Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi

message: To avoid having the same discussion in several different sections.
I would have thought it very obvious why a violent neo-fascist organisation fawning over a violent ultranationalist is relevant, especially when he is fawned over by other violent far-right fellow travellers. If there is any issue with the description of the far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist Proud Boys, I suggest you head over to Talk:Proud Boys and seek consensus to change that article first. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly relevant to his legacy that he's still idolised by fascists over 60 years later. FDW777 (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not relevant to mention in his legacy whenever someone idolises him, fascist or not. Again, you need to provide better sources if it was a prominent event relevant to his legacy. Corroborating two sources that briefly mention the event in passing, then superimposing a definition of the Proud Boys to make the point understandable to the reader makes this original research and completely irrelevant to the article. Lightbloom (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try the WSJ, The Week or the Japan Times too. FDW777 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources add nothing more. If they did, they would have been used in the article. It's relevant to the legacy of the Proud Boys, not to this article. Lightbloom (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely irrelevant to the legacy of the Proud Boys and 100% relevant to the legacy of Yamaguchi. Your argument is not cogent. JesseRafe (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised several points why it's not relevant. Can you address any? Lightbloom (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic premise you are arguing is faulty, e.g. not demonstrating an understanding of the meaning of the word "legacy" to be for historic callbacks and influences over time not contemporary happenings. Further your argument about the sources not discussing it is inane as, yes, the sources are more about the melee after it, but the reenactment of event is the sine qua non of the melee. It's basically but for causation and doesn't need to be deeply covered in the source to detail the original happening: it's just factual reporting that it was what was being reenacted at that time. It's part of the legacy here due to the indisputable influence on these later events there. Insisting it's the legacy of the Proud Boys is nonsensical. As a reminder, the way this works is you have to show consensus for your view to alter the article. Saying "you're not addressing my points" when they have been clearly addressed by two editors and then continuing to move the goalposts as you're responded to is not how consensus is built. JesseRafe (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's political discourse, not legacy. It's a skit done by a provocateur that caused controversy, which is the only reason it is documented. To include it here with such detail is clearly irrelevant. The sources contribute nothing to how Yamaguchi's legacy is perceived, only to how the Proud Boys are perceived.  Lightbloom (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: His father couldn't have been a member of the JDSF in the 40s because it wasnt formed until the mid fifties, post WW2. His father would have been in the Imperial Japanese Army. Please edit to correct this. 159.196.13.219 (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSDF 

message: Remove parentheses before citation 16 stating that Proud Boys are a Neo-nazi group. Biased and unfounded subjective information. 2603:7080:4E3C:17FD:103D:3BB4:2E61:1688 (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Pretty well covered at Proud Boys Cannolis (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022 

message: Hello, There's a grammar mistake in the Imprisonment and Suicide section. The "2 November" should read, "the 2nd of November." 
Thanks 211.19.16.88 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: "2 November" is the correct rendering of the second day of November per the Manual of Style. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022 

message: @Ash-Gaar
I do still have a problem with the 2 uses of "newspapers" in a row, how do you think this should be changed? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @DarmaniLink, the way you fixed it now seems fine to me! Thanks for all your good work! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some wording things 

message: This book here
 山口二矢供述調書: 社会党委員長浅沼稲次郎刺殺事件
 ISBN-10
 488656349X
 ISBN-13
 9784886563491
It's basically his entire case file, along with every bit of testimony have gave to police.
Do you know where I might be able to find a public record of this? I kinda would rather not spend $10 on a kindle book DarmaniLink (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential gold mine to improve this article with content inappropriate for the assassination page 

message: Do you think we should use a photograph of him, and move the current photo to the assassination section? @Ash-Gaar
Looking at John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, that seems to be the standard. 
Asking for your opinion on what you think would look best, most of the photos (mostly on Aikokuto's website) I could find look a bit glamorizing. Do you know if there's a mugshot we could use? DarmaniLink (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think the current photo is fine. Anything else would be glamorizing, I fear. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my only concern was that this article had a lot of overlap with the assassination article, and changing the photo from the one used in the assassination article seems like a good way to finish separating them. I'm trying to think of a way to do this without detracting from him being a terrorist. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of yamaguchi 

message: I fully intend on getting this article all the way up to GA status, and took inspiration from some other GA articles, however, the current layout makes it look like he's someone who did something positive and is being quoted beyond the encyclopedic scope of just documenting what he said.
1. How do we fix this, or should we leave this as is? If you think anything should be worded differently, feel free to make changes. If it's going to require a structural change, leave a suggestion below.
2. What else should be done before submitting this for review, so we don't waste someone's time with a GA likely to be declined? DarmaniLink (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Getting this to GA status without glamorization