Jump to content

Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

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

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

  • Comment - Sweet Jesus Christ, that's not a reliable source. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mind explaining why it isn't (and/or rebutting points made by other users above)? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • (sighs) Very well. First, go read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. In my opinion, it's a questionable source. The fact that some other papers have referred to it's reviews neither makes it peer-reviewed, nor means that material is attributable or verifiable, nor means that there is editorial control, nor means that it is unlikely to be libelous, and finally, did these papers use that website for discussion of Debito Arudou? If not, then the point is meaningless. Second, you *have* read WP:BLP, right? The part about sources? The part that says "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link"? Look. It's self-published. ALL of it. It appears no where else. There's no value in including it, it's pissing the person it's written about off, the website is defunct and most staggeringly, it's clear the people involved (the people who wrote on the site and the subject) do NOT have a congenial or positive relationship and that the information may very well be biased. Third, and finally, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a third party -- a news paper, the Japan Times, whatever -- picked up and wrote an article about this subject to full editorial control. THEN you could use it as a source, very carefully, and you'd pretty much have to attribute it to "The JT claimed in an article based on the claims of so and so at Japanreview.net that blah blah blah"...you see how that sounds? Weak. Unreliable. That's my opinion, based on my reading of the site (junk) and the policy in question. Others may have a different viewpoint or my interpretation may be off on the policy and I am open to discussion. But I can't see that as reliable source in the context of this BLP. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Question: so if the people involved have a congenial or positive relationship and the information may very well be biased in that direction, is it OK then? If not, then the positive review of "Japanese Only" should also go. Further, while the relationship between the parties is currently anything but good, I have seen no evidence that the review was written out of animosity. Indeed, Honjo prefaces her review with statements of sympathy for and support of Arudou's stated aims. The argument that it is "pissing the person it's written about off" should be irrelevant. First, the review wasn't "written about" Arudou, it is a review of his book and the failings thereof. Secondly, how can NPOV be maintained if only POVs favorable to the subject of a biography get used? Do that and you end up with the Citizendium entry on Arudou, which he got to pre-approve and which is just as flawed (in the other direction) as the bio here on Wikipedia was. As for "defunct", Japanreview.net may not currently be continuously updated, but it is still readily accessible. If "not currently updated" = "defunct" = "not usable as a reference", what do you do for out-of-print books? Can they not be referenced as a resource since they are not "current"? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.231.56.33 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict above) Thanks very much for the comments. They were interesting. If you don't mind me asking because several things were unclear to me.
“..did these papers use that website for discussion of Debito Arudou?” Do you think we should remove all published book and film reviews from other encyclopedia articles if journalists don’t specifically discuss that particular review? Admittedly, I’ve never heard that point argued anywhere on Wikipedia before. I’m thinking that some people would love your idea if it were ever raised at the Village Pump for other articles. Others editors not so much, especially the WikiProject Film crowd. What's clear is that there are plenty of FA-rated and GA-rated articles on Wikipedia that contain film and book reviews not necessarily discussed in the popular press.
"It's self-published. ALL of it. It appears no where else." Do you mean the reviews or the website or both or what? I’m not sure I’m following you. The reviews are sometimes re-published in various publications. It specifically states that on the review index. And after some checking, Factiva and elsewhere confirms the existence of many of these reviews and republished articles in places like Japantoday.com, etc. (In fact, here’s one: [1]).
“it's pissing the person it's written about off…” Unfortunately, yes. But I’m wondering if if that’s a criterion for removing any and all sentences from an encyclopedia entry if a subject does not endorse the sourced comments? This is what Citizendium apparently does. Where is the line between an “approved biography” and an autobiography and an independent biography in that instance? And what is the consensus on Wikipedia for that issue, overall? I don't have the answer, but it's not clearly addressed in the policies either.
“the website is defunct…” Mr. Arudou keeps stating that, too. It’s a strange assertion. Where on JapanReview does it state that it is defunct? For all anyone knows, the editors could publish something tomorrow, the next day, or next year. In any case, even if it were true, Wikipedia policies make it clear that a “defunct” publication does not preclude citation otherwise we would avoid libraries and offline sources entirely.
"It's clear the people involved (the people who wrote on the site and the subject) do NOT have a congenial or positive relationship..." where did you read that exactly? It seems to be true (I agree) that Mr. Arudou does have problems with people who are perceived as publicly disagreeing with any of his arguments based on his comments on his own website -- and that's certainly not limited to any perceived disagreements by comments made by editors of JapanReview. All one needs to do is read his objections on his website regarding the Journal of Japanese Studies and its Harvard University reviewer Mark Ramseyer, the Japan Times and Gregory Clark, Issho-Kikaku and Tony Laszlo, JapanZine and reviewer Patrick Rial, not to mention I don't know how many letters-to-the-editor of the Japan Times, among other cases, to see that the latest objection is not an isolated incident of perceived unfairness about issues Mr. Arudou holds dear. That's neither good nor bad; it's a simple statement of fact. And let's be clear: I'm okay with that (Japan is a free country), but where is the verifiable evidence that the editors of JapanReview do not have a "congenial or positive relationship" with Mr. Arudou? Where did they publish those remarks or is it reasonable to infer that the assumption is based entirely on the fact that a credentialed reviewer with publishing trackrecord made both positive and negative remarks in her nuanced review and Mr. Arudou (once again) objected vociferously?
“That's my opinion, based on my reading of the site (junk)…” This is also an interesting comment. Are you specifically saying that all of JapanReview is “junk”? You might be right, but why? What specifically is "junk" about it? J Readings (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Logicalpremise, I was hoping for logical argument from consensus-backed premises, but instead got thoroughly confused. I wrote a draft response, but was preempted by J Readings who wrote much the same thing but rather better; so most of my draft response goes into the bit bucket. Let's consider for a moment the article on Sarah Palin: it's vigorously edited by a couple of editors who seem extraordinarily keen to find and remove hints of any blots on Palin's record (who indeed edit not unlike the way in which I'd expect paid party operatives to edit), yet it manages to include such ingredients as "Palin's performance in her third interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket[169][170[171]"; we can be sure that Palin wouldn't be happy with these, and that "bias" of some kind could be alleged by Palin's defenders. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On what are you requesting comment? I thought that the question preceding this RfC was of whether the (unfavorable) review in this website should be described/summarized and linked to. If you're asking about this, then I don't understand how the suitability as a "source" (in the normal sense hereabouts of that word) of this website is an issue. It's not as if the site is the claimed source for some factual assertion within the article, such as that Arudou has a healthy Swiss bank account, or has a PhD that's otherwise gone unnoticed, or is really Canadian, or has done important work as a simultaneous interpreter. The question might instead be: Does a review posted on this website deserve to be taken seriously (or does its insignificant place of publication disqualify it even before it's read)? If this is the question here too, then I may have a pertinent comment. But if it isn't the question, I don't understand what the question is. And perhaps I'm not alone in being mystified. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hoary, "The question might instead be: Does a review posted on this website deserve to be taken seriously (or does its insignificant place of publication disqualify it even before it's read)?" - that is the question. We know the review exists; the question is should Wikipedia take the review seriously. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Then perhaps it depends on what one does with it. Supposing that a review of similar unfavorableness and length had appeared in the NYRB. This itself would be worth saying; I mean, "The NYRB published a long and generally unfavorable review of the book by Somebody Somebody[note]" would be informative. Rightly or wrongly, japanreview.net is nowhere near so well known, so a reader seeing "The Japan Review published a long and generally unfavorable review of the book by Somebody Somebody[note]" would probably draw a blank. Now, I haven't read the book and offhand know nothing of Honjo's competence as a reviewer; however, her review (although perhaps prolix and otherwise somewhat over the top) is reasoned and detailed. Before taking seriously any factual revelation on this website about Arudou himself, I'd have to take that site seriously; to take the review seriously, my requirements are much less stringent. What's written in the article -- namely, "Yuki Allyson Honjo criticized 'Japanese Only' on Japanreview.net.[29] Noting her sympathy for his plight and that her co-editor Peter Scalise had vetted a draft copy, she concluded 'This book does not do the thought-provoking and complex topic of racial integration and cultural tolerance justice....'" -- is uninformative, however. Honjo criticized it on japanreview.net for what? The reader should be told this, simply and succinctly. Of course, none of this would be necessary if an unquestionably respected medium (e.g. the NYRB) had published a review of a similar level of detail, but I don't think that anybody has so far offered anything beyond this and an article in the Japan Times that comments on the matter written up in the book but that only briefly describes the book itself. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit surprised there is so much discussion about this source. Self-published website, plain and simple. That Arudou submitted his MS to one of the site operators doesn't change WP standards. BLP articles have very stringent requirements, and Japanreview.net honestly doesn't meet them. Are those persons doing reviews on Japanreview.net established experts 'on the topic of the article' whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication? That the review was picked up by the Yomiuri , IHT, & Asian WSJ is interesting, but it's a type of laundering and doesn't change WP standards.Statisticalregression (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Statisticalregression. Long time no speak. It's good to hear from you. Are those persons doing reviews on Japanreview.net established experts 'on the topic of the article' whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication? This is an interesting question: Does a book reviewer have to be a published biographer of Debito Arudou in order for a book review to stay in this article? If so, Donald Richie and Jeff Kingston might be in trouble. Should we disallow economists' reviews because they published a review of a work of political science? Or an anthropologist's review because s/she published a review of something else? I'm not so sure. In any case, Honjo is clearly a published academic on Japan through a few respected academic publishers. Apparently, her book dealt with lawsuits, civil society and the Japanese press. What was Debito Arudou's book about? Lawsuits, civil society, and the Japanese press. Should we remove Donald Richie's reviews because he hasn't published a book on lawsuits, civil society and the Japanese press? I wouldn't argue that, but then again I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with either review. J Readings (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi JR, your questions are intriguing (and in the future I think we can deliberate on them) but first, I think we can all agree on one thing to start, that being Japanreview.net is a self-published website. What's driving me to make a comment here is that although Japanreview.net is in a different website format, my perspective is that, functionally, it's indistinguishable from a blog. (as a quick aside I am at first glace surprised that parts of this article use Debito's blog for a reference...but that's a different issue). Let me list what I see going on here:
1) We have the subject of the article saying he feels the source and material are do not belong in the article
2) The source is self published
3) That it's merits pertaining to the exceptional requirements for a self published source is in question.
My understanding of WP Policy which Hoary already quoted (but I will again) that pertain to BLP is that material and the references should be removed from the article until the status of the source has been established. the entire line from WP:BLP:
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
I am an uninvolved editor but I would suggest that those who regularly edit the article take the time to consider the above and keep in mind we have all the time in the world to discuss and come to consensus and there is little reason why we should step into grey areas unnecessarily. The material in question is about a book that was written by the subject of the article which is problematic because it's on a biographical article. If it were on a WP article about the book my opinion might be different but honestly I don't know if I would ever personally use a source like Japanreview.net in any WP article it's not robustly a RS and thus it will likely be brought into question repeatedly. I've already made my comment and voiced my concerns and so I will retire to my bottle of scotch and try not to involve myself for the extent of the bender I am about to embark on. Statisticalregression (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. This is precisely why we need to walk very carefully and choose our words wisely in this discussion. I hope you weren't drinking already when you made the above comments, Statisticalregression, because this is serious. To his credit, Debito Arudou never argued that the book review was "defamatory" or "libelous" (per User:LogicalPremise). Those are extremely strong words that are not taken lightly on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Nor, to his credit, has Mr. Arudou threatened a lawsuit over this issue. Please, let's not resort to intimidation by implying that someone may be threatening legal action or putting words into anyone's mouth during this discussion about such a serious issue. I was going to respond by asking you to clarify what is and is not a blog, etc., whether other sources should be removed that are also strictly internet-based (besides Mr. Arudou's blog), but I'm so taken aback by the first comment, I think it's time for me to stop participating in this discussion for a little while. J Readings (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
JR, I've corrected my wording and apologize to those in the discussion - I had somehow arrived at an incorrect impression of the situation. My assessment of the situation remains unchanged, that it would be far better to err on the side of caution in regards to WP Policy on this. Statisticalregression (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
BLP articles have very stringent requirements They certainly do. [That page] in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research (emphasis added). The question here is about a book review, not biographical material. The review does indeed discuss biographical material to some extent, but this biographical material is what the subject of this article has chosen to publish in the book under review. -- Hoary (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think japanreview.net works very well as the only source for controversial claims - my reading of the above means that I'm veering towards a simple 'no' answer to the question posed, but am reading more, and hoping to be able to help out here a bit... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • But what are the "controversial claims" for which it is being sourced? I see it as the publisher of an unfavorable review of one book. (I don't think anyone has suggested that the article should say that the book is rather poor and source this claim to a review in this website; rather, it's a matter of saying that the book has been reviewed unfavorably and linking to this review.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a publisher. Arudoudebito (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Publisher": one who publishes something. "To publish": to make generally known; to disseminate to the public. Dictionary definitions, by which Japanreview.net can be called a "publisher".Genkimon (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I will agree with J Readings above. Honjo's work re. Japan is known. She may be an equities analyst by trade, but that alone should not disqualify her. Logicalpremise's contention that the review may be biased based on personal animosity cannot be dismissed out of hand, but if that invalidates the source then the other review linked to should also be disqualified for the same reason. Kingston makes his animosity towards critics of Arudou and bias for Arudou abundantly clear. Kingston would also run afoul of Statisticalregression's "done work in the relevant field" criterion. He's a historian, not a sociologist, cultural anthropologist or human rights lawyer. I think the only way to make everyone "happy" (not that such should be a goal mind you) and preserve NPOV would be to say Arudou wrote a book called "Japanese Only" and leave it at that - no discussion or reviews of the book at all.Genkimon (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to get into a tinkling contest over the qualifications of authors to comment on a work or works by a subject, you're really going to have an endless debate. If you're going to compare Honjo to Kingston, it's clear who comes out on top. Honjo's only book is "Japan's Early Experience of Contract Management in the Treaty Ports (Meiji Japan)", 2003) http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Experience-Contract-Management-Treaty/dp/1903350085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223447982&sr=8-1, hands up all of you who "know her work on Japan" who read it), a Doctoral thesis on a topic quite unrelated to this current BLP (Meiji-Era Treaty Port contracts??). And she hasn't done any published original or vetted research on a related field to this BLP since then either. Kingston, a department head at Temple University Japan and recognized academic in the field, has two important books out, the most recent being "Japan's Quiet Transformation: Social Change and Civil Society in the 21st Century (Asia's Transformations)" (Paperback - Oct 28, 2004), and as an academic he's still doing relevant (and genuinely published) research to how Japanese society is changing and internationalizing (both topics very much dovetailing with this BLP). You're comparing the financial analyst with the published and respected academic in a related field; guess who has more credibility. That is, if you really need to compare them.
You don't. Again, avoid the tinkling contest because it muddies the argument. Kingston is respected enough to get his review of a work related to the BLP subject published in a fact-checked and established respectable newspaper. Honjo did not. And she could not. It only could get onto her self-published website. The point is, it doesn't matter. Japanreview.net is not a publication. Use real genuine-source publications and there's no issue here. Arudoudebito (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I take it that you're assuming that Yuki Allyson Honjo tried to publish the review somewhere else. Did she mention that somewhere on JapanReview? I couldn't find it, and I've looked over that entire book review and the letters-to-the-editor page. In any case, I just want to quickly point out two ironies. The first is that both Yuki Honjo's book and Jeff Kingston's book were both put out by the exact same publisher: RoutledgeCurzon.[2] [3] The second irony is that the book Mr. Arudou cherishes (and perhaps deservedly so), Japan's Quiet Transformation: Social Change and Civil Society in the 21st Century (Asia's Transformations), cites JapanReview.net in the bibliography. I would ask if Dr. Kingston thought that JapanReview was not a useful and reliable source for commentary on books, why would he put it in his bibliography? J Readings (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Japanreview.net is not a publication. Use real genuine-source publications and there's no issue here." That may be an option. However, in that case the entire biography would need to be rewritten as about 50% of the sources listed in the footnotes are not "publications".Genkimon (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Bingo! Now you're getting it! And that's how badly-sourced this BLP has been for years now! Arudoudebito (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, but almost all of the "bad sources" are your site or your writings on other sites. Is all of this information in either of your two books so it can be reattributed to a "real" publication?Genkimon (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Give me an example and I'll give you a real source. Just belay the talk that I'm trying to write my own BLP, everyone, or that my very presence in this debate constitutes COI, okay? Arudoudebito (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes 2 through 4, 9 through 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 33 would all need replacing if we were to accept your definition of "publication". But I think the definition you are using is flawed. If accepted at face value, no self-published book would be acceptable either, would it? Nor could personal correspondence be used as a reference for anything, as it is not "published", "fact checked" or "peer reviewed", and yet scholars use those all the time.Genkimon (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Scholars also do "original research", which according to the rules of the game at the top of this Talk Page is not allowed, either. Belay these tangental and obfuscating comparisons. Follow Wikipedia's rules. That means published works as delineated by Wikipedia. How many times must we repeat this to people who are supposed to be "editors" already conversant in the rules of WP?
Alright, do you want me to review the footnotes you mention above? Arudoudebito (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Arudou, do you also object strongly to the sourcing of internet interviews done by Transpacific Radio and "Yamato Damacy" being included in your article? I notice that someone included them in the external links, and you haven't complained about them yet. What are your thoughts on these internet-based sources? J Readings (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There are oddities shortly above. ¶ Genkimon: Nor could personal correspondence be used as a reference for anything, as it is not "published", "fact checked" or "peer reviewed", and yet scholars use those all the time. What scholars do is not an issue. What Wikipedia should do is. Wikipedia has a set of rules that can be criticized as confusing but that don't pretend to emulate what's standard in some kinds of academic work and that are indeed explicitly eschew some of what's standard there. ¶ Arudoudebito: Follow Wikipedia's rules. That means published works as delineated by Wikipedia. How many times must we repeat this [...] No times. Instead of repetition, let's have precision. Are you talking about "WP:RS"? This does not outlaw the use of self-published material, private websites, etc; it instead calls for great care in its use. If you're not talking about "WP:RS", just which page are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Arudoudebito: Japanreview.net is not a publication. Use real genuine-source publications and there's no issue here. It's a publication according to most meanings of "publication", but if you prefer a definition of "publication" that excludes it, fine. "Publication" or not, it published (made available to the wide world) a review of this book. This review seems to be by far the most detailed that has yet come to light. Can you suggest any other reviews that rival it for informativeness about the book? An objection that the reviewer's only substantial publication is a refurbished PhD thesis on a different subject seems bizarre, in that even impeccably academic publications often have books reviewed by young scholars who have published less. And what has this talk of "BLP" got to do with this or any review of this or any book? Or is Honjo or some other writer in japanreview.net being improperly cited for biographical (mis)information, and if so, which biographical (mis)information? -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hoary, I noticed that Honjo is also cited for this paragraph: "In her review of Japanese Only (see "Publications" below), Yuki Honjo praised Arudou's "comprehensive website with thousands of pages of material" as an "excellent resource". Nevertheless, Honjo noted that "Arudou's brand of 'Internet activism'... seems almost quaint" and his lack of engagement with more contemporary protest methods, such as flash mobs, blogs or wikis, essentially means "he remains the old-fashioned pamphleteer." - How much of this is considered to be biographical and how much of this is not considered to be biographical? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A reasonable question. My simple answer is that I can't give a simple answer. However, none of it seems problematic. What would be problematic would be either (A) "Honjo noted that" followed by a discrete factual assertion (and not necessarily a critical one, let alone something that was potentially libelous) rather than an observation or comment, or (B) a claim such as "Arudou's conventional way of using the internet fails to utilize any recent innovation in protesting", sourced to Honjo but presented as a statement of fact rather than as a comment. Incidentally, though I see nothing problematic about the use of comments by Honjo as you present this immediately above, I'm not sure that this stuff is worth putting in the article: It might be deleted as mere commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[break 1 for convenience]

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

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

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

Yes, my argument is that what I see that refers to Japanreview is about the book and not the writer.
I mean no offense to the writer when I say that he doesn't seem particularly interesting: after all, most people who have noteworthy achievements (let alone those who do not) also aren't particularly interesting. Now, if somebody who's thought to be noteworthy has discrete, outstandingly noteworthy achievements, the latter merit and often get their own write-ups. On the one hand, the article on Jon Woronoff for example has virtually no biographical information but does summarize what he wrote; if it said rather more about the books, I'd see it as something of a model for the article on Arudou. If/when Arudou writes a book that's as noteworthy as The Enigma of Japanese Power or Een keerpunt in de vaderlandse geschiedenis then editors will be welcome to create an article on it and to edit down the article on him so that it's more like the one on Karel van Wolferen. (Incidentally, I've not read one book by any of these three.)
Meanwhile, what factual assertions about Arudou himself are being sourced to Japanreview.net? -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hoary, you make a very pertinent observation; there are no factual assertions sourced to Japanreview.net about the subject of this article. So then, why should we even include material sourced to Japanreview.net when nothing from that personal site contributes information to the article about the subject? That someone read Arudou's book, and wrote about it on a personal website is essentially background noise, as is their assessment of Arudou's website. That two of Arudou's books were reviewed by the Japan Times seems just barely relevant to the article but, frankly, that typically would be at the bottom of the article and as just a link to the reviews in an “External links section”. Excerpts of the book reviews, whether positive or negative, is POV in a BLP and honestly those comments might be usable in a WP article about the books which in the case of Arudou's books I am uncertain if they are notable enough to warrant one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I too have no reason to think that Arudou's books are particularly notable. But to the degree that one is notable, it's good to know something about this; and the review in Japanreview.net tells us about it. Take it out, and what do you have? A lawsuit, and, er, such gems as:
In June 2008, Arudou lodged a complaint with the Hokkaidō Prefectural Police, claiming that its officers were targeting foreigners as part of a security sweep prior to the 34th G8 summit in Tōyako, Hokkaidō.[25] This followed an incident in which Arudou refused to show identification when requested by a police officer at New Chitose Airport. After meeting with police representatives at their headquarters, Arudou held a press conference, which he described as the "third-best press conference I’ve ever done".[26] The press conference was covered by a local television station.[27]
Utterly uninteresting, if you ask me. Meanwhile, NACSIS-Webcat tells us that the book by Arudou that didn't come out of the Japanreview.net interview so well is actually shelved in a number of university libraries, so some institutions haven't just thought that it's of note but have even plonked down money for it. Or what else about Arudou is more notable than his books? -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

When does what's written on a personal website become notable in WP and more importantly when does it become strong enough to include on a BLP? Basically never. According to WP Policy “The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material” which means those that want to add the Honjo material need to make a very strong case why this material is acceptable and so far all I have seen is are arguments along the lines of ‘give us a good reason why it shouldn't be added’ which is rather backwards. WP Policy states that on a BLP “Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically.” Tangential comments from a personal website about a book the article's subject wrote are out of place here. Another problem here is the question that since Arudou gave a copy of his manuscript to Paul J. Scalise (the other contributor to Japanreview.net) that somehow this is a acknowledgment of that site's reliability....it's not per WP BLP which states “Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.” the logical inverse of that being “honor by association”. These are both association fallacies that are to be avoided. I don't like wiki-lawyering but WP policy is telling me that “If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.” so that's what I would like to see; a reliable 3rd party published source that backs all the Honjo material plus a clear demonstration of how it's relevant to Arudou's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't like wiki-lawyering...so don't be a wikilawyer. (^_^)
We've covered all of this ground over and over again in various venues, especially this talk page. To be frank, I see no evidence that JapanReview is a "blog." I do see evidence that most editors on this talk page find JapanReview to be an appropriate source with a serious review -- that JapanReview has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage demonstrating its noteworthiness,[4] that it received favorable reviews found in independent 3rd party educational university catalogs, [5] that its reviews, essays and interviews have been referenced for educational purposes,[6] that non-fiction and university publishers link to its reviews and interviews, [7] [8] [9] that it has been referenced in academic books, that its editors are credentialed published scholars and professionals with good reputations and not bloggers at all, that the reviews have been sometimes re-published in various newspapers, magazines, and journals (just like Japan Focus does with its material), and that even this particular review, like so many other reviews on JapanReview (look at its archives), provoked quite a lot of feedback from notable authors, academics and journalists.[10]
But on top of all of the compelling evidence above, we have the real kicker for me. We're asked to believe that Debito Arudou honestly feels that JapanReview is somehow "unprofessional" and therefore “questionable” and "biased." This is the same Debito Arudou who apparently for several years insisted the opposite: "JapanReview is very professional."[11] It seems that Dr. Honjo published one critical and nuanced review of his work with footnotes and page numbers (as many scholarly journals would), and suddenly JapanReview becomes "unprofessional." And if you think for a second this strange turn-around is an isolated incident about issues Mr. Arudou holds dear, it’s really not. Just reviewing his website, it seems that Mr. Arudou has played this tune several times before -- even against The Journal of Japanese Studies where he went so far as to suggest that a respected tenured professor from Harvard University is probably corrupt because he gave an unfavorable book review to a subject Mr. Arudou holds dear.[12]
Sigh.
My personal opinion, like most editors that expressed an opinion, is that the Honjo review was a little lengthy, yes, but certainly not “background noise.” If it matters, I found it both informative and well-referenced, giving the reader a really useful overview of both the subject matter and issues argued in the book. This notion that academic reviews cannot be critical of the subject matter seems bizarre. Most (all?) scholarly reviewers are likely to tell you that critical reviews are actually quite useful because they teach us about how a book's internal logic, evidence and argumentation are consistent or not and how persuasive the arguments are overall.
If Mr. Arudou were taken at his word, we would get the impression that Yuki Honjo were some anonymous troll scratching out meaningless comments about his work on a bathroom stall somewhere. I suspect, based on the evidence, most of us would reasonably disagree in good faith. J Readings (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
JR, I've read your response and I appreciate you taking the time to detail your position. My request was that requirements of WP Policy be addressed and I don't think you succeeded there.
1) "insist on reliable third-party published sources" In response to this you provided eight links [13],[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Now, I can definitely see what you are presenting - 3rd party sources referring to Japanreview.net in a way that you feel establishes the site as a reliable source, but WP is black and white on this issue:
*From Wikipedia:Attribution (essay):
“Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.”
*From Wikipedia:Verifiability (Policy):
“Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer”
*From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Policy):
“Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.”
The same text probably appears elsewhere, but just to be clear I will reiterate what has already been said, the only way that the material from the review could be used in the BLP article on Arudou would be if it was not self published. Noteworthiness and reliability don't even come into play yet. Arudou's opinion of Japanreview.net; positive, negative, or changing as often as the weather is not a factor. The only way (according to WP Policy) that the material from Dr. Honjo's book review can get on a BLP (this one or any other) is if it is in a reliable 3rd party source that is not self-published. Now, JR... if you are disputing that Japanreview.net is not a self published website then please explain any rational you have to support that argument, including evidence that supports that Japanreview is a 3rd party source despite one of the links you provided denoting it as a secondary source [21] and that the publisher of Japanreview.net is the website Japanreview.net, . In the meanwhile, material sourced to the Japanreview.net review should be removed.
2) “a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability” In response to this I have to be honest, your answer is a bit muddled and as far as I can tell you don't directly approach the question. I could give a pretty good guess but I don't see any sense in it until Japanreview.net has been successfully established as a 3rd party source that is not self published.
Now I'd like to address a few of the other things you wrote in your response to my request, JR. I was honestly a bit baffled by you decision to included the material that followed “But on top of all of the compelling evidence above, we have the real kicker for me....”. Even if you were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Arudou is contradiction incarnate, it has no bearing on the topic at hand; the status of the material sourced to Japanreview.net (something that can only be resolved by clearing up any disputes we have regarding the application of WP policy) . If Arudou first praises the NY Times, then later calls it ‘suitable only for lining bird cages’ (not his words, just an example) it has no bearing on whether material from the Times could be used in this article. Your comment about the probability of Arudou's opinion of a Harvard University professor being corrupt seems to be an exaggeration, and honestly has the partiality of your position in question for me. You come off, well....sounding like you have a bone to pick with Arudou. I reserve my last sentence to apologize for all the bold text up above and offer only the explanation for it's use that I think people are seeing the policy it but not reading it or directly addressing it and that were having two separate discussions that are only partially overlapping. Statisticalregression (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Statisticalregression's response, which includes a plain reading of the policy, is on the mark. I never thought the Japan Review review by Honto was that great. J Readings has been prone to exaggerate its reliability and Honjo's status. I'm also sorry I dug up the connections between Japan Review and Arudou. I didn't dig enough, so it was better not to have started that at all. It turns out Honjo and Arudou have some serious issues. When even a published reviewer of books writes a very critical review of a book (that also manages to get some personal shots at the author in there) in a self-published format, after having a contentious personal history with the author, that ought to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Would a newspaper editor aware of all this ask Honjo to write such a review? I think not. That is why we have such policies: do not use self-published materials, even by noted authors, to source a BLP. There is an exception for materials by the subject of a BLP by the way, although there are several criteria to keep in mind. There has been some confusion about this by several people here.
I also have been garnering more doubts as to whether J Readings ought to be taking such interest here. His outburst from earlier was when I started wondering about possible bias. If he were truly concerned about objectivity, he should have taken himself out of the discussion after that, and I fully expected (with good faith) that he would. As an example of a combative, unhelpful response by J Readings, see [22]. Aggressively trying to score rhetorical points to a complaint by the BLP subject of an unreliable source being used is a bad idea. J Readings also steered part of the discussion toward personal issues, rather than the relevant BLP issues, a bad move, especially after the hullaboloo on the subject's user talk page. The focus should always be about getting the article right, not on whether Arudou is consistent or alleging corruption amongst Harvard facultt (issues raised by the most recent comments by J Readings). Of course, J Readings isn't the only one that has mishandled the situation. For example, Denelson83's belligerrent messages to Arudou's talk page undeniably escalated the situation. I also dropped the ball by misunderstanding the policies.
The policy is clear. We've had several 3rd party opinions by now from experienced Wikipedians (not SPAs). Somehow I didn't recall it being this strongly worded with regard to self-published websites (it's been a while since I read it thoroughly and maybe it has underwent some changes in wording since then). Those who try to circumvent it should be aware they are on shaky ground. Not only that, but some self-introspection may be good. If you are taking things personally, take a break. There's not point in arguing this further. It's time to move on and clean up the article. Unfortunately with these marginal biographies, they will never be great articles but we can at least address the BLP issues. --C S (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
C.S., I'm flattered to be singled-out to leave this discussion and I take no offense. I'm sure you mean it only in a good way when you accuse me of "bias" and "exaggeration" and "outbursts" and "looking to score rhetorical points" and the other colorful expressions (^_^). In any case, constructive criticism is always a good thing. Thanks for your thoughts. J Readings (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you've nailed it, J Readings. One niggle, however. So perturbed was I by the charge that Arudou was suggesting corruption among Harvard faculty that I decided to look it up. The relevant part of this seemingly interminable page of Arudou's is surprisingly short and digestible. I don't see suggestion of corruption in it. It is linked (VIA DESCRIPTIONS IN FULL CAPITALS) to three offshoots; I chose one of them and read through this with disbelief and (presumably unintended) amusement, but I still saw no allegation of corruption. (Allegations of a great number of other injustices and indignities, yes.) — Hoary — continues after insertion below
It could be that you and I use different definitions of the word, or that you accidentally skipped over the passage, or you disagree on the recipient of the allegation. My definition of “corruption” is the receipt of cash inducements in order to act dishonestly. Then I read this passage:

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

I have no idea if he's referring to the Journal of Japanese Studies, Harvard University reviewer Mark Ramseyer, the editor John Haley or all of them at the same time. I must have read that several times in disbelief. In any case, it's a surprising allegation to make in print of any of these institutions. J Readings (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Statisticalregression, you want to see a clear demonstration of how [all the Honjo material is] relevant to Arudou's notability. Two or more of us have already shown how her review can be taken seriously as a view of Arudou's book. How relevant is the book to his notability? I don't know, but if the author was right back in 1999 in saying that he wasn't a crank and in suggesting (or so I infer) that he was a "budding academic", I'd expect something worth reading. Presumably the university libraries that bought copies expected this too. Thus a very succinct summary of Honjo's description of the book seems worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
As per CS and Statistical regression above, I decided that certainly we cannot use Honjo. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Kingston review removed as deleting Honjo while leaving Kingston hyperbolic cheerleading would violate NPOV.Genkimon (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Read WP:NPOV very carefully. Nowhere does it say praise must be countered by criticism. If all the reliable sources is "cheerleading", then that's how it is, and we certainly don't remove what the reliable sources say because you don't like that there is praise. --C S (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have read WP:NPOV, and I respectfully disagree. I could care less if there is praise in this article, however if there is only praise as regards the discussion of Arudou's book it would seem to run afoul of the Wiki guideline on weight, which is covered right there on the NPOV page. Also, as I believe was pointed out above, this article is a BLP about a man named Arudou. It is not an entry about his book. Why not just do what Wiki Japan does and say, in effect, "He wrote a book called xxx, isbn yyy. It is on JPRI's recommended list" and leave it at that? If it is so important to discuss "Japanese Only" make a separate wiki article for it.Genkimon (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I already explained why your idea of "weight" is wrong, right below. I even excerpted the relevant section for you. Can you explain why your reasoning is not indeed misguided, as I pointed out below? As for why include a comment on the book, people here have been arguing all along that it is valuable information to have some idea of the reception, especially since it is unlikely we will have a separate article on the book. Of course, some of the editors argued this while proposing to include the Honjo remarks, so perhaps now they will feel differently. --C S (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think our remarks (mine above and yours below) overlapped and we were writing at the same time. You are right, there are two arguments, related, I will separate them into two replies for ease of reading. The problem as I see it, and I think Hoary hit on this below, is that the Wiki policy on reliable sources for the subject of a BLP is being applied to something that is not the subject of a BLP, and that is Arudou's book. True, Honjo's review is on a self-published site, and that technically runs afoul of Wiki policy. But if I may, the policy seems to me to be a clear case of CYA in the case of BLPs: self-published material may potentially be libelous and therefore to protect Wiki, and since it would likely be impossible to get a legal opinion on every third-party self-published website out there, Wiki has a blanket policy of in principle not allowing anything. Certainly understandable. But again, we aren't talking about Honjo's opinion of the subject of the BLP, we are talking about Honjo's opinion of a book written by the subject of the BLP. I have read and re-read that review several times, and see nothing that could be considered as libelous towards Arudou. There are several such comments, however, in Kingston's review, directed at those who disagree with Arudou. His review is far from fair and balanced. Honjo's may not be there either, but I think she's closer. Now, the weight issue: True, Kingston's review is from a reliable source. But it is a book review, and that needs to be remembered. Just because the Japan Times is a "reliable source" does not mean that an opinion piece within it (and that is what a review is) is "reliable", "fact checked" or anything else. That is why there is that disclaimer at the bottom of the page. You mention the "flat Earth" argument below, but that is not what is happening here IMH(umble)O. We have two POVs, an unabashedly biased one from a reliable source and a potentially biased but seemingly reasonably balanced one from a self-published source. I don't think either can be described as being on the same level as the "flat Earthers", nor even as a "minority opinion". Anecdotally (inadmissible I know but...) from my many years (and still counting) of experience in Japan I would say if either was a "minority opinion" of the book it would be Kingston's, not Honjo's. Be that as it may. But by eliminating one POV while leaving the other I feel a bias is being injected that goes against the spirit of NPOV every bit as much as if only critical comments were allowed.Genkimon (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is historically why we have qualified people like Kingston (qualified as in the sense of having a published, checkable record of writings related to the subject) doing book reviews. Because they have more credibility than those who are not qualified (and do not have research in a related field), and they can speak with authority (even if it is construed by some as a "minority view" -- in a specialized field, are we going to disqualify those with expertise just because they don't share the opinions of the alleged majority??). They get published in real sources like newspapers, not self-published websites of Internet persona who demonstrate (in their review, here is a review of the review again: http://www.debito.org/japanreviewcritique.html) unprofessionality and even personal animus towards the author. And they don't usually get accused (except in unreliable snakepits like Wikipedia Talk Pages) of mere "minority views" by anonymous Internet "editors" who cite "anecdotal evidence" (chee whiz!), and who have no name, credential, reliable research track record, or credibility to risk. The only reason why "Genkimon" is making this argument is because "Genkimon" agrees with the thesis of the Honjo review (as witnessed in his/her statement on this Talk Page: "... I have read "Japanese Only" and it is darn near impossible to follow what Arudou is trying to say sometimes), but Kingston praises that same style so highly I found myself wondering if he and I had read the same book"), not the Kingston one.
Sorry, but the opinion of whoever poses as "Genkimon" about the book (or about me, or about anything, really, that has to do with this BLP) doesn't matter because it hasn't been published in a reliable source, as Wikipedia rules dictate. History has long weeded out unsubstantiated and unsourced opinions like these a priori. Wikipedia, alas, still has yet to come up to speed with the ages-old vetting process and proper review of information. Snakepit views like these are preventing that evolution. Arudoudebito (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Arudou, we don't judge content by necessarily who contributes to it, so much as how well it is sourced. While editor behaviors do influence how an article is written, people who edit and read Wikipedia judge articles based on their citations and how they conform to policies, guidelines, and manuals of style. There is an essay comparing Google Knol to Wikipedia, but I won't get into that right now. The "standard" that ought to be followed is found in policies and guidelines. In many cases more marginal articles can be affected by the leanings of a particular group. By submitting this as a request for comment I got the debate the exposure it needed. BLP articles take high priority, and an RFC guaranteed exposure to other users. With C S saying that including Honjo's self-published article would not fit on Wikipedia as per BLP, I don't see how Honjo's work is going to come back (unless some newspaper published it). WhisperToMe (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position here; you are making two arguments. The undue weight one doesn't make sense because NPOV clearly allows only praise when it is representative of all the significant views from reliable sources. The second one is whether it is relevant to include such comments about the book in this BLP. I am open to that argument, but so far, several people have been arguing that it is relevant, and I find that more convincing at the moment. --C S (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
And now I'll address the "should any book review be in this BLP at all". My preference is to say "no". Here's why: Arudou wrote and basically self-published a book about his experiences with the Otaru Onsen case. He also put basically everything in that book up on his website, plus some. There is really no point I can see to linking to reviews of his book when the contents of that book are already being discussed in the main body of the article, with extensive linking to the subject's own site. I really don't see how having reviews of a paperback copy of sections of Arudou's website adds anything to the BLP. The article should be focused on him and what he says/does, not on reviews of his ability to compose prose. Just my 2 Yen, FWIW, YMMV, etc.Genkimon (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If you think this is merely a "self-published book", you are utterly incorrect. If you think it's so easy, let's see you get your book published at Akashi Shoten Inc., Japan's largest and most prominent (in Japanese academic circles especially) publisher of human rights books. You have absolutely no idea how much editorial vetting and fact-checking my books went through. One never fails to goggle at the irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims people will make when they have Internet anonymity and impunity. This is the level of professionality and impartiality of people editing Wikipedia? Then fall Caesar! Arudoudebito (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I see this issue has been raised previously by The359, who considered it undue weight to have praise but no criticism. But s/he is completely misguided as to the notion of "undue weight". A straightforward reading of Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight shows that since all the reliable sources are actually "cheerleading", it is not in fact undue weight to include a representative comment. Indeed, not including such a comment, especially because you feel praise shouldn't be included without an insignificant minority viewpoint you prefer, is a clear sign of POV.
Excerpt from WP:NPOV#Undue Weight:

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

What you and The359 want to do is the equivalent of saying the Earth article should not mention the Earth is round, because it does not discuss the modern support for Flat Earth concept which should be included to "balance" the other view. Since all the reliable sources so far praise the book, that is the "majority" viewpoint. Since nobody has yet demonstrated produced a reliable source that criticizes the book, a negative criticism of the book doesn't even qualify as a viewpoint. Even if you are able to demonstrateproduce one such source, you would then have to demonstrate it is more than a "tiny-minority view". --C S (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The would-be analogy is labored: book evaluations don't start to resemble astronomical theories. I look at the article on Arudou and see a link to one, favorable review of the book. What kind of majority is this? What's meant by "demonstrating" a source? This is a book on a subject of particular interest to (perhaps unjustly) a rather small number of people, and published by a (perhaps unjustly) obscure publisher. (Amazon.co.jp bills it as 【オンデマンド版】 and gives it a sales ranking of 1,507,918; amazon.com doesn't give it a sales rating at all.) It would be most surprising if it were to get more reviews than can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Still, educate me: where is this majority? (Googling brings little sign of the existence of other reviews.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I found a couple other reviews archived on Arudou's site: one by the Daily Yomiuri and the other by Japanzine. They both look ok for use here. (I corrected my wording above; presumably you aren't asking what demonstrating something is not a minority view means). --C S (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It's normal for an author to reproduce favorable reviews of his book on his website. It's rare for an author to reproduce unfavorable reviews (although I have seen this). Given the context of your message, I'd guess that these two reviews are favorable. If they are, this would show that the favorable review in the JT wasn't a fluke (something that anyway nobody had claimed or suggested); however, it doesn't show that there was a favorable majority. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, "Hoary", I guess we have to repeat things several times for it to finally sink in with you: Forgive the caps, but so it comes out real simple: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR A "FAVORABLE MAJORITY" REVIEW (however you might ever ascertain that). It has to be properly sourced, no matter what tack the review takes. That's all. Arudoudebito (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Arudoudebito, my skills in reading may not be as poor as you think. First, I was replying to a remark made above by somebody other than yourself, viz Since all the reliable sources so far praise the book, that is the "majority" viewpoint. Secondly, I am less inclined to read what anybody writes if it's presented in FULL CAPS. -- Hoary (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
About the publisher, it is Akashi Shoten. Akashi Shoten's about page: http://www.akashi.co.jp/menue/English%20Pages/About%20us.htm - And its English page: http://www.akashi.co.jp/menue/English%20Pages/English%20top.htm - The main thing we have to determine is: What is the editorial quality of the publisher? As for some examples, usually we trust university publishers (Texas A&M Press, for instance) while books from publishers that are clearly "vanity press" are treated the same as self-published sources. Usually we use books as sources as long as the publishers exert editorial control over the content. I'm not sure how to determine the editorial control of books from Akashi Shoten. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't suggested that it was vanity-published as the thought had never occurred to me. Akashi is a legit publisher. Among publishers of material in English it's an obscure one: this was and is intended as a statement of a fact that's irrelevant to editorial quality and relevant to the likely number of reviews. Incidentally, (i) university presses in Japan are less important than in the US, with a number of prominent universities having no affiliated publisher of any note; (ii) even US university presses have their lapses; I have a book from the usually good University of California Press that has important content but is about the most egregious example of non-copyediting that I've ever seen from any publisher. -- Hoary (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
As I have noticed about WP:RS, they may be reliable, but they are not infallible. Anyway, in that case can use Japanese Only and treat it like a published-by-a-third party source. Same goes with the book Arudou coauthored with Higuchi. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[break 2 for convenience]

My partial summary of the "argument" so far:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You missed a more than a few things there while chopping up the conversation there, Hoary. The end result was the Admin making a decision to follow WP Policy. I tried to get the discussion to address the relevant WP guidelines and policies but it seemed like those in favor of using the Japanreview.net material were stuck in a loop of trying to prove that JR.net was a reliable source instead of addressing the guidelines and policies head-on and in a direct way. I read the standards, guidelines, and polices about sources and BLP's and applied what I learned about them in my posts to discuss the issue at hand. The text is there for anyone to read as is our discussion. If you are in opposition to the admin's decision there are avenues to address your disagreement although I don't know what the next step would be as I have always accepted admin decisions. Statisticalregression (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
SR, you now say it seemed like those in favor of using the Japanreview.net material were stuck in a loop of trying to prove that JR.net was a reliable source instead of addressing the guidelines and policies head-on and in a direct way. Horse droppings. I was indeed stuck in a loop, because of your curious preference for asking a question a second and further time rather than reading the reply already provided. I have never attempted to prove that japanreview.net is a "reliable source" of factual information (a question that doesn't concern me); it seems that you conflate (a) the assertion of facts (in particular biographical facts) and (b) what is clearly announced as commentary (and on matters non-biographical); you don't seem to have addressed this matter head on, whereas shortly above I explicitly addressed the quotations from policy pages that you presented. WhisperToMe is indeed an administrator, and he raised a question and seems to have got the answer to his own satisfaction, writing As per CS and Statistical regression above, I decided that certainly we cannot use Honjo. He did not announce that the issue was thereby settled. I don't know what the significance is here of being an administrator, but let's suppose for a moment that it is somehow significant. Now, WhisperToMe is indeed an administrator, but there are quite a few others; indeed, I came across one in the mirror just this morning. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing missed by Hoary's summary is my reasoning, which was only described as "wikilawyering", "the wrong answer", "a stepping stone for further rhetoric", and a "convoluted argument". I would characterize the chief difference between what I and Statisticalregression are arguing and what Hoary are arguing is policy. I am making policy based arguments. Hoary devotes a lot of time to he/she likes and finds interesting. Does it matter if s/he likes the Honjo review more than the Kingston one? I think not. Nonetheless, I think there is a remnant of a policy-based argument amidst Hoary's comments. S/he doesn't like the strict interpretation of "reliably sourced info only in BLPs". Hoary's unconvoluted argument is that since the disputed material is about a book that is also about a person (the BLP subject), BLP policy does not apply here. Indeed since the policy doesn't apply, Hoary need not concern himself/herself with whether Honjo is a reliable source and is perfectly free to include non-reliably sourced info into a BLP. That's not wikilawyering?
Now, when I say "Hoary's argument", I'm being a bit unfair. After all, others, including me, were making this very same argument previously! Why did I change my mind? Well, first, I thought it would be a good idea for me to step back, see what other people say (cf WhisperToMe's efforts to get 3rd party opinions), and take another look later with a fresh mind. At first, I admit to being very startled to see how strictly people were interpreting the policy. Then I began to wonder if my acceptance of "Hoary's argument" was correct, and how would I normally react to such an argument. After thinking back upon all the BLP episodes I've been in, what I've seen on the BLP board, and taking a look at what goes on now, I concluded that actually BLP is strictly enforced in that way. If Hoary wants to keep intimidating that we are wikilawyering (for what purpose, I have no idea), then perhaps we can call in someone like Slim Virgin and settle this once and for all. --C S (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do. Arudoudebito (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thinking "Enough enough, let's ask Slim over", I went to her talk page. But I saw that you'd already asked her. Good, good. I hope she also looks at the disgruntlement lower down this page. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[break 3 for convenience]

Hi, I was asked to comment here.

It's not entirely clear to me what the material is that's being disputed. I assumed it's in this diff.

The BLP and V rule is to avoid self-published source material in BLPs, particularly for anything contentious. This is for obvious reasons -- chiefly, lack of editorial oversight, lack of libel insurance, and therefore a lack of lawyers checking for libel.

There are exceptions to the self-published rule, particularly if the self-published writer is an expert in a relevant field, whose work in that field has previously been published by reliable sources. Or if the material is entirely non-contentious, either positively or negatively, though if anyone objects to it, it becomes ipso facto contentious, because challenged.

In this case, I see five relevant issues:

(a) the website is self-published as a non-profit site that seems no longer to be updated, so it really shouldn't be used as a source in a BLP;
(b) the writers seem to be professional people who are regularly cited by reliable sources, so that could trigger the BLP exception;
(c) they are not acknowledged experts in literature or book reviews, so far as I know;
(d) on the other hand, the material they're being used as a source for doesn't look particularly bad; it is critical, but not hugely so, and it's written respectfully (assuming I've correctly identified it);
(e) against that, the material is not about the man, but about his book, and arguably doesn't really belong in a BLP. I can see that if it were written by an extremely notable publication with an extremely interesting point to make that you might want to add it to a BLP e.g. Martin Amis's BLP might contain a New York Times quote that, "his latest novel shows beyond doubt that Amis is the greatest living novelist in the English language" — an invented example, by the way. But in this case, the reviewers are not well known (that I'm aware of) and the points they make are not that interesting, so I see no compelling case to add them.

If their views are mainstream, is it not possible to find another source who has said something similar and use that instead? But overall, I'd say it's best to keep reviews of someone's books out of BLPs, unless the view is particularly striking, or comes from an important source. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Slim. The diff that you point to has three deletions. The first of these is fine with me. (Actually it seems a deletion of the most trivial part of a trivial chunk; I'd be inclined to delete the whole paragraph.) The second deletion is fine too as biographical material that's not sourced adequately given that it's biographical material. The third deletion is what concerned me. (Note the past tense, as I'm mightily bored by this.) Honjo criticized the book. The reader might like to know how -- of course not in a paragraph-long summary, but in two or three words, erring on the side of understatement, worked into the paragraph.
On the points that you make:
  • (a) Even if the site is no longer updated, I don't understand how this is a minus. And I wonder what your point is in saying that it's non-profit.
  • (c) they are not acknowledged experts in literature or book reviews, so far as I know But this isn't a matter of literature (in the commoner senses of the word, although of course it is in the sense of "secondary literature", etc). I'm puzzled by the notion of expertise in book reviews. Do you perhaps mean that the author of the review is not a particularly notable reviewer of books? That would indeed be true, but the world doesn't have many Michiko Kakutanis. (Incidentally, there is a BLP that seems imbalanced.)
  • another source who has said something similar: the second half of, or appendix to, Patrick Rial, "Arudou: Angelic Activist or Devilish Demonstrator?", published in something called Japanzine, whose article (for what it's worth) informs us that it's a magazine that "caters largely to the expatriate community in Japan". (I hadn't even been aware that there was a single "expatriate community" in Japan.)
  • I'd say it's best to keep reviews of someone's books out of BLPs: That would indeed be a simple solution.
If your stamina's up to it, do also take a look at the sections below this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Slim, thanks for your comments. I noticed from your talk page links that you've been dealing with a lot of things, so your help is really appreciated! As a quick comment, I would say that most of what I deleted in the diff was actually rephrased and rewritten by me. Originally the material which relied on the source was not "written respectfully" (to use your phrasing). So I feel a bit proud to have such praise heaped on my writing :-) here's an old version before I and several others were notified at WikiProject Japan] It was a result of what I thought was a fairly good compromise at the time, a compromise between editors like Anarmac who did not want to see the material from the original criticism section removed and Arudou who wanted the criticism removed.
Looking back, I think we've made progress here. The only points under debate seem to be the appropriateness of including comments from reviews, and if so, should Honjo's qualify. I think I see agreement here that at any rate, the methods section needed to be cleaned up and my removal of Honjo from there is ok and in line with the BLP policy.
As for including book review stuff, I am ambivalent. There used to be people arguing for it, but now nobody seems to be in favor (or at least insisting on it). I'm certainly not going to push for it. Delete it then?
This talk page is getting unwieldy. Archive for the top part? --C S (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that is a good idea. Done. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Slim, thanks for taking time to review the situation and for your comments. I became involved in this discussion because I became concerned that guidelines and policies were not being adequately addressed in the arguments to retain the material. There are some slight inconsistencies in policy pages that had me thinking for a while. I was for a time under the impression that (as you already noted) exceptions to the self-published rule might apply to a BLP in this case. What's confusing to me is that on WP:BLP there is a single sentence that states "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself." with no further qualification of any exemptions for other types of self-published sources. There are other policy pages such as WP:VER, & WP:RS that do indicate possible exemptions. I decided that the only way to view these contradictions in a logical way would be to assign VER & RS as generalized and BLP policy as providing a narrowing of the acceptable usage of self-published sources specifically for BLP articles (i.e it would be unreasonable to follow BLP policies on self-published sources for an article about cats). So, from my perspective, I am in disagreement with your item (b) so long as the material is only found only a self-published site. If you feel I am in error in my understanding I would appreciate it if you would take the time to clarify the policies for me in this situation.
Just recently, Hoary has supplied a link to an article on seekjapan.jp that J_Readings brought to his attention [23] I feel pretty strongly that this article doesn't change the equation regarding inclusion of the Japanreview.net material for three reasons:
1) The article does include any mention of Japanreview.net or the author of the review we've been discussing (Honjo)
2) It does not include material dramatically similar to the material in the Japanreview.net review.
3) Looking at the seekjapan.jp legal page[24] there is a statement that says “We do not represent or warrant that the information available on or through the Site will be correct, accurate, timely or otherwise reliable.” which leads me to believe that there is no strict editorial oversite on that website and it is unclear if the review was published in print through associate Japanzine and if so was subject to oversight, either. My first impression of seekjapan.jp is that it belongs to a new group of media somewhere along the lines of self reporting chronicles and could be classified as self-published as well.
Lastly (and I will try to keep this short), in my mind the material from Japanreview.net became contentious when this articles subject raised objection to it and the more I became involved the more I began to feel that maybe there was a bias POV being pushed. The second half of J_Readings post here[25] is what prompted the my request for reliable 3rd party sources and the last paragraph of my response here [26]. To the degree that Debito Arudou is notable there seems to be a degree of subtle animosity towards him. SV, I hope you will stick around for a spell or at least consider checking back on this article in the future. Statisticalregression (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Statisticalregression, one point (I could make more, but the "real world" beckons) and one question. First, I did not proffer the link to the seekjapan page in order to suggest that it somehow validates what's on the japanreview.net page. As long as people are interested in reviews, it's a review; that's why it's proffered. Secondly, are you perhaps unfamiliar with the concept of boilerplate disclaimer? The Washington Post is generally taken seriously; get an eyeful of this any time you have run out of sleeping pills. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for joining us here, Slim. I appreciate your time and effort. Please stick around for a couple of days -- I have a speech and a translation to prepare, but after that would like to suggest line-by-line revisions of the article (there are a lot fewer now, thanks everyone) for the editorial process to consider. They're mostly factual errors, such as my birth name (it was not David Christopher Aldwinckle) and the fact that I have written three books, not two. Please give me a little time. Thanks again. Arudoudebito (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Just as a curiosity, when did you get the "Christopher" in your name? (It is seen here [27] - So it seems like you got it at some point) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Regarding the number of books, are you referring to the Japanese and English editions of Japanese Only? Usually book translations are considered to be the same book.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

1. David Christopher have always been my first and middle names. But my birth name was David Christopher Schofill. I was adopted into the Aldwinckle family in the 1970s. There is no way anyone here could have known this (as I have never made this information public; I didn't see how it mattered to the work I was doing), so no probs. But the WP article as it stands now is incorrect. I don't know how you'll be able to "source" this except from me here and now, of course, but that's something you editors will somehow have to square away with WP rules. I doubt that sourcing my original last name from here constitutes any potential COI, however.
2. As I have iterated before a number of times, JO in Japanese and JO in English are two different books. They have different ISBNs and different publication dates. They have different page counts (JO-J 293 pages, JO-E 416 pages), meaning their contents and intended audiences are quite different. Anyone who would ever bother to read them will see the stories and points flow quite differently and are not direct translations of each other. But I guess it's just easier for editors to claim with assuredness that they are translations rather than to actually sit down, do their research, and read both books. In any case, what I am saying is that HANDBOOK is my third book (since editors have decided not to count the two textbooks, one republished by private-sector Maruzen Planet, Inc., back in the nineties), not my second.
All gripes aside, I appreciate that one editor is actually asking me what I feel is the correct information instead of just assuming I'm unable to escape COI and be neutral about myself. Try me. You might be surprised. Arudoudebito (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand it depends on the degree of differences. Often different printings of the same book have different ISBNs, different page numbers, and different publication dates (As an example of that - several Japanese comic series originally printed in tankobon format and later moved to bunkoban format - and also Kodansha's bilingual editions - they all have different ISBNs and different page counts but are still considered to be the same series) - What I would like to know is: How much of the raw content is different? (I.E. does the Japanese version content differ so heavily from the English version that the two cannot be considered to be the same book at all?) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The author has just said that they're very different. This needn't imply that they're not the same book at all: for example, Conclusive Evidence journeyed through Drugie Berega to become the "revisited" autobiography, a different book; yet the three are usually considered three versions of the same work. All three of those books are listed, and it seems obvious that the two versions of JO should be listed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
So, this means Conclusive Evidence and its two descendants could be considered different books due to evolving content, correct? Anyway, what I am asking is what the content differences between the English and Japanese versions of Japanese Only are. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a direct translation will not result in more than 100 more pages of English text over the Japanese version, to say the least. Contentwise, I have to explain a lot more in the E version: What an onsen is. What it's like to be in a Japanese courtroom. Dispelling some myths, such as the myths of Japan as a non-litigious, also monocultural, society. I had to make the book accessible to an overseas audience, and that means more content. 25% or so more.
I shouldn't have to fight this hard just to get the WP entry to say I have three books published. You could of course read them, or at least look through them. Find these things out for yourself if you're really serious about an accurate BLP. Operative word throughout these discussions: if. Arudoudebito (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Has any editor decided not to count two textbooks? Perhaps it was just that no editor working on the article had heard of either. (And the ignorance seems understandable, as neither book seems very conspicuous: neither Tokyo Metropolitan Library nor NDL-OPAC lists either, whether under 有道, Arudou or Aldwinckle.) Well, what's the correct information? -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've already given you the correct information. The ISBNs exist (CAN WE DO BUSINESS? Introduction to Business English (Revised Textbook, independent publisher), Maruzen Planet KK, Tokyo, April, 2000. ISBN 4-944024-82-7, CAN WE DO BUSINESS? Introduction to Business English (Textbook), April, 1996, ISBN 4-925013-28-9, SPEAK YOUR MIND Introduction to Debate (Textbook) April, 1996, ISBN 4-925013-29-7; that's why we have them!). They have been listed on my website for about a decade now: http://www.debito.org/publications.html. I find it completely inconceivable that no editor has heard of either book in any incarnation when they were once even mentioned in passing on this WP entry once upon a time (before an editor decided they didn't count as real books and just deleted them). I don't mind if they aren't listed in specific, as they are not as germane to the human rights work. Just don't plead ignorance like this, when it's the editors' job to seek that information out before writing up a BLP in the first place. The onus is on you to get the information right, not make excuses for why it's wrong. Arudoudebito (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that paragraph. I have spent little time at your website. When I want to see what books somebody has produced, I normally start at Copac.ac.uk or the OPAC of the Tokyo Metropolitan Library; I may then move on to Webcat and elsewhere. I have found the information there to be on average both more precise and more accurate than what's on "official" websites (where these exist). Maybe some other editor has heard of these two books; when I said that I did not know of them, I was not speaking for anybody else. As I see it, the onus is not on me or anybody else here to get information right (or to bone up on the tedious history of this article); rather, it's to make a reasonable effort both to add reliably sourced information and to prevent the addition of misinformation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC) hiliting added 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You admit you've hardly done any research on the subject of this BLP (which means at a bare minimum making "a reasonable effort" to check for primary sources through artery sites on the subject's very thorough archive). You even use the word "tedious" in connection to this article. These are not the attitudes of a dedicated WP editor. Begs the question: Why are you here? Arudoudebito (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussion of the article (and tends to prolixity as it is); if you'd like to ask me about the uninteresting matter of me, please do so on my own talk page. Meanwhile, I make no apology for using the word "tedious" in connection with this article. Indeed, I've gone back and proudly hilited it. How has it been "tedious"? The huge volume of talk about such a short article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
"Hiliting" prolixity prolix. Ironic. Arudoudebito (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Re. "Japanese Only": Naturally the two editions have different ISBNs. ISBNs are "stock numbers" and (among other things but most commonly) are used by book distributors to ensure they get the exact book they are trying to order. If "Japanese Only", in either language, was republished in hardcover, it would have yet another ISBN to reflect that, and would have a different publication date as well. But it would still be the same book. Page counts are not a good indicator either, as the two languages will ensure that the page counts are different even with absolutely identical contents. "Different audiences"? Please elaborate.Genkimon (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
David Christopher have always been my first and middle names. But my birth name was David Christopher Schofill. [...] Thank you for the explanation, and thank you for your openness about what can be done with it. Certainly I'm not averse to adding the information, because I'm certain that you are who you say you are and that you're a credible source. On the other hand adding it is likely to be an infraction of this or that rule that I can't be bothered to look up.
I hate the deliberate inclusion of what I know to be misinformation. For this reason I've reworded the relevant part of the article to give it a certain ambiguity that's not contradicted by either what your own article about yourself says or what we now now about you. If somebody else wants to simply correct the info with what we now know, I certainly wouldn't oppose.
Incidentally, I've also added a simple summary of the earlier books. I hope that's OK too. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debito_Arudou/Archive_5&oldid=1144153558"