Images[edit]

It is highly unlikely that we will ever get free use photos of the attack. Instead, we could have as at this page, which includes a report by the Director of Safety Affairs Department of the Teito Rapid Transit Authority with a number of informative diagrams, viz: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Though it is a .gov website, the images from the Teito Rapid Transit Authority are of course themselves copyrighted, and so we cannot we use them directly, and only recreate them, attributing credit to the original of course. --Pharos 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Domestic Terrorism[edit]

Would it be reasonable to suggest that this event (along with the Oklahoma City Bombing a month later) helped focus the spotlight on domestic terrorism in democracies? I mean, this is one of the more famous instances of domestic terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) .


Names...[edit]

I hate to open what seems to be a can of worms on this talk page, and I hate to quote policy, but, as per Wikipedia policy, names of people born after the Meiji restoration should be in Western order. I will change this article after giving some time for people to object here. I don't want to step on toes, but the Japanese order is really confusing in English media. As someone who lives in Japan, I can attest that all English-language publications in Japan use the Western order. MikeDockery 03:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second him. In fact, I'll change it now. WhisperToMe 03:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a link to the appropriate Manual of Style section. --日本穣 04:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason[edit]

What was the group's reasoning behind the attack? Was it somehow justified by their beliefs? Was it supposed to achieve something? And, does anyone have any links to the group's websites, supporter's sites, ex-member's sites apart from the Aleph site? --Daniel Tanevski talk 12:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most sources I heard said that they were trying to bring about the end of the world, although I think one source said they wanted to overthrow the Japanese government. raptor 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i only remember this from a tv show which i have forgotten the name of, but Aum was under investigation from the police anyway, and there was a planned raid on their headquaters coming soon, so asahara planned to release this gas which would directly affect police headquaters hoping that this would delay them for several months to come giving AUM further time to prepare for this fututre raid, or hopefully put it off altogether. i would have added this, but i can't remember the name of the show, so there would be no verification possible, so i didn't.Huey pham 04 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)huey_pham_04Reply[reply]

Serious injury numbers[edit]

There seems to be a huge difference in serious injury numbers listed in this article and a couple of academic studies:

"Although St. Luke’s bore the brunt of the disaster, 278 Tokyo hospitals and clinics saw 5,510 patients, seventeen of whom were deemed critical, thirty-seven severe, and 984 moderately ill. The cases classified as moderate complained only of vision problems (e.g., myosis)." [6]
"In all 5-6,000 persons were exposed. 3,227 went to hospital of whom 493 were admitted to 41 of Tokyo's many hospitals. Only 17 developed severe symptoms requiring intensive care. In all twelve people died from the sarin exposure." [7]

The article claims the source for numbers like "Hibiya line (departing Naka-meguro) ... One person died and 532 were seriously injured." is Underground (stories) which claims to be a "a work of journalistic literature,", and is I suspect much less accurate than the academic studies. Unless someone has a good source to defend the current numbers, I'll delete or change them. Rwendland 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The probable reason for the difference is that the numbers given for each train are only the people directly affected. Many of those injured only came into contact with the sarin as a result of helping those directly exposed on the trains or platforms. Perhaps somewhere in the article we should note the total number of injured. Exploding Boy 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already adjusted the headline figures to those of the first reference above. The problem now is that the numbers given individually for several lines exceed the new total given! NB The numbers of helpers injured was remarkably few, especially considering they had no protection equipment and did not know they were dealing with Sarin:

"Of the 1,364 firefighters who rushed to the various subway stations, 135 reportedly were injured while attending to victims. This number equates to roughly 10 percent of the firefighters, but the injuries were not of a serious nature. At St. Luke’s, the medical staff saw a few symptomatic police and a group of about twenty firefighters, who exhibited only mild effects (e.g., eye problems, headache) and were therefore released in the afternoon. Similarly, a total of 135 Tokyo EMTs, or about 10 percent of those who responded on March 20th, showed exposure symptoms and required medical treatment. The majority of these EMTs became symptomatic while transporting patients, probably because of off-gassing from the victims in the poorly ventilated ambulances. Authorities ordered the windows of ambulances opened which alleviated the problem. The secondary exposure problem in Tokyo was not too grave because no rescuers required antidote treatment. Although the on-scene rescuers after Aum’s June 1994 attack in Matsumoto were similarly vulnerable, just over 7 percent of the first responders there became symptomatic, and only one of the affected rescuers sought medical assistance." [8]

The primary source of this data is impecable, staff of the "Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo" [9] [10], which was the closest major hospital to the incidents and took most of the casulties. Rwendland 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting Sarin[edit]

I don't really know much about this incident but one thing I do find lacking is an explanation of how the Aum Shinrikyo members got access to sarin. If I understand correctly, sarin is considered by the UN to be a weapon of mass destruction and I would presume that therefore access to it is limited. How is it that Aum Shinrikyo got a hold of it? Does anyone know the answer to this? Crito2161 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. They made it themselves. See: Aum Shinrikyo: Once and future threat?
They had a factory devoted to making Sarin, apparently they bought any advanced equipment needed over the counter.
They also managed to produce VX, if that says anything about their resourcefulness. raptor 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just came here to ask the same thing. I would be grateful if someone with more sources about this topic would add it to the article. —Dominus (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something to add...[edit]

I've heard that there were 11 fatalities and about 5,000 were injured, 1,000 of those hospitalized, according to the "Decoding the Past- Cults" program on the History Channel. Sr13 (T|C) 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the objectivity of the aleph persecution[edit]

i would like to see some proof for the following comments

Many Japanese municipal governments have refused to allow known members to register as city residents; Aleph has successfully sued some of these governments, and Human Rights Watch has included criticism of these government actions in some of its annual reports. Some businesses refuse to sell goods or provide services to known Aleph followers; some landlords refuse to rent to members; and some cities have spent public money to persuade Aleph members to leave town; some high schools and universities reject the children of Aum followers

even if there were no footnotes, at least a mention of a specific case is needed. these lines are vague; what cities? what businesses? what universities?

this sounds like something written by an AUM follower trying to create misinformation. it's quite possible that this is happening and is assumed knowledge, but i don't live in Japan so i would need proof, i mean seriously, there's just no proof. the only thing that can be pointed to is the one mention of Human Rights Watch; and we're not even told WHAT is actually written in these anual reports.Huey pham 04 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)huey_pham_04Reply[reply]

地下鉄サリン事件,[edit]

Just curious : which of these Kanji(?) specifically refers to sarin? PS...my only knowledge is Kyōiku kanji Aatomic1 11:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glaring Error[edit]

There is a serious (and obvious to those in the know) error throughout the article. Sarin is not a gas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.235.178 (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but it evaporates into a gas at room temperature, which is why it can be used as a weapon. The casualties of the attack were all caused by people inhaling the gas. Jpatokal (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article name[edit]

Is there any specific reason the article is named Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway instead of Sarin Subway Incident? The latter seems just as descriptive and much less cumbersome. Torsodog (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I do not agree that the second one is as descriptive (it doesn't include a location) and I for one generally dislike the tendency in the Japanese media to give overt attacks or terrorism ambiguous names like incident, I do agree that the first is far too cumbersome. How about Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack or something similar? —divus 07:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright[edit]

This article is very similar to other articles available on the Internet. See, for example, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sarin-gas-attack-on-the-Tokyo-subway which is substantially the same as this article. The editorial guidelines have requirements in this regard which may not have been addressed in this article. aBk (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's because those sites copied the text directly FROM wikipedia, not the other way around. --TorsodogTalk 03:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a small thing[edit]

I changed the number of dead victims from "a dozen" to "twelve." When I first read the article, it just reminded me too much of a box of donuts, and the victims deserve more respect than that, I thought. Grumpy otter (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pun on diagrams[edit]

Alright, who's responsible for spelling Kasumigaseki "Kasumi-gas-seki" on the Hibiya Line diagrams? And how did this go unadressed since the images were uploaded more than two years ago? This is in extremely poor taste and I'm almost certain it's against some Wikipedia guideline. Someone needs to fix it. I would do it myself, but I lack the capability to properly edit PNG images. —Typhlosion (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the diagrams. I'll be honest, I have no idea where I got the spellings for the names of the stations, or why I used all those hyphens. Maybe they were in Murakami's book? It's been two years, so I really can't remember. When I get time I'll change and fix things up. Any other suggestions while I'm at it? --TorsodogTalk 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death sentences[edit]

Was anyone actually exectuted by now? Olegwiki (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The status of Toru Toyoda's driver Katsuya Takahashi[edit]

As shown in the bbc news article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18453996

Katsuya Takahashi has been arrested in Japan and is therefore not 'at large' as written in the wikipedia page under the title 'Toru Toyoda'

I would update this section myself but I am not so familiar with wikipedia ediitng, and I don't want to mess anything up! If someone could change this, it would be much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.225.6 (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nate077 (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Reference to the most casualties since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[edit]

Whatever might be said about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were not terroristic acts. As such I've rewritten the introduction of Aum/Aleph Today to read "The sarin attack was the most serious attack upon Japan since the United States' bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Myojo 56 building fire[edit]

The page previously stated that the Sagamihara stabbings was the deadliest act of mass murder in modern Japanese history. That actually goes to the Myojo 56 Building fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbers of indictments and sentences don't add up[edit]

"As a result, among a total of 189 members indicted, 13 were sentenced to death, five were sentenced to life in prison, 80 were given prison sentences of various lengths, 87 received suspended sentences, two were fined, and one was found not guilty." That's 13+5+80+87+2+1 = 188. What happened to the remaining member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 10:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tokyo subway sarin attack. 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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of deaths - 12 or 13[edit]

I edited the infobox, asserting that 12 victims had died at the time/immediately after the attack, and a 13th died after remaining in a coma for 14 years, as the source given for the latter assertion refers to a victim of the earlier Matsumoto attack as having died 14 years later in a coma. This was from a solid enough academic source (Gupta 2015 Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents), whereas the sources for 13 in the article body are recent news articles. I worry that the initial misreading of that source to add the later Matsumoto victim to the subway attack's death toll has proliferated if those news articles cited in the body got their info from Wikipedia. Can anyone offer any more solid insight into whether there was a 13th victim or whether this is a phantom from the Matsumoto attack? Ichigoichigo (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made the same change today, as it had been reverted and the source has been changed to a different one. However, the current source also gives a death toll of 12. Ichigoichigo (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My earlier suspicion was misplaced - the discrepancy actually relates to a man who died the day after the incident, and was only officially recognised as a victim of the attack in a 2008 report relating to compensation. However, the sources cited do not actually support the "13" figure - there's probably also a discussion to be had about Asakawa Sachiko, who died on 10 March 2020 from hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy as a result of sarin inhalation, after being bedridden for 25 years.Ichigoichigo (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article merged

(
)

Created by CoryGlee (talk). Self-nominated at 14:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Green tickY - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I am not convinced that he is notable according to WP:BIO1E—his role was a minor one. (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Buidhe, Hi, thank you for the review. I changed the phrasing in the parts where it was identical to the source except the quotation by the presiding judge who sentenced him given that I wanted (on purpose) to quote the judge exactly as he delivered the sentencing. As for the notability, I can't help. If he's not notable enough, then I accept it, I don't nominate for DYK often and I don't fully comprehend the rules. Thank you again. CoryGlee (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories