Jump to content

Talk:Namie, Fukushima

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit proposal.

[edit]

Essential point I'm trying to get across:

There is myth portraying Namie - and several other towns in Fukushima - as ghost towns with no rebuilding efforts. They're also portrayed to have higher radiation levels than in reality - impression they're part of "red zone" or "no-go" area. This hoax widely reported as genuine story, as you can see below:

Only one person is trying to prove this wrong: http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/attention-seeking-kid-keow-wee-loong/ ATTENTION SEEKING KID – KEOW WEE LOONG Arkadiusz Podniesiński ..and it hasn't been very successful:

※〶 22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

government material of exclusion zones, including the actual "red zone" http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/english/topics/GEJE/20160826_fukusima-now.png

From http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/about-me/ for Arkadiusz Podniesiński

  • two documentary films Baltic Wrecks [Wraki Bałtyku] and Technical Diving [Nurkowania techniczne].
  • photographic project “Lost Souls – the hidden world of animism”. This six-month study trip resulted in photographic portraits of African tribes that can still be seen in museums and galleries in many countries.
  • He is the author of numerous articles and photographs in the print and online media (including Nature, Der Spiegel, FOCUS Historia, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Stern, CKM, Voyage, Days Japan, Greenpeace Magazine)
  • two documentary films entitled Alone in the Zone (2011, 2013)

His problem with Keow Wee Loong is that Loong deliberately omits details people being present, creating propaganda. "But there was no-one else present in all the photos, just Loong in his gas mask, sandals, and shorts, and 2 colleagues in white masks and long pants."

Another is true, serious photographer while another _claims_ to be one. And this hoax is even harder to dispel since it has been portrayed as genuine story. ※〶 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unfortunate consequence of Wikipedia's policy of verifiability that things that are verifiable through multiple sources are given precedence over those that are actually true. So if verfiable sources published a wrong version of events (because boring facts don't generate views), that is unfortunately the version we have to follow. Often, however, if they were really wrong (and the error is grave enough), they will publish an errata and we can cite that. In this case, local Japanese sources (such as the English Japan Times) can possibly be used to refute the wrong info. I recall reading about the Japan's negative reaction to the worldwide attention given to this individual's story. _dk (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thought Japan Times is behind paywall? Do you think article published by Time has enough merit?※〶 01:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is reliable, then it doesn't matter if it's behind a paywall. Time Magazine is probably good enough. _dk (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Fukushima disaster cleanup#Edit proposal: new section "Controversy"? for information that regards this article. It can be used in improvement. ※〶 21:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Namie, Fukushima. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Namie,_Fukushima&oldid=1204180822"