Talk:Debito Arudou

RfC: Is the "Academic Publications" subsection of "Publications" in this BLP warranted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a BLP contain an indiscriminate list of the BLP's own publications? If not, what should be the inclusion parameters and criteria if the author/newspaper columnist/activist/researcher is prolific? Oddexit (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes it is warranted. Academic publications are also Arudo's work, it is related to his notable activism, and it is published.Mister Mtzplk (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. We seldom include academic publications unless these publications are that notable to be mentioned. This applies to articles about scholars, and of course in this case as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• No The publications should be notable if mentioned in the article. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• No A BLP should not include an "indiscriminate" list of the BLP's own publications. It seems this person is most notable as an activist. A list of his publications here should be small and mostly related to his activism. As for his academic publications, if they have been cited by more than a couple sources, OK. FWIW: I think this bio is longer than it ought to be. I was invited to comment here via the feedback request service. I may try to make some edits to it as an uninvolved editor. (I never heard of this person before today, and I've never had an interest in Japanese politics.) Rosalthe (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. How about the Wikipedia BLP of Gregory Clark, he is an author/columnist at The Japan Times with a big website personal website and he has his publications listed up on his BLP. If he can get a list, why can't Arudou? Sweetandloveable (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• No If the list is a long one, representative and/or most notable "selected" publications would be better than an exhaustive list for the reasons I've discussed in the threaded discussion below. That other articles (and especially start class articles) may have complete lists shouldn't affect the decision about this one ( re WP:Other stuff exists). —Anne Delong (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The phrasing of the RfC's question is loaded. Who says this is "indiscriminate"? It is Arudo's published research record and it is related to his activism (it is the output from it). Why is "prolific" an issue in this discussion? Is publishing too much seen by WP as a negative thing?

I do not think WP sees this as a negative thing. Other authors/writers/researchers have their publications listed on their BLP. Donald Keene's BLP has almost 100 of his publications listed. Also, Dr. Keene's BLP says, "These lists are not finished; you can help Wikipedia by adding to them." This means that being prolific and having many works listed is not a problem for WP BLPs. Instead, having a more complete list helps WP.

The person requesting the RfC also makes an argument on this Talk page about citations of BLP's works in other academic works, arguing that BLP's publications are not notable unless it has enough or any citations.[[1]] Is this a WP rule? I cannot find one that says this. We should not create new WP rules here. Mister Mtzplk (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If the RfC question is loaded that wasn't my intention. Sorry. I thought the question was neutrally worded, actually, and I would like the input of outside editors (you and Sweetandloveable made the subsection, so I'm not surprised that your two accounts favor it). If you can help think of a reworded question to ask outside editors about whether we should start listing *all* of Arudou's publications, I welcome it. But to answer your question about Wikipedia rules, WP:ACADEMIC was the starting point for me to initiate this RfC. There are specific criteria to determine whether an academic/scholar/researcher is notable. If we were to apply WP:ACADEMIC to both Keene and Arudou, the differences are obvious based on the evidence. The very first criterion is "significant impact" -- "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work." (I haven't checked Keene's, but the results for Arudou above are clear: Arudou is rarely and barely cited.) The second is highly prestigious academic awards or honors. Keene has received dozens. In contrast, I'm not sure Arudou has received even one, but it's possible I'm wrong on that. Criterion 3 is election to prestigious scholarly societies. Keene was elected to several, Arudou hasn't been. Criterion 4, Criterion 5, Criterion 6...I went through them all. There is no comparing the two in terms of notability. Keene's academic work is notable. The question, to my mind, then becomes why is there a subsection prominently called "Academic Publications" in this BLP? Arudou doesn't meet the criteria on any level. But I want to hear from the outside Wikipedia community on what to do in situations like this. Otherwise, what's stopping anyone from just adding anything and everything? When does WP:UNDUE, another Wikipedia policy, come into the picture? Oddexit (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are a good writer and you do a lot of research. I can see in your Talk reponses you choose your words very carefully. Your choice this time was an oversight of course.

If you limit reasons for inclusion only to WP:ACADEMIC, still Arudo probably qualifies under item 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. If you look at his publications[[2]], he has researched and published many times in academic forums under his university name as an academic there. Because there is a WP page on him (with so much discussion) says something about his impact outside academia. Arudou now has a doctorate, so he is considered an "expert" on Japan, so says this new secondary media source (ABC NewsRadio Australia)[[3]].

So Arudo's notability is also because he publishes, not only because he speaks out and has a big blog, he publishes on the subject that made him notable.

I think that is one reason we should include his academic publications. I don't think it is a problem of "including all" or "including nothing". We editors have not included every news article ever pubished on Arudo, have we? I have never seen before this "all-or-nothing" argument for not including a reliably-sourced item. Is it a WP rule? Mister Mtzplk (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's appropriate to read what Criterion 7 actually says. Wikipedia's community provided helpful elaborations in order to avoid misunderstandings and misapplications. The first clarification read: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area [emphasis added]. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." So, what this clarification of Criterion 7 is saying is that if you're a professor it makes sense that you're occasionally asked by conventional media (i.e., newspapers, radio, television) to speak about what you teach at your university. This sporadic occurrence, however, does not necessarily make you notable for inclusion based on Wikipedia standards. So, then we consider the case of Debito Arudou. Debito Arudou was not hired at Hokkaido Information University to be a professor of political science or international relations, discussing the complexities of human rights and offering objective analyses. He was hired to be an instructor of English as a Foreign Language. Regardless of how Debito Arudou may want to revise his own history today, I actually reviewed last night the preponderance of newspaper coverage of Debito Arudou. What I find fascinating is that most journalists understand whom they're interviewing and make it clear to the reader so there are no misunderstandings. They usually use descriptive monikers such as "activist" or "Hokkaido-based author." They don't give the mistaken impression to the reader that he is an expert in the field. It's certainly true that Debito Arudou received his doctorate a few months ago in "International Studies", but so what? Many people have doctorates. They all don't get their own Wikipedia page and coverage of their activities (this is not why Debito Arudou is notable). Receiving a doctorate is also irrelevant to the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. It's certainly verifiable that one radio station now refers to him as "Dr. Arudou," but again that falls short of the mark under Criterion 7. There are not multiple articles by independent third parties in the mainstream media that acknowledge Debito Arudou to be an "expert" in the field of human rights. Criterion 7 also includes: "if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study." I think we can both agree that this is not applicable to Debito Arudou, either. Debito Arudou's books have not hit the best-seller lists. They are not widely cited by academics. And it's difficult to make a compelling argument based on the evidence that he is "widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert". And all of this discussion of WP:ACADEMIC criteria for notability is even before we get to the real Wikipedia policy problem of undue weight. This is the policy that reads: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement [emphasis added], and juxtaposition of statements." Put differently, is it warranted to give Debito Arudou's "academic publications" their own subsection when independent third-party sources clearly don't write about them, when academics rarely and barely cite them, and when Arudou is not notable for his academic achievements? These are important questions, too. Oddexit (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Folks, you are headed down the wrong path here. WP:ACADEMIC is a notability guideline to help us decide if an individual is notable enough to warrant an article. It is not going to be helpful in determining which of the subject's works to include in the list. What you are looking for is the manual of style section WP:WORKS: Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article. Any questions? VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, User:VQuakr. It was a useful read about style. If you don't mind, though, I'd still like to ask your opinion. Are we being instructed to list *everything* the subject has ever published when they say "complete lists of works"? Is that what other articles do? I ask because the manual of style only refers to books. That's already included in the publications section of the subject. What's your opinion? Oddexit (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think common sense would dictate that, for example, a columnist that had a daily recurring section in a newspaper would not have a separate entry in their list of works for every day they wrote. The section I quoted above is not exclusive to books, though - articles should indeed be included. VQuakr (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How about the Wikipedia BLP of Gregory Clark, he is an author/columnist at The Japan Times with a big website personal website and he has his publications listed up on his BLP. If he can get a list, why can't Arudou? There seems to be a double standard. Sweetandloveable (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We have not reached a consensus here but the journal articles were removed. Looking at Gregory Clark's BLP, which seems to be set up by one editor like a resume for him earlier this year, I think more strongly now that publications should be allowed for this BLP.

I suggest this as a compromise: around the Fodors publications can we put up a sentence like '"Also, he has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals such as X, Y, and Z"'. We can add a few links to articles to substantiate.

WP's official policy on this is "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."(source) The journal articles did no harm, but they were quickly removed even though some longtime editors said they could be included. How WP rules are enforced is confusing. Mister Mtzplk (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the WP:RFC is to get the input of uninvolved and experienced editors when there is a disagreement. Since the Mister Mtzplk and Sweetandloveable accounts created and listed the academic publication in the Debito Arudou BLP, it's not surprising that those accounts want them included. The general WP:CONSENSUS of uninvolved editors -- not unanimity, but consensus -- seems to be that publications that are not notable should not be included in the article. It might very well be that in the Gregory Clark BLP those publications should be removed, too, but since no one has (yet) really worked on it this year (the Gregory Clark BLP appears to be a newly created "stub-class" only article), it's unclear how that article will be revised. As for the "academic publications" of Debito Arudou, the preponderance of evidence (virtually no citations, no journalists at all writing about or reviewing the articles in independent reliable publications, no evidence that any of the articles are discussed in independent reliable publications, and virtually never listing articles in a BLP anyway) suggest that listing the articles, let alone creating their own subsection, was not warranted for inclusion per Wikipedia policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:ISNOT. It's unclear what the Wikipedia community now thinks about the travelogue chapters or the EFL textbooks. The two textbooks seemed to have been included at the explicit insistence of User:Arudoudebito himself. But since independent third parties in reliable sources haven't written about them, either, it might well be that they should be removed, too. Oddexit (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait you are not an "uninvolved editor" either. You have edited this BLP more than anyone and in violation of WP:NPOV as proved on this Talk page. If you can comment, so can we. Sweetandloveable (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I wanted the input of uninvolved editors because we have a disagreement and we arrived at an impasse. The Wikipedia way to resolve such a disagreement is through the WP:RFC. Please click on the link and read about what an WP:RFC is if anything is unclear. I didn't offer a "yes" or "no" in the Survey. You did. I responded to a comment in the Threaded Discussion because it was directed at me. As for continually accusing me of WP:NPOV, it's clear that you're trying to single me out, and make me feel uncomfortable. I don't like that and it's unfortunate that you've elected this tactic, but please keep in mind that continually accusing me of WP:NPOV at every step of the way is not the way to go. Please try to focus on the substance of the article and not on individuals. Oddexit (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not about you as an individual, its about you as a WP editor, your edits are the most of anyone here and even now your trying to shift the talk (look at your response to Vquakr in this section) away from your edits of this BLP and interpret them to your favor. You have a proven record of NPOV violations as we can see on this talk page, so you should not be in this discussion at all. And yet when we criticise your edits (not you personally, I dont even know you) you say you are being harassed (what about the subject of this BLP being harassed? Your anonymous, and he is not). Why are your edits so negative towards the subject of this BLP? Why cant you take responsibility for your edits? They are the substance of this article and the biggest reason why we are having disagreements about it. Sweetandloveable (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no "proven record", Sweetandloveable. It's all in your head. If there was a "proven record," you would have gotten support for it by now. Instead, we're up to (I think) the eighth time I've been falsely accused. You just keep wildly throwing spaghetti at my face in the hopes that some of it might eventually stick or that I just might get so irritated with your behavior that you provoke a rise out of me. I've been patiently waiting for you to knock it off, but you keep singling me out and hounding me. Consequently, it becomes harassment. What is harassment? According to Wikipedia, it's repeatedly hounding someone over and over and over again in order to cause distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I would ask you to read WP:HARASS, but I'm afraid you'll just ignore it just like you've willfully ignored what an WP:RFC is, or what WP:CONSENSUS means, or what a reliable source is, or when to use a subject's autobiographical information per WP:SELFPUB and when not to, etc. Instead, it's the same broken record over and over again without end. There wasn't any support for the allegations the first time when it was brought before the Arbitration Committee. They unanimously dismissed the case, with one outside editor even asking what all the fuss was about. There wasn't any agreement (or even acknowledgement) about those allegations when it was brought before the BLP noticeboard the second time around. In fact, the only thing that happened from that lengthy post was that everyone was asked to edit carefully on all sides -- something everyone should be mindful of, anyway. There wasn't any support for the allegations the third time when you accussed me on this talk page, or the fourth time, or the fifth time, or the sixth time, or the seventh time, etc. I was hoping that you would actually stop and take the time to read Wikipedia policies before continually repeating your allegation, but I was wrong: you're not interested because you have a clearly stated agenda as you explicitly outlined above mulitple times. As for my edits taken from a range of topics to improve the article, they're reliably sourced. Whether the subject of the BLP (and his wife) views them as "positive" or "negative" I have no idea. They're not fabricated out of thin air, nor am I "harassing" the subject of this BLP by editing content. They're not even necessarily my opinions. However, this is who he is based on the sources. You cannot possibly hope to delete from public memory every article by a journalist, reviewer, pundit, and legal scholar just because you think they're being "negative" towards the subject. Only a blind and loving wife, Sweetandloveable, or perhaps the subject of a BLP himself would adopt that futile stance. You may not like what the reliable sources say; you may disagree with the author of that reliable source; you may even vigorously fight to not have it included because, as you said yourself, you're editing with "positive" advocacy in mind (however you define it). But remember something extremely important about Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences: "If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually." Oddexit (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Here's an uninvolved editor! For what it's worth, here are my comments: I have worked on quite a few articles in which the subject has many journal articles to his/her credit. Most of these do not include a complete list in the publication section. Usually the reason is WP:Article size, both in physical size and attention span of the reader. If the person is marginally notable, then likely so are most of the publications, and it's more informative to the reader to choose the more well-known or representative examples and keep the article short, interesting and readable. If, on the other hand, the person is very well known and has many highly notable publications, then there is likely a lot to say about the person's life, activities, influences, and of course the publications, in the paragraphs of the article. Adding a huge list of publications at the end would put the article over the optimal length for reasonable load times on portable devices and practical length for scrolling up and down and for editing. Also, most well known contemporary writers, academic or otherwise, keep an online list of their publications, better formatted for printing than an encyclopedia article, and sorted and laid out the way they like it, with links to the appropriate documents, journals, publishers, etc., which Wikipedia policies forbid. For the few readers who actually want to peruse the total output of a writer, an entry in the external links section to the author's CV or publication list will be more helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A word about conflicts of interest

Hello all. I have been in contact with Debito by email since I blocked the Mister Mtzplk and Sweetandloveable accounts, and one of the things he wanted to know was what Wikipedia's policy was on other editors who might have a conflict of interest regarding this article. He is concerned that people who he has had disputes with about debito.org and about his activism are editing this article in order to portray him in a negative light. If these accusations are true, it is a cause for concern. For one thing, this motivation for editing the article is just as much a conflict of interest as Debito's. The most relevant part of the conflict of interest guidelines is this: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. This means that if you have been in a dispute with Debito, you should consider yourself to have a conflict of interest here. Editors with a conflict of interest are encourage to disclose their interest on the talk pages of relevant articles that they edit, and are strongly discouraged from editing the articles themselves. See here and here for more information.

For another thing, editing this article to portray its subject in a negative light goes against the biographies of living persons policy. I quote: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's 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 must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. One of the express aims of this policy is to avoid Wikipedia from doing damage to the reputation of living people, and Debito mentioned in his email that this article has already had a negative impact on his career. That is not to say that we can't include criticism (or praise), but we need to be very careful about doing so. Another quote from the BLP policy: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

In case anyone reading this wasn't aware, this article is subject to discretionary sanctions, meaning that the Arbitration Committee has authorised administrators to hand out sanctions including revert restrictions, page bans, and blocks for "edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies". I'll be monitoring the article and this talk page to make sure that all policies and guidelines are being adhered to.

Now, as I have made a point of addressing conflicts of interest, I think it's only fair that I make my own situation clear. As can be gathered from my user page, I am an English teacher living in Hokkaido, Japan. I have also been aware of debito.org for a few years, and I was an occasional reader four or five years ago but these days I only read it rarely. I've never left a comment on debito.org, and I don't remember ever commenting anywhere else about it either. Furthermore, I hadn't met or interacted with Mr. Arudou (online or off) until our recent email exchange. To the best of my knowledge, I don't have any other conflict of interest regarding either him or his Wikipedia article.

In his email, Debito says that there are still (as-yet unspecified) parts of his article which he is unhappy with. To address this, first I will go through the article and remove any obvious violations of the BLP policy. Then I would like to invite him to comment here about things in his article that he would like to see improved. Of course, these would only be suggestions, and we would be under no obligation to implement them precisely, or even at all. However, all Wikipedians have a duty to ensure that living people aren't harmed because of their Wikipedia biographies, and because Debito has said that this is exactly what has happened to him, I think it is only fair that we ask him what he thinks. We can then see how his suggestions compare with Wikipedia policies, and implement them if they are reasonable. We can also ask for input from outside editors if necessary.

Apologies for the tl;dr, and feel free to ask me if you have questions about any of this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)'

Wikipedia isn't about what Debito thinks. It's about the facts, and the very fact that Debito has be critcised by the media is relevant enough to mention this. If you want to discuss removing the criticism section, you can at least do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs)

Yes, it's about the facts, but we also have a duty to protect the biography subjects from possible harm resulting from their articles. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons yet, you should do so before trying to edit this article. Also, see Wikipedia:Criticism for the established thinking on adding criticism of article subjects. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section isn't meant to harm Debito's image outright. It's only meant to display some of the controversy that he has received. There are countless people out on Wikipedia that have their own criticism sections on their own pages in the exact same manner. It's not fair to silence criticism just because Debito doesn't want people to speak out against him. In what way does the criticism section violate Wikipedia standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't responded back to me. Explain. Why do you think that the criticism section has no place in Wikipedia. How are they not trust worthy sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Where have sourced criticisms been removed? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Answering Curly Turkey's question, a lot of reliably sourced information from newspaper publications with third-party editorial control (including the mention of an entire article -- accidentally, I believe) has been removed. I had no problem with most of Cwobeel's suggestions, so I didn't say anything (and no, he's not an administrator). I probably should have said something at the time. John Spiri's Japan Times article about Arudou and his blog entitled "It's just because...foreigners know best: by labeling Japanese liars and condoning a racist blog post, Arudou has gone too far" has been accidentally removed (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2012/05/01/issues/its-just-because-foreigners-know-best/#.VKc_BycmBcc). It should be mentioned in the article again. Another reliably sourced newspaper article entirely about Arudou entitled "Through the Fire: Gallimard Syndrome" by columnist Brett Fujioka could (and should) be mentioned also to improve this article. (http://www.rafu.com/2012/09/through-the-fire-gallimard-syndrome/comment-page-1/). Those are two articles entirely about Arudou. The other criticism that was removed was by Arudou's own (then) wife in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both journalists in those mainstream major newspapers thought the commentary on Arudou was important enough for readers to know about. If it's good enough for the New York Times and the Washington Post with their heavy third party editorial control, it should be (and is) good enough for Wikipedia. Oddexit (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, criticism section was removed by admin Cwobeel in October for the following reasons:

I have merged the "Criticism" section into the Protests section (Criticism sections are POV magnets), after cleaning up a number of cherry-picked quotes replacing these with the lead sentences on the sources used referring to the subject. Also removed a sentence which was cherry picked for effect and basically a WP:COATRACK. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Source:(Page down to bottom of Discussion section.) Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that his criticism is still list, but why would it be placed in the other protests section rather than it's own section. It clearly doesn't feel in place for the criticism to be placed in a section that doesn't fit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving this BLP (1)

I wish to thank all Wikipedians who have taken an interest in improving this BLP. As admin Mr. Stradivarius has invited above, as the subject of this BLP please allow me to comment on this talk page on issues I think should be redressed to make the BLP more accurate and adhere more closely to WP rules. I have done this in much detail elsewhere, but to keep suggestions digestible and edits piecemeal, please allow me to make suggestions in small installments over time:

Suggestion One: Please indicate on this BLP that my research related to the subject of my notability has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

As per the RfC above, the vote was that we do not have to give an exhaustive list or indiscriminate list of what I have published. I have published a lot (most of it journalistic in content and venue). However, now that I have a Ph.D., I think would be more accurate to make at least some mention of my academic credentials as I retool my life work into academia. The issue of whether or not my works have been cited sufficiently (anyone in the academic field knows garnering citations takes many years, and who decides how many citations are "enough"?), or whether they are "notable" by some arbitrary standards discussed above (in any case, my peer-reviewed publications are the output of the work that made me "notable" enough for a BLP), I would argue is of questionable relevance. People and their work evolve, and for the sake of accuracy a BLP should also evolve to reflect that.

Again, I am not suggesting the creation of an exhaustive list. I would suggest something mentioned during the RfC: In the BLP after the mention of the Fodor's chapters, write something to the effect of:

He has also been published in peer-reviewed journals such as The International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, Pacific Asia Inquiry, The Journal of Pacific Asia Studies, and Asia-Pacific Journal (Japan Focus), and also in academic book chapters published by Akashi Shoten Inc (Tokyo). and Springer.

Simple links can be added to journal titles if it is necessary to source them. Those links can be appropriated from here and here. Again, I'm not suggesting a complete list of publications. But I think if we include other book titles related to my activism, then we should also include published titles as that activism gains a foothold in academia. They are third-party edited published works. Thank you. Arudoudebito (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these, and sorry for the delay in response. I've asked the people at WikiProject Japan to take a look at this request and the one below. Let's wait a bit to see if anyone wants to help out with writing this, and if not we can then discuss other options later. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the books and verified chapter contributions. The journals all have a similar focus, so instead of listing them all I'd like to suggest the following wording. The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus is mentioned specifically because we have an article about it.

He has also been published in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus and other peer-reviewed journals in the interdisciplinary field of Asia-Pacific Studies, and has contributed chapters to academic books published by Akashi Shoten (Tokyo) and Springer.

If there's no objection, I'll go ahead and add this to the end of the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The WP:CONSENSUS above was not to add them because they were not notable. Oddexit (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Oddexit: If you're talking about the RfC, that was for whether a complete list of publications should be included. That isn't what's being proposed here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear how any of these publications are notable. Journalists never wrote about them at all. Reviewers never reviewed them at all. 70% of them were never cited by academics at all and only two or three of them received one to three citations at most. Wikipedia is not supposed to get involved in anything self-serving or promotional per WP:NOTPROMOTION, so it's important to ask: where is the independent third-party coverage that justifies mentioning them? Cwobeel removed them because he said academic publications are seldom mentioned unless they're notable. Fraulein451 agreed that they didn't belong because they're not notable. Rosalthe agreed that they didn't belong unless they had more than a couple of citations because they weren't notable. And Anne Delong agreed that only "select" and "notable" publications belonged in that section. I agree with them that they're not notable (yet). It's one thing to cite op-ed pieces by independent third parties specifically discussing Debito Arudou or journalists / academics writing specifically about Debito Arudou in publications with editorial control because that's standard procedure in writing a neutral Wikipedia article. Just doing something because the subject wants us to do it (or removing something because the subject wants it removed) is another matter. Oddexit (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As Anne Delong said in the RfC, "representative and/or most notable "selected" publications would be better than an exhaustive list". That's what this is. I think he's notable mainly as an activist, so this is justifiable as showing that his academic publications are the result of his activism. The paragraph with footnotes is in (my sandbox). You can see that from the titles. The Otaru Hot Spring paper gets more than a couple of cites on GS, although this is an accident, since it was selected for other reasons. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentence now added to end of article. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving this BLP (2): Other Protests section

Hello WP editors. Here is my next suggestion for an edit:

Under subject line "Other Protests" at the BLP, there is too much focus on the campaigns I have been involved in that incurred flak or could be portrayed as unsuccessful (because there was more TV than newspaper coverage, alas -- harder to cite later for WP). However, there were other campaigns I was involved in or led that were successful from a newspaper archive point of view.

For example, the 1996 on-air gaffe by national news anchorman Kume Hiroshi ("It's better if gaijin [sic] speak broken Japanese."), which was covered both in the Chicago Sunday Tribune and the Daily Yomiuri at the time, and for which he apologized for a decade later. This apology was covered in the Asahi Shimbun on December 21 2006, in Japanese. It is archived here, with a synopsis in English for your reference here. The background to the case is archived here, with archived reference to those Tribune and Yomiuri articles.

These sources are from full-text newspaper articles with original links to sources, so they should satisfy WP rules. Please add this campaign too. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito 09:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arudoudebito: It looks like we haven't had much luck with getting people to write material on the Kume Hiroshi story. However, given the coverage that it received, it does seem like it would be a good idea to mention it in the article. How about writing a section on it yourself? If you post it here on the talk page, rather than adding it to the article directly, that will allow other editors to review it before it is put in the article, thereby avoiding COI problems. (We even have a template for doing that.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving this BLP (3): "Garbelization of his old name"

Hello WP Editors. Here is another suggestion for improving this BLP:

In the section "Family and Japanese naturalisation", we have a clause saying that my name is a "Japanese-sounding name" that is a "garbleization of his old name". These relatively recent edits were made by the same editor whom I exposed as a serial violator of WP:NPOV for this BLP in my request for mediation last October, which resulted in this BLP under closer editorial protection and scrutiny.

As such, this edit comes off as ill-sourced (neither source, written by a law journal writer and a journalist, is a reputable source for judging whether a name "sounds Japanese" or is "garbleized"). In a similar vein, would we say that Donald Keene's rendering of his original name in Japanese as Donarudo Kīn (including ateji kanji) is a "garbleization of his old name"? Of course not. It's disrespectful to the subject of a BLP, especially when BLPs are supposed to be "written conservatively".

As such, I request that the clause —a "Japanese-sounding name"[15] that is a "garbleization of his old name".[16] be deleted from this BLP. It's essentially making fun of my very name. It comes off as petty, mean, and disrespectful (not to mention irrelevant to a biography), and thus cheapens the content and tone of this article. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito 20:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arudoudebito (talk • contribs)

I agree that using non-neutral language like "garbleization" is pretty clearly against the biographies of living persons policy, so I've reworded the sentence. In the source, the word "garbleization" is just an offhand comment and shouldn't be afforded much weight. It looks like the author was just trying to strike a lighthearted tone for the intro of the article rather than to make any kind of point about Arudou's name. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about "garbleization" one way or the other to care. It was cited because it comes from a preferable independent third party source with editorial control, not because of any agenda to disrespect the subject. NPOV violation of BLP when it's already been published in the Washington Post? I'm skeptical, but I doubt it's worth starting a thread on the BLPN for. In any case, "Japanese-sounding name" is a direct quote from Arudou Debito simply being cited in the preferable third party legal journal. That's why it was cited and put in quotation marks. Oddexit (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there are no problems at all with using the source. Although I removed the source from the article, that was because the statement was already backed up by the other source that was there, rather than there being any issue with the Washington Post article. On the other hand, just because a source is generally reliable doesn't mean that we should use its exact language. In fact, it's generally preferable to rephrase sources in your own words to avoid close paraphrasing problems and to keep the language neutral. This is particularly true for sources that are written in a tone that we wouldn't use on Wikipedia, or for sources that may have a bias. If we're going to include language like that in the article, we would need to attribute it to its source, e.g. "Doug Struck, writing for the Washington Post, said that Aldwinckle's new name, Debito Arudou, was 'a Japanese garbleization of his old name'." But in the context it wouldn't really make sense to include information about what someone else thought of Arudou's name. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that you changed "a Japanese version of his old name" to "a 'Japanese-sounding' version of his old name". I've removed the clause entirely. I've said the same thing on your user talk page, but this isn't acceptable per our biographies of living persons policy. I quote from my post there: Although "Japanese-sounding" was written by Arudou himself, using it out of context and without inline attribution makes it sound belittling, as if Arudou somehow made a mistake when converting his name from English to Japanese. And Arudou has posted as much in this very section. Please don't restore "Japanese-sounding" or "garbleization" - doing so may result in page bans or blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On my talkpage, Mr. Stradivarius tells me that he welcomes questions about any of this. Thanks. I appreciate that. It would be useful to understand how we've gone from agreeing that the sources are reliable, high quality, and verifiable to suddenly unusable. I've followed the BLP noticeboard closely for a long time. Of course, I agree that it's important to write a good policy-based article per WP:BLP. I also agree that not using the exact language and paraphrasing would have been preferable for a lot of edits in this article, but unfortunately it would simply get challenged as not being accurate; something that's happened already on another thread above. Editing Wikipedia to balance all the conflicting information and editor interpretations of policy is a lot of work, especially when I'd like to get this BLP to a good and then featured article status soon. Also, I've studied closely for a long time how well informed and experienced editors disagree, sometimes strongly, on the BLP noticeboard about which sources are acceptable to cite, why and how. It's informative and there's nothing unusual about a content dispute. But this is the first case that I can remember that anyone has argued that the subject of a BLP can retroactively judge if his own published word-choices and commentary are negative and therefore should be removed immediately as a violation of BLP. In his essay explaining why he changed his name, Arudou Debito writes: "If you take out Japanese citizenship, you are obligated (but not required) to take a Japanese-sounding name."[4] This is cited by Timothy Webster in a peer-reviewed law journal article (a high-quality secondary source) discussing the subject of this BLP: "Aldwinckle made up a “Japanese-sounding name” when he decided to take on Japanese citizenship."[5] Unless Timothy Webster, who apparently is now an Assistant Professor of Law and Director of East Asian Legal Studies at CaseWestern Reserve University, is to be accused of taking Arudou Debito out of context in a peer-reviewed journal article, taking the law journal article citation over Arudou's self-published article about his name change is the preferred citation material per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In-line attribution is only required with clearly biased and potentially contentious sources per WP:BIASED to avoid questionable opinion masquerading as fact. But this is a fact that the subject was obligated (but not required) to take a Japanese-sounding name. The Wikipedia article was edited with in-line citation of the journal article to read: "Aldwinckle became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996 and a naturalized Japanese citizen in 2000, whereupon he changed his name to Debito Arudou (有道 出人, Arudō Debito), a "Japanese-sounding" version of his old name. This is challenged as being "out of context" and belittling to the subject? Huh? At what point in the three separate articles using "Japanese-sounding name" did this cited fact become "negative information" and "belittling"? I'm a little disappointed that my hard work and research to advance the project is being accused of disruption. Oddexit (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the last sentence you give ("Aldwinckle became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996 and a naturalized Japanese citizen in 2000, whereupon he changed his name to Debito Arudou (有道 出人, Arudō Debito), a "Japanese-sounding" version of his old name.) sounds fine, and is not out of context or belittling. I suggest going with that version. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's cite what I wrote and Webster claims to have cited in full context:

"If you take out Japanese citizenship, you are obligated (but not required) to take a Japanese-sounding name. Most do. It can be in kanji with Japanese readings (as in perennial upper house candidate Tsurunen Marutei), katakana (as in the last name of soccer player Ramosu Rui), roman initials (as in naturalist C.W. Nikouru), or even romaji (as in former sumo wrestler Konishiki--who has it rendered that way on TV, although I don't know how it looks on his koseki), but it should fit into kana reading paradigms."

Thus I am talking about Japan's system of name changing under the naturalization process. I am not talking about my name, and I'm not saying (and thus I am not to be quoted as saying) that my name is a "Japanese-sounding" name. My name is a Japanese name and I have a koseki to prove it. Just as, as I noted above, Donald Keene's Donarudo Kiin is a Japanese name.

That means I am saying that Webster as a source is misquoting me, as I never said I "made up a Japanese-sounding name" as he claims. The journal editors clearly did not check their sources well (law journals, as compared to other academic journals, are notorious for shoddy editing processes, as they are often edited by busy law students dealing with classes and enormous time contraints).

If the goal is to make this BLP into a "good and then featured article status soon", then edits this pedantic are unsuitable and countrproductive for an encyclopedic entry on a person. Arudou Debito is a Japanese name -- straight up, no qualfiers -- because the Japanese government says so. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 21:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your response reinforces my point to Mr. Stradivarius above, that the theoretically preferable paraphrasing of content will not work with this article in general because of multiple accusations of misquoting. The accusation is now that Prof. Webster is misquoting you and the peer-reviewed Asia-Pacific Law and Policy Journal (published out of the University of Hawaii at Manoa) is no good. I'll let uninvolved Wikipedia contributors judge for themselves per WP:CONSENSUS if the revision is appropriate for this article based on their reading of the cited materials. So far, Nihonjoe says it sounds fine and that it's not out of context or belittling. Oddexit (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem does seem to be as Debito points out - your wording was a good representation of what Webster wrote, but Webster quoted Debito out of context. Even though the journal is a reliable source for most purposes, context matters - we shouldn't repeat an out-of-context quote if we are aware of the problem. I don't have a problem with whatever specific wording is used here, as long as it follows Wikipedia policy. I would suggest that for "Japanese-sounding" to be made policy-compliant, it should at the least be put in the correct context, and given inline attribution. Inline attribution is required for quotes if the author would otherwise be unclear, and it is required for all biased statements (see Wikipedia:Quotations#General guidelines and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation that raises a couple of questions. One question: Should Debito Arudou's interpretation of another author's description of his essay automatically be accepted as reasonable? The second question concerns the argument: "I am saying that Webster as a source is misquoting me, as I never said I "made up a Japanese-sounding name" as he claims." Is it reasonable to conflate Webster's brief description of spousal disagreements over original Japanese-sounding surname choices ("None of this Japayuki stuff for me, thanks") by using the phrase "made up" with direct quotation from that essay ("Japanese-sounding name") and then argue that because Debito Arudou didn't literally use the phrase "made up Japanese-sounding name" in his essay that he's somehow being misquoted? That's for the Wikipedia contributors to decide after reading the original essay and Webster's citation. I've read both works, several times, and I disagree with both premises. But as I said, I'll defer to uninvolved editors like Nihonjoe and others to offer fresh input and make a decision on how the sentence should be worded. I respect WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, Oddexit (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've often read other academics quoting and interpreting other people's writing or quotes (from Jesus to Marx), and wondered how they would feel about what those academic interpreters were saying about what they said (viz. the "[telephone game]"); i.e., would they feel they were being misquoted or had their quotes taken out of context? Alas, those cited people are often dead, so we'll never know. But you're lucky -- I'm not dead, and I'm here telling you that this was a misquote.

Should "Debito Arudou's interpretation of another author's description of his essay automatically be accepted as reasonable"? Well, not automatically -- I've demonstrated the context, so it's not "automatic". But yes, my interpretation should matter because I'm not just anyone: I'm the person being quoted! And if I'm telling you it's a misquote, and if I've taken the trouble to show you how it is, then one would think that's grounds enough for acceptance. Unfortunately, my opinion about what I said (even though I'm the one who said it) doesn't seem to count to some people, particularly the editor who has edited this BLP (and not uncoincidentially violated WP:NPOV) more than anyone else. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 18:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't become involved in this. I find this person to be obnoxious and annoying, a person who goes out of his way to get media attention, and a person who gives foreigners a bad name in Japan (oh, wait, he's technically not a foreigner anymore, given that he's a naturalized Japanese citizen now). He pulls stupid stunts, and then gets mad at the media for reporting it differently than how he would prefer. He gives interviews, and then says he didn't say things how they are reported. Again, I'm not going to get further involved in this mess. It won't ever end unless we grant him full control over the article, and that isn't ever going to happen. And, just to note, everything in this paragraph is my personal opinion, and is not based on extensive research, but rather on my gut reactions every time this guy pops up on my radar. Take it how you will. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think we should grant Debito full control over the article. There is space in the article for criticism of Debito, and that criticism should be included if it is notable. All I am saying is that we need to do this in line with Wikipedia policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading through this debate, I have to say that Mr. Stradivarius was correct in deleting the whole clause. By "Japanese sounding", Debito simply meant that he had to choose a name that premits lossless reproduction in kana. This is true of every official name in Japan, including the registered names of companies with English words in them (those words have to be rendered in kana). It has nothing to do with "Japanese-sounding" in the sense of "sounding like but not really" Japanese, which is what readers would have thought. Either we explain this whole business or ignore it. Ignoring it is the right thing to do. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Japanese version of Debito's page

Why is there so much effort being put into the revision of the English version of the page, yet no effort put into altering the Japanese version of the page? Why are the two versions so different? Why doesn't the English version also detail "日本人に対する差別"? (discrimination against Japanese)... Why are two accepted versions of an encyclopedia so different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.44.101.70 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it's because they're two different encyclopedias. Each language's Wikipedia project has its own sets of rules, so some content may be allowable at the Japanese Wikipedia but not here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why user 126.44.101.70 is having comments taken seriously enough to be answered. 126.44.101.70 has twice had edits not only undone, but even stricken for the record due to vandalism of this BLP. What is the WP rule on vandals commenting on Talk pages? Dr. ARUDOU, Debito 20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arudoudebito (talk • contribs)

Persistent vandals are blocked after being warned, and for further vandalism after the first block expires, they are blocked again for successively longer durations. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for the details. If a user that has previously vandalised a page is not currently blocked, there are no particular restrictions on what they can edit. (We also try and avoid the word "vandal" for edits that are not obvious vandalism.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that if there are drastically different versions of the BLP, then their should be some sort of revision. After all, if one version has properly cited and accepted sources, surely it should be relevant to the other versions where language is the only difference? ChemicalG (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi ChemicalG, and welcome to Wikipedia. Editors may take the content of the Japanese article on board in writing this one, or vice-versa, but there is nothing compelling them to normalise the two. The Japanese and the English Wikipedia are two separate communities, with their own rules. A lot of the rules are similar - for example they also have a neutral point of view policy - but some are different. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. There are a number of sources that view previous works and statements by Mr. Debito as somewhat discriminatory against Japanese. However, these sources, while accepted by the Japanese version of the BLP are in Japanese, not English. Just one more thing to check; does this mean that we need to cite sources in English for them to be accepted into the English version of Mr. Debito's BLP? ChemicalG (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No. For the sake of our readers it's better to have sources in English. But if it's important, and publicly available, and there's enough context to understand it, it's OK to cite Japanese sources. There are editors on Wikipedia who can check it out. It may take a while, but we'll get this straightened out eventually. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have the JLPT N1, so I can help with verification of Japanese sources if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. These are the sources cited from the Japanese version of Debito's BLP: http://www.debito.org/chibikurosanbo.html#parody and http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/19_01/index.html Although I believe that Debito intended this as parody, offense was taken by the Japanese people who viewed these images. As it was published originally by the individual subject to the BLP, and as it is a controversial issue - I would humbly suggest that it's worth including in the BLP.ChemicalG (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. First of all, for the record, I'd never heard of Debito before yesterday, so I have no connection with this. About the parody, my goodness, yes, that was offensive. If someone asked for my advice, I would say take it down immediately and replace it with an apology for posting images that people found offensive. Also maybe the exerpts from the book, since copyright issues have been raised. I share the sentiment, but really this kind of thing is counterproductive. But that's just my opinion. For our purposes at Wikipedia it would make no difference whether the parody is live or not, since the Wayback Machine has archives going back to 2007.

About including it in the article. To start with, if we do write about this, I think we need to treat it as part of the larger incident. That we can do, since the parody page has some good sources on the controversy surrounding publication of the book. But for the parody itself the situation isn't as good. As of now, the only published sources we have are the page itself and the tanteifile site. It's not immediately clear who publishes that site, so we would want to check that. Tanteifile says that the parody has been criticized, but by who? And for fairness, we have to check whether Debito has responded in the media to these criticisms. If we look for other sources and can't find any, I think that yes, we could mention it in the article, but it would have to be fairly brief. Explain the controversy, point readers to the earliest archive of the parody page, and mention the criticism by the anonymous author at tanteifile, and Debito's response on his own site. Without better sources, I think that's probably about all we could do. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tanteifile doesn't look like it passes Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines to me. We look for publications that have a reputation for fact checking and some kind of editorial process, but it looks like Tanteifile is just being run by one guy. (The closest to a list of contributors that I could find was a profile of the site's owner.) Unless it's been covered in publications that pass our sourcing policies, we shouldn't be putting it in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I haven't checked the Tanteifile site yet, but I'll take your word for it. That leaves us with one RS on the parody, which is (this story) in the Japan Times, quoted at Debito's site. So far the only other references I've been able to find are blogs and the usual stuff on 2ch. About the 2005 book itself, the best source I found was (this paper, p. 50), which I just added to ja: ちびくろサンボ. It describes the reaction of the major newspapers to the 2005 republication, which was pretty muted and even favorable. Most of the controversy appears to have been overseas.

So unfortunately, as of now, we don't have a RS for Japanese people being offended by the parody, which was ChemicalG's concern. The event itself seems to have been minor and there is no RS evidence for any impact of the parody. We could include it, but first we should probably address the other concerns listed above on this Talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I see your point on this. ChemicalG (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this BLP (4): Removal/amendment of inaccurate Talk Page tag.

Happy 2015, WP Editors, and thank you for all of your attention and improvements to this BLP. I really appreciate it.

My next suggestion is a small one, and it may be just an issue of the wording of a formatted tag, which says above on this Talk Page:

A Wikipedia contributor, Arudoudebito (talk · contribs), has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. This user's editing has included contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

This isn't accurate. I have not contributed to this article. I have not changed the content within the article (please check my contribution record). I have only contributed comments to this Talk Page.

Can the wording saying I contributed to the article be removed? Thank you very much, and Happy New Year. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think adding one tag to the article, as you did here, is enough. I'm going to remove the editedhere parameter. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The notation and wording is/was accurate. Please have a look at the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arudoudebito#Mister_Mtzplk_and_Sweetandloveable Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 14:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point: Even if that account hasn't edited this page, the sockpuppet investigation results show that it's likely that user has edited the page. I've restored the editedhere= parameter as a result, with a comment expanding on the matter further. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the investigation was incorrect. As I said before, I have not contributed to the article. Please revert. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest you contact either Mr. Stradivarius or DeltaQuad on their talk pages, since they are the two people who handled the sockpuppet investigations. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't say too much as there is private/personal information involved, but all signs point towards the problem being meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. The on-wiki evidence certainly suggests this: the technical evidence was a "likely" match rather than an exact one, and the accounts involved all had unique communication styles. The most plausible explanation is that Debito did not make the edits himself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting return of Criticism section

I don't see how the criticism section and the sources that it includes aren't credible. I'm requesting for it to be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graylandertagger: as noted a few sections up by Mr. Stradivarius, WP:Criticism is an essay that summarizes the established thinking on "criticism of..." sections and articles pretty well. In short, the best way to manage reliably sourced, significant critical coverage is to integrate the content into the rest of the article, in the appropriate topical sections. Since this is a WP:BLP, we need to be particularly cautious that any contentious content we add represents due coverage. Adding a "Criticism" section is almost never the best option in a BLP.

Now, since my only relevant action in the article has been to revert the addition of a section header, I do not know which sources or article content you are referring. What specific content do you propose adding to the article? VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of reliably sourced coverage from independent third parties publishing in newspapers with editorial control about Debito Arudou. Readers have every right to be well-informed about what these reliable sources are saying about the subject. As it stands, some sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources have been removed (accidentally, I believe). They (and other newer reliably sourced opinions about Arudou) should be included to balance the article. Even the current quotations about Arudou from NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, Asahi Shimbun, etc., exhibit cherry-picked quotes that ignore the balancing criticisms of the subject in the very same articles. It's a disservice to the reader to pretend that these and other reliably sourced opinions about Arudou don't exist. Here's a sample [6]. There are more. Oddexit (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case what qualifies to allow a criticism section to be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you already have an answer above - that there is not going to be a separate "criticism" section in the article, but there is room for improvement in balanced coverage of the subject throughout. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oddexit: in the diff you linked above, I see [7] and [8]. The latter, by Fujioka, seems more polemic and should, in my opinion, be used with caution if at all. You reference a few other sources, in general terms, above and in the diff you linked. Are there any you would like to add directly to this section for reference? VQuakr (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this BLP (5): Clarifying the use of Debito.org as a reliable source

My thanks to WP Editors for their assistance with improving this BLP. My next suggestion concerns sourcing for this WP.

There has been a long debate about whether this BLP should be citing Debito.org (or articles/sources published elsewhere archived at Debito.org) as a credible source. It was even ( repeatedly noted as a reason for nominating this BLP for deletion back in 2008).

I think this debate should be resolved, because it has been a reason for negative editing of the subject. That is to say: If an edit was positively predisposed towards the subject of the BLP, then claiming in essence inter alia that “it’s from Debito.org, not an actual third-party edited source” has been grounds for deletion of the edit (examples here and here).

However, if an edit has been negative, even though I have been the only editor of the source, then the edit has been kept (examples here and here, scroll down to section 2.2.1).

My request is that the double standard be resolved. Either accept Debito.org as a reliable source and include information and links to it as source material for this BLP, or don’t and remove all references "self-published" by Debito.org within the body of this article. (If that means much of the personal history that only I have "self-published" under WP guidelines must go, then so be it. Not clear if much of that information belongs in an encyclopedic article in the first place.)

If this should be resolved by the larger WP community through an RfC, I am fine with that too (please tell me how I can start proceedings). But we’ve been debating this since at least 2008. Let’s settle it. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arudoudebito: The Wikipedia policy about citing material to websites of article subjects is actually quite well-developed; you can read it at WP:ABOUTSELF. If there has been debate over whether debito.org should be regarded as "reliable" or not, then it's due to a lack of familiarity with policy, not a lack of policy itself. The policy says that we may use your website to cite statements in this article, but only under the following conditions:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
• It does not involve claims about third parties.
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.

If there is material like this in the article that is sourced to debito.org, then it should be either backed up by a reliable secondary source, or the material should be removed. I'll have a quick look now to see if I can spot any. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we include Debito's wiki activity in this BLP?

Hello everyone,

I'm just curious about this, but there have been a few cases of sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arudoudebito#Mister_Mtzplk_and_Sweetandloveable

and a few COI-issue edits by Debito:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Asia&diff=643759975&oldid=643759539 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Keene&diff=prev&oldid=643739252

Can these sorts of things be referenced and included in the BLP itself? I'm not suggesting that we actually do this, I'm just curious as to what wikipedia's policies allow in these sorts of cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChemicalG: Mentioning Wikipedia in articles falls under the same rules as any other kind of article content. It can be added if it satisfies verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research and any other applicable Wikipedia content policies. (For this article the biography of living persons policy, especially the WP:BLPGOSSIP section, is particularly important.) I don't think anything to do with possible COI or sockpuppetry on Wikipedia has been reported in news articles published by reputable news agencies, or other sources that count as reliable on Wikipedia, and if there are no reliable sources to back up the information then it definitely can't go in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I'll have a closer look at these policies. I was just curious as to what can and can't be included in accordance with wikipedia's policies. ChemicalG (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Another wikipedia policy question about this article. What is the wikipedia policy on naming spouses that are not-notable in the their own right on a BLP? Is there an expectation of privacy, unless the spouse has identified themselves in a public source? The previous spouse is listed here, but not current spouse. Browny Cow (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this BLP (6): accuracy of the "known for" parameter.

Hello,

Just a suggestion here, but is Debito really known for "human rights activism"? Other than a lawsuit, and a handful of (relatively unknown in the mainstream Japanese media) protests - I cannot think of anything else that would be "human rights activism". Should we not consider changing the "known for" parameter to "debito.org", or "blogging" which is what he is really known for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the activism dates to some years ago, so maybe "former activist". Blogging as a naturalized Japanese seems to be his main 'known for' now. He's not really notable as an author, columnist, or academic.Browny Cow (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Who are "ChemicalG" and "Browny Cow"? They both seem to be accounts created to comment on Debito's talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a chemical engineer, and relatively new Wikipedia user based in Japan - and I have no idea who "Browny Cow" is. Does that make my question less relevant? ChemicalG (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not necessarily, but it's extremely unusual to see two new accounts created at almost the same time both espusing the same opinion on the same page. You can understand why that would look suspicious, can't you? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

not really, we are in no way connected and this is an open medium. I have no idea who "Browny Cow" is.

Also this distracts from the original issue.ChemicalG (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ChemicalG: On the substance, you are probably right. But per WP:NOR, WP:BLP and maybe a few others, we aren't actually allowed point that out in the article unless it's been stated in numerous reliable third party sources. In theory, we are allowed describe people the way they choose to describe themselves, even if this clashes with WP:NPOV. This is why, in theory, articles on individuals who aren't notable enough to have been covered in a broad range of reliable third party sources (enough to discuss them objectively)≠ are supposed to be deleted. This is how I interpret WP:GNG, but unfortunately a lot of others take it to mean "if the subject is mentioned in reliable sources, and especially if I've heard of them, we can't delete the article". There have been rare exceptions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banned from the Bible and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuell Benta, but ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Otaru Onsens "Japanese Only" sign should not be removed. Please replace.

Dear WP Editors, The recent edit made by Hijiri88 (COI) removing the historical record of the Japanese Only sign displayed on this BLP since 2005 now should not be allowed to stand. The argument made by editor, "A photo of a sign with the words "Japanese Only", with the curious (and likely counterfactual) caption "The original sign", doesn't really add anything to this article on Debito Arudou, especially when we don't even have a photo of the subject himself." is wrong on at least two counts:

1. It is not counterfactual. It was the original sign, and there are at least two books and dozens of newspaper articles substantiating that (one book source here).
2. It does add to this article. Deleting it is like saying that the BLP on Rosa Parks should not have a picture of the bus she protested against. (It does.)

The sign is a matter of historical record, and it is fundamentally connected to the notability undergirding this BLP. Undo the edit and replace it please. (And if you want a photo of me for the BLP too, let me know and I'll send one free of copyright.) Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't have a "COI". I looked at this article objectively and considered how I could improve it. You posted your personal opinion of Donald Keene to our article on him, an article on my favourite scholar that I had edited in the past but ironically only noticed because of a BLPN post (I was on that board for other reasons). (You will also note that, on my last visit to BLPN, I actually took your side in the discussion of whether the "criticism" section on this article should be removed. I also recently re-added you to our list of JT contributors. And in the section above I reiterated my opinion that this article is by necessity indefinitely broken. I have taken similar stances on other biographical articles on people with whom I have even less connection than this one. None of this is because I "like" or "dislike" you as a person -- I don't have a "COI" -- but because I have been consistently following WP policies and guidelines on all of these issues.) When I checked the talk page for the Donald Keene article I saw User:Eido.inoue had said you had been "attempting to pad [your] own wikipedia BLP with numerous self-written material". I thus stopped by here and, while I didn't find any such material, I did notice that...
2. This is a biographical article, so if there is only one image it should probably be a depiction of the subject himself. Even our articles on Bahá'u'lláh and Muhammad go out of their way to provide such images. Until any such is added to the article, any images of things other than the subject hurt the article by providing WP:UNDUE weight to whatever is depicted in the images.
3. If you are willing to provide a photo of yourself, by all means please do!
4. I'm also a bit concerned that including photographs of discriminatory signs and/or materials like the magazine cover as our subject sees them without full disclosure of the background and/or the other side of the story might violate WP:NPOV. So even with a good photo depicting our subject added to the article, I'm still not convinced the sign should be re-added. If we're going to disagree on this point then we should probably leave it to others.
5. Your Rosa Parks analogy is inappropriate, since our article on her already contains six photographs depicting her or depicting commemorative images of her, and only two photos depicting the bus. (This entirely aside from the fact that your comparing yourself to Rosa Parks is downright offensive on numerous levels in that (a) it makes light of the plight of African Americans in Jim Crow-era Alabama by equating it to he plight of a white person in Japan, (b) unless I'm mistaken you, unlike Parks, weren't arrested following the incident, (c) it equates "the Japanese" with Jim Crow-era Alabaman whites...)
6. Please read my edit summary more carefully. "Counterfactual" here means that it could easily be interpreted by anyone not already familiar with your biography to mean that the sign depicted was the first "Japanese Only" sign to exist, and other establishments with such signs were acting in imitation of this one. Assuming the above condition is met, if/when the photo is re-added the caption should be something like "The Yunohana Onsen sign as it originally appeared".
7. Can I take your protest at the removal of the onsen sign photo and only the onsen sign photo as tacit approval of my other removal? I gave a copyright-based reasoning in my edit summary, but the above rationale applies as well, probably even more so.
8. Largely as an aside, could I please ask you to stop referring to this page as "this BLP" unless it is necessary? WP:BLP is one of our most serious policies, and when you use "this BLP" as a synonym for "this article" it implies you are attempting to silence other parties' open discussion of the content. BLP concerns the addition of questionable/unsourced material to biographical articles, and what I did was remove two images because I thought they unbalanced the article. I notice your recent edits to our Donald Keene and Yoshirō Mori articles did not at any time refer to those articles as "this BLP" even though (unlike here) the issue under discussion was exactly the adding of poorly-sourced negative material to biographies of living persons. WP:BLP can't by itself be used to justify re-adding material that has been removed as questionable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a picture of me that you can use for this BLP. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArudouDebitoheadshot.jpg Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 06:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, Dr. Arudou. Now per my 4th point above, I'd like to see what other users think of re-adding the sign. Are you familiar with WP:RFC? I don't know how many active users are watching this page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a NPOV problem with including the sign photo and have re-added it with a different caption - based on your suggestion above - that should take care of the "counterfactual" concern (which seemed a bit far-fetched to me anyway, but some extra clarity can't hurt). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Debito, please refrain from comparing the situation of white people in Japan to the situation of African Americans in the Jim Crow era Southern states. It is extremely inappropriate, factually wrong and offensive. ChemicalG (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Debito.org as a source for the details of his divorce?

I'm a bit concerned that, since Dr. Arudou's ex-wife is named in the article, WP:BLP applies to our discussion of how her marriage of 19 years came to an end. It's not a big problem, but "it was initiated by the husband, and the process took over two years" is a bit too detailed for something that can only be sourced to a self-published primary source. Anyone have a problem with me cutting

Arudou petitioned the Japanese Family Court for a divorce in the spring of 2004, which was granted through court mediation in September 2006.

down to

The couple divorced in 2006.

...The sentence immediately above it is also a little concerning, since (without clarification of later events? Sorry, I'm not familiar...), it implies that our subject's legal name is still "菅原 有道出人".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. The New York Times and the Washington Post (both reliable mainstream sources) wrote articles on Debito Arudou. Both mainstream newspapers thought it was important to not only mention Arudou's (then) wife by name (Ayako Sugawara) but also her opinions. Those newspaper articles are already cited in the article, and are part of the reason why this Wikipedia article survived a nomination for deletion several years ago. The name "Ayako Sugawara" is now sort of immortalized in those mainstream newspapers online, plus the Japanese-language newspaper coverage. Regarding the divorce, I checked WP:PUBLICFIGURE and citing the divorce in the article is basically standard practice even if the source is the subject's website. True: theoretically there could be something dubious or unduly self-serving by adding that Arudou initiated the divorce. However, is there any reason to believe (and I'm just asking) that Debito Arudou might not have initiated it per the criteria of WP:SELFPUB, and therefore it would require a reliable secondary source? It doesn't seem like a controversial assertion to me, just a statement of fact. Oddexit (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

East-West Center Affiliate Scholar Program

The article states in the lead that Debito Arudou is currently an Affiliate Scholar at the East-West Center, linking to an editorial statement by the Japan Times in February 2012. That was three years ago.

According to East-West Center,[9] "The East-West Center’s Affiliate Scholar program provides a limited number of opportunities for graduate students from universities and institutions world-wide, to have a short-term affiliation with the Center while working on a thesis or dissertation research related to the Asia Pacific region...The Affiliate Scholar Program invites applicants who are able to provide their own funding, which includes but is not limited to travel, living expenses and health insurance. The Affiliate Scholar Program is short-term in nature, with visa sponsorship ranging from one month to a maximum of one year. Affiliate Scholars pay a program administration fee of US $40 per month of award."

Three issues. (1) Debito Arudou is no longer a graduate student working on a dissertation at the East-West Center, so it's unclear why this short-term affiliation is written in the present tense. (2) Is a short-term affiliation not mentioned anywhere else in the article an important aspect of Debito Arudou's life? The affiliation -- past or present -- should not be in the lead at all per WP:LEAD, which states "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." (3) With the exception of that small editorial mention in the Japan Times, no independent third party seems to think that the graduate studies affiliation is newsworthy. In other words, it seems to be just that one editorial mention. Should the mention be moved out of the lead to the body text somewhere or just deleted completely? Oddexit (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have not been an Affiliate Scholar at the East-West Center for some time now, so changing it to past tense is not problematic. However, deleting my history with the East-West Center completely is another issue entirely.

Moreover, this discussion should not be initiated by Oddexit. Given the egregious history of COI this editor in particular has in relation to this BLP (resulting in a successful request for mediation last October), I think she should never come near this particular BLP again. She is, remember, the editor who even tried to consign the Ph.D. I received last year to "Early Life"!. Kindly take your editing skills somewhere else. Because every time you pop up and try to recorrupt this BLP with bias, I will also drop in to remind everyone of your history of bad-faith editing. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 00:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, this is what I thought. It should be in the past tense. Thanks for clarifying that. As for where it belongs, WP:LEAD is not the appropriate place for it. I'd like to hear if others have any suggestions on where (or if) it could be mentioned. Oddexit (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure Arudoudebito's "request for mediation" [sic: RFAR] should be labeled a "success", given that a unanimous 10 out of 10 editors declined to hear it and the two main editors that Arudoudebito referenced as examples supporting his position and arguments were judged by non-involved third party Wikipedia admins to be likely sockpuppets/meatpuppets of Arudoudebito based on technical and forensic evidence. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 04:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to the meatpuppetry that happens because people on dedicated stalker sites encourage each other to edit with single-purpose accounts? (source source source source) Harder to label as meatpuppetry, but it's the same result — except that it gives advantage to the enemies (who apparently have no COI) as opposed to friends (who are automatically assumed to have COI simply because they're friends).

Eido Inoue himself has certainly been cited as part of the problem of biased edits, with clear and present COI. (source: Section 2.2), so it's not surprising he's the one making this case.

Anyway, the request for mediation I cited at the link above (the first time was because I didn't know proper WP procedure at the time, so admins set me straight; the link is to the second time, the one that counts) was indeed successful. This BLP has since been cleaned up significantly, and remains under Discretionary Sanctions, with admins (thank you all very much) actively keeping an eye out. This is why biased editors like the two commenting here now no longer have the free reign they have had for more than a decade over this BLP in violation of WP rules. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can the stick be dropped and the person beating a dead horse back slowly away from the carcass, please? I'd like to get back to discussing in a civil and productive way what to do about the Associate Scholar mention in the lead. To his credit, Arudoudebito has already acknowledged it's incorrect as worded, so it needs an edit one way or the other. Reading WP:LEAD, it's also clear that it does not belong there. It's nowhere else in the article, and (more importantly) it's not a notable part of the subject's life by Wikipedia notability standards to be put in the lead. The question is where to put it, if at all, and how to word it. Also, is there any up-to-date reliable sources that can be used? If not, maybe @Curly Turkey: who's edited this article and has experience writing leads can offer a suggestion on where to place it (if at all)? Oddexit (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God, am I being dragged into this? The lead is totally inadequate—a lead is a summary of the contents of an article, and the lead as it stands does a piss-poor job of that. As a summary, it should only contain information that is already in the body, which is why citations are not required in the lead. The East-West Centre isn't even mentioned in the body. So we have three problems: (a) we have material in the lead that is not in the body; (b) the lead totally fails at summing up the body; (c) there is the possibility that the East-West Centre thing may be UNDUE at the scope of the lead.

I'd take a stab at the lead, but I don't know how balanced or comprehensive the body is, so it would be difficult to judge what was really appropriate at the scope of the lead. My knowledge of Debito is limited to having read a less than a dozen of his articles and the Otaru Onsen book (all primary sources) so I'm not really in a position to judge, and I'm not interested enough in the topic to hunt down the appropriate sources (I have pop culture trash to tend to). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I totally agree that the lead is inadequate, but having watched people fight over the lead in other articles, I didn't want to raise the subject of that headache as long as possible. A lot of people have stated in the past that they're not interested in this BLP when commenting in the talk archives, so there seems to be little interest in doing a lot of hard work and research on the subject matter. Oh well. I've done my fair share and I'm proud of my hard work on it so far. It seems to me we have two options, either 1) reword it and move it somewhere in the article or 2) move it to the talk page until there's a WP:CONSENSUS on where (if at all) it should be put in the article. Would people like to voice a preference? Oddexit (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, moving the East-West Centre thing to the body cannot be controversial—it's a requirement, and the source passes the RS test. Given it's the only source that even mentions it, and only mentions it outside the body of the cited article, I'd call it undue to put it in the lead. Is the East-West Centre currently Debito's primary place of employment? If that's the case, and an RS can be found stating so, then it may warrant inclusion in the lead. Honestly, most leads are not hard to write if you know what you're doing, assuming there isn't politics involved. It's a matter of summarizing the body, a skill we should all have learned in school. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As Arudoudebito mentioned above, he's no longer affiliated with the East-West Center, which makes sense because it was only a short-term / temporary host affiliation while working on a thesis. The citation is three years old. The second issue is that it does not seem to be "employment" in the strict sense of being paid by the East-West Center for services rendered. According to their website, the East-West Center does not seem to pay doctoral students to use their university libraries at all. "The Affiliate Scholar Program invites applicants who are able to provide their own funding, which includes but is not limited to travel, living expenses and health insurance. The Affiliate Scholar Program is short-term in nature, with visa sponsorship ranging from one month to a maximum of one year. Affiliate Scholars pay a program administration fee of US $40 per month of award."[10] I haven't found any reliable sources discussing it or mentioning it, unlike when he worked as an EFL instructor in Hokkaido. There are multiple references for that employment in newspapers. Oddexit (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I get the feeling that sourcing will continue to be an issue with this article, and that the article will remain rather piecemeal, unblanced, and uncomprehensive until someone writes a proper bio on him. I don't like this kind of article—notability is established, but the comprehensiveness of RSes is severely lacking—there's much danger of WP:SYNTHESIS. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The usual solution in this kind of situation is an "as of", e.g. "As of 2012, Arudou was an Affiliate Scholar at the East-West Center." We even have a template for it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the template, but it still looks strange. "As of" implies "henceforth," "as of this date moving forward", "from this time until today", etc., when we already know he's not affiliated with the Center anymore. Oddexit (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Arudou's resume being used as a source?

I removed it, and somebody restored it. How can the guy's online resume seriously be used to source content in the article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any policy or guideline based reason for objecting? WP:SELFPUB is the relevant portion of WP:RS. What year a particular job ended seems noncontentious in the extreme. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It brings up issues of notability and weight. Why is it even being mentioned? Because the subject himself thinks it's notable? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The employment itself was discussed in a secondary source, as mentioned in the discussion above. All that we are using the CV for is the year that employment ended. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense to add the first reliable source, then? It's not there now.Oddexit (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I didn't think it was a violation of WP:SELFPUB, either. But a one-year non-paid affiliation that no independent third party wrote about, definitely didn't belong in the WP:LEAD. Oddexit (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, yes looks like it got dropped out at some point. I just added it back here. AFAIK no one is proposing moving this sentence back to the lede. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it remains a concern just how much this article relies on primary and self-published sources. Take a look at the list of references. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable person? Relevance?

I don't think that it merits having such a detailed wikipedia on someone who isn't so notable. Here are a few facts: - His academic works are not really notable because they are not cited frequently by other academics in peer reviewed articles (which you can see on Lexisnexis) - The total circulation of the Japan Times is about 70,000 according to their own numbers (which is actually about the same as the local "Advertiser" magazine in my hometown...) - There are numerous other contributors to the Japan Times, most of whom do not have their own wikipedia article, - He is largely unknown outside of Japan, - The books he has published are hardly notable, - The "FRANCA" group is defunct.

On the other hand, Debito has: - A history with the Otaru Onsen case, - Maintained a blog for a long period of time,

I would argue that other than the Otaru Onsen case, there is very little that is truly "notable" about Debito.

Also, I understand why Debito would bring up issues on "neutral point of view" for the previous versions of this page.

I understand that there are polarizing views about Debito, which is probably why this page has had so much activity.

If we look at the German, Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions of the page, they are extremely simple.

I think that putting undue weight on an issue, particularly a biography of a living person is not warranted. Therefore, I would like to suggest an overhaul of this page to greatly simplify it, even the "Simple English" version of the page would probably be fairer than what we currently have, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The simple English Wikipedia article on this subject is four sentences long. It is unlikely that you will gain consensus for permanently reducing this article to four sentences, if that is what you are proposing. What specific, actionable improvements to the article do you propose? VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We could start by stripping out everything that's sourced to primary sources—sources by Arudou himself account for nearly half of all the citations. Yes, there are provisions that allow for primary sources in certain cases (confirming birthdates, etc). This article has crossed way over the line. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, with the exception of biographical information in the "Early life and education" "Background" section which often uses the subject's own website on Wikipedia per WP:SELFPUB, we can get rid of a lot of the citations by Debito Arudou himself and replace them with what independent third parties published in reliable sources by journalists and academics have to say about the subject. If it isn't discussed in those publications, it shouldn't be in the article. That's Wikipedia policy. I tried to explain this to the two editors which have now been banned for sock/meatpuppetry and to Arudoudebito multiple times. Oddexit (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, go ahead and do it—you've got a consensus and policy onyour side. If anyone opposes, we'll open an RfC, and that'll put an end to this stuff. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are the list of footnotes that can either be replaced by independent third party sources or deleted entirely because they're not policy compliant. Footnotes 21, 22, and 23 can be replaced by independent third party sources. You don't need Arudou's book for them. And if journalists didn't cover it, it doesn't belong in the article. Footnote 29 should not be in the article at all, including the sentence, unless a journalist covered it. Footnotes 33 and 34 have absolutely nothing to do with Debito Arudou. He's not even mentioned in those two articles, let alone support the assertion that it was "Arudou's demonstration." The only reason it's there, I suspect, is because you can see Arudou's face in one of the photographs. That's an example of a WP:SYNTHESIS violation. Footnote 45 can be deleted, as well as footnote 49 (they're unnecessary). And as for the rest of the superfluous footnotes 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58 -- they should all be deleted along with their sentences. Journalists, academics, and book reviewers NEVER covered this work. They rarely (if ever) cited it. And it never won any awards. In fact, the consensus at the RfC said no to it all. But it was put in the article anyway because Arudoudebito wanted it mentioned. Oddexit (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Arudoudebito obviously doesn't get to choose. He's already got his own website where he can say what he likes about himself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not choosing. I never have chosen, and Oddexit's misrepresentation of the record of discussion here on the Talk Page about my suggestions for edits (at the invitation of WP admin) is once again symptomatic of how she misrepresents the sources (as she has constantly and confirmably here). For heaven's sake, people, don't let Oddexit edit, or even be involved in the process of editing, this BLP anymore. I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of her bad-faith editing, and what goes up here that is interpreted in a one-sided negative, even counterfactual manner, has a profound effect upon my life. Remember that you're dealing with a real live person here, and now that we've finally cleaned up many of her underhanded edits after more than a decade of them affecting me, we're about to allow her to do it again. Please don't. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about OddExit, but if there are COI concerns then the work should be left to someone else. The work needs to be done, though—the number and proportion of primary sources is overkill, and many (most?) are not justified. No, I'm not volunteering to do it—I've had my fill of contributing to politically-tinged articles after making the stupid mistake of trying to copyedit Charlie Hebdo shooting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have stayed quiet on Arudoudebito's multiple "attempted outings" (and attempted is all they are) for a long time, which really need to stop because they're a form of WP:HARASSMENT and would have resulted in a block per WP:PRIVACY had it been any other user. My understanding is that he gets a little extra latitude because he's the subject of this article. That said, his speculations about me are wrong. I've never written about Arudoudebito. I've never posted on his blog (as far as I know). I don't post on other sites criticizing him. and I'm not in any dispute with Arudoudebito. I contribute to Wikipedia because I read the subject matter and wanted to write a good article. Full stop. And no, I am not about to post my private information up on Wikipedia contrary to Wikipedia policy, so that I can be stalked or have my privacy invaded. Given his obsession with finding out who people are so he can WP:OWN this article is a little scary. Beyond his speculation and fishing, however, Arudoudebito has no reason to accuse me of WP:COI. Wikipedia policy is to ignore the personal attacks as long as possible and focus on the content. I continue to do this. Unfortunately any attempt to have a civil and constructive discussion is sidelined by accusations of WP:COI, WP:CRYBLP, and beating a dead horse with old accusations at every turn. When that doesn't work, he argues that the high-quality journalist or academic sources about him are just misquoting him (as if it's Wikipedia's job to re-write the article to how the subject would have liked the independent third party sources to have read, too). Why don't more people edit this article? I suspect because it's a hassle. Nihonjoe calls Arudodebito's behavior on Wikipedia "obnoxious and annoying."[11] I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like us to just get back to editing the article in a policy compliant, constructive, and collaborative way based on civil discussions about reliable sources. The objective is to improve the article based on Wikipedia policies, not make it someone's WP:SOAPBOX so they can "retool" for job interviews. If Arudoudebito has policy-based arguments for why the article should quote his articles instead of independent third party sources, I for one would like to read what those arguments are. Now, can we please get back to focusing on the content, and not on the contributors?. Oddexit (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC would be best. We could call for input from WP:JAPAN and from WP:BIOGRAPHY. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And ask what? "Do you think it's appropriate that 50% of the citations in this BLP come from Debito Arudou's own primary writings?" Oddexit (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. An RfC would determine how much is appropriate, and whether the sources are appropriately used. There is no magic number. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And whose responsibility is that? Nobody has edited this BLP more than Oddexit has. 13.95% of all edits have been Oddexit's, as has 17.0% of all added text. If there is any issue with the page or how it has been sourced, it is Oddexit's, so she should not pretend to be an innocent bystander now. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not add any of these citations, Arudoudebito. They were added at either your request or by your (now blocked) meatpuppets. I certainly didn't add the footnotes that are being discussed above because I've always tried to add independent reliable sources for everything outside the Background section, where WP:SELFPUB allows them per policy. Oddexit (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So the "50% of citations in this BLP" that you cited above as problematic came at my behest or from my alleged minions? They must have been very busy, and over a very short time compared to the many years you have been editing this BLP. However, the record demonstrates that this is clearly false. Own up, Oddexit. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, just to be clear and repeat myself for your benefit, I didn't add the citations that we are discussing above here. You seem to be confused. Oddexit (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not stay quiet on this, and neither has Oddexit in the past (yet another misrepresentation of the record). As noted above, I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Oddexit's edits have been biased towards the negative, counterfactual, and, as demonstrated by the record both within the BLP and on this Talk Page, damaging towards my life and career (which is why this BLP is under closer moderation). Nothing I will ever do here or elsewhere will have the same alleged effect on her life as her edits have on mine, and her accusing me of harassing her is ironic in the extreme. Stop claiming victimhood, and kindly leave the editing of and discussion about this BLP to others. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Debito, one of the reasons this article is user closer moderation is because of your sock/meatpuppets. As for this wiki article damaging your life and "career", as others have been pointing out this article suffers from a distinct lack of NPOV, but decidedly in your favor. It has become little more than a summation of your blog and LinkedIn resume. So, given that the primary source for this article is your own writings, if people read this article and come away with a negative impression of you, whose fault is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.56.72.39 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahistorical (source, source) and incorrect. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My concern is the weight put on primary sources in this article. I was hoping a well-worded RfC could weed out what's appropriate and what's not. Right now it's clear that much of the info in the article shouldn't be there based on well-established WP policies. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But that's what I'm asking: How would you propose wording the question? Oddexit (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, lemme think on it. I don't think it's merely an issue of the number of primary sources used, and I don't want a wording htta could be construed that way. This article has a lot of issues, some of which may not be fixable. I've been thinking about a couple of things, though. For instance, the subject's marriage—the details and circumstances of his getting married & having kids may be easy to source, for instance, but if the only source for his divorce is a primary one, then we have a conundrum. Leaving out the divorce leaves the impression that he's still married—that would justify using a primary source to dispell that idea, but then we have to be very careful (considering weight and POV) with how to apply it. My at-the-moment thinking is to use the primary source to source the bare fact that he divorced in such-and-such a year and leave it at that—or maybe even just say he was married from YEAR to YEAR. Then we have another problem: how many such details do we include in the article? The same argument could be made for many details, and then we could end up populating the article with facts from primary sources. And maybe that's even okay. But I think we need a number of neutral editors willing to contribute their time to examining the evidence. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it fact based and relevant. All the irrelevant information about his personal life, background, education, and other things which are not really notable such as most of the "publications" section should be removed. I don't think his divorce is worth mentioning, nor is stating his ex-wife's name fair. I know there are very polarizing views on this individual, and keeping it very simple and fact based, and neutral would be the most fair thing to do, I think.

I would keep it to something like this:

"Arudou was born in California in 1965, and came to Japan in 1987. He became a permanent resident in 1996, and later became a citizen of Japan in 2000, changing his name from "David Aldwinckle" to "Arudou Debito" in the process. Between 1999 and 2001, in order to protest against the "Japanese Only" policies of an Onsen chain in Hokkaido, Debito led a group of multinational group of 17 people to attempt walk-ins to test the firmness of these policies. Arudou returned to Yunohana in October 2000 for a third time as a naturalized Japanese citizen, but again was refused entry. Arudou and two co-plaintiffs, Kenneth Lee Sutherland and Olaf Karthaus, in February 2001 then sued Earth Cure in district court pleading racial discrimination, and the City of Otaru for violation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a treaty which Japan ratified in 1996. On November 11, 2002, the Sapporo District Court ordered Earth Cure to pay the plaintiffs ¥1 million each (about US$25,000 in total) in damages.[24] The court stated that "categorically refusing all foreigners constitutes irrational discrimination, exceeds social norms, and amounts to an illegal act."The Sapporo District and High Courts both dismissed Arudou's claim against the city of Otaru for not creating an anti-discrimination ordinance. It stated that "issues such as which measures to take, and how to implement them, are properly left to the discretion of Otaru."[19] The Sapporo High Court upheld these rulings on September 16, 2004,and the Supreme Court of Japan denied review on April 7, 2005."

− − Something like that?

ChemicalG (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whether it's approriate or not would depend on the quality of the sourcing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ChemicalG and Oddexit seem to be confused about the norms and sourcing requirements for a list of works, which is outlined at MOS:WORKS. To quote: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." The list of works needs to be expanded and reformatted, not deleted. The only content that should not be included would be works that are unverifiable. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No confusion. Read the RfC. The WP:Consensus on the matter was clear. Oddexit (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the body text of the article, not lists of works. Let's keep that to a separate discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

delete? merge?

Hello all,

I believe that Debito is notable only for one event, i.e. the Otaru Onsen case.

Everything else listed in this wiki biography are not really "notable" - there are some cases where his name is mentioned in third party sources, but these are hardly noteworthy events.

His books aren't noteworthy, his career isn't really noteworthy, his blog (whilst well known) isn't really noteworthy either.

I would say that the only "noteworthy" event would be that Otaru Onsen case (which had other plaintiffs as well).

Furthermore, Debito himself was concerned about the criticism he was subjected to on this BLP.

Would it not make sense merging some of the content to an "Otaru Onsen Case" entry, or perhaps deleting this BLP, or simplifying the content to include more relevant, verifiable information? (I know it has been discussed before, but I think some parts warrant further discussion...)

ChemicalG (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus at the previous AfD was very clear. It has been 7 years since then but notability is not temporary so any new nomination should address why you think those previous 15 !votes to keep were incorrect. You may wish to review the guideline on notability because the term "notable" has a specific (and somewhat non-intuitive) meaning here. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed it - other than the Otaru Onsen case, I don't see why the subject of this BLP is "notable". ChemicalG (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's your one !vote. I hope you don't think it's length or frequency gives your !vote any more weight. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"activist for foreign-born rights in Japan"?

Dr Arudou, is this acurate? I don't monitor your activities closely, but I could've sworn your activism was for foreigners' rights in general, and not just those of naturalized Japanese. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is inaccurate. Thank you for asking. I would advise you what to say but then that would turn into accusations that it was changed at my request. You see the dilemma? Things are inaccurate, but if they get changed with (or without) my advisement in a way that could somehow be construed positively it somehow becomes meat puppetry. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If something is inaccurate based on the sources it *should* be changed. But no Wikipedian is supposed to ask the subject what is truth based on his verbal cues. That's original research. They should do what everyone does on Wikipedia and read the reliable sources and document what they say per policy, and not have to worry that the subject will publicly attack the journalist, the legal scholar, or the Wikipedia contributor for allegedly misquoting him, or misrepresenting him, or somehow being out to get him every time a reliable source is added. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is relevant here. Oddexit (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll see Oddexit's Aesop and raise her a Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". She must think Wikipedians have short memories: The record shows that each one of these reliable sources has been misquoted/misinterpreted for this BLP by Oddexit, be they the journalist (Section 2.1.2), the legal scholar, or the Wikipedia contributor (mostly Oddexit herself). No matter. I'll always be around to remind everyone. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Oddexit: I wasn't about to change it based on his word, but his word gives us a basis with which to track down sources (or not) to confirm (or not) the statement. I mean, seriously Oddexit, my edit history shows I'm more than well-versed in how and how not to source an article, so let's lay off accusations of OR. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at what I wrote just after I posted and said to myself, "Maybe I should reword it to say 'we' instead of a general 'you' unless @Curly Turkey: gets the impression that I was responding to his comment and not Arudoudebitos." Then I stopped myself. I probably should have. I'm sorry about that. Oddexit (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Name

Question 1:

"he changed his name to Debito Arudou. To allow his wife and children to retain their Japanese family name, he adopted the legal name Arudoudebito Sugawara"

Okay, so does this mean he had his name legally changed to Debito Arudou, and then had Sugawara legally appended to it? Or is the first statement merely redundant? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Question 2:

"To allow his wife and children to retain their Japanese family name, he adopted the legal name Arudoudebito Sugawara"

Did this happen before or after naturalization? If after, then I assume the children's names weren't changed. Clarification please? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I know what happened, obviously. But am I allowed to tell you without violating WP:OR? Probably the only source(s) you're going to find will be something I wrote, and I don't know how you'll resolve that under WP:SELFPUB. That's why this BLP is such an Augean stable -- so many WP rules have been bent over the years to shoehorn in wrongly-sourced and gossipy factoids like these. Thank you for trying to clean things up. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to copyedit, but I can't "fix" certain things unless I'm sure they're broken. I'd like to just reword the first to something like "changed his name to Debitoarudou Sugawara, combining a Japanese version of his birth name with his wife's surname" or something and leave it at that, without the confusing explanations. Have you had more than one name change? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. From David Christopher Schofill at birth to David Christopher Aldwinckle at adoption to Sugawara Arudoudebito at naturalization to Arudou Debito after divorce, All legal changes. (NB: My first name was never Debitoarudou as you rendered). Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Another question

"In 1993, Arudou joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, Hokkaido, where he taught courses in business English and debate. He was an associate professor until 2011 when he left the university."

Does this mean Arudou was an associate professor from 1993 to 2011, or that he joined the University in 1993 and had become an associate professor by the time he left? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of publications

I don't know how I missed that these pages had their own Talk page for discussing changes. Anyway, I've made two changes to Debidou's page, both have been immediately reversed by CurlyTalk who first recommended I get a consensus, then he accuses me of... I don't know, bias or something.

Anyway - the first change was to add back in text related to a book review by Kris Kosaka of Arudou's fiction work, In Appropriate. The review appeared in Japan Times. The original text from the review had been taken out by CurlyTalk a few days ago, but it the reference link to the actual review was left in place - still there, actually; I merely put back in text from the review. This edit was immediately reversed by CurlyTalk.

If the consensus is that the bad review is 'inappropriate' (sorry...) then good reviews are also not appropriate, so I removed the glowing reviews for his other works, but left in, for example, the sourced notice that his Otaru onsen book has been included as 'recommended reading' on Japan by Japan's Policy Research Institute. This edit was also immediately revised, stating that I had 'removed citations' - if I did so, it was in error.

In any event: if a bad review is not relevant, than neither is a good review, and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of marketing his books.

I have no intention of starting an edit war here, so could others weigh in please. Thanks.

GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree. Unless the reviews are themselves notable, or there is a variety, then they are probably all UNDUE. I only took out the one bad review because it was dominating that paragraph—more information was given panning the book from a single review than describing it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe someone can offer a suggestion on a shorter sentence that captures the gist of the review that matches the length and gist of the others, then. Everyone so far seems to agree that all three reviews come from reliable sources, are verifiable, and are attributed. If the inclusion criteria for this article becomes line-by-line notability, this is where it gets interesting. Oddexit (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Having a single source offering a good or bad review is the problem in itself, not whether the sources are RSes. The length of the sentence I cut was a particular problem, but cutting it down wouldn7t solve the fundamaental problem: why is this one review worth mentioning? The source establishes the notability of the book, but the review doesn't establish the notability of itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I would agree, and think all the reviews etc related to his publications - including the 'recommended reading' note (which isn't sourced that I can see) should all be removed. I think a case could probably be made for removing publications not related to why Wiki thinks Debito is notable - are his English teacher materials, opinion pieces in Japan Times, Fodor 'travel guide' articles and his self-published novella, notable or even relevant? I would also question the 'academic paper' description of a 'paper' published online at The Asia-Pacific Journal; it's nothing more than a self-penned write-up of the Otaru onsen case with no sources other than a link to his blog and advertisements for his books. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This is why what you're suggesting gets interesting, Curley Turkey. If it all comes down to multiple independent reliable sources covering someone's activities to establish what gets mentioned in this article and what doesn't (for consistency and fairness), then there is a lot about this subject outside of his activism that is technically not "notable." Incidentally, the WP:CONSENSUS view of the RfC above stated: "Consensus is that this article should not contain a list of all the subject's academic publications, but arguments can be made for including any given publication if it is deemed important enough in the context of the article." It's only one small step from the WP:CONSENSUS view on academic listings to removing anything that's not notable about his life. Oddexit (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Oddexit, "It all comes down to multiple independent reliable sources covering someone's activities to establish what gets mentioned in this article" is not what I wrote, is it? A single citation is needed to mention the existence of something (a book, an event), but multiple sources would be required to cover interpretation of the event (unless the source itself is a summing up of interpretations). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend something like:

Arudou wrote a book about the 1999 Otaru hot springs incident. Originally published in Japanese, an expanded English version, Japanese Only — The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan (ジャパニーズ・オンリー―小樽温泉入浴拒否問題と人種差別 Japanīzu Onrī - Otaru Onsen Nyūyoku Kyohi Mondai to Jinshu Sabetsu?) (ISBN 4-7503-2005-6), was published in 2004 and updated in 2006. A 10th anniversary ebook edition of the book was published in 2013.

Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants and Immigrants to Japan (ニューカマー定住ハンドブック?), co-authored by Arudou with Akira Higuchi (樋口 彰?), was published in 2008 as a bilingual guide for foreigners in Japan on a variety of issues including visas, starting a business, securing jobs, resolving legal problems, and planning for the future from entry into Japan to death. An updated 2nd edition was published in 2012, and an e-book version was released in 2013.

PS: How do I properly indent??

PSS: I also wonder if a case could be made that the Handbook blurb is not relevant either - according to Wiki he's not notable as an author, nor is he notable or even recognized as any kind of 'expert' on issues noted in the book. Further, the book was co-authored, not written by himself.

I think the whole publications section should be removed - as per the consensus view of the RfC above - but the book about the incident is probably relevant enough to add, using the short paragraph given above, in the main body text about the Otaru onsen incident. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You can indent but putting one or more colons before your statement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be removed... the content isn't really notable. I would also argue the subject of the BLP itself isn't particularly notable, but that's another issue. ChemicalG (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Notability has been established—the books have been reviewed—but it has also been established that a list of books by the subject of the article doesn't require sourcing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• There seems to be a lot of confusion around here about notability, which is perhaps not surprising, as on Wikipedia it has a specific meaning that is slightly different from the general concept of notability. Notability on Wikipedia refers purely to the decision on whether we should have an article on a given topic or not - if a subject is notable then we can have an article about it, but if not, then we can't. After we have made the decision about whether to have an article or not, notability usually plays no further role in deciding the article's content. The content itself is decided by our content policies of verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and by the biographies of living people policy. So "the content isn't notable" isn't a good reason to exclude content from an article. That's not to say we can just include anything, though - for example, see WP:WEIGHT for one of the usual reasons to exclude verifiable content. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would recommend that we include only the Onsen incident book (Japanese Only), as per the text suggested above; I think it's the only item that meets all the criteria. Personally I'd also move the 'Japan Times columnist' blurb to Background section; regular columns aren't what I would consider 'publications' in this sense of the word, but I'll defer to others. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's as if you didn't even read what Mr. Stradivarius wrote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Mr.Stradivarius noted the guidelines to follow in terms of the content of the article, which included biographies of living people. WP:NPF of WP:BLP says that for people who are relatively unknown (even if notable enough for their own article), the article should only (emphasis in original) include material relevant to the person's notability. I doubt any would argue that Arudou is notable as an author of fiction (and it was self-published), or that he is notable as an expert on business/legal issues for foreigners in Japan, or that he is notable as a travel guide author, or that he is notable as a sometimes columnist for a minor English-language newspaper in Japan. He is notable according to Wikipedia because of the Otaru onsen incident and resulting lawsuit, and for that reason his book on the incident and lawsuit is relevant, IMHO. The consensus was that the article should not include a list of academic publications (and I have doubts that the Japan Focus paper would qualify). Everything else is either self-published or not relevant to the person's notability, the point being here that he's relatively unknown (and is really only notable for the one event) GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPF doesn't apply here, at least not for the things for which Debito has actively been campaigning for - see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual for more on that. Even if NPF did apply, it's not like it is only Otaru Onsens that has enough coverage in reliable sources to survive a deletion discussion - e.g. Debito's Mr. James campaign got coverage in Zeit and the San Francisco Chronicle. Also, the consensus in the RfC was that there shouldn't be a list of all academic publications, not that there shouldn't be a list of academic publications at all - there's an important difference there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Mr. Stradivarius for posting a link to that essay on low-profile individuals. I enjoyed reading that. Regarding the consensus, the summary never mentions anything about a revised list at all. What it specifically said was that "arguments can be made for including any given publication if it is deemed important enough in the context of the article." That doesn't mean that anything properly sourced can't be included or deleted in this article, either, of course. It just means that one can have a collegial discussion about it on the talk page. Second, if we agree to be consistent and fair in what we're discussing right now, it's necessary to acknowledge that the subject does not meet the WP:DUE criteria for a lot of things in this article. One puzzle right away is why two EFL textbooks are prominently mentioned at the beginning of the publications section. No independent third party with editorial control mentioned these textbooks, let alone reviewed them. They're not on Amazon.co.jp or Amazon.com for sale. They're not listed on Worldcat. I wasn't even able to find a copy to read at the National Diet Library of Japan or the Library of Congress per WP:V. More importantly, they're obviously not relevant to the subject's activism per WP:CONSENSUS -- the reason that we have an article in the first place. I can see the argument for including some limited publications that meet WP:V, WP:DUE, etc., and are relevant to the subject's notability as an activist. But EFL textbooks and travel guides that no one covered, for starters, have nothing to do with activism. So, we come back to the age-old question with WP:FRINGE articles like this: which facts get included and which don't? That's why I think this becomes so interesting. Oddexit (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Having to do with activism" is not a criterion for including content on this article. The RfC at the top of this page is a direct answer to your question, "Should a BLP contain an indiscriminate list of the BLP's own publications?" and says nothing about editorial control. Why are you bringing up the guideline on fringe theories? VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's resolve this issue: What is Debito Arudou notable for?

Hello WP editors. May I suggest that we get to the root of an issue:

We have already established through more than one AfD that Debito Arudou (let me refer to myself in the 3rd-person abstract) is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia entry.

The question now becomes, what is Dr. Arudou notable for?

• a) Is it because of one lawsuit, the Otaru Onsens Case, between 1999 and 2005? Therefore, as has been argued above, only reliably-sourced materiel related to that event can be included in this BLP?
• b) Is it because of his “activism”? (however defined) that went on before (yes, long before: source, source), during, and after the Otaru Onsens Case, which can be referred to within a BLP when covered by reliable sources and media? (And if so, where is the threshold — one article? two? three? six? seven? nine? — before we no longer have counterclaims of WP:UNDUE etc.?)
• c) Is it because of what he has built up with his decades of research (citation record here and here), publications, archiving (yes, Debito.org itself has been covered by plenty of reliable media, source source), and, yes, activism? Are they not in some ways related, mutually-reinforcing, and complementary? Further, can't BLPs breathe over time to accommodate new research directions published in reliable sources?

How you approach the issue will probably determine which category you fall into, and how much cutting or inclusion you would argue for (it's obvious where I stand). But I bring this up because 1) if any of these categories can be resolved through WP guidelines in the first place, that would be helpful; 2) the lack of clarity is encouraging editorial monomania, and 3) we are essentially, after more than ten years of this BLP and eight archives of this Talk Page, not all that much closer to a good BLP in this case.

Let’s resolve this one crucial issue so we can move forward. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 00:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's clear that the man is known (and written up) for more than the onsen case, so any attempts to remove reliably-sourced information about other things should be rejected outright. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The subject is notable because he meets the requirements listed at WP:BASIC. Once that requirement is met, as Mr. Stradivarius notes above your question becomes irrelevant with respect to the content of this article. The relevant key policies related to content are WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, which resolve issue a). But in regards to b) and c), the question should be irrelevant if the relevant key policies related to content are WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. But then why is so much time spent on this Talk Page (and I mean, just on this one, without going through the copious archives) on issues such as WP:UNDUE, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and even WP:FRINGE, especially when it is used to argue against inclusion of published (and cited and reported-on) materials? Further, why are the editors (some SPAs) that keep arguing those issues editing this BLP? How do we forestall the criticism that by suggesting anything noteworthy, I am trying to change this BLP into another version of my resume? Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As to the last question, if someone is persistent enough, there may never be an end to it. If there are indeed SPAs, they get blocked if caught. I'd be careful about making such accusations (or hinting at it), though, without strong evidence—otherwise you'll just paint yourself as the guy who accuses everyone of sockpuppetry, and people will stop taking your allegations seriously. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Of the four you mentioned, WP:UNDUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV; WP:ACADEMIC is a notability guideline and has no further relevance; WP:NOTPROMOTION would apply if you began editing the article in a promotional manner; and we are still waiting for Oddexit's explanation on how WP:FRINGE could possibly apply. As for your last question, we have a shortcut method for dealing with problem editors in specific sensitive topics (including biographies of living persons) called discretionary sanctions. Simply being a single-purpose account is not a problem behavior, though - provided that they are careful to "avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral". VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the current publications section - without any reviews, good or bad - is definitely an improvement. Do we have a source for the EFL textbooks? I tried to add some, but can find absolutely nothing for these; I did an ISBN search using the ISBN numbers at debito.org, but it comes back saying the books don't exist. Regarding the academic papers, I don't know how much academic cred Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus should get, but in any event the article Arudou has posted there now is not an academic paper in any traditional sense of the word, it's a write-up of his Otaru onsen case, no sources, and the only link is to his blog and advertisements for his books. The article says he's been published in 'other peer-reviewed journals in Asia-Pacific studies', but there's no source for this. I think the Japan Focus bit should be removed and instead sources should be added for the other 'peer reviewed' research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandTheftVotto (talk • contribs) 08:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the EFL textbooks at WorldCat—perhaps that's enough reason to leave them out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're being thorough...Does the 'Japan Policy Research Institute recommended reading' bit constitute a review / recommendation? Another review by a review site was more critical of the book; if that shouldn't be added perhaps the JPRI comment should also be removed. On the other hand it's a relatively cut-and-dry 'fact' as given, so perhaps the only thing that needs to be done is adding a proper source (the current source is clearly wrong). Actually many of the cites and sources are wrong. The FRANCA related cite seems to be wrong/missing. The 'Japan Today' link is to his blog and thus probably not appropriate. I updated the Japan Times link for the article noting his protest letter on being stopped at the Shin-Chitose Airport, but the link to the 'press conference covered by a local TV program' is not correct, and in any event if the only reason for the cite is for the press conference, that was already noted in the Japan Times article. After reading up on it a bit, I'm somewhat concerned about the Shin-Chitose news item: it appears the incident was created by Arudou himself: by his own accord he hung around the exit area, recorder on as he waited to be stopped, and he had a reporter at Hokkaido Shinbun lined up beforehand to take the story. That his press conference was picked up by the newspaper that runs his column isn't that surprising; I wish we had a more neutral cite, such as for the Mr. James story. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how notable the HOT I is, but I imagine that could be cut, and the rest could be cut our trimmed without losing anything of vital importance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Debito, you mention SPA - but isn't your account single purpose? I only see contributions to your own wiki page from your account... Also, doesn't evidence suggest that you are responsible for sock puppets / meat puppets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.164.89 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Are you making a point or just stirring the pot? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's be fair here. I spent some time over the weekend reading over the archives for this page and Arudou certainly does appear to accuse everyone and anyone that changes the page in a way that is not to his liking of 'personal animosity' or having some other bias. That seems a bit at odds with the clear COI Arudou has with this page (which is completely understandable of course), fairly clear evidence of sock puppetry/meat puppetry, and the irrefutable evidence that he's been untruthful his own comments here, such as feigning to have absolutely 'no idea who Yuki Honjo is'. I wish the comment wasn't basically an anonymous drive-by....but the poster has a point. Pot, kettle, etc etc.GrandTheftVotto (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is the truth, nothing more. Feel free to interpret that any way you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.164.89 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)