Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 2

Trimmed-down article

I've removed lots of material that I feel doesn't belong in the article, focusing sharply on the onsen lawsuit. A draft is at Talk:Debito Arudou/draft. Fg2 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Feelings" aside, can you explain the rationale a little bit more. J Readings (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote in the Articles for Deletion discussion:

None of the information about his background and arrival in Japan, his marriage and divorce, motivations for name changes and self-interpretation of his chosen name, work experiences, etc. etc. etc. is worth including in an encyclopedia article on him. They are no more noteworthy than anyone else's. Those details belong in newspaper articles and his web site. The only reason he merits an encyclopedia article is his public activism. Fg2 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned in the AfD, I would agree with you provided that the subject of this article were just the lawsuit and not intended to be a standard biography. Also, we would need to change the name of the article. Then it would make sense, sure. J Readings (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that his notability consists of his public activism, which in turn is limited to the lawsuit, plus a few foonotes here and there to other matters. J Readings did a commendable job with the material he used, and I regret seeing his work wasted; but really, the material Fg2 has chopped eminently choppable: it's personal and by the way (and largely sourced to the man himself), plus an account of bickering that's largely limited to the blogosphere. Thus to me the new article is a huge improvement. Now, if his notability is indeed limited to the lawsuit, I'd be inclined to move the rewritten article there and do more necessary writing. On the other hand somebody has claimed in the AfD discussion that some people notable for one event can and do get their own articles. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that person is mistaken. The WP:BLP guidelines are very explicit about people notable for only one thing, too: they don't usually get articles on themselves. I'm inclined to avoid biography and move towards a simple overview of the case. Of course, this raises more important issues that will ultimately bring the "Criticism" section back into consideration. I'm referring to the minute someone wants to reference Arudou's highly personal book as a source---which someone will attempt eventually. I read the book. It's filled with the kind of stuff that Fg2 and Hoary want to chop. I never included a lot of the allegations made in the book because there were just too many. Then again, if Arudou's book on this subject isn't mentioned at all in the article, then we don't have to worry about book reviews, "fact laundering," noted reactions, blogs, etc. If someone drags his book into this, then it's difficult not to include NPOV balance, and the situation repeats. That's just my opinion. Others might disagree. J Readings (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You've (or someone has) drawn our attention to one review at japanreview.net. I hadn't previously heard of the site, which appears to be unrelated to the dead-trees Japan Review. It also appears to be an intelligently edited site, and the review (however fair or unfair) seems intelligent too. However, the latter are just my impressions, which count for little. Very simply, either we get backup elsewhere for my impression about the site or we don't. (Backup might be such things as being listed in some survey-review printed somewhere notable -- the Japan Review, perhaps? -- of the top five intelligent English-language website about Japanese social issues.) If we do, the review is mentioned but the bickering after it is not. If we don't, then the review too goes unmentioned. Meanwhile, other print reviews might turn up. Whatever is found, I don't see how a mention of the book need trigger a paragraph summarizing blog bickering. -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't add the Reviews of Japanese Only section. That was WhisperToMe. At the time, I thought giving JapanReview.Net's book review undue weight in the article with a whole new section was excessive, but I didn't edit it because he was doing a major revamp of the article. I also thought that adding the additional Arudou and Bern Mulvey comments linked to Arudou's website were questionable, especially since the WP:BLP policy states, "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if (1) it is not contentious, (2) it is not unduly self-serving, and (3) it does not involve claims about third parties." Plus, the Japan Review letters-to-the-editor page already cited Arudou's comments.

As for everything else about reliable sources, etc., this is a part of a longer conversation that we'll have to have at a later date. The only point that I'll make right now is that if the book is added, then the Greg Clark op-eds, the BENCI material, etc will have to could be re-added because it's all part of the book. And if that starts, then the process repeats. J Readings (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Japan Times review of Arudou's book: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?fb20050130a1.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of the article

Why is it that the article begins by refering to him as 'naturalized Japanese' rather than calling him a Japanese citizen? In many other articles about people who became naturalized citizens of other countries, wikipedia begins by refering to the person as a citizen of the second country and then later on in the article it explains the person's story. I find it strange that this article has to begin by emphasizing this guy is a naturalized Japanese citizen. Tango —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.181.242 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

2ch

Anyone care to add in some info about the 2ch lawsuit? http://www.debito.org/2channelsojou.html#english Onsen 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly merits a mention, although I don't suppose it's as notable as his lawsuit against the Onsen. Then again, he did win a defamation suit against one of Japan's largest bulletin boards. Do they get sued often? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Arudou wrote, "WaiWai was an essential guide to Japanese attitudes"

Arudou uses WaiWai about 60 (?) times in his site:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.debito.org++WaiWai

I think we should add the following important info.

>>> Defending the weeklies, as well as Connell and his collaborators, is the unflagging media critic and campaigner for human rights Debito Arudou, who wrote that WaiWai was an essential guide to Japanese attitudes and editorial directives. <<<

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/japan-rails-at-australians-tabloid-trash/2008/07/04/1214951041660.html?page=2 --Addmi (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kerr and re-writing history

An anon IP user who's apparently new to editing Wikipedia (no problem with me on that, however) deleted three paragraphs from the criticism section and places a fact tag on the introductory sentence.

Just a few points:

1. If the problem is the third paragraph (i.e., Kerr), that doesn't help us to understand why the sourced second paragraph needs to be entirely deleted. (So I put it back until a better explanation consistent with Wikipedia policy is outlined.)
2. The user also thinks the introductory sentence should be sourced. As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page: I don't understand why this challenge is necessary given that the rest of the section develops the very points raised in the introduction. I agree with the editor that had it said 'all' or 'most' within the sentence that this introduction would be unreasonable. But the introduction simply states that 'some' critics have argued these issues, which is a statement of fact.
3. The user also deletes the citation from Robert Neff without explaining how this is connected with his objections to the Kerr paragraph, or how it breaks any Wikipedia policies; and
4. The Kerr situation is interesting because when several of the blogs were discussing what to make of Kerr's published comments about Arudou, Arudou saw it as a chance to criticize Kerr. It's understandable that he would want to remove as much of the critcism as possible and promote the rest of the page (who wouldn't?), but I wanted to make sure I was consistent with policy before re-editing. I consulted the admins and other users at WP:RS. Their advice was to include both, with the proviso to me that "We do not re-write history." In other words, what was said was said despite whatever commments and criticisms which came thereafter. It's part of history and we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen. I should have probably mentioned that on the talk page, but it was 4 o'clock in the morning when I edited. I was tired.

In any case, I welcome a discussion of this on the talk page.

Best, J Readings 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)