Talk:Yuri Kochiyama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Holding Malcolm X

How valid is the statement that Yuri held Malcolm X as he died? There weren't any pictures or anything of someone cradling Malcolm X's head.

Paracite 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

it's pretty well known... several eye witnesses (there were hundreds of people present, remember).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk • contribs) 16:00, May 30, 2007

Here is a picture of Yuri Kochiyama showing the picture of her cradling Malcolm's head.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/portlet/article/html/render_gallery.jsp?articleId=9312282&siteId=181&startImage=3

This link doesn't work. When you click on it is says "gallery not found". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You can also kind of see it in this picture as well (Yuri is kneeling towards the right)

http://www.malcolm-x.org/media/pic/mg51.jpg

Also: https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/140602-malcolmx.jpg?quality=75&strip=color&w=838 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SXibolet (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

--75.170.47.205 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

So Basically a typical left wing loon. 174.140.127.12 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes - a Left Wing loon which Google obviously supports. Supported black supremacy, communism, and anti-American terrorism. The fact that Google celebrates this individual is a shame, but then Google is also leftist. Kklsmith (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Declining edit request because you did not specify what changes you wanted to see made to the article. Please be specific. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually not a typical left wing loon because even typical left wing loons didn't typically support Osama bin Laden. Motsebboh (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

please remove the vandalism in the last sentence of the last paragraph. "WTF" is offensive and stupid

2605:E000:D5CD:7A00:B011:6833:9F9:3790 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have already been handled. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

The "WTF" at the end of the section on Osama Bin Laden should be deleted due to its biased intent. An anonymous editorial comment has no place in an academic article which simply explains the subject's philosophy. Thank you for your time.

Mercuryrules (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have already been handled. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I got it. Szarka (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Black separatist

I tagged the description of her as a "black separatist" in the lead because none of the sources used here actually describe her as such. Maybe she really was a "non-black black separatist" but then again, she doesn't appear to have ever described herself that way, nor has any source here actually labeled her as a "black separatist" or separatist of any kind. Laval (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This issue of her being invited to join and/or joining a black separatist movement or organization does not automatically make her a black separatist. Without a reliable source actually making that argument or coming to that conclusion, it is original research on the part of anyone to label her as a "black separatist" when she never identified as such, nor labeled as such by reliable sources. Laval (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see your tag? Can you make sure you have done it Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. It appears that someone else removed it, for whatever reason, without bothering to address the fact that none of the sources actually claim her as a "non-black black separatist" or "non-black black nationalist". Laval (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoever is attempting to push this "non-black black separatist/nationalist" -- the wording of which is extremely awkward, by the way -- may be conflating the support of non-black people for black separatist/nationalist movements, of which there have been many, with support for their separatist/nationalist goals. I've never come across any writer labeling them as "non-black black separatists". There are many Iranian politicians who support the Nation of Islam in various ways -- does that make them "non-black black separatists/nationalists"? Laval (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Laval, User:Alexis Ivanov: please see this discussion above regarding the "separatist" vs "nationalist" debate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

It might be a good idea to lock this wiki to new edits due to constant vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:C100:80:34EF:B6A3:31ED:5D40 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I made a temporary semi-protection request. Ketone16 (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You may want to lock this page. Yuri Kochiyama's 95th birthday is being highlighted by Google and the wikipedia page has been vandalized. 5/19/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.126.51.51 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Related to above edit, someone has added "WTF?" at the end of the final section before additional links and references, where the subject is quoted regarding her opinions of Bin Laden and US terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.196.2 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The "WTF" comment has been deleted. Szarka (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Internment camp vs Concentration camp

Internment of Japanese Americans uses the term "concentration camps". Perhaps this language should also be used here in the Early Life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarlettNumber (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Internment camp" seems like a more neutral choice to me, given the association between "concentration camp" and Nazi genocide. Szarka (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

Please delete the section "Views on Osama bin Laden and the War on Terrorism". These words were obviously a calculated, malicious attempt to disparage Kochiyama on a day meant to celebrate her, and are creating a dangerous backlash on social media. The extraordinary number of changes made to this page throughout the night and this morning are evidence of this. Yuri worked diligently all her life to build bridges and bring positive change. This section, which quotes Yuri in the later part of her life (after she began having mini strokes) is inflammatory and in this racially charged climate, inappropriate, dangerous, and not reflective of her body of work. Ykap (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is NOT censored. If Kochiyama were a fountain of positivity, while simultaneously admiring the likes of bin Laden and Castro, you shouldn't need to censor her words. Counter them with your examples of the positive change she made and your evidence that she didn't know what she was saying in 2003, some eleven years before her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.41.70 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that those are extreme statements that deserve some attention in the article, but as there are no extensive quotes from statements she made during her productive years, the intent of their inclusion and emphasis is quite obvious. 2003 Might have been over 10 years before her death, but that would mean she was 82, and she was certainly no longer a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhorning (talk • contribs) 06:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you do not understand the rules and purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not "celebrate" biographical subjects, but simply neutrally describes their biographical information and views, as long as such information is properly documented with citations, presented in a neutral manner, and without undue weight on marginal aspects of the subject. If some details are embarassing in retrospect, that's really too bad.

(In particular, I find your "justification" that she had suffered several strokes before enunciating such views to be a laughable rationalization. They only merit inclusion if you can find a verifiable source noting that she had some kind of personality change after these events causing her to spout bizarre views.)

Now if want to argue that attention to her controversial points of view are taking up undue weight in this article, you might actually have a point. I think this is a natural result of Google shining a spotlight on a controversial subject like this. I think after the attention has passed, this article should be subject to some careful, judicious editing, aiming for an article that presents the totality of her views and actions (including the highly controversial ones) and is neither hagiography nor demonization of the Kochiyama. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Extensive quotes from interviews beyond her publicly active years are undue weight on marginal aspects of the subject. By your own standards, they can be included, but the article is no longer neutral if they are emphasized.Nhorning (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm straight up not buying the argument that statements made during the 2000s were outside of her "publicly active years". A simple look at her biography or a search for videos including her show her to be a public figure well into the 2000s.

That said, this now-lengthy article contains only one paragraph on her activism during the 1960s, and most of that on fringey political groups she was part of. No mention of her community organizing activism starting in the mid-60s, which is how she became a public figure in the first place. That much certainly does need to be remedied. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If the quotes are, as you say, "inappropriate and dangerous," then all the more reason they should be presented in this context. Google has chosen, in a fairly short-sighted and ham-handed fashion, to deify this person; that deification is in fact the thing that is "inappropriate and dangerous." The quotes are correct, specific, and clearly on the record. For now, the quotes stay. Additionally, thank you Iamcuriousblue for your balanced analysis. --Johnwbyrd (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for designation as foreign terrorist organization by the US government [1].

The organization must be foreign based.

The organization engages in terrorist activity or terrorism, or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.

The terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or national security of the United States.

You may note "widespread brutality" isn't on the list. Widespread brutality was in fact conducted by both sides on the Peruvian civil war, with the balance of it originating from the government side. Attempts to emphasize that these organizations she supported were "bad" are clearly POV. There are links to articles on those organizations already included. Nhorning (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

Please add after "Japanese American human rights activist" this language, "and a voice for Asian American empowerment."

Yuri was not known just for being a Japanese human rights activist and a non-black separatist. She was notable just for following the thoughts of other men like Malcolm X, Karl Marx or Mao Tse Tung.

For the summary to be accurate, it should reflect that she is a very notable and historic figure amongst Asian American communities and others as a leading and vocal activist championing Asian empowerment, specifically. Not sure why this is deleted. See the LA Times,

Also see the Smithsonian: "Yuri is real – and she is more than a footnote in the life of another man...She was a cornerstone in the Black Power and Asian American liberation' movements alike..." see i 71.174.19.207 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Who was Assata Shakur, and what was the author trying to say?

The current (May 23, 2016) article reads, "She was a friend and supporter of Marilyn Buck, a feminist poet, who was imprisoned for her participation in the 1979 prison escape of Assata Shakur, the 1981 Brink's robbery and the 1983 U.S. Senate bombing.[21] and Assata Shakur, an African-American activist and member of the former Black Liberation Army (BLA), who had been convicted of several crimes including the first-degree murder of a New Jersey State Trooper before escaping from U.S. prison and receiving asylum in Cuba." Note that this one sentence mentions Assata Shakur, then a clause about two crimes, then "and" another clause about Assata Shakur.

Was there supposed to be another person mentioned? Is the order of the clauses just jumbled? IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, we never heard of her and she had nothing to do with Reparations

In thirty five years teaching and publishing in Asian American Studies, I never heard anyone so much as mention Yuri Kochiyama's name. The article makes it sound as if she had something to do with reparations for Japanese American internees from the camps. That steals the glory from the JACL, the Japanese American Citizen's League and the heroic 442nd "Go for Broke" Regiment, from Fred Korematsu, and countless others. A quick check of the basic texts, going back to that era, like Ron Takaki's Strangers from a Different Shore, and his A Different Mirror, do not show her in the indexes. She isn't in the standard encyclopedia, Asian Pacific American Heritage: a companion to literature and arts. The article cites her as a Japanese American Maoist, which would have made her anathema in Japanese American political circles and the Taiwanese-origin Chinese American ones alike. She's probably best regarded as a person of Japanese American birth who was permitted to be a minor participant in the more violent radical wings of Black Studies fifty or sixty years ago That would explain the degree from the California State University in the East Bay. In the 1950s, Japanese American intellectuals like the poet Lawson Inada, living in segregation, stigmatized by the war, admired the Black Civil Rights movement and tried to join it. In Inada's poems about Black music, he presents the Japanese American experience as parallel to the Black experience. Black radicals tolerated Inada and his claim about as much as, I suspect, as they tolerated Kochiyama. Frankly, she sounds like a hanger-on over there. But I don't know. First time I ever heard of her. Profhum (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yuri was in Asian Americans for Action (AAA) with Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga and was part of the New York/East Coast redress movement (East Coast Japanese Americans for Redress). She wasn't as heavily involved as the JACL/NCJAR/NCRR folks, but she was definitely active in the push for reparations. Her most notable contribution is probably organizing the campaign to bring the CWRIC hearings to NYC and finding people to testify.

I do think the current wording — "Due to her civil rights experience, Yuri and Bill—along with several Japanese American organizations on the East Coast and West Coast" — could be changed to make it clearer that Yuri was not one of the primary leaders of the redress movement, but it's a little hysterical to say that mentioning her involvement "steals the glory" from the JACL. (Korematsu and the 442 certainly helped to change public attitudes towards Japanese Americans and the incarceration, which laid some not insignificant groundwork, but neither were involved in the redress movement. I'm not sure why you're bringing them up here.) MartinaDee (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Aiko Herzig-Yohinaga is not mentioned in Fujino's biography of Kochiyama. AAA is, but as an anti-capitalist organisation it's unclear how influential it was in the redress movement (it doesnt even have its own wikipedia article, gets a few mentions on google books). According to Fujino's biography p. 237 Kochiyama was a member of AAA, but wasn't involved in the leadership, as she was too busy supporting convicted terrorists, black separatism and practicing Islam. Frankly, I have been unable to find any evidence that anyone outside the radical fringe paid any attention whatsoever to Kochiyama prior to a White House apparatchik issuing a press release when she died (presumably under the impression she was a moderate progressive). NPalgan (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

AAA wasn't very influential in the redress movement, was more active during the 60s-70s, focused on civil rights issues and protesting the Vietnam War — but a lot of East Coast Nikkei activists who later worked on redress came out of AAA. I only brought it up for context; it's not in the article, and I don't think anyone is saying it ought to be.

Is there an actual edit you're proposing? Because it sounds like you're just here to argue that Kochiyama lacks notability because you disagree with her politics. MartinaDee (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Some people elsewhere on the talk page have suggested that Kochiyama's"radical, controversial" activities and statements have been over-emphasised at the expense of more "mainstream" advocacy. But it appears that the former were more important to her and took up much more of her time (and have gained a good deal of media coverage) so the article as it stands is quite balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"one of the few prominent non-black Black nationalists"

References cited in the article establish that she was one of few non-Black members of the RNA, but not that this makes her "one of the few prominent non-black Black nationalists". (And perhaps it's worth noting that the Republic of New Afrika article doesn't mention her at all. So maybe work needs doing there, too.) How important was the RNA within the larger movement? What is the basis for the claim that there were few other prominent non-blacks within the larger movement? The claim in the summary is a larger claim than what is supported in the article. Szarka (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yuri Kochiyama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://awol.objector.org/yuri.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Black Liberation Movement (Black nationalism vs black liberation vs black separatism)

Should Kochiyama's views be described as Black nationalist or Black separatist?NPalgan (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no link to a Wikipedia page for Black Liberation Movement, that term should be defined within this article, at the very least to distinguish it from the literal black liberation movement successfully carried out by the early Republican Party and other abolitionists in the years preceding and immediately following the American Civil War. Any "black liberation" subsequent to the literal liberation of blacks in America would have to be figurative, and therefore its actual meaning should be explained in the article. - Embram (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The description of her as a "black separatist" is being changed to "black liberation activist". Why? There is a Reliable Source confirming that she was a member of a black separatist organisation. Black separatists are a subset enclosed entirely within the set of black liberation activists, it is a more specific term and will get across the content of Kochiyama's beliefs more readily to the reader than "liberation". There is not a wiki article for "black liberation movement " whereas there IS one for 'black separatism", enabling the reader to click on the link to clarify the precise meaning of the term. Please justify your stance, but in the meantime I am reverting the change. NPalgan (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The only mention of "separatism" in the article is that she was invited to join the Republic of New Africa. I've changed it to "nationalism" which is more general and better supported by numerous sources. Nearly all of the sources cited in the article use "nationalism," and several use "liberation." I have yet to see "separatism" other than the aforementioned invitation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you read the source linked, it clearly shows that she joined the RNA, and was completely in agreement with the black separeatist goal. NPalgan (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Black separatism states that it is a subcategory of Black nationalism, so it is most precise to call Kochiyama a separatist, if this can be well sourced. NPalgan (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Nearly all of the sources support the more general positions of nationalism and liberation; you have so far one source that says she joined the RNA (but doesn't explicitly describe her as a separatism). That's a pretty tenuous link for appelation used in the lede. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

But this is Kochiyama's authorised biography, published by UMinnesota press. I don't understand how you could read the source as not unambiguously proving she was a separatist. I understand that most sources describe her as a liberationist/nationalist. Imagine we were writing an article about a prominent Marxist. Most sources just describe the person as a marxist, but if we have a RS that states unambiguously that the person was a Maoist, wikipedia would go with Maoist as it's more specific and more precise and Maoist implies Marxist. NPalgan (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full-text, but using Google's book search, I'm not seeing anywhere that it unambigously describes her as being a separatist: [2], [3]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

p. 184 "she sided with the need to build an independent black nation in the South". I can't see any ambiguity here, that's the dictionary definition of black separatism. NPalgan (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So you're using one sentence from one source to define her as a separatist in the lede paragraph? How is that better than describing her in the lede as a nationalism, which is well-supported by numerous sources? It's fine to mention any statements she made on separatism (or her RNA association), which the rest of the article already does, but it's not well-supported enough to be in the intro. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the *only* book on Kochiyama. It was an authorised biography, written by a professor at UCSB, published by UMinnesota press. It should clearly be the default source, the backbone of a wikipedia article on Kochiyama. From wikipedia's policies: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not casting doubt on the source; my issue is that a small subset of black nationalist thought (separatism) is being used to define her in the lede. Yes, it is reliably sourced that she supported some black separatist ideas (page 180 of this book), but I still think "nationalist" as better in summarizing her position, as she wasn't strictly an advocate of separatism, nor did she explicitly identify as separatist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we've 'achieved disagreement'. Time for dispute resolution? NPalgan (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

An RFC might be a good idea, just to get a few other opinions besides our two. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Summoned by bot. Unclear what is sought in this RfC. What specific language is disputed? Please clarify. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC is missing a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" immediately below the RfC tag, as WP:RfC recommends. Without it, it isn't clear what you're looking for comments about. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there perhaps an agreeable middle-ground solution here? For example, why not use exactly some of the observations made above to briefly communicate some of the nuance of this topic. The lead is exactly three sentences long just now and can afford some fleshing out anyway. I agree with the other two respondents here that this RfC could have been approached and formatted better, but I think the discussion above actually clearly details the point of contention between you. It just doesn't seem like you two are all that far apart, or like you made any effort at just thrashing this out previous to RfC. I certainly think I see plenty of options here which easily accommodate the concerns of both of you. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Having looked at the article and sources, I concur with those here who say her position was more nuanced/ overlapping/ changing than either word on its own. That doesn't help much with this RfC, but a suitable quote might be found to express that evolving/blurred position.Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Balanced Summary

There is no consensus to include the proposed language in the article. Cunard (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose the following language as a solution to the back-and-forth on how much weight to give Kochiyama's support for terrorists and violent revolutionaries:

• Yuri Kochiyama was a Japanese American political activist influenced by Marxism, Maoism, and the thoughts of Malcolm X. Her career combined advocacy for the civil rights of marginalized groups with support for violent revolutionaries, some of whom are widely-considered terrorists.

I think language something like this would strike the right balance. While her admiration for bin Laden is certainly the most provocative of her positions, her support for the Shining Path, Mao, the Castros, and a variety of other violent revolutionaries known for killing both political opponents and "civilians" shows that this is not an aberrant statement from one late phase of her life.

Szarka (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Weak OPPOSE This summary still is largely whitewashing. The only people who do not consider Osama bin Laden a terrorist were his own supporters. I would drop "widely" from the description. Ergzay (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ergzay: Then shouldn't your !vote be "support with caveats" or something, instead of "weak oppose"? It makes it seem like you want to remove the terrorist bit entirely, when you just want to remove the word "widely". Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed The lead to Osama bin Laden doesn't refer to him as a terrorist, but you want to refer to him here as one of several who are "widely-considered [sic] terrorists"? No way. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It does actually. "Bin Laden was on the American Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) lists of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists for his involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings." Ergzay (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Read it again, real slowly this time. See if it calls him a terrorist. See if it even says the FBI called him a terrorist. It doesn't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Apples and oranges. The proposed lead does not label her a terrorist, just that several figures she supported are considered to be terrorist by many. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading comprehension failure? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

From the proposed opening sentence: "some of whom are widely-considered terrorists". This clearly does not label Kochiyama nor Bin Laden as a terrorist, but instead that many consider Bin Laden to be one.

From Bin Laden's lead: "Bin Laden was on the American Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) lists of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists for his involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings" - clearly states that Bin Laden is considered by the FBI to be terrorist. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If bin Laden is "widely considered" a terrorist, why doesn't his own article say in the lead that he's widely considered a terrorist? Instead, it backdoors the fact by saying he was on the FBI's list. That's not the same as a statement that bin Laden was a terrorist. You should be ashamed of yourself if you can't tell the difference. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Another ad hominem. If you honestly think "Bin Laden is widely considered to be a terrorist" is literally the same thing as "Bin Laden is a terrorist", you should be ashamed of yourself for failing basic comprehension. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Such a summary really isn't balanced, but places an undue emphasis on the controversial aspects of her career. I am on record as not wanting this article to be bowdlerized of such information, but nevertheless, the article needs to be balanced, place different aspects of her career with due weight, and strictly adhere to the principle of WP:NPOV, something I see some on both sides of the debate about this article losing sight of. I suggest having a look at the existing articles on Lynne Stewart and Angela Davis for examples of articles that cover controversial figures in a neutral, balanced, and full manner. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

One other point "...influenced by Marxism, Maoism..." is redundant. Maoism is a subset of Marxism. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that she supported a wide variety of dictators, terrorists, and other violent individuals over several decades, it seems very much like giving "due weight" to briefly mention this consistent, enduring feature of her outlook somewhere above the fold. Perhaps a better approach would be to point to the controversy over the way she was honored recently? I hope that someone else will chime in with suggested language. (I'd agree, BTW, that "influenced by Marxism, Maoism, and the thoughts of Malcolm X" is awkward; just trying to preserve as much existing language as possible.) Szarka (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iamcuriousblue: per MOS:LEAD, notable controversies are required to be mentioned in the lead of the article, as I explain below. As per provide sources, various RS clearly consider Kochiyama's activism controversial enough to make headline news; thus, in this case, your removal of criticism is the actual NPOV violation. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Very strong support. The current article is textbook whitewashing. Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", emphasis mine. And there is absolutely no doubt that various WP:RS consider Kochiyama to be a highgly controversial figure. Taken from Google News:

• Yuri Kochiyama, today's Google Doodle, fought for civil rights — and praised Osama bin Laden
• Google Doodle Honors America Hating Al Qaeda Sympathizer
• Google Doodle Honors America Hating Al Qaeda Sympathizer Google commemorates a very controversial civil-rights figure, Yuri Kochiyama
• Google Honors Bin Laden Supporter With Google Doodle
• Why Is Google Honoring A Marxist Terrorist Who Thanked Bin Laden For 9/11? (NOTE: Not sure if this is RS)
• Google Honors Communist Traitor and Al Qaeda Supporter
• Google Spotlights Activist Admirer of Osama Bin Laden
• GOP senator slams Google for tribute to controversial civil rights figure

For the purposes of transparency, plenty of other sources praised Google's decision or praised Kochiyama, but since this discussion is about criticism of her activism only, I see no reason to post them here. Nevertheless, from my supplied sources above it is self-evident that as various sources consider her praise of bin Laden important enough to make headline news it should clearly deserve a mention in the lead. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the title of the Washington Post article. And nearly all the websites you cite are great sources for right-wing opinions, not for facts. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And who are you to dictate whether a source contains "opinions" or "facts"? Just because a site leans to the right does not discount it from being reliable. Similarly, just because a site leans to the left (e.g. The Huffington Post, The Guardian) doesn't discount it from being reliable either. Wikipedia requires a combination of both right-wing opinions and left-wing opinions to maintain WP:NPOV, and whitewashing conservative concerns of Kochiyama's praise of figures considered by many to be terrorists from the introduction violates MOS:LEAD. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe in right-wing fantasy land they teach you that facts and opinions are the same thing ("facts are stupid things"), but in the real world most of us know the difference. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

How cute, an ad hominem attack and strawman because you don't have any policies to back up your points. I must've missed your inauguration as the formal designator of what is facts vs opinion on Wikipedia. You've also just openly admitted to WP:POVPUSHing a left-wing bias into the article yet thats totes ok because something something "right-wing fantasy land" something something "facts are opinions". If you're only fallback is literally WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'm done here. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, one more thing: Since you've accused me of being a right winger (which you seem to think is an insult), I'd like to clarify that I'm really not. Last time I checked my political compass I was pretty well left of center. I just happen to have the super rare yet high useful skill of respecting other peoples' political affiliations and ideas, including both liberal and conservative opinions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A gentle reminder of WP:NPA. It shouldn't matter what the political leanings of an editor are, please see WP:AGF. The question is how much of the subject of this article's stated support of X or Y should be in the lead, or whether it belongs in the body. Is there significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant it being given weight in the lead of the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yuri Kochiyama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222175214/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F02%2F21%2F1442218 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F02%2F21%2F1442218

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:American human rights activists

Can someone who supported Mao, the Shining Path, and Osama bin Laden really be called a "human rights activist"? Josh (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if that's the way reliable sources describe her. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sunni Muslim?

Why is Kochiyama listed as a Muslim? The article does not say this, and a Maoist would tend to be atheistic. Supporting Osama is not automatically the same as being Muslim. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to nitpick, please read the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice that I didn't actually change anything. I missed the paragraph about her secretly converting, and it still seems out-of-place, but then her life as a whole seems discordant.

IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Died in two places?

Normally people die in one place. The info box lists she died in Berkeley, CA, and the text says she died in Oakland, CA. I believe that she died in Berkeley, CA.

"www.npr.org › sections › codeswitch › 2014/06/02 › japa... Japanese-American activist Yuri Kochiyama has died of natural causes in Berkeley, Calif., at age 93. The ..."

Go figure... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.26.9 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)