Talk:Shinzo Abe

On Christianism

On June 3, 2018, Abe declared that Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region "convey the “shape” of a faith that is unique to Japan and they are truly unparalleled worldwide as heritage of humankind." (source: japan.kantei.go.jp).

The current WP article has a brief concern on a bill to encourage nationalism and a "love for one's country and hometown" among the Japanese youth. Nothing is said on his engagement for the restoration of the freedom of religion after a plurisecular ban of Christianism.Philosopher81sp (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Philosopher81sp: The ban on Christianity was lifted more than 80 years before Abe was born. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It was a misspelling. Pertaining to the WP article, I would like to say the lack of "engagement for the restoration of the freedom of religion after a plurisecular ban of Christianism." Around 100 years ago, it started a process culminating in a "nationalistic" recognition of the Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region as an UNESCO heritage. If it was relevant for the political career of the former premier, it was much les relevant for the freedom of Christians in Japan. japan.kantei.go.jp can be eventually mentioned in Abe's past and political biography.Philosopher81sp (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not only was the specific ban on Christianity lifted in the 1870s, but Japan has had freedom of religion enshrined in its constitution since before Abe was born as well. Yes, Abe along with other Japanese nationalists, and even non-nationalistic Japanese, like it when UNESCO registers Japanese sites on the World Heritage list, but I really don't see how that has anything to do with "freedom of Christians in Japan" or even how it could be reasonably incorporated into this article without a reliable source third-party specifically addressing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a connection between the slowly ongoing freedom of religion in Japan and the accidental massacre of one of the most numerous Christian communion existing in Japan during the Second World War. I've just added a concern in Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region and I agree modestly it not a basic aspect of the Abe's biography. Not having enough sources available, it needs yet to be demonstrated. Thanks for your patient replies.Philosopher81sp (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

remove the image of trump from a page about Shinzo Abe Aham1234 (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Why do you want this removed? @Aham1234. Seagull123 Φ 09:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why should the image be removed? I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or the other, but a request to remove content should be supported with data that helps us decide whether the image should be removed or not. @Aham1234. Jurisdicta (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Japanese name order

Hasn't it been English custom to write Japanese surnames after given names at least since post war times, though the Japanese do not follow this and have been trying to get it changed (surname before). And from what I can see we are following that standard here on enwiki as well (given name, surname/family name); why then were move discussions allowed to possibly create an exception here? Also, can someone point me to the guidelines for Japanese naming conventions on enwiki. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I came across the WP:JTITLE MOS guideline for Japanese names, contains details about historical/present persons. In the end WP:COMMONNAME seems to be the main fallback for more popular personalities. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

One of the reasons it has been common English custom is that, until recently, it was also the practice of the Japanese government to use given name first in any English-language documents. But this was changed in the past year, so that now most English-language publications are suddenly using a different order than Japanese documents. The Economist is the most prominent English-language publication I know of that has also switched the order, and you can see their reasoning and some historical context here. But most English publications still use given name first: BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, US State Dept, etc. As for what Wikipedia should do, I think you could make valid arguments either way: Shinzo Abe is more commonly used, but Abe Shinzo is technically correct and aligns with official Japanese usage due to the recent change. --Shmarrighan (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: The examples listed at WP:COMMONNAME are all cases like Bono, where one name is very well-known among a large portion of our readership and the other is quite different and very obscure. I should think the vast majority of our readers and editors would accept that it doesn't apply to things like Japanese politicians' names being given in Japanese or "western" order where the identity of one with the other is self-evident. Far more important, I should say, is internal consistency both within this article (most of the people named in the article's opening section were dead decades before the Japanese government recently changed its policy on Japanese people's names written in English documents) and with our other related articles (no member of any of Abe's cabinets, nor any other prime minister in the last 40 years excepting the present one, has been covered by international popular media on a significant scale since the switchover, and so COMMONNAME couldn't be asserted even if it did apply to naming order). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shmarrighan: Didn't know about the recent change by the Japanese government, thanks for letting me know. @Hijiri88: When referring to COMMONNAME I meant the general order in English publications (though that wasn't probably the right policy to cite). The WP:JTITLE still stands I guess and for that to change most English-language publications will have to as well (which probably isn't happening anytime soon). Gotitbro (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume that by the "that" in for that to change you mean the general policy of JTITLE, and not its application to this article, right? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in lead contested by User:新世界へ

In diff 1003950766, 新世界へ removed the following sentence from the lead:

He is a member of Nippon Kaigi and holds negationist views on Japanese history, including denying the role of government coercion in the recruitment of comfort women during World War II, a position which has created tension with neighboring South Korea.

They gave the following edit summary:

removed relatively unimportant sentence in the lead that is covered in greater detail in the article body.

One problem with this edit, as I pointed out in my revert of 新世界へ's edit, is that it isn't a good editorial decision and the reasoning provided does not cohere with Wikipedia's editorial standards. Per WP:LEAD:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. ... The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article.

Per WP:CREATELEAD:

The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. ... If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight.

Since the article has an 8-paragraph subsection which covers Abe's views on history, it makes sense for the lead to have a sentence on it too, as the lead is meant to reflect the article's contents. An 8-paragraph subsection cannot be hastily dismissed as a relatively unimportant sentence in lieu of community consensus. Furthermore, the fact that the topic is covered in greater detail in the article body is a reason to include the sentence rather than exclude it, since the very goal of the lead is to summarize content that is covered in greater detail in the article body; thus, the reasoning provided by 新世界へ does not hold up and in fact works against their edit.

Another problem with the edit is that it affects the POV. A common criticism of Abe is criticism over his views on history, as reflected in the coverage given in the article itself. Thus, this type of sentence should not be unilaterally removed without adequate consensus.

In diff 1007787353, 新世界へ provides the following response to my objection based on WP:LEAD:

misinterpretation of WP:LEAD

新世界へ needs to elaborate on how I have misinterpreted WP:LEAD. Until then, their edits do not appear to be justified by good editorial judgment. --Jancarcu (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)