Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

"getting fired" vs "quitting"

There has been a few revisions regarding Debito Arudou's early employment status in Japan. In Debito's own words in a source recognized by the article, he got his employer to "fire" him, although he explains this is being equivalent to quitting because he got them to fire him so he could receive unemployment insurance benefits. The current article mentions the word "quit" and attempts to change or append the note that he was fired have been reverted.

However, I believe this detail is relevant: being fired, either by choice (as Debito claims) or not by choice, is still a significant social stigma within society (especially Japan) that haunts you as a professional: every time you apply for a job and they ask why you left, you must answer honestly and your new potential employer may negatively judge you on the fact that you were fired, even if you claim you did it just for the unemployment insurance as Debito Arudou did. (the reason being that if employers were not skeptical, every person who was fired for cause would lie and say the "got themselves fired so they could collect unemployment insurance")

If you tell an employer that you "quit" when you in fact were fired (even if you got fired on purpose) during the job screening, this is considered to be professional dishonesty and is grounds for termination (lying about your employment past). The fact that the article mentions the word "quit" but avoids the technically correct "fire" (or "released", "terminated", or whatever polite word you wish to use) sounds like a dishonest job applicant hiding their past.

Finally, the fact that Debito choose to risk having this Scarlet Letter on his CV/resume that he might have to disclose to future employers speaks to his motivations and drive to be an "outsider" activist within Japan; he decided he did not care about the consequences of being fired on his future career prospects (in other words, his ability to succeed within Japanese society).

Many Japanese (and non-Japanese) are often given the choice as to whether to resign or be fired -- leaving it up to the individual on whether they want the severance and risk being tainted by having the "fired" on their work history, or forgo the severance (either private or public) so they can have a clean resume and claim in all honesty that they "quit".

Thus, I believe that the decision to let himself be fired is significant not just from the point of work background history (an employer and/or the government judges it significant as to whether one quits or is fired), but also it reveals part of his character as to how he decided he wished to fit into Japan, which is relevant towards his activism and his relationship with Japan. Eido INOUE 14:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts on improving the article. Interesting point. Can you please provide a link to the self-published source material from the subject (Debito Arudou) for the sake of other readers who might not be familiar with the original text? This is likely to be another topic that should have disinterested third-parties (in other words, experienced Wikipedia editors not currently editing this page) offering a comment before another edit is done. Oddexit (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The link to the self-published material is reference number #5 in the current page: Arudou, Debito. "A Bit More Personal Background on Arudou Debito/Dave Aldwinckle" http://www.debito.org/morebackground.html Eido INOUE 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

'This is the subject of the BLP speaking. For the record, my next employer (where I was for more than eighteen years, so obviously I fit into Japan fine) knew of my previous employment situation and hired me anyway; it was no Scarlet Letter, so this highly-personalized and unsourced read of Japanese society, however intriguing, is incorrect. If it were all that stigmatizing, don't you think I would have kept it secret? None of this is really relevant as far as Wikipedia BLPs are concerned, which should remain encyclopedic, not gossipy, in tone. Arudoudebito (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Eido. I just checked it. I don't see the reference to unemployment insurance. Maybe he's removed it? Mister Mtzplk (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wayback Machine, Debito Arudou removed the clause -- "So after a total of 15 months of tanren, I quit (technically, I got them to fire me so I could receive shitsugyou hoken) on Christmas Day 1992" -- from the cited page following Eido Inoue's post on the talkpage. I know that he did, because I had just read it yesterday. See the link for the original text: http://web.archive.org/web/20130530091206/http://www.debito.org/morebackground.html. I strongly suspect that the new account Sweetandloveable is Debito Arudou. This presents two issues now: (1) it starts to make the Debito.org website unreliable as a source, (2) Wikipedia discourages subjects to write about themselves (see WP:BLPEDIT and WP:BLPSELF for details). Oddexit (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above on this talk page (see the Spiri book section), this is always the danger of references somebody's website or self-published work on Wikipedia. But this BLP on Arudo is full of references to Debito.com. Does Wayback machine now count as a reliable source, or is it now original research? Its not a publication. If not, I don't see how we can keep Eido's edit under Wiki rules.Mister Mtzplk (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Using_the_Wayback_Machine#Sources , Wayback Machine sources still count as primary sources, even if the page still exists or has been modified. Of course, the reference needs to be changed to reflect that it is from Wayback. Notation for this is provided, and built into the Wikipedia templates. So yes, there is a way to keep my edit. Eido INOUE 05:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eido.inoue (talk • contribs)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we use the WayBack Machine. It simply demonstrates what Debito Arudou did. Other than that, I agree with you. It's a serious problem if the subject of the article starts tampering with his original self-published source materials, which I think everyone is forced to agree, he clearly did. If you read Wikipedia's policy on WP:SELFPUB, the reason editors all across Wikipedia *can* use the self-published material from a subject (e.g., Arudou) discussing the subject (e.g., Arudou) is because theoretically Arudou knows Arudou, and he's honest about what he writes. Otherwise, the majority of the article is supposed to use independent reliably published sources from disinterested third parties (for the most part, that's true in this article). What are we supposed to do if the subject of the article starts manipulating the source materials? One option is that we remove absolutely everything from Debito.org and only keep materials from newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books WRITTEN BY THIRD PARTIES (i.e., not Arudou) and not linked to Debito.org. I've been reading Wikipedia policies more and more about what to do in cases like this. What are your thoughts? Oddexit (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is evidence that sources are dynamically appearing/disappearing/changing directly in response to talks/edits -- it doesn't matter who is making these edits (Debito Arudou or a third person agent) or what their motivation is -- then the obvious response to shore up the integrity of this article is to remove all (so as to not be discriminatory) references to these self-published sources which are easily alterable by the subject (or his representatives) of the page. Sources that Debito Arudou has written that can't be so easily stealth edited (for example, self-published books) should stay, in my opinion. Eido INOUE 06:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to issue a Request for Comment notification for other contributors around Wikipedia on what to do about using Debito.org as a source now, too. It's a good idea to get some consensus on this. Oddexit (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Eido Inoue, added the source back. I don't know. Do people want an WP:RFC or let it be? Either we take out all the self-published stuff, or we leave it in and maybe start attaching explanatory footnotes on what happened? "Source reads "this" on XYZ date, but the subject of the website edited it to read "this" on XYZ date following discussion on the Wikipedia talk page." I don't even know what to do in cases like this. Notable subjects don't generally edit their own website following talk page discussions to avoid it being cited, but it happened. Oddexit (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with a WP:RFC on this. If Wikipedia entries rely on stuff published by secondary and tertiary sources (usually not primary) that went through editorial oversight (see discussion on this Talk Page on Spiri book, which as far as Wikipedia rules go seems as "self-published" as something written by Arudo on Arudo's website), then I don't see how the Wayback Machine can be an acceptable source. It is not a secondary published source that went through an established third-party editorial process. Arudo remains the editor in all cases. Also, Wayback is as potentially static as Arudo's page. I don't know if this applies here, but what if somebody goes really far back on Wayback, finds a version of the webpage in question before the passage in question existed, and deletes this edit in favor of what might be the "original" text? Amendments happen (not all of them are "stealth edits", although I agree that's what seems to have happened here). So which version takes priority -- the most recent, the first ever, or a version that suits a wiki editor's fancy? Finally, I wish Eido had waited for a consensus here before editing again.Mister Mtzplk (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Eido, it also may be a good idea to wait for others to comment here and reach a consensus before you do any more edits to that section. No need to be hasty. Maybe undo your edit for now? Mister Mtzplk (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Eido INOUE 06:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to the events that have occurred above, as well as other evidence I see (the past edit histories), I am opening / requesting an investigation regarding sockpuppeting and meatpuppetry regarding the usernames that are currently active and editing this post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry Eido INOUE 09:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Has everyone seen Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Debito_Arudou:_Opening_request_for_third-party_mediation_for_many_years_of_violations_of_NPOV_on_a_BLP_on_me? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a better link to the discussion Debito Arudou: Opening request for third-party mediation for many years of violations of NPOV on a BLP on me, which is now archived. Rosalthe (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Arudou's racial harassment

A user removed the word "racial" from "racial harassment" and replaced it with "workplace harassment" with the following explanation: "No mention of 'racial' harassment in the link."[1]. I thought that was a curious assertion, so I double-checked the source.

The following passage reads:

Although working here made my Japanese really good--answering phones and talking to nasty, racist, and bloody-minded construction workers from nine to six--there was hell to pay every single day. The company tolerated absolutely no mistakes in my Japanese--penalties involving being screamed at for hours on end (the record being five hours straight. Twice), denial of toilet privileges, and accusations that slow days were my fault because customers were being put off by my flawed Japanese. Absolutely NO English was allowed on or off work premises (I'm not kidding--they forbade me to watch non-Japanese videos at home, and told me to cancel my subscription to The Economist). Pre-war Japan (in terms of superior-subordinate interpersonal relationships) revisited. After I nearly got sick and they started doing things that no Japanese superiors would ever do to their subordinates (like threatening to fire me for any minor infraction--even for coming to work in sneakers!-- kicking me in public, and calling my wife and asking her out!), my wife gave me permission to leave the company.

Based on the highlighted passage and Arudou's explicit word-choice to describe his employment, I think that it's quite clear what he was saying in this instance. Arudou was stating publicly that he was the object of "racial harassment." If someone disagrees with why Arudou used the words "racist" to describe the construction workers and "doing things [to Debito Arudou] that no Japanese superiors would ever do to their subordinates", I would be interested to read how they explain those passages.Oddexit (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it doesn't say "racial harassment", we can't either. You would be interpreting, not paraphrasing, sounds like WP:WEASEL. "Workplace harassment" is clear.

More and more I think we should stop citing Arudo's website because it violates WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLOGS. Mister Mtzplk (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So we would somehow be interpreting that Arudou suffered from (or more accurately alleged/claimed/argued he suffered from) "racial harassment" when Arudou explicitly says that "racist" construction workers abused him and that they did things to him that "no Japanese superiors would ever do to their subordinates"? That argument makes absolutely no sense. It is paraphrasing, not interpreting. Oddexit (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have given an argument backed up by Wikipedia rules. It is interpreting, not paraphrasing. We should stay with what we can safely say, and it anyway comes from source not allowed under Wikipedia rules WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLOGS. This discussion is going in circles. It seems arguments will make "absolutely no sense" to you unless you are the one making them. Absolutism like this is not how discussions on Talk pages are supposed to happen. Mister Mtzplk (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oddexit is right; the source supports "racial harassment", not "workplace harassment". I would bet that this news article is a better source for this topic, but nihongono wakarimasen (I can't read Japanese) --Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If you cant read the Japanese source, then you shouldnt cite or make corrections to the article based on it. "Betting" on a source is not a good thing for WP editors to do. I undid revision by Elvey because of that. Sweetandloveable (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Elvey was agreeing with me that Arudou's own English-language writings above referred to unidentified co-workers as "racist" and said that they did things to him that "no Japanese superiors would ever do to their subordinates." If "Japanese superiors don't do that to other Japanese," and Arudou is specifically calling them "racists" in the text, he was alleging "racial harassment." It's odd that you specifically claim that there's no mention of "racial" harassment in the text when he literally says it in his own autobiographical writings.[2] Elvey left the original source, which is appropriate, because that's what the source says. Oddexit (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the claim that I cited or made corrections based on the Japanese source indicates that Sweetandloveable's English comprehension skills, um, need work. I did no such thing. Please stop reverting me based on some completely nonsensical imagining of what I said. The assertion that I was ""betting" on a Japanese source [I] can't read" is preposterous at best, and more likely, uncivil. Oddexit's explanation is correct. rv reverted. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In less than 24 hours following Elvey's revision, the entire autobiography / background page written by Debito Arudou now seems to have either moved or disappeared from the subject's website. Having carefully read Wikipedia's WP:WAYBACK guidelines, it's best if the current website citation template be replaced with the appropriate Wayback citation template. Oddexit (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

Survey

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

Threaded discussion

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

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

The person requesting the RfC also makes an argument on this Talk page about citations of BLP's works in other academic works, arguing that BLP's publications are not notable unless it has enough or any citations.[[3]] Is this a WP rule? I cannot find one that says this. We should not create new WP rules here. Mister Mtzplk (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If you limit reasons for inclusion only to WP:ACADEMIC, still Arudo probably qualifies under item 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. If you look at his publications[[4]], he has researched and published many times in academic forums under his university name as an academic there. Because there is a WP page on him (with so much discussion) says something about his impact outside academia. Arudou now has a doctorate, so he is considered an "expert" on Japan, so says this new secondary media source (ABC NewsRadio Australia)[[5]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese version of Debito's page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On my talkpage, Mr. Stradivarius tells me that he welcomes questions about any of this. Thanks. I appreciate that. It would be useful to understand how we've gone from agreeing that the sources are reliable, high quality, and verifiable to suddenly unusable. I've followed the BLP noticeboard closely for a long time. Of course, I agree that it's important to write a good policy-based article per WP:BLP. I also agree that not using the exact language and paraphrasing would have been preferable for a lot of edits in this article, but unfortunately it would simply get challenged as not being accurate; something that's happened already on another thread above. Editing Wikipedia to balance all the conflicting information and editor interpretations of policy is a lot of work, especially when I'd like to get this BLP to a good and then featured article status soon. Also, I've studied closely for a long time how well informed and experienced editors disagree, sometimes strongly, on the BLP noticeboard about which sources are acceptable to cite, why and how. It's informative and there's nothing unusual about a content dispute. But this is the first case that I can remember that anyone has argued that the subject of a BLP can retroactively judge if his own published word-choices and commentary are negative and therefore should be removed immediately as a violation of BLP. In his essay explaining why he changed his name, Arudou Debito writes: "If you take out Japanese citizenship, you are obligated (but not required) to take a Japanese-sounding name."[6] This is cited by Timothy Webster in a peer-reviewed law journal article (a high-quality secondary source) discussing the subject of this BLP: "Aldwinckle made up a “Japanese-sounding name” when he decided to take on Japanese citizenship."[7] Unless Timothy Webster, who apparently is now an Assistant Professor of Law and Director of East Asian Legal Studies at CaseWestern Reserve University, is to be accused of taking Arudou Debito out of context in a peer-reviewed journal article, taking the law journal article citation over Arudou's self-published article about his name change is the preferred citation material per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In-line attribution is only required with clearly biased and potentially contentious sources per WP:BIASED to avoid questionable opinion masquerading as fact. But this is a fact that the subject was obligated (but not required) to take a Japanese-sounding name. The Wikipedia article was edited with in-line citation of the journal article to read: "Aldwinckle became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996 and a naturalized Japanese citizen in 2000, whereupon he changed his name to Debito Arudou (有道 出人, Arudō Debito), a "Japanese-sounding" version of his old name. This is challenged as being "out of context" and belittling to the subject? Huh? At what point in the three separate articles using "Japanese-sounding name" did this cited fact become "negative information" and "belittling"? I'm a little disappointed that my hard work and research to advance the project is being accused of disruption. Oddexit (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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