Talk:Inejirō Asanuma

YouTube video

Uh...IMHO, I do not think it might be a good idea to have a video of his death displayed via the youtube link. What do yall think? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In general video links are discouraged on Wikipedia (see #8 at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided). I took the link out, and put that reference in the edit summary. Neier 12:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks a bunch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UT

It's Back

And it ought to be. It's preserved history, and seeing it unfold in motion is every bit as profound as a still shot. If anyone leveled an argument against the video on a moral and maturity level, one should keep in mind that "morals" are subjective, and all Wiki users should, on good faith, be considered mature by default until they prove otherwise. In any event, you don't take something away from all when your beef is only with the few. Jersey John (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Should include name of the assassin in the Lede.

As both persons are noteworthy.2605:6000:6947:AB00:C4C5:C9EE:D9CC:FC12 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

ROC vs PRC

This edit restores an explanation of the distinction between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China that I don't think is necessary. For our purposes, the issue is simply that Asanuma was a fan of Mao Zedong's China. When Taipei's claim to the whole of China is relevant, the usual solution is to call it "Nationalist China." I have never seen a published source use the terms "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" as a way to distinguish between countries. I see this as an example of "Wikipediaspeak" that may confuse readers. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Newton source is unreliable.

Upon cross checking with other sources, I found that the Newton source is full of numerous egregious errors and bald mis-statements of fact, even in just a few short paragraphs. It is entirely unreliable and all citations to it must be considered suspect and removed. I will attempt to replace these citations with citations to more reliable sources, adding corrected information. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have completed a major expansion with citations to much more reliable sources. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Buzzfeed-like

This article reads like a Buzzfeed page. It's obviously not objective (I know you already know this), for example how it casually says he was modest, hardworking and "respected by fellow lawmakers" and not even trying to back it up with a source. --31.201.177.82 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure what this IP user is upset about. That line is immediately supported by a cited quotation of a moving speech about Asanuma by a lawmaker from the opposing party and the positive reaction to the speech. Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV language

I placed the template on the top of the page; this is particularly due to the Legacy section. Some of the language goes a bit far in engaging in analysis in Wikipedia's voice, which goes against WP:NPOV. Furthermore, some of the language is overly flowery and can be replaced with plainer language. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have removed flowerly language and replaced with plainer language. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)