Talk:Shinzo Abe

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,^[1] including denying the role of government coercion in the recruitment of comfort women during World War II,^[2] a position which has created tension with neighboring South Korea.^[3][4]

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)

To accurately reflect the Japanese spelling of the name, and to be consistent with other Japanese politicians on Wikipedia, we should move this page. Pages such as Aso taro's, sato eisaku's, and kono taro contain the accent mark (ō.)

I tried to fix this myself and failed, so I might have accidentally messed some stuff up (check my history) and i wanted to bring it to the talk page to discuss this instead of doing it myself. apologies again. CringeButSerious (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see this archived discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course at this moment this is not a pressing matter, but something I noted when looking at the article. The photograph of Abe at the head of the "Honors, awards and international recognition" section lists him as being alongside "Gurtnyyaz Nurlyyewic Hanmyradow"; this individual, per Google, is "rector of Rector of Turkmen State University named after Magtymguly", but is certainly not a notable enough individual to be listed merely by name. "Abe with the Rector of Turkmen State University" would be a better caption, giving as it does the relevant information. The fact that the evidently not particularly notable man's name is featured prominently in the lead at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_State_University almost makes this seem like a vanity edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.165.109 (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Abe government and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Abe government until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify. 70.59.6.75 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Both. He was a conservative Japanese nationalist and a membe of the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). It is not the Democratic Party (United States), if that's the source of confusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It is typical for people to project their own national politics onto the rest of the world. In the United States for example, it is assumed that "liberal" and "democratic" mean "far left" while in most other countries that is a center-right position, and it is social democrats who hold the center-left, socialists who hold the left, and communists who hold the far left. Only in the United States is the dual-party bourgeois dictatorship so thoroughly solidified that it is unthinkable there could be anything further to the left of... the American Democratic party. In any case, Shinzo Abe was a conservative Japanese Nationalist, a political ideal that finds itself perfectly at home in his political party. Iemeuph3Lahhe4vee9wa0shaeshaelei4xeecakiesha9ThaiN (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd characterize Abe's death as a murder, and I'd want us to say that here. I feel that calling this an assassination is somehow dignifying the murder/murderer, and taking into account too much the murderer's beliefs/policies. I can understand using the term "assassination" if you take down a brutal warlord, say, or a head of state who's leading a genocide or in some other way doing significant harm to the world (Trump or Putin, perhaps). But this was the senseless murder of a peaceful, cultured, positive, and intelligent person. Please let's not try to assign, or seem to be assigning, any sense to it. Just my 2c. 2601:600:8500:6A40:847F:75CE:2F25:7C61 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

How you would characterize it is irrelevant. We characterize it as WP:RS characterize it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to look up the definition of assassination, other IP. It doesn't imply somehow justified motives on the assassin's behalf, more often the opposite actually. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:545D:C475:40CA:7F36 (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Practically disagree. We have an opposite case in Czech, we want to call the "assassination of Reinhard Heydrich" not the assassination as this is defined clearly as an act of "murder of a prominent or important person", but as the act of war, the killing of a legitimate military target. Those who did it, are heroes, not villains. In my opinion, assassination gives not or should not gives any credit to the murderer.

Yamagami act as a murderer, and a criminal, and his motivation was hatred of a religious group, which was his original target. I do not understand, why it turns out that the group is guilty of the crime done against the group, instead of people who used to feed the Yamagami's hatred (anticult groups, anticult lawyers, japanse kindappers and deprogrammers). All those are very much connected. I think Wikipedia is giving blind eye to them and they should be included in the article. --Dee (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Can't it be both? Assassination is a neutral word tbh Fourdots2 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Eg: people sympathetic to her politics talked about 'the assassination of jo cox' when wanting to underline how serious it is Fourdots2 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

How does the word "Assassination" glorify the assassin? Octagon758 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

In the article, it says Yamagami is a "former Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force officer. The connected hyperlink leading to the shooter's details here state that Yamagami retired as a Quatermaster at the rank of Leading Seaman, which has a NATO equivalent of OR-4, and US equivalent of E-3.This would make him an enlisted man, not an officer. 173.184.10.198 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it ordinary to apply NATO or US standards when talking about Japan? Japan isn't a member of NATO if I recall. Iemeuph3Lahhe4vee9wa0shaeshaelei4xeecakiesha9ThaiN (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice that I said equivalent. Even so, the NATO ranking structure (OR/OF for Enlisted and Officers respectively) can be used to apply to non-NATO countries. Even going off of the JMSDF's own rank structure page on Wikipedia, it is in the Enlisted and Warrant Officer ranks category. It's also the fourth rank overall, and the third rank after completing the JMSDF's equivalent of a basic training. 173.184.10.198 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Seconded, the Japanese Self Defence Force uses the same commissioned officers/other ranks system as western militaries. Yamagi was not an officer. Setso1 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"while, Abe argued that the conflict was caused by South Korea's failure to abide by the 1965 treaty."

Not sure why this was chopped up/what it is supposed to mean, but it's incomplete in that graf and should probably be repaired by someone who is much more knowledgeable about this than I am! ɯɐɔ 💬 04:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What are these "opposing forces" that are accusing him of being a fascist? Sources cited include an article Irish Times article that briefly mentions: "Protesters outside parliament said the law belonged to Japan’s militarist past and labelled it “fascist”". It also cites an article on the left-wing Jacobin magazine on Japan's remilitarization, and a blurb in Craig Mark's book that say "The return of a fascist Japan is certainly an exaggerated fear; but the restoration of a Japan that can again go to war is now looming ever closer under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe." without further context. None of the sources elaborate on who is calling him a "fascist", or accuse Abe himself of being a fascist. And if we go by what "protestors" accuse politicians of, no doubt literally every Western leader in the last 20 years have been accused of being a fascist and reactionary at some point. I believe that part of the article should be removed.

Edit: The user who added this paragraph, Storm598, is the topic of a section in the Administrators' noticeboard , and has been previously banned for their editing in the area of American politics. Meeepmep (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No comment on the sources, but being a far-right politician makes you a reactionary definitionally. AlmightyMushroomMan (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Abe was a prominent member of the Nippon Kaigi, an organization that doesn't need much introduction. Has any Western leader within the last 20 years been openly affiliated with a far-right organization? AFAIK, even Trump wasn't officially part of any such organization. John Yunshire (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that call the Nippon Kaigi a fascist organization and Abe a fascist then? Meeepmep (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, on this article and on the Nippon Kaigi article. Many more with an cursory Google search. John Yunshire (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean that one article by the Jacobin that vaguely refers to the Nippon Kaigi as "carrying the legacy of Japanese fascism"? Look if let's say Noam Chomsky accuses the Republican Party of "carrying the legacy of white supremacy/fascism" or some such, should we edit the article on George Bush to say "opposing forces accuse Bush of being a "white supremacist" and "fascist"? Not even Putin's article describe him as a fascist. Meeepmep (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Nippon Kaigi is not a fascist organization since by definition fascism was revolutionary and wasn't in favor of absolute monarchy:

>Though fascism supported the absolute power of the state, it opposed the idea of absolute power being in the hands of a monarch and opposed the feudalism that was associated with absolute monarchies. Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul (2006). World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1

They are an ultraconservative, traditionalist and monarchist organization which wants to go back to the old imperial form of government that has the parliament making day to day legislation, a military with more political influence and where ultimate power rests on the hands of the Emperor and his close confidants.

In regards to Shinzo Abe he was affiliated with the group's parliamentary league and held a special advisor position there. (Wasn't an actual direct member of the Nippon Kaigi organization that exists outside of parliament which is an inaccuracy this page has had for many years). You can see the sourced list of the 202 people in parliament currently having an affiliation with that parliamentary league in the Japanese article about them: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0%E5%9B%BD%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0%E5%93%A1%E6%87%87%E8%AB%87%E4%BC%9A

Where that means all of them hold ultraconservative and monarchist views is another story. Shinzo Abe is clearly one that shared many of the views that organization had, especially the ones about promoting nationalism, making Japan a "normal country", downplaying WW2 imperial Japan's history and being in favor of a more patriotic education. His position though are also more nuanced. During his administration he opened the country to more immigration (now part of the LDP campaign policy platform "ウクライナ避難民への支援を含めた外国人の受入れ環境整備や、適正な出入国在留管理を徹底し、多文化共生社会を実現します" https://special.jimin.jp/political_promise/), promoted more women to join the workforce with his "womenomics" policy and was generally considered an internationalist regarding foreign policy by security experts and pro free trade. During the 70th anniversary of the end of WW2 and during his visits with Obama to Hiroshima and Pearl Harbor his speech was also generally considered apologetic. You can find the entire transcript here: https://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201508/0814statement.html. Abe also generally shied away from promoting direct ethnic hatred unlike some far right Japanese politicians in the past like Shintaro Ishihara which said pretty deplorable things about foreigners living in the country and Koreans. All of these later things mentioned go directly against the views of Nippon Kaigi which means either the organization doesn't have enough power to control the LDP internal policy making from outside (a view promoted here http://www.iisr.jp/P101-P125.pdf (Japanese) and here https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/japans-deep-right-has-more-tongue-than-teeth/ (English) or Abe himself doesn't share all of their views.

A more clear cut case is the current PM Kishida, he comes from the more moderate parts of the LDP and generally considered center-right but despite that also holds an affiliation with Nippon Kaigi's lobby group in parliament. Does that mean he is a far right politician automatically? Should his entire political history be ignored in pro of a lazy generalization?

As the Japan focused political analysts Tobias Harris and Adam P. Liff have said in the past, when labeling a LDP politician, the actual views and statements they have made both private and public and the policies they have directly promoted is way more important factor to decide their political leanings rather than what affiliations in parliament they have (a factor but a smaller one). Abe was a Japanese nationalist first and foremost but also an establishment politician (as establishment as it gets considering his history) so he had enough common sense and pragmatism not to pursue self defeating policies that would reduce national power (hence his more liberal views of immigration, women, foreign policy and trade compared to the actual populist and ideological far right in Japan, see "Japan First Party" which holds no seats in parliament and "Makoto Sakurai" the party leader or just the views of Nippon Kaigi itself). The label "staunch Japanese nationalist with views to the right of center" seems the easiest way to describe Abe but other than that his views were too nuanced to reduce it to a simple catchphrase. Calling him fascist and far right though seems definitely out of step and most scholars and Japanese political analysts wouldn't call him that. Good academic research on the topic if available should take precedence over news opinion pieces and tabloids and if that's not available sources pointing directly and factually to things he has said or promoted should take precedence. WetGlass (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This section reads as a displaced criticism of Abe's comments of World War 2. It never touches on his actual political policies, philosophy, or working positions in respect to history. The section is clearly trying to convince the reader that Abe was an extremist and bad person. I think the section should be retitled as "controversial views on World War 2" or "controversial views of history." it should also be cleaned up to sound less like an indictment by a third party. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the title, but I think it still has some problems. First of all, are his views on World War II so critically important to his personal views and philosophy that they should be at the top of that section? Also, I think the section could be seen as an arbitrary list of everything controversial Abe said about WWII. Is there establishing material on how those views effected Japanese denialism of WWII crimes? The closest I see in the section is a bit on how Korea and China's governments were "concerned" about Abe's views on history. Edit: Looking more closely, that doesn't seem to be as big or justified a concern as the entire section titled "Political positions and philosophy" seems to merely be a list of grievances against Abe. It certainly reads as if it was written by an anti-fascist watchdog group and not by a neutral observer. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed this text. Maybe it could be used in the article elsewhere but seemed redundant to continuously refer to how he was right wing:

Abe was widely viewed as a right-wing nationalist.<ref name="Lucy Alexander"/><ref name="The New York Times">{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/another-attempt-to-deny-japans-history.html |title=Another Attempt to Deny Japan's History|work=The New York Times|date=2 January 2013}}</ref><ref name="Justin McCurry"/> The British journalist [[Rupert Wingfield-Hayes]] of [[BBC]] described him as "far more right <!-- source does not use a hyphen -->wing than most of his predecessors".<ref name="Rupert Wingfield-Hayes">{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20728387|title=Japan loses faith in traditional politics|author=Rupert Wingfield-Hayes|publisher=BBC|date=15 December 2012}}</ref>

I also mistakenly hit this as a minor edit because I was trying to figure out how to post through an "edit conflict." IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"His views also found support within far-right circles in United States; Breitbart News founder and former White House Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon evaluted Abe as "a great hero to the grassroots, the populist, and the nationalist movement throughout the world" and referred him as the "Trump before Trump"."

This sentence should not be included in the Controversies section and is completely irrelevant to the rest of the section. In addition, this puts undue weight on what the American far-right and what Steve Bannon thinks of the subject. Selectively including sources and viewpoints like this arguably violates Wikipedia:NPOV. This should be removed. Meeepmep (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Steve Bannon is a controversial and polarizing figure for sure but the sources used for this text were WP:RS and his prior position as a Counselor to the President definitely warrants more weight as compared to your run-of-the-mill journalist. I'm not seeing how this violates WP:NPOV. No matter how much we think of Bannon, everything on Wikipedia must be written based on what it is stated in the source without the personal opinions of an editor. And it should speak more of Abe's views than Bannon if the latter is praising him in the first place. John Yunshire (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It violates NPOV because it puts undue weight on the opinions of an extreme fringe of society, a fringe group that isn't even from the same continent as the subject. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". In addition that had no relevance to the rest of the section. What's stopping someone from adding "Former American president Obama stated that "Former Prime Minister Abe was devoted to both the country he served and the extraordinary alliance between the United States and Japan."? Meeepmep (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What fringe group are you referring to? There's nothing fringe about the Trump presidency and his administration. It's the result of a significant proportion of Americans believing in such views. And to address your second point, there's what Assassination of Shinzo Abe#Reactions is for. The difference is Bannon made those statements when he was alive. John Yunshire (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Either way its irrelevant to the section and puts undue weight on the opinions of the American far right. The world does not revolve around the US. Meeepmep (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The world also does not revolve around the Japan. Almost every media outlet in South Korea and North Korea would refer to Abe's as the far right over Steve Bannon or Donald Trump. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Some American news framed Bannon's removal from the Trump administration as something done at the request of a general who saw Bannon's connection to the alt-right as compromising. Not sure if that was fully the case, but that would place him in a fringe group. His statement should at least have support from actual academics. Furthermore, I think this runs some risk of over-emphasizing the highly critical slant that I noted in the section above on the previously mistitled controversies section. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, Bannon leaving had something to do with the violence that resulted from the Unite the Right rally. But we're digressing now, this has nothing to do with Abe. John Yunshire (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's inclusion is not a violation of NPOV in my honest opinion. ~ HAL333 03:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Steve Bannon's view should be included. Abe is Japan's Trump to put it nicely, and just a Japanese fascist to put it badly. It should be taken into account that South Korea is the only democratic country among South Korea, North Korea and China, Japan's main war crime victims in the past. Almost all South Koreans and South Korean scholars recognize Abe as a fascist and Donald Trump as a much more moderate politician than Abe. How does Japanese historical revisionism feel to Germans? Mureungdowon (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Because Japan needs to be strong militarily to keep China in check, the media in the United States and Western Europe often tend to glorify the Japanese right. South Korean media would be much more neutral in Japanese politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This was interesting. It's the first article I've seen to name the Unification Church as the organization that the shooter was angry with. I'll leave it up to others how and whether to use this. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Jake Adelstein argued that Abe left behind an authoritarian legacy, with his populist actions throughout his tenure such as the intimidation of media that were critical of him that caused Japan's position on the Press Freedom Index to fall as low as 72nd, stroking anti-Korean sentiments, as well as the creation of a "Cabinet Personnel Bureau" to vet any civil service employees that may be critical of the ruling LDP government, among others."

Jake Adelstein is a journalist most notable because of his work on the Japanese Mafia, not for his political analyses. This sentence puts undue prominence on his article on the tabloid Daily Beast and is irrelevant to the rest of the section. If you wish to add something about Abe's creation of the Cabinet Personnel Bureau, Press Freedom and authoritarianism in Japan, it should be in it's own section, properly referenced. Relying purely on a single quote of Adelstein without any further context or elaboration arguably violates Wikipedia:NPOV's section on weight and undue weight. Meeepmep (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You have to quit removing content with justifications of "undue weight" and accusing the authors capabilities based upon their professions. Understand that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Constantly making assumptions that everything is NPOV is also POV itself. If Wikipedia functions that way, articles would be devoid of sources. For example, referring to Jake Adelstein as a mere "crime blogger" and ignoring his other professions is false and you know this. These journalists are reliable, and Adelstein has analyzed and reported on Japanese politics for decades, having also worked for the Yomiuri Shimbun. Furthermore, your claim that Abe was only referred to as a nationalist by Westerners is straight up false. John Yunshire (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying it's undue weight because it is undue weight. It seems you are trying to place an emphasis on analyses that make Abe out to be a populist, far right, nationalist, Trump-like figure. Yes NPOV means neutral editing, and you're editing the page to include very selective views; views by Steve Bannon and Jake Adelstein. Apparently you think Adelstein deserves this weight because he's "someone with their own BLP"? The only reason he is notable, is because of his investigations into Japanese crime, he was a writer in the Yomiuri nearly 2 decades ago. I said Abe is referred to as a nationalist by Western journalists, because all the cites are Western political analysts, most of which are written before he was even Prime Minister. Adelstein's quote is completely unrelated to the rest of the "Controversies" section. Freedom of Press, an authoritarianism legacy, populism and the Cabinet Personnel Bureau, all of which are not mentioned anywhere else in the article and is solely attributed to Adelstein. Meeepmep (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any deep knowledge about the topic, but the stuff I've seen about Abe in the US press in the past few days also describe him that way. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking around Google. I see the self-same article from Daily Beast syndicated around a bit. The US president related him posthumously as a 'beacon of democracy,' which would seem quite off key if there were an overwhelming impression that Abe was a natural authoritarian. Saw a CNN opinion piece that shied away from placing Abe too firmly on the right, and in comparison, Wikipedia's coverage here seems far more left-wing in tone than that CNN article. But I guess just what we see as individuals doesn't inform the way the news is generally going. Also doesn't say much about academic statements on the topic of how to categorize the man. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure arguing that undue weight is being argued too much is the play here. The criticism section was poorly written and seemed to violated good faith when it previously described it's highly critical, oppositional rhetoric as "Political and philosophical views of Shinzo Abe." Clearly, that it is bad that Shinzo Abe was a historic revisionist was not a philosophical view of Shinzo Abe. It's very good practice to revisit the details of this section, if only because it seems that critical bias was written into it. Ask yourself why the source is here. Is this person an authority on Shinzo Abe? Why should their opinion stand alone? Considering this is the controversies section, it seems rather odd to claim that the opinion of one author constitutes a controversy, unless it's just setting up a description of his common knowledge political style. Reading bits of the article, it certainly uses charged language, calling him a "racist" and using other power words like "exile," "revolution." Could we find better sources that say effectively the same thing? Have better sources said the same thing? Looking around, I found this article from "CSIS" that claims Abe was racist but says that there was simultaneously "little to no evidence" that he was. There seems to be a level of, usually unspoken, cognitive dissonance involved in these depictions.

Also note that it would be very biased to describe his political leaning itself as a controversy. If that's going to stay, the section should state and not imply why that leaning is relevant to the controversies. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't read anything into the POTUS calling Abe a beacon of democracy: in fact, saying that it means anything sounds almost tendentious in its own right. The US has taken sides in many different conflicts and in retrospect it hasn't always been on the "good" side (think of arming Bin Laden in the 1980s, plus the familiar string of Central American dictators, etc). Whichever side it is currently on always gets described as a beacon of democracy. I haven't seen the Daily Beast article but e.g. here is an AP article describing him as a polarizing figure. Here is one associating him with historical revisionism. This describes his long and (because it was very unpopular with the Japanese public) ultimately unsuccessful effort to change the Japanese constitution to allow expanding Japan's military (he gets called a militarist for that, though I don't know enough to say that it makes him one). Note: those links are from here, which I don't claim is neutral, but it appears to express a significant viewpoint (one that is part of mainstream informed dialogue), and those internal links I gave meet Wikipedia's overrated notion of RS as far as I can tell. The parts about the Cold War are also consistent with that part of US domestic history, such as the McCarthy witch hunts. So that take on Abe is to my mind unquestionably part of the NPOV. (I have no idea what it would even mean to claim that it is objectively right or wrong, so I don't claim either of those). 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of contention with the Daily Beast article, as I see it, is that it more or less says he was an authoritarian. We're not arguing that he wasn't a polarizing figure, wasn't a denialist, or wasn't trying to create a Japanese military. What internal links are you referring to? Also recommend brushing up on WP:RS, and I would say it's a lot broader than you described it. Has nothing to do with right or wrong. Also, I was compressing Biden's sentiment. You can find the full quote here here.. The point is, that sentiment seems to be unobjected to and the more dominant presentation of Abe's personality in US media. But, again, that's just a value judgement from my own perspective. Apropos, the secondary purpose of talking about this is to point out that you're perception of what's the tone in US media is also simply your perception. If we're going to rag on US foreign policy, I have no doubt that if Abe were considered an overwhelmingly problematic figure in US media, every other sentence of mainstream news releases would be peppered with statements about his problematic nature. Honestly, it would read a lot more like this Wikipedia article. Instead, we're going into tabloids and minor blog-like websites to find that kind of tonal coverage, and most of it doesn't even correlate to the discussed claims about where Abe fits politically (calling his 'more right' doesn't necessarily make him far right, for example). And, again, as Meepmep pointed out, what US media thinks about Abe is really not that important to the article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not particularly trying to rag on US foreign policy other than to say that the POTUS calling someone a beacon of democracy doesn't say anything good or bad about the person, other than that he or she supported US interests in some way. By internal links I meant the ones from the LA Times, New Yorker, and the Lowy Institute that I posted further up. As for authoritarian, a quick web search found an NY Times op-ed from 2019 by a Japanese political science professor building that very claim, concluding "Now, with Mr. Trump in the White House, Mr. Abe may be able to follow his authoritarian instincts more openly—so long as he can keep Mr. Trump happy at the same time." It also called Abe "Trump before Trump".

No I find your claim about US media to be a non-sequitur. US media tends to repeat whatever the US foreign policy establishment (aka the Blob) tells it (e.g.: Abe is a beacon of democracy). That is part of why the media is so distrusted nowadays. When something against the current slips through, you have to pay attention to it (consider it to be part of the NPOV). That is, the different MSM outlets normally can't be considered independent of each other, besides having a COI due to their reliance on access journalism.

Ok, that does sound like ragging, sorry. But tbh, blogs are usually more informative than news outlets for stuff like this, though if you want links from news outlets, you just got a bunch of them. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No report I've seen on American media bias makes the sweeping claim that 'MSM sources can't be considered independent of each other.' US media tends to be rated decently (although, never highly) when it comes to freedom of press assessments from independent sources. I would, perhaps from a similar place of uncertainty, agree with you that the US government position largely influences how many mainstream (and necessarily unreliable) sources like CNN and Fox news report. Even then, I don't see the logic in claiming that the exception is more important than the rule. Op-Eds are by usually contentious and tend to go against the grain of neutral or common thought. That you seem to see conspiracy in the subtext of an Op-Ed is not convincing at all to me. In any case, I think we've discussed enough about generalized feelings of US media. As for the links you provided, only the one that casually mentions "authoritarian" seems connected to the discussion. As to that, I think that could be seen as simply a value-judgement or ad hominem rather than a serious, academic categorization of Abe's government as authoritarian. Probably also true of the line that started this discussion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's due. ~ HAL333 02:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if publicity photos of Abe shaking hands with Korea leaders is appropriate in the section mainly dealing with him offending Korean leaders. It could be taken as implicitly counter acting the impact of the claims in that section. Of those two photos, I think the one from 2015 seems appropriate, but having two similar photos, especially for negotiations that were to some extent botched, seems excessive. Also, not sure why the section below it just has a photo of Abe on the campaign trail in 2012. I don't think we should go as far as to include photos of controversies, like the 731 plane, but I'm not convinced of the relevancy of these photos. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but are any possible replacements freely licensed? ~ HAL333 05:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Given Abe's impact on Japan and status as a domestically polarizing figure, I feel it's appropriate to include 1-2 sentences at the end of the lead summing up his legacy. I think the two setences at the end of Margaret Thatcher's lead could serve as a good example.

I'm thinking something like:

"A polarizing figure in Japanese politics, Abe's supporters praised him as a patriot who worked to strengthen Japan's security and international stature, while his opponents denounced him as an ultranationalist whose policies and historically revisionist views threatened Japanese pacifism. Commentators have suggested that his legacy pushed Japan towards more proactive security policies and defense spending."

Possible sources to use:

Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This sounds good, except that it implies a dichotomy, lending itself to a conservative vs liberal point of view that might not be universal. I think we're in a good deal of danger of framing future discussions about Abe in the English-speaking world, because there's not a whole lot else out there on him besides scholarly and academic sources that most readers won't readily turn to. I'm not sure what to do there, but maybe we should also look for more neutral POVs to include in describing his legacy instead of just the patriot vs nationalist debate. His work with economics seems like a good place to start. Although, I think the safest thing to do is wait for academics to describe his legacy, posthumously. But, realistically... simply going from the rules of Wikipedia and ignoring ethical concerns that may not be entirely warranted, your changes seem fine. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, it is certainly true that more Western views of politics as strictly left-right don't apply neatly to Japan. That being said I think the two important points to make in these sentences are: 1. He was a polarizing figure domestically and opinions differ strongly on the normative worth of his policies and ideology. 2. He established a lasting legacy which permanently changed Japanese politics in some way. The second is difficult to write about because of course he has only been out of office as PM for two years and he's been dead less than that, but I feel that there is an early consensus developing among journalists and commentators regarding his legacy, mostly that he permanently altered the scope of discourse on security issues in Japan. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I like it. I'm currently working on a "Legacy" section for this article and hope to add it soon. ~ HAL333 13:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I just added the legacy section. As per WP:LEADCITE, you don't need to cite anything as it's already present in the body. Most of your porposal is supported by the section as well. ~ HAL333 19:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I think the legacy section is pretty good although I am a bit unsure of the necessity of noting the LDP's victory in the July 10 election after his death. The LDP was going to win anyway and I don't think there was as much connection as the sentences in the section seem to imply. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Basil's version well written, but it would be more accurate to add controversies on his views on feminism/gender. While some Westerneres praise Abe as a "he for she", and yes he would have see women as competitive workforce. But on the other side, as an ultraright, he has been critisized rather an oppresser of women's rights: he was anyway a champion of patriarchy, trying to revive Japanese traditional male primogeniture family system which was abolished after WW2. This aspect seems to be ignored by foreign media I'm afraid. --Aphaia (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am Japanese. Now that Abe's involvement with the Unification Church has come to light more and more information has come out regarding how he and other LDP politicians worked to strengthen this anti-Japanese cult for many years. This has been reported on significantly by Nikkan Gendai^[1] and Bunshun^[2] as well as many other sources like Asahi^[3][4], and by renowned journalists such as Shigeru Shimizu^[5] and Eito Suzuki^[6]. The legacy statement and section, and article as a whole, as it is now, downplays his involvement with the cult and the consequences. There are also many English articles on the topic.^[7] Abe is a far less popular figure in Japan than this article suggests. The majority of Japanese oppose giving him a state funeral.^[8] 2404:2D00:5000:701:7133:9FED:6CEF:6381 (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It is the Japanese view that UC is an anti-Japanese cult. South Koreans rather think UC is Chinilpa or Tochak Waegu. UC is known as a supporter of Japanese far-right historical revisionism, glorifying Japan's war crimes in South Korea. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I was quite confused after reading this. You might be confused about his primogeniture stance here. He's opposed to female succession of the emperor, and I'm sure reviving primogeniture generally would be an extremely unpopular position.

On one hand:

• he was against revisions that would make it easier to have separate last names for married couples.
• he was against female succession for the emperor.
• members of his party have said pretty sexist things (there was an article that claimed sexism thrived under him based on those incidents, so including it here for full POV).

On the other hand:

• Female empowerment (focused on workforce participation) was an important part of his agenda. He failed to meet the goals, but some progress was made.

IMO, a balanced analysis is that he took conservative stances on issues that would alienate social conservatives while focusing on making progress in less divisive important areas. Since Japan itself is quite behind on gender issues compared to the West and Abe does have clear socially conservative tendencies, he gets a lot of criticism from left leaning groups, but I don't really think it would be appropriate for english media to cover him using the same language his domestic critics use. When writing for an audience that is very familiar with the politics of the country, readers are able to evaluate the authors stance and view the criticism in context. When covering him in English language for an unfamiliar audience, responsible journalists should avoid language that will result in readers making binary decisions about him based on their own political tribes, since such labels make it harder to gain deeper understanding. Dplre (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am Japanese and would like to add his honours. But, my editing was banned. Instead of me, please add this page.

* [[File:Medal_of_the_Oriental_Republic_of_Uruguay_-_ribbon_bar.gif|30px|border]] Grand Officer of the [[medal of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay]], 2018.<ref>{{cite web |title=Tabaré Vázquez condecoró a Shinzō Abe con la medalla de la República Oriental del Uruguay |url=https://www.gub.uy/presidencia/comunicacion/noticias/tabare-vazquez-condecoro-shinzo-abe-medalla-republica-oriental-del-uruguay |website=gub.uy |access-date=17 July 2022 |url-status=live }}</ref> (Uruguay) * [[File:National Order of Merit (Paraguay) - ribbon bar.png|30px|border]] Grand Cross of the [[National Order of Merit (Paraguay)|National Order of Merit]], 2018. <ref>{{cite web |title=パラグァイ＝国家功労大十字章を受勲＝総理、日系社会代表者と懇談 |url=https://www.nikkeyshimbun.jp/2018/181205-72colonia.html |website=nikkeyshimbun.jp |access-date=5 December 2018 |archive-date=17 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201129223750/https://www.nikkeyshimbun.jp/2018/181205-72colonia.html |url-status=live }}</ref>(Paraguay) Ooyamanobutatu (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Administrator note Can confirm edit filter false positive. Haven't assessed the merits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • My request has been accepted. Thanks to.Ooyamanobutatu (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's my contention with this sentence in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the article but the body of the article does not use the word 'ultranationalist' once, instead, this sentence is backed by two cites that seem to be taken from a Google search with the terms "Shinzo Abe ultranationalist". Neither articles are arguments as to why Abe fits the "ultranationalist" description: the NPR article is a report of his death, and briefly recounts his bio. The word 'ultranationalist' was used once in the article before being retracted less than a day later, it did not denounce him as an ultranationalist; The New Statesman source is an article that recounts the broader history of conservatism in Japan and Abe premiership, the word ultranationalist is used twice in the article, neither times it was used to describe Abe himself. The first use was to describe Abe's "“beautiful Japan” project", not Abe himself. The only time ultranationalist is used in the body is this: "Outside the country (and to the chagrin of ultranationalists), Akihito made a point of recognizing Japanese wartime aggression with a remorse that was more authentic than Abe’s pro forma apologies.", not referring to Abe himself. The article calls Abe a "strongman", "a strategic conservative", "the heir to two powerful political dynasties", the article is critical of him, but it certainly did not denounce him as an ultranationalist. Ultranationalism as defined by wikipedia is "an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests. Ultranationalist entities have been associated with the engagement of political violence even during peacetime.", it does not simply mean someone who is very nationalist, it has a very specific meaning in political science.

In addition, it is exceedingly easy for a person to add labels to Abe, considering the massive amount of literature written about him. For example, this article is a critique of his feminist policy , and this one calls him a liberal internationalist , this one calls him a defensive realist and liberal , this one calls him a neo-liberal and this one says that his party "has often championed socialist causes to win over more liberal-minded voters" . Now, should I add to the lead that in addition to being an ultranationalist, he is described as a feminist, socialist, liberal and neo-liberal?

Wouldn't "his opponents accused his nationalistic policies and negationist views on history of threatening Japanese pacifism and damaging relations with its neighbors" be a much more neutral sentence that encapsulates the mainstream critiques against him? Instead of battering the reader with labels like "ultranationalist" so they form a preconceived notion of Abe.

Meeepmep (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia under America's (the majority of editors, if I remember correctly) de facto "just Google it" educational system. This problem of people sourcing based on what it sounds like the source is saying purely from the context of their personal Google search is present in pretty much every article on here if you look closely enough. I don't think you're obligated to explain outside the edit summary when removing an unsourced statement. But, yes, there does seem to be a lot of attempts to label him going on in this article now, often without basis. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I was the one who originally wrote this sentence, including the "ultranationalist" label (I did not however add the two sources you mentioned). I added that term in an attempt to describe how opponents label Abe, not to label Abe himself (I personally don't think Abe was an "ultranationalist"). I'm open to changing this word to merely "nationalist". Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the sources were the problem. But, technically, every line needs to be sourced. So, if you want to add labels you should find academic sources that say as much. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Another similar line: "Immediately after his assassination, the ultranationalist right in Japan began framing Abe as a martyr.[383]" The source doesn't use such strong terms. It says he's 'something of a martyr' to the nationalist right. It says that ultranationalists will likely continue pursuing his legacy in modifying the constitution. Finally, it doesn't say anything about the timeliness of any of these separate thoughts. I'd say this one is pretty easily not in the source. Since the source does talk about his legacy after his death, it could still be used. But the wording should follow the source, not the other way around. The source is chiefly about the discontinuity between Abe's legacy and statements made about him in media press releases. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a source that directly describes Shinzo Abe as an ultranationalist. Even Donald Trump is rarely described as an ultranationalist.^[1][2] Abe is a fairly conservative politics, and if there is a literature criticizing Abe's feminist policy, it is likely that the literature is very biased. Some South Korean media also reported that Donald Trump was surprisingly more liberal/progressive than Barack Obama. Actually Donald Trump was a Sunshine Policy supporter, so is Donald Trump a liberal/progressive politicans? Shinzo Abe is an obvious ultra-nationalist. Many South Koreans recognize Shinzo Abe as a far more fascist than Donald Trump. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Found a couple errors at the end of the Assassination Section:

"In response to the shooting and his subsequent death, numerous present and former world leaders expressed their sympathies and support for Abe. Japanese Prime Minister balmed police for the killing of SHinzo Abe His body was returned to Tokyo the day after his assassination and his funeral was held on 12 July 2022."

"balmed" was probably intended to be "blamed", and "SHinzo Abe His" should probably be "Shinzo Abe. His". MusiqueLegacy (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly may be worth it to put the second to last sentence as, "Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, blamed 'inadequate police protection' for the killing of Shinzo Abe." Because the language makes it sound like Kishida thinks the police were responsible for the actual killing of Abe. The cited sources (374 and 375) don't say anything to that effect, but the article below does say: "Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Thursday blamed inadequate police protection for the death of former leader Shinzo Abe, who was shot last week while giving an outdoor campaign speech. Abe, one of Japan's most influential politicians, was assassinated last Friday in western Japan."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-shinzo-abe-assassination-pm-fumio-kishida-says-security-problems/ MusiqueLegacy (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Please make major changes to the article to reflect a more neutral Japanese view. Thank you. It is important that English readers understand. 121.82.160.137 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please suggest some specific changes? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about the various references to Abe's denialism of the Asian Holocaust, unfortunately the general Japanese public position on that issue is not due to neutrality, but deliberate obfuscation by people like Abe which has stopped them from being decently informed about the war crimes in their last century and a half of national history. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Even Donald Trump, accused of being far-right in the United States and Western Europe, did not insult the victims of World War II, but rather supported them. Rather, the Shinzo Abe article was written in a very pro-Japanese way. Many South Koreans do not see Donald Trump as a fascist, but see Shinzo Abe as a fascist. For Western mainstream vested interests, Abe may be a good politician keeping China and Russia in check, but South Koreans are perceived as a liberal diplomat in which Donald Trump talks with North Korea through the Sunshine Policy, and Shinzo Abe as a fascist who promotes anti-Korean sentiment. Comparing the attitudes toward Koreans and blacks, Abe is a neo-fascist ultra-nationalist who is far more than Trump. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes Shinzō with the barred oh, and sometimes Abe Shinzo without. Which is correct? Why is the article inconsistent? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The article uses the barred oh only for the pronunciation guide. If you mean what's used more in English culture, I think without the barred oh is far more common. Probably not a considerably good use of time taking a statistic of which one is used most often. It's just a transliteration, anyway. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'm thinking about Wikipedia in general, and maybe this article should be renamed. The redirect has hundreds of links, so it's not uncommon. Normally, Wikipedia editors try to settle on a particular spelling to avoid confusion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I opt for changing the subtitle "Retirement and assassination" to just "assassination." This is because there is only about two sentences related to his retirement in this section, with most of it detailing the assassination. This small part on retirement should be moved up to the part about his resignation instead, as its more related, and isn't large enough to justify a big subtitle. Furthermore, the assassination was a significant historical event that deserves its own section for ease of reading/navigability. I struggled to find the part about his assassination for a minute because of this. Cameron gv (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The article has an incorrect description of Abe's fatal wound. Abe was not struck in the heart. The second round hit a major artery near Abe's collar bone, and he bled to death. There was no immediate nor direct injury to his heart from the bullet. The Japanese Wikipedia article reads as follows (translated): "According to Abe's autopsy results announced by the Nara Prefectural Police Investigation, one gunshot wound was confirmed on the left shoulder and two oval gunshot wounds on the right anterior neck. According to the results of the judicial autopsy published by the Criminal Bureau of the National Police Agency, the cause of death was blood loss due to left and right subclavian artery injury due to a left upper arm shooting wound." --Westwind273 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? ~ HAL333 04:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia article is properly sourced. Note that the English sources which say Abe was hit in the heart are from the day after the assassination, which was before the Japanese autopsy report was released. These sources are too close to the actual event to be accurate. Westwind273 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This statement doesn't seem to survive the sources used. Of the three sources used, only one source uses the term "nationalist" and it's a low quality blog-like source. I'll be removing any mention of "Nationalist" from the article. Ergzay (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

He is not a nationalist in my opinion. I sometimes wonder if leaders of the Japanese Liberal Democratic party including him have traditionally thought Japan is the 51st state of the United States of America. I watch military policies of Kishida, the Prime Minister, when I think it. However I will not write it because there is not any source to use.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

In the family section, there are two pictures of young Abe with his family which share a caption text area. On my typical browser (Brave), the caption text renders in a way that makes it really confusing to read because on a glance it looks like there is one caption when really there are two separate captions. Other browsers render the text with a more clear distinction, but I think it would be best to separate the pictures for clarity. Reqdream (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The article incorrectly states that Abe was struck in the heart by the assassin. That is incorrect. Abe was struck in a major artery underneath his collarbone, and he bled to death from that artery. His heart was not struck. Refer to the separate Wikipedia article "Assassination of Shinzo Abe". Unless there is objection, I will update this article. Westwind273 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no objection, I made the change. Westwind273 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The previous article made no mention that when Abe posed with a plane with numbers 731, that it drew angry wide condemnation in both Korea and China. Also Abe didn't even apologise once for that insensitive incident and that isn't mentioned in the article. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense you removed it constantly.

But by Wikipedia policies, it's of complete due weight to mention that his act was widely reported in media and widely criticised by Korean and Chinese public. The article is honestly a whitewash that made it seem like only one person and no more than one person - had issues and that's all. And that's what's against neutral pov by portraying it as some trivial thing where only one person voiced disapproval. And nobody else of notability protested it.49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hence I propose to add "The image was widely circulated in South Korean media, including Chosun Ilbo, the country's largest newspaper by circulation, and it drew widespread criticism in both South Korea and China, who found the photo to be insensitive."

There need to be minimal context that is of due weight that it has large public backlash. Which is verifiable and doesn't go against due or WP:blp policies. In fact, omitting it out is makes that article violate npov and undue Weight by making it appear as if only one politician had issues and nobody else. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It is pretty clearly mentioned that he drew ire and was condemned. This is ultimately a biography, not an exposé—these details may best go on other pages. As articles increase in length they quickly start to lose focus and the ability to effectively communicate points you and I find important to emphasise for readers. That's all, so please don't accuse me of holding positions that couldn't be farther from the case. I understand how fraught these topics are; if others think this or some iteration on this is necessary then obviously I defer to consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 23:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read the section. Previous version made it seem like only one individual had issues. It is misleading and UNDUE where it gives too much weight to a single individual and omits out that it wasn't one person but many in Korean and Chinese public who viewed the photo as deeply insensitive. Article violates Wikipedia's policies in multiple ways. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

And I'm saying it doesn't read that way to me, but I'm not going to say you're wrong if you do read it that way. I'm only one person. Remsense ‥ 论 23:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

And what exactly is the problem is adding one sentence saying it was widely reported in media in Korea and it drew public backlash? That context is important to emphasise that people got hurt. There's no policies in Wikipedia that have issues with that. Are you really willing to disagree and we have no choice but to go to dispute resolution escalation. Because yes, who have no idea of the history will assume that it's just One politician who have issues. Most people in the west have no idea about unit 731 or that it's strongly protested not by one politician but by many in their societies. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

For some reason this conversation has really stressed me out, so I'm going to duck out for now. Sorry. I would really prefer you wait for input from other editors on this, but it would be unfair if I demanded you do so given I'm not up to discussing this any further. Thanks for being patient with me. Remsense ‥ 论 23:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

And I am angry because the whole chapter is flawed. There's really no issues with not misleading readers who are unfamiliar with the topic, that it's not one south Korean politician alone who had issues with him. There's no reason to keep removing the context that many people besides one Korean politician, had issues with it. Unless you have a good reason to mislead readers to continue to think only one person had issues with the photo and nobody else. I am adding it back in albeit shortened; to avoid misleading readers who may mistaken it as something that wasn't widely angering public in Korea and China. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added the context (a brief but significant sentence) that public backlash came from both South Korea and China, as it wasn’t just one Korean politician speaking out, but a broader public reaction. Omitting this detail risks misleading readers into thinking only one person had an issue with the photo. If you disagree with this addition, I’ll consider bringing it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Als please don't accuse me of accusing you. I said the previous editor who wrote it - was flawed. I have no idea if it was you who wrote that. 49.186.208.96 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Two family pics in the family section technically MOS:SANDWICH violation. Think the lesser positions in his infobox could possibly be collapsed; his infobox is really long. If it's collapsed enough, could possibly push the family pics to the right and make it not in violation of sandwich. Then again, sandwich isn't like a critical rule or anything, but I think it does make an aesthetic difference grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask two questions - I would have been BOLD, but I sense there is some policy or consensus lurking around that I don't know about.

• Why is specifically an American pronunciation of his name given in IPA as well as the IPA for the Japanese and as well as the American pronunciation in respelling? The American IPA is superfluous and misleading. One might think that's how his name is supposed to be pronounced, but it isn't. Other Englishes exist. (While at least the respelling style is obviously for American English speakers).
• Is there some sort of policy that says his name in Kanji should be hidden in a footnote? It seems unhelpful. Using wiki to check how someone's name is written in Japanese is hardly going to be a rare occurrence. OsFish (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The IPA is helpful for anyone who speaks English but not Japanese, and we use a pandialectal transcription (which is why phonemes are given), so it isn't superfluous at all. Theknightwho (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose me potentially changing "PRC" to "China" or "Chinese Government?" It makes it much clearer in my opinion. I understand that both the PRC and ROC claim to be the legitimate government of China, but seeing as the PRC is recognized by almost every country and is what almost every person would consider as "China" I think it's kind of silly to only refer to it as it's long-form name. Blairehaj (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

A gentler word is Loss of life instead of assassination it seems like an encouragement to instead use a word that respects both the perpetrator and the important person of the country who passed away...

I hope you understand that this is a Japanese edit that can be interpreted as particularly subtle, as my grandmother is from Nara. Toruhoney (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, English-language WP:RS describe it as an assassination. While I acknowledge that it could come across as too strong to an English-speaking Japanese person, "loss of life" can be viewed as downplaying the nature of the death or even absolving what the killer did. Its borderline WP:EUPHEMISM Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

For the Japanese, once something is gone, it will never return to its original state. Let the official portrait of Abe Shinzo in 2020 serve as a final tribute to him; let the official portrait from 2012 remain in our hearts.Anyone who agrees with this point of view should use 2020 instead of 2012. Toruhoney (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)