Talk:Kozo Iizuka

Edit war over Japanese version of this article.

In the Japanese wikipedia article on Iizuka Kozo, all the information about the car accident and sequelae has been deleted, and the article has been locked until 2020.03.07. The lockdown was reported on September 25, 2020 by The Asahi Shimbun. The Japanese wikipedia article on Iizuka Kozo also lacks a link to the article on the Higashi-Ikebukuro runaway car accident, and that article, also locked after all references to the name of Iizuka Kouzou had been removed: stating only that the accident was caused by "a former technical official of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry" (通商産業省の元技官). (Beginning with the fourth paragraph, the Asahi article is behind a paywall.) Vagabond nanoda (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

hi.I’m Japanese Wikipedian. That is because it was agreed within the Japanese Wikipedia based on an Japanese Wikipedia policy. --舌先現象になります (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any type of deletion or removal of references to the car accident. Japanese wikipedia standards and/or consensus should not be directly transposed here. User 舌先現象になります should refrain from taking any unilateral action to remove information on the controversy. Closedspace808 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I also oppose any type of deletion or removal of references to the car accident or to the reports on Japanese Wikipedia doing so. This is not Japanese Wikipedia, and Japanese Wikipedians such as users 舌先現象になります and ネイ should refrain from acting like it is. 2404:2D00:5000:841:2D81:6889:C485:FB68 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that 舌先現象になります is one of the users involved in the controversy on the Japanese wikipedia page, where he was supporting the removing of information on the accident. His removal of information on the controversy is clearly inappropriate: He claims WP:SRTA, even though third party news sources including a major news outlet (Asahi Shimbun) are cited. 126.245.198.195 (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• The current blurb in the article seems WP:UNDUE. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to draw attention to how user ネイ previously removed a large amount of information regarding the Japanese Wikipedia edit war (which I have restored). It has been reported in the media (see the Slate article) that Japanese Wikipedia is suffering from a problem of bias caused by a small number of administrators silencing opposing views, and user ネイ is an administrator on Japanese Wikipedia. I think it should be very clear that they cannot provide a neutral viewpoint and should not be editing this article. Like previous edits by 舌先現象になります, these seem to be clear bad faith edits by Japanese Wikipedia users trying to push an agenda. 2404:2D00:5000:841:2D81:6889:C485:FB68 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with edit ban proposals where the only basis is the user being an administrator on jawiki, as well as with bad faith assumptions when the reasons of the edits are stated in the edit summary. ネイ (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Slate article

Because I have been asked to comment on the talk page, I want to explain why I don't agree with the inclusion of the Slate article in this article (Thanks chlod btw). The Slate article shines a light on the problems of the Japanese Wikipedia, with a particular focus on "historical revisionism" in some of Jawiki's more contentious articles. However, Slate does not mention or allude to Kozo Iizuka in any shape or form, and it would stretch many people's definition of "historical revisionism" to include the Iizuka article (which is pretty much a current event). It may be true that "Japanese Wikipedia, [...], is run by a few dozen administrators who use neutrality as an excuse to push bias on topics and silence editors with opposing views", and that the same forces were at play in the Iizuka article on Japanese Wikipedia, but the Slate article does not make this connection and to imply otherwise is a violation of WP:SYNTH and should be removed. (Let me state for the record that I am deeply appreciative of the Slate article existing and the efforts to push against the status quo on Jawiki.) _dk (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion to resolve edit war

I have repeatedly mentioned the reason of my revert as "Remove original research - WP:NOTSOAPBOX". Please, if anyone is reverting my revert, give some reasoning as to why it does not violate NOTSOAPBOX. WP:OWN or "bring anything from Japanese Wikipedia" is not a valid refute to NOTSOAPBOX. If there is no reply to this thread, then I do not expect my next edit (after a week or more) to be reverted. (Ping: User:113.29.11.202, User:2404:2d00:5000:841:80e0:2e22:b0d1:6e95, User:Shizuha Nakano) ネイ (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please explain what is NOTSOAPBOX in these sentences? You do not persuade everyone, edit does not stop.--Shizuha Nakano (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it in another way - please provide a quote from the source that supports the edit in Special:Diff/1018696677, since it appears likely that the sentence is based on original research, instead of based on the provided source. A justification is also needed for the removal of {{Subscription required}}. ネイ (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added more sources to support the statements in the paragraph. Your removal of information on how the page was protected is verifiably wrong and was already covered in the sources before (ウィキペディアは編集不可能状態). 2404:2D00:5000:841:59F8:4B44:59D7:DC15 (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

They all appear to be unreliable sources. motokenblog.com is a personal blog, niconews55.com, johosokuhou.com, okeihannsroom.net, and yoshidakenkou.net are all curation sites with questionable editorial oversight. Also, how do news sources published in Sep/Oct 2020 prove "As of January 31st, 2021, the page remains protected"? ネイ (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Since there are no further explanations provided, I removed the unreliable sources added by 2404:2d00:5000:841:59f8:4b44:59d7:dc15, removed "As of January 31st, 2021, the page remains protected" as it failed verification, and added back {{Subscription required}} as no one disagreed. ネイ (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shizuha Nakano: Since the discussion above should be considered closed now, I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing. Thanks. ネイ (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC).

How many killed and injured in the accident?

How many were killed and injured in the accident? I found three different numbers for the people injured from two articles on 2021-09-23:

1. The "Higashi-Ikebukuro runaway car accident" article says, "The car he was driving ... hit several people on a pedestrian crossing, killing two ... and injuring 12... ."
2. The lede to this article on Kozo Iizuka says, "he killed a woman and her child ... and injured nine pedestrians".
3. The section on "Higashi-Ikebukuro runaway car accident and trial" in this article on him says he "killed a mother and daughter ..., injured eight others at a pedestrian crossing, and his wife, who was riding with him."

How many were injured? (1) 12 or (2) 9 pedestrians or (3) 8 pedestrians plus "his wife, who was riding with him" (and therefore NOT a pedestrian).

Given the controversy about this, I think it would be unwise for me to try to fix this. However, at most one of the three versions I just mentioned can be correct. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The articles were corrected already; for readers' benefit, the correct answer is: 2 pedestrian died, 8 pedestrians were injured, Iizuka's wife was injured, and Iizuka himself was also injured. (1) probably added all these up; (2) mistook Iizuka's wife as a pedestrian. ネイ (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)