Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe

Improvised shotgun?

Some editors are saying it was an improvised shotgun, should we update the article or is this non-credible? (https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1545249495398719488) Realgravity (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We need a much better source than a tweet by some rando speculating about a photo. I think that reliable sources are in the midst of reporting on this. Wait. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Realgravity (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

More links: https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/pluralphoto/20220708-OYT1I50091/, https://twitter.com/ayu3_BLUE/status/1545262768630087680, https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1545263293123727365. Not as a source, but as a piece of understanding. VScode fanboy (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is CNN article that shows a much clearer image of the firearm used. The visible electrical tape, wooden board, and pipe implies that this is an improvised, or at the very least very modified, firearm. https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/shinzo-abe-japan-pm-collapses-nara-07-08-22-intl-hnk/h_21d32edb151f22cca92ab6a881a05e95:Thecloudking 6:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Japanese sources ([1]) are calling it 「手製」, meaning "homemade". EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Handgun or shotgun ?

According to this, The Nara Prefectural Police revealed that it was not a shotgun but a handgun that was used to kill Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. BlackShadowG (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@BlackShadowG It is being reported as a "home made gun" that "resembled a shot gun". Venkat TL (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@BlackShadowG: I was under the impression that it was a shotgun, but I did find sources for the pistol report. I guess that means we will need to remove the shotgun portion and add a note. Thank you for mentioning this. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Finally got the footnotes to work with references and in multiple locations. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

By the look of it it's essentially two electrically- detonated pipe bombs, except that one end is left open and plugged with some sort of a projectile mass, likely nuts or cut nails or some such. You can see the battery block and wires below. It has more in common with a matchlock and a suicide vest than with any firearm. --Sefus2331 (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the possibility that it was electrically fired, it clearly is an improvised firearm, and visually it does resemble a sawn-off shotgun more than anything else. I think we should be wary of using the term "pistol," as that implies something that it clearly isn't. It also can't be described as being made of "pipe bombs," because it was clearly designed to fire projectiles, not explode. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that all sources say "homemade" or 「手製（てせい）」, not "improvised". EvergreenFir (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It functionally means the same thing, but "improvised" is less potentially confusing. We don't yet know where the assailant actually made the weapon. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What religious group?

The suspect said he shot him, not for his political beliefs, but for his connection to a religious group he didn't like. This is an important detail. Which religious group did the shooter object to? Was it Soka Gakkai? 152.130.15.2 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not stated within news reports, however with Abe's close ties with Christian groups it might be sooner or later we'll know what it'll be. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I was readind Shinzo Abe and have not seen any mention of "close ties with Christian groups", what is the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.194.248 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

His party, the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), is allied with Komeito, which is why I thought it might have something to do with Soka Gakkai. Soka Gakkai is viewed with suspicion by a sizeable percentage of the population of Japan. 152.130.15.2 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Wiki article in its current version notes that the police have refused to give details of the group. Till the name is released, I suggest we should not speculate anything without a reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The religious group is highly likely to be the Unification Church. The relationship between the Abe family and the Unification Church is very famous in Japan, and the Unification Church is currently trending on Twitter in Japan. The Unification Church is a cult founded in South Korea and caused various social problems in Japan. They brainwashed Japanese believers to break up their families, and sold expensive ceramic pots on the pretext of breaking the curse that had been placed on the Japanese people, and drove many Japanese families into bankruptcy. According to several news sites, Yamagami resented his mother's bankruptcy after being brainwashed by a religious group. He stated that he killed Abe because he believed he was the main culprit in spreading the religion in Japan.[2][3][4] The news site does not identify the religious group as the Unification Church, but I think that is almost certain. Abe and his father, Shintaro, were conservative politicians in Japan and anti-communist since the Cold War era. The Unification Church is anti-communist and has formed a political group with the International Federation for Victory over Communism (Kokusai shokyo rengo, 国際勝共連合), which has supported Abe and his father. Although Abe has not publicly stated that he supports the Unification Church, there is no doubt that the Unification Church has supported him. I will add Yamagami's motive for the crime to the sentence. However, the news site does not identify it as the Unification Church, so I will write it as a religious group without identifying it as the Unification Church.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

---

@3skandar: Cops initially did not disclose the identity of the group. This should not be removed. the name of the group along with the source can be added later on in the same para. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

We need good sources on the connection - I can find some bad ones, and passing mentions about a recent rally with Trump also speaking. Secretlondon (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: Some new sources are now talking about the Unification Church in connection with the family. Reuters: "The mother of the man arrested for the killing of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe is a member of the Unification Church, the church's Japan head said on Monday." (There are also some sources from a few days ago that might be helpful in some form. This press release from the 9th and this article from the 10th.) Still, it doesn't seem to be a complete connection at the moment, so it might not be immediately useful. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Unification Church

Most media outlets are still avoiding naming the Unification Church. Only the Asahi Shinbum and Gendai Business has explicitly named the group. Should we attribute this publications? I think these are reliable enough. Though I'm not sure which was the one to report this link first.

Also there seems to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS going on. Adding cites supporting Abe's links to the church dated 2021 and prior. (the references published prior to Abe's death obviously can't contextualize Abe's link with the Unification Church, the assassination and the killer). Sadly wiki is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The UC just held a press conference admitting Yamagami's mother is a member of the church, so the concern about source reliability is finally moot. 日本テレビNEWS via YouTube -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a few more sources for this here, here, here and here. The question now is whether the statement by Church president Tomohiro Tanaka that they will "take the situation (that Yamagami's assassination of Abe was motivated by resentment against the Church) seriously" (from Independent link) is notable enough to be added to Assassination of Shinzo Abe#Individuals and non-governmental organizations. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@SuperWIKI, since this is directly related to the incident, I think this should go into the aftermath. Venkat TL (talk) 13:45, 11 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)

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)

Should we alphabetize the reactions segment?

all the countries look so disjointed Great Mercian (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

sure EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 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) 19:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Proposal for the head: he is the 5th member of the Japanese Diet murdered, after Inejiro Asanuma, Hyōsuke Niwa, Shinjiro Yamamura and Kouki Ishii. (Taken from the Japanese wiki).

Do you mind putting your signature? Great Mercian (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

When are we gonna get a response from Spain?

Great Mercian (talk) 18:50, 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) 19:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Reactions from Africa

Hello @Venkat TL:. Thank you for your feedback. The end outcome of the discussion was that before this addition, no international reaction from Africa was featured in the live article. For instance, Mr. Shinzo Abe, a globally renowned politician, supported business between Japan and Africa. This information vacuum from Africa is exacerbated by your removal of content pertaining to another reaction from an African nation state, where Mr. Abe delivered a speech at the Sixth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (previous hyperlink). Given the abundance of reactions from Africa, this stance may indicate geographic bias which is a recognised Wikipedia phenomenon. Ear-phone (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ear-phone, as you can see, content is added on wikipedia based on its remarkability for the reader and not geographic reasons. If you believe, certain countries should be added for whatever reasons, please feel free to start threads with proposal to add them, you can see existing examples of such proposals on the page below. If there is consensus to add it, it will be added, thank you. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I am aware that "content is added on wikipedia based on its remarkability for the reader and not geographic reasons". No matter how remarkable the facts from Africa may be, there is a general omission of information from Africa, an example of geographic bias. That is all I was trying to say. I have provided my rationale, proposal and links. If you or others wish to take it up, please do. Ear-phone (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ear-phone You could have done this yourself. I have started threads at

#Proposal to add Kenyan leader's reaction

#Proposal to add Zambian leader's reaction Venkat TL (talk) 13:22, 10 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)

Why Ireland is added to the reactions but geographically relevant nations are not added?

Doesnt it make more sense that geographically relevant nations such as Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia are added instead of Ireland. If the argument is that they are not relevant, Shouldnt we add nations that the very least are a member of the G20? CrystallizedSyrup (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@CrystallizedSyrup, 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. 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 is 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. Venkat TL (talk) 09:21, 9 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)

Proposal to add Russia (Kremlin Spokesperson) reaction

• Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin Press Secretary, condemned the assassination, and described Abe as a "...patriot who defended Japan's interests at the negotiating table, due to which he had good relations with Putin."

References

Special:Diff/1097200150 @Roman Kubanskiy has added this, without consensus, so I am starting this thread to discuss and have consensus if we should include this or not. Venkat TL (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The comment by this government official is usual platitude that includes the praise for the Russian leader. I dont find this anymore remarkable than the other 200+ reactions from different countries. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  However, barring from the 200+ reactions...this was a reaction made by Russia, and as a state, I would certainly evaluate that the statement made by Russia is much more important than the reaction from Timor Leste perhaps, even though it was written in a rather boring form. PenangLion (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @PenangLion an editor from Timor Leste will find your comment in bad taste and offensive. Please avoid such statements. Venkat TL (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL It not bad taste, it is being pragmatic towards evaluation of importance. A reader won't conclude that Russia's statement will be equal to those of Timor Leste, but more important due to its political and geographical ties with Japan. PenangLion (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia should reflect facts rather than politics correct, East Timor and Japan have almost no exchanges. Russia and Japan have close relationships in the Far East, and there are island disputes between the two sides. Abe has also met Putin several times. Since China who has also had disputes with Japan can be included, why can't Russian official's statements (especially including Putin himself) cannot join? Japan's main neighbors Taiwan, South Korea, and China have appeared in the article. Why do they exclude the Russian Federation alone? Бмхүн (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Peskov also said today that Putin will not attend Abe's funeral ([5]). I think it's also worth including an article. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Kubanskiy nothing out of the blue. If Putin would have attended, then that would have been worth noting. Venkat TL (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Your reasons for Russia can not stand at all. Russia is not an optional country for Japan. The important neighbor's statement is different from that of the remote countries. Бмхүн (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Russia is an important neighbor of Japan and a major international country. Unlike other distant countries, New Zealand's connection with Japan is not as close as Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Бмхүн (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support I just added the UN Security Council and Putin's tribute to Abe. But is the UN Security Council's reaction allowed and Putin's reaction prohibited? Currently, I don't know why this difference occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocco30 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rocco30 @Бмхүн In your edits you have added Putin's reaction, but here you are supporting adding of Peskov's reaction. I hope you realize that both are different people. If you want to add Putin's reaction, please start a new thread.Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspect

Yamagami has confessed, so why is he still being labelled as a suspect? Great Mercian (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Great Mercian valid point. I have changed suspect to Perpetrator, does this resolve your concern? Venkat TL (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes Great Mercian (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we be calling him the perpetrator without a conviction? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL and Great Mercian We can't call him perpetrator until he is proved guilty by law. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mehmood.Husain @Jim Michael 2 @Great Mercian I understand the concern. I see that someone has already changed it back to Suspect. I have changed my mind and now agree that Suspect is better. I am not disputing the revert. Thanks Venkat TL (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add South Korea's reaction

• Yoon Suk-yeol, President of South Korea, offered his condolences to Abe's wife, Akie Abe. He sent his "condolences to the bereaved families and Japanese people" who have "lost the longest-serving prime minister and respected politician in Japan's constitutional history." He condemned the shooting as "an unforgivable act of crime". The People Power Party and the Democratic Party also gave statements, condemning the act as "terrorism".

References

South Korea is a key neighbor to Japan, and also it seems pretty unique that he sent his condolences to Abe's wife. It also seems reactions of political parties aren't dealth in the article so seems like it would be interesting to add Takipoint123 (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add Queen Elizabeth II's reaction

• In a message of condolence, Queen Elizabeth II said that she and her family were "deeply saddened" by the news, and said she had "fond memories" of meeting Abe and his wife in 2016.

References

What about the message from Her Majesty The Queen to the Emperor of Japan ? https://twitter.com/royalfamily/status/1545420993417490434 -What can I do for someone?- (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose : This is usual platitude, not seeing anything remarkable for the reader. Boilerplate condolences such as these are already covered in the boilerplate intro line "... representatives of numerous countries, including present and former world leaders, expressed their condolences." Venkat TL (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Routine condolence, nothing of significance. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add the Chinese internet's reaction

I'm thinking of reinstating the unofficial reactions from Chinese media, which is very mixed. The section got removed here by Heune, saying there's no correlation with adding public opinions. I think there's enough coverage on this, according to Google News, to have due weight, worthy of inclusion.

"Unofficial reactions were mixed, as several Chinese netizens took to criticize Abe on social media, including some describing his injuries as "a comfort to the souls of people who had died" in the Second Sino-Japanese War."

References

~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• lol1VNIO I find this confusing as a reader, How is Abe related to that war? and why should Wikipedia promote the trolls? Venkat TL (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: I suppose it's because he visited the Yasukuni Shrine on several occasions. ~~ lol1VNIO🎌 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, I don't see it any different from users on Twitter talking shit about X leader. I feel like this was just reported on by the media outlets because people feel mystified about China or for political reasons. RisingTzar (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, the fact that it hasn't been censored might mean that the Chinese government sort of agrees with it? RisingTzar (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Chinese leadership is trying to calm the anti-Abe sentiment instead of encourage it Ratata6789 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add Irish leader's reaction

• Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin stated that it was "especially shocking that he was murdered while engaged in that most democratic of activities, campaigning ahead of an election". He called the attack on Abe an "attack on democracy itself".

References

Someone added it and @Hariboneagle927: removed it, I am starting discussion for consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support because the message talks about democratic activity and values, this is much more than the standard boilerplace, and I feel remarkable for the reader. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Hold - Do we have other statements rather than this one? I felt this is going towards the path of sensationalist preferences rather than formalities. PenangLion (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hold Doesn't seem very special. Not only does Ireland have anything to do with Japan, and also a comment about democracy doesn't seem very special for a shooting that happened days before a national election while campaigning for one. Takipoint123 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion, @Takipoint123 how long are you going to hold your decision? choose support / oppose. Venkat TL (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

oppose Takipoint123 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - I love how I'm getting forced. I suggest clumping the Irish government's statement in a special sentence rather than contributing an entire paragraph for it. PenangLion (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support While many leaders around the world talked about Abe's achievements and memories with him, very few foreign leaders said that his democratic values were threatened by his death during election campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocco30 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose No relevance or connection to Japan or Abe. Saying nice things about his values doesn't really count. Zaathras (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding content from Wikipedias of other languages

This is a short question: there are far more content related to this incident on the article in Chinese Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia. Should we adopt some portions that are only available in the Wikipedia pages of these two languages and translate them for this article? PenangLion (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion Nothing stops you, as long as the content is according to the En Wikipedia policies, you can add. Make sure to also include the reference. Venkat TL (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree Noted. PenangLion (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep China and South Korea, and remove India

China and South Korea and right next to Japan, India is far away from Japan. Search for words from Takipoint123 on this page. Toto11zi (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Refrain from copying other user's quotes. It doesn't work. PenangLion (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

ok, replaced with "Search for words from Takipoint123" Toto11zi (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose due to lack of any logical reason. Far away is no reason. Venkat TL (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What is your logical reason of keeping India, and removing China and South Korea? Toto11zi (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Toto11zi, Please read the detailed discussion on Talk:Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#World_reactions_to_Abe's_assassination. In summary, India had declared national mourning, (an action) so it was decided to keep it as noteworthy. Other editors agreed and no one removed India. Please do not edit war without consensus. China and Korea were removed dur to boilerplate condolence message. SK is being discussed for consensus on #Proposal to add South Korea's reaction. Please comment there. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That's only your criteria of keeping India for national mourning, I don't agree, and I don't see other editors agreeing with your national mourning. Toto11zi (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Toto11zi You are free to propose your own criteria, and get consensus. But dont implement till you have sufficient support. Venkat TL (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Criteria should be based on importance of a country with respect to Japan. As Takipoint123 pointed out, South Korea and China are countries closely tied and geographically near Japan, interactions were and are immense between these countries, their words are far more relevant than India, or Brazil. Toto11zi (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Toto11zi If you want you can vote support on Talk:Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Proposal_to_add_World_reactions_based_on_importance_/_compromise_between_the_two Venkat TL (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The reasoning to exclude India is on measly grounds. India being part of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue is a point against India's supposed irrelevancy. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add Brazilian leader's reaction

• Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil, expressed "outrage and sadness" over the assassination and ordered three days of national mourning in Brazil.

References

Please consider adding Brazilian president's reaction too (https://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/politica/2022/07/5020939-em-sp-bolsonaro-chora-ao-homenagear-shinzo-abe-e-o-risco-dos-bons.html) (In portuguese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novorossiya (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support involves action. Already added by @JyuHachiJyu: here Special:Diff/1097271229. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, ibid above. Should fulfill the criteria imposed by talk page consensus on boilerplate reactions. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and reverted. No relevance or significant association with Japan. Zaathras (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would contest that. We're putting in India and Bangladesh's national day declarations but not Brazil's? Bangladesh isn't that affiliated with Japan. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Brazil has literally the biggest community of Japanese people and their descendents outside of Japan. Brazil–Japan relationships have some really relevant bonds. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:20C2:2BD9:C02E:17B9 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support fulfills the "more than just sad" criteria by calling for three days of national mourning. Also significant both as one of the world's largest nations and as the country with the largest Japanese population outside of Japan. I ask that the editor who reverted revert their revert.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:46, 9 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)

FWIW, France's reaction is here (japanese) It's been quoted by RTL ([6]). 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)

• 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)

Proposal to add Kenyan leader's reaction

• Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya said that "It is utter shocking and somewhat unbelievable to learn of the death of my friend, and one of Kenya's foremost development allies, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in a savage shooting incident."

References

Should this reaction added by @Ear-phone: be included into the reactions section? Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose boilerplate. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lol, no Irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please be more respectful. You can use arguments but seem to prefer to humiliate the proponent. That’s not the first time I see such a disrespectfulness from you in this talk page. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:7064:5094:5E25:94A0 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Zaathras (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to add Zambian leader's reaction

• Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema said "Zambia and Japan are close friends. Many Zambians have benefited from projects such as the Japanese scholarship programme, the JICA training courses, and the ABE initiative. The death of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is both shocking and sad. Our thoughts are with the Japanese people at this time."

References

Should this reaction added by @Ear-phone: be included into the reactions section? Venkat TL (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lol, no Irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The head of states are catching up to the fact that one needs to have a unique reaction in order to get their reaction listed here. On a serious note, this illustrate a flaw on defining what is "unique" and "substantial" reaction from mere condolence and commemorative (like this one mentioning the Japanese programs) statements. Aside from the ABE initiative (which is an African program), these programs exist in a lot of other developing nationsHariboneagle927 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Absurd and unnecessary denigration of capitalism

The article contains unnecessary and gratuitous smearing of capitalism and conservatism, as the label "right wing" is speculatively attached to any statement bearing a negative connotation, with complete omission of equally irrelevant left-wing demerits. Examples:

• Timeline ➝ Assassination: Abe was the first former Japanese prime minister to have been assassinated since Saitō Makoto and Takahashi Korekiyo, who were killed during the February 26 Incident in 1936, the first Japanese legislator to be assassinated since Kōki Ishii was killed by a member of a right-wing group in 2002.
• Suspect ➝ Misrepresentation: The misreporting allegedly stemmed from jokes on online message board 4chan and Twitter that were taken as fact and subsequently published by far-right French politician Damien Rieu.
• Reactions: Despite official condolences sent by the Chinese and South Korean governments, many Chinese and South Korean netizens were largely unsympathetic to Abe's death. This stemmed from grievances concerning historical colonialism and war crimes by Imperial Japan, and towards right-wing Japanese politicians.

Medende (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Here in the US, right-wing groups are (and have been for a long time) the primary domestic threat. I don't see how this is an issue if we are reflecting how sources describe things. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What do US right wing groups have to do with Japan? Tweedle (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see the issue here. I took a look at the sources of each of these statements and they all justify the use of the word "right-wing" or "far-right" in those instances:

• Re: was killed by a member of a right-wing group in 2002. - see the source.
• Re: by far-right French politician Damien Rieu - every secondary source I've seen mention Damien Rieu refers to them as a far-right politician.
• Re: towards right-wing Japanese politicians - the language of the Wikipedia article is nearly verbatim the language in the source.

This doesn't seem like "denigration of capitalism" to me.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think his point is that the 'far-right' bit is irrelevant to the the sentence overall due to the fact him falling for misreporting has nothing to do with his political beliefs. So it should just be '(...) published by French politician Damien Rieu' Tweedle (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

While that's not unreasonable to think, notability is determined by the sources, and all [7][8][9] sources mentioning Rieu refer to him as far-right, sometimes even multiple times in the same article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is not a slur. It's been a commonplace in political science for decades as it's an apt descriptor of the political base an actor is aligned with. Nor is it's use "anti-capitalist". The February 26 Incident was fascist coup d'etat attempt. It's relevant (and is mentioned on the Japanese Wiki page) because it helps to contextual Japan's historical memories of political violence leading up to World War II. The killing of Kōki Ishii was likewise politically from the right. I don't know about French politics, but the information may be relevant depending upon the political motive of the misinformation at hand. A point could be made with reference to China and Korea--their perception of Abe as a right-winger lacks context considering the Chinese communist party is likewise conservative and pro-market, while Korea's government is at least right-wing as that of Japan. The LDP is usually described as center-right, if that nuance matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.80.63 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspect's mother name unnecessary

Within the Suspect section, the suspect's mother's name is mentioned ("His mother, #Name Ommitted#, had become bankrupt after making large donations to the Unification Church...". I think the name of the suspect's mother is unnecessary. It may also violate Biographies of Living People policies, which state "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". I will proceed to remove the mother's name from this article. Al83tito (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don’t think anyone will revert it. Shame is an element of Japanese society, and adding the name of someone not directly related to the assassination should be avoided. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:7064:5094:5E25:94A0 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Link to separate article on suspect

The article should link to the separate article about the suspect Tetsuya Yamagami. TheCessnaPilot (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Tetsuya Yamagami TheCessnaPilot (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Venkat TL (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

BOLDly making it a redirect again per WP:BLP1E. None of the material in the article is novel. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The subject is not notable, WP:BLP1E applies here. Zaathras (talk) 19:46, 10 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:

• Tetsuya Yamagami.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Action?

Jacinda Ardern, prime minister of New Zealand, recognized Abe as a "a statesman, someone who helped usher through complex negotiations like the CPTPP".

Where exactly is the action taken by New Zealand here? Isn’t that a reason not to include this simple condolence? 2804:14D:5C32:614F:7064:5094:5E25:94A0 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Geographic proximity. Zaathras (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

So why has South Korea reaction been deleted? I’m sorry but I feel like you just want to cause distress in this talk page. Your answers are purely rude and you don’t try be welcoming to different ideas. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:7064:5094:5E25:94A0 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we focus on facts, not feelings? Drmies (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Calm down, first off. Second, I did not remove the South Korean response, so, you'd have to address your concern to whoever did. I think an entry for them would be appropriate. Zaathras (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

We’re humans, not robots. Politeness is still needed. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:7064:5094:5E25:94A0 (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• I dont think this has been kept due to geographic proximity. The quote is remarkable as it remembers a major work done by Abe. Venkat TL (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• There is some point to the comment. I don't find the quote remarkable, nor is New Zealand a significant country regarding Japanese politics.--Takipoint123 (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Election Results

This article should make better mention of the related election results, since that is a point of particular significance when discussing Abe. The article mentions the supermajority, but doesn't even link to the election's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Japanese_House_of_Councillors_election Abe was really pushing for this supermajority so that he could push through constitutional reforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.80.63 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

Typo in Assassination of Shinzo Abe#International:

Jacinda Ardern, prime minister of New Zealand, recognized Abe as a "a statesman, someone who helped usher through complex negotiations like the CPTPP".

It would make sense to remove an extra "a". 2600:1700:B8F0:EE0:F9CE:3F4D:EC69:519A (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:03, 10 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. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 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)

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)

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.[10] 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.[11] 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.[12]--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)