 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 12, 2012, October 12, 2015, October 12, 2018, and October 12, 2020. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Uh...IMHO, I do not think it might be a good idea to have a video of his death displayed via the youtube link. What do yall think? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it ought to be. It's preserved history, and seeing it unfold in motion is every bit as profound as a still shot. If anyone leveled an argument against the video on a moral and maturity level, one should keep in mind that "morals" are subjective, and all Wiki users should, on good faith, be considered mature by default until they prove otherwise. In any event, you don't take something away from all when your beef is only with the few. Jersey John (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As both persons are noteworthy.2605:6000:6947:AB00:C4C5:C9EE:D9CC:FC12 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit restores an explanation of the distinction between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China that I don't think is necessary. For our purposes, the issue is simply that Asanuma was a fan of Mao Zedong's China. When Taipei's claim to the whole of China is relevant, the usual solution is to call it "Nationalist China." I have never seen a published source use the terms "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" as a way to distinguish between countries. I see this as an example of "Wikipediaspeak" that may confuse readers. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon cross checking with other sources, I found that the Newton source is full of numerous egregious errors and bald mis-statements of fact, even in just a few short paragraphs. It is entirely unreliable and all citations to it must be considered suspect and removed. I will attempt to replace these citations with citations to more reliable sources, adding corrected information. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have completed a major expansion with citations to much more reliable sources. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]This article reads like a Buzzfeed page. It's obviously not objective (I know you already know this), for example how it casually says he was modest, hardworking and "respected by fellow lawmakers" and not even trying to back it up with a source. --31.201.177.82 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the template on the top of the page; this is particularly due to the Legacy section. Some of the language goes a bit far in engaging in analysis in Wikipedia's voice, which goes against WP:NPOV. Furthermore, some of the language is overly flowery and can be replaced with plainer language. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have removed flowerly language and replaced with plainer language. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
