Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a yoroi-dōshi

Every single Japanese source says it was a wakizashi not a yoroi-dōshi. Searching for the terms "山口二矢" and "鎧同士" together returns zero hits. I think some English-speaking martial arts enthusiast must have made this up. Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

It seems that maybe he was put to death? Just wondering, since his date of death is a month or so after the assassination attempt.

Nope. I just bought Moments (compilation of all the Putlizer Prize winners in photography) and it says that he committed suicide. Hbdragon88 05:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

sword or bayonet?

I changed the weapon from bayonet to wakizashi as a Times article says. Is there a source that says it was a bayonet, as is claimed in earlier version? Jarri K 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

or long knife?

The photo caption reads "dosu or long knife". What exactly was it?

• • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.13.100 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

is yoroidoshi a tool or a technique?

To say he "assassinated Asanuma by yoroidōshi" makes it sound like a technique or a traditional way using the yoroidoshi. If it simply means he used a yoroidoshi, then "with a" would be better. If it is a technique, the article doesn't mention it, it just describes the sword.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I have put in a request for page protection on this page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Proud Boys

On Friday 12 October 2018, Gavin McInnes did a well-publicised skit reenacting Yamaguchi's murder of Inejiro Asanuma. I can see why that is relevant to the article on Yamaguchi.

We could add lots of details that are irrelevant to Yamaguchi. For example, there were many members of the Proud Boys in the audience; there were also many normal people; and outside the venue, the police had to control so-called "anti-fascist demonstrators" who were violent and chanted death threats. (see Observer article) Depending on your political bias you can selectively mention either the ghastliness of the Proud Boys or of the violent demonstrators; however that is a breach of WP:NPOV. Since it is irrelevant to Otoya Yamaguchi, it seems better not to mention either.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: please use the talk page rather just reverting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Simple descriptions and summaries and WLs are not non-neutral, but removing valid and informative content and context is. Wikipedia is an international project and adding a brief and non-partisan description is helpful content to non-American readers of this Japanese figure. JesseRafe (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Further comment, I don't think, in good faith, one should say "three" editors removed it by counting Special:Contributions/Marcus_Shadforth who only ever made this one edit (at least under that account). JesseRafe (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Calling someone a fascist is absolutely not neutral. This is an inflammatory accusation and is clearly in dispute. No sources have been provided. It is only common sense and non-controversial claims which do not require sources. Claims that particular groups are followers of extremist ideologies absolutely must be sourced. Even the article on the Nazi Party has provided sources for similar claims, and that is a case where the claim is not at all controversial because they openly acknowledged such labels. If you think this is a widely accepted and uncontroversial claim, it doesn't hurt to find a source showing this. Clearly, there are many who do not agree with you. I think you should stop edit warring and leave out the information until such time as a consensus can be reached that it should be included. Rectipaedia (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the following sentence:

"After the performance on Friday 12 October 2018, McInnes left the club holding the a plastic samurai sword used in the reenactment."

The most important point is that the planned skit referred to in the previous sentence did actually take place. If you felt desperate to remove "unnecessary detail", you could trim it to: "The skit was performed on 12 October 2018." That McInnes left the club holding a plastic sword makes him look like a fool, and is unnecessary. The date is useful, because (as Newagelink pointed out)[1] the first citation merely stated that the skit was planned. The user needs to know that the skit really was performed. Deleting the date, as here,[2] seems silly.

Regarding the statement about the so-called Proud Boys, the current version[3] is the worst of all worlds. The only mention of the Proud Boys in the article is "The Proud Boys are considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center." There is no mention in the article to say why they are being mentioned.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Erroneously calling the Proud Boys a hate group should not be done. There's ongoing lawsuits against multiple organizations to fight these slanderous allegations. Defaulting to "hate group" instead of something that would be more neutral to describe them would be the best course of action. The automatic reverting of changes of this "hate" modifier do nothing to accurize or better clarify any information already present. There's many sources available and it seems the ones used are cherry picked to ensure the most accurate information is not present.Yetsnaz (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The reverts by Vif12vf only serve to further an his ideology.

This has nothing to do with my ideology, i wasn't even the one who added it! The very article of the Proud Boys describe the group as far-right, neo-fascist and as promoting political violence, the cited sources for this is the Associated Press and the Guardian in the infobox, the main body also cites political violence with the National Review, another source from the Guardian and the Washington Post. The main body of text also describe them as neo-fascist with sources from the Daily Beast, another article by the Associated Press, lawandcrime.com and the Huffington Post. So the SPLC being sued isn't the most problematic thing at all as the elements of being a hate-group is clearly sourced in their article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The only reference to the Proud Boys being a "hate group" in the sourced articles is the SPLC. On the Proud Boys wikipedia page there is plenty more information to clarify the point. There was never any claim that you added the phrase "hate group" to the article at all. That doesn't mean it can't be furthering your ideology without it being your information. Any relevance to the page of Otoya Yamaguchi the descriptor adds nothing. Saying they are definitively a hate group is the wrong way to go about this. Yetsnaz (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If "men's club" goes to far, then "right-wing activist group" could be used instead and maintain neutrality while still adding a more descriptive term. @ Vif12vf @ PCN02WPS @ EggRoll97 . Pinging all those who have reverted my edits so a discussion could be had.Yetsnaz (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is many more reliable sources supporting it being a "hate group", such as the Associated Press, mentioned by Vif12vf. It should likely remain labelled as a "hate group" unless other sources surface. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Even putting the term hate group aside, there is a claim they are neo-fascists, this should be disputed since they clearly hold no facist beliefs but also that the article linked from the SPLC to corroborate makes no mention of this.

I apologise if I'm going about this wrong but I'm new to this and only say this because it seems to be a huge red flag this was allowed no matter your side in this debate. -Chris 13:14, 2 May 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.119.241 (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The "neo-fascist" designation was added after the fact to make it more clear to an international audience the connection between the subjects. Not every single word needs to be cited, especially as it is sourced on the PB page itself. The explainer note from SPLC was added as the sole ref (so as to not bog down this small section) when the article text only called them a hate group, thus it only supports that term. There's a half dozen sources on their own page that identify them as neo-fascist, and we don't need to meticulously resource every statement on every other page where a subject is mentioned, that will make the encyclopedia unreadable. The WL points a curious reader to more info about the PB, as cross-linking wikipages was intended to do. Finally, it is only your opinion that "they clearly hold no facist beliefs", and that is not a reason to remove the material that you personally find politically objectionable. JesseRafe (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of a motivated group of idealogues pushing a far-left point-of-view on this and related articles. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point-of-view, which standard no one coming at this from an objective position would have trouble seeing is not being met. No source has yet been cited for the "neo-fascist" label. Those who might look for one must be reminded that a source from a political activism organization is not acceptable for this purpose. It must be a neutral source which is authoritative on the subject of fascism. It must not redefine it in a way that is obviously inconsistent with Wikipedia's own article on fascism. The default position should be to label groups as they would label themselves. When we deviate from this, we should have a very good reason and it should be based on a broad consensus that the label is appropriate. Finding a few political activists who are clearly using it in an attempt at defamation is not sufficient. Rectipaedia (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Webster’s definition of fascism shows that the belief relies heavily on pushing for a dictatorship based on race and country, they are a mixed group of beliefs with the only common factor being that they can not hold fascist or alt right politics as stated in their bylaws. I want to make it clear that I am not associated with this group, I have just seen a push in any article involving them to try and link them to racism and fascism. They are a multiracial group that’s feels is against fascism. This is not a matter of opinion but a hard fact. This will be my last statement but I want to be clear. If people are going to label them as fascists should they not have to provide some evidence of this? They do not want a dictatorship and are multiracial and have on many occasions spoken out against government control. -Chris 11:11 4 May 2019

References

I do not believe the Gavin McInnes re-enactment is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I was fine reading the Article until I got to that section. It feels forced, and artificial, like someone has an agenda and is putting two things together that really don't belong together.68.206.249.124 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's because it is forced, artificial, and someone has an agenda. The people who run Wikipedia and control the editing have have a very left-leaning bias and incorporate it wherever they can 107.77.208.142 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I may disagree with your perspective, but I don't think it should be censored. This is a talk page, and comments are not supposed to be removed just because they are disagreeable. Benjamin (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. While it seems that keeping the Proud Boys included in this article discussing a 60-year-old Japanese political assassination is one Wiki editor's passion project, I'm glad that at least some people are open to discussing *both sides* of this. It is appreciated, agree with me or not. 107.77.207.138 (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Was this article written by a left-wing liberal? Defamatory and unfounded remarks about the Proud Boys, have no place in facts!

SPLC

Is a discredited, Left-wing partisan organization. It is bitterly biased against any organization not on the far left of the American political spectrum. In short, they have no credibility. I will be reverting your reversion!

PainMan 17:49, 3 November 2018‎ (UTC)

The article on the Southern Poverty Law Center has citations for its statement that the SPLC's hate group assessments are often described as authoritative. This suggests that they have credibility.

If you think that the article on the SPLC has been written in a flattering, non-neutral POV style, you should take it up there. But you will need citations to reliable sources.

Please could you explain to me why you think an article on Otoya Yamaguchi needs to mention the Southern Poverty Law Center.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is a partisan group of political hacks who serve Left-wing and Democratic candidates and causes. They have no credibility whatsoever. Yes, once upon a time, many long years ago, the group did good work against the Clan. But they are now just a part of the Democratic-Progressive Machine in the US. They shouldn't be cited at all. But if they are, you must qualify it by mentioning their obvious - and indisputable - political bias.

PainMan 00:38, 15 November 2018‎ (UTC)

Please can you provide a citation for your statement about Southern Poverty Law Center.

I know that JesseRafe seems to think that the article on Otoya Yamaguchi needs to mention that Southern Poverty Law Center thinks that the Proud Boys are a hate group. But I am not convinced that it is relevant. A long statement categorising Southern Poverty Law Center seems even less relevant.

I would have thought that it was far more relevant that the club got vandalised the night before the performance, and that people who attended had to walk past demonstrators who threatened violence and called people "fags". Toddy1 (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: If citations could be provided for PainMan's claims about the Southern Poverty Law Center, would you be content with the information being added? Toddy1 (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe:@PainMan: Would you object to me adding a bit about the demonstrators (with citations)? Toddy1 (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No need to ping, I watch the page. I don't think anymore needs or should be said about this event. The demonstrators were not there because McGinnes was going to reenact the murder specifically, but because they oppose him and his group. The vandalism even less so. The only reason why this is mentioned on this page is because of the reenactment of the skit, and for simple and neutral background info. Fringe nonsense about the SPLC as above has no place in an encyclopedia and that user's rant should not even be taken seriously. We don't even need to mention the SPLC per se, but I included it as a few word summation of the material on the Proud Boys page, because, as you said, they are widely regarded as authoritative. If we want to simplify further and not link the SPLC wiki page, then it should just be "The Proud Boys are regarded as a hate group.<ref>SPLC article listing PBs as a hate group</ref>" rather than putting the WL in this article. But in my opinion neither should this brief mention be expanded further, nor should valuable context be removed. JesseRafe (talk)

JesseRafe and Toddy1: I’ve just removed some commentary left in the article by an unregistered user, who was complaining that the sentence giving context about the Proud Boys was unnecessary. I am inclined to agree. I can’t see that the detail that McInnes left the club holding the plastic sword is really relevent to this article either. The last two sentances of that paragraph appear to me to be being used as an opportunity to make an implicit comment on McInnes’s conduct - a coat-hook, as it were - and don’t seem to me to be relevent to the topic of the article. I would delete both of them, leaving just the first sentence of the paragraph. Wham2001 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the detail about the sword as being a statement in passing and not needed, but I think the detail about what type of organization the Proud Boys are as a 1) necessary, 2) simple, and 3) neutral sentence that quickly sums up what is on their page to make the mention here make sense for context, especially as the international reader might be less aware of them and without some basic background knowledge the concept of a skit to celebrate an assassination might be confusing. JesseRafe (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Various editors (who all may be the same person), have wanted to delete the statement about the "Proud Boys" being considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think that he/she/they are probably right.

I also find it very odd that the article does not mention the threatening crowd outside the venue or the vandalism. However, there is an argument that it is not relevant to Otoya Yamaguchi. The same argument applies to (a) the presence of the Proud Boys, and (b) the hate group statement.

That the man who did the well-publicised sketch left the venue holding a prop he used in the sketch is relevant. It shows the importance that the sketch had in the performance that all these people came to see or protest about.

The only COAT RACK is the biased selection of details about the audience that show Republicans in a bad light, and the omission of information about protests that show so-called "anti-fascists" in a bad light. Toddy1 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Because, as stated above, the protests and antifa element and vandalism all had nothing to do with the reenactment of the murder. We don't need more details about the overall situation, the incident is covered on the McInnes and PB articles. This blurb is just about the "legacy" of this incident, and the only details about the PBs at the club that is relevant is that they were, in part, celebrating this assassination and a simple declarative line about what the group stands for by a reputable source helps give brief context why they would do so. Again, we can remove the WL to SPLC but still use the ref. WLs help give the reader broader context than the external link in the ref alone. JesseRafe (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesse, I agree that the protests etc. are irrelevant to this article and don't need to be covered. I think that the discussion of the Proud Boys could be reduced by changing the first sentence in the paragraph to read ...members of the far-right group the Proud Boys.... If that description is good enough for the lede of the page on the Proud Boys itself I don't see why it can't be used here. That would then give enough context to prevent the confusion regarding the concept of a skit to celebrate an assassination; on reflection I agree that some context is needed for the reason you give.

Regarding the sentence about the sword, I think that it doesn't show anything of the kind, and is just extraneous trivia. If readers are interested in the blow-by-blow details of what happened they can read the sources, after all. Wham2001 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Protection was sought, granted, and expired. It may be needed again, however the last two instances of removal of the Proud Boys content came from registered users with 8 and 15 career edits, so might need more than auto-confirmed as that's quite a low bar. All of these users and IPs take just as much umbrage with the mention of the SPLC (qualified by EN WP as a perennial good source) as much as seeing the Proud Boys called a hate group. I don't think that they are a sockpuppets, but at least clear meat puppetry is at work here, possibly even some directive (it is known that they are an organized and internet-savvy group) to remove this sentence from this article. Hell, they even might not care about the content of the sentence, but just trolling for the lulz because "we" don't like when they do it. JesseRafe (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

IP's continue removing sourced information, protection is definately needed! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: @Vif12vf: The article was semi-protected for 2 weeks due to the on-going content dispute. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 11:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I know because im pretty sure i was the one who requested it! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this really relevant for this subject?

I removed this section:

On October 12, 2018, right-wing provocateur Gavin McInnes reenacted the murder as part of a skit to entertain members of the Metropolitan Republican Club and the Proud Boys (a neo-fascist hate group founded by McInnes After the performance, McInnes left the club holding the plastic samurai sword used in the reenactment.

because i think it is not relevant here. I could see this section placed on "Gavin McInnes", but in this lemma it does not add much extra (my POV). However, my removal was reverted today.

Any other views on this? Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps pertinent discussion and reasoning can be found on this very page. Have you looked? JesseRafe (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Easy, just write On October 12, 2018, right-wing provocateur Gavin McInnes reenacted the murder as part of a skit to entertain members of the Metropolitan Republican Club and the Proud Boys (considered a hate group by the SPLC). Anything else is unnecessary or unneutral. 201.240.82.115 (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is not relevant to the article, but if this information must be presented, this is the way to word it. From Wikipedia's article on writing from a neutral point of view "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. ... The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.". The Proud Boys being a hate group is a controversial opinion held by an activist organization that is not agreed to by the Proud Boys and many others. It should be presented as the opinion of the SPLC, not as an established fact. Rectipaedia (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removal or editing down, this political opinion (which seems to keep reverting itself in) adds nothing to the subject of the article. TomWaterson (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it all. It's skewed towards American political discourse and is excessively detailed. It has no relevance to the rest of the article which is entirely Japanese-focused. The re-enactment was not a prominent event as the provided sources only briefly mention it. If it was prominent then better sources are required. Lightbloom (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

The SPLC is Not a legimate Source and The Proud Boys are not a Neo Fascist Group. The reference should be removed. 74.109.8.250 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It does appear to be a legitimate source. There are quite a few discussions at the talk page for the primary article for this group at Proud Boys. Perhaps get it settled there, where more interested parties can be involved. Kuru (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Before we argue over which sources are legitimate, we should wait until we have a source describing them as neo-fascist. At this point, no such source has been cited, and in fact, the SPLC's article on the Proud Boys does not describe them as neo-fascist. Rectipaedia (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

It states on this page that the organization founded by Gavin McInnes is a neofascist group. Mr. McInnes is currently suing the SPLC for labeling the group as such, and none of the ideologies put forth by the group or its members, are fascist. This is an incorrect statement and should be corrected. Freeagent165 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussions above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute

Discuss on the talk page before any of you revert to any version of the article. @C.Fred, JesseRafe, and Rectipaedia: --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ECP-protected for a year, so should alleviate some of the concerns. Rectipedia, please use the talk page to propose any changes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one willing to contribute to this talk page discussion. Unless someone is willing to provide a source for the claim that the Proud Boys are neo-fascists, I don't see why this edit should stand. Rectipaedia (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You can make your claim on Talk:Proud Boys; I imagine it's been made before and dismissed. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a separate article. Sources must be provided for this article. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Rectipaedia (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice but not convincing. You can always copy the references from that article to this one. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys cites, by my count, ten sources supporting the label of neo-fascist. Do we really need all ten of them cited here as well? —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not the number of sources. To call someone a "neo-fascist" is editorializing. It's a pure opinion word. The Proud Boys fight Antifa, so Antifa supporters accuse them of being fascist. A literal neo-fascist would be someone who wants to recreate Mussolini's Italy. The intended meaning here is closer to, "This is a group I really don't like." Colin Gerhard (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the article, not your personal opinion, not your conjecture on people's motives, nor exegesis on your idiolect. They are neo-fascists, and that is adequately and abundantly sourced enough to call them that in Wikipedia's voice. Your personal definition is not sourced or even logical. JesseRafe (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the word "neofascist" as defined by Oxford: "A member of an organization similar to the Italian Fascist movement of the early 20th century."[4] Do the Proud Boys meet this definition? If not, what definition of the word do they meet? Colin Gerhard (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Your comments will be removed from this talk page if you refuse to discuss *this* article. If you want to discuss the Proud Boys and/or their fascism, please do so at the Proud Boys and/or neo-fascist talk pages. It's simple. JesseRafe (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize that the Proud Boys are mentioned in this article? You should also read WP:NPA. Colin Gerhard (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize that the Proud Boys are linked in this article? You should also read WP:TENDENTIOUS. JesseRafe (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The significance of linking is.....? I don't think it makes it OK to use the article you are linking to as a source. Colin Gerhard (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nagao photo and erroneous description

The article says the photo happens as Yamaguchi removes his blade from victim after his first stab. That is incorrect. The article links to a YouTube video of the event. In that video, the first knife wound happens at 1:13, and the knife is pulled out in the same second. The moment Nagao captures is within 1:15 (about the 12th or 13th frame based on position of the victim's feet) in the video, as Yamaguchi sets himself up for his second, and apparently final, stab. The referenced citation notes, correctly, that Nagao's photo occurs just prior to the second stab, so I am not sure where the assertion that the photo was of withdrawal of the weapon after the first stab came from.

Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Change the word ultranationalist , to nationalist. The word ultranationalism is non exsistent, and using it comes off as biased and manipulatory. Sebastian20033 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Sebastian20033:  Not done: term is not POV nor necessarily negative. See Ultranationalism article here on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"and the Proud Boys (a neo-fascist hate group founded by McInnes)"

What the hell is that? Even the murderer Yamaguchi is described as just an ultranationalist (a neutral and fitting term) instead of garbage like that. Just as noted above ("not POV nor necessarily negative"). --5.173.112.150 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but this is clearly relevant information deserving of inclusion in an article about a 1960s assassination. The article is EP because you IP chuds can't handle that. NO I IN DENIAL (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone has an objection to the Proud Boys description, take it to Talk:Proud Boys and get consensus to change that article. The current description in this article comes from there, and is not by the SPLC. FDW777 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

“IP chuds”? Kys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:8F40:1565:F19:9E89:C6AC (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What a better way for fascists to reveal they are brigading this article than by using ips to establish death threats on the talk page against opponents of their evil ideology. 2601:140:8900:61D0:C189:ABFE:167C:50F1 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)