Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Debito Arudou. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Publication information
I've been trying to improve this article's quality for some time now using reliable third-party sources as much as possible -- because that's what we're supposed to be doing. I'm a little disappointed that Qwyrixian was quick to undo my edit, but that's okay. I welcome the opportunity to read his reasoning and try to understand what the problem is. It also would have been nice had he brought it to the talk page and not assumed bad faith by suggesting POV pushing (because why be quick to assume that?). We're all trying to improve this article. The comment read: "Undid revision 534591164 by Oddexit (talk) the # of days is trivial, not relevant (unless you're POV pushing); the other info needs confirmation."
On the issue of how long it took to write the book, why is it important that it not be added? I don't understand. It would also be helpful to know when something is "trivial" and "irrelevant" with respect to improving the article (in his/her view) and when it isn't? Who decides what is "trivial"? That reads like a subjective judgment call to me. It was a publicly verifiable piece of information from a reliable third-party source (the journalist obviously thought it was important), so why can't it be added?
On the issue of these two EFL textbooks, I'm glad that Qwyrixian can meet me half way and wants to discuss this issue. Thanks. I have looked everywhere for these EFL textbooks. I would welcome someone confirming who the publishing house was from an independent source because it needs to be added. I have looked on Amazon (nothing). I have looked in libraries (nothing). I have looked in databases (nothing). Obviously, the author acknowledges that they exist. That's fine, but relying on him to verify this piece of information becomes a little self-serving. Where can we go to verify their publication? We just need to independently verify the publisher. One says "independent publisher" on the author's website, the other doesn't give a publisher at all. Oddexit (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- On the matter of the time it took to write, I didn't mean to say that you were POV pushing, but that I can't see any justification for including the information unless you're trying to imply something about the quality of the books. Now, if a reliable source says, "The books are crap because they were written in 24 days", then we could include the source's opinion, but just putting the data in by itself doesn't seem relevant.
- As for the publication, I didn't realize that his website itself says "independent publisher", and we can certainly trust his own website for a book he wrote. However, I also wonder if including the info isn't implying a POV that doesn't belong. That is, a lay reader may think "Oh, it's just a self-published book, that's not very good", when, in fact, in both Japan and the US, it's not unusual at all for university professors, especially those in various language fields, to self-publish and use those books in their classes. But, on this matter, I think it's not really important enough to fight about, so if you want to re-add that part, I won't revert.
- In general, I'm sorry if I sounded pushy or that I wasn't assuming good faith; in the past the article has been the subject of POV pushing, and certainly Arudou is widely criticized online, so I perhaps jumped too hastily to an unwarranted conclusion (note, I'm not saying that Arudou shouldn't be criticized, as I wouldn't dream of defending him off-wiki, just that a WP article isn't the means to do so).
Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian , thanks for your thoughts and I apologize for my belated reply. Regarding my recent edits, if I understand you correctly, your concern was that some readers might have their own thoughts about the subject after reading how long it took the author to write the book. I'm sorry, but that concern leaves me wondering where the policy-related objection is. I ask because I spent the past week reading carefully Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and other policies and guidelines regarding original research, verifiability, reliable sources, as well as some of the other guidelines that circulate here and there; I can't find where we can't (or shouldn't) add brief factual information because people might draw their own conclusions. I certainly never offered an opinion in the text on what people should think. The information I added was not even an opinion. It was simply a statement of fact. It's neither original research nor uncited information per WP:V. It's found in a reliable source per WP:RS. It's only four words, so it can hardly even be accused of a POV fork in the text. I've been reading articles in Wikipedia that supply factual information about how long authors took to write books, and I don't see why we can't improve this article by adding such additional factual information from reliable third-party sources. Essentially, it's value-neutral without disparaging the subject or aggrandizing the subject. Thanks, Oddexit (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, here's the thing. Either the information is trivial and unimportant, a minor fact about one of the books Arudou wrote, in which case it's WP:UNDUE, or it's actually there to imply something, in which case it's not neutral. I don't believe that it's common to include information like this on an author's article; while the Struck did mention the time, it's in a throw away phrase. WP:V doesn't guarantee inclusion, it's merely the minimum standard. The question is, is the length of time that Arudou took to wrote one of his books of lasting encyclopedic interest to Arudou (not the book itself) as a subject? My feeling is no. However, this is a matter of editorial discretion, and, as such, I can see a reasonable editor disagreeing. We can solicit outside opinions if you like; an easy first step would be to request a third opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian , thanks for your thoughts and I apologize for my belated reply. Regarding my recent edits, if I understand you correctly, your concern was that some readers might have their own thoughts about the subject after reading how long it took the author to write the book. I'm sorry, but that concern leaves me wondering where the policy-related objection is. I ask because I spent the past week reading carefully Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and other policies and guidelines regarding original research, verifiability, reliable sources, as well as some of the other guidelines that circulate here and there; I can't find where we can't (or shouldn't) add brief factual information because people might draw their own conclusions. I certainly never offered an opinion in the text on what people should think. The information I added was not even an opinion. It was simply a statement of fact. It's neither original research nor uncited information per WP:V. It's found in a reliable source per WP:RS. It's only four words, so it can hardly even be accused of a POV fork in the text. I've been reading articles in Wikipedia that supply factual information about how long authors took to write books, and I don't see why we can't improve this article by adding such additional factual information from reliable third-party sources. Essentially, it's value-neutral without disparaging the subject or aggrandizing the subject. Thanks, Oddexit (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, ultimately yes, I'm afraid that we'll have to seek outside opinions in order to improve this article. It seems that you continue to think that a fact is the same thing as an opinion and a theory. WP:UNDUE explicitly was designed to deal with undue attention being given to minority opinions and theories in an article (hence the explicit use of the word "viewpoints" in WP:UNDUE); it was not designed to exclude basic factual information. Do other biography articles also include basic factual information on how long it took to write a book? Of course, they do. I was just reading the article on Stephen King -- a former featured article candidate -- just now that goes into extensive detail on the factual information behind the publication of his books. So, if you feel very strongly about excluding this factual information, I welcome you soliciting third opinions as a first step. Oddexit (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to open a 3O, but before I do, I just want to make sure you are familiar with all of WP:UNDUE, because you're making a mistake I've seen quite a number of editors make. It does not, in fact, only deal with viewpoints, but with any aspect of an article. The specific quote is, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." For example, we would not include in this article a discussion of what kind of car he owns, who his 3rd grade teacher was, or his opinions on gun control in the US, unless those things were directly related to his central story (for some people, any of those things could be, but not to Arudou's). I believe the same holds true for this random fact about a book he wrote--it's no more important than the number of pages in the book, the titles of the chapters, or whether he wrote it on a computer or with a quill and ink. It's certainly a verifiable statement, just not an important one. Knowing that WP:UNDUE does apply to facts (though, of course, it may or may not apply to this specific fact) do you still want a third opinion? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would pose this question to you in response. Why do we have a section on "publications" in this article if developing and expanding the actual publications this section covers with reliable third-party sources is somehow subjectively deemed inappropriate? Qwyrxian repeatedly uses the word "trivial". From both a logical and policy standpoint, its justification appears weak to me. The argument that we can't have four words from a reliable third-party source verifying how long it took to write the book in the publications section of the article strikes me as strange because nothing suggests undue weight, POV pushing, original research, lack of verifiability, or even triviality. It's the publications section, after all, to an article discussing an author. Are we going to argue now that the subject is not an author (just an activist and former EFL teacher), and therefore the section itself is trivial and unimportant? I would be interested in reading that argument, but I doubt that many Wikipedia editors would find it persuasive. The bottom line is that the subject *is* an author. Information regarding the publication of his books *is* relevant. And reliable third-party sources not only provide that information, but we are also adding it without any commentary or interpretation whatsoever. Again, if anyone insists on objecting to this addition, I welcome a third opinion from other experienced Wikipedia editor(s) as a helpful start. Oddexit (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've posted a request at WP:3O; there's a few requests before ours, so it may take a few days for someone to respond. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it appears that you inadvertently deleted the request after adjusting the tildes. You might want to check it again to confirm the message was posted. Best, Oddexit (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's still there. After fixing the tildes, I responded to the first one on the list and removed it. The numbering is automatic, so the request for this page went from 4th to 3rd. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it appears that you inadvertently deleted the request after adjusting the tildes. You might want to check it again to confirm the message was posted. Best, Oddexit (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've posted a request at WP:3O; there's a few requests before ours, so it may take a few days for someone to respond. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would pose this question to you in response. Why do we have a section on "publications" in this article if developing and expanding the actual publications this section covers with reliable third-party sources is somehow subjectively deemed inappropriate? Qwyrxian repeatedly uses the word "trivial". From both a logical and policy standpoint, its justification appears weak to me. The argument that we can't have four words from a reliable third-party source verifying how long it took to write the book in the publications section of the article strikes me as strange because nothing suggests undue weight, POV pushing, original research, lack of verifiability, or even triviality. It's the publications section, after all, to an article discussing an author. Are we going to argue now that the subject is not an author (just an activist and former EFL teacher), and therefore the section itself is trivial and unimportant? I would be interested in reading that argument, but I doubt that many Wikipedia editors would find it persuasive. The bottom line is that the subject *is* an author. Information regarding the publication of his books *is* relevant. And reliable third-party sources not only provide that information, but we are also adding it without any commentary or interpretation whatsoever. Again, if anyone insists on objecting to this addition, I welcome a third opinion from other experienced Wikipedia editor(s) as a helpful start. Oddexit (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to open a 3O, but before I do, I just want to make sure you are familiar with all of WP:UNDUE, because you're making a mistake I've seen quite a number of editors make. It does not, in fact, only deal with viewpoints, but with any aspect of an article. The specific quote is, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." For example, we would not include in this article a discussion of what kind of car he owns, who his 3rd grade teacher was, or his opinions on gun control in the US, unless those things were directly related to his central story (for some people, any of those things could be, but not to Arudou's). I believe the same holds true for this random fact about a book he wrote--it's no more important than the number of pages in the book, the titles of the chapters, or whether he wrote it on a computer or with a quill and ink. It's certainly a verifiable statement, just not an important one. Knowing that WP:UNDUE does apply to facts (though, of course, it may or may not apply to this specific fact) do you still want a third opinion? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, ultimately yes, I'm afraid that we'll have to seek outside opinions in order to improve this article. It seems that you continue to think that a fact is the same thing as an opinion and a theory. WP:UNDUE explicitly was designed to deal with undue attention being given to minority opinions and theories in an article (hence the explicit use of the word "viewpoints" in WP:UNDUE); it was not designed to exclude basic factual information. Do other biography articles also include basic factual information on how long it took to write a book? Of course, they do. I was just reading the article on Stephen King -- a former featured article candidate -- just now that goes into extensive detail on the factual information behind the publication of his books. So, if you feel very strongly about excluding this factual information, I welcome you soliciting third opinions as a first step. Oddexit (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request:
|
| Hello, guys. After studying your dispute, it seems the argument is attempting to resolve the matter of due weight while it has trouble attaching weight to the subject of dispute! So, I think pulling WP:DUE into this discussion is premature. But apart from that, I think the # of days is raw data and therefore, per WP:Notstat, is not allowed in Wikipedia. In other words, what is the meaning of the book having been written in # of days? An indicator of low or high quality? An indicator of low or high performance? A component of something calculated in a ratio involving number of pages? Unless these issues are address via another source, I think the discussion would prove futile. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks very much for offering a third opinion. Regarding the issue of "raw data" not being allowed per WP:Notstat, it's unclear how that policy applies here. WP:Notstat addresses "long and sprawling lists of statistics" that become confusing to the reader without summary and explanation. In fact, the policy offers explicit examples of when not to add long and sprawling lists of statistics to encyclopedia articles and gives the example of statistical tables on polling data. Summary is best, they say. Is a single number a "long and sprawling list of statistics"? Thinking about this for a moment, if single numbers constituted raw data and needed a qualification in Wikipedia, encyclopedia articles could face opposition from anyone ranging from numerologists to pedants to trolls. Someone just added a date to the publications section to one of the books. It's a number. Does it need an explanation on why the author chose to publish the book in that year? Not really (though it couldn't hurt), because it's basic factual information that you would expect to read in the publications section of the bio of an author discussing the work. What about the amount of monetary compensation that the plaintiffs were awarded? That's a number without explanation. Should we delete it in fear that someone might draw their own conclusions on what the judgment amount means? Again, I spent a significant amount of time reading articles of authors on Wikipedia (many of them featured articles). Facts regarding how long it took to write a book fits right in with chronological time lines on the background to books taken from reliable third-party sources. It's unclear to me why Qwyrxian chose to frame his objection in terms of what people *might think* after reading this fact about the book (especially when I fail to see where the consistent policy objection is), but the irony is the argument -- if seriously applied -- could leave the improvement of articles at a standstill if someone chose to make an issue out of publicly verifiable (and relevant) facts taken from reliable third-party sources. Unfortunately, I often see editors attempt that, too, in reading the discussion pages of articles. Oddexit (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Oddexit
- Thanks very much for offering a third opinion. Regarding the issue of "raw data" not being allowed per WP:Notstat, it's unclear how that policy applies here. WP:Notstat addresses "long and sprawling lists of statistics" that become confusing to the reader without summary and explanation. In fact, the policy offers explicit examples of when not to add long and sprawling lists of statistics to encyclopedia articles and gives the example of statistical tables on polling data. Summary is best, they say. Is a single number a "long and sprawling list of statistics"? Thinking about this for a moment, if single numbers constituted raw data and needed a qualification in Wikipedia, encyclopedia articles could face opposition from anyone ranging from numerologists to pedants to trolls. Someone just added a date to the publications section to one of the books. It's a number. Does it need an explanation on why the author chose to publish the book in that year? Not really (though it couldn't hurt), because it's basic factual information that you would expect to read in the publications section of the bio of an author discussing the work. What about the amount of monetary compensation that the plaintiffs were awarded? That's a number without explanation. Should we delete it in fear that someone might draw their own conclusions on what the judgment amount means? Again, I spent a significant amount of time reading articles of authors on Wikipedia (many of them featured articles). Facts regarding how long it took to write a book fits right in with chronological time lines on the background to books taken from reliable third-party sources. It's unclear to me why Qwyrxian chose to frame his objection in terms of what people *might think* after reading this fact about the book (especially when I fail to see where the consistent policy objection is), but the irony is the argument -- if seriously applied -- could leave the improvement of articles at a standstill if someone chose to make an issue out of publicly verifiable (and relevant) facts taken from reliable third-party sources. Unfortunately, I often see editors attempt that, too, in reading the discussion pages of articles. Oddexit (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems you have skipped the text of the policy and skipped to its examples. No wonder why you are confused. The main premise of NOTSTAT is "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Earlier, I explained that number of days alone is not put in context and is therefore meaningless; but I see you are allocating a context here. Very well, do that in the article. Make it clear cut and let's see if Qwyrxian agrees.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a way to provide any context, because the secondary source verifying the 24 days simply puts the info in an aside, with no commentary on it being a "good" or "bad" thing. I could make an argument about what the author is implying, but that would be original research. Unless there's another source that Oddexit has? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Codename Lisa and Qwyrxian, I had asked you both how you are defining "data"? You didn't reply to that question and instead repeated yourselves, so it's understandable that we're not getting anywhere. Data, as you know, is the plural of datum. A datum is either a piece of information or a fixed starting point of a scale. In other words, it can be either. But more importantly, the plural "data" -- not "datum" -- seem to be where the policy kicks in and the reasoning is understandable: long and sprawling lists of statistics are confusing to the reader and tedious to read (hence, "data should be put into context"). No one ever objected in other articles when basic information about how long it took to write a book was inserted. However, if we consistently apply your strict interpretation of "raw data" to mean any piece of information in the article -- qualitatively or quantitatively, it is not unreasonable to attack any piece of verifiable information in this article and demand it be removed unless -- ironically -- we somehow provide (and this is where it gets bizarre) a "context"? I have asked Qwyrxian several times now why he finds this verifiable fact so troubling that it must be removed compared to other neutrally stated facts, but he hasn't tackled this important question other than to say that some people (who?) might have thoughts. Anyone can draw their own conclusions on virtually any neutral sentence in this article, that does not mean that we cannot improve the article. Perhaps it *is* true that editing an article ultimately becomes a subjective judgment call on what is or is not acceptable. Oddexit (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I felt I had tackled the point: the number of days it takes to write a book is trivial information. Now, if the book had a standalone article, I'd consider it to be worth including. In the article about Arudou's life, it's not relevant enough. That's why it does not belong. There is no reason to believe that this random fact is of any lasting importance in the bigger "Debito Arudou" story. Now, I should be clear that I don't mean that policy forbids the inclusion of the information (I think it's pretty close, because I still think WP:UNDUE applies, but it's not important); but it is a matter of editorial judgment. We exercise such judgment every time we decide to exclude a verifiable fact. For example, that source includes the year and location he met his wife. Why is that piece of information not included? Similarly, Arudou has written on his blog about the time he got speeding tickets and the results of those tickets. While a blog, since it's about the subject himself, it is allowed per WP:BLPSPS. Why do we not include that information here? It's because we're an encyclopedia. We must make editorial judgments about what is and is not important. And this, simply put, isn't important, unless you can provide some sort of context as Codename Lisa said (I would have said, some sort of detailed discussion in reliable sources), it's just a throwaway piece of information.
- As to your comments about data and datum and the like, in my opinion, that's just wikilawyering; I don't think you'd get much support that an argument is okay because of a plural or singular term in a policy/guideline.
- So, finally, I guess I'll turn it back on you: why is this particular piece of information, in comparison to the thousands of other "facts" that we could verify and include (possibly millions; Arudou is certainly a prolific writer), why is it that you think this one deserves inclusion?Qwyrxian (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, your replies disappoint me for several reasons but let me begin with the most pressing: you give no real indication that you want to improve this article. It disappoints me that you have not added much of any reliable third-party information, that you have not tried to copy-edit the text to any sizable degree, that you have not attempted to fix and standardize the footnotes at all, and that you have not tried to add any photos that are within common use. In fact, what I have noticed this past year is that you quickly revert any improvement and accuse people of POV pushing and now sadly wikilawyering when editors do. I have tried my best to improve this article on these fronts based on reliable third-party sources, Wikipedia policies, and of course using other feature articles as blueprints. It would be nice if you chose to work with editors in improving this article. I am hopeful that you will change your mind.
- Well, Codename Lisa and Qwyrxian, I had asked you both how you are defining "data"? You didn't reply to that question and instead repeated yourselves, so it's understandable that we're not getting anywhere. Data, as you know, is the plural of datum. A datum is either a piece of information or a fixed starting point of a scale. In other words, it can be either. But more importantly, the plural "data" -- not "datum" -- seem to be where the policy kicks in and the reasoning is understandable: long and sprawling lists of statistics are confusing to the reader and tedious to read (hence, "data should be put into context"). No one ever objected in other articles when basic information about how long it took to write a book was inserted. However, if we consistently apply your strict interpretation of "raw data" to mean any piece of information in the article -- qualitatively or quantitatively, it is not unreasonable to attack any piece of verifiable information in this article and demand it be removed unless -- ironically -- we somehow provide (and this is where it gets bizarre) a "context"? I have asked Qwyrxian several times now why he finds this verifiable fact so troubling that it must be removed compared to other neutrally stated facts, but he hasn't tackled this important question other than to say that some people (who?) might have thoughts. Anyone can draw their own conclusions on virtually any neutral sentence in this article, that does not mean that we cannot improve the article. Perhaps it *is* true that editing an article ultimately becomes a subjective judgment call on what is or is not acceptable. Oddexit (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a way to provide any context, because the secondary source verifying the 24 days simply puts the info in an aside, with no commentary on it being a "good" or "bad" thing. I could make an argument about what the author is implying, but that would be original research. Unless there's another source that Oddexit has? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- As for your question, I have answered you multiple times why it is an appropriate fact to add to the publications section. Evidently, you choose to ignore my replies. Arudou is a notable author whose books are covered in reliable third-party sources. I will certainly agree with you that these books do not have enough reliable third-party sources to justify their own articles on notability grounds, but then again I never attempted nor suggested that we should make spin-off articles. Lack of book notability does not change the fact that Arudou himself is a notable author, that there is a publication section, and that other Wikipedia articles -- some even featured articles -- had no policy problem whatsoever in adding such information to the biographies of living persons. I encourage you to read some of those articles.
- Finally, I have no problem with developing the "background" section with Arudou's personally published facts on his blog per WP:SELFPUB provided that they are relevant to Arudou's life and development. Consequently, please do add when he met his wife just make sure that you cite it properly, please. There are countless articles on Wikipedia where such personal details are cited. And while we are on the subject, I would like to remove the tag at the opening of the article. Using self-published information of the subject's life is acceptable on Wikipedia provided that it does not overwhelm the article (which it currently does not). Everything is proportional, and I would like to develop that proportionality. Oddexit (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is the content of the English version of this page so different to the Japanese version?
The content of the Japanese version of this page is extremely different in comparison to the English version. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.28.68 (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Japanese at Work by John Spiri
On 19 August 2014, newly registered account Mister Mtzplk (talk · contribs) edited the Arudou Debito article to read the following:
"This is different from Spiri's assessment of Arudou in his 2011 book Japanese at Work, where he calls Arudou "articulate and friendly in person", and stated, "I personally like Debito, and feel he has made the public aware of some problems in Japan." The article cites p. 137 of the book (supposedly the first edition). I checked a few libraries for the 2011 first edition of the book to look up the passage. Unfortunately, no library held the book so I was forced to purchase a copy. After checking the 2011 first edition of the book (there are no subsequent editions), there is no page 137. I think the author meant page 113. Also, there is no sentence in the book that reads "I personally like Debito, and feel he has made the public aware of some problems in Japan." Why Mister Mtzplk (talk · contribs) added this sentence I don't know.
The actual paragraph reads: "Debito is a somewhat famous and controversial figure with the foreign community in Japan. He maintains a widely read blog at http://www.debito.org/ and as of summer 2011 writes a column for the Japan Times newspaper entitled Just Be Cause. Perhaps he is best known for maintaining a "Black List" of universities in Japan which, he claims, discriminate against foreign faculty in Japan. In person he is articulate and friendly."
This is all the author states about Debito Arudou. The rest consists of a short interview with him.
In any case, the other problem with the 2011 Spiri book reference is that it's self-published by John Spiri & Global Stories Press (and therefore violates an important Wikipedia subsection policy on Verifiability). WP:SELFPUBLISH states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Given these multiple problems, I deleted the edit. It's unfortunate because I would have liked to have cited some of the Spiri book opening in the article. Oddexit (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Oddexit (talk · contribs) for your edits. I am impressed you are so dedicated the accurateness of a wiki entry of this minor celebrity (of whom I am no fan, trust me; too opinionated) that you would go out an buy the book! Here's a cheaper way for next time: Follow the link to Amazon that I gave as the source of this quote, look at the cover of the book where it says Look Inside, click on it, and you can searh inside the book. Make sure your in the print version, and do a word search for "Debito", and you'll find the exact page numbers (in this case page 137), and it says, before the interview: [1]
- "Debito is a somewhat famous and controversial figure with the foreigner community in Japan. He maintains a widely read blog at www.debito.org and writes a column for the Japan Times newspaper entitled Just Be Cause. Perhaps he is bestknwon for maintaining a black list of universities in Japan which, he claims, discriminate against foreign faculty. In person he is articularlate and friendly, and feel he has made the public aware of some problems in Japan...."
- Maybe that's not in the first edition of the book, but I gave a link to the current Amazon version and that's accurate. Spiri probably revised it. As for if it's a real book or a reliable soruce, look on the back cover and it has an ISBN. Any librarian will tell you a book with an ISBN is a real book. I checked your link and can't see what you mean about WP not allowing these books. Sorry. I think if you want to use more of the book, go ahead.
- Anyway, thanks for checking and correcting my corrections.Mister Mtzplk (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip about Amazon.com. I see what you're talking about now. I could have saved myself the price of the book plus shipping and handling. In any case, we really can't use it because it's self-published. The fact that the author changed the text suddenly seems to be part of the problem on why Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published books to be used in describing third parties (like Arudou). If you click on the link provided, it's very clear. It reads "never." Personally, I would have liked to have used it, but sooner or later, someone will remove it anyway. It's a self-published book without editorial oversight. Wikipedia frowns on that, too. Oddexit (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Oddexit (talk · contribs). Then technically we should remove all reference to Arudo's book IN APPROPRIATE because its self published. If I do, will you object?Mister Mtzplk (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- The context matters. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." (See WP:SELFPUB). So, it's okay to mention IN APPROPRIATE in the article because it's a statement of fact that Arudou self-published a book called IN APPROPRIATE. And it's okay to briefly mention the review of his book because it was published in The Japan Times, a newspaper with supposedly editorial oversight and fact-checking abilities. What Wikipedia doesn't allow is any reference to web content from blogs, etc., discussing third parties. So no one can can post a personal blog comment or self-publish a book mentioning Arudou and then have that cited in the article. This problem came up several times over the course of editing this article because there are several blogs out there discussing/criticizing/praising Arudou. That type of content had to be removed, regardless of whether it was positive, negative, or neutral. For more details on that, see WP:RELIABLE. The only other time it's allowed to use self-published sources from blogs, etc., is when it's factual information about the subject (Arudou) posted by Arudou himself on his blog Debito.org that isn't self-serving, etc., and discusses only himself. Information discussing third parties on Arudou's blog can't be referenced in the Wikipedia article because it might be libelous, inaccurate, etc...things that create problems for Wikipedia. That kind of stuff is explained in more detail at WP:SELFPUB. Facts or opinions about third parties or by third parties published in reliable sources like newspapers or scholarly articles or books might be used in the article depending on how much of it is used and why. Facts or opinions about Arudou *by* Arudou on Debito.org *might* be used provided that they aren't self-serving or overtake the article -- meaning that a large part of the article cites only Debito.org. Yes, these editing rules can get a little complicated sometimes but if there's something that's unclear you can always discuss it either here or at any number of Wikipedia discussion forums to clarify an issue. Sometimes people have disagreements over how to interpret these editing policies. But sometimes the policies are crystal clear, too. Oddexit (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Unpublished Letters by Third Parties
I'm going to try once again to explain why I removed the unpublished letter because it's very possible that there are some misunderstandings on where, when, and why to reference something in a Wikipedia article. If the two editors insist on a third party opinion, we can do that as well but I don't think there's anything controversial in what I did.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source that uses predominantly secondary sources with some notable exceptions related to biographical subjects (more on that later). Quoting from Wikipedia's guidelines and policies: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." What is a "third-party"? "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source." For example, Arudou is the biographical subject of this article. He is the "first party." We can quote Arudou in limited fashion because Arudou knows about Arudou's own life and provided that his statements do not involve third parties, or are not unduly self-servicing, and/or the other criteria policies attached to writing biographic encyclopedia articles per WP:BLPSELFPUB -- one of which is not basing the article predominantly on self-published sources on Arudou's website -- the article is okay because it's using multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What is a "reliable source"? A reliable source (please click the link and read it) is something that has been published in a mainstream newspaper, a peer-reviewed journal article, a textbook, a magazine, a third-party book covering the subject matter, etc. Is an unpublished letter by a third party (i.e., someone other than Arudou) uploaded to someone's website a "reliable source" for a biographic subject? I read over the policies. It explicitly states: "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. "
There are a lot of other policies to consider, and I'm sure those will come up at one point or another, too, but when it comes to a sourcing dispute like this -- an unpublished source is not generally used in a biographic article like Debito Arudou unless it is BY ARUDOU himself discussing JUST ARUDOU. That should answer why it's not allowed to use unpublished letter by Nishi Ward making claims about or by third parties. If it was important, one or more third parties (other than Arudou) would have written about it and published it in a mainstream newspaper article, a peer-reviewed journal article, etc. But they didn't, so that's problem.
Last thing, I would love to improve this article more based on reliable published sources by third parties and I welcome a lot of the constructive edits by Mister Mtzplk. The problem is that I already have scoured newspaper databases, journal articles, etc. There's a limited number of reliable sources to choose from in English, but it's possible that s/he finds more outside of Arudou's website. Oddexit (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Academic publications
The following message appeared on my talk page:
I don't know why this was addressed to me; but since it was addressed to me, I'll comment.
It's most unusual to list academic papers unless either these papers have been unusually influential or the writer is unusually eminent. If a writer is celebrated to an extraordinary degree (Einstein, Chomsky, etc), then there may be a separate article listing the papers. I'm no expert in IR (or physics), but I do know something about linguistics. In particular, I can rattle off a list of eminent anglophone linguists. Here are a few: Kenneth L. Hale, James Hurford, Geoffrey Leech, John Lyons, James D. McCawley, Frederick Newmeyer, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Larry Trask. Linguists disagree among themselves, sometimes violently; but I think that any linguist would concede that all of these eight are notable in their way. There's no list of papers either within the article on any of these or (cf "List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein") constituting a supplement to the article.
Being awarded a doctorate is no mean feat and it does indeed merit a mention. But tens of thousands of people get doctorates every year. It's not the doctorate, it's what you do with it. (A different matter if the dissertation were published by a university press or publisher of similar standing -- and no, I don't mean one of the imprints of VDM Publishing or anything like it.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
So, nothing so far. That just leaves Google Scholar. I'll list the publications below and the results:
- Arudou, Debito, “Embedded Racism” in Japanese Official Registry Systems: Towards a Japanese Critical Race Theory. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, Vol. 10 Issue 1, Spring 2014. (Results: No citations).
- Arudou, Debito, "Embedded Racism" in Japanese Law: Towards a Japanese Critical Race Theory. Pacific Asia Inquiry, Vol. 4 Issue 1, Fall 2013. (Results: No citations).
- Arudou, Debito, "Embedded Racism" in Japanese Migration Policies: Analyzing Japan's "revolving door" work visa regimes under Critical Race Theory. Journal of Pacific Asia Studies, Vol. 3 Issue 1, May 2013.(Results: no citations).
- Arudou, Debito, "An introduction to Japanese society’s attitudes towards race and skin color." Chapter 4 of The Melanin Millennium: Skin Color as the 21st Century International Discourse, by Ronald E. Hall, Ed., p. 49-70. Springer, 2013. ISBN 978-9400746077. (Results: 1 citation).
- Arudou, Debito, “Japan's Rightward Swing and the Tottori Prefecture Human Rights Ordinance.” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Vol. 11(9), No. 3. March 4, 2013. (Results: no citations).
- Arudou, Debito, “Propaganda in Japan's Media: Manufacturing Consent for National Goals at the Expense of Non-Japanese Residents”.Proceedings, Linguapax Asia: A Retrospective Edition of Language and Human Rights Issues. Collected Proceedings of Linguapax Asia Symposia, 2004-2009. Linguapax Institute, November, 2010. (Results: no citations).
- Arudou, Debito, and Jens Wilkinson,“Amerika no diasupora no minzokusei no mondai” (The Ethnicity Problem for the American Diaspora). In Komai, Hiroshi (ed.), Yōroppa, Roshia, Amerika no Diasupora (The European, Russian, and American Diaspora), Akashi Shoten Inc., November, 2009 (in Japanese). (Results: no citations).
- Arudou, Debito, “Japan's future as an international, multicultural society: From migrants to immigrants.” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, October 29, 2007. (Results: 2 citations).
- Arudou, Debito, “Gaijin Hanzai Magazine and hate speech in Japan.” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, March 20, 2007. (Results: 3 citations).
- Arudou, Debito, “Japanese Only: The Otaru Hotspring Case and Discrimination against 'Foreigners' in Japan.” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, November, 2005. (Results: No citations).
Arudou's Published Article on His Lack of Japanese Friends
A new account User:Sweetandloveable has reverted four times over a 24-hour period the following edit, violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule and risking a block by an administrator. I politely asked User:Sweetandloveable to self-revert thinking he might be unaware of this policy, but the account has not responded. In the meantime, the disputed edit reads:
"Arudou attributed his naturalization decision to an enjoyable life in Japan as a “White Boy”, a comfortable lifestyle, property ownership, sufficient Japanese ability, paying taxes, the right to vote, the ability to counter his “you’re just a guest here” critics with naturalization, a satisfying job, and many Japanese friends – with the latter reason (many Japanese friends eventually being questioned by Arudou himself."
The new user objected to a variety of little things about the original edit that -- quite frankly -- if taken to the talk page would take up too much unnecessary back-and-forth time. I did, however, add back a small clause sourced from Arudou himself doubting he has any Japanese friends at the end of the sentence (a fact), despite Arudou years earlier saying that having Japanese friends was one of the reasons for naturalizing. I just came across the article and thought it would make a useful addition in the biography of Debito Arudou. User:Sweetandloveable approved (and thanked me for) the cited additions he wanted added, but now objects for non-policy related reasons to the other reliably sourced clause. The reason? It's unclear. He just says it's "irrelevant" to his naturalization, so I edited that section of the Background to read: "Naturalization and life as a citizen".
Once again User:Sweetandloveable objects for non-policy related reasons.
Here is why I think the addition is fine:
1. It's about Debito Arudou. This article's subject after all is the biography of Debito Arudou. It's not about a third-party, so it's quite relevant to this article.
2. The small addition is taken from a reliable source: The Japan Times, and therefore does not violate Wikipedia's policies on WP:BLP or W:RS.
3. There's no undue weight issue because the edit is only adding 10-11 words at most to the sentence.
4. With new published information in reliable sources (or newfound sources), new edits are generally acceptable.
Finally, it's interesting that User:Sweetandloveable has no problem with creating new sections (e.g., "Academic Publications") provided they say what he would like included, but will continually revert any edit he doesn't like because...it's a new section and he disputes it. Oddexit (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oddexit says I’m objecting for non-policy related reasons. No. BLP: NPOV is a policy reason. When you look back on the edit record (even on this talk page), you’ll see that Oddexit is everywhere. He or she is acting as the guardian of this BLP. When you look closely, it does not feel like it is editing in good faith.
Here’s why I think so:
The most recent edit dispute (look at revision history between Sept 27 and 29) is something Oddexit wants to leave out of the discussion because “it would take up too much unnecessary back-and-forth time”. No that’s where the edit conflict is, you can’t ignore it.
Oddexit’s edit was this, under the title “just adding the other reasons for naturalization in the article”:
“Arudou attributed[15] his naturalization decision to an enjoyable life in Japan as a “White Boy”, a comfortable lifestyle, property ownership, sufficient Japanese ability, paying taxes, the right to vote, the ability to counter his “you’re just a guest here” critics with naturalization, a satisfying job, and many Japanese friends – with the latter reason (many Japanese friends[16]) eventually being questioned by Arudou himself.”
Look closely at that edit. It violates WP:NPOV in three very subtle ways that:
'1. Oddexit wrote: “an enjoyable life in Japan as a White Boy”. If you look at the source, it reads “I enjoy the daily mental challenges that a White Boy gets in this society”. But this is phrased by Oddexit as if the subject of this BLP is taking advantage of some sort of white priviledge in Japan. That is not the spirit of the source. '
'2. Oddexit wrote: “sufficient Japanese ability”. This sounds like its only survival level. The source says “enough Japanese ability to do far more than just get by”. Oddexit is not requoting in the spirit of the source.'
'3. Oddexit wrote: “many Japanese friends – with the latter reason (many Japanese friends[16]) eventually being questioned by Arudou himself.” The source says “I have plenty of friends (yes, that includes even old Japanese men in my village)”. At that time he said that was one of his reasons to naturalize. But Oddexit seems to be calling into question his ability to make friends. That’s not the spirit of the source. I don’t know, but when we get older, what we think a “friend” is changes (friends for reason, friends for a season, etc.). Maybe he changed his mind; the source does substantiate that. Maybe he moved and his old friends and neighbors did not keep up with him, I don’t know. But because this section is about his reasons for naturalization (at the time), and it’s not relevant to his thoughts years later. There is no reason to put this barb in as if he was fibbing about ever having friends.'
I said it was irrelevant when I reverted this and the other edits ([sept 28 to 29). I was polite when I did that. Then Oddexit decided to retitle the whole section just to match his/her edits (“Japanese naturalization and life as citizen” ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debito_Arudou&diff=prev&oldid=627553425]) — but there is not enough information in this section about his life as a citizen to justify that retitling. Then Oddexit accused me impolitely of not wanting “to improve the article’s quality”. I think I have done that by not letting Oddexits odd edits stay. Then she accuses me of being Debito Arudou, like only he would want a fair interpretation of sources! Where’s the good faith?
Now I feel like Oddexit is taking advantage of me as a newbie, making just enough edits for me to revert more than three times so s/he could threaten me with getting my account blocked by an administrator (yes, I did not know the rules). I feel like I was baited. It's intimidating. This BLP is not a friendly place and one look at the edit and talk record shows Oddexit has been the gatekeeper for years.
Can’t people do a better job? The subject of this BLP is a controversial person, but he deserves a fair edit.
If you look at the record and go through the sources, we Oddexit is only thorough with sources when it’s negative towards the BLP subject. That’s a problem with BLP: NPOV. Two examples:
'1. See old edit at ([[1]]) For a long time, maybe years, the edit for the Mr. James section had lengthy quotes from critics (Coco Masters and Simon Haupt) but no real quote making Arudou’s argument strongly (which was published in the Japan Times as far back as 2009 so it could have been included). I’m pleased Mr. Mtzplik caught this and edited on September 2, because it’s not fair. Then Oddexit stepped in to cut down on “unnecessary wordiness”, [[2]]) and that’s when Mr. Mtz said that if you shorten Arudou’s argument you should shorten the critics too ([[3]]). So Oddexit is thorough but one-sided. If Oddexit is going to be the gatekeeper, then why have the critics gotten so much space while Arudou’s argument is never made strong? I think its because Oddexit’s edits are not made in good faith.'
'2. See Oddexit’s reverts on September in the “Criticism Section” that included references to “bloggers, columnists, book authors on Japan" ([[4]]) ([[5]]). Did anyone read the sources? There are no references to bloggers, columnists, book authors on Japan" in those newspaper articles, but Oddexit reverted anyway ([[6]]).'
All of those articles in the criticism section quote Arudou’s brashness etc but also offer balanced critique and positive words for him to. Mr. Mtz saw that and put the positive words up too thanks ([[7]]). But clearly Oddexit or any other gatekeeper of this BLP didn’t put them up because they are only interested in saying something bad about the subject of this BLP.
That’s why I’m so mad. Do you realize by doing this stuff on a Wikipedia BLP you might be hurting a real live person? Don’t you care?
Sorry for being angry, but after researching how unfair and mean people are being to Arudou I can’t help feel a little sorry for him.
When I cool down more, I will talk more about why I don’t think Oddexit’s most recent addition is fine, but I did talk a little about it just now. Let’s just be nice to people, can’t we? Sweetandloveable (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)- You said: This BLP is not a friendly place and one look at the edit and talk record shows Oddexit has been the gatekeeper for years.
- I'm sorry that you feel that way. As it happens with many Wikipedia articles that are of less notability and importance to many readers, it tends to be edited by a relatively small number who find the subject interesting, who actually happen to read the reliable source materials, respect Wikipedia rules and guidelines for writing an article, and are trying their best. It's a collaborative effort. There's going to be disagreements about how to interpret sources, and discussions of Wikipedia's policies on the talk page. Sometimes there's disagreement about how to paraphrase the source materials. That doesn't mean that everyone is omniscient. Not everyone has read absolutely everything or has had the time to read everything. You should assume WP:GOODFAITH. Just because someone might disagree occasionally with someone else's edit does not mean that there is a conspiracy afoot (I agree with several of Mister Miztlpk improvements. Just like he kindly agreed with mine. Sometimes we all disagree and talk about it on the talk page). I'm proud to have contributed to revisions to this article which are making it better, in my opinion. It's unnecessary to personally attack me as a "gatekeeper" (new contributors sometimes do this because they're operating on a learning curve and simply don't know how Wikipedia works). But I won't apologize for contributing to the editing of a good article by Wikipedia standards.
- I understand that you feel that you -- or Debito Arudou -- have been treated unjustly. I suspect that most people hereabouts understand this. Can we please take such complaints as read? If you have a specific beef, feel free to express it, but please skip the lengthy preamble to it unless it contains something that's genuinely new.
- In the meantime, I'd like to get back to the article. You said that there are NPOV violations. So far you've objected to "the spirit of the source" (where is that listed in WP:NPOV?) and what Debito Arudou was somehow *really* thinking when he wrote something. I wouldn't know. How could anyone know? I included as concisely as possible what he said while trying to keep it short. You disagree. That's fine. I'm not going to quibble with those suggested edits. Otherwise, we'll just end up quoting lengthy passages ad nauseum (which multiple experienced editors all over Wikipedia have repeatedly said we're not to do.). Whenever I try to paraphrase (see WP:NPOV), there's always someone objecting and wanting direct quotes. The result is a compromised version. What I'm still waiting for is what the specific WP:NPOV objection is to adding 10 words about a published article of Arudou years later that deals. specifically with one of the reasons he said he naturalized. What's wrong with that? Oddexit (talk)
I caught you in three edits, one edit by itself had three misquotes, misquoting the source to make the BLP subject look bad. You don't like the words spirit of the source? I don't know what language to use here, but you understand what I mean, so don't bash the newbie. How about WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:NIF.
You repeat the argument about "adding 10 words" and ask what's my objection. My objection is what those 10 words say! I showed your 10 words didn't say what the source did. That's "clear evidence" under WP:GOODFAITH you are not editing in good faith. Its not about being brief, its about being accurate to what the source says. You are not. You also edited a section title to make a point, violates WP:POINT. Those are my objections.Sweetandloveable (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddexit (talk • contribs) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. Apologies for not replying right away. I’ve been busy. It’s possible that I wasn’t clear in my replies to Sweetandloveable’s comments the first two times, so I’ll try a third time to be explicit using bullet points for clarity:
- 1. I didn’t object to two of the three revised edits (and I obviously haven’t reverted those [8] [9] ) because her revised edits were so minor that it didn’t make a difference to me at all and, as far as I was concerned, didn’t change the meaning of the text. Also, I didn’t want to get dragged into an unproductive debate about what Debito Arudou must have meant. That’s what I meant above when I said I don’t want to quibble about those edits, and I didn’t want all the unnecessary back-and-forth about them.
- 2. The talk page issue I initiated was to discuss adding back the stated lack of Japanese friends article written and published by Debito Arudou.
- 3. My 10 word edit read: “with the latter reason (many Japanese friends[16]) eventually being questioned by Arudou himself.” 13 words, if we count “many Japanese friends”).
- 4. The constant yelling at me with exclamation points (!!) is unnecessary and off-putting. But I’d like to respond now because it might be useful to point out why Sweetandloveable’s rationale for revisions create more problems than they solve. Not because I want them reverted to mine (I don’t care), but because they reinforce a problem with Sweetandloveable’s reasoning for attacking me in the first place, and opens up questions about a potential conflict of interest.
- 5. Evidently the objection is to the paraphrases, not to any quotations. A “misquote” would have been directly attributing to Debito Arudou IN QUOTATION MARKS something that he never said. Consequently, it’s an exaggeration to accuse me of “misquoting” the source. It’s also an exaggeration to insist that someone has “caught me” misquoting the source when the original concerns were repeatedly about Sweetandloveable’s personal reading of the source’s nuance (i.e., “spirit of the source” -- whatever that means. I don’t know. )
- 6. I paraphrased the content as best I could while trying to keep it short because that’s what we’re supposed to do. To quote Wikipedia policy: “Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.” (see WP:IMPARTIAL)
- 7. Also, if I were truly interested in writing negative things about Arudou when paraphrasing his long list of reasons for naturalizing, why didn’t I misrepresent all of them, or half of them, or a quarter of them? Instead, I’m bizarrely accused of “subtly” “misquoting” only two of them. Why?
- 8. No one can read my mind, so claiming that someone knows what I was thinking when I paraphrased the article is over-the-top. Equally over-the-top is claiming to know what Debito Arudou “really” meant 15 years ago when he wrote cryptic sentences about “enjoying the daily mental challenges [he] gets as a White Boy in Japan” (what does that even mean? Arudou doesn’t explain in the article) or “enough Japanese ability to do more than get by”. It’s not “fluency” that much I know, but unless Sweetandloveable is Debito Arudou, or sitting next to Debito Arudou and asking “Debito, what did you mean when you wrote [XYZ]…?” no one can possibly know what he meant or be accused of knowing what he meant. It didn’t even occur to me that the paraphrase was “negative” or “positive” because I was more interested in brevity. And if Sweetandloveable theoretically were Debito Arudou or a third party agent, it opens up potential conflict of interest issues with Sweetandloveable editing the article because “COI is strongly discouraged.”
- 9. So here’s where we stand. We both agree that Debito Arudou wrote these two articles. We both agree they’re published in reliable sources. We both agree that I added the citations. We both agree that including Debito Arudou’s stated reasons for naturalizing – including having “many Japanese friends” – was important to include in the article if we’re going to cite his reasons.
- 10. Given your arguments, it seems that the article can’t have it both ways. We can’t say that it’s important to cite the reasons for his naturalization using this published article and then turn around and deliberately censor the other published article by Arudou that talks about his lack of Japanese friends years later simply because someone doesn’t want people to read the second article, too.
- 11. It’s also a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works to insist that the biography be 100% complete on arrival, otherwise we can’t do something like expanding or retitling a section (the other argument for non-inclusion). Wikipedia is a work in progress. It’s policy. Perfection is not required.. There is no deadline. If you choose to be bold, try justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. That’s also policy.
- 12. Bottom-line: since Debito Arudou (or a third-party agent with access to his website) clearly edited his website to prevent anyone citing seemingly inconvenient biographical facts on Wikipedia, we now have a problem with using Debito.org as a reliable source for anything related to even Debito Arudou per WP:SELFPUB. When Debito Arudou writes something now, what is reliable and what isn’t? What is the truth and what is an edited version of the truth by Debito Arudou for popular consumption? I don’t have an easy answer to that, but I’m beginning to see the wisdom of other editors on this page when they argue that we shouldn’t be using Debito Arudou’s primary writings or Debito.org in this article at all because (1) there is simply too much to choose from and (2) it’s difficult to say with certainty now if it’s even reliable.
- 13. So we have a choice now: add back the naturalization article with the accompanying other article dealing with the Japanese friends issue, or remove everything from Debito.org and Debito’s writing that are not covered by third party journalists or third-party scholars. What is everyone’s preference? Oddexit (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- 1. I didn’t object to two of the three revised edits (and I obviously haven’t reverted those [8] [9] ) because her revised edits were so minor that it didn’t make a difference to me at all and, as far as I was concerned, didn’t change the meaning of the text. Also, I didn’t want to get dragged into an unproductive debate about what Debito Arudou must have meant. That’s what I meant above when I said I don’t want to quibble about those edits, and I didn’t want all the unnecessary back-and-forth about them.
My objections are the same — you have changed the words of the quote to change the meaning in a negative way against Arudo. Why not just use the quote, its not that long and its not a heated dispute. Your words were not impartial under WP:IMPARTIAL. So we don’t do any “mind-reading”, I quote Arudo from his Arbitration request, he did the research.
By the way, why didn’t you answer the Arbitration Committee? Eido did. You say you were busy, but after Arbitration is finished you are suddenly very unbusy and can write two long replies and make lots of edits without waiting for concensus about a BLP you say you don’t care about?
Arudo said to Wikipedia Arbitration Committee last week:[[10]]
Created in 2004, BLP according to WP metrics was edited 1241 times. Disproportionately, 14.1% (edit number) and 17.4% (edit content) alone is by Oddexit. Further, Oddexit’s recent edits violated WP:NPOV:
For years, section “Japanese naturalization” said: [[11]]
'“As reasons for naturalization, he cited the right to vote, other rights, and increased ability to stand on his rights; he renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2002.”
Original source did not say this. Published source revised this to: “As reasons for naturalization, he cited his life in Japan paying taxes the same as any other Japanese, a stable job, a house and property in Japan, Japanese friends, fluent Japanese ability, and the desire to participate in Japan's democratic process.” [[12]]
Oddexit amended: “Arudou attributed his naturalization decision to an enjoyable life in Japan as a “White Boy”, a comfortable lifestyle, property ownership, sufficient Japanese ability, paying taxes, the right to vote, the ability to counter his “you’re just a guest here” critics with naturalization, a satisfying job, and many Japanese friends – with the latter reason (many Japanese friends) eventually being questioned by Arudou himself.” [[13]]
Violations of NPOV: 1. Oddexit: “an enjoyable life in Japan as a White Boy”. Source: “I enjoy the daily mental challenges that a White Boy gets in this society”, i.e., people phenotypically different than Japanese get mental challenges, which I happen to enjoy. Oddexit’s sounds like I take advantage of White Privilege in Japan.
2. Oddexit: “sufficient Japanese ability”, as if my Japanese is only survival level. Source: “enough Japanese ability to do far more than just get by”.
3. Oddexit: “many Japanese friends – with the latter reason (many Japanese friends) eventually being questioned by Arudou himself.” Contemporary source: “I have plenty of friends (yes, that includes even old Japanese men in my village)”. Oddexit’s sounds like I lied about having Japanese friends.
On Talk page, Oddexit neither reverts nor acknowledges content of her edits: “What [is] the specific WP:NPOV objection is to adding 10 words[?]”. Editor response: “My objection is what those 10 words say… [it’s not] what the source said.” [[14]]
Oddexit has not continued discussion. Request for mediation on Talk page came to naught. I believe earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would be unproductive.This shows Oddexit has been the “guardian editor” of this page, because she edits this page lots more than any one else and in her own way. Those are the statistics, and her interpretation of Wikpedia rules are strange. If you don't like the word "misquote" then Oddexit misstates, distorts, and misrepresents--all dicctionary definitions of "misquote"--a piece of text. Is that better? Her new edits the other day show her negative edits continue against the subject of this BLP, like making fun of Arudo's name calling it a “garbelization” — because some journalist who not a linguist says it in an newspaper article. [[15]] This is useful to an encyclopedic entry on a living person how? How mean!
I am busy too, so I will comment soon about Oddexit on citations and Arudo’s academic publications. Don't be like Eido, I hope Oddexit will wait for concensus here before new edits.Sweetandloveable (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)- Sweetandloveable, you're all over the place. I'm sorry. Getting you to just focus on Arudou's lack of friends article in this section is difficult. All you do is personally attack me, rather than talk about the lack of friends article (which is what this section is about). Now the latest personal attacks are questions on why I didn't respond to the Arbitration Committee (?). I'm sorry, but unless you focus specifically on the subject matter I won't be replying to you anymore. Thanks, Oddexit (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not personally attacking you, I am saying that the problem with this BLP is the editing that violates WP:NPOV which you did more than any other editor here ever, for many years. They are your edits and they are not neutral. Your edits are the subject matter, and although you try to portray yourself as an attacked person you cant deny that you were caught red handed several times trying to make the BLP look bad. Sweetandloveable (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can deny it and I went to the foolish trouble of responding to your concerns above in great detail. You proceeded to ignore that reply (like all replies) and continue with your talking points based on your stated single purpose for being here. It's a wasted effort to reply to you. Please stop harassing me. Oddexit (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)