Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki

Better source needed for 2017 arrest

I'm not sure crunchyroll is the best source. Can we get any more reputable news sites reporting on this? Crunchy cites http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20171121-OYT1T50067.html so if we could get a rough translation of this article from Japanese it could be helpful. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Replaced the source with Japan times, which is far more reliable.--157.107.29.44 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

He was NOT arrested. It was "書類送検", which is different from arrest.--157.107.29.44 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

First, there is a wikipedia policy "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper

Individual incident like this should not be emphasized and must be treated equally as other info, so do not put it in the lead which covers only general info. You must follow the wikipedia policy.

Next, "Charge" is 起訴 and "arrest" is　逮捕, and no Japanese media reported he got 起訴 or 逮捕. Japanese media only reported he got "書類送検", which means "being referd to prosecutors". So English media reporting "charged" or "arrested" mistranslated Japanese articles. So far, Japan times is the only English media which translated correctly, so do not use other English sources.--157.107.29.44 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC) How does including the fact in the lead section count as emphasizing said information? The lead is supposed to summarize most of the important information in an article- it’s meant to be for someone who wants a general summary of the information below but doesn’t want to read through an entire article of facts to find certain information. I’d say that alleged possession of child porn seems to be pretty important information (especially if it’s a current event), and I really don’t see how including a single sentence mentioning it in the lead section is putting emphasis on the information. The article on Louis C. K. mentions his recent sexual misconduct allegations, and that isn’t considered emphasis on certain information, so why would this be any different?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to report news but an encyclopedia. The lead section is supposed to cover general info, not individual events. And emphasizing a particular event is against wikipedia policy. Do not consider other articles are perfect. You can remove redundant lines to improve articles.--157.107.29.44 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I sort of understand where you’re coming from. Alright, whatever. But still, I think it should definitely be added to the lead at some point, if not now then at least later on when more information on the situation is revealed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with the interpretation of policy being forwarded here. WP:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The entire point of the lead is to repeat important parts of articles. Feeling skeptical about motive for wanting the crime to not be in lead. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

His arrest has already been mentioned in the "career section". Stop duplicating the same info.--121.1.207.242 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying about the duplication. In future, if you have concerns please bring them up with other editors on their talk page rather than just accusing fellow editors of sockpuppetry. Remember to assume good faith. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Move 2017 arrest info to "Personal Life"

Watsuki's 2017 charges have nothing to do with Rurouni Kenshin other than halting it as a consequence for his crimes. The arrest info should be moved to "Personal Life." lullabying (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It has influenced his career so should be mentioned in the career section.--121.1.207.242 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with his career, unless his crimes were done in a professional context. It is a personal matter. --187.161.144.23 (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The series was put on hiatus in addition to the crime happening as his workplace. 76.5.98.176 (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Please let's drop the edit war to reach a consensus about the organization of this article.Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: As previously mentioned, I don't believe his arrest information should be included with his career. It has nothing to do with his career -- his works were impacted because of his arrest, but the reasons for his arrest were a personal matter. lullabying (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Most articles reported the incident together with the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc. Clearly about his career.--14.3.176.123 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

His works going hiatus was affected by his arrest but was not the cause of it. Clearly we need to vote regarding whether to separate his arrest from his career. @Xfansd:, please give your rationale. lullabying (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments about 2017 charges

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 Watsuki's 2017 arrest info be separated into a different section apart from the "Career" section? lullabying (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments: Articles mention that his works were put on hiatus following his arrest, but the cause of his arrest was unrelated to his career. Articles: 1, 2. 3 lullabying (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments: Correction: Watsuki was not arrested, but simply charged. lullabying (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments: This would be put in a section aptly titled Personal life or something related; it can also include information about his marriage. lullabying (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely no need to separate the info.

• As already mentioned, he was NOT arrested. It was "書類送検", which is different from arrest.
• In the Japanese version of this article, only a few sentences refer to the incident, and the sentences are in the career section.
• Most articles reported the incident together with the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc. It is extremely clear that mentioning them together in the career section is much more natural than separating the info.
• I am pretty sure that lullabying and Xfansd are trying to separate the info to make the incident stand out. But there is a wikipedia policy "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper

Wikipedia is not a place to fulfill your personal motivation or emotion.--61.114.202.68 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

IP, please assume WP:GOODFAITH instead of accusing other editors for fulfilling a "personal agenda." This is an issue that's been going on with several IPs who have been pushing to keep the information in the career section as seen in this edit. Please avoid attacking other editors and be WP:CIVIL.

I looked through the articles and most of them are just about the charges, such as this one on ANN and this one on Kotaku. Rurouni Kenshin was only added as an afterthought to provide context on who the author was. His charges affected his career but the reason for them is unrelated.

Separating it into a different section does not fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It is not original reporting (1), the tone is not written in a "breaking news" format nor is it treating the info discriminately (2), people involved were notable (3), and it is not trivia (4). Furthermore we are not the Japanese Wikipedia and we are not required to follow their style of formatting unless it falls under WP:MOS. lullabying (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• I refrained from commenting for numerous reasons. First, dealing with an IP hopper complicates everything. Second, my edits clearly improve the article and therefore speak for themselves. This is supported by the fact that myself, lullabying, and Tintor2 (not to mention various IPs) reverted to the version with a personal life several times. Which means it is the consensus by default and the single IP hopper is the one against it. So when the IP accused me of violating consensus, I laughed it off due to the hypocrisy. I have no problem telling you that my personal opinion is that Watsuki's situation is not a big deal at all, what he possessed was legal in Japan up until 2014, so if anything I would downplay it not emphasize it like the IP suggested. For some reason IP thinks putting legal troubles in a Personal life section, somehow emphasizes that one thing over everything else in the same section. How does one respond to something as ridiculous as that? As I stated in my last edit summary to the article, the IP has no argument. Xfansd (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit is separating the info and the edit summary is "It's a serious crime and people should know". So we can clearly see the editor tried to separate the info to fulfill his personal objective "to make the incident stand out so that people know the crime". Of course Wikipedia is not a place to fulfill such a personal objective.

this one on ANN is not used in the article.

this one on Kotaku is used in the article, but the editor cited an original Japanese article and mistranslated. As mentioned above, he was NOT charged in November, he was just referred to prosecutors, which is different from charge. The editor of Kotaku clearly mistranslated so we should delete the source by the editor.

Other sources which translated correctly mention the hiatus and resumption of the Hokkaido arc, so should be mentioned in the career section.

[1]

[2]

[3]

--157.107.25.188 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, is this a new person or the same IP hopper? (See why I tried to avoid this?) The editor who made that edit has been blocked, so that's taken care of. You listed a bunch of sources, and if you were the one who caught the mistranslation - good job, but no one is arguing over sources here. What the sources say affects what we put in the article, but they have nothing to do with how we layout the article. This discussion is about putting the Personal life section back in. Xfansd (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Xfansd. The point here is the sources reported the incident together with the resumption and the hiatus of the Hokkaido arc. So obviously it is much more natural to mention the incident in the career section because the incident is closely related to the resumption and the hiatus of the Hokkaido arc. The Japanese version of this article also mentions the incident in the career section. Of course it is not compulsory for us to follow them, but there is no reason for us to take a different layout. Both editors in the Japanese version and English version strive to improve the article, but looks like Lullabying is just making "put the incident in the personal life section" his top priority, without considering the quality of the article. Considering the natural flow of the article, it is extremely clear that the incident should be mentioned in the career section. Separating the info just confuses readers.--157.107.25.188 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

IP, please consider registering for an account on Wikipedia to avoid confusion. Currently there is no consensus established on what to do with the article and I'm afraid I cannot take an IP address' word for it especially since it's easy to masquerade as multiple IPs. Currently, Xfansd, Tintor2, and I are in agreement. I do not know which editors have opposed it besides you, which is why I created this request for comment to make things clearer.

Several other celebrities with similar controversies/trials (see Bill Cosby, Kanye West, Eminem) have had them sectioned off from their career section because like Watsuki, their charges were not directly related to their careers. His career did not cause it -- the articles provided only give context to who he is in relation to him being in the news, and his career was only impacted because of his charges. lullabying (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

And why do you only care about cause? If the result has something to do with the career, the incident should be mentioned in the career section. And I proved above that the sources reported the incident together with the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc.--110.4.167.63 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Eh, it's a judgement call based on section size (as in MOS:BODY). The articles for celebrities with controversies that @Lullabying: linked above have far more extensive controversy sections, so separate headings for those articles are a no-brainer. For this article, it's less clear-cut because a single paragraph for a section may seem a bit small to some.

Though... I would have expected to see this kind of controversy in its own section, as that usually seems to be the case. So looking through the page history, it looks like one idea was to put the incident under a "Personal Life" section, as in this revision. It makes sense to put the information about his wife into a "Personal Life" section anyway (why is it buried in the "Career" section right now?) I don't think this makes the incident stand out particularly more than under the "Careers" section, because it's still hidden underneath an unassuming heading. If we really wanted to make the incident stand out, we would mention it in the lede or have a subsection specifically identifying it.

I do however agree with the IP(s) that the incident was mainly reported in the context of the mangaka's manga career, so it also makes sense to keep it under the "Career" section. Perhaps we could put the incident into a subsection under the "Career" section. The "Career" section is starting to look a bit long, so more subsections here would make the article nicer anyway.

Anyway, here are some comparable scandal examples:

• Aska (singer): brief mention in lede
• Mitsutoshi Shimabukuro: brief mention in "Careers" section
• Ai Takabe: section "Personal Life", subsection "Arrest"
• Noriko Sakai: section "Biography", subsection "Drug Scandal", subsubsection "Drug testing and indictment", subsubsubsection "Reactions"
• (See also Category:Japanese criminals)

The general trend seems to be that longer more developed articles tend to have separate sections for controversies/scandals, whereas shorter more stub-like articles usually don't. Make of that what you will. -- Ununseti (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Adding subsections can be an option, but the subsections will be according to his works, not an event. Emphasizing a single particular event is not good according to Wikipedia policy, unless the incident is enough big. In this case, the author did not even get arrested, nor even sent to trial. If we were to add subsections, I recommend 1. Early career, 2. Rurouni Kenshin (original series) era, 3. After Rurouni Kenshin, or something like that.--110.4.167.63 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

IP, having it under a subsection won't emphasize it too much. Like Ununseti said, it would only be emphasized if we added it to lead (which is supposed to be a summary of the entire article). Whether or not you agree, this is something that has happened and needs to be written objectively, not through a fan's perspective. lullabying (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Ununseti: The articles only report information about his career to give context as to who he is. The charges aren't directly related to his work. I think information about his charges would be perfectly okay under "Personal life" (i.e. Ai Kago, Mari Yaguchi, Hitomi Yoshizawa); however, if it's too short, then having it under a subsection in "Career" is perfectly fine. Maybe have the section labeled "XXXX-present: Rurouni Kenshin: Hokkaido Arc, 2017 charges", etc. lullabying (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I checked other articles where the subject got fined, such as Roberto Firmino, Hugo Lloris, Yaya Touré and none of them have a subsection for the incident where they got arrested and fined. Again, subsection is not for a single event.--110.4.167.63 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, 110.4.167.63 . Subsections usually are, in fact, used in Wikipedia articles when a single yet notable (and mostly unrelated) item of information is presented in the text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the incident is not notable. The author was not even arrested nor sent to trial. And the incident was reported together with the hiatus of his work. The current article is perfectly fine and no need to change.--61.114.201.55 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not commented at all about the specific event's notability. I simply pointed out that what you wrote about subsections is incorrect, since, in fact, they are used in Wikipedia articles for a single event. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a subsection is perfectly fine in this case. The event is notable (see #2 on WP:EVENT, since it also gained international coverage in news media. lullabying (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Making it part of the subsection's title would be emphasizing the event, which seems to have been the reason for IP's actions in the first place (although there was flawed logic there as a section titled Personal life would in no way do that). I am also against emphasizing it. I can not see what is making this such a big discussion; the IP was the only one reverting due to flawed logic, that has now been explained to them. Let's just put it in the Personal life section like everyone else thought was better. Xfansd (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Lullabying is just trying to fulfill his personal objective to make the incident stand out. I agree with Xfansd in that a subsection would emphasize the event but personal life section would not, but I still think the incident should be in the career section as it already is. Most sources reported the incident together with the hiatus and resumption of the Hokkaido arc, therefore we should describe them together. The current version is perfectly fine. --14.3.115.98 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

IP, I have already warned you once against making assumptions against WP:GOODFAITH and deliberately attacking other editors. I am not trying to make this incident stand out, but simply finding a solution that everyone can agree on. All the other editors on here are suggesting to put it in a subsection or a "Personal life" section and I am balancing between those compromises. You are the only person who is adamantly against this and is not only working against WP:CONSENSUS but making baseless accusations against other editors who simply do not agree with the layout of the article. Please do not personally attack other editors. lullabying (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Separate section A personal life section will suffice just fine, but this is clearly not a topic which is primarily about the subject's career (no matter that the two subjects are both incidentally discussed together in some sources because the news of the illegal activity impacted work on his latest project). Indeed, I see the need to point out some inconsistencies between relevant policies and the IP's arguments on the importance/"notability" of the topic (put in scare qoutes here because the way they use this term does not correspond to what WP:Notability means under our polices), which often drift directly into the realm of WP:original research; we don't need an arrest, trial, or any other criminal procedure before we can discuss a given topic to a particular extent, as per this or that editor's idiosyncratic analysis of how important that make any allegation of illegality. The test rather, is simply the WP:WEIGHT of coverage in reliable sources. in that sense, looking at the sources here and doing additional searches, I think a separate section would be perfectly WP:DUE even if it were expressly labelled to reference this event. That said, discussing it in a personal life section is also a perfectly reasonable option and an acceptable one as a middle ground solution to the content dispute here. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Lullabying is the one who was talking about notability in the context of original research, as I never mentioned we did not need to describe the incident in the article. What I am against is emphasizing the incident, and most articles where the subject got fined such as Roberto Firmino, Hugo Lloris, Yaya Touré do not have a subsection for the incident and some of them got arrested, while the subject of this article did not even get arrested. Therefore the current version is perfectly fine, and the Japanese version of the article, which obviously have sources which English sources cited and translated, put the incident in the career section because the sources reported the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc together with the incident, so we also should mention the incident in the career section.--61.114.201.186 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you have been framing this in terms of notability, immediately above. Also, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not typically accorded much weight on this project; the facts are invariably different between articles (for example, each of the cases you mentioned there involve drink driving offenses, not remotely the same kind of charge faced by the subject in the present case), the weight of sources is certain to be different and, ultimately, the editors may not have made the most policy consistent call in the case of other articles, and most importantly. Each article's editors come to their own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on how to apply this project's policies based on the particulars of the details and the sourcing available. And once again, ultimately it is the WP:WEIGHT of the sources that determines emphasis, not any editor's personal call on it's importance. Frankly, you seem a bit invested in this, but while it's entirely possible that the consensus will move this into the personal life section as opposed to an independent section, it's pretty clear you are alone in advocating for it being in the career section and that your arguments for doing so are not holding water with the other editors (whether previously active here or RfC respondents) so I'd be prepared to give up on that point. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already proved that

• Most sources about the incident reported the incident together with the hiatus and resumption of the Hokkaido arc, which is clearly about his career.
• The Japanese version of the article, which have the sources which the English sources cited and translated, put the incident in the career section.
• The incident is in the career section for over 1 year, both in the Japanese version and the English version.

The current version is perfectly fine.--14.3.115.230 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• IP, you are also editing against consensus and also accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "having a personal agenda." For the record, I am not here to judge Watsuki for anything. As far as I'm concerned, you are the only one in this discussion who wants to keep the layout the way it is while all other editors have suggested a subsection or a "Personal life" section. We are also not required to make the article word-for-word like the Japanese Wikipedia unless it overlaps with Wikipedia:MOS. Be WP:CIVIL in your approach. lullabying (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Moving the discussion forward, we have 3 currently suggested options: Keep, Add to "Personal life" section, and Add to Career as a subsection. Let's start deciding between these, or if someone has a different suggestion, feel free to share. lullabying (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is Lullabying has not provided any valid reason why you want to change the current version. All you have provided is "the cause is not related to his career" and "we are not required to follow the Japanese version" which is of course not a valid reason but just your personal desire. The result is related to his career. And that we are not required to follow the Japanese version does not mean we need to take a different layout.

Again, I have already proved that

• Most sources about the incident reported the incident together with the hiatus and resumption of the Hokkaido arc, which is clearly about his career.
• The Japanese version of the article, which have the sources which the English sources cited and translated, put the incident in the career section.
• The incident is in the career section for over 1 year, both in the Japanese version and the English version.
• Most articles where the subject got fined such as Roberto Firmino, Hugo Lloris, Yaya Touré do not have a subsection for the incident.

The current version is perfectly fine.

And stop claiming "other editors are opposed to your opinion." Polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

--122.249.134.98 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure Lullabying is probably familiar with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; I'm sure everyone here is. But you will want to familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS, which it utterly against you in the present instance. And you know what is not found anywhere in our policies? Each of the four arguments in your bulleted list above:

• The fact that these events were reported (in your interpretation) mostly in connection with his absence from a work project does not mean we must (or should) treat the criminal investigation as an event in his career, when said investigation has nothing to do with his professional life.
• We don't care what another Wikimedia project did with this information; we apply our own local content policies, not those of other projects.
• It's of no particular strong relevance that your preferred method went un-noted for a year; consensus will guide what we do from here forward.
• It's already been explained to you ad nauseum that what is done in other articles does not control here, and why this project follows such a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS process. Aside from which, the facts are not even particularly close between those three footballers investigated for drink driving and the much different investigation in this subject's possession of those images.

Please see also WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TEND, because your responses to anyone who disagrees with you here are getting increasingly disruptive and if you continue harass everyone who responds differently (that is to say, literally every single un-involved editor who has responded to your RfC request), the most likely outcome will be that this article will be put under page protection to prevent you from edit warring against the consensus, regardless of whether you change IPs every few hours. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Also (and this goes for all parties) please try to follow WP:INDENT in your responses, so that the discussion does not become an unreadable mess. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• The fact the cause is related to his personal life does not mean we must put the incident in the personal life section, especially when the result is closely related to his career, which was reported in the sources.
• There is no local policy that we must put the incident in the personal life section.
• That the incident is in the career section for over 1 year in both Japanese version and English version indicates the event is in the right section.
• That possession of those images is more notable than drink driving is just a personal opinion.

And your attitude to ignore other articles is not good. You just keep repeating "we do not care about other articles", but it is common that editors refer to other developed articles to see how good articles treat similar incident. Now you are ignoring those and claim "we do as we like". And no one has provided any valid reason to change the current version. --122.249.134.98 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has said "We don't care about other articles", nor anything remotely like it. What has been pointed out to you, by numerous experienced editors, is that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not regarded as particularly compelling on this project. As for a "we do what we like" attitude...you're one editor, clearly operating from behind a proxy, ignoring the WP:consensus formed by what every other editor has said here, WP:bludgeoning every single perspective that conflicts with your own in even the slightest detail (even when they make concessions towards middle ground solutions that are not required of them), and claiming that anyone opposing your view has not provided "any valid reasoning" for their perspectives--when every person contributing to this discussion has cited numerous policies representing broad and long-standing community and you keep advancing your own idiosyncratic views.

But, like apparently everyone else here who had to engage with your WP:disruptive approach before the bot summoned me here, I'm done going around in circles with you--especially if you can't abide by even the simplest of our WP:talk page guidelines, such as WP:INDENT (this time I have corrected your post myself, since you seem unwilling to read even a policy page about formatting). Your arguments, being not at all based in policy and needlessly antagonistic to any contrary views, have failed to convince anyone to adopt your approach. The discussion will close shortly and I've little doubt as to how the closer will summarize the consensus. The content will be moved, and if you continue to WP:edit war to preserve your approach, and IP hop to avoid blocks (given your inability to work with others, I am increasingly convinced that the reason you are operating from behind a proxy service is because you are evading a previous block) we'll simply lock down the article with protection. Good day. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

So am I not cooperative just because I do not agree with other editors? The incident is in the career section for over 1 year, therefore the edit which tries to change is considered a bold edit, so the editor must provide a valid reason to do so, and what have been provided are "the cause is related to personal life", "we are not required to follow the Japanese version or other articles where the subject got fined". And I have already explained why they are not valid reasons. That we are not required to follow other articles does not mean we need to take a different layout.

The incident is

• The author was referred to prosecutors.
• The Hokkaido arc was put on a hiatus.
• The author got fined.
• The Hokkaido arc resumed.

It is extremely clear that mentioning them together in the career section is much more natural than separating the info. The current version is perfectly fine--122.249.134.98 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Don't make a full top level section out of it (invited by the bot) Ideally, there should be a more substantial personal section and this topic would be just a paragraph or subsection within it. 2nd best / in the meantime would be the current which describes it in the career context and placing it under career. 3dt best, make a "Personal life" section titled that and make this temporarily be the only hing in it. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not a section heading Because of the Hokkaido arc suspension and renewal it fits in career section. (Summoned by bot) HouseOfChange (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• • I have read the whole discussion and no consensus has been made so far. I agree with HouseOfChange in that it fits in career section. But I suggest creating a subsection for the arrest.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2019 (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.

Whitewashing child pornographjy charges

There appears to be an attempt to whitewash the child pornography charges. There is no personal section, where this should be, but it's included in his career. I would advocate that the section head remain; without it, it gets buried at the end of a wall of text regarding the minutiae of his work history. I also note the consensus above which states it should be in a subsection. Ifnord (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

At first I thought in a similar way. Once I read the discussion, I support the claim Wikipedia is not a place to exaggerate a single particular event. It seems the author was not even arrested, and he only got fined $2000. Other articles such as Roberto Firmino, Hugo Lloris, Yaya Touré do not exaggerate a similar event. The event has something to do with his latest work, and the Japanese article also mentions the event in the career section. And vote count is not consensus. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT, we discuss an article on its merits alone and not compare to others. Consensus, not vote counting, was that the information should belong under a section head. Ifnord (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We do not call the situation consensus when no reasonable reason to change the current version has been given and a lot of points suggest the current version is better. You even ignored all the points I summarized and you still keep editing without any discussion. You failed to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and ignored Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and you are ignoring the quality of article and just trying to rush to your personally desired editing.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Years late, but the user you are replying to (OP) was perfectly respectful and reasonable. They said "there appears to be an attempt"; this is a perfectly reasonable statement and a valid concern for controversial pages. They are not saying "there is definitely an attempt". If anything, statements you made appear to be in bad faith, including "you failed to", "you are ignoring ... and just trying to rush to your personally desired editing". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also as a heads up to other readers, this user was blocked from the Japanese Wikipedia. I would not take their comments to heart. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Renaming "early life" to "personal life" and including part of the child pornography stuff there

I read the earlier closed discussion, and while I like that the "Career" section is broken into two parts for readability, I still feel that the non-career aspect of his crimes are important. Like, keeping that subheading in "career" is fine, but certain personal stuff, like him admitting an attraction to elementary and secondary school girls, or how his fine has been reacted to by japanese shounen jump fans (NOT just western fanbases) and how his mentored now-friends didn't really react could be in the "personal life" section too.

I just think that "early life" is kind of restrictive whereas with "personal life" we could continue to add on when it comes to the human aspect of his situation. AnotherToast (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• @AnotherToast: Some articles have combined "early life" and "personal life" to "Early and personal life" if they are related, but in this case, the information you are suggesting borders on WP:UNDUE. The reactions towards his 2017 arrest are unnecessary unless they were made by a notable figure and passes WP:GNG. lullabying (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The arrest section should be removed

He was fined money for having teen modeling videos of underage girls in private residences, it had nothing to do with pornography. The law was created in 2014 to match up with the rest of the worlds child protection laws.

It's common knowledge girls there above the age of 12 used to be in model videos. They're considered pornography because the girls are teens and they are enticing, it has nothing to do with what Americans think of pornographic material, it's closer to swim wear advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done. This event affected the serialization of his works and was also widely reported in the media, so this event is notable as discussed above. Without going into a discussion about the ethics of junior idol gravure modeling, it's worth pointing out a lot of junior idol image DVDs are no longer distributed due to how they are now considered child sexual exploitation material since 2014. lullabying (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but could you just write gravure modeling instead of "naked girls," they're naked, but they aren't actually depicted in the films themselves naked from the point of view of the camera. The fact that I have to point out you shouldn't say 'naked girls' when discussing underage women is concerning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done "Naked girls" is factual and is not biased wording regardless of whether or not it's considered gravure modeling. You admitted that the subjects are naked and that in itself would make the content child sexual exploitation material automatically. lullabying (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone off camera being naked is completely different than saying a video with a naked girl, if someone off camera being naked is considered pornography then almost every single modeling event, swim suit event ever is pornography because off camera they're naked. Saying they're "scantily clad," is correct, saying he had videos of naked girls is biased and disrespectful to asian culture, they censor everything over there and have a lot less sex crimes in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• The sources state that the DVDs had videos of naked girls and whatever "definition" you want to go by doesn't change the fact that he was fined for possession of child pornography and that affected the serialization of his works. Also, while I will not debate you over your claims, please know that you are talking to an East Asian who has or has had friends/family members experience things that might prove your statements otherwise. I will also point you to this source which you can read for yourself on how it is viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If you find any sources that clarify it was just gravure modeling from a reliable source, feel free to add it. Until then, I don't see why the changes need to be made, and your explanations seem to be less on facts and more on morals. I will step away from this topic for the time being and will allow someone else to take over this conversation. lullabying (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• Coming here from the WP:ANIME talk page notice. While I admit I am largely unfamiliar with junior idol culture in Japan, I agree with Lullabying above. All the reliable sources have described it as something akin to "child pornography", (the ANN article explicitly states "nude footage of young girls") and like Lullabying said, it affected the serialization of his work not only in Japan but internationally too. As such, it definitely deserves some WP:DUE weight. Link20XX (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Why remove his charges?

who cares if it was only a fine, it was a RIDICULOUS amount of CP. It's been off the page for like 6 months. 2600:6C67:4A3F:6864:4418:171:317F:2598 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The information about the arrest is still on the page as a subsection of the career section. Link20XX (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not in the lead? WP:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Given how serious of a controversy this is, I feel like it should be mentioned in the lead. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently it has one sentence in the lead, and I think that's appropriate. The arrest is a fairly significant part of the article's career section and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says the lead should contain a short summary of the major points of the body of the article. That being said, I think the lead paragraph is too long and either should be shortened or split into two paragraphs. Link20XX (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with both assessments. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I made some WP:BOLD changes to the lead. If you have any issues with them, feel free to post them here. Link20XX (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Changes look good, thanks. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)