Talk:Debito Arudou

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)

the Neutrality Tag

An anon IP address turned up to criticize the term "self-publicized" in relation to Arudou's divorce, deletes it, and then decides to throw the baby out with the bathwater by disputing the neutrality of the entire article. I appreciate the input, but it would be more helpful if the anonymous user would outline where the article can be improved on the talk page. As it stands, a vague dispute about neutrality leaves us nothing to work with.

As an act of good-faith, let me explain my reasoning regarding the expression “self-publicized divorce,” and then hopefully we can all move on to other things. Another editor (Hontogaichiban) changed Arudou's official name from "Sugawara Arudoudebito" to "Arudou Debito" in the original paragraph of the naturalization section, while incorrectly leaving the other sections about the "Sugawara" rationale unchanged, requiring some kind of publicly verifiable re-write. So we have to ask the questions: Did Arudou change his legal name? Yes, he did. Is this a publicly verifiable fact? Yes, it is. Why did Arudou change his legal name? Because he filed for divorce. How do we know that he filed for divorce? Because Arudou HIMSELF wrote an essay on it and then publicized it HIMSELF (hence the "self-publicized") in various venues on the internet, as Arudou acknowledges in his essay. These facts are (a) publicly verifiable, (b) not original research, and (c) written in a neutral tone, so I added them to the article. As far as I am concerned, there are no value judgements involved.

Meanwhile, the anonymous user thinks the term “invites misunderstandings and is nasty,” both somehow at the same time. But can the user please be more specific? The term, “publicized divorce,” is a common expression when reading about the divorces of public figures in the neutral print media.—J Readings 05:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur that if that is the reason for the application of the neutrality tag, it should be removed. I think the user in question also had problems with content that has since been removed (something about a phrase that said that it was obvious that Mr. Arudou edited his own wiki due to his personality).

--Watchreader 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable amount of time has passed (one month) without any comment from the original anon IP address regarding the use of the Neutrality tag. As no one articulated what the problem was, I removed the tag. J Readings 03:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't this article be moved to Debito Arudou? Isn't it standard to write the first name first on Wikipedia, even with Japanese names? Ornilnas 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. It looks like "Debito Arudou" was redirected to this page in 2004, along with several other variations. I checked several other Japanese names listed in Wikipedia. They all follow the Western convention. Perhaps we should correct it now.—J Readings 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, should the article name really be in wapuro romaji? -- 130.233.24.129 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Detractors

It is noteworthy that Arudou also has a number of detractors. The foreigner community in Japan has not been unanimous in his support. One of the reasons is his somewhat confrontational movement style. When he was denied entry to Unohana Onsen, by his own admission, he was drunkenly making a commotion. Establishments in the Otaru area had chronically been inconvenienced by drunken Russian sailors to the extent that the mere sight of them drove away customers. Unohana Onsen has suffered a long history of Russians intruding into the women's bath, breaking glass on the floors and stealing possessions of the customers. Detractors argue that Arudou did nothing to convince the Onsen that he was any different. In fact, detractors say, the only thing different about his actions is that he sued when he was denied entry. His detractors argue that his actions only serve to enhance the image of foreigners as trouble makers in the eyes of the Japanese. Arudou's counter argument is that he is legally a Japanese citizen and therefore entitled to sue. But it has not silenced naysayers who believe that his movement is doing more harm than good.

(The above has been posted on the main article. Feel free to edit the main article as need be, but the original should remain on the discussion board.)

--Oscar—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.163.12.72 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 December 2005.

---

I recommend the Detractors section be deleted in its entirety. It appears to be written by one of those detractors, who is not writing objectively. The facts of the case are distorted or incorrect, and it adds nothing to the encyclopaedic nature of the section.

Quotes and comments:

"Foreigner community in Japan has not been unanimous in his support." --This goes without saying. Nothing has the full support of everyone, not to mention an activist.

"Unohana Onsen" in two places --Misspelled "Yunohana".

"by his own admission, he was drunkenly making a commotion..." --Need source

--The original source was http://www.debito.org/ but the paragraph describing how Arudo was "celebrating" his newly aquired Japanese citizenship by barging drunkenly into the Onsen has now been edited.

"somewhat confrontational movement style" --This is a matter of opinion, not of fact, and should not be stated as such in an encyclopaedic entry.

--This is, rather, the bases of an opinion held by many people.

"chronically been inconvenienced... mere sight of them..." etc. --Need source, and hyperbolic

--The original source was private correspondence with Yunohana Onsen. However, Arudo and anybody associated with the case should be well aware that one of the chain of Onsens associated with Yunohana was run out of business and forced to close due to disruptive actions of Russian sailors. This was one of the main arguments of Yunohana in their defence.

"Unohana Onsen has suffered a long history of Russians intruding into the women's bath..." etc.

--Yunohana (correct spelling) apparently never let any foreigners into its bath, refusing them at the door from when it opened in 1998. http://www.debito.org/lawsuitbackground.html --Need source on those examples of theft, broken glass, and lewdness taking place at Yunohana.

--Also private correspondence with Yunohana, but the issue was repeatedly raised in the course of the trial.

"Detractors say Arudou did nothing..." --Need source

--By his own admission, on http://www.debito.org/ , Arudo recieved complaints from many angry locals, most of whom were clearly unconvinced that Arudo was not just another trouble maker. Since this is practically the only English language source on this subject, English speaking detractors base their opinions on this site. All people interested in this topic, therefore, are advised to read http://www.debito.org/ thoroughly and reach their own conclusions.

"Arudou's counter argument is that he is legally a Japanese citizen and therefore entitled to sue." --Need source. And this is not the only argument Arudou (and two other plaintiffs, who are not Japanese citizens) made to sue. http://www.debito.org/lawsuitjustification.html

Clearly this Wikipedia entry is being altered by someone with an axe to grind. Recommend deletion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.27.54.213 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 January 2006.

Clearly this Wikipedia entry is being altered by someone with an axe to grind. Or perhaps, Arnold, someone without a specific axe, but who finds your actions just a little bit obnoxious? Even if he/they are gaijin themselves? Not everybody supports you in this, you know. Some of us think you would have done better using a bit of diplomacy instead of stomping off to court. Just because you have the right to sue doesn't mean it's the best thing to do in this case.... Recommend inclusion.

--Deletion is acceptable as long as the original entry remains on the disscussion area. The fact remains that little is available in the English language on the issue of Arudo Debito's actions other than his own words. By deleting counter arguments, Arudo and his supporters are underscoring the impression that they are using Wikipedia as their personal pipe organ.

---

Unless we let Arudou write his own arguements in the article (presented as independent material) it is difficult to support the content of the Detractors section. Without looking at the history, it reads as if it were written by a non-sceptical Japanophile who believes in Japan's unique culture (whose isn't) which avoids confrontation at all costs. See Sino-Japanese War, Second Sino-Japanese War, Pacific War.

Don't be an apologist for Japan. It's a great place with a few nasty attitudes. If you want my explicit POV, Arudou is a non-violent protester against racism and the courts are a legitimate and appropriate place to tackle the overt signs of the xenophobia. In the meantime, I may start a Supporters section (?). DMC 06:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

It is also notable that, as of this writing (Jan. 3, 2006) Arudo Debito and his supporters have never once complained about the numerous "Whites Only" and "Gaijin Only" establishments in Japan, nor has he made any protest about the anti-Asian prejudice in his own home town. http://www.asianweek.com/091997/dennys.html Due to these traits, he has frequently been attacked on Japanese internet bouletin boards such as "2 channel" as an "anti-Japan White supremacist". http://www.2ch.net/

I think if you were to add these criticisms, it should also be noted that he sued 2chan for libel and won. http://www.debito.org/2channelsojou.html watchreader 13:57, 5 July, 2006

The above may deserve its own section, "2ch lawsuit", but it's not valid criticism. As noted in the pages about the lawsuit, what was written was plainly untruthful. Besides, just because you complain about one social problem doesn't mean that you then have a duty to complain about another, and much less does that make you some kind of supremacist. 82.103.215.236 14:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot take this position in an encyclopedia article. By claiming that Arudou's position was "truthful," you are taking a biased (POV) side in a debate. That is unacceptable. All we can say with any certainty is that Arudou filed a libel lawsuit against the owner of "2 channel" and won. Why he won is a matter of considerable speculation and debate, ranging from legal technicalities (i.e., the defendant did not show up to court, aiding the plaintiff) to a judge's personal legal interpretations of the evidence to almost anything involving the evidence itself (e.g., how much was availabe, etc). Just because a judge rules one way or another does not make the substance of Arudou's claims "true" or "false." If it did, someone can argue that Arudou's claims against the Japanese government are completely wrongeaded and false because the Sapporo High Court and the Supreme Court quickly dismissed them. The point is: we're not supposed to get involved in making these kinds of assessments. That's for the reader to decide on his or her own, and thank goodness for that. As for including the fact that Arudou filed yet another lawsuit against someone, I'm not sure where this should be placed in the article (if at all) without the proper background and context.--J Readings 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to make an edit to the entry regarding Alex Kerr and his new-found support of Debito's activities, but noticed someone beat me to it. To add more balance to this section, however, I made a minor edit and added Alex Kerr's quote of support, (with Debito's explicit permission received via email.) I feel that, as stated in other sections of this discussion page, the "Criticism" page should be immediately followed by a "Supporters" section. I cannot see how Debito's direct engagement of social issues in Japan could be as negative as the "Criticism" section makes it to be. Rushdamian 03:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rushdamian, can you think of a good reason why the same Kerr quote ("I wholly support.....") needs to be repeated twice in the same article, let alone the criticism section? Also, can you supply us with a few Wikipedia articles that actually have a "supporters" section qua "supporters" section? (I'm asking--it could be useful to consider). The criticism section (not page) is supposed to be about criticism, hence the name; it's not about "adding more balance to this section." What is that comment supposed to mean exactly in the context of criticism? Provided that it cites a publicly verifiable source (personal blogs like Arudou's were always discouraged as sources of information as part of Wikipedia policy, anyway, but let's not get into that here --- see WP:RS for further details), and presented in a neutral tone (i.e., we don't agree or disagree with the comments), the criticism is acceptable. It's already understood that any sensible reader who wants to know more will look up those primary or secondary sources and continue to read all the various opinions. It's also understandable that Arudou Debito and some of his political supporters and friends might want to remove the criticism section and play up the rest of the page. But that's not what the criticism section is about; it's about documenting for the reader as concisely as possible what criticisms exist. This is consistent with so many other Wikipedia pages, I don't know where to begin listing them all. J Readings 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough...the quote did not need to be repeated twice in the same section. Now, just because there may be few, if any, articles thave have a "supporters" sections does not mean that such a section could not be included. (I have yet to find an article with such a section, so maybe this could be the first?) Sure, any sensible reader can research other sources to obtain other opinions, but then why have a criticism section at all? It follows logic that, so long as sources are reliable and verifiable, a supporters section could be provided. (Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines allows exceptions to self-published sources, (i.e., blog sites.WP:RS.)) I don't believe Debito's supporters would want to have the criticism section removed completely, but in fairness and balance of this article, it should be noted that so long as there are verifiable documents giving support to Debito they should be listed here as well and should list separately from the criticisms. In doing so the entire article would take on a more neutral tone as opposed to a biased one. Rushdamian 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rushdamian. Let me say again that I don’t object to a “supporters” section provided that:

1. it’s not self-serving. Anyone can create a blog, self-publish it without editorial review, and later quote the unknown blogger. I would strongly object to that kind of “supporters” section simply because it’s a double-edged sword for everyone involved. Before we know it people will be taking advantage of the situation from every direction: on blogs, Usenet, chat fora. That’s one reason why WP policy usually doesn’t allow blogger comments.

2. a notable author or organization related to Japan or human rights gave their unconditional support for Arudou’s confrontational tactics, writings, etc. in a publicly verifiable newspaper, letter-to-the-editor, academic journal, or peer reviewed non-fiction book (i.e., no vanity press), I would most definitely think that’s important and I would support its inclusion, too. Here’s an example I found of a “supporters” section: Aung San Suu Kyi. Do you notice how none of it traces back to Aung San Suu Kyi’s personal homepage?

3. the “supporters” section actually says something interesting other than “I support Arudou.” Like it or not, and this goes back to what I meant by reading the original sources (you misunderstood me, I think), the criticisms are nuanced. If they weren't, we should call the section "Denunciations" or "Detractors" instead of "Criticisms."

Changing topics, you keep asserting that the article’s “tone” is “biased.” Watchreader and I keep asking people to be more specific so that it can be corrected, but no one manages to articulate what the specific problem is. I understand that “tone” (i.e., POV wording) is probably not what you really mean, but in case you are talking about wording problems, please let everyone know.

Finally, as a general comment (not related to Rushdamian), and as I keep saying on this talk page, we really need to stop quoting Arudou's homepage so much and instead rely much, much more on what journalists and academics are publishing about Arudou and his activities in reliable third-party sources. The logic is that if it's worth noting, they most likely would have already covered it. See WP:RS, WP:ATT, and WP:NOR. Best, J Readings 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tactics

"Some of the foreign community in Japan has not been unanimous in his support. One of the reasons is his somewhat confrontational movement style." --This is a matter of opinion, not of fact, and should not be stated as such in an encyclopaedic entry.

The matter of tactics is an important issue when discussing efforts to overcome prejudice. Whether Arudo belongs in the same grouping as Rosa Parks or Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X or any random vandal setting fire and throwing stones to any business he deems racist is judged mainly by the tactics he involves in his movement.

Mr. Arudo has taken full advantage of the fact that his own website is practically the only source of information in the English language on his movement. He has done so by witholding obviously important facts.

For example, he has written an article about how he was stopped by the police multiple times as he was riding a borrowed bicycle implying that foreigners in Japan are ruitinely harrassed by the police. He neglected to mention that this was on the day before a World Cup soccer game when the police were on high alert for foreign hooligans. And he actually took a plane to a different town and borrowed a bicycle (how did the police know it was a 'borrowed' bike? RACIAL PROFILING!) to perform this demonstration on this given day.

On the onsen issue, he neglects to say that there are numerous onsens in his own neighborhood of South Sapporo where foreigners are quite welcome. He also neglects to say that he drove four hours to be denied service by an onsen that was known not to service foreigners. Known by whom?

The pattern of his actions is that he has deliberately sought trouble to make noise about. Trouble, it seems, that one would not stumble on if one lived a normal, quiet life. He has frequently been challenged on his selective use of facts as well as his movement style. To this day, he has not provided an answer that can silence his detractors.

=============

In response to the question: "deep down, you are still ****, right?": It's no doubt that I am connected in some way to the identity I was "born into", and externally, also, I tend to appear to be "something" by default. But the question is: why do I HAVE TO be "something"? Dunshi 09:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A couple of things.

First, if you're going to dispute an article you must use the discussion page to enumerate your reasons and attempt to reach a solution. If the disputer fails to do this in the next short while, I'm removing the dispute tag from the article.

Second, the article is encyclopaedic because Arudou is a teacher, author and activist who is well-known, has written several books, and has been a part of high profile and important, from a human- and foreigner's rights point of view, legal cases in Japan. He is also one of the few non-Japanese, non-Asians to have taken Japanese citizenship.

Third, I'm puzzled by the move/name change. Again, Whisper to me, what are you doing? Exploding Boy 15:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, I'd like to know why my edits on this were reverted.

If you don't want the breakdown of the name kanji, fine, but the publications section is inaccurate as is. Arudou (and that's not his first name..) was not refused entry to Yunohana Onsen on the grounds that he was "not Japanese". The manager acknowledged that he was Japanese but refused to allow him entry anyway on the grounds that racist customers would then avoid the onsen. Also, he did not have his daughter with him at the time. See the transcript. -- Hyphz—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyphz (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 August 2005.

While I do not know why your edits were reverted, your above statement contains your personal point of view (POV) that is not supposed to be included in Wikipedia. "Racist customers" is a POV statement based on the assumption that the customers had no other reason than racism to avoid foreigners at Yunohana Onsen. It is often neglected that Yunohana and other establishments in Otaru are chronically plagued with the uncivil, and often violent, behavior of Russian sailors to such an extent that the mere sight of them drives away customers. Debito, in his crusade, has not taken any steps to assure other customers that he is any different from the Russians. On the day he was refused entry, by his own admission, he was drunk and loudly making a commotion. Your above statement would be less POV if you replaced "racist customers" with "customers fearful of unlawful acts by foreigners due to past experiences". Whether such customers are "racist" when they encounter sober and well-mannered foreigners in envioronments other than where they could be naked and vulnerable remains to be tested.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.163.12.72 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 December 2005.

Contradiction.

Maybe somebody got a date wrong. The article says he was naturalized in 2000, but also that he had already been naturalized before the incident in 1999. I've copied the contradictory text below:

---

Arudou became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996, and renounced his American citizenship and was naturalized as a Japanese citizen in 2000, whereupon, as required by Japanese law, he took a Japanized name.

Arudou... went with some Japanese friends to an onsen (hot spring) in the Hokkaido town of Otaru in 1999. The onsen in question was known to refuse non-Japanese patrons. Arudou assumed that, as a naturalized Japanese citizen, he would not be refused...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peligro (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 November 2005.

Birthday

It would be nice to have more basic biographical information for the article. Like for instance, his birthday. If anyone could find this it would help out a lot. Sudachi 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please consult the following Wikipedia policy Biographies of living persons with regard to the policies on providing birthdays for living people. --Sgsilver 10:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Info on Debito

On matters of interest that are missing from the article, I would suggest trying to email Debito (his address is probably available through his website, and shouldn't be hard to find if it isn't). He'd probably be happy to help, and might be able to improve the article. Exploding Boy 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's on the site, I've e-mailed him in the past. Speaking of his site, I don't see a link to it in the article. I'll add one now. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 10:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Otaru Onsent lawsuit section

I'm curious as to what the basis is for the line "An investigation revealed that other similar cases had occurred at the same onsen, such as a case where a mixed-race family (who were nonetheless all Japanese citizens) had been split up, with only those whose appearance took after the Japanese side of the family being admitted."

I've seen on Debito's webpage that this has happend to his own family (kore wa hen da yo nihonjin! interview), but could there be a citation of other instances of this? The way that it's worded now it seems like there is some kind of neutral investigation that occured with many many people, and one such case was a mixed race family. The way I understand it now, the only investigation that took place was Debito taking HIS family and facing discrimination, which is a single case. Indeed, a previous version used this version was used but altered inexplicably.

This is relevent because a lot of the criticism regarding Arudo Debito is around his omission of biased details to make them seem neutral (going to places where he knew he would be thrown out, bicycling during a crowded event with lots of white foreigners and acting all indignified when the cops think he's one of them, etc.) If there are other cases, we should cite them. If his family's case is the only case and it is presented differently, than his critics will point this out and dismiss his claims unfairly. --watchreader

No Citations Yet

For the time being, I am removing two assertions from the main page. They are the following:

"An investigation revealed that other similar cases had occurred at the same onsen, such as a case where a mixed-race family (who were nonetheless all Japanese citizens) had been split up, with only those whose appearance took after the Japanese side of the family being admitted."

The above quotation has remained on the article's main page for quite a while without any supporting citations. While the statement may be true, I'm removing it to the 'discussion' page until an editor can provide a verifiable public source for the claim. Having read Arudou's homepage and the book, my sense is that the assertion is false. Hopefully, an editor can clarify the statement.

The second paragraph that I am removing in its entirety can be found in the criticism section. It reads:

"Some critics object to Arudou's choice of targets, asserting that far more pressing and pervasive discriminatory behavior exists in Japan. Such alleged problems include racial discrimination in apartment rentals, the granting of tenured academic positions in Japanese universities, and the right of foreign fathers to gain access to their children in the event of divorce. Nevertheless, Arudou created the Blacklist of Japanese Universities [1] in 1997 to raise the issue of discriminatory hiring practices in Japanese universities, and has also written about and linked to other activists dealing with issues such as child custody and divorce. [2]"

I'm removing this paragraph for three reasons. First, there is no citation to support the initial statement. Second, the critics should be identified, either directly in the main text or in a footnote. Third, it's a rather sweeping criticism that may be true (if I citation can be provided), but probably needs to be edited when a citation finally can be provided.J Readings 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For the onsen citation, see my critique above. I have found one source which states "The onsen manager looked at Arudou’s children and declared that older Japanese looking daughter could enter the onsen, but her younger Western looking sister could not." (http://www.japanreview.net/review_arudou_and_lazlo.htm) --Watchreader 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor (61.27.73.16) challenges three more sentences. The first challenge deals with Arudou's rationale for leaving the construction company. I moved the citation to that clause for clarity, but to be clear, the article simply states a fact on Arudou's homepage (already quoted in the footnotes). He was claiming (NPOV) that he was being racially harrassed in a way that was different from other Japanese. The Wikipedia article neither confirms nor denies Arudou's assertion.

The second challenge deals with Arudou's group trip to the onsen to test rumors of racial discrimination. I agree that this point deserves a citation. But I think that fact comes from Arudou's book, among other places on the internet. I don't have the book in front of me right now. Hopefully, someone can supply a citation soon.

The third challenge requests a citation for the introduction sentence on the Criticism section. 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.J Readings 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Background

A Wikipedia editor (61.27.71.47) challenged almost every unsourced statement in the background and naturalization section of this article. At first, I was going to help to clarify the unsourced statements, until I realized that most (all?) of them are basic positive facts (see "When adding material to the biography of a living person" under "Citing Sources" in the Guidelines) that can be easily traced back to the original "background" article on Arudou's homepage, which is already cited more than once. Citing every single setence becomes overkill, no? This leaves me scratching my head as to what we should make of the challenge. Either the editor wasn't aware of this, *or* the editor is suggesting that Arudou's autobiographical details are not to be trusted. It would be helpful if this person could clarify. To be fair, I remember the recommendation in the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing that we should avoid relying too much on one source if it's a controversial subject. But I hardly think that a birth year, date of permanent residency, and a naturalization fall into this category. I recommend leaving the unsourced statements in these sections as is. Does anyone disagree?J Readings 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Onsen Lawsuit section & Divorce questions

"Arudou assumed that when he returned in 2000 as a naturalized Japanese citizen, he would not be refused; but the manager, although accepting that he was Japanese, refused him anyway on the grounds that his foreign appearance could cause existing Japanese customers to assume the onsen was admitting foreigners and take their business elsewhere.[citation needed]"

http://www.debito.org/KokoGaHen1.html is a source explaining the discrimination. I will add it as a source, but I'm not sure how to list it in the source section. It also includes information on how one of his daughters was discriminated against but the other was not.

Second, this may be irrelevant to the main article, but has he posted anything about his divorce? So far as I can find on his (very poorly organized) main site, I've seen he changed his name. I was wondering if he posted anything else aside from that (and a bunch of stuff about divorce in general) that would explain his situation/take on it. If he hasn't written anything extensive, that's fine, but it's kind of shocking to me.

--Watchreader 23:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation to the Onsen Lawsuit Section, Watchreader. I was meaning to add a citation from Arudou's book, but slogging through it to find the right passage is time-consuming. I also agree about the website: it's in desperate need of an internal search engine, among other things, to make it much more user friendly. Hunting for information there can be tedious. Regarding Arudou's own divorce and his personal take on it, the cited essay on the main page, "DEBITO.ORG SPECIAL EDITION NEWSLETTER: How to Get a Divorce in Japan," (2 Dec 2006) can be found in different public places on the internet. "Club of 99" is one location. See: <http://www.freelists.org/archives/club99/12-2006/msg00000.html> "Gaijinpot.com" is another location. See: <http://www.gaijinpot.com/bb/showthread.php?t=30122&page=2> There are other locations, but two will suffice for now.

——J Readings 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for these links. I had glossed over a lot of these because I assumed they were passages from his new book (and coincidentally, the chapter he releases early is on Divorce in Japan, and is similarly worded except comes from a more NPOV). Incidentally, if my source ("Koko ga hen da yo! Nihonjin" is too... well... goofy to be in wikipedia, I also found from Debito's mainpage articles from the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/world/29JAPA.html and a transcript of a Washington Post article http://www.debito.org/washingtonpost070403.html. That should settle that!

--Watchreader 19:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we should probably go with a Washington Post or New York Times article instead, but avoid linking too much to Arudou's site. In a very helpful passage, Wikipedia makes it clear that we should avoid using Arudou's website whenever possible. In the Biographies of living persons section, it specifically instructs us to do the following: "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." In the future, I think that we should probably rely more on journalists and less on Arudou himself. Of course, "in some circumstances" (whatever that means) apparently we can quote Arudou's site.—J Readings 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Other minor revisions

It seems there are a few things that have been pointed out to me that I have cleared up:

"Aldwinckle joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, Hokkaido, teaching such elective classes as “daily conversational English.”[5]"

For one thing, where does it say in the name of the course is “daily conversational English.” ? The summaries may sound like he's teaching a course like that (or at least taught that 4-5 years ago when the outline was made), but nothing is called that. Also his other course is about debate, so this example is misleading in addition to being outdated and irrelevant. I'm scrapping it.

"Arudou initially maintained dual nationality in violation of Japanese nationality law ..."

whoa whoa whoa... What law? According to the source cited (Debito's story), he had a two year grace period:

"Mr Schufletowski then shifted gears. 'Our records indicate that you have both American and Japanese passports. As far as I know, the Japanese Government does not permit dual nationality. So what do you intend to do with your American passport?' I told him that that was under consideration. I received my Japanese citizenship in October 2000, and had a two-year window in which to give up my American. I had not done so up to then because I wanted to see how accepting Japanese would be of my newfound status, and then decide."

If it was against the law, it was against the law. But don't be going citing his story, because according to HIS story, it WASN'T against the law.

And then there's the criticism section...

"Some of his former colleagues who were initially active in the BENCI (Business Excluding Non-Japanese Customer Issho) project (unconnected to Arudou's "Community in Japan" project), have criticized his apparent unwillingness to co-ordinate efforts. Such friction contributed to a split with some of his initial supporters in the BENCI project. Others have criticized his alleged thirst for personal publicity, a claim which he has repeatedly denied."

As far as I can tell, "Some" of his former colleagues who criticize his unwillingness to co-ordinate efforts and "Others" who claim he has an alleged thirst for personal publicity are the same person. There's one source. BTW, what denial? Where's the source for that? I'm keeping this (as it is, techinically, valid criticism), but I want to point that out.

"Such sentiments are further expressed on Japan-related internet chat fora: that "Arudou's tactics may lead to an eventual backlash against foreigners, rather than expand their rights."" What fora? An op-ed piece? How is that a forum? This sentence is worthless.

Look at citation #24: Arudou alleges that “the US does not like people giving up their citizenship—for taxation purposes,” charging the US with unusual taxation measures shared only by Eritrea. According to Arudou’s allegations, the wealthy, labeled as “yacht people,” must pay an “exit tax” in order to renounce US citizenship, thereby avoiding being double taxed to suit U.S. government aims. Arudou cites an unrelated article as evidence. William Booth, “A Look at…the U.S. Citizenship Test: Learning, and Earning Their Stripes; the 100 Questions that Open the Door to America,” the Washington Post, November 17, 1996, pg. C3. However, in actual fact, no mention of “yacht people,” an “exit tax,” US tax policy, or the government’s allegedly “Eritrean” tax system is made in the article. In a separate claim, Arudou alleges that a U.S. diplomat, during a private telephone conversation, intimated his intention to reveal Arudou’s passport status to Japanese officials. The diplomat denies the allegation. Arudou also alleges that the U.S. government “coerced” him into relinquishing his U.S. passport at the US Consulate General Sapporo. However, Arudou acknowledges that this latter allegation was only a “feeling.” See Debito Arudou, "How to Lose Your American Passport," Debito.Org, January 10, 2003.

WHOA WHOA WHOA! Is this a lost section? a) how is the diplomat thing relevant? b) what he says is entirely true. See http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/17/news/expat.php which was linked from the drudgereport this morning "...some international tax lawyers say they detect rising demand from citizens to renounce ties with the United States — the only developed country that taxes it citizens while they are overseas."

I say I cut the hidden section.

Clearly a lot of the criticism is valid about Mr. Arudou. I think a lot of it is garbled and needs the axe. I shall chop!

--Watchreader 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Teaching

"It seems there are a few things that have been pointed out to me that I have cleared up:

"Aldwinckle joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, Hokkaido, teaching such elective classes as “daily conversational English.”[5]

"For one thing, where does it say in the name of the course is “daily conversational English.” ? The summaries may sound like he's teaching a course like that (or at least taught that 4-5 years ago when the outline was made), but nothing is called that. Also his other course is about debate, so this example is misleading in addition to being outdated and irrelevant. I'm scrapping it."

I would say a few things in response. First, I reviewed some of the Wikipedia biographies of other living persons and many discuss what people currently do for a living. So, I don't think that it's unreasonable to mention what he teaches if this has to go up for arbitration. Second, the sentence specifically said that he teaches "such elective courses as 'daily conversation English'." I would emphasize the qualifier "such as" in this instance, which is not only factually correct (and not misleading), but also publicly verifiable, since that's a phrase in quotation marks that Hokkaido Information University (his own university) uses to describe the course. If some people have their doubts that he teaches such elective classes as "daily conversational English," then the burden of proof falls on them to show why Hokkaido Information University is not a good source. Does anyone have another one? Do such courses change so dramatically over 4-5 years? No, of course not. So, what's the big deal? I suspect that the problem here is simply that some people are uncomfortable (not necessarily Watchreader) with the overall idea that Arudou is an English teacher and they are looking for reasons (excuses?) to gloss over the fact. Otherwise, let's face it: if he doesn't teach "daily conversational English," what does he teach--Math? Business Accounting? Physics? Let's be reasonable about this. It's (a) a publicly verifiable source, (b) written in a NPOV, and (c) not original research. That said, if the real objection is simply that we should include "and debate" after "daily conversational English," I think that's entirely reasonable as a form of compromise, so let's include it. Do you disagree? J Readings 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no no, I'm fine with the idea of him being called an English Professor. I also agree there is middle ground if we include debate. I'm just saying that it was worded bit oddly. For one thing, "daily conversational English" was in quotes, as if that was a course title or something. I don't see a course called "daily conversational English," I see a course called "English [Roman Numeral]" Second of all, debate seems to be a more advanced topic than daily conversational english. I mean, JETs teach "daily conversational english." Are we implying that Arudou is some kind of JET with tenure? Are we sure these are elective classes? I suggest wording like "Aldwinckle joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, Hokkaido, teaching courses dealing with conversational English and debate." Is that fine?

--Watchreader 12:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Okay, well it sounds like we both agree that the sentence only needs to be reworded a little bit. We both agree that there's enough evidence to show that he started to teach English again. I don't know about the JET Program, but my reasonings was to give a quick quote from Hokkaido Information University on the nature of the courses taught (hence the quotation marks) to show that we're not describing the courses ourselves, while keeping it all down to one crisp sentence. His university describes one as dealing with "daily conversational English" and the other as with "persuasion and discussion." So, why don't we just use their words? As for "electives," the university syllabus makes it clear that these are "electives" in the middle box of the description. It reads "Elective, 2 Credits." Why don't we just include that like this: "In 1993, despite his previous pledge 'against ever being a language teacher again,'[footnote] Aldwinckle joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, Hokkaido, teaching elective courses that deal with 'daily conversational English' and 'persuasion and discussion'[footnote]"? That would make it consistent with the syllabus. Is that alright?—J Readings 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that should also be noted that that is only part of the syllabus designed for the School of Distance, while he also teaches in the Department of Information Science (http://www.do-johodai.ac.jp/Syllabus/English/04Syllabus_DeptInformation.pdf), which has different classes and different class descriptions. I therefore challenge your assertion that we can assume that course descriptions/ the people who teach various courses remain fixed. I've certainly seen cases where schools change which professors teach which classes to teach on a consistent basis. More to the point, with these other courses, should we also describe that he teaches courses dealing with oral presentation and verb conjugation as well? Wouldn't it be simpler (and more able to stand the test of time, since both of our sources are almost 5 year old) to just state that he's an Associate Professor of English, and cite the syllabi in case someone wants more specific information?

--Watchreader 01:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a small problem with this, too. Calling him an "Associate Professor of English" could imply to some readers that he teaches English literature. See, for example, the Wikipedia biography of C.S. Lewis where being an "English Professor" or part of the "English Faculty" implies something other than teaching foreign languages. As a compromise, why don't we go with your suggestion of including all of the syllabi in a footnote (we have to look up how to reference these properly), and in the final clause of the original sentence, we simply edit it to read "...teaching courses in English as a foreign language.[footnote] He is currently an associate professor"? This way, it's both factually accurate and simple. Agreed?—J Readings 09:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*Thumbs up* I approve.---Watchreader 12:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

BENCI

"And then there's the criticism section...

"'Some of his former colleagues who were initially active in the BENCI (Business Excluding Non-Japanese Customer Issho) project (unconnected to Arudou's 'Community in Japan' project), have criticized his apparent unwillingness to co-ordinate efforts. Such friction contributed to a split with some of his initial supporters in the BENCI project. Others have criticized his alleged thirst for personal publicity, a claim which he has repeatedly denied."

"As far as I can tell, 'Some' of his former colleagues who criticize his unwillingness to co-ordinate efforts and 'Others' who claim he has an alleged thirst for personal publicity are the same person. There's one source. BTW, what denial? Where's the source for that? I'm keeping this (as it is, techinically, valid criticism), but I want to point that out."

I agree that this section needs to be re-editted with additional footnotes. However, I don't think that these criticisms all come from the same group of people, so it probably makes sense to leave the "some" and "other" split, or try some kind of rewording later. I don't think that the BENCI people mentioned in Arudou's book included the person cited in the other footnote, but I could be wrong. I'll check. Plus, I was just looking here (http://www.japanreview.net/letters.html) and a former BENCI member, Anna Isozaki, was publicly criticizing Arudou's book and the reasons for the criticism. From the tone of her Letter, it doesn't sound like she knew the reviewer. Maybe we can add a footnote after the second sentence ("...unwillingness to co-ordinate efforts") to include some page numbers and names of BENCI members from Arudou's book? I don't have the book in front of me, but if I get the chance, I'll try to look it up in the library.—J Readings 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. If we can get sources that show people's criticism, I'd have no objection. My problem with this section is that it's worded in a way that suggests that there are many people (and undoubtedly there are) who have these criticisms, but only cites this online review. As far as I can tell, the review says that Arudou had a falling out with this Tony Lazlo character, and even then stopped short of mentioning any criticism by Lazlo against Arudou. So basically its saying that the source of this criticism is implied feelings that Lazlo probably has, and then extrapolating these implied feelings into "Some" people and then "Other" people. So according to the source, it was taking hypothetical criticism and dividing it among hypothetical people. I suggest we find one source for the "some" people and another source for the "other" people and make sure they are in fact two different people. Also, I would not cite "http://www.japanreview.net/letters.html" as I could not load it. Maybe it's just down right now. I'd cite the book, but copies are kind of hard to find out here in NC.

--Watchreader 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My fault. I accidentally added the "l" to "htm," but there isn't one. Try this instead: http://www.japanreview.net/letters.htm. It should work now.—J Readings 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you! This is an excellent source, however I'm kind of slow tonight. It seems that Isozaki's criticizing his tactics and, in that sense, his "coordination" with the group. I'm not sure that wording is correct. At least when I hear the word, I think of the criticism of someone "unwilling to coordinate" as someone unwilling to plan events, rather than his unwillingness to cooperate with already planned events. I mean, if anything the criticism was that he is TOO willing to coordinate things, and that he's terrible at executing them/sticking with the agreed plan. Thus the criticism in its wording confused me. I recommend the wording changed and this cited. And while it doesn't state much about his thirst for publicity, I'm sure that can easily be found and cited as well.

--Watchreader 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Co-operate" may be a better choice of words than "co-ordinate." Either way, perhaps we can wait until we/someone review(s) the Arudou book section on Lazslo that deals with this criticism. We can add something from the book in addition to the Isozaki citation.—J Readings 14:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated, the book is kind of hard to come by here in America (it's not like you can just buy it off of Amazon. Not the English version at least.), so I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help in that department. While it would be ideal to cite the book, in the meantime we should go by what we can find on the internets. According to the (infamous?) book review by Honjo, most of the book is on his webpage anyway, so surely we should be able to cite something from there. Maybe we should cite reviews of the book review by either himself (http://www.debito.org/japanreviewcritique.html) or BENCI member Bern Mulvey (http://www.debito.org/mulveyonhonjoreview.html)? I know you objected to using his site too much, but so long as the alternative is citing his book, I don't see the difference. --Watchreader 14:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind the costly international delivery charges, you can purchase either the Japanese or English version of the book at Amazon.co.jp. See: http://www.amazon.co.jp/JAPANESE-ONLY%E2%80%95-Springs-Racial-Discrimination/dp/4750320056/sr=1-1/qid=1166646135/ref=sr_1_1/250-5365730-9497028?ie=UTF8&s=books.—J Readings 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Splendid! And more to my other point, what's in the book that I need to buy, read, and then cite it, when the information (including Arudou's opinion on the matter) is already widely available on the internet? I don't mean to sound lazy (even though I am), but seriously, don't we already have this information? --Watchreader 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arudou’s Allegations and Wilcynski’s Criticisms

“WHOA WHOA WHOA! Is this [citation #24] a lost section? a) how is the diplomat thing relevant? b) what he says is entirely true. See http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/17/news/expat.php which was linked from the drudgereport this morning "...some international tax lawyers say they detect rising demand from citizens to renounce ties with the United States — the only developed country that taxes it citizens while they are overseas."

Okay. I disagree with the edits, but I don’t want to get into a lengthy dispute over this issue. Hopefully, we can agree to revert the edits for several reasons: (1) footnote #24 simply listed in neutral fashion (hence the word “allegation”) what Arudou wrote that provoked Wilczynski’s criticisms; (2) the rebuttal turned it into a debate and, as such, Wikipedia guidelines insist that we have to stay neutral (“assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves”); (3) we included the facts for Arudou’s (then) allegations (his words and one unrelated 1996 article about immigrants that he didn’t write); and (4) even if we wanted to be biased towards Arudou, the new article, like the old one, doesn’t have anything to do with his assertions about the “US NOT LIKING people giving up their citizenship---for taxation purposes” or an “Eritrean” tax system or “yacht people” or “exit taxes” or anything to contribute to Arudou’s claims against the US diplomat(s) who allegedly tried to force him to give up his US passport. So, I would turn the question around by asking: Why should we be convinced that all of Arudou’s (then) allegations against the US government and the US diplomats must be “entirely true” based on a single article that was written just now? The bottom line to paraphrase the Arudou-Wilcynski debate: “This is what Arudou alleged (and his evidence) about the US Government and the Consulate General Sapporo. This is what Wilcynski stated as criticism. For further information, see the original transcript here.” As with all Wikipedia articles, the reader is supposed to decide what to think of the subject (Arudou’s allegations) and the criticism (Wilczynski’s rebuttal).—J Readings 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a lengthy debate over this either. This was actually the section I thought needed the axe the most, where if no other change I made were made, surely this would stay. On the basis of the length of your reply alone I object to it being merely a footnote. If you want to chronicle this epic battle in the main section, I'd have less of a problem with it (you don't even need to update the citations!). I fail to see what this issue has to do with the criticism surrounding his research methods and his "Rogues gallery." It's totally different criticism, and criticism I encourage to be fleshed out in a meaningful, scathing, cited critique! Speaking of cited critique, this is the second citation for the same story. Can you really give me a good reason why the exact same story needs to be cited twice, and with totally different wording?

The base of Arudou's critique is that the US government imposes taxes on it's citizens living abroad, which has been verified. Wilcynski's only critique of Arudou's tax claims seem to be around specific figures ("income over $80,000 (not $74,000 as stated in the piece)", or wording. Now of course the words are different, but Arudou's argument is still that the US government has these tax policies. By saying "Arudou alleges ___", we are implying that what he says is in dispute, when the things he says (albeit in different words) are verifiable. Heck, as for the exit tax (which doesn't seem to ever be disputed by Wilcynski, making it irrelevant to the "criticism") check this out: http://www.ascotadvisory.com/News_Bulletin/9981.htm http://www.usvisanews.com/articles/memo354.shtml. "On the issue of renouncing US citizenship, this of course is one option some clients have taken, but even so, the US (or the IRS more correctly) says that they claim the right to tax any citizen that they think might be renouncing for tax benefits for up to ten years after the date of renouncement." Source 2: "A tax law was passed in 1996 that said anyone who gives up their citizenship and is worth $500,000 or more, must be doing it to dodge taxes. This law, granted by Congress, gave the INS the power to label someone as a "tax dodger" and banish them from the US. Also, the IRS became intollerable of people who banish their US citizenship and show no mercy to anyone who does it by taxing them on all earnings for 10 years after they give up citizenship."

So we see evidence that this procedure of collecting taxes after the renunciation of citizenship is tax law, the fight seems to be over semantics. Is it called an "exit tax" or is it just "tax that the IRS may impose for up to 10 years after renouncing citizenship"? Are these people "yacht people" or simply "people who are worth over $500,000"? His "allegations" are correct, even if his wording is unconvincing, socialistic and sloppy. So maybe the criticism isn't at all about his statements about tax policy, and everything to do with alleged conversations (which seem to take up the bulk of Wilcynski's critique). Maybe the criticism should say that Wilcynski denies certain conversations ever happened (which he does deny) and believes Arudou misrepresented tax policy (which he does seem to believe). In this case, we can just leave "Alec Wilczynski, Consul General, American Consulate General Sapporo, criticizes Arudou’s “antics,” “omissions” and “absurd statements” as part of a deliberate attempt “to revive interest in his flagging ‘human rights’ campaign.”[7]", for the most part as it is. We can reword this to be more specific that he's referring to the alleged conversations, Arudou's incoherent writing style, and some of the representation of tax law. --Watchreader 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise some interesting and fair points on tax law, but allow me to elaborate on mine. You’re arguing, at least here, that the current problem stems from his “unconvincing, socialistic and sloppy” writing-style; that Arudou is speaking the truth on taxes, but he does it poorly. Maybe. But I think that you’re being too generous in your assumptions about what he means when he starts the essay about his own decision to relinquish his US passport by stating: the “US does not like people giving up their citizenship——for taxation purposes.” Some obviously question why it is necessary to raise the issue of taxes at all unless the author is implying something quite different about US government intentions towards Arudou's own case and the middle-class. Indeed, this was one of the first objections raised by Wilcynski in his rebuttal; he questioned whether Arudou was implying that the Consulate General made it difficult for him to give up his US passport, or that they were out to get his tax yen, or something else. Consequently, we get a situation where some people assume that he’s pointlessly talking in the abstract about US tax law and so they try to defend him ex post facto, while others get the impression that he’s indirectly arguing that “Joe-six-pack” better not live abroad as an American because that’s where the US government cashes in on its huge budget deficits.

Which did Arudou really mean? His essay——the words he chooses, the examples he cites, the evidence he presents——was so convoluted AT THE TIME, who knows? Anything he or others may say now is largely irrelevant.

In the guidelines, Wikipedia anticipates this kind of problem when they talk about the “Reasoning behind NPOV.” (See: Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View.) The example they cite is abortion. Both sides were convinced that the other was misrepresenting the “truth” and the "facts". The way Wikipedia got around it was by maintaining neutrality. By saying “Arudou alleges__” or “Arudou claims__” it becomes our “get-out-of-jail-free” card. We don’t pretend to know (let alone agree with) whatever arguments Arudou or Wilcynski are presenting. That’s for the public to decide on its own. If anything, all we can be expected to do here is quickly summarize Arudou's (then) allegations (i.e., his words and examples) in a neutral tone, and the corresponding criticisms, as accurately as possible by referencing publicly verifiable facts of their debate. If the objection is to create a new paragraph that fleshes out Arudou's allegations and Wilcynski's criticisms in a little more detail for the reader, as you suggested, that’s of course something for us to consider.——J Readings 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its fair to state both sides of the point of contention in a neutral tone, using both of the people's point of view. My objection is that I don't think the tax citations are apart of the criticism. If you follow Arudou's poor narrative, we see that it kind of cuts off at random, beginning the section on taxes. However, Arudou isn't talking about himself when he's mentioning tax law at all. If he were referring to his own tax situation, he'd talk about the specific steps and penalties he faced. Instead, we see that he's talking about other people ("yacht people" if you will). Does he think that US considers him a "yacht person"? He never says one way or the other (although I think most people would get the feeling that he's talking about other people if he labels them as "yacht people"). The next question is, why does he say that the "US does not like people giving up their citizenship——for taxation purposes"? I mean, aside from the absurdity of saying that the US is some singular entity which has likes and dislikes, there are checks in the system to prevent people who make above a certain amount from renouncing citizenship for tax breaks (in this case, the check is that the government reserves the right to collect taxes from the individual for the next 10 years). So it's a segue into telling the audience about his interpretation of US tax laws which may apply to the reader but not necessarily to him. (In fact, both sides agreed that when he went to turn in his passport, no one asked him about his filing status.)

But the greater question than what Arudou meant when he gave these instructions is how Wilcynski reacted to them and took objection to them. The only parts that Wilcynski disputes are: a) "On taxes, yes, it is true that foreign earned income over $80,000 (not $74,000 as stated in the piece)", which Arudou himself seemed to be uncertain about: "...(last I knew over US$74,000 a year)..." and b) There exist tax credits (which are "a tad complicated") that provide a shelter to those paying Japanese taxes making under around $250,000. Neither of these things deals with "yacht people" or "exit taxes". In fact, the bigger of these two objections comes in what Arudou LEFT OUT, so quoting Arudou doesn't really make much sense here. All of the rest of the letter by Wilcynski dealt with Arudou's poor presentation of events. Should we make a new section? Maybe. But the section as it stood (some footnote with quotes by Arudou on something off topic, citing something which had already been cited) needed to be axed. Personally I don't see what's wrong with citing Wilcynski only (much like we do with Neff's piece) saying that he felt Arudou distorted the events surrounding his renunciation, and that Arudou left out key components of US tax policy in his explanation. Again, in this case we use that get-out-of-jail free card and say "Wilcynski claims (something about Arudou's distortion of tax policy and prose writing abilities)" and have that be the end of it. --Watchreader 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Heads up, 7chan's /i/ is targeting this article due to a raid on Debito, in turn due to the lawsuit against 2ch. I recommend semi-protect. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof as to this please? Everything seems quite quiet to me.24.218.58.17 09:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot, it's ebaumsworld. :3 --Wooty Woot? contribs 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at the edit history should suffice -- or will you try to delete this comment, too? --Calton | Talk 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, what would be the point? Vandalising here is just stupid and not relevant to our cause. 24.218.58.17 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no need to lock this article Makiyu 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been 24 edits, most of them vandalism or reverts in the last 24 hours. Semi-protect? 76.185.161.192 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

http://img.7chan.org/i/res/80166.html A raid is definately in progress. I suggest revert and protect --Watchreader 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaijin

This is a small thing, but seeing that the word "gaijin" is only used here in the article:

Acknowledging that "gaijin and their gaijin ways are now part of the fabric of Japan's new society," Kerr also notes that Arudou's activities may "confirm conservative Japanese in their belief that gaijin are difficult to deal with."

Wouldn't it be better to say that:

Acknowledging that "[foreigners] and their [foreign] ways are now part of the fabric of Japan's new society," Kerr also notes that Arudou's activities may "confirm conservative Japanese in their belief that [foreigners] are difficult to deal with."

Or perhaps use "Westerners" instead of "foreigners". That way the reader wouldn't need to know the word gaijin, which I think is unknown to most English speakers, adds nothing to the quotes and is a bit difficult (as can be seen from its article and talk page). -- 130.233.24.129 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I linked it to the gaijin article. I'm not sure that it's a good idea to second-guess what Alex Kerr meant by this quoted foreign loan-word (ie., foreigner, outsider, Westerner, etc.) The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 10th Edition) simply defines gaijin as "a foreigner." The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "a non-Japanese person." Either way, the word is officially part of the English language now. J Readings 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"gaijin" has somewhat of a negative connotation not really represented by "foreigner". --Wooty Woot? contribs 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That depends entirely on the context in which it is used. It can be negative, but 'foreigner' can be equally unpleasent in English.--202.41.213.141 05:55, 23 February 2007 (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)

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)

Other stuff about the criticism section

First, the sentence "Others argue that a small and motley collection of allegedly discriminatory bath-houses, "soaplands," massage parlors, and nightclubs is not representative of Japan's civil rights situation in any meaningful sense." mas major flaws.

One of the tenants of NPOV is that parties making assertions must be identified.

From WP:NPOV:

• "It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions."

and... "Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

Even though the old sentence is not as NPOV as the John Doe example, we should attribute who makes the statements. Identifying the "who" as people who responded to Yuki Allyson Honjo's article is the best manner to attribute the statements.

To add, there is a reason why the {{who}} tag exists. It looks like this:

If my changes are reverted, I will add the {{who}} tag and that cannot be removed unless the "who" is stated.

The problem with using "many," "others," or "some" is illustrated here:

"There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.[9]"

Using "others" is weasel-ish...

By the way, why is the "collection" characterized as "small" and "motley" - It is best to suck the passion and adjectives out and just say "a collection" - It does not make a judgment on how large or important the collection is... it just says that there is a collection. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe. You make some good points and I don't disagree that comments should be attributed, hence the citation. I just think we are disagreeing on how long the sentence should be when editing what is already a lengthy page. As for "small" and "motley" that's just a brief description of Kinmont's published comments here: "..it is far from clear that this sample of offenders is in any way representative. Could one, for instance, offer a useful general overview of labour conditions in Japan if one based one's examination preponderantly on bath-houses, massage parlours, hostess bars and nightclubs? To suggest that this sort of sample could prove the existence of a "pattern of discrimination" comparable with Segregation in the South, or with slavery under the British Empire, seems unwise. Indeed, invocation of such parallels strikes me as being in very poor taste. It doesn't seem like a good idea to quote all of that, readers can access it for themselves if they wanted the details, but that's what Kinmont was arguing.

In terms of writing style, it just seems odd that making the sentence even more wordy without capturing what the argument or criticism is defeats the points of the sentence, but I'll defer to what you think is best. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as the person saying the statement is still identified in the text of the article on the first mention, it is fine to play around with the text.

I also removed the lead sentence due to weasel-ish stuff and I also put a who next to "In terms of research, Arudou appears to forgo systematic evidence to support the allegation that "Japanese Only" signs are "proliferating" nationwide, preferring to depend on anecdotal evidence. His "Rogue's Gallery" published on his website appears to have been collected in an ad hoc manner." - This looks like original research. If someone else cites that, the sentence should say "W criticizes X, saying Y." WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this can be sourced to Kinmont et al., too. J Readings (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WhisperToMe --- can you whisper to me why you deleted Bob Neff`s personal experiences with a different onsen owner? :) I don`t think you realize he`s not talking about Arudou`s onsen owner, he`s talking about someone else. Consequently, it`s not a good idea to make any judgements either way. Please read the interview reply again. J Readings (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh - I see - By "acknowledge the odd clash with an allegedly xenophobic hot spring proprietor," - He meant that there are some operators such as the one he had and the one Arudou had.

Anyhow, "allegedly" seems weasel-ish too, so there has to be a way to phrase these statements without the word. Perhaps the best format is to use W says X and Y says Z. Something like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, check out Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words - I am taking them out of this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How can the sentence be written without saying "allegedly"? By deleting it, we're suddenly taking sides and implying that they must be discriminatory or xenophobic or racist, or whatever potentially inflammatory label ultimately pops up. J Readings (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We can simply say that A says that B is C. If we say "Arudou says that Japan failed to protect human rights," the reader knows right away that this is Arudou's opinion. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Words to Avoid page (see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid), using allegedly is fine:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity — they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.

I think that the sentence was fine the way it was. To me, it really does read like we are agreeing with it. J Readings (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

One last quick comment, I read and re-read the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words (thanks for posting it) and "allegedly" is not even identified as a weasel word, so I'm confused as to why you would think it is, especially when the other page explicitly states that it's okay. If the objective is to follow faithfully all of the policies and content guidelines (and yes, most of your edits do make sense and are appreciated), wouldn't you agree that we should at least follow what is explicitly permissible? J Readings (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Multi-party Lawsuit against Government: notability?

The recent edits resulted in this now-problematic sentence:

"As of 2007 Arudou is planning a multi-party lawsuit against the Japanese Government; Arudou says that he filed the lawsuit because the Japanese Government failed to protect the human rights of foreigners."

A few points:

1. Arudou never filed this lawsuit, so it cannot read that he did. 2. "allegedly failing to protect the human rights of foreigners" is both more NPOV and acceptable under the guidelines; but 3. I'm not even sure this sentence should have been in the article (I've always had my doubts) because journalists never wrote about it in the first place (there's no third-party attribution that I can find), so can we say that the lawsuit-that-never-happened is really notable? J Readings (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to name his daughters?

This is another problematic edit. Arudou, of course, can write about his children if he likes, but does it make sense to include them in this article?

From the Biography of a Living Person policy page:

"Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger."

I have no problem with Arudou's (now ex-) wife being named because -- to be fair -- she appeared repeatedly by name in third-party sources like the New York Times. If his daughters were repeatedly mentioned by name, perhaps it would make sense. But right now, I'm not sure what it is adding. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just as a factual follow-up: according to Factiva, there are seven articles that mentioned Ayako Sugawara by name in connection with Arudou. There are only two in which his children are mentioned by name. I'm not sure now if that really makes them independently notable. J Readings (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, normally naming his daughters would be somewhat fluffish, but in this case he uses the reaction to his daughters as an example for what he says is discrimination. I think in his book he mentions taking Amy and Anna to Otaru to see if they would be discriminated against (I do not own a copy of the book, but I read a review about what happened) - The Yuki Allyson Honjo book review mentions that event. http://www.japanreview.net/review_arudou_and_lazlo.htm

"For example, the author has said multiple times that he embarked on this journey to save his two young daughters from racism. Yet, he deliberately placed them in a situation where he knew his children would be discriminated against when he first took them to Yunohana Onsen to “make our point clearer” (Arudou, p. 23). The onsen manager looked at Arudou’s children and declared that older Japanese looking daughter could enter the onsen, but her younger Western looking sister could not." - Honjo criticized the book on many occasions, including on this one.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Ayako he wrote articles about divorce in Japan while citing his experiences with her. She was the person who invited him to Japan in the first place. If she just happened to be his wife and was never involved in any events, then including her name is somewhat fluffish. Yet, in this case, Ayako more or less shaped Arudou's future by inviting him to Japan, becoming his wife, and receiving a divorce. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the part of the Powerpoint where he says one daughter was allowed and one daughter was not. I referenced it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

"he later chose to renounce his US citizenship"

^{"Later?" Its my understanding that one HAS to renounce ones native citizenship in order to be granted Japanese citizenship. 59.146.57.26 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)}

• He said there is a loophole that would normally let people keep both citizenships. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's what he claims (emphasis on the word "claim"). In cases like this, I think it's always best to remember that unless a reliable third-party source has published on this particular issue of loopholes, we should avoid repeating arguments that are inherently self-serving for the subject of this article. That is one of the caveats clearly spelled out in WP:SELFPUB. It would probably be alright to cite Aruduou's *opinion* of this contentious issue, but we shouldn't cite Arudou more generally about citizenship laws in Japan. He's not a lawyer or legal scholar or government bureaucrat. My two cents. J Readings (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we could do to confirm what he says is check U.S. citizenship law. If he says a certain provision exists or does not, we should be able to cite the actual U.S. citizenship policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. But I would think that Japanese citizenship laws and ordinances would be more relevant, no? Japan does not allow dual citizenship, whereas the United States does. If there are loopholes or legal caveats and so forth, we should be able to find them spelled out clearly in Japanese legal documents cited within a reliable third-party source. J Readings (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But the loophole is supposed to be on the United States side - I think it has to do with other countries' rulings not able to strip a US citizen of his citizenship unless certain circumstances apply. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see this first: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html - I'll add another post when I'm finished reading the entire document. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And here is the dual nationality page: http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the links. What Arudou was talking about in his self-published essay, if memory serves (it's been a while), was the supposed one year or two year legal window between obtaining Japanese citizenship and renouncing one's former citizenship. If a newly naturalized Japanese citizen should change one's mind, there is supposedly a legal window of opportunity to back out without any legal fallout on the Japanese side (e.g., prison, fines). That was supposedly the legal issue. For us, as editors of an encyclopedia, the issue then comes back to cross-referencing Arudou's claim with a reliable third-party source that literally highlights the window. Even though I haven't read the US documents closely yet, I would be surprised if the US government clearly indicates that laws by foreign countries not allowing dual citizenship can be ignored. At the end of the day, an American citizen makes the choice to become a Japanese citizen -- after carefully reviewing one's adopted country's laws and regulations. That's why I'm pretty sure the issue to be publicly verified is really on the Japanese side. J Readings (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag added by subject of this Wikpedia entry August 2008.

This is Arudou Debito, the subject of this Wikipedia entry. As of August 22, 2008, I have added an NPOV tag.

As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice to the media — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search.

Controversial figures such as myself may naturally invite criticism, but when a couple of “guardian editors” take advantage of the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia (which, according to their interpretation of the rules, means the entry gives priority towards towards third-party opinions, whoever they are, over quoting the primary source) with the aim of distorting the record, this must be pointed out and corrected. Otherwise it is harder to take Wikipedia seriously as a general source.

I go into more specifics at http://www.debito.org/?p=1878, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry. The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:

1) A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.

2) An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is third-party material published by other authors.

3) Omissions of books I published months and years ago.

4) Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.

5) Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.

6) “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.

7) Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.

In sum, where are the (positive) quotes from the people and published authors who actually have something verifiably meaningful to say about Japan and social issues, such as Donald Richie (<a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">here</a> and <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">here</a>), <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Ivan Hall</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Chalmers Johnson</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582">John Lie</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582">Jeff Kingston</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Robert Whiting</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Mark Schreiber</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english">Eric Johnston</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582">Terrie Lloyd</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/mulveyonhonjoreview.html">Bern Mulvey</a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS">Lee Soo Im</a>, and <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#japanese">Kamata Satoshi</a>? More <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS">citations from academic sources here</a>.

For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry and hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself. 71.198.61.159 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Arudou Debito

IP address is San Fransisco, which is consistent with his blog so I would note that this is probably Mr. Arudou.

For another person with a criticism section, see Patrick Moore (environmentalist). The content may be attacked, but to the extent that the text is sourced and verifiable, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the criticism section. I may have a shot at the other points in a little bit. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. And criticisms at the link provided to Patrick Moore are by other environmentalists, not just anyone. Under this qualification, let's have some criticisms from fellow people published in the field of Japan's human rights, not stockbrokers and novelists.Arudoudebito (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (finally managed to sign in)

Debito Arudou posted this here: http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=1878 - We may have to control the editing permissions in case the editing goes out of hand. Anyway, Arudou, please read Wikipedia:COI and Wikipedia:BLP - These two policies are relevant to your article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I received lots of advice from friendly Wikiers on my website about avenues to pursue (those who know more about this system, please feel free to notify anyone who can help make this a better article). But I only posted a summary here and provided a link to a full critique of this Wikipedia entry on my website. But some replies to my site said I should take any issues up on this Talk page. So, should I provide all details I provide there, here? What's the etiquette? Thanks.Arudoudebito (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arudou, one tip I would have is to be extremely careful while editing your article (as per WP:COI) - You may do it as long as you are very careful with your editing. Also, regarding the divorce, Wikipedia:BLP says:

"In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name."

However if no newspapers or other reliable sources wrote about your divorce, the divorce stuff may need to be removed. (I'm not entirely sure - I may need to check with other users) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mention your divorce in your book, and your book was published by a reliable publishing house, then we would treat it like a regular reliable source instead of a self-published source from the subject of the article and therefore we could use that to source the divorce. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I have no intention of editing my own article, as I have said repeatedly. Precisely because of potential COI. Others should do it. Arudoudebito (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to name his daughters? (Part 2)

There was a section above which posed the question "Is it really necessary to name his daughters?". It concluded with "Yes, it is important to mention his daughters, since he has used them as examples of discrimination prominently." Which is great and all, but doesn't actually answer the question "Is it really necessary to name his daughters?"

I understand why they're mentioned, and support that, but there's no reason for their names to be mentioned, is there? 121.108.90.17 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He named his daughters on his website and in his books. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a particular problem with it. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's as clear as day to me that the names should be removed. WP:BLP states that "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." In addition, it is irrelevant whether the information is available elsewhere. For example, we usually remove people's birthdates unless they are so ridiculously famous it is useless to try. Even if we can obtain these dates elsewhere. There is no need to mention the names. And Wikipedia is a more far-reaching source than Arudou's book or website. --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the circumstance laid out in the book must be covered that daughter #1 looks more Japanese while daughter #2 looks more Caucasian. That fact is relevant to the subject matter. Even using the exact wording "daughter #1" doesn't fix the privacy issues because people who matter know who's who. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, why does this make it clear why the names should be mentioned? Simply "his first daughter....his second daughter..." is sufficient. The point is not to obscure this information for people already in the know. It is for random people reading the article. And they do not know who's who. --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because everyone who wants to know what the names of his daughters are will know anyway. See the Google Search below, plus the Washington Post website article snippet (I found it from typing Debito Arudou Amy Anna in Google News and set it to search all dates) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are substantial concerns raised by Arudou. This kind of thing should not be handled purely by people who have edited this article but have no BLP editing experience. So I will place a notice on the BLP noticeboard. I think a 3rd party opinion will not only offer another perspective, but do much to calm Arudou's fears of biased editing. --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article mentions "Amy" and "Anna": http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-288782.html - The names of his daughters have been published in newspaper articles specifically about Debito Arudou's activities. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the names of his daughters are literally all over his website: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Amy+Anna+site%3Adebito.org&btnG=Search WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you read the BLP policy, you would know that by itself is irrelevant (from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names):

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

I have removed your re-inclusion of the names. BLP policy is clear on this: you must justify the inclusion of this material. The burden of evidence is on those who want to include the material. Your comments so far are not adequate justification according to BLP. What is the reason it is so important to include the names to override the caution we must usually apply in this situation?

I have made a comment at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Debito_Arudou to encourage BLP savvy editors to make a review. --C S (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

C S, the names have been disseminated - http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/world/29JAPA.html?ex=1219464000&en=6f7fbc94c3db476b&ei=5070 = here's a New York Times article complete with names and photographs of Debito Arudou's family WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is irrelevant. Simply because the information is "out there" is not sufficient reasoning. Nowhere in the BLP snippet above does it say it's ok just because it's "out there". You need to justify why it is important or necessary to include the names. What is lost by not including the names? --C S (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

C S - Indeed the BLP snippet indeed says it can be a-okay if it is "out there" - First you have "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases)," - If the names are printed in major newspapers like the Washington Post and NYT, they have been disseminated. Second, you have "When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." - These are news stories, but I can find multiple instances, and the heart of Arudou's argument is that his daughters were being excluded because of their appearances. The reason why it is important to include the names is because Arudou is using his daughters as a central argument to his Onsen case. If you use "daughter 1" and "daughter 2" people are going to wonder who they are. His website is controlled by him, but he prominently features them there and in his book. With the various newspaper articles about the family, you have a lot of people who already know the names of his daughters. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It says "widely disseminated", doesn't it? Now are you really going to argue that their names are widely disseminated? Names of relatives of prominent people are often widely disseminated. But this is a much weaker case. --C S (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, note the BLP snippet above explicitly mentions how we should try to weight mentions (scholarly articles get more weight than brief mentions in news articles) in a discussion on the appropriateness of inclusion. If you are correct, and we simply include this because it has been "disseminated", what would be the point of the remarks I quoted? Clearly, dissemination by itself is not sufficient for inclusion. I really think you're not getting the BLP policy. This is not like Pokemon where we include any statistic or factoid, regardless of merit. On articles of living people, we are supposed to exercise editorial caution and include only material which it is necessary to include, so as to avoid unnecessary harm. Now you may think it does not harm to Arudou or his daughters to include his name. But you don't get to make that decision for him! We can't remove everything, of course, Arudou wants removed, otherwise we may not have much of an article left. But since you haven't offered a single good reason to include the names other than the fact that we can, we can certainly exercise caution here and not include it. --C S (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

CS, " clarify, note the BLP snippet above explicitly mentions how we should try to weight mentions (scholarly articles get more weight than brief mentions in news articles) in a discussion on the appropriateness of inclusion." - So, what is this supposed to mean? This seems to say that if the person is already mentioned in the media and/or in scholarly works, the inclusion is not as much of a risk as it is to include the name of a person who is only briefly mentioned in one article, is not mentioned at all and/or who has his or her name intentionally concealed (i.e. a rape victim) - Therefore a person who has his or her name widely disseminated should generally be okay to disseminate on Wikipedia

"On articles of living people, we are supposed to exercise editorial caution and include only material which it is necessary to include, so as to avoid unnecessary harm." - I well understand that point.

"But since you haven't offered a single good reason to include the names other than the fact that we can, we can certainly exercise caution here and not include it." - Based on the text you cited, I disagree.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, let's think of it this way. What circumstances would make mentioning of the names required? If what we cannot mention the names with what we have now, what would make mentioning of the names required? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's what happened: after consultation with DragonflySixtyseven on IRC, he said that the names of the daughters should not be included UNLESS they themselves speak about the experiences via reliable sources. If this isn't the case, then the daughters may not like how Debito Arudou and other articles talk about them. The wife is acceptable to name as she spoke in the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/world/29JAPA.html?ex=1219464000&en=6f7fbc94c3db476b&ei=5070 WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a fast moving page! Must have had 4 5 edit conflicts trying to respond this time :-/. Anyway, I'm glad we came to some agreement here. Now hopefully we can move on to some of the other issues. --C S (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The is no encyclopedic purpose served by including the names of his daughters here. Although the names have appeared elsewhere, the appearance of the names in Wikipedia means that they will be seen much more widely than if we left them out of the article. As WP:BLP says,

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement."

This should apply even more strongly to minor children of the subjects of articles. -- William's scraper (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think that the claims are particularly titillating (as they can be verified), I see that minor children would include people who were minor children who are now teenagers or adults. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on my blog, my daughters have specifically said they do not want to be listed here on Wikipedia. That trumps any sophistic rule you might want to throw at us, WhisperToMe. Grow a heart, please. Keep the fact of the case that my daughters were involved in this case and how. Remove their names.Arudoudebito (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "special rules" more or less govern how things go; we actually make decisions by consensus, so many of these "special rules" are guidelines. BLP is a policy, so it is more stringent. Also, you may want to be a little careful in how others are addressed. Just as a reminder, please see Wikipedia:Civility. Also, their names have been gone from the "Debito Arudou" article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please read this section Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help - It lists contacts and information on how to manage information about yourself on Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A not dissimilar topic was raised over on the Nick Baker talk page regarding his son. Which might help to throw some light on a way to proceed with this issue. David Lyons (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)