but I suspect he is a bit biased 91.54.4.144 (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

All I can say is that this edit is pretty much the use of WP:primary source which Dee has been very (wrongly) critical of other editors who are not charitable towards the UC. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. You are a Wikipedia archeologist, when putting up an edit which is 10 years old? Just hope it is not about a witch hunt, what you and Sameboat are doing. Are you? Actualy, there was not any good sources that time and even today, there are just a few. But thank you for the challenge - accepted, I will try to fix my previous 10 year old mistake.--Dee (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Look, guys, I did inspect some of your latest edits here (or your identical anonymous IP range), and I'm not bringing here a theme about your potential conflict of interest as those edits could look like an anticult movement member edits. Trust me, the religionists (sociology of religion) community considers most of the anticult arguments as pseudoscience, for example, the brainwashing. From Wikipedia's point of view, many of anticult publications are self-published. They should not be present on Wikipedia as they usually fail in the factual field and the absence of an editorial process. My opinion is that it should be wiped out, as it represents pseudoscientific arguments as facts. Media bias, which practically repeats it, is WP:UNDUE.

So, the point of view presented in the article/s or discussion/s by your edits looks very anticult-like to me. Should I look at your memberships in any organizations in the real world? NOT AT ALL! BTW, this breaks the WP rules if anybody is doing that. Read the WP:HOUND! You dig 10 years in my edit history to find what exactly? A "crime" of Primary source used in a descriptive manner which, by the way, did not preserve in the article until today, as the article did not persevere either. You have to comment on the content, not the user (WP:NPA). I feel WP:HARASS. Please clear your doorstep before taking care of mine or witch-hunting me for "curiosity".

Personally, on your push, I will invest more effort to help you change both articles to more respect WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, as I do observe some troubles with that.--Dee (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't consider anti-cultism to be a liability of Wikipedia's credibility, but this isn't even the point. The majority of our reliable sources, including NHK which is nationally owned, Japanese or non-Japanese, for this article are quite unified in reporting that the concerns about Unification Church are related to the negative aspects of a cult. If you have any reliable sources which can provide an opposite (aka pro-Unification Church) POV in this matter, be my guest and bring it into the article. However, so far the anti-anticult arguments are only being published by unreliable outlets, including The Washington Times which is run by the Unification Church (huge COI and neutrality concern on UC-related articles) and deemed "marginally reliable" per our community consensus. No reliable source would give Newt Gingrich oxygen about his views on the negative impact on religious freedom in Japan (if any at all) brought by the assassination. If you can't provide a single reliable source to counter the anti-cult statements which are totally backed by reliable sources, please just move on and stop flogging a dead discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV template

Reading over the argument, this looks like textbook WP:SEALION on the part of dee.

I see no reason to dispute the neutrality in the sources when he has provided no reliable source to contradict them.

That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A wiki page on the assassination of Abe should be devoted to the assassination and the killers motives, and that killer's his mental wellness. But allowing the page to be dominated by long accusations about a religion (however peculiar) that did not order the killing is incredibly irresponsible. This is the reason so many of us have given up on wiki on any topic that comes close to politics. This article is a train wreck. 134.88.255.84 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Most successful political assassination

@Cutlass: I have no strong feeling about this description, but according to our guideline, lede should be a brief summary of what is already in the main body of the article, much more so for such big article. I'd appreciate if you can copyedit it, perhaps put it under the Aftermath-UC related section, then trim down what is in the lede. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)