Talk:Yuri Kochiyama

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

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: [1], [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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

Balanced Summary

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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.