Talk:Assault of Maho Yamaguchi

Sequence of events in the intro

I have a little bit too much personal bias to feel comfortable making significant constructive edits to this page, but these two sentences from the intro are very misleading.

After the management claimed that the members were not involved, Yamaguchi announced that she was leaving the group, causing more sponsors, including the Niigata government, to withdraw their support for the group. The NGT48 management responded with an apology and dissolving the team structure within the group, reintroducing all current members as a unified first generation.

In particular, it falsely claims that management's apology and the team dissolution were in response to Maho's graduation announcement. Both of these things happened on April 11, after the Niigata government withdrew their support, while Maho didn't announce her graduation until the final performance of Team G on April 21. If anything, Maho's decision to graduate was a result of the team dissolution, not the other way around. She identified very strongly with Team G against Team NIII, and all the members she indirectly accused until near the end were on NIII. --Wlerin (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Wlerin: I can fix it and the body if you have a source. lullabying (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lullabying: Ironically the source was already in the body of the article, it was just the intro that confused matters. Thank you for fixing things. Wlerin (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wlerin: I edited the lead according to your input. Let me know if there are things I can still edit. Thanks for the feedback. lullabying (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

@Bullpup11: Recent edits have shown we disagree on how this article should be presented so I am opening a discussion about this to avoid an WP:EDITWAR. As previously stated multiple times in the page history and your own talk page, you are including too many sources from gossip tabloids and primary sources, along with your own interpretation of events that may increase a risk of personal bias. For example, this edit that was seen as "watering down" the events of what happened. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and doesn't need a detailed report. The shortened summary accurately states what happened with sources to corroborate it and doesn't need such a lengthy summary, and I don't see how it detracts from the main topic at hand and how it makes the article "lose its whole point." Please read WP:NOTFORUM. lullabying (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: If you can, please write a draft or how you think the article should look like, and we should review it before you revert changes again. lullabying (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The current article reads heavily as original research, and includes a lot of things that probably don't belong in a wiki article even with a secondary or tertiary source (e.g. the retracted Tokyo Sports claim about the manager, which they almost certainly based on 5ch rumours.) edit: To be clear, simply citing every sentence doesn't make it not OR, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."--Wlerin (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wlerin: Thanks for your input. I have decided to tag this article as such and as also for neutrality. lullabying (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lullabying: You already addressed me in the talk page, but I'm posting it here again. I actually don't understand the fixation with shortening the description of Yamaguchi's account of the incident at all costs, which is something that is also found even in further detail than that in the third-party report. Once again, it can be compared and contrasted with tons of other such descriptions of incidents on other dedicated Wikipedia pages to see what's an appropriate length. As I said, if only there was a handy English report of it to which readers can refer to for more then I can't object to it, it may as well be shortened, but the fact is that there's none and needs to be stated in full if the reader wants to have an idea of what is going on. For an article whose topic is "Assault on Maho Yamaguchi", to give no report on her statements devoids the entry of its stated purpose. If they hold so little importance to you, as the article's creator, then the article may as well be deleted downright. It looks to me that you are tackling with corrections in a misdirected way.

About the accusations of me including "gossip articles": I would like to know what publications fall within the category of a "gossip tabloid" (since I saw you labeling even an interview from Daily Sports this way) and for what reason they can be dismissed as so, seeing how this denomination alone was used in your edit summary to justify deleting public informations coming from public interviews on that simple basis. To me, this is a case-by-case question that must be considered based on the content of each report, rather than what "reputation" one is wishing to attach to the publications. In short: informations credited to known and traceable individuals (the AKS attorney, the AKS management, Yamaguchi) goes in, idle talk credited to unknown "industry insiders" (関係者) stays possibly out. Keep in mind that, especially for what concerns the messy trial phase, it was mostly entertainment newspapers which handled it, with many sessions where there was little "juicy bits" being spilled out being reported by one at best, thus limiting dramatically the choice.

"Original research", that I know of, refers to statements not supported by a source material or at best only by the blog page of some private user. I would like you to point out what exactly was an original research out of this, exactly. Incidentally, I see it's you who put in an editorial by Jake Adelstein of all people into the article to support a claim that the management was pressuring newspapers to publish articles that Yamaguchi was mentally ill, for what it means. To give everyone their due: said Tokyo Sports reference about the "harrassed manager", with all due respect to the contributor, was also an addition of yours that was already there when I came in, and which I did personally proceed with polishing of elements not found even inside the article. (If it were up to me, I would have removed the part about Yuka Ogino too for obvious lack of relevance to the assault, as if it was the only thing being halted in the meantime, but I'm not playing the boss. Rather, if that is allowed to stay, I see no reason for removing the much more relevant rest.)

With that said, the description of the incident that Yamaguchi posted on Twitter is respectfully reinstated. Bullpup11 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bullpup11: There seems to be consensus against the "manager" issue and Tokyo Sports, so that part can be removed. However, like I said, you elaborating with primary sources is affecting the neutrality of this article. I will be requesting a 3rd party opinion if things don't change or bring it to the Administrator's noticeboard. lullabying (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lullabying: I thought that the problem contested to me was to have been too much descriptive with writing a summary of Yamaguchi's tweet. So, to address the original complaint, at the end of the day what we are arguing over is a difference of less than one row of text about 272 bytes long, surely not a whole paragraph. By contrast, the digression on the Tokyo Sports rumor occupied 873 even after all the polishing by me.

What is key to me is that we are dealing with what is essentially a testimony by the very victim from the title of the article, and as such I also don't think that giving a succint but comprehensive description of it affects the neutrality of the article (indeed, does glossing over Yamaguchi's account but not the apologetics from the other sides somehow sound more balanced?). Leaving out details doesn't seem to be a solution to me, it only has trivializing effects and doesn't make it less "intricate". The importance of the tweet has also to be considered when thinking of how much weight a certain information should be given inside of an article, because this is how the incident became known in the first place.

No objection to having an independent opinion on what version is more satisfactory, but this is fighting over minutiae to me. Bullpup11 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bullpup11: It's a combination of both. You elaborating using primary sources and other secondary sources is not only adding too much detail (so as to "not water down" but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper) but it's affecting the neutrality of this article and your bias is clearly showing. Like Wlerin said, the elaboration is coming off as WP:ORIGINAL and even though statements are sourced, some of them seem to be personal conclusions based on the information provided. The edit I pointed out earlier was just an example of many. I will be requesting a third opinion soon, but for now, please use the Sandbox to draft what the article should look like. lullabying (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lullabying: "She described that they had tried to break into her personal apartment as she was entering inside, by prying open her door. The men grasped her face and tried to pin her on the ground, shutting her mouth with their hand as she was calling for help, only to be stopped by the intervention of a building resident who came to the floor in question from the elevator."

For everyone's reference, this was my original summary that got for some reason castrated. I assume you are well versed in Japanese and have read the original tweets. Now, if you have, I would like to know in what way I have added my personal bias to a testimony of the victim, came to original conclusions or extrapolations that aren't already found in plain in the original, let alone tried to turn the Wikipedia entry into a newspaper with this.

I'd also take the occasion to say: when I came to see this article, I actually saw a plethora of incorrect informations that were nowhere to be found in the original sources you included (and, as I had been following the developments closely, already I could tell as being incorrect), which turned out to be instead provided by you. While filling the huge months-long gaps that were left in the sequence of events just because there was no handy English source to draw from (see the original section about the trial, which most perplexingly fast-forwarded from "the defendants presented evidences of private association with Yamaguchi" to "the defendants made peace with the plaintiffs explaining it was all a miscommunication", skipping several important events in the process), I found myself working on fixing them.

This included egregious mistakes and oversights, on your part, like:

• "On September 20, 2019, during the first trial of AKS' lawsuit against Yamaguchi's two alleged assailants, the men denied [...] having ties to a criminal organization." -- In fact, no news provided as source by the AnimeNewsNetwork website (incidentally, the same dreaded gossip tabloids: Tokyo Sports and Bunshun Online) reported any of this, nor was any of this claimed in any other news relative to the session: this is effectively an invention by the ANN editor that you were spreading without checking. In fact, the ANN article also makes a mistake of incorrectly reporting "released without charges" (?) instead of "released with a non-prosecution (不起訴処分)", two different steps in the penal process, something that was also originally wrongly repeated in the Wikipedia entry before I stepped in to correct. All of this should tell a lot about the poorness of the article fact-checking and its ineligibility as source. As a matter of fact, if it's possible I'd rather use a more professional news report to replace it, like this one from Sankei Shinbun if I may make a suggestion.
• "The two men were fined ¥2.4 million in compensation" -- For some reason I had my sentence corrected to this over and over again by you. I'd like to understand why. A settlement is not a judge arbitration, it's an agreeement between plaintiff and defendant, so your term here is not only misleading, but inappropriate.
• "AKS' attorney, Kazuhiro Endo, also stated that the lawsuit was intended to clear false information surrounding the group." -- This was your correction over my initial addition, which stated that "that the point of the trial wasn't to claim money, but rather to elucidate on the truth behind the incident and use the results to prevent a reoccurrence of the issue", which is word for word what is said by him in the interview (お金の問題ではない, 原因を究明して再発防止につなげたい). In this case, it's you who not only put an original interpretation nowhere to be found in his words, but put words in the man's mouth for the sake of "slimming down" of a few keystrokes an article which is already pretty condensed in its own right, which only resulted in a negative tradeoff in accuracy and understandability.

So, in short, nobody is without faults. Those without sin cast their fist stone, etc... It's not my intention to get into pointless debates and I want to maintain a constructive relationship on this site, but if there's anything that needs to be debated and contested about my contributions and corrections, I would like to have more concrete indications than labeling a source "tabloid" or accusing me of having a bias without reading the content (in many cases, I had to point out something was a quote from the AKS attorney or some other traceable individual for fear of you deleting the information altogether), just to remove a legitimate claim.

As final words, I'd say I have nothing more to add to the article than it already is, except for perhaps suggesting to find better sources to replace the awfully inaccurate Kotaku and ANN ones that were added in the beginning. This was a case that stretched almost without interruptions from December 8, 2018 (day of the incident) until April 8, 2020 (day of the out-of-court settlement), so complaints about being "too long" or "too descriptive" also looks out of place, in my eyes. Bullpup11 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Kotaku and Anime News Network are considered reliable sources, and if you have issue with them being "inaccurate", please replace the sources with better ones or take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have already linked to Wikipedia style policies regarding descriptions that are too detailed. As stated, I have asked you several times to create a draft in your Sandbox so we can see which details to add/remove. Wikipedia operates on WP:CONSENSUS. lullabying (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kotaku and ANN would be reliable sources for the field they dabble in (videogames and anime respectively), but I doubt it's the same for what is a civil trial (turned gossip mill by its very plaintiff), especially when they proved so disinterested they provided no follow-up infos on it. If it weren't, I wouldn't be here pointing out those glaring mistakes in the reporting.
Double checking with the sources they translate from would be always advisable.
I have no doubts that Wikipedia operates on consensus, but the fact is that this entry in particular only has me and you as informed contributors ever since being created on November 2019.
Any disagreements in the way informations should be expounded can be sorted out with a direct talk, but while citing concrete examples.
Adding four or five warnings as sort of a panic button tells nothing. Bullpup11 (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bullpup11: I have no problem with you correcting information or replacing sources with more reliable ones, but from what I've seen, you have been continuously been reverting any attempt to condense information, with my edit example as being seen as "watering down" events. This is concerning because this is considered Wikipedia:Ownership of content. I have also explained to you several times to avoid basing large passages off primary sources, which you continue to keep doing. lullabying (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I have a ...clarification for what the [clarification needed] label means, lullabying, next to the part about "Yamaguchi [...] revealed how these were the very same evidences reported as having been presented in court days before and leaked to the media"?
This was a direct summary of the content of a tweet from Yamaguchi from that day, which was also reported in the newspaper article I appended as source at the end of the paragraph.
I thought it was self-obvious just from clicking on them, but the intention was putting all the sources at the end of the sentence rather than one after each claim. Bullpup11 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologize I took a long time to return this message, but specifically: On Twitter, Yamaguchi rejected the news as "slander" and revealed how these were the very same evidences reported as having been presented in court days before and leaked to the media. What are "these" and "very same evidence" referring to?

In addition, avoid using line breaks in your edits, and also please read WP:RECENT. The article still reads like a play-by-play news article when it should just summarize important events. lullabying (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"These" refers to the photos that Sponichi had reported (much boastfully) as having obtained as "exclusive scoop" both in the title and in the body of said article, as I had pointed in a previous revision that was edited out by you.
Quoting from the tweet itself, it's very self-evident what Yamaguchi refers to, so much it needs no explanation:

独占入手って昨日の裁判資料？横流ししてもらった以外何があるんだろう？
"By 'obtaining it as an exclusive', they mean what is the court trial's material from yesterday? Outside of them having received that clandestinely, is there any other way?"

Incidentally, that you unfortunately decided to leave it out was causing this very lack of clarity in the explanation. I'd really be very thankful if you would let me make my contributions with a certain awareness of the events and what was pivotal to it. It has nothing to do with "recentism", especially when we are talking about tweets that are nearly a year old, but meant more than all the spin spouted by the AKS lawyer before or (especially) after that.
As for this article needing any more scrunching up than that, I'd rather not. Events correlated by cause-effect need to be necessarily explained otherwise, as usual, we will end up once more with the dangerously misleading "defendants presented silly evidences of association with Yamaguchi and AKS made peace with them explaining it was all a misunderstanding" if things gets scrunched up again too much for anyone totally unaware of the events to make heads or tails of it. Bullpup11 (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as previously stated, please avoid using line breaks. In addition, your vehement refusals to follow Wikipedia guidelines and finding consensus on how to write the article is clearly showing a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, especially since you keep undoing all good faith edits myself and other users have made, which is concerning as it shows WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. @Drmies: can I get your input here? Thanks! lullabying (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubts that you did it in good faith, but I can also add that it being in good faith does not always make it perfectly informed and I don't think that having just a smattering on the matter from having seen it on English media once or twice makes it informative. I trust you know Japanese enough for you to understand how many holes in otherwise essential events were left because of that. There is no offence meant with that, just like any edits on Wikipedia.

About all the accusations that you are leveling at me: I'd like to remind you that the start of the so-called "edit warring" was actually done by you: contrary to your accusations of me undoing anything, I had always been careful at least at first not to remotely touch what initial contributions were made in the article by you, however in good faith, hoping that they were double checked for accuracy, out of the idea of everyone minding their own plot of the garden.
All the unjustified, unwarned, and never satisfactorily argued ("tabloid source" when all I did was quoting a sentence said by the attorney in a public interview, hello?) deletion of entire sentences without even reading the articles I had sourced, especially when it came to confirmed informations that only contributed an understanding of the topic at hand, was instead yours.
And the act of placing "issue warnings", as what I can only see as a direct response to discredit my contributions, without providing concrete examples of these issues was yours, when the only third-party complaint that came in was about material that was inserted by you in the first place (the rumor about the manager harassment, that is).
If I have to say it all, it's you that you looked to be exercising a desire of ownership of this article for months, which made trying to contribute anything constructive in it extremely time-taking for something that could have taken just a few days.
That you are now doubling down by accusing me of incompetence or lack of knowledge on the subject matter is a personal issue of yours, frankly, that I am not willing to address. I have found myself having to spell out many obvious details in the talk here just to be on the same page.

To go back to the legitimate issues brought up: the bored reader may skip over two lines of text, and if he doesn't care about the development of the (far from honest, as proven) civil trial he can skip the entire section completely: the solution is not to keep him ignorant by removing it altogether and pretending certain events were a non-thing. I trust that you would understand that what I am putting in there is not the entirety of the articles, either. Sincerely. Bullpup11 (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

For the third time, please stop using line breaks. I never mentioned you had a lack of knowledge on the subject matter, but more that your actions show that you're not acknowledging Wikipedia style policies and pretty much not letting anyone else edit this article. lullabying (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I declined a request for third opinion, because more than two editors are involved in the discussion. Maybe you should reach a consensus on the sources to be used taking into account WP:SOURCE. If you cannot, consider trying WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes in the sources

"The men were arrested by the police and were released from custody 20 days later without prosecution."
The NHK source that was used at the time of this article's creation to support this claim doesn't make references to the days of custody, despite being factually correct.
I propose using this Asahi Shinbun source instead in that it directly references both the time of formalization of the arrest (翌９日朝、新潟県警に逮捕された) and of release (２人は同月２８日、不起訴処分になり、釈放された) to reference the period of custody.
In light of the rather animated debate that happened in the past days, I decided to ask here for confirmation on whether it should be used, before I will have to do it myself.

"At the September 20, 2019 court trial session, the two men denied having assaulted Yamaguchi. The first defendant claimed that he and Yamaguchi were friendly after meeting her at a handshake event in 2017 and that they communicated through direct messages on Twitter. Afterwards, he alleged that Yamaguchi had abruptly cut off contact in 2018 because of rumors within NGT48 about her fraternizing with a fan in exchange for expensive gifts."
This section, which I had chosen to respectfully leave untouched in its original wording after Lullabying originally added it uses this AnimeNewsNetwork source instead, which on a close inspection is factually incorrect for the reasons that I have already pointed out ("The defendants denied any connection to a criminal group"? Invention by the ANN writer. "Released without charges"? Confusing charges with prosecution, hugely misleading for the reader who'll take it as a source.) It's clear that English reports on the trial written perfunctorily by casual editors who aren't well informed on the matter are hardly usable as a source.
I propose, as said above, to use this Sankei Shinbun article, for a more professional and exact account of what the defendants alleged at the trial, courtesy of the AKS attorney (supposedly an adversary in the lawsuit) declaring them in front of the media:

• that they alleged they didn't commit physical aggression.
• that they alleged it was Yamaguchi that willingly informed to the defendant about her address, phone number, and Twitter information, at a handshake event back in 2017 (Heisei 29), at his request to send presents directly to her home without passing through management check (no mention of expensiveness, unlike ANN's claim), only to have contacts cut off later in 2018 with Yamaguchi fearing rumors to spread (all claims by the defendant).
  Focus should rather go more on the first part here, because of the obvious bend that the trial took on and how it ties into the subsequent developments.
• also, how Yamaguchi, interviewed indipendently by Sankei through her agency about the personal associations, categorically denied such assertions.

Asking here for confirmation on whether it should be used, and to reword it in less lurid terms than now. Bullpup11 (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with sources being replaced, but I'm concerned on how you will integrate them regarding the edit war in the above section. We currently do not agree on the amount of detail that should be added, and while I'm not opposed to sources being replaced, the fact that each source is being elaborated instead of summarized is treading too much Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and WP:ORIGINAL. lullabying (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. In this case, I take this as a consent to proceed with the souces replacement.
The rewording, which I had in a separate edit, is exactly a summary from the Sankei Shinbun that I have posted above, and any part of that can be verified by reading the third paragraph of the first page of the article. What I did was trying to polish it of any frivolous details that certain media (as well as the AKS attorney) was so enamored of spreading on that phase (the "rumors" part really went nowhere than one simple line from the preparatory papers), exactly because at its root, the controversy was always about what route the informations were leaked through. That also fixes the cause-effects order that the ANN article had upside-down. You can tell me what you think of it. Bullpup11 (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

General talk on the inaccuracies in the article

Since I noticed that to contribute to this article you need to necesarily lay out every single argument for your edits first for fear of them being reverted instantly, I'm opening a little bit of a space to explain more in detail this one before editing a couple of words into it to a more accurate form.
This one part has to do with the reason for Yamaguchi's gradution. In the current state, it says:
"Yamaguchi alleged in her graduation announcement that the management accused her of being an "assailant against the company" and urged her to leave if she was dissatisfied."

• Once again the AnimeNewsNetwork article references the farewell tweet but it's not a direct mention to the graduation announcement itself, only bringing it up in passing. I propose using as a source the full transcript of the speech on Oricon instead, if that's the case.
• This part, once again making reference to a not entirely accurate article in English, is putting in Yamaguchi's mouth claims she didn't make in the graduation announcement.
  For reference, in the full transcript on Oricon of the graduation announcement which Yamaguchi had at the closing theater show on April 21, 2019, it says:
  "When it comes to problems from which you shouldn't actually turn your eyes away, the answers to them inside this group was: if you can't look away, then quit" (目をそらしてはいけない問題に対して、「そらさないなら辞めろ。...」というのが、このグループの答えでした。)
  This one, unlike the "assailant" part, was in no direct way implied as being a response from the AKS president, Yoshinari Natsuko, (indeed, I am suspecting that the author had probably conflated it with a claim credited to Yoshinari found in a certain Shuukan Bunshun article that was also circulating in the same period)
• More importantly, the actual reason for Yamaguchi to quit is found right at the beginning: "in such a group where you can do anything and still get a pardon, I no longer have a place where I can be an idol" (何をしても不問なこのグループに、もうここには私がアイドルをできる居場所はなくなってしまいました).
  This most importantly ties in with the decision of AKS board director Matsumura at the AKS press conference to grant members associating with fans a "pardon" (不問) straight away without even probing first into the matter. It wasn't added at the time of this article being made, but it's self-evident how much repercussion such an action had on future development, so it merits more and more mention.

So my course of action here is a) to replace the ANN article to the Oricon article if it's the graduation announcement that we are talking about; b) to bring more focus to the latter part as Yamaguchi's reason for graduation; c) whether or not to keep in or remove the "urged her to leave if she was dissatisfied." part entirely, I'll leave for others to decide, but I traded it off to avoid making the part too long. Bullpup11 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• You do not need to lay out every argument for every edit here. That you do this is not a good thing: I can't see the forest for the trees, and maybe next time you can indicate briefly what is supposedly wrong and what should be remedied. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I know it, but unfortunately the point is that me not having explained out every argument for my changes is how I've got in this "controversy" with the other editor in the first place. So I thought better safe than sorry...

Drmies, speaking of which, I saw your note in the "clarification needed" warning and you say inside that lawsuits can't receive proposals (apparently to express the inaccuracy of the passage?). However, this is quite literally what the Sankei Shinbun article that I used as a source reported, citing an interview with the management's attorney, and all I did was reporting it as found:

新潟地裁が原告と被告に和解を提案した
"the Niigata local courthouse has proposed an out-of-court settlement to the plaintiff and the defendants"

So apparently it's a thing after all. Bullpup11 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Corrected the part, anyway. Bullpup11 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm putting it here because this was Lullabying's original text, but this part is incorrect too.

"During Yamaguchi, Sugahara, and Hasegawa's farewell theater show on May 18, despite initial reports of other members being banned from attending, Fuka Murakumo made a guest appearance."

Point #1: there were no reports of members being "banned", as it's written, but at best only that it would only have the three graduating members on stage (very) allegedly and unofficially due to "difficulties with having performances with other members" (see this Sponichi article, which titles also "A graduation theater show featuring only the three members almost certain, in an unprecedented kind of career farewell")
Point #2: The graduation theater show featured the appearance of also other members than Murakumo, who likewise did it voluntarily at their own request to the three graduating members (citing this Niigata Nippo coverage, "Tsugumi Oguma, Yuria Kado, Aina Kusakabe ... Tomoka Takazawa, Nanami Takahashi, Ayusa Watanabe" also appeared).

No doubt this was an addition made in good faith, but there are mistakes and inaccuracies made in good faith nonetheless due to poor experience on the topic. I don't want to be called into another dispute and be the one being blamed for "bloating" the article when stuff like this is left round unchecked, so the question is: prune it for being superfluous to the topic, or fix it? Bullpup11 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)