Talk:Shimanaka incident

Imperial Terrorism & Censorship
- «Whatever; I request to clarify this; "helped" sounds like nothing bad happened, meanwhile it's clearly a terror attack that instilled fear in those who would criticize emperor» - «Undid revision 1049692181 by Alexander Davronov talk) This does not quite work grammatically, due to the dangling modifier, and also does not accord with what the cited source says.» - «I think it should be called "terror"»
 * I propose to clarify in plain terms that this terrorist attack forced Japanese jornos to self-censorship their works related to Emperor; no need for MOS:WEASELing; I also propose to do the same to Chrysanthemum taboo; my best

AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 16:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in improving this article. Regarding your concerns, the emergence of the Chrysanthemum taboo was a much more complicated process than simply saying "out of fear." Although fear was part of the issue, as mentioned later in this same article, the initial response of the media to the attack was not fear but defiance, and the decision to self-censor was largely taken in response to pressure from conservative lawmakers and the possibility of a new law criminalizing discussion of the emperor. As for the word "helped," it is not saying this was a positive outcome, but is necessary here because the Shimanaka incident did not establish the Chrysanthemum Taboo all by itself. The use of the word "helped" in this way is quite common in English and does not imply a value judgment in either direction. But your removal of "helped" to leave only "established" wrongly suggests that this one event of the Shimanaka incident was solely responsible for the taboo - this is a major overstatement and would be inaccurate. Also, as mentioned in my edit summary, in addition to introducing inaccuracies, your edit was ungrammatical in English due to the misplaced modifying clause. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead is really just summarizing what is described in more detail later in the article. The answers to all your questions can be found by reading the "Aftermath" section. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though the problem may be a bit more complex than it appears to be my proposal is still in force; I also provided a source to verify the said proposal; my request for a quote from a book is also in force (please see WP:DETAG, your [18:31, October 14, 2021] edit was a bit premature);  I agree, that's why I propose to elaborate on it in simpler terms in both article's body and lead as well; this should be done per WP:INTRO provision;   I have a proposal, not a question; in light of what the Aftermath says I propose to explicitly mention that this kind of "self-policing" is in fact a self-censorship; regards.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 06:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying what you want. Yes, I think it's fine to mention self-censorship in the lead. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can tell for how long such Taboo period lasted? Is it relevant for the modern day Japan? The source I've provided above discusses it like it's relevant even for today. Your thoughts? AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 13:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, most commentators consider that it is still in effect today. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we safe to go with the following edits?: [16:35, October 16, 2021][16:32, October 16, 2021]? Your opinion? The source is paywalled btw. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 16:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! I made some minor edits for clarity and grammar. Important to say "media" since it also included audio and visual depictions. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine. It has nothing to do with grammar though... Journalists can be both writers, anchors, and investigators at the same time. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)