Talk:Tokyo subway sarin attack/Archive 1

Consistency

I think it would be very helpful if this article were cleaned up and made a bit more consistent. It's clear that the author spent a lot of time going into immense detail (which makes the page all the more interesting) but there're some things that are included in one subset but not another. For example, in the blurb about the attack on the Chiyoda line the time is mentioned, but not anywhere are the times included for the other attacks. Also the Marunouchi line blurb doesn't mention the punishment of the perpetrator, while the others do (although most are only for the one who carried out the attack, it seems, not the get-away driver). These little details are what I'm talking about. Also, though this might belong more on the Aleph page, I think some more mentions of the different Ministries within Aleph would be helpful. From the article it'd appear there's just one, Science & Technology. All in all very impressive article though! Mixvio 11:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not just impressive, it's an excellent article, close to a masterpiece. Besides the illustrations, I especially like how everything is structured and how accurate and detailed the data is. Superb. ExitControl

---

I think it would make sence to adjust the 'background' section with the contents of Aum Shinrikyo article. Brainwashing techniques is something about which a heated debate is being continued in the academic community with 'anti-cultists' with their brainwashing theory opposing the more neutral researchers that do not support the cult-bashing movement. The drugs accusation is only partly valid: courts established that Aum did produce some anesthetic drug, but its use was not widespread. There were many unfounded accusations, only small number was finally proven by the prosecution. Press coverage should be relied upon with fair amount of scepticism.

Also, Murakami seems to have examined the chronology of events quite thoroughly, but where is the question 'why'?

There is two theoried I know of, both are produced by the prosecution. First is that Aum wanted to overthrow the goverment and install Shoko Asahara as king of Japan (how they were supposed to do that and why they didn't try, the idiotic theory does not explain). The second and the most recent is 'to divert attention' from some planned investigation and searches on the group (but police previously has said that no searches were planned before the attack, but much public criticism was precisely because police did not foresee anything, so this theory is clumsy as well). There is no version that fully rxplains the events. The theory of the defence team of Shoko Asahara is that some disciples did it all on their own, not notifying the founder, but for what purpose it also doesn't explain.

Another interesting matter is why just 12 commuters died. Think about it. When some terrorist act is being planned, it is usually supposed that the terrorist try to maximize the damage. It was entirely possible to calculate the lethal dosage and amount of liquid gas needed for that, yet 12 people died, not 12000. For instance, in Israel just 1 arab suicide bomber sometimes manage to kill as many as 20 commuters and he/she does not bother to manufacture any difficult-to-produce gases for this task. Do we have to believe that Aum scientists simply erred in their calculations? Or they specifically wanted to minimize the damage?

For the latter theory there are some supporting facts. It was established in court that somewhere in 1994 same people who were involved in the attack tried to distribute some bacterias, apparently doing a test. But it was later established that the bacteria used were harmless and the method of distribution (propulsion by high-pressure liquid oxygen) kills any living bacterias in the process (so doubly harmless). Did the scientists with degrees in biology and chemistry did not know that? They must have known such basics, but did this aimless tests anyway, what for?

I wish I could reflect this controversy in the article. Will try when time allows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ExitControl (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts. Exploding Boy 15:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Japanese order

Why is Japanese order preferred in this article? As far as I know, contemporary Japanese figures are referred to by Surname last in English language mass media. I'll do some googling to see if this is the case with these guys... WhisperToMe 05:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added +Aum to ensure the hits are of the Aum Shinrikyo people. A few examples:

• "Ikuo Hayashi" + Aum = 273
• "Hayashi Ikuo" + Aum = 26
• "Kenichi Hirose" + Aum = 139
• "Hirose Kenichi" + Aum = 21
• "Toru Toyoda" + Aum = 157
• "Toyoda Toru" + Aum = 20
• "Masato Yokoyama" + Aum = 159
• "Yokoyama Masato" + Aum = 25

WhisperToMe 05:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as for an example about what I am talking about, see [1] WhisperToMe 17:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) Mainichi Shimbun uses western order too... http://www12.mainichi.co.jp/news/mdn/search-news/912437/Asahara20Aum-0-1.html - I see nothing on the talk page or anything anywhere which mentions a decision like this being made. I will probably change everything back to Western order and note that English-language mass media uses Western order. WhisperToMe 17:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) And Crimelibrary does it too ([2]) WhisperToMe 20:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Has any consensus been reached on this matter on Wikipedia? Exploding Boy 15:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

In fact, the manual of style states: "If the name is not widely known and used by English speakers, then stick to the Japanese order." Exploding Boy 15:58, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

The google hits seem to say that the Western naming order (e.g. Shoko Asahara, which is widely used by Western and English-speaking people) is used when relating to Aum-Shinrikyo people. The names of the minions are used in Western media in the Western order, and I think that should count as "widely known".

Not really. A google search for Junichiro Koizumi gets 99,500 hits as of right now. That's widely known. Google isn't the end-all, be-all of this sort of thing, admittedly, but you'd still be several orders of magnitude more likely to find someone who knows Koizumi than who knows either of the Hayashis. (Asahara you might conceivably get lucky with, but he has a nicely wikified article all to himself, so anyone who cares can look him up there.) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 19:45, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Another source is the newspaper. Even Mainichi Shimbun puts these names in English order. WhisperToMe 22:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant: that's presumably what their style manual says. Ours says, "If the name is not widely known and used by English speakers, then stick to the Japanese order." None of the people whom this article is about are widely known or referred to by English speakers. Asahara arguably is, but I don't consider it beneficial to reverse his name here, considering that it's not his article and is liable only to result in confusion. If you really prefer mixing GN-SN and SN-GN in the same article, I shan't waste energy arguing with you, but there's no need to go reversing the rest of them. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 23:12, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

I switched Shoko's and left the rest of the names in SN-GN (And Haruki Murakami's is still GN-SN) - As for what you cited, I don't 100% support it (In other words, I don't think this works in every single instance), so I'll probably bring that up in the convention page. WhisperToMe 23:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The manual says "In general, use the form of a person's name that is most widely known and used by English speakers. This is what people expect to see and it is what they will search for and link to." - Since the Western order gets more google hits AND is used in Western media and even English-language Japanese media, that should be used in the article. In addition, other Aum-related articles on Wikipedia use Western order (I wrote the Sakamoto family murder article because Crime Library used western order for the people involved).

And yes, there has been a big naming dispute in Wikipedia. I believe that is why "Koizumi Junichiro" was moved to "Junichiro Koizumi". WhisperToMe 23:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Japanese)/Archive_Feb_6_04 WhisperToMe 23:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Shoko Asahara" is well known. I suggest the naming order should be changed back to English order. WhisperToMe 21:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WTM, as usual much of the controversy comes from -- SURPRISE!!! -- you. Exploding Boy 15:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hayashi Yasuo's third packet

There seems to be an inconsistency in the text: was it forced upon him or did he insist upon it? --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 19:47, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

A bit of both, in a sense. As I understand it, there was an extra packet (or there were extra packets) and he volunteered to take it (them) to prove his loyalty. Exploding Boy 15:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

The other Hayashi

Ikuo Hayashi seems to have his own article in the Japanese wikipedia. I'm thinking about making one for the English Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 02:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he's interesting for other reasons (so you can do better than a stub) that'd be a good idea. However, you should probably wait until a better consensus than 'two-thirds of three people' has been reached concerning name order for him. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 02:57, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

The google hit counts are going up for the GN-SN forms of the guys' names. WhisperToMe 17:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naming, again

May I now switch the naming orders of these people? Their google hit counts should be higher than before, as English-language Japanese newspapers are reporting on their fates (and these newspapers use Western order). WhisperToMe 03:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph says 6000 injured - I've seen 5000 more commonly cited but both figures are almost certainly wrong as it seems thousand who turned up at hospital for treatment weren't physically harmed at all but rather suffering from some call mass sociogenic illness - i.e. thinking they were ill because everyone else felt the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.119.39.228 (talk • contribs) .

Cite your source (my source is given in the References section). Exploding Boy 21:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

See, this is the type of thing that really pisses me off. One of the big complaints by supporters of Western naming order was the apparently obtrusive presence of a note at the top of the page regarding naming order!! Now we have one that, rather than informing the reader that the naming order is Japanese (ie: FN GN) it's Western (GN FN)!!! This is absolutely crazy, and still I'm not aware of any consensus on the name-order issue. I'm planning to change all the names back unless someone can give me a good reason why I shouldn't. Exploding Boy 20:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just because the whole-picture policy has no consensus doesn't mean decisions cannot be made for individual articles. Also, google hit counts on Ikuo Hayashi's name (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22Ikuo+Hayashi%22+-wikipedia+-begellhouse+-affrc+-Vankin&lr=lang_en) have gone up due to reporting on the planned executions of different Aum members. WhisperToMe 22:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly it does, particularly when that decision involves changing the established name order in an article. The entire article was initially FN GN and you've been changing it, bit by bit, to GN FN, finally changing even the note at the top of the page. Exploding Boy 23:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

By established, you mean the order that was previously used in this article, right? I don't see a problem with switching the order to reflect the time period and the common usage by Anglophones. Having the names in Western order will have it match with the news media groups reporting on it as well as Crime Library, which are all major sources. I have heard that "Wikipedia is separate", but at the same time it needs to reflect common usage, and the news organizations + Crime Library reflects common usage among people who know about these men. Also, most other Wikipedia articles on AUM-related subjects already use the Western order. WhisperToMe 23:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopaedia, and we like to call people what they call themselves. We also have a convention that suggests that we leave variations as they are when the article in question was written (forms of English, for example). If we can have a note stating that the names are in one order, then why not the other? How is one less confusing? Exploding Boy 00:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

"On the other hand, Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopaedia, and we like to call people what they call themselves." - Not always - Aum Shinrikyo now refers to itself as "Aleph" but it is still referred to as "Aum Shinrikyo". Also, a lot of Anglicized names are used as article titles. E.G. I doubt Jesus called himself exactly "Jesus", and Christopher Columbus is known by different names in Spanish and Italian. "Joseph Stalin" is also an Anglicized version of an original name. WhisperToMe 03:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As usual, we're getting mired in unimportant details. You've still failed to address the real questions, and you've still proceeded with changing an article without consensus. Exploding Boy 15:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Now, for this: "If we can have a note stating that the names are in one order, then why not the other? How is one less confusing? "

The Western order is the least surprising to Anglophones. The people read Crime Library and CNN and turn around and see the names in the opposite order on Wikipedia..

"We also have a convention that suggests that we leave variations as they are when the article in question was written (forms of English, for example)."

This mainly has to do with British and American naming conventions when they are used in articles that have nothing to do with the U.S. or the U.K.

"You've still failed to address the real questions, and you've still proceeded with changing an article without consensus. "

Now, it's kinda hard to gauge consensus here... you and I appear to be the only ones at the moment who really care about the issue, while most other people wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Most people would be okay with the change, but there's only one person who really roots for it.. WhisperToMe 21:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Now there'a a perfect example of why Western naming order is less effective: instead of being able to write "Hayashi Ikuo (林 郁夫)" we have to write "Ikuo Hayashi (林 郁夫 Hayashi Ikuo)," which is both cumbersome and confusing, and which there'd be no need to do if we simply left a note at the top of the article explaining that the Japanese names are given in the Japanese order. Exploding Boy 21:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

But another purpose of that is to show how names are conventionally romanized (to show where the long vowels are in conventional romanization); one could leave out the "FN GN" parts of the names which do not have long vowels. Also, another purpose is to show whether something is either "n-i" or "ni". I also thought of having a general footnote used in all articles that involve Japanese names that would redirect to an article like the Japanese names article. WhisperToMe 06:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What? Exploding Boy 14:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am saying that you can delete the "FN-GN" strings that are to the right of the kanji for the names that do not involve long vowels. Also, the FN-GN string serves the purpose of showing conventional romanization and where the long vowels are. WhisperToMe 23:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

...all of which could be eliminated by just doing it right the first time. Why does it seem like I'm always having this conversation with you? Exploding Boy 23:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any compelling reason not to, I'm inclined to revert the names to their original, Japanese order. Exploding Boy 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is an outrage! We've now come full circle back to what you objected about in the first place, with a notice about name order! I'll be reverting all the name order changes as soon as I have the time. Exploding Boy 17:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Elaborate this first. WhisperToMe 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's all about consistency.

• Consistency with the English-speaking world in general.
• Consistency with other Wikipedia articles.

WhisperToMe 03:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)