Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Satomi Mitarai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleKilling of Satomi Mitarai was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 2, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Asperger's diagnosis

[edit]

The Japanese version of this article states thus:

"加害女児は事件後、収容先の自立支援施設でアスペルガー症候群と診断されている[15]。"
"After this case, the perpetrator girl while in the institutional facility was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome."

The Japanese text references a book written by journalist Atsuko Kusanagi titled (in English) Tracked down! The Case of the Homicide by a Sasebo Elementary 6th Grade Girl of Her Peer, which I do not have access to.

How should we incorporate this information into the English Wikipedia? --Beneficii (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure thats a real book? I doesnt register a hit on WorldCat, google books or amazon.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book is real; the title above is the translated version, but the book is in Japanese. ISBN: 4062130416 -- Lostparabola (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the book and can verify the diagnosis. --Beneficii (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only one source mentioning it, per BLP I think we should not. The diagnosis doesnt seem to have played any active role in what happened or the reaction. If her lawyers go on to use that diagnosis for later legal recourse- like expungement - or if it becomes a standard addition to criminal defense/prosecution to do mental health checks and this case is cited as the reason, then probably we should. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source that confirms it (emphasis added): "藤本氏は「今回の事件（高1女子殺害事件）にあてはまるかどうかは分かりませんが…」と、前置きしながらも「彼女（小6女児同級生殺害事件の加害者）が『アスペルガー障害（本来はアスペルガー症候群）』という事実が分かってきた」とコメントし、高1女子殺害事件にも同様の可能性があることを指摘した。"(translated; "Tetsuya Fujimoto commented that he understood it was true that the killer in the case of the elementary 6th grade girl who killed her classmate has Asperger's disorder (originally Asperger syndrome)." http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/9089239/
--Beneficii (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I read the Japanese Wikipedia, I got the sense her fixations on Battle Royale, a novel about students who are stranded on an island with weapons or other items and told that only the last one to survive would get to leave, and other morbid subjects often involving death and gore, and her problems with communication helped lead to the slashing. According to the Japanese Wikipedia, in the weeks before the murder, she started carrying a knife in her randoseru and at one point even chased a boy with the knife. I think that once we can get as much information on this page as is on the Japanese Wikipedia, the relevance of the Asperger's diagnosis should be quite apparent. --Beneficii (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We would need reliable sources to be making the connection between the obsession with a movie and a mental health condition and since the mental health issue didnt come up until after everything else, we would still need a really good reason to include it. We dont really need post hock armchair psychiatrists asserting diagnoses. WP:COATRACK / WP:BLP. And we are writing an encyclopedia, not a true crime drama - the amount of details and history we need for a good coverage of the encyclopedic events are pretty limited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mere, brief mention that a diagnosis has been given following the murder, per a reliable source, is not WP:COATRACK:
It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require. An article on the anatomical feature Adam's apple could explain the term arose from the biblical character Adam (a regurgitation of the Book of Genesis, or an outline of the full story of original sin would not be necessary).
Also, please quote the section of WP:BLP that warns against mentioning this diagnosis. I checked WP:BLPSOURCES and saw that there was nothing wrong with the addition. The source is a secondary-source book published by a major and reliable Japanese publisher.
> We dont really need post hock armchair psychiatrists asserting diagnoses.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, since we must assume WP:GOODFAITH, but I found being called an "armchair psychiatrist" to be both inaccurate and insulting. Please do not use such a term again. None of us is playing an "armchair psychiatrist." The diagnosis given is confirmed by a reliable secondary source, which is acceptable per WP:BLPSOURCES. --Beneficii (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a post hoc diagnosis is WP:COATRACK - it has zero to do with what made the case notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source I used seemed to think the matter of the diagnosis was quite relevant, as does the Japanese Wikipedia. Think about it: it isn't like she only started having Asperger syndrome after the killing so the diagnosis afterward is not post hoc, but merely confirmed the existence of something already long present. The reliable secondary source I used mentioned that she was noted to have communication problems and fixations for most of her life leading up to that point and devoted an entire chapter to investigating if she had any psychiatric conditions; in the "Epilogue," she mentioned that she was able to confirm the diagnosis on page 216. --Beneficii (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I was not referring to you in the first "armchair psychiatrist" comment (I was referring to the people who would be writing about the potential disease and what it may have had impact on the incident without ever first hand diagnosing the person), you have just now established that you are in fact the armchair psychiatrist attempting a diagnosis. We dont do that, particularly with living people.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I was referring to the the reliable secondary source, which mentioned these issues as having long been present for the girl, which I have related, in accordance with WP:BLPSOURCES. The source also confirms that she was indeed diagnosed, devoting an entire chapter to trying to confirm the diagnosis; because our reliable secondary source considers the diagnosis relevant, then we at Wikipedia must consider the diagnosis relevant, as well. It is clear that you are now trying to play "gotcha" with the whole "armchair psychiatry" thing, so further discussion will lead us nowhere. You have shown me that much. I WILL maintain the statement and the source in the article. If you remove it, then I will go to dispute resolution. If you wish to go to dispute resolution yourself, then be my guest, but this discussion is quickly headed nowhere. --Beneficii (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the above post. It is clear, you've got me. You have proven my terribleness and lying nature to the world and that I am nothing more than an armchair psychiatrist. Like the soldiers on a propaganda poster who are knocking down the enemy with righteous anger, so you have been here in opposition so many times to uphold righteousness and to defeat the evil that I may spread. You are a plucky, young fighter who won't let that brainy, delusional monster take over a wonderful article and you have the weight of the truth of the universe behind your back. I can only concede defeat and remove the statement and the source. That source is evil, just like me. So the source should never appear on this Wikipedia page. --Beneficii (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasebo schoolgirl murder is a duplicate of this article

[edit]

Equinox (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, as they occured on two different dates. --PWNGWN (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sasebo slashing. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sasebo slashing. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The killer's name, again

[edit]

I just reverted an anonymous user's edits to again add what some believe to be the killer's name, and a partial cite to a book that is claimed to make the connection between this name and Girl A. If the book qualifies as a reliable source then as far as I'm concerned there would be no more objection - the person would have reached the age of majority, and the reliable source would eliminate any verifiability concerns. The edit stated the author was Haruto Sato - I could not locate this author with a Google search. The book was described as being titled Hanzai Kogal. I could not find a book by that title using romaji, or under はんざい Kogal, or 犯罪 Kogal, or はんざい コギャル, or 犯罪 コギャル. It is listed as being published in 2005, at which time Girl A would have been 12 or so. It seems unlikely that the name would have been published in Japan under those conditions. So I'm putting this out there for anyone with knowledge of this book to please give us information to verify it's contents. In the meantime, I'm requesting pending changes protection for the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted another edit by an anonymous user's same edit left 9 days,which I happened to find.Paperworkorange (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another user reverted my revert,but there was no trustworthy source in Japanese media about minor killer's name.I had to revert again because It was harmful.I don't want to commit edit war.Paperworkorange (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Killing of Satomi Mitarai. The discussion has not progressed despite relisting. With a single opposition due to the ambiguity of the current title and proposed title, it does not seem right have the article remained as it. There are options however in the counterproposal, and as the bartender, I have picked the one that is similar to the outcome of Talk:Murder_of_Aiwa_Matsuo#Requested_move_7_April_2023 discussion that ran concurrently to this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasebo slashing → Sasebo stabbing – The English-language sources present in the article do not use the word "slashing". They use the word "stabbed" or "murdered". It would therefore be more representative to call the incident the "Sasebo stabbing". :3 F4U (they/it) 02:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"no [wp:reliable source|] has ever published the perpetrators name.", "These are not reliable sources."

[edit]

One of the sources which Mcorrlo provided for the perpetrator's name when restoring it in January 2023 was an article from El Tiempo, a major Colombian newspaper. Yet of course someone else quickly reverted this, saying "These are not reliable sources.", likely not even giving any consideration to whether they were actually reliable or not - as it often plays out on Wikipedia when someone really, really wants to revert something. TVShowFan122 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Satomi_Mitarai&oldid=1237873147"