Talk:Debito Arudou

Archives

• Archive 1:2004-2007
• Archive 2:2008

Arudou wrote, "WaiWai was an essential guide to Japanese attitudes"

Arudou uses WaiWai about 60 (?) times in his site:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.debito.org++WaiWai

I think we should add the following important info.

>>> Defending the weeklies, as well as Connell and his collaborators, is the unflagging media critic and campaigner for human rights Debito Arudou, who wrote that WaiWai was an essential guide to Japanese attitudes and editorial directives. <<<

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/japan-rails-at-australians-tabloid-trash/2008/07/04/1214951041660.html?page=2 --Addmi (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kerr and re-writing history

An anon IP user who's apparently new to editing Wikipedia (no problem with me on that, however) deleted three paragraphs from the criticism section and places a fact tag on the introductory sentence.

Just a few points:

1. If the problem is the third paragraph (i.e., Kerr), that doesn't help us to understand why the sourced second paragraph needs to be entirely deleted. (So I put it back until a better explanation consistent with Wikipedia policy is outlined.)
2. The user also thinks the introductory sentence should be sourced. As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page: I don't understand why this challenge is necessary given that the rest of the section develops the very points raised in the introduction. I agree with the editor that had it said 'all' or 'most' within the sentence that this introduction would be unreasonable. But the introduction simply states that 'some' critics have argued these issues, which is a statement of fact.
3. The user also deletes the citation from Robert Neff without explaining how this is connected with his objections to the Kerr paragraph, or how it breaks any Wikipedia policies; and
4. The Kerr situation is interesting because when several of the blogs were discussing what to make of Kerr's published comments about Arudou, Arudou saw it as a chance to criticize Kerr. It's understandable that he would want to remove as much of the critcism as possible and promote the rest of the page (who wouldn't?), but I wanted to make sure I was consistent with policy before re-editing. I consulted the admins and other users at WP:RS. Their advice was to include both, with the proviso to me that "We do not re-write history." In other words, what was said was said despite whatever commments and criticisms which came thereafter. It's part of history and we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen. I should have probably mentioned that on the talk page, but it was 4 o'clock in the morning when I edited. I was tired.

In any case, I welcome a discussion of this on the talk page.

Best, J Readings 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"he later chose to renounce his US citizenship"

^{"Later?" Its my understanding that one HAS to renounce ones native citizenship in order to be granted Japanese citizenship. 59.146.57.26 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)}

• He said there is a loophole that would normally let people keep both citizenships. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's what he claims (emphasis on the word "claim"). In cases like this, I think it's always best to remember that unless a reliable third-party source has published on this particular issue of loopholes, we should avoid repeating arguments that are inherently self-serving for the subject of this article. That is one of the caveats clearly spelled out in WP:SELFPUB. It would probably be alright to cite Aruduou's *opinion* of this contentious issue, but we shouldn't cite Arudou more generally about citizenship laws in Japan. He's not a lawyer or legal scholar or government bureaucrat. My two cents. J Readings (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we could do to confirm what he says is check U.S. citizenship law. If he says a certain provision exists or does not, we should be able to cite the actual U.S. citizenship policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. But I would think that Japanese citizenship laws and ordinances would be more relevant, no? Japan does not allow dual citizenship, whereas the United States does. If there are loopholes or legal caveats and so forth, we should be able to find them spelled out clearly in Japanese legal documents cited within a reliable third-party source. J Readings (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But the loophole is supposed to be on the United States side - I think it has to do with other countries' rulings not able to strip a US citizen of his citizenship unless certain circumstances apply. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see this first: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html - I'll add another post when I'm finished reading the entire document. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And here is the dual nationality page: http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the links. What Arudou was talking about in his self-published essay, if memory serves (it's been a while), was the supposed one year or two year legal window between obtaining Japanese citizenship and renouncing one's former citizenship. If a newly naturalized Japanese citizen should change one's mind, there is supposedly a legal window of opportunity to back out without any legal fallout on the Japanese side (e.g., prison, fines). That was supposedly the legal issue. For us, as editors of an encyclopedia, the issue then comes back to cross-referencing Arudou's claim with a reliable third-party source that literally highlights the window. Even though I haven't read the US documents closely yet, I would be surprised if the US government clearly indicates that laws by foreign countries not allowing dual citizenship can be ignored. At the end of the day, an American citizen makes the choice to become a Japanese citizen -- after carefully reviewing one's adopted country's laws and regulations. That's why I'm pretty sure the issue to be publicly verified is really on the Japanese side. J Readings (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing my own research about this process, as I am interested in doing this myself one day. According to Arudou's essays/articles where he describes the process he went through to obtain naturalization, the Japanese government provided him with papers (and a seal?) to send to the U.S. government to indicate that he is renouncing his U.S. citizenship. Now this is my own speculation: As long as he follows the directions of the Japanese government, they won't come down on him. The kicker is that the U.S. government only allows you to renounce your citizenship in person at a consulate. Therefore any official documents that the Japanese government has you send out are ignored by the U.S. government. Would anyone else like to verify this? -- J.B. 5:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.25.56 (talk)

This page is for discussions on how to improve the article. original research, speculation and synthesis of published material which advances a position are not allowed in Wikipedia articles, and really don't belong on talk pages, either. Find a reliable published source for anything you want to add to the article. In this case, you would need a reliable source that stated that Debito Arudou's renunciation did not meet the requirements of US law. -- William's scraper (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

in any case, Arudou's essay which is the source for the article's statement about renunciation clearly states he went to a consulate and had to fill out some forms. He also has images of his canceled US passport and a certificate of loss of US citizenship. So as far as this article is concerned (and as mentioned, we're here to discuss the article's contents and how to improve it), the anon's comments are not relevant. --C S (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag added by subject of this Wikpedia entry August 2008.

This is Arudou Debito, the subject of this Wikipedia entry. As of August 22, 2008, I have added an NPOV tag.

As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice to the media — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search.

Controversial figures such as myself may naturally invite criticism, but when a couple of “guardian editors” take advantage of the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia (which, according to their interpretation of the rules, means the entry gives priority towards towards third-party opinions, whoever they are, over quoting the primary source) with the aim of distorting the record, this must be pointed out and corrected. Otherwise it is harder to take Wikipedia seriously as a general source.

I go into more specifics at http://www.debito.org/?p=1878, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry. The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:

1) A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.

2) An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is third-party material published by other authors.

3) Omissions of books I published months and years ago.

4) Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.

5) Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.

6) “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.

7) Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.

In sum, where are the (positive) quotes from the people and published authors who actually have something verifiably meaningful to say about Japan and social issues, such as Donald Richie (<a href="http://www.debito.org/?p=1638">here</a> and <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">here</a>), <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Ivan Hall</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Chalmers Johnson</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582">John Lie</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582">Jeff Kingston</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Robert Whiting</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Mark Schreiber</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Eric Johnston</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582">Terrie Lloyd</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/mulveyonhonjoreview.html">Bern Mulvey</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS">Lee Soo Im</a>, and <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#japanese">Kamata Satoshi</a>? More <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS">citations from academic sources here</a>.

For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry and hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself. 71.198.61.159 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Arudou Debito

IP address is San Fransisco, which is consistent with his blog so I would note that this is probably Mr. Arudou.

For another person with a criticism section, see Patrick Moore (environmentalist). The content may be attacked, but to the extent that the text is sourced and verifiable, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the criticism section. I may have a shot at the other points in a little bit. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. And criticisms at the link provided to Patrick Moore are by other environmentalists, not just anyone. Under this qualification, let's have some criticisms from fellow people published in the field of Japan's human rights, not stockbrokers and novelists.Arudoudebito (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (finally managed to sign in)

Debito Arudou posted this here: http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=1878 - We may have to control the editing permissions in case the editing goes out of hand. Anyway, Arudou, please read Wikipedia:COI and Wikipedia:BLP - These two policies are relevant to your article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I received lots of advice from friendly Wikiers on my website about avenues to pursue (those who know more about this system, please feel free to notify anyone who can help make this a better article). But I only posted a summary here and provided a link to a full critique of this Wikipedia entry on my website. But some replies to my site said I should take any issues up on this Talk page. So, should I provide all details I provide there, here? What's the etiquette? Thanks.Arudoudebito (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arudou, one tip I would have is to be extremely careful while editing your article (as per WP:COI) - You may do it as long as you are very careful with your editing. Also, regarding the divorce, Wikipedia:BLP says:

"In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name."

However if no newspapers or other reliable sources wrote about your divorce, the divorce stuff may need to be removed. (I'm not entirely sure - I may need to check with other users) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mention your divorce in your book, and your book was published by a reliable publishing house, then we would treat it like a regular reliable source instead of a self-published source from the subject of the article and therefore we could use that to source the divorce. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention my divorce in my books. I wasn't divorced when I wrote them! :) It's immaterial to my activism, except as it relates to my name change. Arudoudebito (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I won't be editing my own article, as I have said repeatedly. Precisely because of potential COI. Others should do it. Arudoudebito (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding new edits (as of August 23, 2008):

Hi Editors. Debito here. I'm sure it'll take time for people to get to everything, but I've been waiting years for somebody to clean things up. So let me give some pointers, if I may:

1) I have written three books. Japanese Only is in two languages. They are two books, and they have different ISBNs. Handbook is my third. All three ISBNs should be listed. So should more of their reviews, since they are published and sourced. And why isn't Handbook linked to anything, such to as my publisher's website if you really want to avoid Debito.org. Found at http://www.akashi.co.jp/home.htm (they'll have to do a search)

2) "Opinions" is an odd subject heading. Whose opinions? for a start. If you're going to talk about the projects I've been involved in under that heading, please start digging around Debito.org and pull up items which are in print from newspapers, making them published, third-party sources. There are lots. You can find them on my publications page. Two links, for starters: http://www.debito.org/publications.html#CITATIONS http://www.debito.org/publications.html#APPEARANCES

3) The summaries of the onsen lawsuit case are simply awful. The best one to write them would be me, but no doubt somebody would scream COI. So somebody please get cracking on that. Or I can write them here and you can put them through the editorial process. Again, I cannot conscionably edit my own Wikipedia entry. I can, however, express myself through the Talk page for due consideration.

4) Somebody rewrite my reasons for naturalization, already. I've given the link. http://www.debito.org/japantodaycolumns1-3.html They are published sources in Japan Today, albeit written by me. But there's no excuse for keeping the rotten misinterpretations of my motivations for being a Japanese up on site any longer. It's infuriating.

5) Delete those JapanReview.net pseudo-sources off the entry. JapanReview.net is not a publication. It doesn't belong. Delete Wilczinski too, if you're going to be strict about not sourcing Debito.org. There is no published source for his comments.

Again, there's enough stuff you can source if you just stick to newspaper articles. I have archived them assiduously on my publications page. That's the best place to start. Everything published and mentioned on Debito.org has the time, date, publication, and original link.

That's probably enough for starters. Thanks to everyone for help. Arudoudebito (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Debito, you can edit the article about you, as I mentioned on your talk page. If you edit per Wikipedia policy, there should be no big problem. This means applying the same standard to the writing of the article about yourself as would be required on other articles: neutrality, accuracy, and verifiability, to mention some of the most important.

If you feel reluctant to edit the article directly, you can post things here, providing the appropriate links for verification, and other editors will insert them into the article. You could, if you wished, start a new subpage of this talk page (for example, at Talk:Debito Arudou/temp and rewrite the entire article as you think it should read. Just provide a link on this talk page so that people can look at it.

Some of the problems you mention may or may not be contrary to Wikipedia's policies and therefore the changes you desire might not be possible. For instance, it's commonplace to mention the marital status of article subjects.

Finally, please avoid using hard rules by typing a series of dashes or a long series of equal signs to separate portions of talk pages. Instead, you can create new sections (by enclosing headings in sets of two equal signs) or sub-sections (by enclosing headings in sets of three equal signs). Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the editing advice EB. Sorry, again, I'm not gonna touch the main page. I'll keep raising concerns here.Arudoudebito (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the textbooks relevant? They certainly are "published", but in Japan, where you can find a publisher to print just about anything, this is not particularly noteworthy. They are certainly not prominent among the titles offered for teaching business English either in Japan or worldwide. A glance at their covers will indicate their quality.

http://www.debito.org/cwdb.jpg

Also, even if his 'published' textbooks are considered noteworthy, outside of those he has published independently, he has not written 'several'. He has written two.

I have similar reservations about Arudou's 'academic' publications. Most of these seem to be in 'kiyou' - university departmental publications with a system of in-house peer review (if they have any peer-review at all) which are seldom read outside their own departments. Although the JPRI and Japan Focus articles might constitute 'academic' publications, this would depend on how they were reviewed.--Anarmac (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to name his daughters? (Part 2)

There was a section above which posed the question "Is it really necessary to name his daughters?". It concluded with "Yes, it is important to mention his daughters, since he has used them as examples of discrimination prominently." Which is great and all, but doesn't actually answer the question "Is it really necessary to name his daughters?"

I understand why they're mentioned, and support that, but there's no reason for their names to be mentioned, is there? 121.108.90.17 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He named his daughters on his website and in his books. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a particular problem with it. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's as clear as day to me that the names should be removed. WP:BLP states that "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." In addition, it is irrelevant whether the information is available elsewhere. For example, we usually remove people's birthdates unless they are so ridiculously famous it is useless to try. Even if we can obtain these dates elsewhere. There is no need to mention the names. And Wikipedia is a more far-reaching source than Arudou's book or website. --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the circumstance laid out in the book must be covered that daughter #1 looks more Japanese while daughter #2 looks more Caucasian. That fact is relevant to the subject matter. Even using the exact wording "daughter #1" doesn't fix the privacy issues because people who matter know who's who. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, why does this make it clear why the names should be mentioned? Simply "his first daughter....his second daughter..." is sufficient. The point is not to obscure this information for people already in the know. It is for random people reading the article. And they do not know who's who. --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because everyone who wants to know what the names of his daughters are will know anyway. See the Google Search below, plus the Washington Post website article snippet (I found it from typing Debito Arudou Amy Anna in Google News and set it to search all dates) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are substantial concerns raised by Arudou. This kind of thing should not be handled purely by people who have edited this article but have no BLP editing experience. So I will place a notice on the BLP noticeboard. I think a 3rd party opinion will not only offer another perspective, but do much to calm Arudou's fears of biased editing. --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article mentions "Amy" and "Anna": http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-288782.html - The names of his daughters have been published in newspaper articles specifically about Debito Arudou's activities. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the names of his daughters are literally all over his website: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Amy+Anna+site%3Adebito.org&btnG=Search WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you read the BLP policy, you would know that by itself is irrelevant (from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names):

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

I have removed your re-inclusion of the names. BLP policy is clear on this: you must justify the inclusion of this material. The burden of evidence is on those who want to include the material. Your comments so far are not adequate justification according to BLP. What is the reason it is so important to include the names to override the caution we must usually apply in this situation?

I have made a comment at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Debito_Arudou to encourage BLP savvy editors to make a review. --C S (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

C S, the names have been disseminated - http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/world/29JAPA.html?ex=1219464000&en=6f7fbc94c3db476b&ei=5070 = here's a New York Times article complete with names and photographs of Debito Arudou's family WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is irrelevant. Simply because the information is "out there" is not sufficient reasoning. Nowhere in the BLP snippet above does it say it's ok just because it's "out there". You need to justify why it is important or necessary to include the names. What is lost by not including the names? --C S (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

C S - Indeed the BLP snippet indeed says it can be a-okay if it is "out there" - First you have "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases)," - If the names are printed in major newspapers like the Washington Post and NYT, they have been disseminated. Second, you have "When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." - These are news stories, but I can find multiple instances, and the heart of Arudou's argument is that his daughters were being excluded because of their appearances. The reason why it is important to include the names is because Arudou is using his daughters as a central argument to his Onsen case. If you use "daughter 1" and "daughter 2" people are going to wonder who they are. His website is controlled by him, but he prominently features them there and in his book. With the various newspaper articles about the family, you have a lot of people who already know the names of his daughters. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It says "widely disseminated", doesn't it? Now are you really going to argue that their names are widely disseminated? Names of relatives of prominent people are often widely disseminated. But this is a much weaker case. --C S (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, note the BLP snippet above explicitly mentions how we should try to weight mentions (scholarly articles get more weight than brief mentions in news articles) in a discussion on the appropriateness of inclusion. If you are correct, and we simply include this because it has been "disseminated", what would be the point of the remarks I quoted? Clearly, dissemination by itself is not sufficient for inclusion. I really think you're not getting the BLP policy. This is not like Pokemon where we include any statistic or factoid, regardless of merit. On articles of living people, we are supposed to exercise editorial caution and include only material which it is necessary to include, so as to avoid unnecessary harm. Now you may think it does not harm to Arudou or his daughters to include his name. But you don't get to make that decision for him! We can't remove everything, of course, Arudou wants removed, otherwise we may not have much of an article left. But since you haven't offered a single good reason to include the names other than the fact that we can, we can certainly exercise caution here and not include it. --C S (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

CS, " clarify, note the BLP snippet above explicitly mentions how we should try to weight mentions (scholarly articles get more weight than brief mentions in news articles) in a discussion on the appropriateness of inclusion." - So, what is this supposed to mean? This seems to say that if the person is already mentioned in the media and/or in scholarly works, the inclusion is not as much of a risk as it is to include the name of a person who is only briefly mentioned in one article, is not mentioned at all and/or who has his or her name intentionally concealed (i.e. a rape victim) - Therefore a person who has his or her name widely disseminated should generally be okay to disseminate on Wikipedia

"On articles of living people, we are supposed to exercise editorial caution and include only material which it is necessary to include, so as to avoid unnecessary harm." - I well understand that point.

"But since you haven't offered a single good reason to include the names other than the fact that we can, we can certainly exercise caution here and not include it." - Based on the text you cited, I disagree.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, let's think of it this way. What circumstances would make mentioning of the names required? If what we cannot mention the names with what we have now, what would make mentioning of the names required? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's what happened: after consultation with DragonflySixtyseven on IRC, he said that the names of the daughters should not be included UNLESS they themselves speak about the experiences via reliable sources. If this isn't the case, then the daughters may not like how Debito Arudou and other articles talk about them. The wife is acceptable to name as she spoke in the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/world/29JAPA.html?ex=1219464000&en=6f7fbc94c3db476b&ei=5070 WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a fast moving page! Must have had 4 5 edit conflicts trying to respond this time :-/. Anyway, I'm glad we came to some agreement here. Now hopefully we can move on to some of the other issues. --C S (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The is no encyclopedic purpose served by including the names of his daughters here. Although the names have appeared elsewhere, the appearance of the names in Wikipedia means that they will be seen much more widely than if we left them out of the article. As WP:BLP says,

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement."

This should apply even more strongly to minor children of the subjects of articles. -- William's scraper (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think that the claims are particularly titillating (as they can be verified), I see that minor children would include people who were minor children who are now teenagers or adults. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on my blog, my daughters have specifically said they do not want to be listed here on Wikipedia. That trumps any sophistic rule you might want to throw at us, WhisperToMe. Grow a heart, please. Keep the fact of the case that my daughters were involved in this case and how. Remove their names.Arudoudebito (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "special rules" more or less govern how things go; we actually make decisions by consensus, so many of these "special rules" are guidelines. BLP is a policy, so it is more stringent. Also, you may want to be a little careful in how others are addressed. Just as a reminder, please see Wikipedia:Civility. Also, their names have been gone from the "Debito Arudou" article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please read this section Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help - It lists contacts and information on how to manage information about yourself on Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A not dissimilar topic was raised over on the Nick Baker talk page regarding his son. Which might help to throw some light on a way to proceed with this issue. David Lyons (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WaiWai has fleeting secondary mentions, Little Yellow Jap is inadmissible

Regarding what User:Addmi added, the references were:

• "Japan rails at Australian's tabloid trash", Brisbane Times (2008-07-05)
• A Google search of Debito's site
• Blog post number 1, [1]
• One of Debito's pages [2]
• Blog post number 2, [3]

The only one that can be kept is the first one. A comic that an activist drew for his readership or what have you is not close to notable. I had to mention this because apparently someone wants to start an edit war. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Addmi's additions of more or less the same content from Ryann Connell until this matter is resolved. --C S (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

These (following 2 links) are not "Blog posts". http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/17_01 http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/19_01

http://www.tanteifile.com is an Online Newspaper site. --Addmi (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The excerpt of the article doesn't even quote me. It quotes the reporter's interpretation, which is not what I stated, and doesn't quote it completely anyway. And then it omits what I did state. What I did say about the issue is here: http://www.debito.org/?p=1850 Fundamentally different. And if you read the "published" article being sourced in Japanese, it's essentially an online entry with no author listed by name and nobody cited by name as a source for all the "puzzled and shocked" Japanese. Yes, it is essentially a blog post; we can read Japanese just fine. This is IMHO typical of what goes on by edit warriors contributing to Wikipedia, and crikey, it's like swatting flies.

Thanks for saying something. Restores my faith in the editing process at Wikipedia.Arudoudebito (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have some of the 5 references to be revived as soon as possible.

Which of the 5 references (if any) do you object to, and why? Arudou wouldn't mind a link to his Cartoon page.

Arudou uses the racial slur "Little Yellow Jap" 6 times in English in his page. So what would be wrong with quoting from his page, which is done many time in this entry already? --Addmi (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Can we move this thread of discussion to the top of the page?

Sorry, no. The long established practice is to put new sections at the bottom. Too many people will be confused if we switch. Use either the table of contents or a keyboard shortcut to quickly move down to the end of the page. I think most Wikipedians don't find it that confusing because we are in the habit of using the "diff" function to compare the newest version of a page to an older one. --C S (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The remaining 4 references are as follows. Let's discuss them:

• 1. Arudou approvingly cites and quotes WaiWai over 50 times in his site.

Links to WaiWai in debito.org, 54 links retrieved on 2008-07-22

• 2. Many Japanese people were puzzled and shocked by Arudou's support of WaiWai's exaggerated and mistranslated articles of sexual perversion. [http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/17_01

毎日変態ニュースを擁護する人権活動家の大学准教授 "Mainichi hentai news is supported by human rights activist and professor"], Tantei File (2008-08-17)

In August 2008, Arudou was criticized for his hand-drawn caricature of a buck-toothed Japanese man wearing a loincloth, and for using the World War II era racial slur "Little Yellow Jap" (six times in English, and several times in Japanese) for his cartoon, which he had displayed since 2005 as a "parody" of "Little Black Sambo" .

• 3. The link to Arudou's Cartoon page. http://www.debito.org/chibikurosanbo.html#parody

• 4. The reference to the article in "Tantei File".[http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/19_01

毎日新聞擁護の准教授、 HP に日本人差別の作品掲載 "Professor defending Mainichi displays his cartoon discriminating against the Japanese on his Home Page"], Tantei File (2008-08-19)

--Addmi (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I think it's relevant that Arudou's use of the expression "Little Yellow Jap" has been very open and prominent on the Net.

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22yellow+jap Search for "yellow jap" -- #1 is Arudou

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22little+yellow+jap #1 for "little yellow jap"

• http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22yellow+jap Image search "yellow jap" -- No. 1 2 & 3 are Arudou's

• http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22little+yellow+jap No. 1 2 & 3 for "little yellow jap"

--Addmi (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tantei File

I was calling http://www.tanteifile.com a blog, which upon more and more investigation, may not be entirely fair. The ja Wikipedia article on the site is ja:探偵ファイル, and from what I've read so far, it calls itself an independent newspaper.

The links given for references use an IP address as a domain (43.253.19.226), which was my first red flag, but more importantly than that, this reference is using stuff taken as a straight derivative Japan Probe. I read Japan Probe, it's interesting, but characteristically NOT usable in any form in Wikipedia.

So maybe it's usable, maybe it's not, I don't feel like I can make that judgment. If the first ref is usable, I don't even see much different than what The Brisbane Times reports. From [4],「これらの反動主義者たちに屈するな」 it mentions how he protested the closing down of WaiWai, which is pretty well established. The second one, [5] reads like an editorial. Who wrote it? This thing could maybe be at the level of a tabloid. The little Jap and accusations of posting racist stuff on his website could be added IF credibility of the publication was established.

The Google thing is specifically not admissible into the article by Wikipedia policy. It's not worth your time telling us many hits something gets. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm reading here, the Tantei File entries are of a dubious nature. We should not rely on them. In addition, it's unclear to me the rationale for including this material. Addmi, perhaps you can explain why you are so insistent on including it. In your view, is it an important chapter of Arudou's biography? It seems to have made little impact in the media. And regardless of the G hits, "yellow Jap" is indisputably a World War 2 reference. Very few people are going to think "Debito Arudou" when they hear "yellow Jap". So I don't see the relevance of your Google research. I noticed Addmi added a lengthy criticism of Arudou to a biography of Ryann Connell. That seems completely out of place, and it doesn't do much to convince me that Addmi has proper perspective here. --C S (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tantei File is probably more dignified than the weeklies that Arudou was defending when it was convenient for him.

>>> Defending the weeklies, as well as Connell and his collaborators, is the unflagging media critic and campaigner for human rights Debito Arudou, who wrote that WaiWai was an essential guide to Japanese attitudes and editorial directives. <<< http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/japan-rails-at-australians-tabloid-trash/2008/07/04/1214951041660.html?page=2

Re: [It seems to have made little impact in the media.] --- Since Arudou is not known in Japan (or anywhere else), things he does and says make little impact in the media. If a much more famous person (like Tony Lazlo or Pakkun) said similar things about WaiWai or "Gaijin" or "Yellow Jap", it would be all over the news.

I had three short sentences at the time [C S] deleted them, not a "lengthy criticism of Arudou" ([C S]'s words), and not a criticism of Arudou at all. My three short sentences don't seem "completely out of place" ([C S]'s words). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryann_Connell&oldid=233552468 A [Criticism] section, followed by a short [Support] section seems appropriate to me.

I'm not defending the Tantei File. I thought there was some information that was appropriate in this [Arudou] entry, and much of that can be said without mentioning Tantei File.

P.S. Much of this discussion became moot when the entire [Criticism] section was deleted on Aug. 23. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debito_Arudou&diff=233731641&oldid=233711343 Besides the material that could be considered irrelevant, [C S] deleted material that was clearly relevant to the [Ryann_Connell] entry, which I may try to revive later. --Addmi (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Tantei File is more dignified, that may score you a rhetorical point, but nothing else. It's still not good enough to include. Your comments accept that Arudou's "Yellow Jap" thing was not all over the news (or in any reputable news, for that matter), and that's what is relevant. Your opinions are based on your lack of familiarity with Wikipedia practices. Criticism section followed by support section are not acceptable. Inserting criticism of Arudou into Connell's entry appears to simply be an end run. I know you don't regard what you inserted as criticism, but the wording is clearly such. Word choices like "approvingly" and "many Japanese were...shocked" are clearly there to paint a negative picture of him. I doubt anybody besides you would disagree with my removal of the material from Connell's article. It is indeed lengthy in comparison with the whole. --C S (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Little Yellow Jap"

If a person (animal-activist) AA (only known as an "animal rights activist" who preaches sensitivity to animals) has a cartoon web page that shows that he amuses himself by depicting torture of animals, shouldn't that be mentioned in his Wikipedia entry?

Here, we have a person DA (only known as a "human rights activist" who preaches sensitivity to different cultures and races) has a cartoon web page that shows that he amuses himself by humiliating a nation of people that he refers to as the "Little Yellow Jap". Shouldn't that be mentioned in his Wikipedia entry?

He claims to be objecting to the 2004 publication of "Little Black Sambo" by a Japanese publisher, so this may be mentioned as well, together with the fact that there are about 250 publications of the same book in the US. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-title=little+black+sambo (He seems to have no objections to the US versions.) --Addmi (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then let me reply with another example. Let's say that John McCain had something on his personal webpage that was just blatant abraded racist. I mean, we'll say there is no question about the intention of the material.

Provided that it is

• On his personal webpage
• That page is one of many
• And there have been no secondary source mentions of the content

Then no, we can not add it to the Wikipedia article, no matter how amazingly Earth shattering it is. Why? Because if it was really Earth shattering then some other source would cover it, and then it could be added.

Debito's motivations for posting the comic on his blog stand a severe chance of being misrepresented. To the extent of my knowledge, he is satirizing a Japanese book that portrayed a black person in an distasteful manner. We've already covered his public statements comparing the N-word to "Gaijin", and there are no credible sources for the comic, only an internet mob at best. So no, the "Little Yellow Jap" should not be mentioned anywhere in the article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Arudou with a famous person (such as John McCain) is inappropriate. Could someone else comment on my original question --- which was, Shouldn't [crucial information regarding credibility of a minor self-promotor] be mentioned in his Wikipedia entry? --Addmi (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both McCain and Arudou are covered by WP:BLP as they are living persons. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Arudou with a famous person (such as John McCain) is inappropriate for this page because much of the discussion here is caused by lack of prominent publications on Arudou.

Comparing Arudou with a famous person is especially inappropriate for this issue (of Arudou's use of racial slurs) because if McCain used a racial slur, within hours there would be thousands of articles in the world's top news sources.

Could someone (who understands the point I just made) comment on my original question? --Addmi (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Arudou and McCain are considered noteworthy for this encyclopedia, AND they are both living people. That makes them qualify for NPOV. Plus all information that is not obvious (i.e. the earth is round) needs to be referenced. Now, since Arudou is not as well known as McCain, his page will probably never become as well-developed as McCain's. Even so, we have to get the article right. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I want to make a few general comments on criticism sections per se, then one related to this article. I feel the need to do so, because from the comments I've seen by newcomers (such as Mr. Arudou) and established Wikipedians, they either seem ignorant of the general trends regarding the need for such sections or have seen no need to explain.

The reason articles on controversial figures such as Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama do not have criticism sections is because the criticism has been integrated into the article. It is considered bad writing to have a biography where the first half says only the good stuff and then the second half says the bad stuff. I've seen the integration of criticism happening consistently across Wikipedia. I haven't looked at those particular politicians article histories, but I'm sure you'll find that periodically someone will complain on the talk page that the article has been whitewashed. The reason people usually complain about whitewashing when they don't see a criticism section, is that they don't actually bother reading the entire article. Those kinds of people come to a biography specifically to read the bad stuff about the person. They are not interested in reading a complete story of someone's life and career and seeing criticisms and supports in context of the issue they are related to. This should already be a sign that criticism sections are not good. When we design articles so that people can come specifically to read only what fits their POV, we are not doing a good job at all.

I would say there's a growing movement to eliminate such criticism sections for this and other reasons (see the essay Wikipedia:Criticism). But such improvements only happen on the more prominent articles first. The other articles are stuck with their old-fashioned criticism sections. I say "old fashioned" because this is what people used to do. Mostly, articles would be created by fans, and every time somebody wanted to put something negative in, the fans would say, well put it in a criticism section. The fans know well that relegating stuff to a criticism section at the end is often the same as throwing something into a dust bin. They then create the main part of the article to be flattering, and most people, by the time they get to the end, see "criticism" and think, oh this guy's great but of course people are going to criticize like they always do. Thus the criticism section actually acts to lessen the impact of the criticism by shunting it aside from the "main" article. Over time, people that wanted to insert criticism forgot this is why such sections were created. When criticism sections would be merged into the main part to create a more balanced picture, such people would protest. Indeed, probably one reason they protest is that they prefer only to read and edit the negative portions of the article, thus it is more convenient for their agenda. Otherwise they would be expected to work at improving the article as a whole.

Now from this mini-history of criticism sections, let's look at this article. It seems to me originally the same scenario held here. There was a main part, which had support, and a criticism portion. Unfortunately, over time, the main part lost the support element, and the criticism section grew. This seems to be because Mr. Arudou doesn't have as many fans interested in editing his article as detractors. There were also editors that were concerned about the promotion element and worked to eliminate the more positive references while not scrutinizing the negative ones, as they should have. Basically, the system has been thrown out of wack. The criticism section is now the most prominent of all the parts of the article. Indeed, I am hard-pressed to find a single positive thing said about Mr. Arudou in this article. If I hadn't done a little reading up, I would be under the impression that nobody has viewed his actions favorably.

It is clear we need to rework this article, possibly from scratch, and using only the best sources. Those who come here with an agenda will probably not like this idea. Criticism should be merged into the main article, as done in all the best articles on Wikipedia. --C S (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also like to see the article more balanced. I think the critics do have some good points in this case, but giving them too much weight makes them look like bullies. Just the opposite of the image they would want to project, I am sure. Redddogg (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thoughtful and informative post. It answers a lot of questions I had about Wikipedia.Arudoudebito (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions section

This section's new additions come from a single-issue editor going through Debito's work and pulling out points to highlight. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that original research? Have reverted. RomaC (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is only when his opinion on something is noted in another reliable published source that we can mention it. Otherwise we would have to repeat everything he ever said or wrote. That's how I see it anyway. Redddogg (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't "noted in another reliable published source" include Debito claiming that the word 'gaijin' is equivalent to the word 'nigger'? His article in the Japan Times on the subject generated enough reader interest to warrant the newspaper publishing a separate 'readers response' section. Although it is the same newspaper, the 'sources' (i.e. the readers) are different. At least one of them is reliable (Paul J. Scalise is a fairly well recognised writer on Japan) and they are published (they appear in the newspaper). I think this issue, at least, should be included.--Anarmac (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. The gaijin-nigger argument he makes isn't some gaff that a troll found on his blog. Quite the contrary, he got published for it, and it would fall more into the category of "actively promoted". There should be no problem with either credibility or WP:BLP. The "little jap" thing we were discussing above fails both of these. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the gaijin-nigger argument is controversial and noteworthy. I also think it should be treated in the main body of the article, as should all the entries currently in the "opinions" section. Otherwise, this section will get mired in struggles for balance etc.RomaC (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So that we don't fall into the trap of allowing choice selections of his opinions, all his opinion stuff should be merged into the article proper. For example, he obviously has a job writing columns. We simply explain that, then give an example or two of the kind of stuff he writes. The incident under discussion did prompt a heavy reader response, so it is an example of the kind of controversial statements Arudou is known for making. --C S (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved everything (except one) into the rest of the article. The one thing I didn't include was the WaiWai thing. See right below for another comment.--C S (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Debito's support of Ryan Connell relevant? It seems to me to fall under the primary research rubric mentioned here.--Anarmac (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the support of Connell has not been referenced anywhere in a 3rd party source. I doubt anybody but Arudou detractors see this as particularly important to mention. --C S (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well considering that what we had in the article came directly from the reference:

Japan rails at Australian's tabloid trash, Brisbane Times (2008-07-05)

Which is why I left it in there, I'm going to have to say yes, this has been referenced in a 3rd party source. Let's not get too accusative of either his supporters or detractors. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked that. You can add it back, but I don't know where to include it. That in itself is a sign that even if the source is legt, it's simply not worth including. Everything else can be put in parts relevant to his writings or activism. This is just an opinion of his that got reported once. --C S (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since Arudou has a pretty extensive website, we can change the title of "publications" section to "writings" and say in it that he maintains an extensive website with blog etc. Then it may be possible to include his opinion of the WaiWai thing there. On the other hand, if we're going to describe his website and blog in an encyclopedic way, e.g. "he talks about this kind of stuff", I'm rather skeptical that we would want to include the WaiWai thing. It gives too much weight, as I said, to an opinion of his that got reported once. --C S (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but if we mention his blog, does that not lead readers/editors to the conclusion that citing things like "little yellow Jap" is okay. And then won't letters like this be seen as fair game for citation? I'm all for a reference to his blog. It constitutes a large part of his activities as an activist. But won't we be opening up new cans of worms? --Anarmac (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the nigger-gaijin thing here: Someone deleted it. We need a better explanation for that. His editorial was [6]. Specifically from that:

Allow me to illustrate that with a joke from the American South.

Question: "What do you call a black man with a Ph.D. in neurobiology from Harvard who works as a brain surgeon at Johns Hopkins, earns seven figures a year, and runs one of the world's largest philanthropies?"

Answer: "N--ger."

This, followed by a congruent joke with "gaijin". This was the journalistic shock value of the editorial, and that's why it ever ticked anyone off in the first place. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

it's not deleted. It is now mentioned in the context of his work for the Japan Times. I don't know if we need a better explanation. You seem to want a lengthier explanation, which is not better. He wrote one column, and they had a reader response to it. There's no need to go into a lengthy analysis which will be longer than a couple sentences. --C S (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

People were angry because of the comparison. There was strong objection (though predictable from the outset) to equating those words together. That's pretty much the entire point. I'm fine with it as long as that's clear. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

References to debito.org

Probably the biggest challenge left for this article is removing the links to Arudou's personal webpage. Almost all of these references are not needed to say what we're saying. Take the appearance of his daughters, we currently link to his website, but we should reference the book itself (since their appearance is apparently relevant to the argument). See any old politician's page for an example of this. News coverage of the event would also be fine. Anything is better that what we have, pointing to a personal website. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If there aren't any online links to the material, I think it's ok to link to it. But the references themselves should be formatted correctly to indicate the original source. --C S (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. The reference is the book, whereas a powerpoint we can download is effectively a "mirror" of that information. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the main page contains 15 references to debito.org.

1. If Arudou's repeated use (6 times in English, and more times in Japanese) of the racial slur "Yellow Jap" is not included in the entry, then most (all but one) of the references to debito.org should be removed.

2. If Arudou's website for self-promotion is included in the entry, shouldn't we also include some of the several websites that are mostly or largely intended to criticize him? --Addmi (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1. AFAIK that does not follow. We do not go by the number of citations so much as how the article is cited. Also self-published primary sources are treated differently than self-published third party sources
• 2. I would most of those websites do not belong in here. There is Wikipedia:EL which states that most blogs do not belong in the external links section. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Most people here probably remember what happened in August: After Arudou started complaining about this Wikipedia entry, an anonymous person from an IP address deleted the entire "Criticism" section. Now the entry is seriously biased, giving almost only Arudou's point of view, repeatedly citing and quoting from Arudou's website for self-promotion. As it is, the entry requires a caveat note at the very top, saying something like:

"This entry is largely a summary of Mr. Arudou's website, giving viewpoints and opinions favorable to Mr. Arudou. For a more balanced perspective and other views, readers are encouraged look for other websites not listed in this entry."

--Addmi (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Addmi, since there are ways to use primary source information and self-published material in manners that do not "side" with Arudou, we have chosen to carefully use material from Arudou's website. I don't think the suggested disclaimer is meaningful. We have the Japan Times controversy info posted too so the article tells people what responders believed about Arudou's idea. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

criticism of the book

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some noteworthy criticism of the book published somewhere. But letters written in to a website are not sufficient. A book review, for example, published in some reputable source is along the lines of what is needed. Note that we don't include random praise or criticism from basically people off the street who took the time to write in. For example, of the two letters to Japan Review that I removed reference to, one was by a stockbroker. I have no idea what makes his opinion so important. The other is indeed to an author who has written about Japan. But if his opinion is to be weighted properly, he should have gotten it published somewhere reputable, rather than in a "letters to the editor" context. --C S (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A stockbroker Kinmont may well be, but he has been quoted in several publications of note. As for Peter Tasker, he has several publications on Japanese culture and society. Remove Kinmont's concerns if you like, but Tasker's should remain. As for the website, it seems to have served as a forum for many prominent members of the foreign community in Japan. --Anarmac (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Japan Review or its reputation. If you think it's alright to quote Tasker, due to his expertise, that's fine with me. I would think Japan Review's own book review would be better to quote though. As for Kinmont, he may have been quoted in articles before due to his financial work in Japan and a controversial writing of his. I don't know if that makes everything he says somewhere automatically worth noting. --C S (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but Tasker, Robert Neff and Gregory Clark are reputable. Debito seems to have a bone to pick with Clark, but I don't think that matters. Alex Kerr's comments in the Japan Times should be incorporated - I don't know why they were removed.--Anarmac (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Kerr material (which was quite extensive), but I find the current selection quite misleading. If you actually read his response, it is quite a mixed bag. Kerr even comments that perhaps he and others are less willing to stick their necks out to get along in their communities. Sure, he criticized Arudou's approach, but the quote selection makes it seems like Kerr has nothing good to say. That's the problem with this kind of selective quoting, including the selective quoting of Honjo's lengthy book review. --C S (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think the Kerr quotes were that selective; I thought the final quote about Arudou's naturalisation was complementary. I am happy to leave it as is. Why was the 'Neverthess' before Honjo's criticism removed. The two sentences are contradictory (and are presented that way in the review, so 'nevertheless' seems warranted to me.--Anarmac (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to ask WhisperToMe about the "nevertheless". Perhaps there is a cultural difference here, but "complimentary" is not how I would describe the final quote. Perhaps a Japanese person would find it so: the idea that it's not an "outsider" criticizing but someone that's made himself part of the community. As far as my reading goes, it's just an interesting remark that "gaijin ways" are now a part of Japanese society because of people like Arudou. In fact, I suppose a natural and even negative reading is: As despicable as Arudou and his methods are, Japanese people need to learn to put up with more of this kind of thing. So no, I don't find it particularly complimentary to Arudou. --C S (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "nevertheless," I feel that articles are better without transitions like "nevertheless" as the transitions could appear to "weigh" certain aspects as being more significant than others. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Shouldn't we update his photo?--Anarmac (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We can only use free images. --C S (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's "free" in the sense of the GFDL. I don't know if there are other images of him on Wikipedia Commons, for example, but I doubt we could find a better one. If Arudou were to license an image of his under the appropriate Creative Commons license we could use that. --C S (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on "The Dave and Tony Show", and the significance of these

Here's an addition that strikes me as odd:

The book also generated negative responses. In 2005, Yuki Honjo released a review of "Japanese Only" on Japanreview.net[start REF]'The Dave and Tony Show', Japan Review.net, January 2005[end REF] which attracted considerable feedback from many notable members of the expatriate community in Japan, including Gregory Clark, Peter Tasker, Robert Dujarric and Arudou himself. In her review, Honjo claims that "As a primary resource, Japanese Only is virtually unusable" due to bad punctuation, "self-indulgent writing" and "stylistic devices that detract from the 'record.'". Most of the responses that the review generated addressed Arudou's methods and were also negative.[start REF]'Letters', Japan Review.net, January 2005[end REF]

1. This presupposes that there is a (single) "expatriate community in Japan". Does it exist? (I've no reason to think so.)
2. Despite being outside any "expatriate community in Japan", I do know of Gregory Clark. I've never heard of (redlinked) Peter Tasker or (nonlinked) Robert Dujarric. Am I ignorant, or are they perhaps not notable? Or are they notable only within this community of which I am ignorant? (PS Tasker is here. None of the book titles sound even dimly familiar to me, but I suppose he'd have some notability.)
3. The review did indeed get "feedback" from Clark -- because of what it said about Clark. What does this "feedback" tell us about the book or about its author? If not much (or, as I suspect, nothing), why does this article tell us this?
4. I didn't bother to read the comments. If most can indeed be described as saying this or that (e.g. "addressed Arudou's methods and were also negative"), how is this significant?

Hoary (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC) PS added 11:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tasker has written several titles on Japanese culture and society.

1. Point taken about the lack of a single expatriate community.
2. Tasker's Inside Japan was one of the 'pop' books during the late 1980s and at the time was very well read. It is still in print (or, at least it is at my local bookshop. Amazon doesn't have it). He has also written another book on Japanese society and culture. Robert Dujarric is the director of Japanese studies at a well known university in Japan, has published op-ed pieces in Japanese newspapers, and as well as editing at least one book on Japan's foreign relations with its neighbours, has appeared on shows on international English language TV to discuss Japanese society. I think that makes him notable.
3. Clark's feedback was in defense of his own comments, but the fact that Clark, as well as Tasker and Dujarric responded speaks to the profile of the source, Japanreview.net. If the site had no notability, i.e. if it was just an ordinary blog, then one would expect these fairly notable people to ignore it, but they didn't - and nor did Arudou himself. That leads me to believe it has some value.
4. Previous entries had more fulsome accounts of the criticisms. They were removed, ostensibly because they all came from the one site. They did vary in their criticism, but for parsimony's sake it was probably better to summarise them. In fact, I would have thought the fact that a number of reasonably notable people said similar things in their independent responses would be MORE notable, not less. --Anarmac (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rushed interim response: J Readings has done more on my talk page to put me right on Tasker. His name's still unfamiliar to me, and I still wonder about an author who would subtitle (or allow his publisher to subtitle) his own book "major", but I accept that I was underinformed about him. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Arudou says that the article is still biased. He said: "(diff) (hist) . . Debito Arudou‎; 15:52 . . (+26) . . Arudoudebito (Talk | contribs | block) (Replacing NPOV tag. Article still biased, previously-removed unpublished sources like Japanreview.net and Yuki Honjo have been replaced.)" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, I believe the reason why Tasker and Honjo have been included is because their pages attracted many well-known Japanese expatriates. I understand that we do not want to invoke the false authority issue, but the posters here believed that the comments by the people who posted on Honjo's site were relevant. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(I originally posted this note on the WikiProject Japan page). I haven't been following the Debito Arudou page closely in recent months, but I still have WikiProject Japan on my watchlist. I did a search. According to LexisNexis, there was a full feature article on JapanReview published a few years ago (Christoph Mark, "Web site focuses on books about Japan," The Daily Yomiuri, January 6, 2004, p. 14) in which its notability was discussed. It also gets other citations from journalists and academics quoting it ever since, including some of the reviews that were apparently published concurrently in The International Herald-Tribune and The Asian Wall Street Journal. Book publishers link to it: Stone Bridge [7], ME Sharpe [8][9][10], etc. The University of Wisconsin-Madison [11], Harvard University [12], etc., list it as a reliable source for Japanese Studies. Intute: Arts and Humanities, published by the University of Manchester and supported by Mimas (data centre) and the JISC, consider JapanReview to be "high-quality" writing and an "excellent source of comment on Japan and Japan-related publications." [13] Overall, JapanReview seems suitable. I can understand Mr. Arudou's position, though. It's fairly obvious that he wants to remove anything that could be perceived as negative in order to create an advertisement -- otherwise, he would focus on all sources everywhere. He wouldn't be the first subject on Wikipedia to want a micro-managed resume, and he won't be the last. It's natural. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree for the most part regarding the noteworthiness of JapanReview. But let's not exaggerate. For example, it's not that Harvard University thinks it's a worthy site, but that a professor has linked to a book review there of his book (as he did for many other reviews of the same book). Some of the other links also, I don't think such care was put into their link repositories where the individuals involved thought people would be saying "oh, the University of Wisconsin considers this a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense!" For example, I doubt when Tessa Carroll (a lecturer at Stirling) put down that she thought JapanReview was "excellent" that this would be seen as endorsement by Intute, University of Manchester, Mimas, and JISC! She's made entries in the catalogue for a lot of different sites (including some pretty frivolous ones); I seriously doubt that an in-depth analysis of the reliability of JapanReview and the bona fides of its editors was conducted. Nonetheless, the fact that many of the reviews are in fact published in reliable publications does do much to establish the bona fides of the editors (including Honjo). --C S (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I agree with you actually. It's not that these institutions necessarily endorse JapanReview (let's be clear), but that publicly verifiable sources mentioned them as a source to read for Japanese Studies -- unless we're going to get into a lengthy general debate about what constitutes a reliable source for a reliable source, which, to be honest, probably belongs in a different venue. If we were forced to attribute the comments for citation, then yes, again I would agree with you: it wouldn't necessarily be Intute, but rather Dr. Tessa Carrol contributing to the Intute: Arts and Humanities catologue, etc., etc., etc. The bottom-line is that, on top of everything else that's been said previously, I agree that JapanReview seems suitable. J Readings (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Arudou posted another reply at User_talk:Arudoudebito - I am going to reply to that one. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the Daily Yomiuri article about japanreview.net - I'll see if I can find more sources, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Link? --C S (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright - LexisNexis is a web site typically accessed at libraries, so I'm not sure how I can provide a URL for LexisNexis. However there is a copy of the said article at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19895267_ITM - Only part of it displays to unregistered users, but from what I see it is clear that the Yomiuri Shimbun has discussed the website. Also why not apply the policies at Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Let's use that to determine if the site is acceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the trouble. I just went and got it on Lexis Nexis. I was just being lazy (I have to do a couple things to my computer to route it through a proxy and then find the appropriate university library link to click on). Anyway, this is all overkill, I think. --C S (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Readings said: "It also gets other citations from journalists and academics quoting it ever since, including some of the reviews that were apparently published concurrently in The International Herald-Tribune and The Asian Wall Street Journal." - Let's determine which ones were published in the other sources - this will help establish whether Japanreview.net is a reliable source. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

J Readings said above, in this section: "Overall, JapanReview seems suitable. I can understand Mr. Arudou's position, though. It's fairly obvious that he wants to remove anything that could be perceived as negative in order to create an advertisement -- otherwise, he would focus on all sources everywhere. He wouldn't be the first subject on Wikipedia to want a micro-managed resume, and he won't be the last. It's natural. FWIW".

Er, don't we have a thing about civility in discussions? I too have been annoyed at comments and had language tone here reflect that, but a blanket accusation that I'm trying to make a Wikipedia entry on me into a "micro-managed resume" not only does not assume good faith, it is also a very serious allegation (and a slur against the subject of this entry) that warrants the credibility and impartiality of this person, both as a guardian editor of this site and a defender of a dubious source, to be called into question.

So let me do that. Who are you, J Readings? Your name and your connection to Japanreview.net, please. An inability to be verifiable will make it impossible to check out any COI. And will doom Wikipedia to be overtaken someday by credibility-checkers like Citizendium. So for the sake of the media, come clean.

Finally, as regards my allegedly not focusing on all sources everywhere: Sure, criticisms in reputable published sources (not just mere letters to the editor etc. and laundered quotes from defunct nonpublication websites), put them up in this entry. My issue has always been: how sources that are NOT critical but ARE in reputable published sources are NOT put up, to balance out the subject. I raised this issue several weeks ago. And the media has still not corrected itself. Instead, we have J Readings reemerging from his or her bolthole to argue that the same old sources that were problematic before and removed should be reinstated. Carrying out edit wars of attrition like this only hurt Wikipedia in the end, people. See past the sophistry, please. Arudoudebito (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very stressed and upset Mr. Arudou, and it was never my intention to add to it. I'm sorry about that. That said, I'll let my contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Editors are welcome to review them at J_Readings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As I said before, I was responding to a post on WikiProject Japan. I haven't touched the content of the article for at least six months (probably more) -- with the notable exeption of a few clear cases of vandalism several months ago. I certainly don't WP:OWN this article. I believe, as most editors probably do, that talk page discussions for the benefit of improving an article are almost always a good thing unless they're designed to be disruptive. I notice that several editors (and others) have tried repeatedly to point out to you how Wikipedia works per WP:BITE (as you're obviously new to the project). I hope you'll take their advice on board and continue to edit Wikipedia. It's a worthwhile project. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? And what is your connection to Japanreview.net?

Let the record show that "J Readings", whoever he or she is, refused to answer the questions immediately above and evaded accountability.

QED. Its editors like "J Readings" who publicly impugn the character of the person being covered, yet will not come clean about who they themselves are, do a disservice to this media. Wikipedia as information source will only suffer for it. Let's see if Wikipedia as a system can actually (and finally, after all these years of J Readings' guardian edits) do something about it. Arudoudebito (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that there is no requirement for users to identify themselves for the sake of an arguement regarding the notability of a website.. The359 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And let me further add that if J Readings is somehow involved with JapanReview, that he may be violating a conflict of interest, but there are several other editors who are also supporting the use of JapanReview. Therefore, any possible affiliation between J Readings and JapanReview is moot as the articles stand on their merit, not on the user who added them or endorsed them. The359 (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and these arguments (and the inability and unwillingness of the editors to police themselves, let alone the "sources" they cite) are why Wikipedia will continuously fail to cover contentious subjects fairly or in a balanced manner. It has insufficient checks and balances of its own. Farewell Wikipedia. I hope someday you'll develop the sophistication to heal yourself. But unlikely if this is how the place is run. Arudoudebito (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring what I just said. We checked JapanReview, there is nothing wrong with it by our standards. Just because you that view, does not mean the majority do. It also does not mean that Wikipedians have not policed the source, they have, numerous times.

The fact that you believe that Wikipedia fails to properly present your article shows that it is you who has bias regarding the presentation of this article. It is clear that you have a conflict of interest in this article, and your attempt to mold it to what you are satisfied with should never be allowed. We are not here to write the article you want. We're here to present a verfiable article on the subject, and the sourcecs in question have been verified and supported. We're sorry you disagree, but your opinion does not outweigh others.

If you wish to contribute to other Wikipedia articles, you're more than welcome. But I believe you have strayed well beyong the lines of COI, and should not edit or attempt to sway users to edit your article to fit your own criteria. The359 (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, one might add that it was not J Readings that made the most recent Honjo addition; it was I. When I edited this article I introduced facts from only reputable sources and even introduced aspects of the subject (the Tama-chan protests) that Arudou himself had claimed had been left out despite adequate documentation. I included comments from the Honjo review because it was published on a website whose notability was attested to by the responses it generated. I have outlined my reasons for doing so quite clearly above and I would encourage Mr. Arudou to address the merit of these points. As for Honjo's critiques, they were directly relevant to the issues discussed on the Debito Arudou page (i.e. the book 'Japanese only' and the methods that Debito used). Arudou simply cannot deny that a) there was criticism of his book, b) that criticism generated responses amongst expatriates who have published their views on Japan and Japanese society (including, in the case of at least Clark and Tasker, what it means to be "foreign" in Japan), and c) now it seems that the source in question has been cited by a number of quality sources. An interesting aside, and perhaps irrelevant for our purposes here is that Arudou himself wrote into Japanreview.net to complain about the review. If he does not think the source was notable, why did he bother? --Anarmac (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading the section over with fresh eyes, I am struck by how long the Honjo related stuff is. We get one brief sentence saying Jeff Kingston wrote a positive review in the Japan Times (and Kingston's bona fides are certainly far greater than Honjo's), and then we get a paragraph of the Honjo stuff. It mentions that she didn't like his punctuation. Geeez. Who cares? If we're going to throw that in, we might as well mention that she doesn't like his hairstyle (I made that up, but you get the point). Rather than this sad state of affairs, let's just briefly, very briefly sum up her main dislike of the book. And I'm not sure this has been discussed, but I don't think it's important to mention that all those people wrote in response to the review to criticize his methods (in other words, they aren't reviewing his book). We're supposed to be explaining criticism of the book, not all the side-issues that crop up when his name is mentioned. There's already a quite extensive section of criticism of his methods, which is titled "methods". --C S (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, that means I can cut Honjo down to one sentence to one paragraph and NOT mention any of the reader responses, correct? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I don't think the reader response is particularly relevant. See next response below. --C S (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it can be trimmed down in order to remain balanced with the praise of the book. But it should not be removed. The359 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a bit to the point where it is one long sentence with a semicolon; I cut off what Honjo specifically said about the book and tried to make the sentence a bit more general. See, Wikipedia works. On one hand we decided that Japanreview was an acceptable source, but we trimmed the sentence down so it is more balanced. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If Honjo's review is going to be mentioned, particularly as a negative one, we need to explain that. The irrelevant thing is that people wrote in response to the review to discuss Arudou's methods and not necessarily his book. It would be as if I said, oh the New York Times reviewer wrote about X's book, and a bunch of people wrote in saying they didn't like how X behaved. I'll try and sum up the Honjo review, although it's somewhat scattered and verbose, so.... --C S (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the bona fides of Jeff Kingston[14], I haven't read very much of his scholarly work. The fault is entirely mine, not his, because his work does seem very interesting. I just never had much time to sit myself down lately and read his books. In any case, I bring it up because after C.S. mentioned his name last night, I was inspired to re-read a little bit from one of his books on my shelf: Japan's Quiet Transformation: Social Change and Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004). Interestingly enough, Dr. Kingston cites JapanReview in his bibliography (p. 346) as part of his "internet links" used to research his book. It's sandwiched between the electronic journal Japan Focus and the California-based think tank Japan Policy Research Institute (which C.S. added to the article today). I'm just mentioning it because it's a harmless, but interesting factoid. No deeper meaning, intended. Cheers, J Readings (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello J. I'm happy to see I inspired you :-). It is indeed funny that you stumbled across the mention, given what we've been discussing. --C S (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, someone just randomly came by and deleted a bunch of stuff, with not a hint of consensus for it whatsoever. Indeed, the opposite is the case. It's not an NPOV violation to have something negative in a biography. The edit summary of the deletion seemed to think otherwise. --C S (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Revert it if you like. Again, I have no problems with criticisms of me being included on my biography page, as long as they are properly sourced from established publications and authoritative sources. Some of them are not even under Wikipedia guidelines (and not just Japanreview.net citations), but The Consensus has apparently ruled they are so hey presto.

Final request to The Consensus: Please remove the tag above placed at the top of this page yesterday that reads, "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Debito Arudou, has edited Wikipedia as Arudoudebito". That is not the case. I placed an NPOV tag at the top of the main page only (as I did last August, without any similar tagging), without editing the contents below in any way. That's all. I have never altered the contents of the main page in any way. To reiterate; I have not edited. I have asked people to edit, and I have brought up issues I thought needed attention on the Talk pages. That should not consitute a kind of "interventionist edit warning" as the tag above will lead readers to believe. Arudoudebito (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Arudou, we are aware it was not you - The edit history says it was User:Hontogaichiban - I invited the user to this discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was you. That's why I said "randomly". I gave some reasons below for why the Japan Review stuff is appropriate for inclusion. Anyway, I think I'm about done with the edits I wanted to make related to this matter. Even if you don't particularly like it, I hope some of your concerns have been alleviated.

As for that tag thing, this is one of those contentious things that I and many other editors have little control over. This "X has edited Wikipedia" tag has been put up for deletion (it's not just articles that can be nominated for deletion but templates/tags etc also) several times but the result has been keep so far. And one of the reasons for nomination is the kind of implication you describe. It's an implication rather than an outright claim, because the tag only says that you "edited Wikipedia", which is certainly true.

I'll remove the tag. But someone else may eventually replace it. On the other hand, consider that the tag isn't really a big deal when you've already made all these comments on the talk pages. Probably the thing to have done if you wanted to avoid all this, is to have sent an email directly to the Wikipedia higher-ups; they would have issued some tenacious, intimidating editor to come and clean things up. You would never have left any talk page remarks, and there would be no tag. --C S (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I already tried to explain this on his blog, but it has fallen on deaf ears. If you click the "Edit" button anywhere on Wikipedia, you've edited Wikipedia. Nowhere in the template does it say it has to be an article. It simply says that this user is on Wikipedia.

"as long as they are properly sourced from established publications and authoritative sources." - And guess what? Not everyone agrees. Which is why sources need to be discussed. Which is what we tried to do here, but you decided to question editors for not supporting your claim. Your believing that these sources are not "established publications" or "authoritative sources" does not make it a fact. Once again, you've been asked to discuss, but instead you've acted as if you are the authority to judge what is a suitable reference. You are not. The359 (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

comment on why Honjo's review is appropriate for mention: If Arudou were taken completely at his word, we would think Honjo is some completely random person that said something negative about his book. Here are some facts on the situation. Honjo and Arudou know each other. Honjo's Japan Review co-editor Peter Scalise was asked by Arudou to read a draft copy and is mentioned in the book's acknowledgments. Japan Review also interviewed Arudou at some point. Arudou has a very long response to Honjo's review on his website. This is not just some random website nor was the inclusion of the negative review to harrass Mr. Arudou. It is here to provide a more complete picture than simple praise would. To add some balance, I mentioned in the article that Scalise had vetted the earlier draft. So at least the reader can see that Honjo and Scalise differ. I think I will also add some positive remarks from another reviewer to fill things out. --C S (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, C S! Anyway, if you have the book, please add a citation for the acknowledgment sections. I might tinker with the language of the sentence a bit so that Honjo's response is not weighed as more significant than Scalise's. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Honjo mentioned the acknowledgments/Scalise thing in her review, and her wording was that Scalise had "vetted" an early draft, which is pretty strong wording. I don't have the book itself to see if Scalise is in the acknowledgments, but I don't have a reason to doubt it. --C S (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be thorough I posted a request to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard just to make sure that everyone gets to confirm whether Japanreview.net may be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

CS, why has the Honjo quote about Arudou's writing been toned down? It would seem to me that in a book review, an analysis of writing style is somewhat important, especially when it shows what type of work the book is. I think this has been done to placate Mr. Arudou, who is obviously trying to make his page conform to his expectations about how he should be portrayed. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Either JapanReview.net is notable or it isn't. If it isn't, Honjo's review should not be included at all. If it is - and The Consensus seems to hold that it is - Honjo's review should not be dressed up in a nice frock to make Mr Arudou feel better. It was a hard hitting review. The page should reflect that. I do agree, however, that more positive reviews (like Ritchie's) could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarmac (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What we include, and how much we include, is largely a matter of editorial discretion, in conjunction with policies such as WP:UNDUE. I originally included a longer passage which stated her dislike of his narrative style (which is basically what the original lengthy description before was trying to say, the one which mentioned his punctuation), but then I realized that this one review description was as long as the description of the book and the Kingston review. That seems hardly fair, and has nothing to do with placating Arudou. Yes, Honjo's was a "hard hitting review", in fact, AFIAK the only even negative one. Let's be clear. Japan Review is worthy of mention. But it's not that noteworthy. The credentials of the people who wrote generally positive reviews such as Kingston, et al, are significantly greater than that of Honjo. I'm also reluctant to play a game of "include another positive review in exchange for including one more negative remark from Honjo". It inflates the status of Honjo's review to that of something as in the New York Times Sunday Book Review, which it is not. It is one negative review, by a moderately respected and knowledgable expatriate, who works in finance as a day job and started a website reviewing books with her husband as a hobby. There's also a real misrepresentation issue here. The other editor of Japan Review, Scalise, vetted the book. It's important to include Honjo's viewpoints in a way that clarifies that her views are her own and not necessarily reflective of Scalise. --C S (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The other issue I considered was space in the section. There's a natural tendency to focus on one small part of the article until it becomes a very large part of one's perspective. This is why it took a second fresh look for me to notice. Let's look at the article as a whole. This is a publications section, where we are supposed to briefly explain his writing activities. It's natural to make some comment as to the reception, but that doesn't mean we take the opportunity to make some extensive survey of book reviews of Japanese Only. Look at the "methods" section. It really is a "criticism of his methods" section, isn't it? Are you really seeing the whole article? I think currently it gives a pretty good picture of the man without being unfairly nasty or critical. Some people (like Arudou) still see it as being unfair, and others like you, think the article has been white-washed. Oh well. I think I've done the job well. --C S (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to resolve this dispute, C S. We have had a comment today from somebody arbitrating up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Japanreview.net is inappropriate as a source, according to a highly-barnstarred editor. I don't know how Wikipedia works, but how many more of these comments, or how many barnstars does it take, before we have The alleged Consensus overruled? Copypasting here with emphasis added. Arudoudebito (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an appropriate source for a biography of a living person. Some of the authors are scholars publishing elsewhere, and it can be treated as a self-published source of such a scholar. If articles are published somewhere else as well as on this website, then they may well be RS and both sources can be given. But material published only here cannot be used in a biography. You could get further opinions at the biography of living persons noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Debito_Arudou_and_Japanreview.net

Section Break

If the JapanReview statements are removed because they are not a reliable source, then there should be a removal of the praise from the Japan Times, should there not? As I mentioned in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if these books had their own articles and we only included the praise from the Japan Times, then this would be a case of undue weight and bias. Ignoring the validity of JapanReview, we can't have just praise. Either a reliably sourced criticism needs to be added, or the praise needs to be removed. The359 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Omigod, are we arguing this with a straight face? We can't have PRAISE? Speaking of undue weight, we've had almost nothing but criticism up for years now from what has now been adjudged by more barnstars than you to be an unreliable source (a website et al that is nothing more than a blog). So now we'd better remove the praise despite the fact that it IS from a reliable source (the Japan Times)?

Repeating the argument above, we must have criticism before we can allow praise? This is a BIAS, people. Against praise. Heaven forfend our biographied subject ever get praised! It becomes an advertisement! Well, no it doesn't. It becomes troll-proof, because the only people who are really levelling (mostly unfair, and that's why it's mostly unpublished in properly-vetted and fact-checked sources) criticisms are people who aren't offering balanced opinions. On balance, what the subject is doing has garnered mostly praise, like it or not. Except from the people like those who seek to become guardian editors of this website who hide behind Internet monikers, and offer opinions they don't have to take responsibility for because nobody knows who they are or what their track record is. They don't WANT praise -- they want criticism only or praise removed unless criticism is allowed to exist.

If we are judging by content and content alone, the only reliable sources out there that can be allowed are those that, coincidentally, say mostly nice things. Content that is praising is not inherently bad. Content that is reliably sourced (and coincidentially for the most part positive) is the only thing allowed under Wikipedia rules. But The Alleged Consensus at least as far as the guardian editors are concerned has been to ignore those rules. Because they want a tendentious biography that criticizes the subject and doesn't allow praise. The above editor has argued precisely as such above.

Heal thyself, Wikipedia. Get rid of these anonymous tendentious Internet bullies. Arudoudebito (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Barnstars have no merit. They're handed out by any editor for any reason for fun. Having more (or any at all) does not make that person's opinion better. There is no hierarchy based upon barnstars, number of editors, or any other criteria. Every editor's opinion is welcomed, and every editor's opinions are equal.

2. Past versions of the article have no merit on how the article should be now. If the article is unbalanced in its praise now, it doesn't matter if the article called you a dirty liar for a year. What matters is how the article appears now.

3. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and present facts without attempting to bias opinions to one side, such as "This book is great." WP:UNDUE clearly states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

4. Just because something is from a reliable entity such as the Japan Times does not mean it has to be included in the article. Having a single reviewer's praise of a book does not make the article any more factual or accurate.

5. Not including praise in an article does not mean that it simply does not exist. No one has denied that there is praise, so there is no "like it or not." The suggestion has nothing to do with denying praise, it has to do with being neutral and presenting a balanced article. Wikipedia is not here to write about every little thing about the subject, so no reader should expect are large number of opinions to be present in the article.

6. Be aware that removing all "praise" was my suggestion. This statement "The book is listed in the Japan Policy Research Institute's recommended library on Japan." is a honor that can be viewed as praise but it is also factual and does not represent a single opinion. There is nothing wrong with that line and it's more than welcome to stay. The problem lies in having one reviewer who supports the book, but not one who doesn't.

7. "...because the only people who are really levelling (mostly unfair, and that's why it's mostly unpublished in properly-vetted and fact-checked sources) criticisms are people who aren't offering balanced opinions." WP:Assume Good Faith. Don't assume that those who disagree with you are biased. Nobody here is out to discredit you or put you down. You'll get farther if you dropped that attitude already. The same applies to "Guardian editors"; that term doesn't make sense as no such thing exists here. Take this as a warning: Stop the incivility and accusations without a shred of evidence. This includes accusations of Conflict of Interest without proof, Bias without proof, and the use of the terms internet bullies, Guardian Editors, and Internet Trolls. I do not want this to escalate to a more official arbitration regarding your behaviour.

8. We are not judging on content and content alone. This entire discussion is on neutrality. And if we include opinions, even if they are reliably sourced, then this article breaks Wikipedia's rule of neutrality. You argue we are breaking rules, while not getting the concept that we can't have a 1-line praise of a book without some equal criticism, or none at all. The359 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, do we need to have this at mediation or anything like that? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do. Contact the relevant authorities, if there are any in this medium. This "truth and reliable sources by majority rule" kangaroo court on this Talk page has gone on for years now, and now the editorial biases are finally in plainer sight. Arudoudebito (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no "authorities", merely places to take disputes and have normal editors discuss them. This discussion is also not a vote. We are attempting to discuss the issues with this article and reach a consensus. The359 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We could always start a Wikipedia:Request for comment - And after that, a Wikipedia:Request for mediation. I might start an RFC soon. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Quit splitting hairs. Stop talking about what we "might" do. Get somebody to mediate, or whatever word you want to choose, already. You suggested it. So get on it. Get somebody neutral to look at what's going on here. Arudoudebito (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Arudou, RFC is more or less a request for editors to look at the article. If there is a consensus after the RFC, the issue is more or less resolved. Anyhow, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is a step reserved for when there is still no consensus. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there should also be further discussion on whether or not, pending the removal of this website, if the article has undue weight for including only praise. The359 (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the new guy, but I agree with The 359 on this. Having read both reviews (Honjo's and Kingston's) if you remove either one and leave the other the whole NPOV thing goes right out the window. Honjo's review may possibly dwell excessively on the myriad stylistic failings of the book (not that it matters in the grand scheme of the debate here, but I have read "Japanese Only" and it is darn near impossible to follow what Arudou is trying to say sometimes), but Kingston praises that same style so highly I found myself wondering if he and I had read the same book. But again, I suppose that is neither here nor there. The point is, if the JapanReview.net review is removed for whatever reason, the only discussion of the book would be an obviously biased "pro" review. There would be a NPOV problem in that case.Genkimon (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Noise and Rhetoric Problem

When Mr. Arudou called Wikipedians “loons that pose as editors,” I politely refrained from commenting.[15] When he insulted a Wikipedia admin, calling him a “liar” and continued to repeat it, [16] I stayed out of it. When he attacked me personally on his website and Wikipedia more than once, repeatedly accusing me of being a “guardian editor” (despite not having edited the article in over six months), placing instructions to disregard my participation in the article’s “to-do” box (of all places!) because he was angry other editors (not even me) did not agree with some of his demands, or when he accused me of having a conflict of interest (no proof whatsoever) simply because I tried to add citations and clean up this mess of an article last year, I quietly sat back and was willing to let him rant.

The list goes on and on, of course, but it would be no exaggeration to state that Mr. Arudou has been repeatedly rude and uncivil per WP:ATTACK. That other editors were mindful of WP:BITE—including admins—and tried to engage him in dialogue was only a testament to how people tried to be constructive and polite for quite some time while realizing that, sooner or later, things will have to calm down and we can all go back to being productive members of Wikipedia.

I’m still hopeful.

In any case, Mr. Arudou, I’m speaking directly to you now – please, tone down the rhetoric and the attacks on Wikipedia. We are not “trolls”. This is not a conspiracy. No one is out to get you. If you continue to attack your fellow Wikipedians, it’s going to escalate into a real disruption and other admins will have to be contacted. Please, I’m asking nicely: tone down the rhetoric and be respectful to others. I've already apologized to you once on something that was harmless compared to the rhetoric you've been using. We all realize that you're new to Wikipedia and you really have a steep learning curve ahead of you. That's fine and acceptable. No one blames you for that and we all welcome your participation. But it is absolutely no excuse for the way you repeatedly -- not once, not twice -- but continually insult others with your language. And if you continually defend that kind of rhetoric, we're gong to have a real problem. Regards, J Readings (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You levelled the accusation first, J Readings, that I was trying to convert this entry into a resume and an advertisement (talk about lack of proof). So don't now take the distracting tack that I'm now victimizing you "personally" somehow when we don't even know who you are and your (I strongly suspect, and you refused to clarify) direct connection to the now-debunked Japanreview.net source. The attack first came from you and your edits over the years.

Do your (your as a plural) jobs as editors and use reliable sources. And don't then argue that praise isn't allowed unless there is criticism. And don't point-blank accuse me of editing my own article for my own ends. Then you won't get this kind of response from me. I have been waiting for years (yes, years, not just six months; check the records since the entry started, and you'll see that J Readings' edits with a criticism-only bent are all over) for people to follow WP rules regarding sourcing. It's still not happening. Instead, we have people trying to argue in effect that praise isn't allowed, period, regardless of reliable source. That's not just against WP rules. That defies common sense.

Don't threaten to take this to higher admin. Go ahead and take it to them. Let's put your barnstars as editors on the line and see if you (plural) really have the mettle, pardon the pun, to stand by your record regarding this years-long biased Wikipedia entry being run by people with a clear and present bias. Arudoudebito (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This is really getting out of hand. Okay, if I understand you correctly, just so we're clear, you continue to think it's appropriate for you to behave this way towards others. Would that be a fair assessment of what you're saying? A simple yes or no will suffice. J Readings (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally pejorative and disparaging tone

Many sentences in this article seem to have been written in a subtly pejorative and disparaging way, in order to show Mr. Arudou in a bad light. Below are my opinions of some of these. (Overall, the quotations also seem to have been chosen to make him look bad, but I don't want to get into that.)

> he later renounced his U.S. citizenship as required by Japanese law

This seems to be trying to cast aspersions on him. Are you saying that he did it after a delay, in other words that for a period he was in violation of the law? Or that he only did it grudgingly? To make this more neutral, it could be changed to "he later renounced his US citizenship" or "he subsequently renounced his US citizenship, as required by Japanese law".

> Arudou said that he divorced his wife in September 2006

He "said"!? Well, is it true, or not? This gives the impression that people do not take his word for it - in other words, that people suspect he might be lying. (Or do you mean that he said "I divorce you" to his wife in September 2006??)

> Arudou visited the hot spring ... in order to confirm that only visibly non-Japanese people were excluded.

Even if it is true that the purpose of the visit was to experience and prove racial discrimination, this is not the point. From a neutral point of view, the main point of this paragraph should obviously be just the fact that they were excluded.

> Other protests: In 2003, Arudou dressed up as [a] seal ...

Starting the section with this seems like an attempt to make him look ridiculous. To make it more neutral, you could just omit the part about dressing up as a seal, given that it is not important. Alternatively, if you really want to keep that information, move it: "In 2003, Arudou joined a group protesting the decision by Nishi Ward, Yokohama to grant Tama-chan the seal an honorary juminhyo (residency registration), a right denied to foreign residents. For this protest he dressed up as a seal." But even this is not much better. If other people also dressed up as seals, then that should be mentioned, because it affects the impression we get.

> After meeting with police representatives at their headquarters, Arudou held a press conference, which he described as the "third-best press conference I’ve ever done".

Because of the way this sentence is written, the main impression we get is just that he made a slightly boastful-seeming comment after the press conference. (Also, until you get to the quotation itself, it is unclear whether this was something he said before, during, or after the press conference, which makes it an awkward sentence.)

To make it more neutral, it could be changed to 'Arudou met with police representatives at their headquarters and then held a press conference. He later described this as "the third-best press conference I’ve ever done".' But (on second thoughts) even this is strange - there is no other mention of press conferences in the article, and we don't even know how many other press conferences he has done in his life. So really this quotation gives us no extra useful information - it just serves to make him look boastful.

Of course, what he said itself was not boastful. But quoting it for no reason in Wikipedia gives the impression that he is boastful - or that the authors and editors of the article are biased. Joseph green (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Mr. Green,
  • 1. You said: "This seems to be trying to cast aspersions on him. Are you saying that he did it after a delay, in other words that for a period he was in violation of the law? Or that he only did it grudgingly? To make this more neutral, it could be changed to "he later renounced his US citizenship" or "he subsequently renounced his US citizenship, as required by Japanese law". " - We are not implying that there was a delay. The text doesn't say what duration of time was done.
  • 2. You said: "Even if it is true that the purpose of the visit was to experience and prove racial discrimination, this is not the point. From a neutral point of view, the main point of this paragraph should obviously be just the fact that they were excluded." - I don't understand what is not neutral or wrong about saying he came back to confirm that there was a racial bias.
  • 3. We could look into that and maybe tweak the wording to see when the press conference statement was made.
  • 4. You said: "He "said"!? Well, is it true, or not? This gives the impression that people do not take his word for it - in other words, that people suspect he might be lying. (Or do you mean that he said "I divorce you" to his wife in September 2006??) " - It's kind of a compromise. Wikipedia relies mostly on third party sources (as per WP:RS) and takes cautions with primary sources (as per Wikipedia:OR) - If we find a Japan Times article that explicitly says that Arudou divorced his wife we could take out the "Arudou said" part and leave it as is. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

1. The word "later" does imply that there was a delay. To make it more neutral you could change it as I suggested above or even just delete "later".

2. What is not neutral is that at present that comes across as the main point of the paragraph. If it was written neutrally, the main point of the paragraph would just be that they got excluded. It is a question of emphasis and the overall impression given by the paragraph.

3. Or, better, delete that quotation, since as I said it gives the reader zero extra useful information.

4. This seems a rather feeble reason to me. The sentence definitely gives the impression that people suspect he is lying. If it is against the rules to just state the information as a fact, surely the sentence could be reworded to avoid this. How about "Arudou divorced his wife in September 2006 [not verified from authoratitive sources]"? (And anyway, as the man says above, this information itself is irrelevant.)

5. You agree about the "dressed up as a seal" bit?

Regarding some of the above comments: I don't know who is following Wikipedia's rules more closely, but it seems clear to me that Mr. Arudou conducts himself with much more civility, sense, and good will than his attackers. I will leave it at that. Joseph green (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Mr. Green:
  • 1. I decided I could remove "later"
  • 2. You said: "What is not neutral is that at present that comes across as the main point of the paragraph. If it was written neutrally, the main point of the paragraph would just be that they got excluded. It is a question of emphasis and the overall impression given by the paragraph." - I don't see how that does not fit a neutral point of view. Saying that Arudou visited again because he wanted to confirm his findings does not try to paint him a negative light, nor does this put Wikipedia:Undue weight on that particular sentence.
  • 3. You said: "Or, better, delete that quotation, since as I said it gives the reader zero extra useful information." - IMO it could be useful to see how he himself views the particular event. I personally don't see how it makes Arudou seem boastful.
  • 4. I don't think it gives people the impression that he is lying as the language is "he said." If it was "he claimed" then it could give the impression he was lying. I think "How about "Arudou divorced his wife in September 2006 [not verified from authoratitive sources]"? " sounds funnier. Plus it is usually standard practice to mention family lives of notable people (i.e. divorces and marriages of politicians, celebrities, etc)
  • 5. It is common for protesters to wear special outfits. I think the idea that the sentence "X dressed up as a seal to protest..." is trying to insult X is reading too much into the statement.
    • Since we're talking about seals, the article says "...jūminhyō, a right denied to foreign residents" I'd argue that it is not a right, and it is not denied, it's just that the law covers the foreign population in a different manner, so as it stands it is editorialising. The main article on juminhyo is more neutral in its phrasing. Dids ([[User

talk:Dids|talk]]) 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Done. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should Japanreview.net be used as a source?

There is a lot of prior discussion to see, but there has been a debate over whether Japanreview.net is a reliable source. Most of the editors who posted above agree that Japanreview.net is a reliable and usable source for this article, since Arudou let the editor of the website check his rough draft, and that when another editor gave a negative review for his final draft, Arudou and other expatriates living in Japan responded via the letters to the editor section. The relevant policies are Wikipedia:BLP and Wikipedia:RS - Please see the discussion above before commenting. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I must also add that J Readings found that The Daily Yomiuri, The International Herald-Tribune and The Asian Wall Street Journal refer to Japanreview.net and its reviews (as said earlier, please refer to the above discussion for the earlier discussion) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• There is also related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Debito_Arudou_and_Japanreview.net WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Kommentar - Sweet Jesus Christ, that's not a reliable source. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mind explaining why it isn't (and/or rebutting points made by other users above)? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • (sighs) Very well. First, go read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. In my opinion, it's a questionable source. The fact that some other papers have referred to it's reviews neither makes it peer-reviewed, nor means that material is attributable or verifiable, nor means that there is editorial control, nor means that it is unlikely to be libelous, and finally, did these papers use that website for discussion of Debito Arudou? If not, then the point is meaningless. Second, you *have* read WP:BLP, right? The part about sources? The part that says "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link"? Look. It's self-published. ALL of it. It appears no where else. There's no value in including it, it's pissing the person it's written about off, the website is defunct and most staggeringly, it's clear the people involved (the people who wrote on the site and the subject) do NOT have a congenial or positive relationship and that the information may very well be biased. Third, and finally, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a third party -- a news paper, the Japan Times, whatever -- picked up and wrote an article about this subject to full editorial control. THEN you could use it as a source, very carefully, and you'd pretty much have to attribute it to "The JT claimed in an article based on the claims of so and so at Japanreview.net that blah blah blah"...you see how that sounds? Weak. Unreliable. That's my opinion, based on my reading of the site (junk) and the policy in question. Others may have a different viewpoint or my interpretation may be off on the policy and I am open to discussion. But I can't see that as reliable source in the context of this BLP. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Question: so if the people involved have a congenial or positive relationship and the information may very well be biased in that direction, is it OK then? If not, then the positive review of "Japanese Only" should also go. Further, while the relationship between the parties is currently anything but good, I have seen no evidence that the review was written out of animosity. Indeed, Honjo prefaces her review with statements of sympathy for and support of Arudou's stated aims. The argument that it is "pissing the person it's written about off" should be irrelevant. First, the review wasn't "written about" Arudou, it is a review of his book and the failings thereof. Secondly, how can NPOV be maintained if only POVs favorable to the subject of a biography get used? Do that and you end up with the Citizendium entry on Arudou, which he got to pre-approve and which is just as flawed (in the other direction) as the bio here on Wikipedia was. As for "defunct", Japanreview.net may not currently be continuously updated, but it is still readily accessible. If "not currently updated" = "defunct" = "not usable as a reference", what do you do for out-of-print books? Can they not be referenced as a resource since they are not "current"? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.231.56.33 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict above) Thanks very much for the comments. They were interesting. If you don't mind me asking because several things were unclear to me.

“..did these papers use that website for discussion of Debito Arudou?” Do you think we should remove all published book and film reviews from other encyclopedia articles if journalists don’t specifically discuss that particular review? Admittedly, I’ve never heard that point argued anywhere on Wikipedia before. I’m thinking that some people would love your idea if it were ever raised at the Village Pump for other articles. Others editors not so much, especially the WikiProject Film crowd. What's clear is that there are plenty of FA-rated and GA-rated articles on Wikipedia that contain film and book reviews not necessarily discussed in the popular press.

"It's self-published. ALL of it. It appears no where else." Do you mean the reviews or the website or both or what? I’m not sure I’m following you. The reviews are sometimes re-published in various publications. It specifically states that on the review index. And after some checking, Factiva and elsewhere confirms the existence of many of these reviews and republished articles in places like Japantoday.com, etc. (In fact, here’s one: [17]).

“it's pissing the person it's written about off…” Unfortunately, yes. But I’m wondering if if that’s a criterion for removing any and all sentences from an encyclopedia entry if a subject does not endorse the sourced comments? This is what Citizendium apparently does. Where is the line between an “approved biography” and an autobiography and an independent biography in that instance? And what is the consensus on Wikipedia for that issue, overall? I don't have the answer, but it's not clearly addressed in the policies either.

“the website is defunct…” Mr. Arudou keeps stating that, too. It’s a strange assertion. Where on JapanReview does it state that it is defunct? For all anyone knows, the editors could publish something tomorrow, the next day, or next year. In any case, even if it were true, Wikipedia policies make it clear that a “defunct” publication does not preclude citation otherwise we would avoid libraries and offline sources entirely.

"It's clear the people involved (the people who wrote on the site and the subject) do NOT have a congenial or positive relationship..." where did you read that exactly? It seems to be true (I agree) that Mr. Arudou does have problems with people who are perceived as publicly disagreeing with any of his arguments based on his comments on his own website -- and that's certainly not limited to any perceived disagreements by comments made by editors of JapanReview. All one needs to do is read his objections on his website regarding the Journal of Japanese Studies and its Harvard University reviewer Mark Ramseyer, the Japan Times and Gregory Clark, Issho-Kikaku and Tony Laszlo, JapanZine and reviewer Patrick Rial, not to mention I don't know how many letters-to-the-editor of the Japan Times, among other cases, to see that the latest objection is not an isolated incident of perceived unfairness about issues Mr. Arudou holds dear. That's neither good nor bad; it's a simple statement of fact. And let's be clear: I'm okay with that (Japan is a free country), but where is the verifiable evidence that the editors of JapanReview do not have a "congenial or positive relationship" with Mr. Arudou? Where did they publish those remarks or is it reasonable to infer that the assumption is based entirely on the fact that a credentialed reviewer with publishing trackrecord made both positive and negative remarks in her nuanced review and Mr. Arudou (once again) objected vociferously?

“That's my opinion, based on my reading of the site (junk)…” This is also an interesting comment. Are you specifically saying that all of JapanReview is “junk”? You might be right, but why? What specifically is "junk" about it? J Readings (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Logicalpremise, I was hoping for logical argument from consensus-backed premises, but instead got thoroughly confused. I wrote a draft response, but was preempted by J Readings who wrote much the same thing but rather better; so most of my draft response goes into the bit bucket. Let's consider for a moment the article on Sarah Palin: it's vigorously edited by a couple of editors who seem extraordinarily keen to find and remove hints of any blots on Palin's record (who indeed edit not unlike the way in which I'd expect paid party operatives to edit), yet it manages to include such ingredients as "Palin's performance in her third interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket[169][170[171]"; we can be sure that Palin wouldn't be happy with these, and that "bias" of some kind could be alleged by Palin's defenders. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• On what are you requesting comment? I thought that the question preceding this RfC was of whether the (unfavorable) review in this website should be described/summarized and linked to. If you're asking about this, then I don't understand how the suitability as a "source" (in the normal sense hereabouts of that word) of this website is an issue. It's not as if the site is the claimed source for some factual assertion within the article, such as that Arudou has a healthy Swiss bank account, or has a PhD that's otherwise gone unnoticed, or is really Canadian, or has done important work as a simultaneous interpreter. The question might instead be: Does a review posted on this website deserve to be taken seriously (or does its insignificant place of publication disqualify it even before it's read)? If this is the question here too, then I may have a pertinent comment. But if it isn't the question, I don't understand what the question is. And perhaps I'm not alone in being mystified. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hoary, "The question might instead be: Does a review posted on this website deserve to be taken seriously (or does its insignificant place of publication disqualify it even before it's read)?" - that is the question. We know the review exists; the question is should Wikipedia take the review seriously. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps it depends on what one does with it. Supposing that a review of similar unfavorableness and length had appeared in the NYRB. This itself would be worth saying; I mean, "The NYRB published a long and generally unfavorable review of the book by Somebody Somebody[note]" would be informative. Rightly or wrongly, japanreview.net is nowhere near so well known, so a reader seeing "The Japan Review published a long and generally unfavorable review of the book by Somebody Somebody[note]" would probably draw a blank. Now, I haven't read the book and offhand know nothing of Honjo's competence as a reviewer; however, her review (although perhaps prolix and otherwise somewhat over the top) is reasoned and detailed. Before taking seriously any factual revelation on this website about Arudou himself, I'd have to take that site seriously; to take the review seriously, my requirements are much less stringent. What's written in the article -- namely, "Yuki Allyson Honjo criticized 'Japanese Only' on Japanreview.net.[29] Noting her sympathy for his plight and that her co-editor Peter Scalise had vetted a draft copy, she concluded 'This book does not do the thought-provoking and complex topic of racial integration and cultural tolerance justice....'" -- is uninformative, however. Honjo criticized it on japanreview.net for what? The reader should be told this, simply and succinctly. Of course, none of this would be necessary if an unquestionably respected medium (e.g. the NYRB) had published a review of a similar level of detail, but I don't think that anybody has so far offered anything beyond this and an article in the Japan Times that comments on the matter written up in the book but that only briefly describes the book itself. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit surprised there is so much discussion about this source. Self-published website, plain and simple. That Arudou submitted his MS to one of the site operators doesn't change WP standards. BLP articles have very stringent requirements, and Japanreview.net honestly doesn't meet them. Are those persons doing reviews on Japanreview.net established experts 'on the topic of the article' whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication? That the review was picked up by the Yomiuri , IHT, & Asian WSJ is interesting, but it's a type of laundering and doesn't change WP standards.Statisticalregression (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Statisticalregression. Long time no speak. It's good to hear from you. Are those persons doing reviews on Japanreview.net established experts 'on the topic of the article' whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication? This is an interesting question: Does a book reviewer have to be a published biographer of Debito Arudou in order for a book review to stay in this article? If so, Donald Richie and Jeff Kingston might be in trouble. Should we disallow economists' reviews because they published a review of a work of political science? Or an anthropologist's review because s/she published a review of something else? I'm not so sure. In any case, Honjo is clearly a published academic on Japan through a few respected academic publishers. Apparently, her book dealt with lawsuits, civil society and the Japanese press. What was Debito Arudou's book about? Lawsuits, civil society, and the Japanese press. Should we remove Donald Richie's reviews because he hasn't published a book on lawsuits, civil society and the Japanese press? I wouldn't argue that, but then again I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with either review. J Readings (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi JR, your questions are intriguing (and in the future I think we can deliberate on them) but first, I think we can all agree on one thing to start, that being Japanreview.net is a self-published website. What's driving me to make a comment here is that although Japanreview.net is in a different website format, my perspective is that, functionally, it's indistinguishable from a blog. (as a quick aside I am at first glace surprised that parts of this article use Debito's blog for a reference...but that's a different issue). Let me list what I see going on here:

1) We have the subject of the article saying he feels the source and material are do not belong in the article

2) The source is self published

3) That it's merits pertaining to the exceptional requirements for a self published source is in question.

My understanding of WP Policy which Hoary already quoted (but I will again) that pertain to BLP is that material and the references should be removed from the article until the status of the source has been established. the entire line from WP:BLP:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

I am an uninvolved editor but I would suggest that those who regularly edit the article take the time to consider the above and keep in mind we have all the time in the world to discuss and come to consensus and there is little reason why we should step into grey areas unnecessarily. The material in question is about a book that was written by the subject of the article which is problematic because it's on a biographical article. If it were on a WP article about the book my opinion might be different but honestly I don't know if I would ever personally use a source like Japanreview.net in any WP article it's not robustly a RS and thus it will likely be brought into question repeatedly. I've already made my comment and voiced my concerns and so I will retire to my bottle of scotch and try not to involve myself for the extent of the bender I am about to embark on. Statisticalregression (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This is precisely why we need to walk very carefully and choose our words wisely in this discussion. I hope you weren't drinking already when you made the above comments, Statisticalregression, because this is serious. To his credit, Debito Arudou never argued that the book review was "defamatory" or "libelous" (per User:LogicalPremise). Those are extremely strong words that are not taken lightly on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Nor, to his credit, has Mr. Arudou threatened a lawsuit over this issue. Please, let's not resort to intimidation by implying that someone may be threatening legal action or putting words into anyone's mouth during this discussion about such a serious issue. I was going to respond by asking you to clarify what is and is not a blog, etc., whether other sources should be removed that are also strictly internet-based (besides Mr. Arudou's blog), but I'm so taken aback by the first comment, I think it's time for me to stop participating in this discussion for a little while. J Readings (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

JR, I've corrected my wording and apologize to those in the discussion - I had somehow arrived at an incorrect impression of the situation. My assessment of the situation remains unchanged, that it would be far better to err on the side of caution in regards to WP Policy on this. Statisticalregression (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP articles have very stringent requirements They certainly do. [That page] in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research (emphasis added). The question here is about a book review, not biographical material. The review does indeed discuss biographical material to some extent, but this biographical material is what the subject of this article has chosen to publish in the book under review. -- Hoary (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think japanreview.net works very well as the only source for controversial claims - my reading of the above means that I'm veering towards a simple 'no' answer to the question posed, but am reading more, and hoping to be able to help out here a bit... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • But what are the "controversial claims" for which it is being sourced? I see it as the publisher of an unfavorable review of one book. (I don't think anyone has suggested that the article should say that the book is rather poor and source this claim to a review in this website; rather, it's a matter of saying that the book has been reviewed unfavorably and linking to this review.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a publisher. Arudoudebito (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Publisher": one who publishes something. "To publish": to make generally known; to disseminate to the public. Dictionary definitions, by which Japanreview.net can be called a "publisher".Genkimon (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I will agree with J Readings above. Honjo's work re. Japan is known. She may be an equities analyst by trade, but that alone should not disqualify her. Logicalpremise's contention that the review may be biased based on personal animosity cannot be dismissed out of hand, but if that invalidates the source then the other review linked to should also be disqualified for the same reason. Kingston makes his animosity towards critics of Arudou and bias for Arudou abundantly clear. Kingston would also run afoul of Statisticalregression's "done work in the relevant field" criterion. He's a historian, not a sociologist, cultural anthropologist or human rights lawyer. I think the only way to make everyone "happy" (not that such should be a goal mind you) and preserve NPOV would be to say Arudou wrote a book called "Japanese Only" and leave it at that - no discussion or reviews of the book at all.Genkimon (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to get into a tinkling contest over the qualifications of authors to comment on a work or works by a subject, you're really going to have an endless debate. If you're going to compare Honjo to Kingston, it's clear who comes out on top. Honjo's only book is "Japan's Early Experience of Contract Management in the Treaty Ports (Meiji Japan)", 2003) http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Experience-Contract-Management-Treaty/dp/1903350085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223447982&sr=8-1, hands up all of you who "know her work on Japan" who read it), a Doctoral thesis on a topic quite unrelated to this current BLP (Meiji-Era Treaty Port contracts??). And she hasn't done any published original or vetted research on a related field to this BLP since then either. Kingston, a department head at Temple University Japan and recognized academic in the field, has two important books out, the most recent being "Japan's Quiet Transformation: Social Change and Civil Society in the 21st Century (Asia's Transformations)" (Paperback - Oct 28, 2004), and as an academic he's still doing relevant (and genuinely published) research to how Japanese society is changing and internationalizing (both topics very much dovetailing with this BLP). You're comparing the financial analyst with the published and respected academic in a related field; guess who has more credibility. That is, if you really need to compare them.

You don't. Again, avoid the tinkling contest because it muddies the argument. Kingston is respected enough to get his review of a work related to the BLP subject published in a fact-checked and established respectable newspaper. Honjo did not. And she could not. It only could get onto her self-published website. The point is, it doesn't matter. Japanreview.net is not a publication. Use real genuine-source publications and there's no issue here. Arudoudebito (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you're assuming that Yuki Allyson Honjo tried to publish the review somewhere else. Did she mention that somewhere on JapanReview? I couldn't find it, and I've looked over that entire book review and the letters-to-the-editor page. In any case, I just want to quickly point out two ironies. The first is that both Yuki Honjo's book and Jeff Kingston's book were both put out by the exact same publisher: RoutledgeCurzon.[18] [19] The second irony is that the book Mr. Arudou cherishes (and perhaps deservedly so), Japan's Quiet Transformation: Social Change and Civil Society in the 21st Century (Asia's Transformations), cites JapanReview.net in the bibliography. I would ask if Dr. Kingston thought that JapanReview was not a useful and reliable source for commentary on books, why would he put it in his bibliography? J Readings (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Japanreview.net is not a publication. Use real genuine-source publications and there's no issue here." That may be an option. However, in that case the entire biography would need to be rewritten as about 50% of the sources listed in the footnotes are not "publications".Genkimon (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Now you're getting it! And that's how badly-sourced this BLP has been for years now! Arudoudebito (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but almost all of the "bad sources" are your site or your writings on other sites. Is all of this information in either of your two books so it can be reattributed to a "real" publication?Genkimon (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me an example and I'll give you a real source. Just belay the talk that I'm trying to write my own BLP, everyone, or that my very presence in this debate constitutes COI, okay? Arudoudebito (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes 2 through 4, 9 through 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 33 would all need replacing if we were to accept your definition of "publication". But I think the definition you are using is flawed. If accepted at face value, no self-published book would be acceptable either, would it? Nor could personal correspondence be used as a reference for anything, as it is not "published", "fact checked" or "peer reviewed", and yet scholars use those all the time.Genkimon (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Scholars also do "original research", which according to the rules of the game at the top of this Talk Page is not allowed, either. Belay these tangental and obfuscating comparisons. Follow Wikipedia's rules. That means published works as delineated by Wikipedia. How many times must we repeat this to people who are supposed to be "editors" already conversant in the rules of WP?

Alright, do you want me to review the footnotes you mention above? Arudoudebito (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Arudou, do you also object strongly to the sourcing of internet interviews done by Transpacific Radio and "Yamato Damacy" being included in your article? I notice that someone included them in the external links, and you haven't complained about them yet. What are your thoughts on these internet-based sources? J Readings (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are oddities shortly above. ¶ Genkimon: Nor could personal correspondence be used as a reference for anything, as it is not "published", "fact checked" or "peer reviewed", and yet scholars use those all the time. What scholars do is not an issue. What Wikipedia should do is. Wikipedia has a set of rules that can be criticized as confusing but that don't pretend to emulate what's standard in some kinds of academic work and that are indeed explicitly eschew some of what's standard there. ¶ Arudoudebito: Follow Wikipedia's rules. That means published works as delineated by Wikipedia. How many times must we repeat this [...] No times. Instead of repetition, let's have precision. Are you talking about "WP:RS"? This does not outlaw the use of self-published material, private websites, etc; it instead calls for great care in its use. If you're not talking about "WP:RS", just which page are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arudoudebito: Japanreview.net is not a publication. Use real genuine-source publications and there's no issue here. It's a publication according to most meanings of "publication", but if you prefer a definition of "publication" that excludes it, fine. "Publication" or not, it published (made available to the wide world) a review of this book. This review seems to be by far the most detailed that has yet come to light. Can you suggest any other reviews that rival it for informativeness about the book? An objection that the reviewer's only substantial publication is a refurbished PhD thesis on a different subject seems bizarre, in that even impeccably academic publications often have books reviewed by young scholars who have published less. And what has this talk of "BLP" got to do with this or any review of this or any book? Or is Honjo or some other writer in japanreview.net being improperly cited for biographical (mis)information, and if so, which biographical (mis)information? -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, I noticed that Honjo is also cited for this paragraph: "In her review of Japanese Only (see "Publications" below), Yuki Honjo praised Arudou's "comprehensive website with thousands of pages of material" as an "excellent resource". Nevertheless, Honjo noted that "Arudou's brand of 'Internet activism'... seems almost quaint" and his lack of engagement with more contemporary protest methods, such as flash mobs, blogs or wikis, essentially means "he remains the old-fashioned pamphleteer." - How much of this is considered to be biographical and how much of this is not considered to be biographical? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable question. My simple answer is that I can't give a simple answer. However, none of it seems problematic. What would be problematic would be either (A) "Honjo noted that" followed by a discrete factual assertion (and not necessarily a critical one, let alone something that was potentially libelous) rather than an observation or comment, or (B) a claim such as "Arudou's conventional way of using the internet fails to utilize any recent innovation in protesting", sourced to Honjo but presented as a statement of fact rather than as a comment. Incidentally, though I see nothing problematic about the use of comments by Honjo as you present this immediately above, I'm not sure that this stuff is worth putting in the article: It might be deleted as mere commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[break for convenience]

<- Hoary, here's some clarification that I found on Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources

• “Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link”
• “Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

The above is official Wikipedia Policy, not a guideline. If one makes an argument that the review from Japanreview being about the book and not about Arudou, then I would question why we are including material in a BLP that is not about the subject of the article, especially material from a questionable source. Statisticalregression (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my argument is that what I see that refers to Japanreview is about the book and not the writer.

I mean no offense to the writer when I say that he doesn't seem particularly interesting: after all, most people who have noteworthy achievements (let alone those who do not) also aren't particularly interesting. Now, if somebody who's thought to be noteworthy has discrete, outstandingly noteworthy achievements, the latter merit and often get their own write-ups. On the one hand, the article on Jon Woronoff for example has virtually no biographical information but does summarize what he wrote; if it said rather more about the books, I'd see it as something of a model for the article on Arudou. If/when Arudou writes a book that's as noteworthy as The Enigma of Japanese Power or Een keerpunt in de vaderlandse geschiedenis then editors will be welcome to create an article on it and to edit down the article on him so that it's more like the one on Karel van Wolferen. (Incidentally, I've not read one book by any of these three.)

Meanwhile, what factual assertions about Arudou himself are being sourced to Japanreview.net? -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, you make a very pertinent observation; there are no factual assertions sourced to Japanreview.net about the subject of this article. So then, why should we even include material sourced to Japanreview.net when nothing from that personal site contributes information to the article about the subject? That someone read Arudou's book, and wrote about it on a personal website is essentially background noise, as is their assessment of Arudou's website. That two of Arudou's books were reviewed by the Japan Times seems just barely relevant to the article but, frankly, that typically would be at the bottom of the article and as just a link to the reviews in an “External links section”. Excerpts of the book reviews, whether positive or negative, is POV in a BLP and honestly those comments might be usable in a WP article about the books which in the case of Arudou's books I am uncertain if they are notable enough to warrant one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I too have no reason to think that Arudou's books are particularly notable. But to the degree that one is notable, it's good to know something about this; and the review in Japanreview.net tells us about it. Take it out, and what do you have? A lawsuit, and, er, such gems as:

In June 2008, Arudou lodged a complaint with the Hokkaidō Prefectural Police, claiming that its officers were targeting foreigners as part of a security sweep prior to the 34th G8 summit in Tōyako, Hokkaidō.[25] This followed an incident in which Arudou refused to show identification when requested by a police officer at New Chitose Airport. After meeting with police representatives at their headquarters, Arudou held a press conference, which he described as the "third-best press conference I’ve ever done".[26] The press conference was covered by a local television station.[27]

Utterly uninteresting, if you ask me. Meanwhile, NACSIS-Webcat tells us that the book by Arudou that didn't come out of the Japanreview.net interview so well is actually shelved in a number of university libraries, so some institutions haven't just thought that it's of note but have even plonked down money for it. Or what else about Arudou is more notable than his books? -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A question that still needs to be answered is whether a potential "non-publication" like Honjo's review becomes notable when it attracts significant attention from notable people with experience in areas relevant to the subject at hand. I think it does, and I haven't seen much here to refute that point. --130.216.233.52 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

When does what's written on a personal website become notable in WP and more importantly when does it become strong enough to include on a BLP? Basically never. According to WP Policy “The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material” which means those that want to add the Honjo material need to make a very strong case why this material is acceptable and so far all I have seen is are arguments along the lines of ‘give us a good reason why it shouldn't be added’ which is rather backwards. WP Policy states that on a BLP “Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically.” Tangential comments from a personal website about a book the article's subject wrote are out of place here. Another problem here is the question that since Arudou gave a copy of his manuscript to Paul J. Scalise (the other contributor to Japanreview.net) that somehow this is a acknowledgment of that site's reliability....it's not per WP BLP which states “Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.” the logical inverse of that being “honor by association”. These are both association fallacies that are to be avoided. I don't like wiki-lawyering but WP policy is telling me that “If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.” so that's what I would like to see; a reliable 3rd party published source that backs all the Honjo material plus a clear demonstration of how it's relevant to Arudou's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like wiki-lawyering...so don't be a wikilawyer. (^_^)

We've covered all of this ground over and over again in various venues, especially this talk page. To be frank, I see no evidence that JapanReview is a "blog." I do see evidence that most editors on this talk page find JapanReview to be an appropriate source with a serious review -- that JapanReview has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage demonstrating its noteworthiness,[20] that it received favorable reviews found in independent 3rd party educational university catalogs, [21] that its reviews, essays and interviews have been referenced for educational purposes,[22] that non-fiction and university publishers link to its reviews and interviews, [23] [24] [25] that it has been referenced in academic books, that its editors are credentialed published scholars and professionals with good reputations and not bloggers at all, that the reviews have been sometimes re-published in various newspapers, magazines, and journals (just like Japan Focus does with its material), and that even this particular review, like so many other reviews on JapanReview (look at its archives), provoked quite a lot of feedback from notable authors, academics and journalists.[26]

But on top of all of the compelling evidence above, we have the real kicker for me. We're asked to believe that Debito Arudou honestly feels that JapanReview is somehow "unprofessional" and therefore “questionable” and "biased." This is the same Debito Arudou who apparently for several years insisted the opposite: "JapanReview is very professional."[27] It seems that Dr. Honjo published one critical and nuanced review of his work with footnotes and page numbers (as many scholarly journals would), and suddenly JapanReview becomes "unprofessional." And if you think for a second this strange turn-around is an isolated incident about issues Mr. Arudou holds dear, it’s really not. Just reviewing his website, it seems that Mr. Arudou has played this tune several times before -- even against The Journal of Japanese Studies where he went so far as to suggest that a respected tenured professor from Harvard University is probably corrupt because he gave an unfavorable book review to a subject Mr. Arudou holds dear.[28]

Sigh.

My personal opinion, like most editors that expressed an opinion, is that the Honjo review was a little lengthy, yes, but certainly not “background noise.” If it matters, I found it both informative and well-referenced, giving the reader a really useful overview of both the subject matter and issues argued in the book. This notion that academic reviews cannot be critical of the subject matter seems bizarre. Most (all?) scholarly reviewers are likely to tell you that critical reviews are actually quite useful because they teach us about how a book's internal logic, evidence and argumentation are consistent or not and how persuasive the arguments are overall.

If Mr. Arudou were taken at his word, we would get the impression that Yuki Honjo were some anonymous troll scratching out meaningless comments about his work on a bathroom stall somewhere. I suspect, based on the evidence, most of us would reasonably disagree in good faith. J Readings (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

JR, I've read your response and I appreciate you taking the time to detail your position. My request was that requirements of WP Policy be addressed and I don't think you succeeded there.

1) "insist on reliable third-party published sources" In response to this you provided eight links [29],[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Now, I can definitely see what you are presenting - 3rd party sources referring to Japanreview.net in a way that you feel establishes the site as a reliable source, but WP is black and white on this issue:

*From Wikipedia:Attribution (essay):

“Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.”

*From Wikipedia:Verifiability (Policy):

“Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer”

*From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Policy):

“Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.”

The same text probably appears elsewhere, but just to be clear I will reiterate what has already been said, the only way that the material from the review could be used in the BLP article on Arudou would be if it was not self published. Noteworthiness and reliability don't even come into play yet. Arudou's opinion of Japanreview.net; positive, negative, or changing as often as the weather is not a factor. The only way (according to WP Policy) that the material from Dr. Honjo's book review can get on a BLP (this one or any other) is if it is in a reliable 3rd party source that is not self-published. Now, JR... if you are disputing that Japanreview.net is not a self published website then please explain any rational you have to support that argument, including evidence that supports that Japanreview is a 3rd party source despite one of the links you provided denoting it as a secondary source [37] and that the publisher of Japanreview.net is the website Japanreview.net, . In the meanwhile, material sourced to the Japanreview.net review should be removed.

2) “a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability” In response to this I have to be honest, your answer is a bit muddled and as far as I can tell you don't directly approach the question. I could give a pretty good guess but I don't see any sense in it until Japanreview.net has been successfully established as a 3rd party source that is not self published.

Now I'd like to address a few of the other things you wrote in your response to my request, JR. I was honestly a bit baffled by you decision to included the material that followed “But on top of all of the compelling evidence above, we have the real kicker for me....”. Even if you were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Arudou is contradiction incarnate, it has no bearing on the topic at hand; the status of the material sourced to Japanreview.net (something that can only be resolved by clearing up any disputes we have regarding the application of WP policy) . If Arudou first praises the NY Times, then later calls it ‘suitable only for lining bird cages’ (not his words, just an example) it has no bearing on whether material from the Times could be used in this article. Your comment about the probability of Arudou's opinion of a Harvard University professor being corrupt seems to be an exaggeration, and honestly has the partiality of your position in question for me. You come off, well....sounding like you have a bone to pick with Arudou. I reserve my last sentence to apologize for all the bold text up above and offer only the explanation for it's use that I think people are seeing the policy it but not reading it or directly addressing it and that were having two separate discussions that are only partially overlapping. Statisticalregression (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Statisticalregression's response, which includes a plain reading of the policy, is on the mark. I never thought the Japan Review review by Honto was that great. J Readings has been prone to exaggerate its reliability and Honjo's status. I'm also sorry I dug up the connections between Japan Review and Arudou. I didn't dig enough, so it was better not to have started that at all. It turns out Honjo and Arudou have some serious issues. When even a published reviewer of books writes a very critical review of a book (that also manages to get some personal shots at the author in there) in a self-published format, after having a contentious personal history with the author, that ought to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Would a newspaper editor aware of all this ask Honjo to write such a review? I think not. That is why we have such policies: do not use self-published materials, even by noted authors, to source a BLP. There is an exception for materials by the subject of a BLP by the way, although there are several criteria to keep in mind. There has been some confusion about this by several people here.

I also have been garnering more doubts as to whether J Readings ought to be taking such interest here. His outburst from earlier was when I started wondering about possible bias. If he were truly concerned about objectivity, he should have taken himself out of the discussion after that, and I fully expected (with good faith) that he would. As an example of a combative, unhelpful response by J Readings, see [38]. Aggressively trying to score rhetorical points to a complaint by the BLP subject of an unreliable source being used is a bad idea. J Readings also steered part of the discussion toward personal issues, rather than the relevant BLP issues, a bad move, especially after the hullaboloo on the subject's user talk page. The focus should always be about getting the article right, not on whether Arudou is consistent or alleging corruption amongst Harvard facultt (issues raised by the most recent comments by J Readings). Of course, J Readings isn't the only one that has mishandled the situation. For example, Denelson83's belligerrent messages to Arudou's talk page undeniably escalated the situation. I also dropped the ball by misunderstanding the policies.

The policy is clear. We've had several 3rd party opinions by now from experienced Wikipedians (not SPAs). Somehow I didn't recall it being this strongly worded with regard to self-published websites (it's been a while since I read it thoroughly and maybe it has underwent some changes in wording since then). Those who try to circumvent it should be aware they are on shaky ground. Not only that, but some self-introspection may be good. If you are taking things personally, take a break. There's not point in arguing this further. It's time to move on and clean up the article. Unfortunately with these marginal biographies, they will never be great articles but we can at least address the BLP issues. --C S (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

C.S., I'm flattered to be singled-out to leave this discussion and I take no offense. I'm sure you mean it only in a good way when you accuse me of "bias" and "exaggeration" and "outbursts" and "looking to score rhetorical points" and the other colorful expressions (^_^). In any case, constructive criticism is always a good thing. Thanks for your thoughts. J Readings (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it, J Readings. One niggle, however. So perturbed was I by the charge that Arudou was suggesting corruption among Harvard faculty that I decided to look it up. The relevant part of this seemingly interminable page of Arudou's is surprisingly short and digestible. I don't see suggestion of corruption in it. It is linked (VIA DESCRIPTIONS IN FULL CAPITALS) to three offshoots; I chose one of them and read through this with disbelief and (presumably unintended) amusement, but I still saw no allegation of corruption. (Allegations of a great number of other injustices and indignities, yes.) — Hoary — continues after insertion below

It could be that you and I use different definitions of the word, or that you accidentally skipped over the passage, or you disagree on the recipient of the allegation. My definition of “corruption” is the receipt of cash inducements in order to act dishonestly. Then I read this passage:

As several academics said to me later, with the degree of Japanese funding of US higher educational research institutions on Japan, "the fix was in", and the diligence with which the JJS tries to silence me instead of dealing with the arguments I raise felt was quite indicative.

I have no idea if he's referring to the Journal of Japanese Studies, Harvard University reviewer Mark Ramseyer, the editor John Haley or all of them at the same time. I must have read that several times in disbelief. In any case, it's a surprising allegation to make in print of any of these institutions. J Readings (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Statisticalregression, you want to see a clear demonstration of how [all the Honjo material is] relevant to Arudou's notability. Two or more of us have already shown how her review can be taken seriously as a view of Arudou's book. How relevant is the book to his notability? I don't know, but if the author was right back in 1999 in saying that he wasn't a crank and in suggesting (or so I infer) that he was a "budding academic", I'd expect something worth reading. Presumably the university libraries that bought copies expected this too. Thus a very succinct summary of Honjo's description of the book seems worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As per CS and Statistical regression above, I decided that certainly we cannot use Honjo. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingston review removed as deleting Honjo while leaving Kingston hyperbolic cheerleading would violate NPOV.Genkimon (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Read WP:NPOV very carefully. Nowhere does it say praise must be countered by criticism. If all the reliable sources is "cheerleading", then that's how it is, and we certainly don't remove what the reliable sources say because you don't like that there is praise. --C S (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:NPOV, and I respectfully disagree. I could care less if there is praise in this article, however if there is only praise as regards the discussion of Arudou's book it would seem to run afoul of the Wiki guideline on weight, which is covered right there on the NPOV page. Also, as I believe was pointed out above, this article is a BLP about a man named Arudou. It is not an entry about his book. Why not just do what Wiki Japan does and say, in effect, "He wrote a book called xxx, isbn yyy. It is on JPRI's recommended list" and leave it at that? If it is so important to discuss "Japanese Only" make a separate wiki article for it.Genkimon (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I already explained why your idea of "weight" is wrong, right below. I even excerpted the relevant section for you. Can you explain why your reasoning is not indeed misguided, as I pointed out below? As for why include a comment on the book, people here have been arguing all along that it is valuable information to have some idea of the reception, especially since it is unlikely we will have a separate article on the book. Of course, some of the editors argued this while proposing to include the Honjo remarks, so perhaps now they will feel differently. --C S (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think our remarks (mine above and yours below) overlapped and we were writing at the same time. You are right, there are two arguments, related, I will separate them into two replies for ease of reading. The problem as I see it, and I think Hoary hit on this below, is that the Wiki policy on reliable sources for the subject of a BLP is being applied to something that is not the subject of a BLP, and that is Arudou's book. True, Honjo's review is on a self-published site, and that technically runs afoul of Wiki policy. But if I may, the policy seems to me to be a clear case of CYA in the case of BLPs: self-published material may potentially be libelous and therefore to protect Wiki, and since it would likely be impossible to get a legal opinion on every third-party self-published website out there, Wiki has a blanket policy of in principle not allowing anything. Certainly understandable. But again, we aren't talking about Honjo's opinion of the subject of the BLP, we are talking about Honjo's opinion of a book written by the subject of the BLP. I have read and re-read that review several times, and see nothing that could be considered as libelous towards Arudou. There are several such comments, however, in Kingston's review, directed at those who disagree with Arudou. His review is far from fair and balanced. Honjo's may not be there either, but I think she's closer. Now, the weight issue: True, Kingston's review is from a reliable source. But it is a book review, and that needs to be remembered. Just because the Japan Times is a "reliable source" does not mean that an opinion piece within it (and that is what a review is) is "reliable", "fact checked" or anything else. That is why there is that disclaimer at the bottom of the page. You mention the "flat Earth" argument below, but that is not what is happening here IMH(umble)O. We have two POVs, an unabashedly biased one from a reliable source and a potentially biased but seemingly reasonably balanced one from a self-published source. I don't think either can be described as being on the same level as the "flat Earthers", nor even as a "minority opinion". Anecdotally (inadmissible I know but...) from my many years (and still counting) of experience in Japan I would say if either was a "minority opinion" of the book it would be Kingston's, not Honjo's. Be that as it may. But by eliminating one POV while leaving the other I feel a bias is being injected that goes against the spirit of NPOV every bit as much as if only critical comments were allowed.Genkimon (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position here; you are making two arguments. The undue weight one doesn't make sense because NPOV clearly allows only praise when it is representative of all the significant views from reliable sources. The second one is whether it is relevant to include such comments about the book in this BLP. I am open to that argument, but so far, several people have been arguing that it is relevant, and I find that more convincing at the moment. --C S (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this issue has been raised previously by The359, who considered it undue weight to have praise but no criticism. But s/he is completely misguided as to the notion of "undue weight". A straightforward reading of Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight shows that since all the reliable sources are actually "cheerleading", it is not in fact undue weight to include a representative comment. Indeed, not including such a comment, especially because you feel praise shouldn't be included without an insignificant minority viewpoint you prefer, is a clear sign of POV.

Excerpt from WP:NPOV#Undue Weight:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

What you and The359 want to do is the equivalent of saying the Earth article should not mention the Earth is round, because it does not discuss the modern support for Flat Earth concept which should be included to "balance" the other view. Since all the reliable sources so far praise the book, that is the "majority" viewpoint. Since nobody has yet demonstrated a reliable source that criticizes the book, a negative criticism of the book doesn't even qualify as a viewpoint. Even if you are able to demonstrate one such source, you would then have to demonstrate it is more than a "tiny-minority view". --C S (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[another break for convenience]

My partial summary of the "argument" so far:

10/11/03:44: Statisticalregression (below, "SR", and somebody I'll arbitrarily treat as male) asks why material about a book should appear within an article about its writer.

10/11/04:18: I explain why.

10/11/05:54: SR asks why material about a book should appear within an article about its writer (hmm, sounds familiar), and also says, there are no factual assertions sourced to Japanreview.net about the subject of this article

10/12/11:46: I point out that the article is weighed down by descriptions of the stunningly banal and uninteresting, whereas the book by Arudou, while not meriting its own article, is actually stocked by university libraries and thus taken seriously.

10/13/10:11: SR now wants a reliable 3rd party published source that backs all the Honjo material plus a clear demonstration of how it's relevant to Arudou's notability. A remarkable request to make about any review of any book.

10/14/08:33: SR posts a long message based on quotations from three policy pages. Each of these talks about sources of biographical (mis)information about living people; none of them claims to rule on explicit commentary on matters that are not biographical but that appear in a BLP.

10/14/11:41: C S posts a long message that states darkly that It turns out Honjo and Arudou have some serious issues (without saying what these are or what reason there is for believing this), that rhetorically raises a question about newspaper procedure and then promptly provides what I strongly suspect is the wrong answer, a stepping-stone for further rhetoric, and that questions J Readings' motivations and recommends that J Readings considers a bout of "self-introspection" (the least interesting kind of introspection, I've always thought).

10/14/19:06: WhisperToMe announces that he's been persuaded by SR and C S, and that we cannot use Honjo.

Arudou is a writer. Letters and short articles by him appear in newspapers. Essays and so forth by him appear in less discriminating venues. One might even call him a compulsive writer. If I hear of a writer, I wonder what that writer's books are. (Contrast this with, say, a US presidential candidate: I want to know what that person has done, and will assume until persuaded otherwise that any book "authored" was actually ghostwritten.) So far, Arudou has, I think, (co-)produced two books, of which one is entirely by him and is also in English, a language of unusual interest to most of the readers of English-language Wikipedia. This latter book was put out by an obscure publisher and, perhaps unfairly, has received very few reviews. Only one review yet adduced describes the book in any detail; it appears in a private website that is not the peer-reviewed journal its title may suggest but that has been cited by the press and taken seriously by people whose opinions should count. Yet now, via a convoluted argument that has busily misapplied policies intended to avoid biographical misinformation (or potential libel), it seems that mention of this review is to be scrubbed. Nice wikilawyering, boys! -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed a more than a few things there while chopping up the conversation there, Hoary. The end result was the Admin making a decision to follow WP Policy. I tried to get the discussion to address the relevant WP guidelines and policies but it seemed like those in favor of using the Japanreview.net material were stuck in a loop of trying to prove that JR.net was a reliable source instead of addressing the guidelines and policies head-on and in a direct way. I read the standards, guidelines, and polices about sources and BLP's and applied what I learned about them in my posts to discuss the issue at hand. The text is there for anyone to read as is our discussion. If you are in opposition to the admin's decision there are avenues to address your disagreement although I don't know what the next step would be as I have always accepted admin decisions. Statisticalregression (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SR, you now say it seemed like those in favor of using the Japanreview.net material were stuck in a loop of trying to prove that JR.net was a reliable source instead of addressing the guidelines and policies head-on and in a direct way. Horse droppings. I was indeed stuck in a loop, because of your curious preference for asking a question a second and further time rather than reading the reply already provided. I have never attempted to prove that japanreview.net is a "reliable source" of factual information (a question that doesn't concern me); it seems that you conflate (a) the assertion of facts (in particular biographical facts) and (b) what is clearly announced as commentary (and on matters non-biographical); you don't seem to have addressed this matter head on, whereas shortly above I explicitly addressed the quotations from policy pages that you presented. WhisperToMe is indeed an administrator, and he raised a question and seems to have got the answer to his own satisfaction, writing As per CS and Statistical regression above, I decided that certainly we cannot use Honjo. He did not announce that the issue was thereby settled. I don't know what the significance is here of being an administrator, but let's suppose for a moment that it is somehow significant. Now, WhisperToMe is indeed an administrator, but there are quite a few others; indeed, I came across one in the mirror just this morning. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

'Methods' and 'Publications' sections

I'm still reading and researching, but I think I don't really find the way these sections are handled to be optimal - the article reads quite well (kinda) to that point, and in my view sort of descends into an unnecessarily specific sort of tit-for-tat which seems to me to place 'undue weight' (per our policies) on the incidents referred to - can we talk about cutting them a bit, or removing them? thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

and just to be super-clear - I have studied the above pretty carefully, but chose to make this a separate section because I don't necessarily see the issue purely as a sourcing one... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clark's comments on the Otaru onsen lawsuit

To improve the entry, we should add (revive) the following comments by Gregory Clark.

Gregory Clark, Akita International University Vice-President, views the lawsuit as the product of "ultrasensitivity" and "Western moralizing."

• Clark, Gregory. "Destroying a Fragile Trust," Opinion, The Japan Times Online, February 12, 2001

• Clark, Gregory. "Racist banner looks frayed," Opinion, The Japan Times Online, February 17, 2005

--Addmi (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that is worthwhile. As Privatemusings points out above, this whole article has a habit of devolving into a "tit-for-tat", with more negative "tit" than positive "tat". Possibly because it is very difficult to find anything positive. But in any event, Clark and Arudou are two sides of the same unsavory coin, one with better credentials, true, but views frequently just as controversial and unpalatable as the other. Bringing the "anti-Arudou" into this BLP would just be throwing gas on a fire.Genkimon (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The first reference is problematic because it seemingly has no direct connection to Arudou and his activities. Yes, one could plausibly reason that Clark must be including Arudou among the foreigners with frivolous lawsuits, but that is your reasoning, not something he says. Thus there are WP:OR issues. The second one actually does talk about Arudou's lawsuit, although not by name. But I don't see the relevance of it to the article. Currently, we have a factual account of Arudou's lawsuit. There is no praise there to be concerned about (if you are prone to such concern) that needs to be "balanced" by some negative remarks. If you want to include Clark's remark as a criticism of the book, that doesn't make any sense, since Clark isn't reviewing or criticizing the book at all. --C S (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All statements in the section currently are descriptions that are favorable to Arudou's views. For example, the statement, "Arudou assumed that when he returned in 2000 as a naturalized Japanese citizen, he would not be refused." is not strictly factual, because it simply states this man's alleged belief at time. Clark's crticism in his piece concerns the value of Arudou's views and tactics surrounding the lawsuit. --Addmi (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

remove the photo: The original problematic sign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_only_sign.jpg

Japanese_only_sign.jpg‎ (394 × 190 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) From debito.org.

The photo (from debito.org) is mainly decorative, and is what Arudou uses for shock value.

Now that the entire criticism section was removed (in August) from anonymous IP address, the photo validating Arudou's side should be removed as well -- to give the article better overall balance. --Addmi (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)