Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One bot (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 15 January 2013 (Removing Category:Relisted AfD debates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, with a possible aim at merging. This is a very long discussion that has been through two relists, and while it still remains a difficult one to close, it cannot linger on in the AFD process forever. The discussion contains a number of valid and invalid arguments. If we look at the valid arguments, the argument for deletion is that the article is largely based on a FRINGE source, and that the incident is otherwise non-notable as a news event. The argument for keeping is that the incident was covered internationally in the press, that other sources do exist.

First a meta-note on how AFD closers set about to weigh the arguments and determine consensus. Many AFD closers discard votes that have been given without any valid reason entirely, and base the decision on what is remaining. My approach is similar, however I assume that those who gave bad or no reasons for their vote will endorse the good reasons that support their position.

Early on in the discussion, there is a long and needless discussion about the motives of the nomination, with WP:IDONTLIKEIT being cited often, this countered by accusations of such a reference being a personal attack on the nominator. To this, I think the nomination statement provided a relevant rationale with persuasive arguments based on many of the sources in the article being of WP:FRINGE quality. Since reliability of the sources is a highly pertinent issue to the verifiability of the article, and its suitability for inclusion, I cannot see anything in the nomination statement that comes close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will also point out that IDONTLIKEIT is a very commonly used link to the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay. Sometimes, this reference is overused, as I think is the case here. But while I think criticizing the nomination for being "IDONTLIKEIT" misfires, it is a criticism of the statement, and I don't think it qualifies as a personal attack either.

Joshu Sasori referenced IDONTLIKEIT extensively; BabbaQ relied on it exclusively and didn't even provide a rationale for why the article should be kept. Neither of those arguments carry any weight, but as I said in the second paragraph, I will nonetheless assume that they endorse the valid reasons for keeping. (Another admin may well have ignored them completely.)

In the discussion there was also the issue of English v. Japanese or Chinese sources. The WP:NONENG section of the verifiability policy encourages English sourcing when that is available as they are presumed to be more accessible and thus more useful for the average reader. However, if that isn't possible, foreign language sources may be used, and the mere fact that they are in other languages does not make them inferior to English sources when it comes to fulfilling verifiability requirements. Arguments for deletion based on the lack of English sourcing carry no weight. (In this case, no one relied on this argument exclusively though.) However, a FRINGE source in a foreign language will be evaluated the same way as a FRINGE source in the English language.

After looking at the article and the comments in the latter course of this debate, I see that the Shōichi Watanabe's sources has been the cause of legitimate concern due to that author's apparent nationalism and far-right leanings, and that the article as a result may overstate the importance of the incident. However, the argument that the remaining coverage in newspapers is lacking in detail, and that WP:NOTNEWS applies is less persuasive. 2000 troops were deployed into the streets as a response to the incident (a fact referenced to numerous American newspapers), and I find it hard to call such an event a routine news story. As such the references that Phoenix7777 and Curtis Naito bring up in their keep votes have plenty of merit in them.

With meritorious arguments on both side of the debate, and neither side having overwhelming support (The "delete" side has a reasonably clear majority, but not something that I would call a consensus), "no consensus" becomes the default outcome. Note that the concerns of FRINGE sources being used in the "background" section still have validity and that parts of the article's content may be inappropriate because of that. A serious proposal was made during this discussion to merge this article together with other similar incidents into a more comprehensive article about the events in China during the 1930s prior to the war. Discussion of the merge option can be done on the talkpage, and does not require the continuation of this AFD discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato

Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is apparently a propaganda piece. There was a discussion going on about it being "POV". But it is a straight translation of the Japanese article, which was principally written by one editor[1]. This editor admitted[2] that the article was based primarily on the writings of Shōichi Watanabe, a far-right, anti-Chinese pseudo-historian whose major is English. Google Books search brings up no results for the "Japanese name" of this incident[3]. A Google Books search for the name of the sailor brought up more hits,[4], but apart from contemporary news sources (WP:NOTNEWS) the majority of coverage of this incident appears to be in Japanese far-right publications. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed my response to JoshuSasori and his further responses to me. This discussion is not about me, or whether I like the article or not (or whether JoshuSasori likes the article or not). Can we please focus on the issues here? elvenscout742 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:JoshuSasori -- POV is not in itself reason to delete the article, but my point was that the incident appears to be only discussed in news sources of the time and unreliable right-wing propaganda pieces. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a personal attack, because if I have a personal bias either way it is in favour of Japan. Arguments were being made over how the article could be improved with reference to reliable, less-biased sources, but it seems none are likely to show up, and even if they do they do not lend notability to the topic. Merging may be a feasible option, but if we put it into Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) we would face massive issues with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE because any reference to it would imply that it was one of the contributing causes of the war.
Re:Phoenix7777 -- I noticed those earlier, but several of them seem to be the far-right propaganda pieces I was talking about. The kyūjitai used in several of them makes them difficult to read, as well, but most of them do not give significant coverage to the incident. No one is actually arguing that there was no shooting or that someone named Tomomitsu Taminato was killed, but the article being based entirely on far-right propaganda is and will remain problematic.
elvenscout742 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? It seems all the "reliable sources" at [7] are contemporary news sources, and don't lend legitimacy to the subject as a topic of historical research. I am not sure why [8] claims about 307 results, because only 25 results are actually accessible. Of these, several are contemporary news sources. And again, no one is actually arguing over whether the event took place; the argument is over whether it has been covered in enough reliable, impartial sources to be justified as an independent article. No serious historian claims this incident as a significant contributing factor to the breakout of war between Japan and China, but the article was clearly created with that intent; it is also based principally on the far-right ramblings of Mr. Watanabe. POV-pushers may defend this and similar articles, but why is that a reason for us to keep them? WP:SOAPBOX is pretty clear that Wikipedia cannot be used for the promotion of a particular point of view. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing whatsoever in the above statement by me which is a personal attack, on you or anyone else. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read your above comment. You ignored my argument for deletion and speculated on my motives by insinuating that I want to see the article deleted just because I don't like what it says. This article's problem is a lack of reliable sources that give it significant, impartial coverage in Japanese, Chinese or English. In this context, linking to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is clearly a personal attack. It's not like I am trying to get Wikipedia policy changed in order to ban all articles on the Sino-Japanese War that are written from a Japanese point of view -- this is in fact the only time in recent memory I have touched such an article. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, linking to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a pointer to an argument which is better not to use in "Articles for Deletion". See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions It's a common shorthand on these discussions and I use it regularly in "Articles for Deletion" discussions. I invite you to read the document rather than deciding on its contents based solely on its name. I would also like to extend the same invitation to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, two more documents you don't seem to have read, but merely guessed at their contents from the names alone. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... Let's calm down here guys. This is not Call of Duty. We need to focus on whether or not this topic id notable enough. Although the article does seemed to be biased, that's not a good enough reason for deletion. However, the lack of English sources covering this is indeed bothering me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry did I say something wrong? I am trying to be as reasonable as I can about this. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You completely ignored my arguments and made a personal attack against me. Accusing me of making a bad argument when I made no such argument (I never said anything about whether I like this article or not). Please stop and try to focus on whether or not there are enough reliable sources to justify this page's existence as an independent article. The problem is that all of the sources currently cited, and apparently all the sources in existence that give significant coverage to the topic, are blatant propaganda/fringe. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you gain by repeatedly stating that I am making personal attacks on you, on this and various other pages. It is entirely obvious to anyone with the stamina to read these discussions that I have not made a personal attack on you, anywhere, on any page on Wikipedia, let alone in the above. Further, having read all of your arguments, my response was to point out that you seem to have misunderstood what "reliable sources" means in the context of a Wikipedia discussion. Coincidentally, you seem to have misunderstood or not actually read a multitude of other writings which I have endeavoured to direct you towards. If it is not too great a burden on your schedule, could I make so bold as to request that you make a further attempt to read these various documents, and if you do have any trouble understanding them, then please ask on the appropriate Wikipedia forum where I am sure that a kind volunteer will explain matters. Very regretfully, my attempt to help you by pointing at and quoting from these documents has failed to assist. It pains me greatly that I cannot suggest anything else for you to do, because I am certain that your refusal to read these documents is the cause of your multitudinous calamities, and I do not see how I can be of any service to you unless you yourself choose to enlighten yourself more exhaustively through a more exacting and rigorous perusal. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the issue at hand and stop tying to bring in outside disputes. The extreme lack of any kind of significant coverage of this event in any sources outside of Japanese far-right propaganda is troubling. (Would I be right in guessing that you don't read Japanese and therefore can't successfully analyze Japanese sources?) Both WP:RS and WP:V specify that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. WP:NOTNEWS also specifies that a single event that was covered (no matter how widely) in news media at the time but that had no broader historical significance is inappropriate for an independent article. (Although I actually really like FutureTrillionaire's suggestion of creating a list of some kind and mentioning this event there.) All ten of the "English sources" mentioned below are contemporary news reports. Most of them, though in English, appear to still just be Japanese propaganda -- Manchuria Daily News and Tokyo Gazette are the most obvious examples. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to know how to reply to you, since you seem to think that it is OK to ignore what I say, and what the documents say, and just go on spouting words like "reliable sources" and "exceptional claims" as if you are waving a magic wand around, or perhaps simply throwing out as much jargon as possible in the hope of confusing people. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • inclining delete If this were important, it shouldn't be hard to find English language secondary sources which testify to that, given that Japan's path to WW II has been the subject of a lot of American scrutiny. The fact that the sources are all primary Japanese documents tends to support the implication given in the conclusion that this event didn't have significant consequences of itself, though a later similar incident did. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the arguments I provided above. This has nothing to do with my likes and dislikes. If I had a personal bias, it would be in favour of this article, since Japan is my second home and has been very nice to me for the last several years; I have never been to China. This article only exists to support a POV/fringe theory, and no reliable sources can be found that cover the topic. (Far-right propaganda that push this as an excuse to blame China for the war are not reliable sources.) elvenscout742 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a great time-saver for all of us, if you would go and read what is meant by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps you did not notice that this is a wikilink to a document which explains in detail. Here is the information from that page:

This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.) In fact, by the Law of Chance, everything will have likes and dislikes.

JoshuSasori (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete, if merge is not possible - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and propaganda are not the problems here. Murders happen all the time and many are covered by news and other sources. Obviously, Wikipedia can't cover every murder case that has been mentioned by sources. Right now I'm not entirely convinced that this incident is notable, compared with other murder cases. The fact that there's no English sources mentioning this incident makes me question its notability. Is it possible to merge this somewhere? Maybe create a new article for a list of Japanese sailors murdered in China/abroad? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of English sources is because the topic is only discussed by far-right, anti-Chinese "scholars" in Japan. The current English article is a straight translation of the Japanese one, which was written primarily based on a single source (Mr. Watanabe), entirely by one user, who seems to largely limit himself to posting anti-Chinese and anti-Korean POV to various articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although your suggestion of a list of Japanese sailors murdered abroad seems interesting... elvenscout742 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "lack of English sources" is a ground for deletion. Wikipedia articles can be sourced to foreign language materials. Deleting articles just because there is no English-language information about them will result in systematic bias. The proposer says that the Japanese-language materials don't meet reliable source criteria, but he/she has not made clear to me at least, why he/she thinks so, it just seems to be a hand-waving argument. The reliable source criteria don't discriminate on the grounds of politics of the author. The factual accuracy of the sources doesn't seem to be in debate. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Several" is a bit too strong a word for these: all but one of those is a contemporary news source from 1936-7. The two "Japanese Propaganda"s[9][10] from 2004 are just reprints of 1930s news/propaganda sources; three[11][12][13] also seem to be the same source. ("English" is also a bit of a stretch for [14] -- it's almost unintelligible.)
Basically, no one here is arguing that the event didn't happen, and I have already admitted that it received coverage in Japanese (and probably Chinese) news sources at the time. But Wikipedia is not news, and if we are going to include a full historical retrospective we need reliable sources... elvenscout742 (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Forgot this one.) [15], although I can't see much of it, also appears to be nothing more than a collection of reprints of reports of contemporary goings-on in Shanghai. (The snippet I can read is written in the present tense.) This means that all ten (really eight, since three are duplicates) sources linked to above are contemporary news sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea - Thanks for the English sources Phoenix7777. It looks like the incident described in the article was not the only murder of a Japanese in Shanghai prior to the war. A lot of these sources list several similar incidents. Something we could do is make a new article that lists these incidents, and the Taminato incident can be included as one of them. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like this solution, although given that the English sources are all still propaganda I wonder about the notability of the other incidents as well. Can we get input from a Chinese Wikipedian with a knowledge of this area? Even if we make a list, we still face the problem that the only sources still basically say Those dastardly Chinese killing our boys in blue, we really should teach them a lesson... Any attempt to write a historical-critical analysis of these events would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR, but including the stories as is would be a violation of WP:NPOV.
Although, this might be my misinterpretation of "list". Are you suggesting we make this page into a redirect to, say, List of Japanese military personnel killed in pre-War China, and just list off all their names? Because that seems reasonable enough.
(By the way, your previous suggestion included the word "murdered" -- this seems problematic and I think would be better changed to "killed".)
Anyway, all-in-all good idea! :D elvenscout742 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on Phoenix7777 and Elvenscout742's research, it seems like the only way this topic could be made into an article would be in an article about killings of Japanese military personnel before 1937, but it seems that that article would only be notable because of the way such killings are cited by writers of certain political persuasions as causes of the outbreak of the war - and such an article can only be made into an encyclopaedic one if there are neutral sources that give a fair assessment of such arguments. If such arguments are simply ignored by the mainstream, then it would be difficult to see how they are sufficiently notable for any article. In any case, that is already straying far from the current article, and it is difficult to see based on Phoenix7777 and Elvenscout742's research how the current article can be researched - hence my "delete" vote. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's only one original secondary source that we can use for this incident, and that's a extremist revisionist. Other scholars of the period seem to ignore this incident, so there aren't enough resources to build a neutral article. Shrigley (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that my above comment was not to change my vote from delete to merge, but to show my approval for FutureTrillionaire's attempt to find a middle ground. My stance that this article is entirely propagandistic/not-backable-up by reliable sources has not changed, and I still think this article should be deleted. If reliable sources can be found for other shootings at a later date, then maybe Taminato can be mentioned, but keeping this page for the content is pointless, since almost none of it could be salvaged and it is all on Japanese Wikipedia anyway (and I don't want to get into a deletion debate over there). elvenscout742 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some English sources do mention this incident along with other similar ones. But they don't go into detail, so it would be difficult to make that new list article I suggested. At this point, delete is probably the easiest option.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a standalone article. The topic is relatively close to absent from reliable secondary sources to make it into a proper-established and notable subject for a neutral article (in contrast to pushing some view). --Cold Season (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find myself in agreement with editors such as User:PalaceGuard008's thinking on this matter. The killing of Japanese personnel in the run up to the Sino-Japanese war may be notable material within an article on the causes of the war, and views on the personnel may be notable material within an article on the modern perspective of the relations between the countries, but I don't see the evidence that this single incident is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Nobody is suggesting deleting Florence Owens Thompson. The people suggesting this should be deleted are basing their arguments merely on the right-wing nature of the sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop repeating the same tired arguments that I have already refuted. I and numerous other users have demonstrated that this article should be deleted because no reliable sources exist. Right-wing or left-wing, we need reliable sources written by reputable historians that give significant coverage to this event. None can be found. Your Thompson argument is a clear-cut case of WP:OSE. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. In the long run, the best solution probably is an article on the serial murders of Japanese officials, civilians, and military personnel that took place in China mostly in 1935 and 1936. I've seen the assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato mentioned specifically in a number of history books that qualify as secondary sources, including by mainstream historians like Usui Kasumi and Kojima Noboru. However, the incident is always put in the context of the spree murders that took place during this period, which were orchestrated by Chinese "patriots" who were taking matters into their own hands due to their government's inaction towards Japanese encroachments. Among them were "the king of assassins" Wang Yaqiao who was behind this particular event among others. However, as Kojima Noboru notes, the Chinese government did take the assassination seriously and their army was put on a war footing in case the incident were to escalate.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the idea I had in mind. If I had some good English sources, I would make the article my self. I'm guessing the article would be in list format. The title would probably be something like Killings of Japanese nationals in China (1935–1936). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This incident was very widely reported in media at the time, not just in Japanese but in English as well (for instance, " SHANGHAI AREA OCCUPIED BY JAPANESE NAVAL FORCE AFTER KILLING OF A SAILOR" in the New York Times, "Japanese Declare Martial Law Over Big Shanghai Area" in the Christian Science Monitor, and " MARTIAL LAW IN SHANGHAI" in the Daily Boston Globe, plus at least a half dozen articles in the English-language China Monthly Review and articles in the Far Eastern Review). A number of previous commentators mentioned that the incident is poorly attested in English secondary sources, but that is only true of the historical literature, not in the media of the time which treated the incident very seriously. (Note, however, that many sources either didn't name the sailor killed or else erroneously called him Asamitsu Taminato) Regarding the historical literature though, it is true that most of the accounts mentioning this event have been written in Japanese. This is actually all the more reason why this article or a merged version of it should remain. Although well attested in Japanese secondary sources, people who can't read Japanese should also have the benefit of being able to learn about this event. Unfortunately, I'm not in Japan right now and I myself won't have access to the secondary source literature required to expand this article for at least several months. The university where I am at the moment doesn't carry the China Monthly Review either so I'm limited in what I can do at this precise moment. What I propose is that we either keep this article as it is for now, or else we simply re-juggle the information already within this article in order to create the new article.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are several American newspapers that picked up on this story:[16]. However, these news articles provide very little details, making me more convinced that an article about the series of incidents is more appropriate.
On a separate note, none of the news reports use the term "assassination". They seem to just use generic term "killing". Per WP:commonname I think we should move this article to Killing of Tomomitsu Taminato or Death of Tomomitsu Taminato.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with the proposed move. Japanese sources just refer to it as an "incident" and rarely use the word "暗殺"(assassination). Of course that is typical in the well-attested Japanese tradition of excessive vagueness. As noted in the article, this killing, just like all similar killings of the period, was a targeted assassination. This one being a hit ordered by professional assassin Wang Yaqiao.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still irrelevant whether American news sources reported on this event when it first happened, since Wikipedia is not a news outlet. It is also worth noting that all comments made here before CurtisNaito's above mention of the New York Times (etc.) were referring to "English-language" "news" sources printed in Japan or Manchukuo. The historical significance of this event has clearly been blown completely out of proportion by modern Japanese rightists (I can't tell exactly, but I'd be willing to bet this all occurred in the last 20 years). This Wikipedia article therefore can only possibly be based on very old news sources, mostly from publications that are no longer in print, and on extreme right-wing propaganda that is only available in Japanese. I understand that a lack of reliable sources in English is almost a given for most topics of Japanese and/or Chinese interest, and have voted in favour of keeping articles that relied on non-English sources in the past, but this is about reliability more than anything else. No significant changes have been made to either the English or Japanese versions of this page since ja:User:Chichiii wrote it "based principally on the writings of Mr. Shōichi Watanabe". elvenscout742 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is NOT based principally on the writings of Shoichi Watanabe. Watanabe is only cited twice, and both of those citations are within the "Background" section and thus not directly related to the assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato. If necessary, we could remove Watanabe from the article entirely and it would not change much. The two secondary sources which actually are consulted regarding the assassination were written by Noboru Kojima and Frederic Wakeman, who are not extreme rightists. The only real problem with the article is its over-reliance on documents instead of secondary sources, but that can be changed in time. Unfortunately I only have a few books and newspaper records on hand right now, but I'll do what I can today with what is available to me to tidy up the article and replace the primary sources. This assassination was clearly notable because, as the article mentions, it caused an international crisis and war scare.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is about as good as I can do with what I had on hand. The sources are newspaper articles, but it seems to me that this does not fall within the "Wikipedia is not a news outlet" clause. This clause was intended to prevent the creation of articles relating to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which would not include an event like this involving an assassination, a massive troop deployment, and the military occupation of a city. Even so, there's still a lot more that can be added to the article but I'll need to get to the University of Washington sometime later this year and consult their library in order to fill in the gaps. As stated earlier though, I'm open to merging this information at a later date into a broader article, but to write it decently will require more data than what I have at the moment. Most of the assassinations that took place during this period have their own articles on Japanese Wikipedia and I had been considering translating all of them sometime in the future, but to avoid future disputes over notability it might be better to merge them all into a single article for English Wikipedia. At any rate, for the time being I think it is clear that this assassination is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia in some form.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the talk page comment by the article's author to which I linked above. He/she clearly stated that the article is based principally on Watanabe's writings. It is possible that he/she found other sources after the fact and WP:SYNTHesized them to say the same things as Watanabe does. Or maybe they already do, in which case they probably are a bit too far over the extreme fringe edge to count as reliable sources. If the reason this event has been covered in sources (which ones written after 1937, though?) is that it was a direct cause of a large buildup of Japanese troops in the area, shouldn't the troop surge be the subject of the article, with the fact that a few Japanese sailors were murdered being mentioned as background? elvenscout742 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could call it the "Taminato Incident", which was one of a few names the Japanese government used to describe it, a characterisically vague name similar to Manchurian Incident or February 26 Incident. I will change the article to mention the troop deployment in the introduction of the article, but I think the organization is okay as it is. As it stands, the background of the article refers to the string of attacks that led up to the fateful assassination, the assassination itself, and the ensuing occupation of Shanghai and war scare. One could compare it to the article entitled Berlin Blockade, which mentions the division of post-war Germany, and then the blockade which subsequently sparked the Berlin Airlift. Furthemore, I doubt it was ever true that Shoichi Watanabe was the principal source of the article's information, and I suspect the author's article only said that to add legitimacy to his collection of primary source documents. At any rate, other secondary sources like Kojima Noboru's well-regarded multi-volume history of the Sino-Japanese conflict describe the assassination itself. I did get a hold this book recently and it appears that the article's description of its content is generally accurate, though next week I'll make some minor changes to the assassination section based off it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_of_Tomomitsu_Taminato&oldid=533180199"